This Year In Democracy

2010 has given us some spectacular shows of democracy -- successes and failures alike. Some were famous, their effects felt and heard 'round the world. Others not quite so attention-grabbing; perhaps a pair of AP wire stories and a brief mention in a cable news text scroll. And, of course, we hear more about the failures than the successes, with Cote D'Ivoire the most recent nation to slip into post-election bloodshed. Globalized Democracy® in the post-Cold War period has certainly not proven to be the panacea some were expecting. However, as always, neither the rose-eyed optimists nor the doom-and-gloom pessimists have everything right. Many blooming democracies have been crushed under the foot of military power grabs or wilted under a corrupt and incompetent state apparatus despite international support. And yet at the same time many countries have found ways to not only bring decades of dictatorship or war to a peaceful close, but also to embrace an open society and forge functioning democratic institutions. Here is a look at ten of this past year's less-heralded success stories (in chronological order):

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want,
and deserve to get it good and hard."
--H.L. Mencken

1. Croatia

Ivo Jospovic of the left-wing Social Democratic Party wins the presidential election in a landslide, replacing popular outgoing president Stjepan Mesic, the leader of the right-center party. Mesic had been in power since the end of Tudjman regime which had presided over Croatia's bloody involvement in the region's wars during the 1990s. This election further solidifies democracy in Croatia, and helps in their delayed but ongoing negotiations for accession into the European Union.

2. Chile

Sebastian Piñera of the right-center National Renewal party narrowly defeated former President Eduardo Frei of the left-center Concert of Parties for Democracy in the presidential election to succeed popular outgoing president Michelle Bachelet. This was the fifth consecutive democratic presidential election in Chile, and cements their civilian institutions even further after the 1973-1990 military rule of Pinochet.

3. Ukraine

Viktor Yanukovych defeats Yulia Tymoshenko and incumbent Viktor Yushchenko in the presidential election, representing a shift towards Russia and away from the 2004 Orange Revolution which had originally brought Tymoshenko and Yushchenko to power. These two had grown apart during their time as Prime Minister and President, respectively. This time there was no uprising of "people power", as Tymoshenko dropped her appeal a few weeks after the elections. Ukraine's politics are still wracked with corruption and less-than-democratic Russian influences, but a peaceful, democratic transition of power is never a bad thing.

4. Iraq

Okay, not the least-heralded of 2010 elections, but it's significance may have been underestimated. Iraq held parliamentary elections in March that resulted in a political deadlock that set a record for length (207 days between election and creation of government) but did not result in widespread violence. The voting blocs of Allawi and Maliki, both former Prime Ministers, received the most support, but neither had enough to form a government. Complicated negotiations and machinations followed, with resolution not achieved until October. Nonetheless this election represents a strong step towards productive democracy in Iraq. The individual actors, on the whole, did not resort to violence during the difficult negotiations -- perhaps setting the bar a bit low, but progress is progress.

5. Poland

Bronislaw Komorowski defeats Jaroslaw Kaczynski to become President just two months after a plane crash killed the former President -- Kaczynski's twin brother Lech -- along with many other senior members of the government. The Polish voters showed political maturity by voting with their opinions and not their emotions, and the nation is moving past the worst tragedy in recent history.

6. Colombia

Juan Manuel Santos, former Defense Minister of outgoing President Uribe, defeats surprise Green Party candidate Antanas Mockus, former Mayor of Bogota. The relatively easy Santos victory is a sign that Uribe's right-center policies are well-liked and will continue. An open, peaceful election is still something not taken for granted in this long-suffering country. Colombia's political scene has broken free from the widespread and violent influence of narco-traffickers -- the same cannot be said for some of its Central American neighbors.

7. Kyrgyzstan

In June Kyrgyz voters approved a referendum which limited the powers of the presidency and any single parliamentary party. The 'Yes' vote was 91% with over 70% voter turnout. This referendum was a reaction to the events of April, when anti-government riots forced then-President Bakiyev (who himself had come to power in the 2005 Tulip Revolution) to resign. The country's political future is by no means certain, but every fair election adds to people's trust in the system.

8. Kenya

Kenyan voters approved a new constitution by a 68%-31% margin, and over 70% voter turnout. Kenyan politics have been at a wary standstill ever since the violence which followed the fraudulent 2007 Presidential election. The top vote-getters in that election, President Kibaki and Prime Minister Odinga, are currently ensconced in a power-sharing agreement. The approval of this constitution is an important step towards rebuilding a functional democracy and allowing for some national healing.

