Sunday, 18 May 2014

Database Management System (notes)

Friday, 16 May 2014

Role and Responsibilities of DBA


The job of the DBA seems to be everything that everyone else either doesn't want to do, or doesn't have the ability to do. DBAs get the enviable task of figuring out all of the things no one else can figure out. More seriously though, here is a list of typical DBA responsibilities:
Installation, configuration and upgrading of Oracle server software and related products
Evaluate Oracle features and Oracle related products
Establish and maintain sound backup and recovery policies and procedures
Take care of the Database design and implementation
Implement and maintain database security (create and maintain users and roles, assign privileges)
Perform database tuning and performance monitoring
Perform application tuning and performance monitoring
Setup and maintain documentation and standards
Plan growth and changes (capacity planning)
Work as part of a team and provide 7x24 support when required
Perform general technical trouble shooting and give consultation to development teams
Interface with Oracle Corporation for technical support.
Patch Management and Version Control

Monday, 12 May 2014

Nation-building as a concept



When nation-building is discussed nowadays as an element of crisis prevention and a means of post-conflict policies, the general mechanisms, experiences and problems relating to nation-building should not be ignored. It goes without saying that stable, functioning nation-states can, compared with fragmenting societies and failing states, better provide for the security of their citizens, as well as social and economic development and regional stability. Cautious and intelligent policies for supporting nation-building processes do, therefore, serve a purpose. However, we should guard against thinking of the concept as a simple solution that can be applied everywhere regardless of local conditions. The risks and resources that need to be allocated are just too high (see Hippler, concluding chapter of this book). 
Furthermore, it is not helpful to rid the nation-building concept of its essence and use it merely as a collective category for all non-military political instruments or as a synonym for peace-keeping, which is what frequently happens. The process of integration or fragmentation of societies and states is too important a matter in foreign, development and peace policy terms for it to be lost sight of through schematic usages of the term. As presently used, nation-building can be a euphemism for imperial control, an empty entreaty formula to conceal one’s own helplessness or a key concept of development policy and crisis prevention. In the latter case, it is however necessary to give the term meaning, be aware of its limitations and traps, sound out its chances and shape it into a concept that can be applied. It is for these purposes that the authors of this book would like to throw light on a number of background factors and outline associated problems and suggestions. The first section focuses on important general conditions and issues, while the second part looks at current case examples of nation-building. The third and final section discusses questions of possible political approaches.

Nation, state and social mobilisation



The core political elements of nation-building comprise the nation-state plus a high level of social mobilisation and political integration. The state is not the central element solely by virtue of its modern, nation-state form being one of the most important results of nation-building; it is also the decisive player for the most part. 
Contrary to the view prevailing in Germany since the Age of German Romanticism that a nation exists a priori and must – or should – eventually be constituted in a state, most historical processes have been considerably more complex and frequently even gone in the opposite direction. “Nations” do not just exist, rather they emerge like many other social phenomena in a difficult and inconsistent process – or simply do not. And in most countries, the existence of a state preceded that of a nation, even in the classic examples of European nation-states like France and England (Greenfeld 1992). For merely practical reasons, it was not rare for a state apparatus to create, intentionally or rather incidentally, a nation corresponding to itself: the old monarchies were hardly ever based on ethnic or national borders but, instead, on religious or charismatic legitimation mechanisms and compulsion. They adopted their later form through conquest or marriage with other ruling houses and not through any defined right of self-determination of the nations, which did not yet exist. And it was only via what were often long historical processes that the state apparatuses, which were becoming stronger and more bureaucratic, were able to form a nation from diverse social groups, e.g. through repression of local rulers, legal regulation of social relations and the fiscal system increasingly affecting everyone, the pressure of homogeneity for a common religion and, later, through nationwide education systems or general military conscription.

 In many multi-ethnic (proto)-societies, the impetus for pushing through social integration and creating a nation-state came and comes from the state apparatus itself, using methods like material incentives (financial, economic, public service employment etc.), cultural means (language policy, education system, policy on religion) or compulsion. In many cases, there was and is a link between internal and external causes in this regard, such as the attempt of a weak or rudimentary government to consolidate its position in its own society (and extend its tax base or repress local power factors) and to be able to better overcome foreign policy challenges, especially those of a military nature. The interest in having a fiscal system independent of the local nobility or warlords plus a well-organised and powerful military has represented a particularly important impetus for developing and re-legitimizing systematized state apparatuses. In this sense, most cases of nation-building would have been dominated from the top down rather than the nation-state evolving naturally from society. And, almost always, this type of state-induced nation-building has given rise to complex dialectics between the state apparatus and social groups (as well as between different parts of the state apparatus and between different social groups).

