Mediaboss Marketing

It was a night we wont soon forget.

On April 13, we gathered in Omaha to celebrate Nebraskans daily acts to strengthen democracy. More than 200 friends, both old and new, joined us at the Livestock Exchange Ballrooms for an event that was as festive and rousing as it was inspiring and poignant. We witnessed the genuine affection for the honorees from those who nominated them, we saw overflowing gratitude from our winners, and we heard a powerful call to lead from Nobel nominee Desmond Meade, the evenings keynote speaker.

Among his comments was a stirring reminder that civic power is free. It doesnt require money, status, or fame, Meade said:

You dont have to be an athlete. You dont have to be a movie star. You dont have to be a billionaire to have an impact not only in your community but in your state and in the world, said Meade, who told a story of how he rose from a troubled past to lead the largest restoration of voting rights in a half-century in the United States.

Each and every one of us can impact our world in a profound way. The spirit of our democracy, the vibrancy of our democracy, and the existence of our democracy are not dictated by any elected official. Its dictated by us, the constituents who are willing to go through anything it takes to preserve this democracy of ours.

Did you miss the gathering or want to experience it again? Heres the full ceremony (below), which featured heartfelt introductions of our winners Eric Garcia-Mendez, Rick Galusha, Cheyenne Hartshorn, Kendall Bartling, and Joseline Reyna by those who nominated them for a Strengthening Democracy Award, as well as comments from the honorees.

See more here:
'It's dictated by us': Strengthening Democracy Awards 2023 - Civic Nebraska

Former attorney general Avichai Mandelblit, a vocal critic of the governments ongoing effort to radically overhaul the judiciary, railed on Monday against a reported coalition plan to soon advance a key, divisive bill in the legislative package once the Knesset reconvenes for its summer session at the end of the month.

In an interview with Channel 12, Mandelblit said the hardline coalitions bill to severely limit the power of ministry legal counsels would crush the first line of defense for Israeli democracy.

The duty of the public service legal advisers is first and foremost to the State of Israel and not personally to the minister, Mandelblit said, arguing that the reported legislation would erode the advisers ability to act as a gatekeeper and prevent illegal acts from being committed.

Mandelblit, who was appointed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before going on to file a criminal indictment against the premier, has repeatedly slammed the Netanyahu governments broader judicial overhaul and has said if the proposed plans pass into law, Israel will cease being a democracy.

According to a Channel 12 report on Sunday, the coalition intends to soon put forth the most extreme version of the legal counsel bill, which would transform legal advisers and their positions from professional authorities to discretionary positions. The bill would enable ministers to appoint and fire their own legal advisers, and also to make legal counsels positions non-binding on ministers and the cabinet.

Currently, each ministrys legal counsel falls under the aegis of the attorney general, to preserve their independence from political influence, and their positions are binding upon ministries. Proponents of the overhaul frequently chafe at the intervention of the attorney general and ministerial legal counsels, whom they say argue too easily and frequently override the policy initiatives of elected ministers since their written positions are binding on the government.

Then-prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-newly appointed cabinet secretary Avichai Mandelblit attend the weekly cabinet meeting at the Prime Ministers Office in Jerusalem on June 9, 2013. (Marc Israel Sellem/POOL/FLASH90)

Critics of the governments proposals for remaking the judicial system have warned that curbing the independence of ministry legal counsels would undercut an important check on executive power.

The Sunday report said the coalition would seek to pass this legislation regardless of current, ongoing negotiations with the opposition in a bid to reach a compromise on the judicial shake-up. Netanyahu paused the legislation late last month to allow for dialogue on the proposals but coalition members have indicated their determination to see the judicial overhaul through, despite the compromise talks.

The TV report noted that the legislation, if passed, would allow Netanyahu to remove the legal adviser at the Prime Ministers Office, Shlomit Barnea Farago, who he has clashed with overspending and the return of state gifts.

In his Monday interview, Mandelblit explained that there were previous iterations of this specific bill that were fended off. He said one version of the extreme bill from about five years ago drew intervention from former chief justices Aharon Barak, Elyakim Rubinstein, and Meir Shamgar, who came to the Knesset in order to fight the bill, a period of time Mandelblit referred to as a defining event during his tenure as attorney general.

Mandelblit also referred to a previous private bill by Likuds Amir Ohana, currently the Knesset speaker, that wouldve mandated a ministry legal adviser to act to implement [a] ministers instructions and would obligate the adviser to fulfill their basic duty of safeguarding and protecting the interests of the state. Another proposal, by former justice minister Ayelet Shaked, which Mandeblidt described as completely different but also not necessarily good, would have given more weight to the political echelon, while protections wouldve remained in place. It too did not move forward.

