Mediaboss Marketing

At a cheap card table in a South Market loft, Craig Newmark sat with friend and fellow web enthusiast Anthony Batt, mulling over what to call his newest web venture. It was the 1990s in San Francisco, when rent was affordable and the internet relatively new. Newmark, a round-faced software engineer, had just launched an email list that alerted his friends to local events in the city. In keeping with his tendency to take things literally, he floated San Francisco Events as a top contender for its name.

Batt was getting impatient; the list already had an unofficial name used by its recipients. Just call it Craigslist, he told his friend. And so it was.

Nearly three decades later, the mailing list has morphed into one of the most popular classified advertisement websites in the U.S., with a presence in more than 70 countries. Despite making a killing off its success, Newmark refused to monetize the site except through a handful of minimal revenue streams. He still retains a sense of frugality unique among his fellow tech entrepreneursbesides multiple streaming service subscriptions and a modest collection of Simpsons figurines, his largest luxuries include hiring a plant sitter when hes out of town.

A self-described nerd, Newmark has the requisite thick-rimmed glasses and affinity for science fiction. But the Craigslist founder is more likely to be found discussing the ideals of democracy than toying with Perl. Hes explored a varied range of political philosophies, ethical frameworks and social codes over the years, but his passions have stayed centered on how to safeguard the U.S. and its citizens against misinformation and harassment. Since retiring from Craigslist in 2018, he has become a crusader for cybersecurity protections, trustworthy journalism and veteran support.

Now, at 70, hes preparing for his next stage in life by giving away his sizable fortune. His donations to date havent been insignificant by any means. But its time to get serious, according to Newmark. My big mission, simply stated, is to help and protect the people who help and protect our country, he told Observer.

Newmarks initial interest in philosophical concepts was shaped during his childhood in Morristown, New Jersey, where he grew up in a lower middle-class Jewish household. His mother was a housekeeper. His father, an unsuccessful salesman of both meat and later insurance, died of lung cancer shortly after Newmark turned 13. I may have had a normal childhood with friends until my fathers death, said Newmark, who only recently considered how that loss may have catalyzed subsequent social dysfunction.

He grew isolated, getting into fights with other children in middle school, and was labeled a troubled child. Sent to the school psychiatrist, Newmark endured a series of ineffective talking sessions, failed attempts to interest the sixth grader in birdwatching and chess, and a marginally successful trip to Newark Airport in his counselors VW Bug to watch jets take off.

It didnt help that he was resolutely nerdyhe wore pocket protectors unironically and was a member of the debate team. And Newmark wasnt afraid to be pedantic. He called jocks Neanderthals and once attempted to report a gym teacher for abuse after being ordered to run laps, according to Mark Hashizume, a classmate at Morristown High School. Newmarks slight intellectual arrogance during this time was likely a sort of defensive mechanism, according to his old friend.

Newmark and Hashizume became fascinated by Ayn Rand and Objectivism, joining a school group the latter jokingly called The Selfish Cluba reference to the theory of selfish rationalism. With copies of Rands pamphlets and subscriptions to the libertarian Reason magazine, we would just hang out in the classroom and talk about philosophy and exchange ideas, Hashizume told Observer. Newmark once made a pilgrimage to the city to meet Murray Rothbard, a protege and eventual opponent of Rands. But the dalliance with libertarianism didnt last too long. Contact with the real world in any form has a tendency to get rid of delusions, said Newmark.

Something that stuck with him, however, were his Sunday school lessons. To this day, Newmark refers to the teachings of Mr. and Mrs. Levin, a Lithuanian couple who survived the Holocaust, as his ethical guidepost. Their mantras of treat people like you want to be treated and know when enough is enough were reinforced by the lyrics of Leonard Cohen, who Newmark came across in 1988 when he found a recording of Various Positions. That tape is a big part of the liturgy that affects me, he said.

After graduating from Case Western Reserve University, he worked for IBM as a programmer in Boca Raton, Detroit and Pittsburgh for 17 years. Newmark was still dealing with social challenges, often told by colleagues to pick his battles more carefully. I would correct people if they made relatively minor technical mistakes, and sometimes I would correct them in front of others, he said. His favorite manager told Newmark his sense of humor was his only saving grace and that he had a lot of room to grow. He was right, said Newmark, adding that he now realizes he lacked a basic understanding of social etiquette.

In the early 90s, Newmark left IBM behind for a position with Charles Schwab in San Francisco and found himself immersed in a community connected by the early roots of the Internet. It was a relatively nascent concept and one ripe with possibilities. Craig and I were both really excited to be at this birthplace of the web, said Batt, who met Newmark on The Well, one of the earliest online message boards, where the two bonded over their excitement for the newly invented World Wide Web.