 At the same time, nation-building has always signified a process of social mobilisation, either from the bottom up or from the top down. This especially applies to the constituting phase in many instances. The ideological and political process of the shaping of a nation implies its members being involved in its politics, with large numbers of people entering into the political sphere. While politics – and therefore power – was reserved for a small group or stratum of privileged persons over long periods of history and the population was the object of politics, this situation is undergoing fundamental change. The constitution of a “nation” means that ideologically (in principle) all its members now first become political subjects instead of being subservient and tolerant of the politics of the rulers. In this sense, nation-building takes on a democratic potential because belonging to the nation is defined by citizenship or common ethnic-national interests rather than by noble birth or religious position. The power now no longer lies, at least as far as is claimed, with a king chosen by the grace of God but, rather, with the newly constituted society. The fact that it does not necessarily have to exercise what is in principle its sovereignty in a democratic way and can often be organised in a clientelistic, elitist and dictatorial manner is most regrettable, but changes nothing with regard to the legitimatory bond between power and the “nation”, i.e. what is at least claimed to be an all-inclusive community. Nation-building thus opens up democratic potential, but not necessarily the door to actual democracy; on the contrary, power “in the name” of the nation can be more repressive than feudalism or the doctrine of divine right, not to mention “traditional” forms of rule.

 Nation-building therefore makes the members of a nation political subjects in principle, even if the exercising of participatory rights is often denied in reality. Nation-building “politicises” the population into a nation, mobilising broad sections of society in the constituting process, in particular. This mostly implies particular social prerequisites, e.g. presupposing a significant degree of communication within the society, which is aided, in turn, by a high level of literacy and appropriate mass and communication media (in certain phases of history this was the invention of printing and, later, newspapers, radio and television).

 The process of constituting the nation plus the greater participation of and ability to politically mobilise the population that has become the “nation” does, however, mean that conflicts previously lying dormant in the society and which had little chance of being articulated by virtue of the population being excluded from politics can be effectively intensified. This is all the more true if the determination of who actually belongs to the “nation” has not been settled or is disputed, i.e. especially in multi-ethnic or multi-religious societies that cannot agree on common citizenship as a community criterion. If belonging to the nation is to be determined according to language, ethnic origin or religion rather than on the basis of civil equality, this can easily have two problematic consequences. First, there is a danger that ethnicizing the political discourse in the context of latent conflicts and social mobilisation will lower the threshold for violence and trigger violent conflicts which are ethnically structured. Secondly, such a context transforms the nation-building process: instead of striving for or achieving the integration of society as a whole, the alternative then arises to conduct nation-building either as a repressive project of hegemony by one ethnic group over others or bring about a situation of competition between different nation-building projects conducted by the various ethnic groups. Both lead to the intensification of existing conflicts and the risk of these being waged in a violent manner in the future.
Each nation-building process involves the creation of new political and social structures and mechanisms while overcoming and destroying old ones at the same time. For this reason, it is always and necessarily associated with the redistribution of power. Nation-building has winners and losers in political, economic and social terms – so it can also be used as a means of obtaining advantages for one’s own political or social group.

 Pushing through a central government where there were perhaps only regional or local rulers or extensively autonomous rural communities beforehand and bureaucratically regulating a political system formerly based on personal ties, clientelistic relations or charismatic rule are not simply elements of a more technical “modernisation” of social structures; rather they represent a redistribution of power which is perceived as positive by some groups and as a threat by others. Nation-building is thus always a contentious process, fought out in a political, cultural, social, economic or military setting. As soon as a society in this situation is divided in ethnic or religious terms besides the economic, social and other lines of conflict, a further dimension is added to the existing potential for conflict, which can then intensify the course of the conflict as well as give it a completely new structure. Distribution and power conflicts can, for example, be ideologized in an ethno-religious way, which further increases the degree of social mobilisation and makes possibilities for pragmatic solutions more difficult. This also applies, of course, to cases where nation-building is attempted principally as a strategy by external players. Regardless of whether their intentions are of a humanitarian or imperial nature, in the target country nation-building has to bring about passive or active resistance and a shift in the balance of power.