The bill in its current form, warned Mandelblit, will all but incline ministry legal advisers to be personally loyal to the ministers whom they serve and the counsels would not be required to report any dubious activity to the attorney general.

The current proposals could lead to serious malfunctions, he said, since 80 or 90 percent of the decisions are made at the ministry level and not at the government level. As long as [the legal adviser] doesnt warn [the attorney general] about [seemingly illicit] conduct, no one will even know that something illegal is taking place.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, left, with Justice Minister Yariv Levin in the Knesset on March 27, 2023. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

According to the coalitions yet-to-be-publicized proposal, if a legal advisor alerts the attorney general of suspected wrongdoing, the minister will simply fire [them]. This is what is going to happen, and it is something that greatly endangers the rule of law in the State of Israel and the protection of the stateas a liberal democracy.

Such conduct would allow for a situation where there would no longer [be] a [set] term for a legal adviser. [They] will be appointed for an indefinite period of time, and as soon as the minister changes, the legal adviser will also change.

The levels of protection of democracy in the State of Israel are not among the best [as is]. We dont have a constitution, we dont have two houses of parliament, we dont have a federal and regional system of government, explained Mandelblit. In the eyes of the states founders, the two lines of defense were the Attorney Generals Office and the High Court of Justice.

Mandelblit said the legal counsel bill is no less dangerous than efforts to curb the powers of the court and bring most judicial appointments under political control.

It is possible that to a large extent, it is more serious because most cases do not reach the Supreme Court but are closed within the government ministries. If legal advisors arent able to act independently, it endangers the rule of law along with liberal, democratic values.

Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara has warned that the coalitions current package of legislation would hand the government virtually unrestrained power, without providing any institutional protections for individual rights.

The plans have drawn intense public criticism and sparked massive protests for the past 15 weeks since their unveiling.

Follow this link:
Reported plan to curb ministry legal advisers would crush democracy, says ex-AG - The Times of Israel

What played out last weekend in Adamawa State during the supplementary gubernatorial poll can best be described as attempts by desperate politicians to subvert democracy and undermine the will of the people. The electoral heist must be totally condemned in all its ramifications.

In the show of shame in broad daylight, the whole world was shocked to see the Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC), Hudu Yunusa-Ari, on television illegally announcing Senator Aishat Binani Dahiru, the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), as the winner of the election when results from 10 local councils were still being expected. How low can we get?

The electoral law does not recognise RECs to collate and announce election results in the states; that is the job of the Returning Officer. So, what Yunusa-Ari did was brazen, illegal and it could only have been inspired by an animal boldness of the worst kind.

Instead of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) summoning Yunusa-Ari to Abuja, he should have been arrested in Yola immediately and made to face the full wrath of the law. What happened next is even more shocking: Senator BInani, whom Yunusa-Ari declared illegally as the winner, read an acceptance speech, thanking the people of Adamawa State for electing her.

That was a lie from the pit of hell; she was not elected because she did not win the election. Binani is desperate to set a record as the first female governor in Nigeria but she has to be properly elected not through the backdoor, subterfuge or illegality.

We may have seen bad behaviours displayed by politicians in the past but what Senator Binani and her enablers did at a time we are trying to improve on the electoral process takes the cake. How far will politicians go in the theatre of the absurd?

On top of this travesty and brazen shenanigan, Binani approached a High Court in Abuja, seeking a judicial review in an attempt to stop INEC from voiding her illegal declaration as the winner of the governorship poll as announced by Yunusa-Ari.

I have never seen anything like this before. If we truly want to be honest with ourselves, politicians are the biggest threats to our democracy.

What the Adamawa REC and Binani have done should come with consequences; otherwise it will become a standard playbook for other politicians who do not have any sense of shame or higher purpose.

Because of Yunusa-Aris egregious conduct, another national commissioner deployed to Adamawa for the supplementary poll, was beaten black and blue and then stripped naked. It was clearly a case of the anger of the mob.

Yunusa-Ari appeared defiant on the day he made the illegal announcement in the presence of security personnel. He was confronted by onlookers in the room that he had no powers to announce the winner. He was also reminded that it was the holy month of Ramadan the ninth month of the Muslim year, during which strict fasting, prayer and deep reflections are observed from dawn to sunset.

In his desperation, the Adamawa REC who has now been disowned by INEC set aside all the entreaties and spiritual injunctions. There must have been something in it for him to have taken such risk for a zero-sum game.

