Mediaboss Marketing

Of course, the West loves to castigate this Asian giant for the mystery and secrecy surrounding membership of the Chinese Communist Party, which is true to a large extent. But the fact remains that more than any other political system in the world, advancement in the Chinese Communist Party is largely based on merit. Big money and corporate entities have limited influence, as opposed to what obtains in Western democracies.

Two years prior to the 1976 U.S. election, a Gallup poll listing 31 candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination did not include a little-known governor of Georgia named Jimmy Carter. Even a year later and after he emerged from a crowded race to win his partys primary election and later the presidential election, with a narrow margin, Mr Carters support among Democrats was still abysmally low. But Jimmy Carter was a better presidential candidate than he was a president, and Ronald Reagan defeated him in a landslide election on January 20, 1981, winning 489 out of the 538 electoral votes and ending Carterscolourlessone-term presidency. Thereafter, Democrats felt that something needed to change in the structure and process of the primaries from where their partys future presidential candidates would emerge, if only to avoid the chances of throwing up another Jimmy Carter.

According to a New York Times article in 1981, Governor James B. Hunt Jr. of North Carolina was asked to head a new 29-member amorphous Democratic rule-changing group. The group was made up of both the young upcomers and the experienced, and charged with the task of writing rules that will help us choose a nominee who can win and who, having won, can govern effectively. That was howsuper delegateswere invented in the Democratic Party.

A New York Times editorial describedsuper delegates as party bigwigs of 712 Democratic leaders, legislators, governors and the like. They can vote for any candidate at the nominating convention, regardless of whether that candidate won the popular vote. These unpledged delegates make up 30 percent of the 2,382 delegates whose votes are needed to win the nomination, and could thus make all the difference.What that means, simply put, is that the Democratic Party has an establishment structure in place that equates a single establishment vote with thousands of citizens votes.

The Republican Partys primary too is anything but perfect, especially with its winner-takes-all state primaries. That was how Donald Trump won about 60 per cent of Republican delegates, but only about 44 per cent of the votes. If the Republicans had allocated delegates in proportion to their vote, they would have had a contested convention and Trump would not have proceeded to become the 45th president of the United States.

The two examples above of how American presidential candidates emerged from both parties are far from democratic, yet they remain integral parts of the processes in the worlds most celebrated democracy. The West love to brag that they have patented a certain liberal democratic process that is best for the world. But is that a goal already achieved or it remains at best an aspiration?

Comparing and contrasting the American democratic system with the Chinese communist model, there are a couple of other interesting facts that could be jarring. For the U.S. Congress, the turnover rate in any given election is around ten per cent or even lessThe turnover rate of the Central Committee, on the other hand, is roughly about 62 per cent, on the average, every five years. With this, the Chinese communist system tends to achieve that which American democracy promises.

In China, the Politburo Standing Committee is the countrys real decision-making body. This is how the system works: In mid-October every five years, delegates of the Communist Party of China (CPC) from across the country meet at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. The party has about 2,300 delegates but this is sometimes less, since delegates could be disqualified for a wide range of reasons.

Those CPC delegates go on to elect the powerful Central Committee, which has about 200 members. This Committee in turn elects the Politburo, and from that the Politburo Standing Committee is chosen. The Politburo currently has 24 members, while the Politburo Standing Committee usually has about seven members, although these numbers have varied over the years. The Central Committee also elects the Partys top leader, the general secretary who becomes the countrys president. The announcement of Chinas new leaders takes place at Beijings Great Hall of the People. The 13th National Peoples Congress of the Peoples Republic of China was elected from October 2017 to February 2018 and will be in session in the five-year period of 2018 to 2023.

Of course, the West loves to castigate this Asian giant for the mystery and secrecy surrounding membership of the Chinese Communist Party, which is true to a large extent. But the fact remains that more than any other political system in the world, advancement in the Chinese Communist Party is largely based on merit. Big money and corporate entities have limited influence, as opposed to what obtains in Western democracies.

To getinto the party and state official system, you must pass Chinas civil service exam, which is administered to individuals, irrespective of their social standing. To serve the Chinese government, everyone has to pass a five-hour test. Topics that folks get tested on include advanced verbal skills, logic, maths and world knowledge.

For those who pass, promotion is then based on an elaborate ten-tier ranking system.

