Archive for the ‘Democracy’ Category

Memories of the Past, to Support the Future: UConn Presents 2023 … – University of Connecticut

As a new congressman, Connecticuts Christopher J. Dodd and his then-colleague Elizabeth Holtzman, at the time a fellow freshman from New York traveled with a Congressional subcommittee delegation to explore human rights abuses in the now-former Soviet Union.

During a trip punctuated by arguments with Soviet officials and concerns about recording devices in flower vases, they visited Babyn Yar a ravine outside the Ukrainian capital city of Kyiv and the site of documented Nazi atrocities during World War II.

The experience so many years ago at Babyn Yar was transformative for me, for Liz, and those who were with us, Dodd told a packed audience at the Jorgensen Center for the Performing Arts in Storrs on Wednesday evening. To stand on ground outside of Kyiv where, in September 1941.33,000 people were massacred it was an experience that informed my work over the next 40 years in public service.

We visited Babyn Yar, the Nazi killing field I actually had the feeling that the ground was still moving underneath my feet, shared Holtzman, who grew up in her Jewish family hearing stories of Babyn Yar as a child from her mother, who was from a village near Kyiv.

The bodies never came to rest.

Dodd and Holtzman shared their memories of that trip to Ukraine in 1975 as part of the presentation ceremony of the 10th Thomas J. Dodd Prize in International Justice and Human Rights to the Babyn Yar Holocaust Memorial Center in Kyiv.

The Thomas J. Dodd Prize in International Justice and Human Rights commemorates the distinguished career in public service of Christopher Dodds father, Thomas J. Dodd, who served as Executive Trial Counsel at the Nuremberg Trials, as U.S. Representative from 1953 to 1957, and as Connecticut Senator from 1959 to 1971.

Thomas Dodd continually fought against infringement and suppression of human rights in the United States and abroad during his long public career; the collection of his papers and letters from his time prosecuting Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg are currently housed at The Dodd Center for Human Rights at UConn.

The awarding of the Thomas J. Dodd Prize for International Justice and Human Rights is an opportunity not only to spotlight individuals and organizations at the forefront of human rights work, but to reaffirm our commitment as a University to the ideal of human rights as a goal that transcends national and political boundaries, said UConns President Radenka Maric.

This years recipient of the Dodd Prize embodies the understanding that human rights are a cause that cannot be limited to individual countries. An attack on human dignity and freedom anywhere is an attack on human dignity and freedom everywhere.

In total, between 70,000 and 100,000 people including almost the entire Jewish population of Kyiv were killed at Babyn Yar between 1941 and 1943. The Babyn Yar Holocaust Memorial Center aims to serve as a physical place of memory, a museum, an educational archive, and a center of scientific knowledge about the sites historic atrocities and their modern-day impact.

The centers unwavering commitment to memory especially in the midst of unprovoked and ongoing war in Ukraine today was particularly remarkable to the Dodd Prize Selection Committee, said James Waller, director of Dodd Human Rights Impact and the Christopher J. Dodd Chair in Human Rights Practice at UConn. The Babyn Yar Holocaust Memorial Centers selection for this years prize was unanimous.

We were struck by their willingness to engage with history in a region that has many contested memories, Waller said. Rather than stand on the sidelines, Babyn Yar Holocaust Memorial Center recognizes the need for public discourse on Babyn Yar and the role that this places construction plays in the social memory of Ukraine.

They know that nations need some kind of agreed-upon past, and that the dark silences that have been imposed on some episodes of history, the pages that have been torn out in history, must be exposed for a nation to develop a true sense of its identity.

The Dodd Prize ceremony was punctuated by memory.

In a recorded video message, Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal recalled the story of his father emigrating to the United States to escape persecution in Europe during the Holocaust and commended The Dodd Center for its work to reserve and promote human rights.

This prize for the center to uplift and spotlight people who are fighting for their democratic values is a message to the whole world, Blumenthal said. The Babyn Yar Memorial Center is a vital organization that ensures the world will ever forget one of the most inhuman acts, the senseless slaughter of so many.

Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont recalled the words of President Joseph Biden when he visited UConn for the rededication of The Dodd Center for Human Rights two years ago.