9. Bosnia

Voters elected representatives to Bosnia's tripartite political system, with Bosnians, Croats, and Serbs all having somewhat separate branches. The election seemed to confirm similar levels of political deadlock in the country, with moderates favoring further national unification facing off against mainly Croat and Serb nationalists who want division along ethnic lines. This country suffered terribly during the 1990s, and while this election may not provide an immediate solution to these intransigent problems, continued political haggling is far superior to a resumption of violence.

10. Guinea

Guinean voters placed their trust in Alpha Conde, a 72 year-old former opposition leader, to take the presidency after a long period of political turmoil and the threat of renewed conflict. The country had been in the hands of a shifting military junta since the death of strongman Lansana Conte in December 2008. this period was marred by human rights violations, the attempted assassination of the first military leader, and the repeated postponing of elections. The country is still in the political woods, but this election -- most notably the decision by runner-up Cellou Diallo to concede defeat instead of urging his supporters to the streets -- is a step and a hop away from the edge of the abyss.

Honorable Mentions: The Philippines and Brazil
Both of these countries had successful presidential elections in 2010, but the relatively reliable nature of their democratic processes keeps them off the top ten success stories.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

It is important to recognize these success stories, and this can be done without marginalizing the extremely difficult situations that face the many countries that experienced recent political disasters. Democracy is not easy. There are many people who need to do their job right for an election to work even on the most basic mechanical level. Poll workers are a rarely celebrated breed, but in countries like those mentioned above their work deserves respect and recognition. In the post-Bush doctrine world it has become fashionable to downplay "democracy" as a good unto itself. To be sure, the act of holding elections will not solve deep-seated issues (see: Afghanistan, Russia, etc.). Elections may in fact put a dangerous level of stress on a weak status quo, letting loose the blood-dimmed tide (see: Cote D'Ivoire, Haiti, etc.). Elections may simply act as a cover -- a fake doctor's note, if you will -- for authoritarian regimes with no real interest in sharing power (see: Sri Lanka, Burundi, Rwanda, etc.).

And yet the open society which democracy both encourages and requires IS a good unto itself, and well worth the aforementioned risks. Even a good dictator cannot last forever, and at some point in the near future of every country and every people on earth they will need to deal with the conflicts which grow like mushrooms under the whole of human society. The more these conflicts -- be they based on religion, ethnicity, resources, or any other divide -- are suppressed, the greater the possibility that upon exposure they will cause death and destruction. Iraq after the fall of Saddam and the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s are examples of this danger. However, Iraq, Croatia, and Bosnia are also on the list of 2010 electoral successes, a testament to the perseverance of the democratic forces in those countries.

Democracy is often ugly and slow. It is not the ideal system for effective decision-making. But it provides something which no other political system can: the opportunity for political maturity. We cannot hope for long-term stability and peace unless groups and individuals in conflict can appear together -- in a courtroom, in a public square (analog or digital), or on a ballot -- and have it out. There is no substitute (excepting ethnic cleansing). But courtrooms, public square, and ballots don't grow on trees and should never be taken for granted. Democracy is slow and ugly and it's hard work, no metaphor needed. So let's celebrate these ten success stories from 2010, and hope that 2011 will bring us even more.

Oh, and kitties.

September 12th

Nine years ago to the day people around the world woke up from a strange nightmare. If they were anywhere near a television, the images broadcast would have confirmed that the burning skyscrapers, the dot-people leaping to their death, the massive rubble exploding into dust, and the jetliner banking, over and over again, to its final destination, that these were no slumbering cerebral invention but instead were the death of 2,996 human beings and the echo of the starting pistol for a new era in world affairs. Among those 2,996 dead there were 19 Others, 19 Arabs, 19 who received posthumous responsibility for the events of September 11th. They had been acting in the name of a murky organization which, in the fertile chaos of failed states and repressive but disinterested plutocrats, had managed to fuse greasy petroleum profits and an understanding of modern technology and media with a strand of self-righteous quasi-religious philosophy that imbues its members with a Machiavellian sense of right and wrong. The Western powers, lacking a readily identifiable enemy-word since the fall of Eurasia and Communism, had finally found a replacement in Terrorism. And so newspapers headlines went back to screaming "War!", the President made square-jawed speeches broadcast around the world, and a few billion dollars more of gasoline was bought to send the streamlined machinery of Death on a world tour.