Comparing and contrasting the American democratic system with the Chinese communist model, there are a couple of other interesting facts that could be jarring. For the U.S. Congress, the turnover rate in any given election is around ten per cent or even less. One congressman got elected 30 times and spent 60 years in the House. These politicians become too powerful in the game and the only way to replace them is if they resign their positions voluntarily. The turnover rate of the Central Committee, on the other hand, is roughly about 62 per cent, on the average, every five years. With this, the Chinese communist system tends to achieve that which American democracy promises. The Chinese also have term limits, which help to ensure that new leaders emerge, mostly on the basis of performance, rather than privilege.

Before the West and the rest of the world start preaching to China about theneed to embrace liberal democracy, let us work on getting the system right. Democracy, for sure, remains the best idea of governance but the way it is currently being practiced, leaves much to be desired.

This piece was inspired by the Sunday, May 1 segment of 90minutesafrica. It is a new talk show hosted on Sundays across several social media platforms and anchored by two of my friends, who are veteran journalists, Dr Chido Onuma and Mr Rudolf Okonkwo. In the audience in that particular episode were Nigerian media deities likes Azu Ishiekwene, Kadaria Ahmed and Simon Kolawole.

I was particularly struck by Kadarias narration of how her effort to shed a little light on the conduct of Nigerias hitherto opaque party primaries and infuse a more robust participation therein was rebuffed by the leadership of the two major political parties. As far as these parties are concerned, the methods of choosing who flies their flags in an election remain an internal affair that should not be subjected to the intrusive eyes of media practitioners and non-party members. Yet, Nigerians are expected to choose from the few who emerge through this less-than-ideal process, who ultimately will hold the key to their future.

Political parties have become all too powerful in most liberal democracies of the world, even when nowhere in the constitutions of many nations is this tremendous amount of power exercised even remotely alluded to. The party nominating process truncates democracy since it offers few of the protections associated with the grand idea of one man, one vote. In the United States of America, voters in early caucus states like Iowa and New Hampshire have far more influence than voters in later ones, even when they constitute less than one per cent of registered voters nationwide. In Nigeria, the delegate selection process cuts the voter out entirely. This is why during most presidential elections, voters are forced to choose between two terrible candidates.

In a recent article titled, Nigerias party-political season of philanthropyprimaries,the former chairman of Nigerias Human Rights Commission and now a professor in Human Rights Law at Tuft University, Chidi Odinkalu wrote:Political parties are supposed to chaperone competition for access to the mandate to superintend the public good. In Nigeria instead right now, they are to conduct auctions to buy and sell the country. I cant agree more, though this aberration is not unique to Nigeria. As it is in Nigeria, so is in America, though less crude and in your face.

Before the West and the rest of the world start preaching to China about theneed to embrace liberal democracy, let us work on getting the system right. Democracy, for sure, remains the best idea of governance but the way it is currently being practiced, leaves much to be desired.

Osmund Agbo, a public affairs analyst is the coordinator of African Center for Transparency and Convener of Save Nigeria Project.Email:Eagleosmund@yahoo.com

Donate

TEXT AD: To place an advert here . Call Willie - +2348098788999

Follow this link:
Party primaries: If democracy is the goal, then the Chinese might be closer, By Osmund Agbo - Premium Times

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

During MSNBCs "The ReidOut" Friday night, Democratic pollster and strategist Fernand Amandi urged Democratic voters to understand that if Roe v Wadeis dismantled later this year, "theocracy" is on the ballot in the upcoming midterm elections.

"The ReidOut" substitute host Jason Johnson began the segment by prompting Amandi on whether the leak of the Supreme Court draft opinion portending the end of Roe v Wadewould help Democrats in the polls.

"Where do we need to look,because theres just polling out now,thats just broke this week, where would we need tolook in polling across thecountry to think or to realizethat that ruling is actuallygonna help Democrats? Or doesit not really end up having thatmuch of an impact on criticalSenate races in Wisconsin andFlorida and Pennsylvania?" he asked.

"We in the research communityare all looking at the genericcongressional ballot, andobviously the state horse races where theSenate races are taking place,but in the generic congressional,which right now is not lookinggreat for the Democrats," Amandi continued.

