Mediaboss Marketing

Russian President Vladimir Putin visits a factory on Thursday. Ramil Sitdikov/AP hide caption

Russian President Vladimir Putin visits a factory on Thursday.

Vladimir Putin's regime is "running out of fuel," and if the Russian president continues to burn through his reserves of oil and gas money, ordinary people will become a threat to his power, according to one outspoken activist.

Aleksei Miniailo is a Russian opposition activist based in Moscow who argues that Putin's grip on power is less steadfast than it seems.

In an article for Foreign Affairs in December headlined, "Don't Give Up on a Better Russia," Miniailo makes the case that there are groups in the country that want a more democratic future.

This week, in the wake of the death of prominent opposition leader Alexei Navalny, Miniailo tells All Things Considered host Mary Louise Kelly that democracy is still achievable for Russia, and that Putin's crackdown on dissent won't change that.

"As much as it is dramatic or even tragic, as in case with Alexei's assassination it is not unexpected, not something that turns the table," he said.

Flowers and candles are laid around a photo of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny in Italy. Andrew Medichini/AP hide caption

This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Mary Louise Kelly: What went through your mind when you heard the news of Navalny's death?

Aleksei Miniailo: I just couldn't believe it. I thought someone hacked the website of this penitentiary and just posted fake news.

It was pretty hard, actually, because Navalny is a very important symbolic figure. I mean, besides any human feelings about other human beings dying being murdered, actually Navalny is very important for many of us.

Kelly: So the title of this article that you've written is, "Don't Give Up on a Better Russia." Do you still feel that even after the events of last week, even after Navalny's death?

Miniailo: Yes, of course. As much as leaders are important, democracy depends on regular people, on ordinary people, not just on super big figures, on symbolic figures, and on leaders of political parties or of opposition.

If we would say that, "Navalny died, so now there will be no democracy in Russia," that means that all our job was futile, and all that Alexei did was futile. But it is not so. Because one thing that Alexei did very well, he introduced a lot of people into politics. And he, for a very long time, was not some sort of solitary figure, he raised a lot of prominent political figures.

And he was always empowering the audience. When we are talking about the chance that Russia might become democratic, such figures are very, very important. But ultimately, it all depends on the people.

Alexei Navalny, his wife Yulia, opposition politician Lyubov Sobol and other demonstrators march in memory of murdered Kremlin critic Boris Nemtsov in downtown Moscow in February 2020. Kirill Kudryavtsev/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

Alexei Navalny, his wife Yulia, opposition politician Lyubov Sobol and other demonstrators march in memory of murdered Kremlin critic Boris Nemtsov in downtown Moscow in February 2020.

Kelly: I will note you have spent time in prison. You've been arrested, you've been held for your opposition work. Obviously, that has not deterred you. You're still speaking out. How hard an argument is that to make today to other people in Russia, to hold strong, keep fighting?

Miniailo: It's not easy, but that's when the personal example works. He set a personal example that a person of liberal convictions, a person of oppositional convictions can risk his life, can put his freedom on the line, put his life on the line, to stand up for what he believes in, to stand up for a better Russia.

I'm not saying that everyone should do this, but definitely such examples are very important, because they empower us to become better versions of ourselves and ultimately to to do more for democratization of Russia.

Kelly: This past weekend saw hundreds of people in Russia arrested, detained for protesting or simply for coming out to mourn Navalny. This has prompted fears of perhaps an even more severe crackdown before presidential elections there in Russia next month. Does it cause you in any way to rethink your belief that a better Russia is possible?

Miniailo: This is all expected. Of course, it is hard. But we knew that such things would come to be, and that Putin will kill more of his opponents, that more repression will follow for some time before the regime weakens. It all happens. It all might happen further.

And maybe in a year when you reach out to talk with me about something else, you won't be able to, because I will be in prison or saw something else might happen. But that doesn't change the big situation, that the regime is running out of fuel. They don't have one thing that empires have, which is a civilizational vision of the future, how the society might work, how the society might improve the lives of the people within the empire.

So Putin has none of it. He has an imperial vision. He represents a small group of people stealing wealth from anyone else.

That is not something that can be supported by the wide audience indefinitely. And now he is running out of steam, for more than 20 years.