Today we must ask, just as we did nine years ago: What Happened? Who are These People trying to kill Us? And How do we stop Them?

Answers abound, but which ones have proved worthwhile? We spent a great deal of time and money determining exactly What Happened and who These People were. Nonetheless, the conspiracy theory has experienced a rebirth in the (Global) War on Terrorism, and these flames have been repeatedly fanned by major "news" sources and political figures in every country, whether the topic be the events of September 11th, the myriad wars and attacks in the nine years that followed, or even the birth place and religion of the current U.S. President. And although we may mostly agree on Who was responsible for September 11th, we have yet to agree on Why they did it. And the Why is important. Is terrorism fed by poverty? If so, we need to do a much better job of mitigating the aftershocks of globalized capitalism. Do they hate us because of our Freedoms -- gay marriage, cursing and pornography on TV, abortions, etc.? If so, we either need to get rid of those Freedoms or make sure that every country in the world becomes Free™. Are Muslim leaders using Islam to engender anti-Western terrorism? If that's the case, then the response should be to limit the power of those type of leaders by any means possible. Despite our professed allegiance to Rational Thought, over the past nine years we have always justified our actions with an answer to the Why instead of genuinely seeking to answer the Why and then basing our actions on that. The result has been one confused policy after another and a dangerous decrease in the Friend:Enemy ratio.

I must descend from the editorial post and confess that this post is personal. I watched the Twin Towers fall on 9/11 -- not on TV like most of the world, but in person. I looked out the window as a fireball erupted on the North Tower, felt the second plane's impact on the South Tower, listened to the announcement that the country was at war against an unknown enemy, heard and then saw the first tower fall and the dust cloud rush up the street towards me carrying vaporized human remains, walked uptown as the second tower fell behind me. I remember walking by a TV studio in midtown Manhattan and seeing a video of the second plane hitting the South Tower. The immensity of the events of the past few hours began to truly sink in, although I, like the rest of the world, could not even begin to comprehend what was to come. That was nine years and one day ago today. Nine years ago exactly we all woke up and began to wonder what would happen next.

The question I would ask is, knowing what we now know, would we have done things differently? It is easy for any individual to say that, yes, things should have been different: Should have captured Bin Laden. Shouldn't have invaded Iraq. Should have seen the real estate bust coming. But as a people, as a chaotic mass of opinions, fears, desires, would we have done things differently? And will we use the lessons learned over the past nine years to make the next nine better? Can we learn to open our political discourse without devolving into screeching primates? Can we harness market forces to build not only higher corporate profits but jobs and a solid economic base? Can we begin to lend an authentic helping hand to the citizens of the Third World -- especially the Muslim ones? Can we learn to lead with respect -- as a country, as citizens, and as family and community members? As I stated in an earlier post, the election of Obama represents an opportunity for change, even if you don't agree with his particular brand of Change™. Opportunity implies responsibility. If we choose to let this opportunity go by, to fantasize that laissez-faire is suficiente in this globalized world, then we have no right to blame anyone else for anything. Over the past nine years, we have heard time and time again that 9/11 was a "wake-up call". So why are we still asleep?

Out of the Indus Deluge

So the Lord said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them."

Genesis 6:7




And it moved on with them amid waves like mountains; and Nuh called out to his son, and he was aloof: "O my son! Embark with us and be not with the unbelievers.

He said: "I will betake myself for refuge to a mountain that shall protect me from the water."

Nuh said: "There is no protector today from Allah's punishment but He Who has mercy; and a wave intervened between them, so he was of the drowned."

Sura 11:42-43

-------------------------------------------

It has recently come to the attention of various media sources that Western countries do not have a lot of love for the Pakistani people. Despite a flood of Biblical-Quranic proportions which has swept entire provinces away and left millions struggling to survive in makeshift camps ripe for epidemics, the response by Western countries has been described as "lukewarm", "sluggish", and "trickling". The BBC compared the response in the first 3 weeks to those of the recent earthquake in Haiti and the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Mosharraf Zaidi does the same, looking at funding given per affected person. Clearly the Christian West -- headlined as usual by the United States, the supplier of the vast majority of the world's humanitarian and development aid, is not jumping to open its checkbooks for the inhabitants of the Indus Valley. But why?