ELIZABETH WARREN EXPLODES ON 'THE VIEW,' CLAIMS POLICE COULD INVESTIGATE MISCARRIAGES IF ROE OVERTURNED

Demonstrators protest outside of the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday, May 4, 2022, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

"If we see movement there andsignificant movement, Im talking three, four, fivepoints, that will start toindicate they may haveoverstepped their boundaries," he added, speaking of potential polling in the wake of the leak.

Moving on from the polls, Amandi then urged voters to wake up to the stakes of the upcoming midterm elections, especially considering the potential end of Roe v Wade.

"But Jason, let me tell you and America one of the greatconcerns about this revelationthis week.For 50 years, since Roe v Wade wasmade law, theyve been workingfor this moment to undo this," he said.

He continued, "But at the same time for 50 years,they have been warned, if youdo this step you will incitethe women of the United States to come after you en masse andyou will never hold office again."

Voting booths (iStock) (iStock)

REPS DEAN, SWALWELL WARN WHAT ROE OVERTURN COULD MEAN FOR INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE

Amandi then gave his stark warning. "And that is why right now, it isso fundamentally important,democracy is no longer on theballot anymore for 2022. Itsnow theocracy thats also onthe ballot."

The pollster then sounded the alarm about what would happen to Americans if Republicans made gains in Congress in the upcoming elections.

"If they win the majority ofany control of Congress, anyhouse of Congress, they aregoing to use that as a mandate tosay all of the protections thathave happened the last 50 years,weve been now told by theAmerican people, you can undothose," Amandi declared.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Maria Pea holds a rosary and sign out outside a building housing an abortion provider in Dallas, Thursday, Oct. 7, 2021. (AP Photo/LM Otero) (AP Photo/LM Otero)

Link:
Democratic pollster: Potential overturn of Roe v Wade means that 'theocracy' is 'also on the ballot' - Fox News

The riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, is often cited as one of the lowest points for democracy in U.S. history. (Getty Images)

To the editor: Nicholas Goldberg bemoans the challenges facing democracies and cites a few examples of our nation's inability to tackle big things, including the Jan. 6 insurrection, legislative paralysis in Washington and the U.S. response to climate change.

Democracy is not to blame in any of these cases. Republicans are.

The former president, a Republican, drew throngs of followers to Washington on Jan. 6, and he whipped them into a frenzy and almost subverted the peaceful transfer of power.

Were just a dozen Senate Republicans to support climate legislation, President Biden's Build Back Better bill, which he calls "the largest effort to combat climate change in American history," would likely pass. But not one does.

As to legislative paralysis, the Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, famously said a year ago, "One-hundred percent of our focus is on stopping this new administration."

I'm disappointed Goldberg didnt identify the threat by name, suggesting our woes are a systemic problem. Yes, two Democratic senators held up passage of voting rights legislation, but it must be noted that not a single Republican supported that bill.

The country is polarized, and money in politics is a huge problem. But if democracy is threatened in the United States, the blame must be fixed squarely on Republicans.

Mike Diehl, Glendale

..

To the editor: Goldberg's assessment is very depressing, but it's also spot on. He's so right about the fundamental flaws in our system, such as the makeup of the Senate and the electoral college.

But what can be done in the way of remedies? It's those very flaws that keep allowing the Republicans to control the rules, precluding any prospect for change.

Zena Thorpe, Chatsworth

..

To the editor: Goldberg's column is both interesting and frightening.

Countries in Northern Europe have achieved a better form of democracy, while our political system is failing. The blame falls on big business corruption, absence of term limits and a very antiquated Constitution.

Story continues

My solution would be a system of "benevolent dictatorship" benevolent in that people's needs would be provided for, freedom of expression would be allowed and there would be equality of opportunity; and a dictatorship in the sense that things would get done.

Alas, this is exceptionally rare in history. Even in some cases when a dictator starts out as benevolent, they end up corrupt. So we will keep on struggling with no imminent solution.

Aavo Koort, Santa Barbara

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

Go here to read the rest:
Letters to the Editor: Democracy is declining only because the GOP is killing it - Yahoo News

The United States has made many contributions to the world in science, technology, medicine and the arts. Weveexported the key ideasthat serve as the framework of self-government and personal freedom around the world.

By my reckoning, however, the greatest contribution of the United States to the world is the idea oflegitimate opposition. Put simply, this idea holds that people can be loyal to their nation but opposed to the sitting government. It at once legitimizes, normalizes, and institutionalizes political opposition. In too many parts of the world, this idea has yet to take root.