At the time, computer enthusiasts were a small community, one that was optimistic about how technology could change society, Batt told Observer. He and Newmark attended get-togethers in Victorian apartments across San Francisco, parties where people gathered around computers to look at web pages and discuss articles from the recently launched Wired magazine. Excitement over the unexplored possibilities took on an almost religious fervor. We were evangelizing the web in a way that was earnest, said Batt. People approached the emerging digital domain with an emphasis on tikkun olam, according to Newmark, referring to a Hebrew term that translates to repairing the world.

Newmark also attended the Berkeley Cybersalon, a monthly gathering started by media consultant Sylvia Paull. More than 100 people would cram into Paulls house to discuss the impact technology had on some aspect of our society, whether it was education, music, literacy, security, she told Observer. Paull described Newmark as a straightforward personality who uses humor to soothe otherwise blunt remarks. If he sees a contradiction or someone aggrandizing their accomplishments, hell undercut what they say in a witty way, she said, to make them laugh, while realizing theyre showing off or falsifying something.

Newmark initially created Craiglist to aid friends in San Francisco looking for events, places to stay or available jobs. He was adding new people to the list constantly. He was just so friggin diligent, said Batt. It grew in popularity, and the listserv became a website in 1996. By the end of the following year, the website was getting around one million page views per month.

Fans of the site urged Newmark to stop running it with volunteers and turn it into a real company. I would go to events and VCs and bankers wanted to throw billions at me if I would do the usual Silicon Valley thing and monetize heavily, said Newmark. But he decided to monetize minimally, charging for a select portion of posts like job openings and broker apartment advertisements, because making money was his second priority. The first was still making the world a better place. Craigslist onboarded Americans in the tens of millions onto the Internet. Thats a good thing.

Craigslist was officially a private for-profit company in 1999, with Newmark as CEO. But that didnt last long. By the end of the year, people helped me to understand that as a manager, I suck, said Newmark. To do a good job of this stuff, you have to have charisma, or what I understand the kids call rizzIm using that in the broad sense, not the romantic sense, he said. Whatever charisma is, Im kind of charisma negative.

Newmark often self-deprecates in this manner, occasionally with a wry smile. He is very discreet; he doesnt like public attention, said Paull of her longtime friend. She recalled visiting him during Craigslists early days in his shabby office in a house out in the Avenues of San Francisco, where he introduced her to Jim Buckmaster, the computer programmer Newmark hired as CEO in 2000. This is the person who really runs the place, not me. I just handle customer service, he told her.

It wasnt a jokeafter ceding power, Newmark did take a customer service role at Craigslist, which he held for more than a dozen years. I liked the continual sense I was getting that Craigslist mattered, that it helped people with real life, he said of the job. But I saw things that I will never unsee. Hed created one of the worlds most popular websites, where users sold everything from motorcycle parts to cactus plants. However, the site also became a platform for prostitution. In 2010, more than a dozen attorneys general wrote an open letter to the company requesting its adult services section be taken down to prevent instances of sex trafficking. Later that year, the section was permanently closed.

Despite receiving public backlash for its perceived inaction, Craigslist had actually been quietly working on related issues with law enforcement agencies. In 2015, Newmark accepted an award from the FBI for the websites collaboration in preventing human trafficking. It had been offered five years prior, according to Newmark, who said he regrets not accepting it earlier to diffuse misinformation. Lets just say there were some mental health issues. Im still suffering from some traumatic stress, he said. The stress of running something large and public that interacts with thousands of people every day was real.

Craigslist also faced accusations that it played a role in the decline of newspapers by taking away lucrative revenue from traditional classified advertisements. At a 2005 convention for the American Society of Newspaper Editors, panelists displayed a photo of Newmark while discussing the industrys crisis, and he was labeled a newspaper villain as recently as 2018. For years I was waiting for someone to look at the actual numbers, he said, pointing to findings from Danish analyst Thomas Baekdal that suggest websites like Craigslist had no measurable impact on the newspaper industry.

Newmark officially left Craigslist five years ago, but his focus on revolutionizing society has only become more spirited. Through Craig Newmark Philanthropies, he has channeled millions of dollars to organizations working to promote trustworthy journalism, strengthen cyber civil defense and raise up veterans. The company needed my help less and less, and I became progressively useless, he said. I found I could do more, and more good, for people by focusing on philanthropy.

This wasnt a surprise to old friends like Paull, who recalled Newmarks enduring interest in keeping scammers off Craigslist and his longstanding passion for upholding democratic ideals. He could have been a lawyer, hes really a constitutionalist, she said.

Newmarks philanthropic engagement with journalism was largely inspired by lessons he learned in history and civics in high school. I was taught that a trustworthy press is the immune system of democracy, he said. I could see an immune system not working, and I decided I needed to play a role. He reached out to industry leaders like Jeff Jarvis to figure out what that role could look like. Newmark was particularly interested in how to regain public trust and fend off disinformation through good journalism, according to Jarvis, a professor at the City University of New Yorks Graduate School of Journalism. Trust is the new black was one of his lines, he told Observer.