I can tell you, when it comes to character it sounds like an old-fashioned concept, but I think its more important today than ever, Lamont said. Maybe some of you may have been here when President Biden came two years ago, and he said that character starts off with how you treat the people every day that you pass along on the street folks who cant do anything for you, but just you treat them with respect and dignity. And those who dont do that, you see where that leads.

Past Meets Present

In 1941, Victor Pinchuks parents fled Ukraine, emigrating to the Soviet Union and avoiding their own deaths at Babyn Yar in September of that year.

You, senator, are here tonight because of your father, who prosecuted the Nazi killers at Nuremberg, said the Ukrainian businessman, philanthropist, and Babyn Yar Holocaust Memorial Center Board member, who accepted the Dodd Prize on behalf of the center on Wednesday evening. And Im here because of my father, and because of my parents my parents, a small Jewish boy and girl, went in 1941 from Kyiv to Russia, to protect them from the Nazi killers.

Pinchuk shared his memory of childhood, and his father often reading him, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthurs Court, by the author Mark Twain, whose home in Hartford is now a museum, the Mark Twain House.

Pinchuk visited the museum when he arrived in Connecticut this week and sent pictures to his father, which made him very happy, he said.

The first person I met and started talking with was a woman, she was a gardener in the Mark Twain museum, and she had a very big yellow-blue heart [on her clothes], Pinchuk said. And I asked her why. Because Im American Ukrainian. And I have this [flag, on my jacket] she said, I know youre also Ukrainian. And we spoke in the Ukrainian language. It was a great sign how close America and Ukraine are.

In accepting the award on behalf of the Babyn Yar Holocaust Memorial Center, Pinchuk said Ukraine is a country that wants the truth about Babyn Yar and about the current war in Ukraine to be told.

Since the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the centers plans for physical spaces in Kyiv have been suspended in order to support the war effort and to help document destruction, atrocities, and loss in the current conflict.

Using some of the same technologies that the center has employed to map, document, preserve, and identify victims at Babyn Yar, the center has been working to memorialize victims of this war as well. Their team has digitized more than 3.5 million records and documents, according to the Babyn Yar Holocaust Memorial Centers CEO Oleksiy Makukhin, and aims to digitize 16 million documents over the next two years.

The awarding of the 2023 Dodd Prize on Wednesday, Oct. 25 also marked the launch of the inaugural Human Rights Summit at The Dodd Center for Human Rights, which kicked off on Thursday with a packed-house keynote from the Ukrainian human rights lawyer Oleksandra Mativiichuk at The Dodd Centers Konover Auditorium.

Matviichuk leads the nonprofit Center for Civil Liberties and is an advocate for democratic reforms. The Center for Civil Liberties was jointly awarded the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize, the first Nobel Prize in history awarded to a Ukrainian citizen or organization.

In her keynote, she spoke about atrocities committed against Ukrainians in the current war, the need for not just aid but also voices in the U.S. and other countries to help support the Ukraine, and the fragility of freedom in an increasingly interconnected world.

How many people who live in the 21st century will defend a human being, their life, their freedom, and their human dignity? she asked. Can we rely on the law, or does just brutal force matter? The answer to this question will define not just the future of people in Ukraine, Iran, Sudanthe answer to this question will define our common future.

Because the world should respond to the challenges of the present. Its the determination to act that defines a civilization that has a future. Freedom and democracy must be protected.

The Dodd Summit concludes Friday, October 27, with a focus on democracy in the United States, and with a Democracy and Dialogues session with UConn students on voting and voter participation, in the Konover Auditorium at The Dodd Center for Human Rights.

For more information about the inaugural Dodd Summit, visit summit.humanrights.uconn.edu.

Visit link:
Memories of the Past, to Support the Future: UConn Presents 2023 ... - University of Connecticut

British spy agencies warn of AI threat to democracy – POLITICO Europe

LONDON Generative artificial intelligence systems will pose a stark threat to political systems within the next two years, British intelligence agencies have warned.

As Rishi Sunak prepares for a major speech on AI ahead of next week's London-hosted global safety summit on the tech, the U.K. government on Wednesday night unveiled a series of papers laying out the risks and opportunities posed by AI.

The paper focusing on risks was largely informed by British intelligence assessments and examined near-term threats in the run-up to 2025.

It warns that the rise of generative AI systems such as ChatGPT or other input-based content creating AI models will "significantly increase risks to safety and security," with those risks increasing in likelihood as the tech develops.