All over the world, billions of people live in nations where those who organize against the government are treated like traitors. The first order of business for any authoritarian nation is to arrest or kill the political opposition.

According to a 2021 report from theInternational Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance:

Democracy is at risk. Its survival is endangered by a perfect storm of threats, both from within and from a rising tide of authoritarianism. The Global State of Democracy 2021 shows that more countries than ever are suffering from democratic erosion (decline in democratic quality), including in established democracies. The number of countries undergoing democratic backsliding (a more severe and deliberate kind of democratic erosion) has never been as high as in the last decade, and includes regional geopolitical and economic powers such as Brazil, India and the United States. More than a quarter of the worlds population now live in democratically backsliding countries. Together with those living in outright non-democratic regimes, they make up more than two-thirds of the worlds population.

In the United States, it has long been considered normal that there will be a formal, organized, regularized, and institutionally recognized attempt to unseat every elected official at every scheduled opportunity. This competitive system of party politics, however flawed, sits at the foundation of our democracy. The idea of a legitimate opposition at its core is the belief that our differences on policies no matter how profound do not make us enemies.

Until very recently, politicians and parties of every stripe understood that if they lost an election, they would accept the results, dust themselves off, and try to win the next one. Sure, there might be court challenges, but until 2020, never had a major presidential candidate refused to accept the results of an election or thrown into doubt the legitimacy of an elected president (and this includes some pretty suspicious elections, 1876, 1960, 2000). Indeed, even the white men who seceded from the Union to form the Confederacy in 1860-61, never questioned the legitimacy of Abraham Lincolns election.

Many years ago, I was made to read Richard Hofstadters, The Idea of a Party System. Hofstadter charted the painful embrace of political opposition from the long-held view of something to be avoided (faction) to an essential element of democratic politics. His focus was the election of 1800,a bitterly contested battlebetween the Federalist President John Adams and his Republican opponent Thomas Jefferson. Jeffersons victory marked the first peaceful, democratic change of government in the modern era.

In 1801, in his inaugural address, Jeffersons main theme was that the strength of our democracy was in our common allegiance to the principles of self-government. Famously,Jefferson wrote, every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists.

Three score years later, in 1861,Abraham Lincoln, in his First Inaugural, tried to save the Union by appealing to that same ideal, We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

And two and a half years later, in the midst of the bloody Civil War, he concluded hisGettysburg Addressby echoing Jefferson: that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Two hundred and four years after Jeffersons First Inaugural, a young state senator from Illinois delivered the Keynote Address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.Barack Obama, channeling both Jefferson and Lincoln stressed the idea of the legitimate opposition. Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes, he said. Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America; there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America; theres the United States of America.

And very recently, asYahoo Newsreported, former Republican presidential candidateSenator Mitt Romney saida chart in his Senate office traces the history of civilizations over the past 4,000 years. From the Mongol Empire to the Roman Empire, Romney said, autocracy is the charts default setting, with authoritarian leaders at every turn. What has kept us from falling in with the same kind of authoritarian leader as Vladimir Putin are the strengths of our institutions, the rule of law, our courts, Congress, and so forth, Romney said.

In contrast to these examples of appealing to our better angels, there are among us today ordinary citizens and high-ranking leaders who are working to discredit and forcibly overturn our democracy.

In Washington, the January 6thSelect Committee has uncoveredsubstantial evidenceof illegal activity and unethical practices designed to overturn the presidential election of 2020. Starting with a campaign of disinformation over several months about election fraud and culminating with aplanned violent actionto halt the counting of Electoral College votes on January 6, 2021.A poll from February 2021found that, most Democrats say that they tend to view Republicans as political opponents. Most Republicans say that they tend to view Democrats as enemies.

A functioning democracy requires many things. It requires the tireless and hard work of the citizenry to become educated about public affairs and to hold elected and party leaders accountable. And we need to recognize that American democracy is an unfinished project. If the arc of the moral universe is bending toward justice, it is only because there are plenty of people pushing it in that direction.

Above all, democracy requires that citizens see one another as part of the same democratic project, and not as enemies. It demands that we value self-government more than a particular candidate or policy. That we accept the results of elections and, if we lose, we try to win the next one. And in the interim, we must believe that our political opponents are as loyal to the nation as we are. If fail to embrace the idea of the legitimate opposition, we will have lost our democracy.