Elements of nation-building


A distinction can be drawn between three central elements for successful nation-building, which are closely interlinked in most cases: a unifying, persuasive ideology, integration of society and a functional state apparatus.
Nation-building will only be successful in the long term if it stems from an integrative ideology or produces this from a certain point on. Fundamental restructuring of politics and society requires special legitimation with regard to justification of policy as well as social mobilisation for its ends. The different variations of “nationalism” clearly have to be regarded as the classic ideology of nation-building – with “nationalism“ here meaning everything ranging from the meaningful development of a common national identity up to and even including violent disassociation from other national or ethnic groups. Nation-building necessarily presupposes the forming of a “nation”, which can, however, be constituted in extremely different ways. As long as people in a region define themselves primarily as Pashtuns, Maronites, Bavarians, Yussufzai (a Pashtun tribe), Ismailites or members of a particular clan, nation-building has either not been concluded or has failed. The existence of the respective identities is not in itself the problem but, rather, their relationship with a “national” identity covering all groups. It is quite possible for someone to be a Pakistani or Afghan and a Pashtun or Shiite at the same time if the two are made possible ideologically, just as someone can simultaneously be a Bavarian, Muslim and German. However, as long as the primary identity and loyalty lies with the tribe, clan or an ethnic or ethno-religious group and the “national” identity level remains subordinate or is missing, a nation-state will continue to be precarious. It is not absolutely essential, though, for such an integrating ideology forming the basis for nation-building to always and automatically be “nationally” oriented. It can also be replaced by other value and identity models, at least for a time: constitutional patriotism - “liberty, equality, fraternity” -, secular ideologies (e.g. socialism) or religion can assume the same function or auxiliary functions. The cases of the founding of the states of Pakistan and Israel are illustrative in this respect: when states were founded for the “Muslims of India” and “the Jews”, these originally religious classifications were increasingly reinterpreted in a “national” way.

 The second prerequisite for a successful nation-building process involves the integration of a society from the loosely associated groups that existed previously. Pashtuns, Baluchis and Punjabis must not only be convinced that they belong to a common nation, this notion must also be found in the social reality. To achieve this, the patterns of communication between the social groups need to be intensified to the extent that communication does not principally take place within the groups. Even though the internal communication of the (ethnic, religious and other) groups may remain stronger than that between them, a certain degree of close communication among them is a requirement for successful and enduring nation-building. However, apart from the political-cultural aspect, there are also practical requirements for this: nation-building needs a “national” infrastructure. Transport and communication infrastructures, the development of a “national economy” from regional or local economic areas, plus nationwide mass media for establishing a national political and cultural discourse are key variables.

 A crucial component of nation-building is the development of a functional state apparatus that can actually control its national territory. This implies, firstly, that the corresponding society has constituted itself as a political society, which corresponds to the two processes outlined above, especially the formation of a common society with its own self-awareness. In this way, the state becomes the political organisational form of a society that is able to act – if it did not already exist before playing a key role in the social integration process. State-building is a key aspect of successful nation-building. It presupposes a range of practical capabilities, such as creating a financial basis for a functioning state apparatus, i.e. an effective fiscal system, as well as an organised police and legal system and an administrative apparatus that is effective and accepted throughout the country. The state needs loyal personnel that do not identify primarily with individual social, ethnic or religious communities but, rather, with the state and the “nation”. In particular, the state apparatus must assert its monopoly of force over the entire national territory in order to be successful over the long term.

 For successful nation-building, this results, all together, in a triangle formed from the highly complex individual elements of state-building, social integration and ideological legitimation. Certain components can be provided relatively easily from outside, such as parts of the infrastructure, while others are very difficult or even impossible to furnish from outside, e.g. in the case of ideological nation-building. In the end, however, it is only engagement with each other providing mutual strength that will decide the success or failure of nation-building. As a rule, external players will consequently make nation-building easier or harder, but hardly ever be able to force it or completely prevent it where the internal factors stand in the way of this.

Sociology is the science of society.




In all ages and human times, ever science our erect and restless species appeared upon the planet, men have been living with others of their kind in something called Societies. Wherever these societies may be and whatever their chapter of history-weather primitive Polynesian or ancient Egyptian, classical Chinese or contemporary Russian, medieval English or modern American-they all exhibit common elements and constant features. These are the elements that give to society its form and shape, that constitute its structure and that, in a word, comprise the social order. It is the task of general sociology to discover these constants, to describe them with an economy of concepts, and to delineate their inter-relations".

 Sociology is the science of society. No other science endeavours to study it in its entirety. Economics studies man as a wealth-getter and wealth-disposer and inquires into the relations of wealth and welfare. History deals with the human past in accordance with the time order. Cultural Anthropology studies man, particularly the primitive man and it concentrates more on the primitive communities and their cultures. Psychology studies the man as a behaving individual. Social Psychology, as a branch of psychology, concerned with the ways in which the individual reacts to his social conditions. Political Science studies man as a citizen, as a ruler and as being ruled. Religion deals with man as a spiritual being and inquires into his faith in the supernatural power. Sociology alone studies social relationships, society itself. Thus the 'focus' of no other social science is identical with with that of sociology. Indeed, it is the focus of interest that distinguishes one social science from another.

 Sociology is interested in social relationships not because they are economic or political or religious or legal or educational but because they are at the same time, social. "Society", as Mac Iver says, "is the marvellously intricate and ever-changing pattern of the totality of these relationships". Further, in sociology we do not study everything that happens "in society" or under social conditions. But we study culture, for example, only for the light it throws on social relationships, their specific forms, variates and patternings. We study how the relations combine, how they build up smaller or greater systems, and how they respond to changes and changing demand or needs. Hence our study of society is essentially analytical