After Jarvis introduced Newmark to the schools then-dean, Sara Bartlett, the Craigslist founder gave the program a $20 million donation. In an homage to Newmarks nerdy roots, the 2018 endowment was celebrated with promotional materials like plastic pocket protectors emblazoned with the schools new name: The Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism. Hes since funded numerous media publications like the Markup and the Guardian, in addition to giving multi-million-dollar gifts to the journalism schools at Columbia and Howard University.

On the cybersecurity side, Newmark has kept an eye on the field since the 1970s when he became interested in natural language processing, a branch of artificial intelligence. Ive been paying intermittent attention through the decades, until the point where I finally got seriously involved, he said. In 2017, Newmark began to hear about information related warfare originating from our adversaries overseas in conversations with veterans, journalists and occasionally law enforcement. It took a while, but it finally registered that we were a country at war, and that everyone needed to play a part, maybe in proportion to their ability to help.

Newmark has funded numerous organizations combating ransomware operations and educating civilians in cybersecurity literacy. Its a big deal, because ransomware destabilizes businesses here in the U.S., which is a matter of national security, he said. And beyond that, ransomware gangs, lets say in Russia or North Korea, appear to be a part of the way they attack our country and how they financially support themselves.

Meanwhile, veterans issues have struck a chord with Newmark since high school, when he witnessed returning service members being verbally mistreated. I was completely naive back then about politics, but I could see that this was really unfair, he said. In 2013, he was named a consultant, or nerd-in-residence, at the Department of Veteran Affairs.

Its no coincidence that much of Newmarks giving has a patriotic bent. He evolves to meet the needs of the moment, but all keeping in the through line of citizen security, Vivian Schiller, director of the nonprofit Aspen Institute and Newmarks former philanthropic advisor, told Observer. Newmark, who refers to himself as an Eisenhower baby and a nerd, 1950s style, says he grew up during a time when patriotism was the norm. Now, a lot of people who use that word lets say theres room for improvement. But he still believes in the conceptmost of his philanthropy efforts focus not only on protecting people but specifically American citizens. First, we need to protect the Republic, he said.

The one outlier in Newmarks philanthropy is pigeon rescue, toward which he estimates hes donated upwards of $50,000. He fell in love with the birds back in the 1980s and today regularly places food and water out for local pigeons in the garden of his Manhattan home. A frequent visitor nicknamed Ghost Faced Killer is a regular presence on Newmarks social media profiles. Normally pigeons mate for life and are monogamous, however weve observed Ghost Faced with at least several different ladies, he said, There are a lot of pigeons visiting these days which share some of his distinctive plumage.

Ghost Faced is the favorite of both Newmark and his wife, Eileen Whelpley. The two married in 2012, putting an end to the Craigslist founders difficult, and at times literally painful, dating life. In the 1970s, after taking a ballet and jazz class to meet women, Newmark suffered a hernia, passing out when told hed need surgery.

Despite Newmark being a major philanthropist, the total sum of his fortune has long been shrouded in mystery. Hes never publicly revealed his net worth, which Bloomberg in 2020 estimated at $1.3 billion. I want to keep the focus on giving nearly all my money away to worthy causes, not how much Ive made, said Newmark. I wish everyone who has been as fortunate as I have been would do the same.

Looking at Craigslists finances doesnt offer much clarity, as the privately-owned company doesnt disclose its revenue numbers. But regardless of the exact figure, Newmarks giving makes it clear that his wealth is substantialearlier this year, he pledged $100 million each to both cybersecurity initiatives and veteran support. Theres more to come, according to Newmark, who plans to give away virtually everything hes earned during his lifetime. His next gift might be directed toward the Craig Newmark School of Journalism, which the philanthropist hopes to someday make tuition-free. The more I share power and money, the more effectively I can fulfill my mission, he said.

Reaching personal milestones has also reinvigorated his democratic ideals. Hitting 70 and facing some recent health issues reminded me that I have a limited amount of time to be effective, said Newmark, who recently underwent minor heart surgery. A nerds got to do what a nerds got to do. Normal people arent getting the job done.

Read the original post:
Craig Newmark Retired from Craigslist. Now He Wants to Save ... - Observer

However, one factor in the electoral process that is not discussed nearly enough is the influence of money on voting behavior particularly the use of Constituency Development Funds (CDFs). With very few regulations on how they are dispersed, their continued use has undermined democracy in Solomon Islands.