Police detain a man as he wanted to lay flowers for Alexei Navalny at a monument in St. Petersburg on Saturday. AP hide caption

Kelly: Explain that, when you say he's running out of steam.

Miniailo: For 20 years, he was stashing this surplus income from selling the gas and the oil it's called the fund of national wealth.

So for two years it was spending around $50-$60 billion from this fund. And if this continues to the end of this year, he will run out of these extra funds. So he will have a very hard time after that financing the war and financing his repressions, which he will, of course, continue at the expense of the people.

And the harsh truth is that most of Putin's reign, ordinary people were getting better and better lives because of this oil excess money. But for some time the economy is stagnating and the economy is not adapting. They are not fighting all these problems within the economy, they are just pouring money in there and solving the problems with excess money.

But when he runs out of money, you will have much harder time solving these problems, which will lead to more and more people being unhappy with their regime, and that will impose a more severe threat to his power than activists laying flowers to commemorate Navalny and Boris Nemtsov.

People light candles during a vigil for Navalny in front of the Russian Consulate General on February 16 in Munich, Germany. Johannes Simon/Getty Images hide caption

People light candles during a vigil for Navalny in front of the Russian Consulate General on February 16 in Munich, Germany.

Kelly: I want to ask about you. You are speaking to me from Moscow. You're speaking very critically of Vladimir Putin and his role. How dangerous is that?

Miniailo: I don't know. We'll see. I'm not saying everything I believe. I somehow censor myself, but every time I'm saying something, I'm thinking, "What will be the result? Will it change anything for the better?" And then somehow try to weigh the risks as well.

Go here to read the rest:
Putin's regime is 'running out of fuel,' a Russian opposition activist tells NPR - NPR

Lately, Ive been thinking a lot about our democracy.

Yes, I know its an election year, so paying attention to national, state and local issues is my job, and its what Im supposed to do. But this isnt the usual political punditry and somewhat informed speculation that I usually do; this has been a more philosophical look at our current political system, and it got me thinking: do we still deserve our democracy?

And yes, I know we are not a pure democracy but a constitutional republic, but work with me on this one, okay?

I asked the question primarily because of what's been going on as part of our national discussion. Whether it was the Jan. 6 insurrection on the Capitol where folks weren't happy with the election results and tried to overthrow the government. Yes, I went there.

And even before Jan. 6, and Donald Trump, for that matter, our politics were already becoming more polarized as the fringes from both the far left and far right dominate what attempts to pass for political discourse in this country. Not only do our national politicians spend an unnecessary amount of time kow-towing to these people, but the national media play a significant role in this as well.

As I jokingly say, there isn't one story so small regarding Donald Trump that MSNBC won't talk about it, nor is there one story so big about Trump that Fox News won't.

The end result, at the national level, is a lot of regular people get turned off and want nothing to do with our political system. As my lovely wife mentioned to me the other day, Why should people spend time paying attention to a system that they dont think listens to them, and if they did, it wouldnt matter because they would just give us lip service?

And it's more than just the national level.

The recent Indiana Supreme Court decision to stay a lower courts order regarding the constitutionality of a state ballot access law where candidates have to run in two consecutive primaries or get a letter from their county chairman to say they are in good standing, doesnt help in drawing more voters to the polls. In fact, its likely to have the opposite effect.

The court hasn't issued a decision yet, but the fact that as long as this rule stays in place, approximately 81% of Hoosiers could never run for public office as a Democrat or Republican because they don't vote in primaries. And I still maintain the state law is basically age discrimination because there is no way an 18-year-old could run for office, even though they may be statutorily qualified to do so, but because it was virtually impossible for them to run as a Democrat or Republican because they weren't old enough to vote. But at the same time, we complain about young people not getting involved in politics.

And dont even get me started on how expensive political campaigns have gotten that the only people who can afford to run these days are millionaires and billionaires.

As Benjamin Franklin stated in 1787 to Elizabeth Willing Powel's question: "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" Franklin responded, "A republic if you can keep it." It makes me wonder not so much if we can keep it, but do we want to?

Abdul-Hakim Shabazzis the editor and publisher ofIndy Politics. He is also a licensed attorney in both Indiana and Illinois.