Here's a question from a reporter at Thursday's U.S. State Department press briefing:

QUESTION: But why should the American taxpayer who just this morning got another horrible – more bad economic news be asked to contribute more than they already are to this when the results – as I said before, this is a country that has difficulty or is unable to collect tax money from its own people, the wealthiest Pakistanis who live there, and has not been entirely cooperative in going after people that attacked us.

Here we have the 2 top reasons given as to why donor aid is slow to Pakistan: their government is corrupt and not worth supporting, and furthermore has and continues to support terrorist organizations. Both quite true -- although Transparency International rates Pakistan higher than Haiti in corruption, and U.S. citizens seemed to have less trouble stomaching charity to Haiti -- which suggests that corruption alone can't account for the donor gap. Which leaves us with Pakistani support for terrorism -- and perhaps on a larger scale, a general distrust of the Pakistani government. In the weeks leading up to the flood we had the WikiLeaks episode and the David Cameron "gaffe", both cementing the perception that the Pakistani government isn't "on our side". During the first days of the flood the major story was Pakistani President Zardari's European tour, sleeping in fancy silk bedding while his people struggled to even find hard ground to sleep on. And now in the relative aftermath we have the story of the West's lack of compassion for poor Muslim Pakistanis.

Perceptions are key here, and as often in Muslim-West relations, they rarely reflect the truth. Americans perceive that Pakistanis support terrorism, and that keeps them from putting serious weight behind humanitarian efforts. The reality is that Pakistanis have suffered as much as any people from terrorism, and there is only a very small minority which actively support Al-Qaeda and its Western-hating ilk. Pakistanis perceive that Americans are uninterested in their problems and are willing to support any regional leaders that fight Al-Qaeda and its ilk even when those same leaders are causing the suffering which swells the radical Islamist ranks.

As long as these perceptions remain, the Pakistani-U.S. relationship will continue to get worse. The Pakistani government, corrupt as it is, needs U.S. support in the fight against growing radical Islamist groups -- the same groups that have provided timely aid to flood victims in places where the government and the international community has yet to reach. Simply tossing bags of rice embossed with the American flag at those communities won't be enough. The long-term Pakistan problem is essentially a P.R. problem for the United States, and we need to be at our most opportunistic in using this disaster to "re-start" relations with the Pakistani people. What better disaster than a flood to remind everyone about the commonalities in the Christian and Muslim traditions?

This is not the time to hedge aid on discussions over Afghanistan or the ISI. This is not the time to make a mockery of freedom of religion by denying American Muslims a cultural place in the post-9/11 world. This is not the time to avert our eyes to suffering, even -- maybe especially -- if those suffering don't agree with our world view. Let's helicopter in ten million pounds of rice and ten million mosquito nets to be handed out in mosques -- especially those mosques with half-burnt American flags lying under flood waters. Let's take the private contractors out of Iraq and get them building levees and community shelters in Pakistan, and setting up cricket pitches in the refugee camps for the kids who used to have Osama Bin Laden posters on their walls (more of a metaphor). Let's put together a 100,000 Urdu-English Qurans and send them to Pakistani madrassas with flooded libraries.

The Biblical/Quranic flood can be interpreted in many ways. What is clear in the story is that God was upset with how the world had progressed and was using the flood to wipe the slate clean. This story is almost identical in the Bible and the Quran. While to attribute a divine presence to the recent flood in Pakistan would be, at the very least, sacrilegious, the opportunity to wipe the slate clean is very real. We began to write the history of humanity in the fertile Indus Valley nearly 5000 years ago. How will the next chapter read?

Among the Volcanoes

Guatemala is a land of incredible beauty; cloud-drenched highlands, black sand beaches, rainforests thick with life, and ancient volcanoes. The Mayan culture lives on in the majority indigenous population, a testament to the longevity of tradition. Tranquility seems to float through the populace, characterized by general friendliness and a laid-back attitude. Guatemala is also in danger of becoming the Americas' newest failed state.

Two major reasons for state failure should be familiar to anyone reading news about Latin America: guns and drugs. Massive amounts of guns were shipped into the country during the 40 year "internal conflict", and when the conflict "ended" in 1996 little was done to reduce the number of arms floating around the country. Drug trafficking has long been an issue, but spiraled out of control around 2007 when Mexico began a full-fledged war on drug cartels -- who then shifted operations to Guatemala and found a perfect transport point. The cartels and the drug-based economy they have spawned is incredibly well-armed and more than willing to use violence when necessary. The Guatemalan government, never a paragon of efficiency or transparency, offers next to nothing in the way of law enforcement. Impunity is the key word -- this is a country where might clearly makes right, whether on a dark rural highway or in a well-lit courtroom. Justice, in the mind of the people, lies not with corrupt or blackmailed prosecutors and judges, nor with swiss cheese jails, but with hand-made revenge.

