Mediaboss Marketing

In what seems like an expected slide, in 2022's global press index ranking, India has found itself eight places lower than last year, in the company ofconflict-torn countries like Somalia and Libya. Reporters Without Borders (RSF), which releases the annual ranking, specifically mentioned violence against journalists as one of the reasons that "demonstrate that press freedom is in crisis in the world's largest democracy."

The primary reason for such a nosedive of journalistic environment in the country appears to be the government's intolerance towards criticism. Numerous journalists have been arrested or booked under criminal charges across the various states of the country. Press freedom activists and international rights groups say the current ruling dispensation has been consistently intimidating journalists who do not purport the narrative of the ruling Hindu-nationalist regime. Intimidation has come in the form of arrests, charges of sedition and stretched accusations under vague laws, like those related to terrorism and national security threats. In a new trend, the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) an anti-terror law that endows the authorities with the power to detain a person without any incriminating evidence is being used against dissident journalists.

According to the Committee to Protect Journalists 2021 jail census, there were seven Indian journalists imprisoned as of 31 December - the largest number of arrested journalists in the country since 1992. Reporters Without Borders, however, reported that there are 16 journalists in Indian prisons in 2022.

If experts are to be believed under current circumstances, the basic task of reporting the truth has become a daunting and dangerous job in India, especially if the truth has the potential to expose the government or embarrass it in some way. RSF ranked India among the most dangerous countries for journalists in December 2021; the cases of harassment of journalists by authorities do not prove otherwise. A journalist from the southern part of India, for instance, was detained in October 2020 while on his way to report the rape of a 19-year-old girl from a marginalised section of society. He has been in prison ever since.

Such cases make it apparent that the government's only concern regarding the country's press is to eliminate any criticism, whether of its ideology or its work. In many cases, a journalist's arrest stems from a simple social media post. For example, in the case of Muhammad Zubair, a prominent fact-checker in the country who is often at odds with the government for busting their fake claims, was arrested for tweeting a still from a decade-old Bollywood film that allegedly offended sentiments of the Hindu community. Zubair was lucky to be granted bail by the Supreme Court of India, however the majority of the journalists detained in the country have not been fortunate enough to receive a respite from the judiciary branch.

Similarly, in the disputed region of Kashmir, which has already seen attacks on journalism and journalists, particularly since the region's special status was revoked by the ruling Hindu-nationalist regime in 2019, a journalist was arrested and charged with criminal conspiracy after merely posting a video of a protest. He is still imprisoned, along with many other prominent journalists in the country, including Fahad Shah and Siddique Kapan.

It is not astonishing, then, that in the latest issue of the Press Freedom Index, India slipped from a ranking of 142 in 2021 to its current position of 150, placing this democratic country at par with authoritarian countries like Afghanistan.

Photo by Pop & Zebra

Excerpt from:
Press freedom is in crisis in the worlds largest democracy - Fairplanet

There is growing interest in the state of academic freedom worldwide. A 1997 Unesco document defines it as the right of scholars to teach, discuss, research, publish, express opinions about systems and participate in academic bodies. Academic freedom is a cornerstone of education and knowledge.

Yet there is surprisingly little empirical research on the actual impact of academic freedom. Comparable measurements have also been scarce. It was only in 2020 that a worldwide index of academic freedom was launched by the Varieties of Democracy database, V-Dem, in collaboration with the Scholars at Risk Network.

Following Unescos definition, the new index provides a comprehensive measurement of academic freedom. It covers research, teaching and expression as well as university autonomy and campus safety. It reveals that while the average level of academic freedom today is higher than before the end of the Cold War, the decline over the past 10 years is remarkable. Academic freedom has declined from 0.6 in 2009 to 0.43 in 2021 in a range of 0.00 to 1.00.

Advocacy groups have noted scholars deteriorating freedom of expression and working conditions in Turkey, for instance. This reflects global trends in civil liberties and human rights. Declines have been observed in the regions where academic freedom is greatest Europe and North America and in the least free regions: the Middle East and North Africa. In Africa overall, the level has been relatively stable: 0.58 in 2009 and 0.57 in 2021.