Before the supplementary governorship elections in Kebbi and Adamawa States, INEC had been in the eye of the storm. The reputation of the electoral umpire had taken severe beating arising from the previous elections in February and March.

INEC had the opportunity to redeem its image but, apparently, the likes of Yunusa-Ari with his gang of co-conspirators had other plans. There was now palpable tension in Adamawa State which could have led to a breakdown of law and order.

As it turned out, INEC worked very hard to do damage control. Last Sunday, the electoral body announced that the REC illegally announced the winner which was declared null and void.

In order to calm frayed nerves, INEC suspended the collation of results and the supplementary election. INECs statement did not leave anyone in doubt. The attention of the Commission has been drawn to a purported declaration of a winner in the Adamawa Governorship election by the Resident Electoral Commissioner even when the process has not been concluded.

The action of the REC is a usurpation of the power of the Returning Officer. It is null and void and of no effect. Consequently, the collation of the results of the supplementary election is hereby suspended.

Thankfully, INEC concluded the exercise and declared the incumbent governor, Ahmadu Fintiri, as the winner of the governorship poll. Any further delay would have caused unnecessary anxieties for mob action and violence.

However, the facts of the matter must stand. Before the collation exercise was suspended on Saturday night, Binani was nowhere near winning the election as she was trailing Ahmadu Fintiri, the incumbent governor and candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). By this time, results from 10 local councils had been announced.

Nigerians were outraged by Yunusa-Aris unacceptable conduct and disregarded the announcement that he made. In the meantime, no one has told us where Mele Lamido, the Returning Officer, has been hiding; he just disappeared into thin air.

Was he part of the plot to sabotage the will of the people of Adamawa State? Could it be that the RO did not agree with the REC to announce Binani as the winner without results from all the 69 polling units?

The drama in Adamawa State happens in other states and it is a reflection of our inverted value system: we condone impunity without consequences and it has gone to great lengths to damage the moral fabric of society.

For example, why would a parent buy exam question papers for his/her children to gain undue advantage? The same parent will also join those accusing INEC of improper conduct of our elections. Isnt that hypocrisy?

After the meeting of its National Commissioners in Abuja which held on April 18 over the supplementary governorship election in Adamawa State, INEC resolved to write the Inspector General of Police for the immediate investigation and possible prosecution of Yunusa-Ari who, by the way, is a lawyer.

How can a lawyer superintend over such travesty and be the lead actor in a poorly scripted drama? To tell you the truth, Yunusa-Ari pretended to be an actor who wanted a Nollywood-like fame but he failed his audition woefully by announcing a fake election result that was not his responsibility in the first place.

Is he still a learned colleague? What action is the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) going to take?

INEC will also write to Boss Mustapha, the secretary to the government of the federation (SGF), to inform President Muhammadu Buhari that his appointee, Yunusa-Ari, has been unworthy of the appointment as Adamawa State REC. His unwholesome behaviour should be reported by the SGF for further action.

The commissioner of police in Adamawa State has been redeployed by the Inspector General of Police. That was a timely intervention and commendable action but it does not go far enough. He should be sanctioned immediately. Under his watch, Yunusa-Ari orchestrated a dangerous plot that could have sparked an orgy of violence.

We are all witnesses to the disgraceful conduct of politicians even in their parties where theres complete absence of internal democracy. The Labour Party has also joined APC and PDP in poor housekeeping manners because if you have been following the political developments in Imo State, Labour Party has two factions (Ikechukwu Ukaegbu and Chibutu Isiguzo factions laying claims to the ticket) in the run-up to the partys primary to elect its gubernatorial candidate.

With parallel primaries, the factions usually end up in court because politicians are generally bad losers everyone wants to win. Hows that possible?

If party primaries are fraught with rigging and violence, what then should we expect at the state and national elections? Are they not the same people?

When the outcomes of our elections are poor, we are quick to blame INEC instead of desperate politicians and their supporters. What in the world was Yunusa-Ari thinking when he declared Binani as the winner of the Adamawa governorship poll? Was he expecting Nigerians to clap for him?

He should have emulated the Returning Officer in the Abia State gubernatorial election, Prof Nnennaya Oti, vice chancellor of the Federal University of Technology, Owerri (FUTO) which Alex Otti won. This amazing amazon refused to be intimidated even at the risk to her life; she stood her ground and the will of Abia voters prevailed.

But Yunusa-Ari couldnt because he sold his conscience for a mess of porridge.