Guns, drugs, and lack of law enforcement are powerful proximate causes that has led Guatemalans towards a failed state. The current government of Alvaro Colom has weakened significantly over the past few months, and in the past weeks has taken to accusing the opposition of trying to bring down his government -- which has been true since he took office in 2007, but the current calls reek of desperation. The head of the UN-supported CICIG prosecutor's office quit in June, castigating Colom for failing to make any significant law enforcement reform and for appointing an Attorney General linked to the drug cartels (whose "election" was summarily nullified by the Constitutional Court). The spiraling violence, while most intense in Guatemala City, has touched all parts of the country. The coming presidential elections in 2011 will bring a period of even more violence, and will without a doubt endanger the future of democracy in Guatemala. If elections only bring bloodshed and never bring any real social change, why would anyone want more? There is real popular support for a "benevolent" dictatorship in Guatemala -- and the person best placed to become such a dictator is Otto Perez Molina, the so-called "Mano Dura" (Strong Hand), a general with dirty hands from the internal conflict and who retains links to violent groups. This is a situation which will get worse, and may never get better.

The proximate causes for Guatemala's unraveling are fairly clear, and steps can still be taken by domestic and international actors to deal with these issues. But there are deeper wounds that need to be dealt with before the country can truly move beyond its current troubles.

The internal conflict began in the late 1960s, pitting a small left-wing intellectual guerrilla movement against a government that clearly and without apology represented the interests of the wealthy landowners. Much of this movement grew out of support for earlier left-wing presidencies of Arevalo and Arbenz, the latter being overthrown in 1954 by the CIA. The guerrillas tried to link their movement to the interests of the poor indigenous population, with some success but without the force strength or unity to ever pose a real threat to the government. Despite the weakness of the insurgency, the government decided to wipe out all the guerrillas and anyone who might support them. This murderous offensive continued well into the 1980s, and its after-effects still linger today.

According to UN investigators, more than 200,000 people were killed during the internal conflict, with over 90% of the murders committed by government military and para-military forces (which often included indigenous men conscripted and forced to kill their neighbors). Violence against women, including rape, was common. Almost every Guatemalan was touched by these crimes in some way -- a family member or friend was victimized, or committed crimes -- and none of them have forgotten. These experiences reaped untold psychological damage, tearing apart families and communities, unraveling centuries of social trust, and leaving hundreds of thousands to go on with their lives with gaping sections of their psyche missing. Yet there was no efforts at real national reconciliation, no official programs to deal with the years of violence, no tribunals for those responsible, and no justice for the victims. In 2010 the first conviction was handed down for his role in the infamous Dos Erres massacre, but the vast majority of those who ordered and led human rights abuses live free without fear of prosecution (at least one is a member of Congress). The subject of the internal conflict is almost entirely ignored in Guatemalan schools.

Dealing with criminals and victims from the conflict would be incredibly difficult at this point. It would require an unprecedented political commitment and a powerful, independent investigative and judicial apparatus, as well as immense international and domestic support. But until past crimes and past victims are given justice, there can be no hope for justice elsewhere in the country. Peace is not simply the absence of public violence; it requires a personal sense of safety, a sense that the beasts of chaos have been banished underground. The new generation of Guatemalans may grow up without the violent memories of their parents, but they will inherit a culture of violence ready to explode at the slightest provocation and rain ash over the people among the volcanoes. How can we possbily have Peace if the beasts of chaos live in our own minds?


See the International Crisis Group's recent report on Guatemala for more information.

World Cup Fever!

Every four years several billion people spend an inordinate amount of time watching television. No, not Eurovision. World Cup fever strikes deep, a potent mix of nationalism, hooliganism, and referee-hatred. Life and death (and a great deal of property damage) are decided by each game. The worldwide excitement is high. The group stage is complete, and tomorrow marks the beginning of the knockout rounds where the fate of each team rides on a single game, and possibly a single foot. What a perfect moment for the first installation of Erratum Terrium's Spellbindingly Entertaining Statistics!! SES!!!