It points to "Digital Risks," such as cybercrime and hacking, as an area where generative AI models are likely to have the largest negative impact. But it also flags potential threats to the machinery of democracy.

"Risks to political systems and societies will increase in likelihood to 2025, becoming as significant as digital risks as generative AI develops and adoption widens," the report warns. "Threats include manipulation and deception of populations."

The paper comes after a deepfake, AI-generated, video of Labour Leader Keir Starmer swearing at staffers went viral earlier October, alarming a Westminster establishment which is yet to get to grips with the threat posed by fake AI created content. That video was viewed by more than 1.5 million people on X.

"Generative AI tools have already been shown capable of persuading humans on political issues and can be used to increase the scale, persuasiveness and frequency of disinformation and misinformation," the paper adds.

In his London speech Thursday morning, Sunak who has been keen to position the U.K. at the forefront of global AI policymaking will talk up the "new knowledge, new opportunities for economic growth, new advances in human capability, and the chance to solve problems we once thought beyond us," that he believes AI offers, according to lines sent out by his office beforehand.

But the prime minister will also admit that the technology "brings new dangers and new fears."

"So, the responsible thing for me to do is to address those fears head on, giving you the peace of mind that we will keep you safe, while making sure you and your children have all the opportunities for a better future that AI can bring," Sunak will say.

View original post here:
British spy agencies warn of AI threat to democracy - POLITICO Europe

UVA’s Democracy Gathering Has Wrapped, But Work Remains – UVA Today

For many who attended Sabatos Live Crystal Ball panel conversation, or any of the dozens of discussions and workshops offered as part of the Karsh Institutes Democracy360 three-day event, the state of affairs is more than just embarrassing. To some, its a sign that domestic and global democracy is in peril.

My concern is that people think our democracy is inevitable, Karsh Institute Executive Director Melody Barnes told UVA Today at the start of the event. Its not. It requires our engagement, our attention and our hard work.

Thats what drew thousands of people to Charlottesville and the University late last week, to understand what challenges democracy is facing, and what to do about it.

The panel discussions and workshops touched on a raft of ways to shore up the nations democratic ideals, including how to hold elected leaders accountable, how to better educate citizens and how to disagree more productively.

Democracy360 allowed me to engage in conversations with peoplewho hold different perspectives and viewpoints from my own and to forge new relationships with others who care deeply about the health and vitality of democracy, Barnes said. Im energized by the ideas that were generated and the steps taken to advance our work immediately and in the future.

UVA President Jim Ryan participated in three panel discussions, including one session focused on the responsibilities UVA has to the community it calls home.

It became really clear to me very early on that UVA and the greater Charlottesville community depend on each other, and vice versa, he said.

Ryan told the audience that he and other University leaders have worked to make the institution more valuable to the region, not just for providing things like health care, but for jobs. That involved knocking down historical barriers that either kept residents from applying to work at UVA or kept UVA from hiring them.

The next step, Ryan told the crowd, was to pay our employees a living wage, which had been an issue people had been talking about from the time I was in law school.

I feel like we have a certain obligation to the community, he continued. We should be an institution that lives our values. If we are preparing students to be ethical leaders, we should demonstrate what ethical leadership looks like.

Thats the reason the Karsh Institute put on Democracy360, to be a leader and to leverage the Universitys vast expertise in promoting and protecting democracy.

Our guests, speakers, and hosting partners share a commitment to a future in whichdemocracys aspirations and reality arealigned, and to working urgently, collaboratively, and creatively to make that happen, Barnes said.I hope everyone who participated in Democracy360 sees UVAs Karsh Institute as a place to do that important work.

All Democracy360 events that took place at the Paramount Theater were recorded and will be available to view on VPMs YouTube channel. VPM served as the Karsh Institutes streaming partner for the event, and The Atlantic served as the official media partner.

Continued here:
UVA's Democracy Gathering Has Wrapped, But Work Remains - UVA Today

True the Vote Voter Intimidation Case Goes to Trial in Georgia – Democracy Docket

From Sidney Powell, Kenneth Chesebro and Jenna Elliss plea deals, John Eastmans possible disbarment and two pending election subversion indictments amounting to 17 counts against former President Donald Trump, courts are slowly starting to hold Republican Big Lie architects accountable for their dangerous attempts to subvert democracy. But there are others who need to be held accountable as well: those who instilled doubt in our electoral process and those who attempted to interfere with voters right to vote.