See the article here:
Do we still deserve our democracy? | Commentary | thestatehousefile.com - The Statehouse File

The University of Houston-Downtown (UHD) is the second-largest university in Houston and has served the educational needs of the nations fourth-largest city since 1974. As one of four distinct public universities in the University of Houston System, UHD is a comprehensive, four-year university led by President Loren J. Blanchard. Annually, UHD educates approximately 14,000 students, boasts more than 66,000 alumni, and offers 45 bachelors degrees, 12 masters degrees, and 19 online programs within four colleges: Marilyn Davies College of Business, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, College of Public Service, and College of Sciences and Technology. UHD has one of the lowest tuition rates in Texas.

U.S. News and World Report ranked UHD among the nations Best Online Bachelors Programs for Applied Administration and Best Online Masters Programs in Criminal Justice, as well as a Top Performer in Social Mobility. The Wall Street Journal/College Pulse ranked UHD one of the best colleges in the U.S. for its 2024 rankings, with notable distinctions:No. 1 for diversity (tied) and No. 3 for student experience. The University is designated as a Hispanic-Serving Institution, a Minority-Serving Institution, and a Military Friendly School. For more information on the University of Houston-Downtown, visit uhd.edu.

Original post:
We the Texans: A Symposium on the State of Democracy - We the Texans: A Symposium on the State of Democracy - UHD News

During 2023, I laid out a plan for renovating American democracy. Our society groans under the strain of population growth and massively scaled-up institutions. Rising diversity brings magnificence but also challenges. We are frustrated by ever-increasing tech-induced opacity in our organizations and reigning practices. We resent an economy that appears to many of us to function like a spoils system for the few, while ruining the climate for all.

Our creaky institutions seem frozen in the face of these challenges. So, last year, I proposed a lot of big, institutional changes to unstick the gears. I expect they might feel overwhelming and out of reach. I suspect that many of you, reading my columns, have carried along the nagging question: This talk of big institutional change might be all well and good, but where in this grand scheme is the place for me?

We can make forceful arguments for all the structural solutions we want a bigger House of Representatives, abolishing party primaries, term limits for Supreme Court justices but there are still questions. How can any of us actually live out the spirit of democracy renovation? As we grimly stare at our upcoming presidential election, how can we keep a spark of hope alive? Can we even maintain our own immediate personal sense of connection to an ideal of constitutional democracy?

For me, the single bleakest data point about the health of our society concerns a difference across generations in that sense of attachment to democracy. As political scientists Yascha Mounk and Roberto Foa have reported in a few different guises, there has been significant generational decline in how people value democracy. In the starkest formulation, made in 2016, roughly 70 percent of Americans in the generation born before World War II consider it very essential, while not quite 30 percent of Americans who are now about 40 and younger do so. This finding occasioned controversy, but the points about decline of young peoples attachment to democracy are robust.

Of course, we cant have a democracy if citizens dont want one, which brings us to the fundamental point. We have to reverse this dynamic of disaffection.

The key lies in another important truth to be found in the data from Mounk and Foa. The high-water mark of the fullest attachment to our democracy was never about unanimity. The best we seem to have done was a supermajority over two-thirds of voters offering wholehearted support of constitutional democracy.

A supermajority for constitutional democracy. More than two-thirds of us committed to the basic norms and guardrails. That should be our goal.

Any supermajority at that scale is also going to be cross-ideological. But the real test of health for a democracy is not whether a large majority of us can agree on this or that policy, or this or that candidate, but whether it is possible to forge a cross-ideological supermajority in support of the core norms of constitutional democracy.

That is our single most important task, and every one of us can contribute simply by signing up.

What does that mean? It means to affirm a set of basic norms: a commitment to constitutionalism, rule of law, full inclusion, nonviolence and respect for elections. Too many of our fellow citizens have been radicalized to reject one or another of these norms, including through the efforts of adversaries such as Russia, Iran and China. These countries have tapped into the power of social media to exacerbate divisions, vulnerabilities and paranoias organic to our culture and have accelerated this process of radicalization. We need the assistance of all the nongovernmental organizations that have worked on deradicalization in conflict zones around the world to help us here at home with similar work.