Reprinted from History News Network with permission from the author. This column was originally published in the Minnesota Reformer.

Read more from the original source:
The loyal opposition is a key element of democracy, and we're losing it - Nevada Current

Large crowd of presidential candidate Eric Zemmours supporters Spech/Shutterstock

In Sundays first round presidential race, even though the ultimate result is to set up a repeat of the 2017 runoff between the incumbent Emmanuel Macron and the xenophobic candidate Marine Le Pen, there were two enormous surprises. The first was the utter humiliation of the two political groupings that traded turns at running the country for the past 70 years. Valrie Pcresse, the candidate of the Republican party (the establishment right), ended up with 4.7% of the vote. The Socialists, heirs to the Mitterrand legacy and the last of the dominant parties to hold the office, didnt even reach 2% (they got 1.75% of the vote), less than the communist candidate who got just over 2%.

The second surprise was the strong showing of Jean-Luc Mlenchon, a non-establishment leftist, who, it now transpires, would have overtaken Le Pen had any of the other candidates dropped out to line up behind him. Its a moral victory of sorts for voters on the left, who have now been excluded from the final round of the two most recent presidential elections. The compensation is that, with legislative elections looming in the immediate aftermath of the April 24th presidential face-off, it will inevitably lead to some kind of intriguing regrouping or redefinition.

In its reporting on the election, The New York Times focused on the one issue that is of most interest to its American readers: the impact on what it calls the Western unity US President Joe Biden has so solidly engineered in his response to Russias invasion of Ukraine. The Times foreign editor, Roger Cohen expresses the fear that, in the event of an ultimate Le Pen victory France will become anti-NATO and more pro-Russia. He adds that this would cause deep concern in allied capitals, and could fracture the united trans-Atlantic response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In other words, make no mistake about it, The New York Times is rooting for Macron.

Todays Weekly Devils Dictionary definition:

Opposed to the ideal the United States government imagines for Europe, defining it as a continent composed of free, enlightened democracies irremediably dependent both economically and militarily on the benevolent leadership of a powerful American Deep State and the sincere brotherly love offered by the American military-industrial complex.

The Times may have reason to worry. While the odds still favor Macron, Le Pen could possibly duplicate Donald Trumps incredible overcoming of the odds in 2016 when he won the US presidency, and largely for the same reasons. Macron has been a contested leader, branded by opponents on the left and right as the president of the rich. Hillary Clinton similarly suffered from her image of being a tool of her Wall Street donors. There comes a point in every nations life when the people seem ready to take a chance with what appears to reasonable people as a bad bet.

Perhaps that time has come for France. Its electors exercised what they call republican discipline against far-right politicians when Jacques Chirac defeated Le Pens father, Jean-Marie, in 2002. He harvested 82% of the vote to Le Pens 18%. In 2017, though Macron was still an unknown entity with no serious support from either of the major political groupings, the young man easily defeated the far-right candidate with 64% of the vote to Le Pens 36%.

Prognosticating statisticians might simply follow the curve and assume that the downward slope will lead this time to a 50-50 election. They may be right. But the reason lies less in an arithmetical trend than in the growth of a largely non-partisan populist revolt directed against what is perceived to be an occult power establishment comprised of powerful industrialists, bankers, unrepresentative parties, corrupt politicians and a political class marked by an attitude of subservience to the American empire. Macron, the former Rothschild banker, has himself tried to burnish his image as a neutral, pan-European visionary who seeks to break free from the chokehold held by the power brokers of Washington DC, Arlington, Virginia and Wall Street. His attempts to negotiate with Vladimir Putin before and after the Russian invasion were undoubtedly designed to bolster that image.

The explanation everyone likes to give for Marine Le Pens success in distancing her rivals including fellow xenophobe, Eric Zemmour is her focus on inflation. James Carville may be applauding from afar. It is, after all the economy, stupid. The issue has been there throughout Macrons term. It was the COVID lockdown and not Macrons policies that cut short the dramatic yellow vest movement that was still smoldering when the pandemic struck. The French have not forgotten their own need for economic survival while living in a society in which the rich keep getting richer. Voters remember Macrons joyous elimination of the wealth tax and the alacrity with which he announced higher gas taxes would fill the gap.