Tomorrow, there will be a trial in a voter intimidation case that may not receive the fanfare and media attention of the aforementioned cases, but it will be just as important for holding anti-voting organizations and leaders accountable and protecting voters in future elections.

In November 2020, Georgia handed Joe Biden the presidency and paved the way for two Democratic candidates to become the next U.S. senators from the Peach State and give Democrats control of the U.S. Senate. The only thing that stood in the way was a runoff election. With all eyes on Georgia, a right-wing group named True The Vote launched the largest voter challenge effort in Georgia history targeting the eligibility of more than 364,000 Georgians many of whom were Black, brown or first-time voters.

Now, a lawsuit brought by Fair Fight and voters, alleging that True the Vote and its associates violated Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and intimidated voters is going to trial. Here is what you need to know.

True the Vote (TTV) is a Texas-based right-wing group whose self-described mission is to train citizens to protect election integrity at the polls. It was founded by Catherine Engelbrecht who is credited with becoming one of the earliest and most enthusiastic spreaders of ballot conspiracy theories. TTVs research was the basis for the disinformation film 2000 Mules and the groups claims of voter fraud have been causing harm since the early 2010s.

In 2022, Englebrecht and her associate Greg Phillips who has promulgated disinformation about noncitizens voting in the 2016 elections were held in contempt of court due to their noncompliance in a defamation lawsuit about targeting the founder of an election management software company.

After the 2020 election, right-wing groups and prominent Republican leaders worked tirelessly to instill doubt in the validity of Georgias election results and the security of the states elections. As a result, election officials were threatened and voters and poll workers were harassed and wrongly accused of fraud. Tensions came to an all-time high when it was finally time for Georgia to certify its election results. Trump continuously stoked fears by alleging massive fraud in the state.

In December 2020, one prominent Republican election official made a plea to stop Trump and others from continuing to instill doubt in the electoral process and put election officials lives at risk:

Someones going to get hurt, someones going to get shot, someones going to get killed.

Nevertheless, as the plaintiffs put it, TTV continued to feed this frenzy and promulgate false accusations of voter fraud.

According to court filings, the group launched Validate the Vote to overturn the results of the 2020 election. When TTV failed to overturn the presidential election results, Validate the Vote morphed into Validate the Vote Georgia, an operation that offered a $1 million bounty for reports of voter fraudrecruited Navy SEALS to confront voters and poll workers and, with the help of individual Defendants and state Republican Party officials, launched the largest mass challenge effort in Georgia history, targeting hundreds of thousands of voters just two weeks before the January 2021 runoff election.

To challenge hundreds of thousands of voters registrations, TTV assumed that individuals were unlawfully registered if voters had filed a request to forward their mail to a different address in the U.S. Postal Services National Change of Address database. TTV used this information despite it being unreliable to challenge hundreds of thousands of voters registrations. As a result, eligible voters discovered that their voter registrations were at risk due to these challenges, which were made possible due to Georgias lenient voter challenge law and exacerbated by the 2021 omnibus voter suppression law, Senate Bill 202.

In many ways, TTVs blueprint for incentivizing and empowering citizen vigilantes laid the groundwork for the excessive vigilantism we see targeting voters today.

On Dec. 23, 2020, Fair Fight and voters filed a lawsuit against TTV, its founder and other associates alleging that TTVs mass challenge scheme intimidated voters and therefore violated Section 11(b) of the VRA.

Enacted in 1965, Section 11(b) of the VRA outlaws any act that is likely to intimidate voters: No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote. The provision extends the same protections to anyone urging or aiding another individual to vote.

This protection does not require proving intent or racial motivation, making it a useful legal tool in fighting voter intimidation and vigilantism.

The complaint alleges that TTVs mass challenge effort that included a $1 million bounty for evidence of illegal voting was objectively likely to intimidate voters, violating Section 11(b) of the VRA.