CDFs are public development funds that have a long history in Solomon Islands. The current iteration of the practice started in the year 2000, during the countrys civil war. Amid the conflict, control of discretionary funding for constituencies was given directly to Members of Parliament (MPs) with the ostensive goal of supporting rural development initiatives that were in line with local priorities. As a result, MPs were given broad authority to allocate CDF money to individuals, income-generating projects or community projects in their districts.

However, there have been no laws that specifically govern how CDFs are created and spent. Tracking them is therefore difficult, making them open to abuse. Some MPs will spend them on individual handouts for their voters (such as solar panels or roofing irons), while other MPs will use it to provide key infrastructure such as schools and clinics. Some will even use CDF funds for direct personal enrichment.

Questions about corruption and the impact of CDF spending are a common sight in Solomon Islands media and on social media. Structurally, the CDF system raises concerns about the separation of powers within the country's governance structure. CDFs grant MPs executive powers related to budget implementation, potentially undermining the checks and balances that the separation of powers is meant to provide. For instance, disaster relief can be doled out by MPs based on their own personal criteria, rather than where they are most needed.

Such practices also mean the public gets used to asking MPs for essential services rather than asking the government ministries that are supposed to provide them leading to a form of clientelism.

The original rationale behind CDFs was to bypass bureaucratic red tape and channel funds directly to community-level projects. However, the division of CDFs among constituencies, rather than based on population size or particular needs, can be an inefficient way of impacting peoples lives. In fact, the CDFs have no impact on peoples livelihoods according to households surveyed in the 2019 census. An inordinate focus on CDFs, rather than service provision, perpetuates inequality, as indicated by Solomon Islands relatively high poverty rates compared to other countries in the Pacific.

Furthermore, this approach has actually weakened the government's already limited capacity to fund and manage services. MPs expect the bulk of the governments budget to go to them in the form of CDFs yet they are not made directly responsible for providing services such as health care. As a result, hospitals and clinics now face shortages of equipment, medicines and access to utilities.

To put in perspective just how much CDF spending which is entirely discretionary leads to unmet needs, look no further than the governments youth budget. Youth make up the majority of Solomon Islands population, with 70 percent of the country under the age of 35. Yet, the entire national budget for youth development amounted to only 35 percent of the discretionary funding allocated to just one MP in 2018.

Another problem with CDFs is the disconnect they create between MPs and their voters. The CDF system has shifted the focus away from the electoral system itself which has generally functioned adequately. Instead, CDFs have taken center-stage in Solomon Island politics, as people expect to be given something from CDFs in exchange for voting for particular MPs.

After being elected by doling out CDF funding, most MPs rarely engage with their constituents and often only support those that they believe voted them into power. Constituents can then become frustrated, as voting out MPs in the next election offers the only option for change but those elections can be years away, offering little immediate recourse.

And while the elections themselves have functioned well, the voter registration process in Solomon Islands has become a source of some controversy. Voter registration takes place every four years, after which a list of registered voters will be publicly available to communities.

Some voters have alleged that residents from other constituencies have re-registered in their constituency based on expectations for CDF rewards. Several MPs have been implicated in efforts to move people into their own constituencies for the purpose of stacking votes in their favor including some reports that MPs allegedly use discretionary funds to charter transport for out-of-constituency voters, furthering the criticism that unchecked CDF spending can undermine the democratic process.

Meanwhile, options for protest in Solomon Islands are also limited, as marches and rallies need pre-approval from the police or else they can be declared illegal. Additionally, there have been threats in recent years to close popular outlets for criticism, particularly on social media.

Another unique issue with regard to the CDF system in Solomon Islands concerns how direct foreign funding constitutes a portion of the countrys CDF funds. This can unduly influence decision-making and contribute to conflict as seen in some episodes of rioting, such as in 2006 and 2021, when the role of foreign donors backing politicians was a key complaint in protests.

When Solomon Islands switched its recognition from Taiwan to China in 2019, Taiwan ended its funding for CDFs, which constituted 70 percent of Taiwans total assistance to Solomon Islands. However, in early 2023, China started the Rural Sustainable Development Program to provide funds to Solomon Island constituencies, raising concerns that a similar issue might arise. However, some recent reforms have made sure these Chinese funds are channeled through and overseen by the Ministry for Rural Development, rather through MPs alone, with mechanisms put in place to better track how the ministry spends the funds.

While these reforms are cause for some optimism and a sign of political momentum to address the issue the influence of foreign money in development funds should be closely examined going forward.

Any further change to the CDF system will require MPs to have more transparent and consultative relationships with their voters, and for the government to provide better services to their people, rather than discretionary funding being sought for all basic needs.

That means leaders in Solomon Islands both in the government and civil society will need to work together to facilitate equitable fund distribution based on criteria such as need, transparency and accountability, along with potential alternatives to the CDF system altogether, such as using other mechanisms like provincial governments for the distribution of funds spent on local projects.

Only through these measures can Solomon Islands restore peace and stability to its elections, allowing the electoral process to reflect the true will of the people and the needs of the nation.