Braimah is a public relations strategist and publisher/editor-in-chief of Naija Times (https://ntm.ng)

Views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of TheCable.

See the article here:
Subversion of democracy in Adamawa - TheCable

The recently announced review of New Zealands lobbying sector needs to tackle questions of transparency and access if it is to make any real difference to how industries influence decision making. This includes establishing an enforceable register of lobbyists and introducing a cooling off period for former politicians before they can begin lobbying.

The review was announced after revelations former police minister Stuart Nash shared confidential cabinet information with political donors. In the aftermath, Prime Minister Chris Hipkins requested lobbyists swipe-card access to Parliament be revoked. He also called on the lobbying industry to develop its own voluntary code of conduct.

Unlike many countries, New Zealand does not require lobbyists to register, disclose their clients or funding sources, or adhere to ethical standards.

But our research into alcohol, tobacco and cannabis industry lobbying highlights how corporations wield their influence over public officials and the public to achieve their interests.

On one hand, private sector engagement is often valuable and can lead to better government policies. Businesses have expertise that can help policymakers understand innovation and assess the feasibility of proposed policies.

Yet the political system is not always transparent and equally inclusive. Corporations have considerably more money, expertise and time than everyday citizens to engage with politicians.

This influence can result in weak and ineffectual responses from government, including decision makers deferring responses with long consultation periods or distant targets.

Tobacco lobbyists, for example, have long pushed back against plain packaging and tax increases on tobacco products, despite evidence of their effectiveness to reduce smoking harm. Instead, lobbyists have also argued that raising tobacco taxes merely contributes to a tobacco black market.

Researchers looking at tobacco and alcohol lobbying have found corporate influence often involves long-term strategies rather than directly visible attempts to influence politicians.

One study in the United Kingdom showed how alcohol interests adopted a long-term strategy to influence policy. Personal contacts with key policymakers were nurtured well before they entered government.

This sort of relationship building can also include gift giving, from small consumables such as rugby tickets and dinner, to speaking roles, international travel, club membership and the promise of future employment.

Social media is also increasingly used in lobbying. Digital platforms offer opportunities to initiate, target and foster contacts between corporations and politicians. They can also be used to persuade the public to put pressure on policy makers, thereby indirectly influencing government decisions.

While direct corporate donations to political parties and candidates are often easy to trace, corporate funding can also be re-channelled through supposedly independent organisations, via non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and think tanks.

The alcohol and tobacco industries fund not-for-profit organisations to conduct social campaigns or engage in research. They are often presented as independent, despite their industry connections. An Australian study found the alcohol industry used these organisations to promote ineffective responses in policy submissions and to campaign against higher alcohol taxes.

The revolving door phenomenon, where industry personnel enter policy making and vice versa, is another influence pathway. One recent example from the tobacco sector involves an ex-senior official from the World Health Organisation moving to a leadership role in a non-profit funded by one of the biggest tobacco producers in the world.

In New Zealand, investigative reporting has highlighted the easy movement between lobbying roles for the alcohol industry and subsequent senior public policy roles.

Key proposals for the long-term regulation of lobbying in New Zealand have focused on establishing a lobbying register and introducing a cooling off period for former ministers before they can enter the lobbying sector.

This is a good start to providing transparency.

According to a 2022 review of lobbying regulations by the OECD, the register needs to be enforceable, and provide enough detail about lobbying activities, to be effective. This includes who is conducting lobbying, their key objectives and targeted politicians.

In New Zealand, the opposition suggested a 12 month stand-down period for former ministers before they can enter lobbying. In Canada, the cooling-off period for designated public officials is five years.

And as we showed with examples above there are other political roles beyond ministers that need to be considered, including MPs and local government officials. The hiring of former private corporate employees into the public sector should also be looked at.

Defining who should be covered by the transparency requirements is another challenge. A range of actors beyond professional lobbyists compete for policymakers attention.

These include think-tanks, NGOs and even researchers who may receive funding from corporations. The OECD review found those third-party actors are not always covered by transparency requirements and some activities, such as the use of social media as a lobbying tool, are exempt.

Corporations may have legitimate demands to protect market-sensitive information. Yet modern lobbying regulations need to ensure citizens can access key information on all forms of lobbying, including on social media.

If so, youll be interested in our free daily newsletter. Its filled with the insights of academic experts, written so that everyone can understand whats going on in the world. With the latest scientific discoveries, thoughtful analysis on political issues and research-based life tips, each email is filled with articles that will inform you and often intrigue you.