Voter challenges are harmful: they encourage citizens to question their neighbors, create distrust in our elections and, most of all, unfairly target eligible voters. Throughout the case, voters whose registrations were challenged have shared heartbreaking testimony:

I am a Black voter and a veteran, and I grew up in an era of segregation when it was common for public officials and certain members of our communities to make it difficult for us to vote. Having to deal with these kinds of obstacles still today is both discouraging and aggravating, and makes it seem like we should just give up.

Another voter explained how her challenged registration made her feel:

When I was challenged, I was the only Hispanic there voting. And I noticed that the only other race besides white who I believed was also challenged she casted a paper ballot was Asian. I connected the two, and I thought that people of color were being challenged. And that made me feel intimidated.

On Jan. 1, 2021 just four days before the runoff a judge denied the plaintiffs request to temporarily halt the defendants voter challenge, poll watching, election observation and other activities that could intimidate voters. In denying the plaintiffs request, the judge wrote that his order in no way ended the case:

While this Court denies Plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief, this case is not yet over. As this Court has expressed clearly, an eleventh-hour challenge to the franchise of more than 360,000 Georgians is suspect. So too is the manner in which Defendants mounted their challenges. The Court will not abide attempts to sidestep federal law to disenfranchise voters. Nor will it tolerate actors brandishing these voter challenges to intimidate and diminish the franchise, for such acts diminish democracy itself. But the Court must rely on proper evidence and facts to determine whether these acts have in fact run afoul of federal law. The Court looks forward to seeing what evidence the Parties bring to bear.

In response to the lawsuit, TTV not only doubled down and defended its actions, but also countersued alleging that Fair Fight, an organization committed to fighting voter suppression and intimidation, was intimidating TTV. Luckily, the court did not buy this bad-faith argument and promptly dismissed TTVs breathtaking counterclaims.

TTV argues that these voter challenges do not intimidate voters, as their actions are protected by the First Amendment and therefore Section 11(b) of the VRA is unconstitutional. The group also argues that if Section 11(b) is applied to their actions, lawful voters votes will be diluted, or worth less. This warped concept of vote dilution is an increasingly common theme in many recent conservative anti-voting lawsuits as a defense against the pro-voting plaintiffs cases.

In October 2022, TTV submitted what is known as a notice of constitutional challenge of statute. When a party challenges the constitutionality of a federal law in this case Section 11(b) of the VRA they must submit a notice to the court stating that they are challenging the constitutionality of the law. At that point, the Department of Justice may choose to get involved.

In December 2022, the DOJ intervened in the case to clarify that in its view, Section 11(b) is absolutely constitutional. In January 2023, the DOJ told the court that it should reject the defendants arguments about 11(b)s constitutionality. The DOJ asserts that TTVs arguments have no basis in its text, history, or precedent and states that TTVs actions are not protected by the First Amendment.

The DOJ contends that 11(b) has an unlimited reach, covering all people who are intimidated, threatened, or coercedregardless of whether they were specifically targeted. The department also refuted TTVs outrageous vote dilution arguments, writing that determining whether someone has intimidated, threatened, or coerced a voter has no relation toanycircumstance that could give rise to an affirmative vote dilution claim.

The plaintiffs also refute TTVs claims about 11(b)s constitutionality. In their January 2023 brief, the plaintiffs echo the DOJs argument that Section 11(b) should be interpreted broadly to cover voter challenges as potentially unlawful voter intimidation. They also agree that vote dilution cannot be used as a defense since any interest individuals maintain in preventing the dilution of their own voting powercannot possibly justify the intimidation of eligible voters whose ballots are entirely lawful.

In March, the judge ruled that most claims would proceed to trial after finding that the facts were disputed by the different sides and summary judgment could not be issued on all of the claims, mainly the Section 11(b) voter intimidation claims. However, the court ultimately rejected TTVs vote dilution claims and its argument that Section 11(b) was unconstitutionally vague.

At trial, the following questions will be addressed:

The trial is expected to last 10 days. After that, it will be up to the judge to determine what, if any, accountability TTV will face.

This case will determine if TTV will have to take any sort of responsibility for putting hundreds of thousands of voters registrations at risk. Fortunately, many of the challenges were not successful, but that does not detract from the harm caused. As the voters testimony illustrates, voter challenges have the impact of intimidating voters and making them question if voting is even worth it.

Some voters may choose to not vote again out of fear of being targeted and some may not even know their registration was challenged. Voter challenges disproportionately target communities of color and are harmful to our social fabric.