Georgina Kekea is an editor and co-owner of Tavuli News, a newly established news agency in Solomon Islands.

Anouk Ride is an adjunct senior fellow at the Solomon Islands National University and a fellow at Australian National University.

Read the rest here:
How Constituency Development Funds Undermine Solomon Islands ... - United States Institute of Peace

During the 2022 midterm elections, a proposal to expand voting rights in Michigan was on the states ballot. Proposal 2, the Promote the Vote ballot initiative, would strengthen mail-in voting and early voting and defend against attacks on the democratic process. But before voters had their say on the matter, Republicans were trying their best to keep the measure off the ballot. After they failed to do so and voters subsequently supported the amendment by a near 20-point margin, state Republicans are back almost a year later, trying again to block the now-approved and enacted proposal via a recently filed lawsuit.

Proposal 2 contained a slew of provisions advancing voting rights in Michigan. The constitutional amendment required military and overseas ballots to be counted if they were postmarked by Election Day, mandated nine days of early voting, expanded drop boxes, provided free postage for absentee applications and ballots, allowed Michiganders to sign up to be permanent mail-in voters and expanded ways for voters to prove their identity.

Not only did Prop 2 strengthen voting rights, but it also protected democracy against growing right-wing threats in the state. The provisions provided that only election officials may conduct post-election audits, required canvas boards to certify election results based only on the official records of votes cast and allowed private funding for election administration.

To place Prop 2 on the ballot, Promote the Vote (PTV) the group pushing for the initiative had to garner signatures from 425,059 Michiganders. The group blew that number out of the water, submitting nearly 670,000 signatures, more than 507,000 of which the Michigan Bureau of Elections estimated to be valid.

The campaign to place Proposal 2 on the ballot was led by the same group behind Proposal 3 in 2018, which instituted automatic voter registration, allowed for Election Day registration and no-excuse mail-in voting, among other provisions.

Once PTV secured the required number of signatures, Prop 2 then had to be considered by the states Bureau of Elections. After careful deliberation, the Bureau recommended that the pro-voting measure be placed on the ballot. The only step remaining for the initiative was final administrative sign-off by the Board of State Canvassers. It was then that Republican tactics escalated to new heights.

After attorneys for right-wing groups attacked the measure, the two Republicans on the board voted against putting the amendment on the ballot, relying on dubious claims that the proposals petition form failed to note what sections of the state constitution would be impacted.

With Republicans voting against the amendment, the evenly-split board deadlocked 2-2, temporarily stopping the process in its tracks. PTV filed a lawsuit against the canvassing board for its failure to place the initiative on the ballot, alleging that the board violated PTVs right to due process under the Michigan Constitution.

Just eight days after filing the lawsuit, the Michigan Supreme Court sided with PTV and ordered the Board of State Canvassers to place the proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot, ruling that the board has a clear legal duty to certify the petition.

After Republicans failed to keep the amendment away from voters, Michiganders delivered a resounding voting rights victory. Despite needing just a simple majority to pass, the amendment garnered 60% of the vote.

While the amendment passed, the Michigan Legislature still needed to pass laws that would formally enshrine the amendments provisions into the state constitution. This past summer, the Democratic-led Legislature and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) did so, enacting a slate of laws implementing the proposal in full.

Actually putting the law into practice, however, has proven to be a challenge. The laws so drastically improve voting in the state that election offices and officials statewide have had to scramble to implement the provisions in time for the 2024 election. Michigan is the largest state in the country that administers its elections at the local level, with many local officials working part-time.

While some clerks have described the process as nerve-wracking and challenging, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) is confident that the states election workers will be able to fully adapt to the changes, saying she has every confidence that theyll be ready to meet the moment in 2024.

Last month nearly a year after Prop 2 prevailed 11 Michigan Republican state legislators filed a federal lawsuit seeking to nullify both the 2018 and 2022 PTV initiatives now enshrined in the state constitution. The lawsuit additionally seeks to ban future ballot initiatives that would implement changes to federal elections in the state constitution.

The Republican lawsuit hinges on the fringe and discredited independent state legislature (ISL) theory. The theory claims that under the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution, state legislatures and state legislatures alone have the power to regulate federal elections. Republicans promoting the ISL theory focus their attention on the word legislature, and argue the clause means state legislatures only and does not include a governors veto, citizen-led ballot measures and state court rulings.

Since the Michigan Legislature was not involved with the passage of the voting amendments and because the initiatives regulated the times, places and manner of federal elections by amending the Michigan Constitution, the lawsuit alleges that the 2018 and 2022 PTV amendments are unconstitutional and usurped legislative power under the Elections Clause because the direct democracy process involves no involvement or approval by the state legislators.

