Mediaboss Marketing

What should we make of the recent unusually turbulent weeks in British politics? The picture is not just one of a prime minister under siege and political manoeuvrings. The unusual occurrence is that the prime ministers behaviour has raised fundamental uncertainties about the United Kingdoms constitution and democracy whether it is fit for purpose, and whether it can withstand the turbulence.

The first ripples of constitutional disquiet had started almost as soon as Boris Johnson came to power in 2019, with concerns over his personal honesty, breaches of the ministerial code that is meant to govern the conduct of government ministers and a number of actions that skirted the borders of constitutional acceptability. This was compounded by attacks from his allies on the informal checks and balances in the political system, such as independence of the judiciary and the media, along with threats to breach international law in the tussle over Brexit. Already, by 2021, the Johnson government had forged a reputation of being willing to break rules and conventions.

Over time, those ripples of concern have mounted into a tsunami, with proven corruption, gross breaches of integrity, lying, multiple further allegations of cronyism and corruption around COVID procurement, and a host of other misdemeanours, each of which in normal times might have caused a resignation. The government, and all public servants, adhere to a voluntary code of standards called the Nolan Principles, with an expectation that any significant breaches would be resolved by a removal from office. It has its roots in a longstanding system that now looks glaringly old-fashioned.

As a backlash finally mounted, a senior civil servant, Sue Gray, was directed by the prime minister to conduct an internal investigation. This was to be specifically into the well-evidenced allegations that he had on several occasions broken the COVID lockdown rules to attend parties, despite regularly appearing on television telling the rest of the country to follow those same rules.

With new revelations breaking almost every day, pressure increased for Johnson to resign, but many of the parliamentarians who have the power to remove him as prime minister declared they were waiting for the Sue Gray report before making a judgement as to his fitness for office. The constitution would require parliamentarians to take action, as the report itself is delivered to the prime minister, who judges himself whether he is guilty of any wrongdoing, and then decides whether there should be any penalty placed on himself.

On the eve of the report being delivered, there was further drama: Gray had uncovered evidence of lockdown law-breaking that merited bringing in the Metropolitan Police who, until then, had steadfastly refused to investigate the stories and photographs circulating in the media.

It is a heady mixture of wrongdoing, cover-up and lies, that has dragged the civil service and the police into the arena of political debate. What once looked to be a robust democracy now looks surprisingly vulnerable to a populist who can exploit the constitutional loopholes, downgrade the checks and balances, and co-opt the police.

One of the lessons the world has learned over the past 20 years is that liberal democracies are surprisingly fragile. They may be less likely to descend into armed civil war than those traditionally considered to be fragile states, but they can slip easily into illiberal democracy, especially when mistrust in the incumbent political establishment opens the door to the election of populists. Hungary and India, to name but a few, have embarked on this path. Others, like South Africa, went further, into the territory of state capture.

By and large, liberal democracies rely on trust and consensus promoted by free speech and free assembly, rather than the exercise of a state power supported by a strong internal security and intelligence apparatus. This has been well-demonstrated in the COVID pandemic, during which public health has relied on citizens supporting lockdowns, wearing masks and getting vaccinated. A loss of trust means either that significant parts of the population will not do what the government wants as happened in the United States during the pandemic or the state must use its power to impose the will of the government as in Hong Kong.

Western liberal democracies, chastened by their experiences in the Middle East, have retreated from evangelising about how their own model of political economy can be adopted elsewhere. Furthermore, the experiences of the UK under Johnson, like the US under Donald Trump, show that the challenge has become one of preserving democracy at home rather than spreading it abroad. Levels of trust by the voters in British politicians are already low, and that to some extent explains the anti-establishment vote for Brexit and the subsequent election of Johnson. But, like so many populists, the breaches of standards and integrity that Johnson has come to symbolise have caused further disillusionment.

This is the context in which to read the UKs political turmoil over recent weeks. What is at stake is not the end of democracy, but a decline into semi-democracy as Johnson clings to power, or is replaced by someone who takes his assault on the constitution a stage or two further. That would not just be bad for the UK; it would signify to the world at large that there is nothing very secure about liberal democracies and that they can all too easily be compromised or captured.

The Johnson government has been untypical of modern British governments. Without yet being systemically corrupt, there has been more corruption and corruption risk in and around this government than any British government since at least the second world war. But being still a democracy, not all the power, and therefore the scope to abuse the power, lies with Johnson.

There is still a pathway in which the Sue Gray report is published and condemns the prime minister; there is an impartial investigation by the police; and Johnson is removed, to be replaced by someone who moves quickly to prioritise issues of integrity, closing the loopholes in standards and the constitution and rebuilding public trust. For all his misdemeanours, there is no reason to expect that a defeated Johnson would pursue a scorched earth policy like Trump, rallying hardline supporters to assault democracy.

But it could go the other way: there is also a pathway in which Johnson remains, or is replaced by someone who takes the same approach, but is more efficient at it. Britain stands on the edge; not too late to pull back, but all too easy to teeter forward. Watch this space.