Read more: Morocco's war on free speech is costing its universities dearly

The positive effects of universities on local economies have been researched extensively. Recent approaches have also looked at wider societal impacts. Most notable is the Times Higher Education Impact Rankings assessing universities against the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This shows a great variety of rankings in different goals. Universities high in SDG 4 quality education are not necessarily high in SDG 16 peace, justice and strong institutions, which includes academic freedom.

My research has been on the political science discipline in African universities and its role in political developments on the continent. As part of this project, I have investigated the impact of academic freedom in the post-Cold War democratic transitions in Africa.

A study I published with the Tunisian economist Hajer Kratou showed that academic freedom has a significant positive effect on democracy, when democracy is measured by indicators such as the quality of elections and executive accountability.

However, the time factor is significant. Countries with high levels of academic freedom before and at the time of their democratic transition showed high levels of democracy even 5, 10 and 15 years later. In contrast, the political situation was more likely to deteriorate in countries where academic freedom was restricted at the time of transition. The impact of academic freedom was greatest in low-income countries.

Around the world, theres a strong correlation between academic freedom and other elements of democracy based on the V-Dem data. But cause and effect are not so clear. The African experience makes the relationship clearer because simultaneously, and in a relatively short time, the whole continent moved from one-party to multiparty systems. Before 1990, only five African countries with universal suffrage had multiparty systems. By 1995, constitutional one-party or non-party systems were exceptions.

Multiparty electoral competition alone, of course, doesnt make a democracy. The sole purpose of elections can be to legitimise authoritarian rule and they can be rigged. Its thus the quality of elections that matters.

The V-Dem clean elections index measures absence of registration fraud, systematic irregularities, government intimidation of the opposition, vote buying, and election violence. It is a useful indication of the level of democracy in Africa.

To look at the role of preceding levels of academic freedom for the quality of current elections, we built an econometric model. We then tested it through the V-Dem academic freedom and clean elections indices data.

To the best of our knowledge, this was the first attempt to investigate empirically the impact of academic freedom on democracy.

We found that time lags of 5, 10 and 15 years of academic freedom statistically had a positive effect on the quality of elections. For Sierra Leone, for instance, the academic freedom index for 1980-2009 was 0.48 and the clean election index in 1990-2019 was 0.55. For Rwanda the same figures were 0.20 and 0.40, and for Benin 0.72 and 0.65.

Academic freedom allows education to produce a democratising effect. Our results highlight two things:

it takes time to consolidate democracy

to make politics inclusive, a country needs to produce its own knowledge and have its own intellectual capacity.

That is why attacks on scholars in Africa are troubling for the continents prospects of sustainable democracy and political stability.

Mobility and international cooperation is a strength for independent African academia. But the less attractive it is for African academics to return to or circulate within the continent, the more likely they are to leave. This will lower the competence and competitiveness of African countries. Conversely, countries supporting academic freedom, and investing in education today, can expect to have a bright future.

See the rest here:
Academic freedom and democracy in African countries: the first study to track the connection - The Conversation

Do you know that India is a democratic republic? But what does this mean? Are democracy and republic synonymous with each other? Today we will give you the answers to all these questions. Let us know through this article what is the difference between democracy and republic. First of all we know that what is democracy and republic after all?What is democracy? (What Is Democracy)Democracy is a government where the people choose their representatives to make laws. Democracy means that it is government by the people, for the people, of the people. It is a form of government where people have rights. In a democracy, the head of government is elected by the people and the head of government is elected.

What is republic? (What Is Republic)Republic means that type of government where the country is considered a public matter. The term is derived from Res Publica. The President is elected in a republic.

Understand the basic difference between democracy and republic from these points1- In a democracy the power is in the hands of the people whereas in a republic the power is in the hands of the individual citizens.

2- Where laws are made by the majority in a democratic system, whereas in a republican system the laws or laws are made by the elected representatives of the people.

3- In a democracy, the majority has the right to override existing rights. Whereas in a republican system, the will of the majority cannot be overridden because the constitution protects those rights.

4- A country can have more than 1 type of democracy and a country can also have more than 1 type of republic.

