The spike in the prices of bread and rice worldwide is certainly very significant, but I wonder if we miss something when we insist on interpreting the ensuing riots and upheaval in terms of democracy vs. dictatorship as Diehl does.  It’s not as if Mubarak’s opposition can magically produce cheaper bread, and any democratic movement that pledges to change underlying economic realities that it cannot actually change will simply confirm in the minds of its own people that democrats are impractical and useless.  The typical demagogic move in circumstances such as these is to declare price controls, which simply succeed in drying up supplies, encouraging hoarding and pushing everything into the black market, but new democratic movements flush with the accomplishment of ousting a dictator (supposing that this happened) would be tempted to make just such a foolish move for fear of being ousted by the hungry population that brought them to power.  What’s not clear to me is why we would want “those hungry for bread [to] join those famished for democracy,” unless the goal is to see havoc unleashed on the streets of Cairo to prove a political point about the problems of dictatorship. 

Now, it’s true that rising food prices can weaken regimes and lead to their eventual overthrow. That does not mean that what follows will necessarily be any better in terms of its treatment of dissidents, and it will not necessarily be better able to address the causes of rising prices.  The price spike is a global phenomenon, driven by high oil prices, and as such can only be affected around the edges by changes in policy in any particular state.  There are fully democratic countries that are being or will be affected severely by the rise in prices, and the resulting discontent will probably be tapped by already existing rebel movements, such as the Naxalites, who are flourishing thanks to the economic disparities and dislocations that existed before this year, to great destabilising effect within India in particular.  There was a general strike called in West Bengal just today protesting the rise in prices (and, yes, I understand that West Bengal has a special fondness for bandhs), and we can expect to see more of this kind of protest in the coming months.  Some of the countries most in danger noted by Foreign Policy are for the most part either democracies or U.S. allies.  The rise in food prices may be bad for dicators, but it is doubly bad for America, since our government happens to subsidise a number of dictators and also has some interest in the stability of major rising powers such as India, and in the stable, peaceful development of large democracies such as Indonesia.  There is another reason for Washington to be concerned: if Washington wants to play the hegemon, it is also going to get part of the blame, rightly or wrongly, when food prices go up around the world. 

Meanwhile, throwing away perfectly good grain on the boondoggle of biofuels in this climate is not just a rip-off to the taxpayer, but seems basically unjust.  There is no chance, of course, of the presidential candidates adjusting relevant energy policy positions.