Money is, now more than ever, an integral part of the sports world. Even in the World Cup where player salaries don't figure, rich countries still have a significant advantage. They can recruit and train players from a young age, support them throughout their career, and provide a much higher levels of resources for their national team. And, unlike the poorer countries, they have mountains of extra support from corporate sponsors and therefore don't have to make budgetary sacrifices to provide those same resources.

Yet the World Cup retains fundamental equalizers that the overall international system lacks. The rules are the same for all teams; a goal struck by Cameroon or Paraguay is equal to one struck by France or the United States. But what is the relationship between a country's wealth and its 2010 World Cup success?

At first glance it appears that wealth is a fairly good predictor of success. Only 1 of the 7 poorest* teams (Ghana, the tournament's poorest side) made it past the group stage, while 5 of the 8 wealthiest* teams made it.

*Here we are measuring "wealth" by GDP per capita in PPP$ as measured by the IMF in 2009, with the sole exception being North Korea whose numbers are based on a 2009 CIA estimate. Let it be said loud and clear that Erratum Terrium's use in this situation of GDP per capita is a pure measurement of total country wealth. We do not, repeat, do not believe in GDP per capita as an accurate measure of the economic situation in any given country.

So the wealthiest teams tend to do better than the poorest teams. Fairly predictable, but not the whole story. Let's take a look at efficiency; that is, how well a given country used its wealth to achieve World Cup success. Here we will look at points scored in the group stage as a percentage of GDP per capita. Excluding the two teams who failed the score a point (North Korea and Cameroon, both very poor countries) there were twelve teams whose points scored made up less than 0.02% of their GDP per capita. Except for Algeria ($6,869) all of those teams have GDP per capita above $26,700 and only two of them (the United States and England in a fairly easy Group D) made it past the group stage. On the opposite side, there were 6 teams whose points made up at least 0.05% of their GDP per capita (with the most efficient being Ghana at 0.26%). 5 of those 6 teams qualified for the knockout round, with the only return-ticket team being Ivory Coast, who to their benefit managed 4 points in the Group of Death with powerhouses Portugal and Brazil despite the second-lowest GDP per capita among all 32 teams.

And for the wealthy countries, their successes were costly. Let's imagine that each country's citizens (the fictionally equal citizens implied by the GDP per capita calculations) had to pay for their points and goals with equal contributions based on GDP. The French would have to pony up $33,679 for each point, and the Swiss $43,007 for each goal. Meanwhile the Ghanaians only need to flip over $388 for each of their points, and the people of Ivory Coast only $419 for each goal scored.

Of course in all this analysis we are ignoring the 150+ countries that failed to qualify for the World Cup, most of which are poor. Although it is worth noting that none of the world's 5 richest countries qualified.

So basically we can say that while wealth is a fairly good predictor of World Cup success, it by no means assures any victories -- which France, Australia, Denmark, and Switzerland found out the hard way. And while poverty hinders World Cup success, it cannot contain quality play -- which Ghana, Ivory Coast, and Paraguay have proved this year.

We will have an opportunity to test the effects of the wealth disparity tomorrow when Ghana, the tournament's poorest team, takes on the United States, the tournament's wealthiest team with a GDP per capita nearly 30 times that of Ghana, on the first day of knockout play (Mighty Ducks, anyone?). For the sake of barefoot kids kicking plastic bottles down dirty streets around the world, let's hope the Black Stars comes out victorious.


ADDENDUM (4/7/10)

Victory was short-lived. In the first knockout round Ghana (#151 GDP per capita in the world) defeated the U.S. (#6) and Paraguay (#117) made sushi rolls out of Japan (#23). England (#19) and South Korea (#30) were sent packing. The quarter-finals, on the other hand, brought a harsh dose of reality to the economic underdogs. All four games saw the wealthier country take home victory. The lone, not-so-rich, non-Eurozone holdout is Uruguay (#62), who needed penalties to send the Black Stars home. Trivia Twist: Uruguay won the first ever World Cup in 1930.

A few more statistical snacks...the average GDP per capita ranking for the 32 teams which qualified for the World Cup was 59 (out of 182), and the median ranking was 39. Much of that differential is due to Paraguay and Ghana, the only two teams from the bottom economic half to qualify. Below see the changes in the average GDP per capita rankings of qualifying teams:

World Cup = 59
Knockout round = 49
Quarterfinals = 64
Semifinals = 29

¡Uruguay all the guay!