Get our newsletters

Editor and General Manager

Find peace of mind, and the facts, with experts. Add evidence-based articles to your news digest. No uninformed commentariat. Just experts. 90,000 of them have written for us. They trust us. Give it a go.

Get our newsletter

If you found the article you just read to be insightful, youll be interested in our free daily newsletter. Its filled with the insights of academic experts, written so that everyone can understand whats going on in the world. Each newsletter has articles that will inform and intrigue you.

Subscribe now

CEO | Editor-in-Chief

It helps you go deeper into key political issues and also introduces you to the diversity of research coming out of the continent. It's not about breaking news. It's not about unfounded opinions. The Europe newsletter is evidence-based expertise from European scholars, presented by myself in France, and two of my colleagues in Spain and the UK.

Get our newsletter

Head of English section, France edition

Read the original post:
Lobbying regulations are vital to any well functioning democracy it's time NZ got some - The Conversation Indonesia

Fighting is raging once again in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, where a power struggle between rival factions has claimed the lives of hundreds of people. Around 185 people have been killed and more than 1,800 injured in the wake of an attempted coup.

A US diplomatic convoy came under fire yesterday and the EUs ambassador in Sudan, Aidan OHara, was reportedly assaulted at his home.Journalists have been detained and beaten up by soldiers for breaking newly-imposed curfews.Across Sudan, international agencies, non-governmentalorganisationsand charities are scrambling for a solution to prevent further bloodshed.

Militaryaircrafthave flown low over urban centres and engaged targets on the ground. Residents in Khartoum areterrifiedof the eruption of what feels like a war within what is normally a peaceful city. Gunfire has beenheardon state TV,presumably takingplace within the building.

The fighting continues, withvery littlesense at leastoutsidethe country what is going on and who iswinning

A contestappears to beshaping up between the countrys regular army which is effectively a military junta and a paramilitary force called the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), whose leader, General Mohamed HamdanDagalo, was supposed to be a figure in the current military regime: a council of officers, led by the army chief,Abdel Fattah al-Burhan.But the council, it seems, has been dissolved.

This feels a little like a traditional military coup, where the aims areto capture state TV, the national leaders residence, and so on. It has, however, hit a few snags.

The RSF announced even crowed about its capture ofEgyptiansoldiers, who were arrested and photographed blindfolded and in custody in Merowe, between Khartoum and the Egyptian border. The RSF has said it will return the troops, but already the damage is done: Egypt has a large military and a strongman leader; it wont be happy that some of its visiting personnel were detained.Whether Cairo will seek revenge remains unclear.

Meanwhile, the fighting continues, withvery littlesense at leastoutsidethe country what is going on and who iswinning.

The military council on which both Mohamed HamdanDagaloand Abdel Fattah al-Burhan sithad held power since a military coup in 2021. This regime had overturned a provisional government that formed after protests in 2018-19 brought down the countrys long-time dictator Omar al-Bashir.

At that time, the protestors were jubilant. Their revolution had been peaceful and significantly for both the region and the international media covering the story led by women. At least initially, the army and its various groups seemed pleased Bashir was gone. They said they would respect the will of the people.

They promised a swift transition from temporary council rule to a full democracy. A document was drawn up in 2019, a draft constitution, thatseemed to pointa way forward.Activistshoped the country could become a democracy, or at least increase the political rights of the people, whose representation in power has in living memory been limited. This is a country whichhas been defined for decades by civil conflict including with South Sudan, which is now independent and allegations of genocide in Darfur.

The Bashir government was a pariah internationally. Many hoped that, with his removal, better things and better governments were possible. They hoped that Bashir could be handed over for international trial for allegations relating to the war in Darfur, and that Sudan couldbenefitfrom the aid and trade that tends to flow to countries who oust their dictators if they can stabilise things.Sadly,it did not work out quite like that.

This has been a period of military coups in Africa. We have recently seen multiple coups in Mali and in Burkina Faso, in Guinea Bissau and the Republic of Guinea. Sudan is only the latest ina long list.Part of the reason for this wave of coups is to do with the pandemic: economic crises, exacerbated by Covid, madeunpopular leaders even less popularand tempted generals to chance their arm. Many uprisings involve outside actors: Russia is oftenallegedto be behind coups and coup attempts, with the intention of creating a new alliance of military regimes dependent on Moscow and prepared to do Moscows bidding.

Thingsremainmuddy in Sudan. Wedontyet know what will happen, or why it has happened at all.But onethingssure: this is the precise opposite of what millions of Sudanese wanted when they took to the streets for democracy less than five years ago.

See the original post:
Sudan's dreams of democracy appear to be over - The Spectator