The ISL theory was roundly debunked as a legitimate theory just last summer when the ultra-conservative U.S. Supreme Court rejected an argument from North Carolina Republicans in Moore v. Harper similarly arguing that state legislatures alone can regulate federal elections. Though that case focused on the ability of state courts to impact federal elections, the underlying premise was the same as is being presented now in Michigan.

The Michigan Constitution allows petition-and-state-ballot proposals without state legislative approval, a process that the Republican state lawmakers argue violates their federal rights under the Elections Clause.

The Republican plaintiffs in the case also contend that [t]he Michigan Constitution vests the legislative power in the state senate members and house of representatives members, including the right to regulate the times, places, and manner of federal elections, and therefore the voting rights amendments enacted independent of the Legislature similarly violate the state constitution.

As part of the lawsuit, the legislators ask the court to rule that the petition-and-state-ballot-proposal process is unconstitutional, bar the defendants from any actions funding, supporting or facilitating the use of the process, deem the two pro-voting constitutional amendments as constitutionally invalid and block the defendants from any actions funding, supporting or facilitating the use of the 2018 and 2022 constitutional amendments to regulate times, places and manner of federal elections.

Although the Republican-backed lawsuit was only filed late last month, three nonprofit organizations and two burdened voters have already requested to intervene in the lawsuit to defend the voting rights amendments. The Michigan Alliance for Retired Americans, the Detroit Downriver chapter of the A. Philip Randolph Institute and Detroit Disability Power filed the motion.

The groups allege that the Republican legislators filed the case in a blatant attempt to weaken the rights that Michigan voters have fortified in recent years, and further argue that the plaintiffs seek not only to eschew the will of Michigan voters at large, but also to further insulate themselves from having to answer to their own constituents.

In asking to dismiss the case, the groups point out that the Michigan Constitution has enshrined the right for citizens to propose certain amendments to the state constitution by petition for more than a century. The proposed intervenors claim that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the claims and argue that the Republican legislators took too long to file the lawsuit voters approved Proposal 3 nearly five years ago.

Most notably, the groups argue that the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the idea that the Elections Clause vests state legislatures with exclusive authority to set the rules governing federal elections.

While the decision in Moore could be more than enough to merit the lawsuits dismissal, the motion to intervene contends that the Supreme Court has already rejected the argument that citizen-initiated state constitutional amendments in the federal elections context violate the Elections Clause.

They point to Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Elections Clause does not prevent Arizonans from creating by ballot initiative a commission to establish congressional districts, and allege that the Court made clear that it resists singling out federal elections as the one area in which states may not use citizen initiatives as an alternative legislative process.

After failing to prevent the 2022 PTV initiative from being decided by voters, Michigan Republicans are flailing, filing a frivolous lawsuit seeking to block the amendment once again. Invoking a fringe legal theory that was rejected mere months ago by the nations highest court, Michigan Republicans are shameless in their efforts to ignore the overwhelming will of Michiganders just because they didnt get their way.

See the rest here:
Michigan Republicans Try To Squash a Voting Rights Amendment ... - Democracy Docket

When Joko Widodo, popularly as Jokowi, was sworn in as Indonesias seventh President in 2014, optimism surrounding the state of democracy in the country seemed at its peak. At a time when dynasties traditionally dominated Indonesias political arena, the ascension of Jokowi, who was a carpenter and furniture businessman before becoming the governor of Jakarta, was hailed as a beacon of hope.

Jokowis election almost 10 years ago represented the height of democracy in Indonesia, Vishnu Juwono, associate professor in public governance at the University of Indonesia, tells TIME. He was seen as an outsider, and hes benefited from the democracy system.

But as the curtains fall on Jokowis decade of rule, he may be remembered more for ushering in a new era of democratic decline. Even his capstone initiative, what was meant to be a sprawling monument to his legacythe development of a new capital called Nusantara, to replace the existing capital in Jakarta beginning as soon as next yearlooks to embody such a backsliding.

Since it was announced in 2019, the ambitious project to relocate Indonesias capital from the island of Java to the island of Borneo has been mired in skepticism and criticismfrom inadequate public consultation to land disputes with indigenous communities to concerns about Chinese investment that critics say is making Nusantara a New Beijing. But a more insidious implication, observers caution, is the undemocratic nature that the new capital, tucked hundreds of miles away from Jakarta and set to operate without elected local leaders, will bring to the fore of what is currently the worlds third largest democracy.

While Indonesias current capital, which houses 10.5 million of the countrys 278 million people, may be the epicenter of the Southeast Asian nations economic activity, over the decades it has become increasingly uninhabitable. Jakarta residents regularly battle heavy traffic congestion, widespread flooding, and hazardous pollutionthe metropolis was earlier this year ranked as the worlds most polluted city when thick smog shrouded its residents. The city is also sinking at an alarming rate, with some forecasters estimating that a third of its land could be submerged by 2050.