Unfortunately in the wake of S.B. 202s passage, Georgias voter challenge problem is only growing. After its passage in 2021, over 89,000 voters registrations have been challenged. With election vigilantism on the rise, Section 11(b) provides a helpful tool in holding those who engage in intimidation accountable. When armed vigilantes showed up to monitor Arizona drop boxes in 2022, 11(b) was used to stop them. When conspiracy theorists sent racist robocalls to voters, a federal judge ruled that the scheme violated 11(b) and other state and federal laws. If this lawsuit is successful, this case can also serve as an example of accountability and deterrence from engaging in voter intimidation in the future.

Follow this link:
True the Vote Voter Intimidation Case Goes to Trial in Georgia - Democracy Docket

Barry Jones Truth and the threats to liberal democracy – The Saturday Paper

Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?

John Milton, Areopagitica (1644)

The Voice referendum was the first constitutional referendum to be held since 1999. No Australian under the age of 42 had ever voted in one. In that 24-year period, the world has changed beyond recognition.

In November 1999, Australians voted in two simultaneous referendums, one on becoming a republic and the second on inserting a preamble into the Constitution.

The preamble proposition was vague and inoffensive in wording. It acknowledged God, democracy, tolerance and honoured Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nations first people, for their deep kinship with their lands and for their ancient and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country.

The preamble was proposed by then prime minister John Howard and drafted with the assistance of the poet Les Murray. Labor supported it and there was no formal No campaign or media attack. Nevertheless, the preamble referendum lost more decisively than the bitterly contested one on a republic.

Weirdly, final figures for the preamble in 1999 were almost identical to the result of the Voice referendum in 2023: 39.3 per cent voted Yes and 60.7 per cent voted No.

In 2007, Howard promised that if re-elected he would initiate a referendum to recognise First Nations people in the Constitution. He lost and the referendum never happened. In the 2023 referendum campaign he encouraged No supporters to maintain the rage. What rage would that be? About what?

In the 21st century there has been a paralysis of will. We have seen decades of delay and obfuscation on major global issues.

Since 2016, Donald Trump has changed the nature of political discourse beyond recognition. With Trump, the concept of truth is irrelevant. Assertions are completely transactional. Evidence is discounted or dismissed as fake news and gut reactions and instinct override analysis and the need to take account of contrary views. There were Trumpian elements in the 2019 and 2022 federal elections but the referendum on the Voice in 2023 took it to another level.

In 1687, Isaac Newton published his Laws of Motion in Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. The third law Every action has an equal and opposite reaction seems curiously applicable, not only to physics but to history and the social sciences.

Everything is in motion. The tide retreats, then comes surging back.

We have lived through attempts to break down misogyny, hierarchy, racism and fundamentalism, to end censorship and free up religious debate, to promote and foster multiculturalism. Now we are living through the inverse, the hostile reaction: revival of white supremacy, justification of hate speech and trolling as essential elements of freedom, the demonisation of minorities, sharp attacks on expertise, the denouncing of evidence or reasoned argument.

The Yes case was well intentioned and hardworking, but the No case was masterful and far more strategic. Dishonest, too.

Yes argued passionately, supported by at least 30 outstanding new books on history, anthropology, archaeology and culture, which sold in their thousands. Yet the books were no match for the dark messages sent to individuals in their millions on social media.

There were six principal reasons why the No campaign triumphed. The first was its shameful, morally bankrupt slogan: If you dont know, vote No. The No campaign essentially argued Why bother? Nothing to do with you. Dont bother to find out. If you know nothing, welcome aboard the No campaign. Many No voters never understood what the referendum was about, and there was no imagination, sympathy or understanding.

The second boon for the No campaign was its public faces: Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Nyunggai Warren Mundine to the right, Lidia Thorpe to the left. They gave a leave pass to the unsure and disengaged, promoting uncertainty and confusion. The argument for these people was: If the Aboriginal community isdivided about the Voice, how can I make ajudgement?

The third key point for No was its exploitation of the idea of division. This masterstroke was Trumpian. Words were taken and turned to mean their opposite. Yes became characterised as a vote for division and No was a vote for unity. It did not matter that the inverse was true.

Price and Mundine argued the Voice would entrench division along racial lines, giving privileges to First Nations people that would be denied to other Australians. Division became the central theme of the No case and proved to be a winner.