5- There is no restriction on the government in a democracy whereas there is a restriction on the government in a republic.

6- The main focus in a democratic country is the general will of the people. Whereas in a republican country the main focus is on the constitution.

Hope these points help you understand the difference between a democratic country and a republican country.

The rest is here:
Democracy And Republic: Understand in simple language what is the difference between democratic and republican governance.. - News Day Express

Published Aug. 18

Every two years, shortly after the excitement of the Fourth of July fireworks begins to fade, our focus in Florida turns to our election season, with a primary election set for August and the general election in November. On Independence Day, we celebrated our anniversary of liberation from a tyrannical monarchy and the creation of a democracy. One of the things that we celebrate, and that many Americans hold dear, is our right to vote.

Our foundational document, our U.S. Constitution, reflects our Founding Fathers competing and conflicting concepts of liberty. Although our founders bravely risked their lives to seek freedom from a monarch who levied taxes but allowed no representation, they did not grant equal freedom to all regardless of gender or race. The right to vote was initially limited to white men who owned property. Women were considered chattel and those of African descent who were enslaved were considered goods and counted as three-fifths of a person. It took hundreds of years, a bloodletting of civil war and the commitment of visionary abolitionists and suffragettes to end slavery and secure voting rights for most.

After so many years of citizens toiling to make voting in America freer and fairer, the tide has turned and there now is a concerted effort in Florida and across the nation to make voting more difficult. The work of the last 250-plus years is being undone right before our eyes. There is an increasingly loud demand to limit voting rights and to draw politicized redistricting lines that silence the voices of racial and language minorities.

Since the 2020 election, Florida has enacted laws that make voting more difficult for the average citizen. These laws include provisions that make voting by mail and registering to vote more burdensome. The laws also reduce the availability of the widely used ballot drop boxes (now dubbed Secure Ballot Intake Stations), modify rules for observers in ways that could disrupt election administration, and restrict the ability to provide food and water to voters waiting in line. At the same time, Florida has enacted a gerrymandered congressional map, drawn by Gov. Ron DeSantis, which I believe violates multiple provisions of the voter-approved Fair Districts Amendments to the Florida Constitution, including diminishing minority voting representation and favoring one political party.

Those who fought so hard to provide civil and voting rights for all must be turning in their graves as they see these new attempts to thwart our democracy. We cannot allow the hard-fought battles for equality and fairness to be brushed aside as if they never existed. These harsh new voting laws, politicized redistricting, and even the destruction of the rights to the freedom found in Roe v. Wade, are terrifying projections of a new world shorn of many rights and freedoms that most of us hold dear.

So, what can one do to help? The bottom line is this: Our democracy depends on the participation of the people. How does one best participate in our democracy? Vote. Vote like your life depends on it. Vote in every election and vote your values.

The League of Women Voters encourages all voters to vote early if possible either in person or by mail because it relieves polling places from extra-long lines on Election Day. Consider putting together a voting plan to help you make sure you get to the polls with all the information you need.

Need help voting with your voting plan? A product of the League of Women Voters Education Fund, VOTE411.org has served tens of millions of voters and won multiple national awards over the last 15 years. VOTE411.org has long been a trusted source of objective and nonpartisan election information your one-stop shop for everything about elections.

Subscribe to our free Stephinitely newsletter

Columnist Stephanie Hayes will share thoughts, feelings and funny business with you every Monday.

Want more of our free, weekly newslettersinyourinbox? Letsgetstarted.

Whichever way you choose to vote this year, know that by doing so you are fulfilling the single most important feature of our democracy. In this time of great political divide, voting brings us together as Americans. Democracy is not just for the few, but is owed to everyone.

Cecile M. Scoon is the president of the League of Women Voters of Florida and a practicing civil rights attorney.

Read more:
Voters, remember that democracy is not just for the few | Column - Tampa Bay Times

If you ask New Yorkers why their city is the best, chances are youll get a spiel in return, but local elections will never make the list. In the most important municipality in the worlds most influential democracy, anemic voter turnout, uncompetitive general elections, and ham-fisted election administration mark the electoral landscape.