A musician I work with regularly told me recently: Im not voting in the first round, but Ill vote against Macron in the second round. In other words, of the possible rivals in the second round Le Pen (far right), Mlenchon (progressive left), some even predicted Valrie Pcresse (right) he would have voted for any one of them, just to eliminate Macron. I dont believe hes a racist, but he is now ready to be voting for a woman who has put xenophobia at the core of her political program.

If we tally up the scores of the candidates who are clearly anti-NATO without including Macron who keeps his distance but adheres to the US alliance in the current campaign against Russia the total climbs towards 60%. Historically, France is the only European country to have declared independence from NATO, when De Gaulle withdrew from NATOs military structure and banished all NATO installations from the nations territory in 1966.

Roger Cohens and The Times concern may be justified, even if Macron wins the election. Even more so if the results are close. Very few commentators, even here in France, have begun trying to tease out whats likely to emerge from Junes legislative elections. With the two traditional establishment parties on the ropes and utterly leaderless, is there any chance that a reassuringly coherent order dear to establishment politicians might reappear? Even if Macron wins, he never really managed to assemble a stable majority in his first term. The real questions now are these: among the defeated, who will talk to whom? And who will even grudgingly accept to defer to whose leadership? If Le Pen wins, it is unlikely she will be able to muster anything resembling a loyal majority. It is often said that the French voters heart is on the left, but their vote is on the right. With a president so far to the right, the voters wont deliver a presidential majority in parliament, as they have so often done in the past.

Like the US and the UK, Frances democratic institutions have become profoundly dysfunctional. In no way does the political class even attempt to implement the will of the people. The globalized economy, with its arcane networks of power, had already diminished the meaning of democracy. The US is now consciously splitting in two that same globalized economy through its campaign of sanctions against Russia, possibly as a broader strategic move designed to create a degree of chaos that will ultimately embarrass its real enemy, China.

That radical split points in one direction: militarizing even further an economy already dominated by military technology. And as we have seen, a militarized economy means an increasingly militarized society, in which surveillance, propaganda, control and enforced conformity in the name of security cancel any appeal not just to the will, but even to the needs of the people.

It is a real pity that Jean-Luc Mlenchon didnt make it to the second round, if only to enrich a largely impoverished debate. Independently of any of his political orientations concerning the economy or foreign policy, the leader of his party, La France Insoumise (France Unbowed), was already insisting in the previous election five years ago that the nation needed to replace with a 6th Republic an out-of-date 5th Republic created in 1958 by Charles de Gaulle. Mlenchons idea of a 6th Republic contained less presidential power and weaker parties, meaning better access for the people.

A lot of water has flowed under the Pont Neuf since 1958, and neither of the candidates appears interested in reducing presidential powers. But the result of this election demonstrates clearly that both presidential power and the ability of parties to give direction to the politics of the nation have become non-existent as tools of democratic government. The results show that they have reached a point of no return. No one should be surprised to see at some point in time after the legislative elections France being rocked by a constitutional crisis on the scale of the one Pakistan lived through this past week. At which point, a 6th Republic may emerge from the ashes, Phoenix-like, but with more than a few burnt feathers.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devils Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Fair Observer Devils Dictionary.]

The views expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observers editorial policy.

For more than 10 years, Fair Observer has been free, fair and independent. No billionaire owns us, no advertisers control us. We are a reader-supported nonprofit. Unlike many other publications, we keep our content free for readers regardless of where they live or whether they can afford to pay. We have no paywalls and no ads.

In the post-truth era of fake news, echo chambers and filter bubbles, we publish a plurality of perspectives from around the world. Anyone can publish with us, but everyone goes through a rigorous editorial process. So, you get fact-checked, well-reasoned content instead of noise.

We publish 2,500+ voices from 90+ countries. We also conduct education and training programs on subjects ranging from digital media and journalism to writing and critical thinking. This doesnt come cheap. Servers, editors, trainers and web developers cost money. Please consider supporting us on a regular basis as a recurring donor or a sustaining member.

{{policy}}

{{dismiss}}

{{deny}}{{allow}}

{{deny}}{{allow}}

' + o + "

Fair Observer All rights reserved

Visit link:
Democracy and Frances Theater of the Absurd - Fair Observer