As Indonesian authorities continue to look for ways to save the existing capital, a province some 800 miles away offers a clean slate devoid of Jakartas woes. Its on the lush hilly landscape of East Kalimantan that authorities decided to build the new national capital of Nusantara from scratchhailed not just as a solution to Jakartas congestion and sustainability crisis but also as a crucial next step in Indonesias development.

When we agree to move forward as an advanced country, the first question that needs to be answered is whether in the future, Jakarta as the capital city is able to bear the burden as the center of government and public services as well as center of business, Jokowi said in 2019 as he reignited dormant plans to relocate the government.

But what Nusantara represents is not so much a solution as a distraction, civil society groups and academics argue. Local authorities have long dragged their feet on addressing Jakartas urban environmental issueseven a court ruling in 2021, which found Jokowi and other senior officials guilty of negligence for the citys air pollution, has done little to trigger reforms.

It reflects really an escape plan of the failure of successive administrations in Jakarta to take on and manage the problems of Jakarta, Ian Wilson, a senior lecturer specializing in Indonesian politics at Australias Murdoch University, tells TIME. The problems of Jakarta will remain, regardless of Nusantara. Its quite disingenuous, I think, to suggest that Nusantara will help solve Jakartas problems. It will only solve them insofar as politicians will no longer feel any obligation to deal with them or even to speak to them.

But Nusantara doesnt just represent an avoidance of dealing with Jakartas troubles. It also looks set to further detach the countrys seat of government from its center of civic society, distancing decisionmakers from dissent. Jakarta has long been a stage for some of the most important moments of Indonesian politics: student-led protests led to the fall of authoritarian leader Suharto in 1998; in 2016 and 2017, amid growing religious conservatism, Islamist protests against Jakartas then-Governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama saw him jailed for two years for blasphemy; and in 2020, protests against an omnibus law on job creation that many workers feared would curtail their labor rights led to the Constitutional Court ordering the government to amend parts of the legislation.

Similar projects in other parts of the world provide a glimpse into how new administrative capitals, built ostensibly to relieve clogged cities of their population burdens, can come at the detriment of public participation and protest. Critics have claimed that Naypyidaw, Myanmars notoriously desolate administrative capital unveiled in 2005 by its military regime, serves to shield the countrys military leaders from uprisings. Similarly, observers say that in Egypt, the New Administrative Capital, helmed by President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi and that has been under construction since 2015, is designed to benefit the military and the military-aligned government, in part by diminishing the significance of traditional protest spots in Cairo.

[These] new capital cities are built as pet projects of a particular administration, but also involve a process of disentangling government from broader civil society, says Wilson. I think its very difficult to not see Nusantara in those terms, when we see the broader analysis of the last 10 years of the Jokowi administration, which has seen a real democratic decline.

As for Nusantarawhere 16,000 Indonesian civil servants, members of the military, and police officers are due to move in next year and there are plans for an eventual population of 1.9 million by 2045how the new capital city itself is set to be run has already raised concerns among local observers. Unlike the rest of the country, which is governed by elected mayors or governors, Nusantara will be governed by a Capital City Authority helmed by chairpersons appointed by the President.

When you have this authority that runs the city and somehow it is not connected to all those people who live in that city, the notion of citizens doesnt make sense, Sulfikar Amir, an associate professor of sociology at Singapores Nanyang Technological University, tells TIME. He adds that Nusantara, the way it has currently been designed, will have only tenants and users, not citizens.

Nusantara, says Sulfikar, doesnt really represent the democratic system thats supposed to be the foundation of our city governance across the country. He says he worries, however, that the central government will believe that this is a perfect system that should be implemented across cities in Indonesia.

Known for his laser focus on economic growth, Jokowi has delivered the results. But under his leadership, Indonesia has also seen increased online censorship and a crackdown on critics, as well as legislative changes that critics say infringe on democratic valuessuch as the passage of a controversial criminal code last year that criminalized unauthorized protests or criticisms of the President.

Jokowi has also unabashedly begun fashioning his own political dynasty, having installed his family members in key state positions over the last several years. Last month, his 28-year-old son Kaesang Pangarep was named the chairman of the Indonesian Solidarity Party, a youth party, despite having no political experience. Meanwhile, Bobby Nasution, the Presidents son-in-law, became the mayor of Medan in 2020the same year that Gibran Rakabuming Raka, Jokowis eldest son, became the mayor of Surakarta. And just this week, Gibran was announced as the running mate to defense minister and leading presidential candidate Prabowo Subianto, after the Constitutional Courtwhich happens to be headed by Anwar Usman, the Presidents brother-in-lawcontroversially ruled that 36-year-old Gibran was eligible to join the presidential ticket despite the statutory age requirement of 40.