On its face, this is strange, given that residents care deeply about local matters that affect their everyday lives, such as public education, housing affordability, and public safety, among many others. They no doubt have differences in opinion about these issues. The problem rests in the citys electoral system. Reforming it would benefit New Yorkers of all political persuasions.

Last year, many cheered an uptick in turnout for the citys first primary elections to use ranked-choice voting, to 26.5% of eligible voters. Any increase is welcome news, yet closed primaries still exclude nearly one million voters unaffiliated with a political party, the second-largest group in the city. Novembers mayoral general election saw 23.3% of registered voters participate, a historic low. Many City Council races sported even less.

Voters mark their ballots at Frank McCourt High School, in New York, Tuesday, June 22, 2021. (Richard Drew/AP)

The election calendar is partly to blame for this poor showing. New Yorks off-cycle local races, held on odd-numbered years in between those for federal and state elections, markedly depresses voter participation. This not only weakens the mandate that political leaders enjoy, but has been shown to reduce demographic and political representativeness.

Uncompetitive elections, especially for City Council, also discourage voters from bothering to turn up to the polls. Whoever wins the Democratic primary usually cruises to an easy win come November, as Democrats comprise about two-thirds of the local electorate. But why should a national party label be so decisive in city elections, especially when city governments responsibilities differ so markedly from those of the national sovereign?

The lack of meaningful partisan competition impedes political innovation and favors special interests, especially public-sector unions. Their members mobilize to elect pliant leaders who will acquiesce to generous pay and work rules during collective bargaining negotiations. New Yorkers as a whole lose, as those in power cater to the small minority of voters and interests that help them get elected, not the bulk of non-voting citizens.

Worse still, for nearly a century, scandals, debacles and chronic ineptitude have characterized the citys election administration body, the Board of Elections, a situation leading lawmakers have called a national embarrassment. Just in the past few weeks, 17,000 voter registration updates were sent to voters containing the wrong state Senate and congressional districts, and a board investigation uncovered a Manhattanite who ordered and received more than 100 absentee ballots in the names of prominent figures over the course of two years.

Administrative reform has proven elusive, given that county party leaders use the board as a vehicle for political patronage and nepotism. Where elections are close, competent election administration is especially paramount to secure the legitimacy and finality that democracy requires.

Weekdays

Catch up on the days top five stories every weekday afternoon.

Correcting these electoral woes would benefit New Yorkers of all parties and philosophies. Professional election administration, dynamic political competition and broad voter participation ought to be givens, not ideals.

Some straightforward fixes would have dramatic results. Mandatory qualifications for Board of Elections commissioners and staff and meaningful accountability mechanisms are long overdue. Syncing the local election cycle with that of federal and state races would not only likely double turnout, it would save the city millions, as local elections could piggyback on the federal funds used to hold congressional and presidential elections. Endorsements from the mayor and local organizations could be printed next to names on ballots, giving lesser-informed voters information to match their preferences with candidates values and policy positions.

More ambitious structural reforms would open up local elections to a richer array of candidates and parties. One option recently adopted in Alaska, final-five voting, would enable all registered voters to select candidates, regardless of party, in a qualifying round primary. The highest four or five vote-getters would then compete in a general election that uses ranked-choice voting to elect a single winner with a majority.

City Council races might alternatively eliminate primaries and adopt the multi-winner form of ranked-choice voting, called the single transferable vote (STV), to elect councilmembers from larger multimember districts. Smaller political groups could secure seats, resulting in proportional representation, or a Council reflective of voters overall preferences.

In fact, this innovation has precedent in New Yorks history. Between 1937 and 1947, elections for City Council used STV. Democrats retained a majority, but at least four parties were represented during this period of proportional representation, which also saw the election of the first Black councilmember, Adam Clayton Powell Jr., as well as the first woman, Genevieve Beavers Earle. Legislation passed routinely with broad majority support, even as raucous chamber debates between neighborhood politicos, avowed socialists, and conservative Republicans captivated the attention of more than 750,000 radio listeners.

Local elections can regain the importance and excitement that they deserve, but not without reform.

Ketcham is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Go here to read the rest:
Toward a more responsive NYC democracy New York Daily News - New York Daily News