But even that is not enough. Among those of us who have not been radicalized, on both sides of the aisle, there is also the work to do to forge that cross-ideological supermajority.

First of all, people have to believe such a supermajority is possible.

Happily, the evidence abounds, especially in the results of state ballot initiatives. These are decided with cross-ideological supermajorities or near supermajorities voting in favor with surprising frequency. Here are some examples: Legalization of recreational marijuana (2020): New Jersey, 67 percent; legalization of recreational marijuana (2022): Maryland, 67 percent; legalization of medical marijuana (2020): Mississippi, 74 percent; restoring voting rights to those who have completed felony conviction (2018): Florida, 65 percent; new state flag without Confederate emblems (2020): Mississippi, 71 percent; right to repair in support of small auto shops (2020): Massachusetts, 75 percent.

Look at these decisions and youll see American supermajorities voting over and over again for fairness, inclusion and the person getting the short end of the stick. This is not only a cross-ideological supermajority in the making; its one with good, salt-of-the-earth values.

This potential American supermajority for constitutional democracy is what we need to forge. No democracy can be stable without a supermajority supporting the basic rules of the game. Inside the bounds of those rules, we can fight like the dickens over specific policy questions. But the rules themselves require supermajority support for stability.

So thats it. Thats where each and every one of us comes in. We can join the cross-ideological supermajority for democracy that is coming into existence. Take a look at those core norms again: a commitment to constitutionalism, rule of law, full inclusion, nonviolence and respect for elections.

Can you commit to all of them? Are you willing to speak up in their defense when others express skepticism of them?

Even harder, are you willing to reach out to one of the friends, relations or acquaintances youve lost in recent years and ask them to join you in forging a cross-ideological coalition for democracy? Democrats, are you willing to stop hating Republicans? Republicans, are you willing to stop hating Democrats? This is what is asked of us, if we are to have the constitutional democracy we desire.

When I say things like this, people often tell me Im crazy that Im not seeing the realities of the fierce fight in which we find ourselves now.

Its not that I dont see the fighting. Its that I also see a deeper current below the surface. I see a people hungry to reconnect. Also, I am seeing people act on that hunger in positive ways all over this country. Those coalitions that formed to support the ballot initiatives I named above are just one example. So, in 2024, as we all navigate what appears to be a maddening presidential election year in the making, my goal for my column is to bring you one after another example of people who are working together across ideological divides to get something done for their community and for their country.

Because I want you to believe again that this is possible. Because this is what we need if we want to end the processes of radicalization that are devouring us.

Here is the original post:
Opinion | Will you join the supermajority for constitutional democracy? - The Washington Post

Indiana University South Bend is proud to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) non-partisan American Democracy Project by recommitting to the initiatives guiding principles of civic and democratic engagement.

IU South Bend is one of more than 250 campuses nationwide participating in this national initiative, which has equipped college students and the public with the knowledge and skills necessary to be informed and engaged citizens and to participate actively in representative democracy.

ADP works to:

We continue to lead by example and advocate for the kind of electoral engagement and civic mindedness the program embodies, said Elizabeth Bennion, IU South Bends ADP Director. From encouraging voting and promoting community dialogues to developing the civic skills that stimulate critical thinking and action, IU South Bend is committed to preparing our students to lead for future generations.

Relying on the work of student Democracy Fellows from diverse partisan and ideological backgrounds, the IU South Bend American Democracy Project partners with other campus and community organizations to promote civic and political engagement initiatives. The group welcomes involvement and ideas from community leaders, local political officials, and non-partisan civic organizations.

College and university leaders are committed to advancing thoughtful and constructive dialogue rather than polarized debate, said Cathy Copeland, American Democracy Project director.

ADP at IU South Bend hosts a wide range of voter education events including candidate debates and forums for local, state, and national offices. Candidates are also encouraged to participate in the ONLINE VOTER GUIDE (vote411.org) co-sponsored by the League of Women Voters of the South Bend Area.

Improving the lives of the people and economic vitality of Indiana and beyond through timely education, research, innovation, economic development, community service and engagement.

See our full 2030 plan here

Read more here:
Indiana University South Bend joins American Democracy Project in celebrating 20 years of advancing democratic ... - IU Newsroom