Furthermore, out of the three presidential candidates running to succeed Jokowi, only former Jakarta Governor Anies Baswedan has vocalized doubts about Nusantara. While Jokowi has remained tight-lipped about who hes endorsing, his legacy will likely, according to current polls, be shouldered by his son Gibran andperhaps more concerninglyPrabowo.

A former military commander, who for two decades had been condemned internationally for rights violations, Prabowo twice unsuccessfully campaigned against Jokowi for the presidency in 2014 and 2019, before Jokowi helped rehabilitate his image by appointing him to his cabinet. Long known for his vehement opposition to democratic reforms in the country, Prabowos ascension, observers worry, could result in an even sharper centralization of power and turn toward authoritarianism for the country.

To be sure, Jokowi has maintained his popularity throughout all these maneuvers, boasting an 82% approval rating earlier this year. But if the start of his presidency heralded high hopes for Indonesian democracy, the end of itmarked by a swanky new capital and the paving of the path for Prabowo to potentially rule from ithas mostly dampened any optimism about the direction in which Indonesias democracy is headed.

Indonesia is still a functioning democracy, this is without a doubt, says Wilson. But nonetheless, there have been very strong, autocratic trends, and I think Nusantara needs to be understood within that context.

Original post:
Indonesia's New Capital Is a Monument to Its Democratic Decline - TIME

Democracy relies on education for its legitimacy and its strength, Wahl said. In theory, its the reason our University was founded. While Jefferson is himself a highly contentious figure, our university has inherited the ideal that democracy depends on an educated citizenry.

Wahl said democracy is sustained by people who are willing and able to engage in meaningful dialogue with others, especially those with different opinions.

[Philosopher] John Dewey believed that democracy is a way of life, one that depends on people cultivating minds that are flexible, willing to experiment, and willing to entertain the ideas of others and respond dynamically, rather than rigidly, to other possibilities for how to live together, she said.

Wahl has studied political dialogue in many settings, but much of her work focuses on university campuses. Recently, she was tapped to be the faculty lead for the Education Schools collaborations with the Karsh Institute for Democracy.

Last school year, Emily LeGree was making final tweaks to her class schedule when she stumbled across the Political Dialogue course.

I thought it sounded interesting, because I am so frustrated with the way the U.S. government is right now and how polarized it is, the third-year youth and social innovation student said. So I wanted to take a class where we can learn more about that and how to bridge the divide a little bit.

In the course, students study the theory of political deliberation and dialogue. Then, they practice having in-depth discussions about current events with their classmates.

Wahl begins the course by helping students create their own discussion guidelines, to establish a foundation of trust. Each week, they gather in a circle and dive into current events last fall, the nine students in the class spent a lot of time on COVID vaccine mandates. Wahl is there to guide the conversation, but she always lets students take the lead.

I was scared at first, but I loved it, said Carolyn Carbaugh, who also took the class last fall. Dr. Wahl was able to effectively create an atmosphere built on open communication and intellectual exploration. There was a sense of security that came with our group members respect for one another.

A theme of Wahls work is that politics is inseparable from other dimensions of human experience. She said that trying to separate a persons emotions and experiences from their political views is futile. Ultimately, all politics are personal.

In discussions, students do more than argue about whether specific policies are right or wrong. They share personal stories and explore deeper topics about their hopes for society.

LeGree said the course was challenging, and at times, frustrating and emotional. Theyre hard conversations, and it gets heavy, she said. It was almost like a group therapy session. Dr. Wahl would help us make sense of the difficulties we were having in a conversation from a theoretical perspective and help us understand why all of us see things differently. She was able to connect the pieces for us in a broader way.

Wahl is not nave. She doesnt believe all the worlds problems can be solved by just talking it out. It can cause harm and not everyone is prepared to have a healthy dialogue. But she believes talking serves an important purpose.

Its very, very rare for anybody to change their mind about political issues. But they do frequently change their mind about the people on the other side, Wahl said. I think what they see is that theres actually a whole range of beliefs and aspirations that are recognizably good.

Carbaugh said one of her biggest takeaways from the course was that there is value in a political discussion where the only agenda is to listen. I learned that not every political discussion needs to be an argument, she said. It helped me surrender this idea that I need to change people and that all political discussions are a zero-sum game.

The goal is to create more opportunities for students to engage with politics in healthy ways.

For LeGree, the course sparked a friendship that she might not have otherwise found.

Its funny, because [my closest friend from the class is] the one I disagreed with the most politically, she said. We would butt heads the most in class, and we are such different people. But its good because it broadens my view on things.

Were both people who know what we believe in. Im very passionate about what I believe, but its not fair for me to be so strong in my views that I dont listen to anyone else. I think hes found that, too.

Read more from the original source:
For Democracy, Talking Is More Important Than Agreeing - UVA Today