Price exploited the unity issue relentlessly. If she saw a conflagration in the distance, she was eager to help by bringing more petrol. She said the Australian Electoral Commission had interfered with the referendum process and insisted most First Nations people in the Northern Territory were opposed to the Voice. Many believed her, but polling on October 14 indicated remote communities voted Yes at a rate of more than 70 per cent.

Fourth among the factors that favoured No was Australias curious relationship with the Constitution. This document, unread and unrecognisable in the context of constitutional practice as it has evolved, was invoked during the campaign as a Holy Grail revered, unknowable, untouchable. Each assertion by the No campaign that the Voice would be risky was demonstrably false, but the countrys worship of its ill-understood Constitution was enough to scare people away from change.

Fifth, the government and Yes23 were very vague about the structure and powers of the Voice itself, even in broad outline, and that looked shifty, although it followed normal practice in referendums.

Finally, the media overall played a shameful role. This was a campaign defined by Murdoch and Musk. The lies circulated on social media were strategically targeted: First Nations people would be given free houses, free cars, free education at private schools. The Yes campaign was allegedly being run by the United Nations, or by Jews, or by condescending urban elites. The Voice would apparently push millions of people off their land. Taxes would rise exponentially to pay for Aboriginal welfare and the country itself would be forced to adopt an Indigenous name.

The government and the Yes campaign failed to attack these lies head on. The ABC was overly cautious and News Corp was brutal.

Elon Musk, the worlds most powerful individual, has created shadow rule. His algorithms determined our choices in ways we were not even aware of. He is already more powerful than Rupert Murdoch ever was with print media and television.

In the end, the No vote had many components. There were citizens with a sketchy grasp of Australian history, who knew even less about colonial and First Nations history, and less still about the Constitution. There were people disillusioned about government institutions and processes, reacting against decisions on which they already had negative views.

Many of these voters have no experience of First Nations people. They do not know them as friends, they do not meet them in their communities. Some of these were Coalition loyalists who stuck with their leaders. Some were economically stressed voters who saw the referendum as a distraction from mortgage rates and rising costs of living.

There were those seduced by conspiracy theories on social media, there were Christian fundamentalists, there were parts of the mining lobby and many mine workers. Supporters of overtly racist parties and advocacy groups probably comprised about 12 per cent of voters; the messages of these groups resonated with many more.

There was also the impact of progressive opponents of the Voice, notably Senator Lidia Thorpe, who insisted it compromised too much with colonial structures. She is part of the Blak Sovereign Movement and argued a treaty and truth-telling had to come before a Voice.

Thirty safe Labor federal electorates voted No. In the aggregate, about 30 per cent of Labor voters were against the Voice. Probably most will return in a general election but heroic leadership will be required.

There was no distinction between aprincipled No, a racist No, an irritated No and an unengaged No. People who voted Yes generally understood the issue and welcomed the chance to close the gap and bring the country together.

Liberal democracy depends on rational debate, where evidence is testable, both sides use a common language and accept accountability for misleading.

If democracy is to survive, it will require each of us to commit to hard knowledge, rational calculation, basic values and an obstinate will to end avoidable suffering, toparaphrase Leszek Koakowski.

The question Im left with is: are we up to it?

This article was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper on October 28, 2023 as "The paralysis of will".

For almost a decade, The Saturday Paper has published Australias leading writers and thinkers. We have pursued stories that are ignored elsewhere, covering them with sensitivity and depth. We have done this on refugee policy, on government integrity, on robo-debt, on aged care, on climate change, on the pandemic.

All our journalism is fiercely independent. It relies on the support of readers. By subscribing to The Saturday Paper, you are ensuring that we can continue to produce essential, issue-defining coverage, to dig out stories that take time, to doggedly hold to account politicians and the political class.

There are very few titles that have the freedom and the space to produce journalism like this. In a country with a concentration of media ownership unlike anything else in the world, it is vitally important. Your subscription helps make it possible.

News

The Yes case responds: Its a white flag from Labor

Daniel James After a week of silence, leading Yes campaigners have begun to detail three ways forward for the movement including fighting to keep Peter Dutton out of office.

Link:
Barry Jones Truth and the threats to liberal democracy - The Saturday Paper