The views expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeeras editorial stance.

Read the original here:
British democracy is on the edge - Al Jazeera English

With every passing year, the looming threat of climate change becomes more real, its impacts not distant and uncertain but present and unescapable. Early manifestations droughts and dislocations, floods and hurricanes, wildfires and heatwaves are mere harbingers of what is to come if humanity fails to act. It takes some effort not to see where we are heading.

We know all this and yet we do not act with anything like the urgency the moment demands.

Some have begun to question whether the worlds democracies are up to the task. Certainly, even a casual look at U.S. politics suggests that this is a reasonable question. The essential characteristics of climate change are daunting. Its global scope requires international cooperation, the long lag before its full effects are evident requires foresight, and the wrenching changes required both to minimize it and to cope with its impacts require hard tradeoffs. Climate change is a wicked problem for all governments, but perhaps even more so for democracies, which must persuade their publics to make sacrifices for the global good and for future generations, and to make painful choices quickly.

Climate change may be democracys greatest test, and it is struggling to meet it.

Yet it is not only the limitations of democracy to confront climate change that should worry us, but also the perilous threat that climate change poses to democracy.

The pathways through which climate change threatens democracy are numerous, as a recent report persuasively summarizes.

Two impacts of climate change are particularly dangerous.

First, climate change exacerbates economic inequality, as those with greater means are better able to adapt to its impacts than those of lesser means. And perhaps nothing is more destabilizing in a democracy than extreme economic inequality. Throughout history, inequality has undermined political legitimacy, making societies ripe for revolutionaries and demagogues alike.

Second, climate change increases migration, as extreme weather, increased flooding, drought, and wildfires make life less tenable in many places. Like inequality, rapid migration is deeply destabilizing, both in the country of departure and in recipient countries, often feeding the xenophobia and intense nationalism that undermine democracy, as we are seeing in Europe and the United States.

In some quarters, there is whispering that perhaps we need less democracy to save the planet, that maybe the China model is better than the American. The Chinese, of course, trumpet it. But there is little reason to believe that autocratic governments will do better, and many reasons to believe that they will do far worse. In this, as in so many matters, democracy is the worst form of government, excepting all others.

The only path forward is to repair our existing democratic institutions and build new ones better suited to the task at hand. The conundrum is that while we need effective democratic governance to mitigate and adapt to climate change, climate change is making democracies increasingly dysfunctional.

Thats why climate and democracy is a major focus of the upcoming Denver Democracy Summit, a non-partisan gathering of the experts, leaders, and policymakers from around the world hosted by the Josef Korbel School of International Studies.Our goal is not just to sound the alarm, but to catalyze action. The question, then, is what is to be done?

Of course, we need to do everything possible to shore up democratic governance (as if we needed more reasons to do so!). Combating misinformation, restoring trust in public institutions, creating more inclusive processes, and protecting basic civil and human rights are all vital in their own right, but crucial if we are to address climate change.

But as we seek to make progress on the broad challenges to democracy, we should also focus particular attention on limiting the impact of the biggest climate-driven contributors to democratic decline.

First, we need to do all we can to limit the inequitable impacts of climate change, in the United States and around the world. In the U.S. that means much more aggressive funding targeted at those least able to adapt to what is coming including funding for relocating from low-lying areas, for transforming farming practices, for health care needs associated with higher heat, and much more. At the global level, we need much greater investment by wealthy nations in the poorer, for many of the same reasons.

Second, we need to focus on climate migration. Not hardening borders, but addressing root causes like providing assistance to enable farmers to adapt their practices, making more efficient use of scarce freshwater resources, creating greater economic opportunity in poorer regions of the world, and more.

Without climate justice, democracy will fail.

Frederick Fritz Mayer is dean of the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver.

See the article here:
As the need to act on climate is more apparent, are the world's democracies up to the task? | TheHill - The Hill

Angolas Catholic Bishops say the country could use this years elections to boost the countrys fledgling democracy. The Bishops also urge the government to urgently address issues of poverty.

Paul Samasumo - Vatican City.

The Bishops said all eligible voters must register and renew their cards in readiness for the August elections.

In a report released by the Catholic-owned Radio Ecclesia, Archbishop Jos Manuel Imbamba, President of the Bishops Conference of Angola and So Tom (CEAST), said the August general elections could be a watershed moment for the country to make a democratic leap forward.

A strengthened democracy, by its nature, contributes to the affirmation of human dignity, the strengthening of justice, peace and well-being among citizens, said the CEAST President.

Archbishop Imbamba, the Ordinary of the Archdiocese of Saurimo, spoke from the Diocese of Benguela, where the Bishops are meeting in a CEAST plenary assembly.

The city of Benguela, situated in the western part of Angola, is one of the most populous towns.

The ruling party, MPLA has been in power since 1975. President Joo Loureno was first elected in 2017 after serving as Defence minister under president Jos Eduardo dos Santos. The ruling party recently confirmed President Lourenos bid for a second mandate.

Angola is yet to fully recover from a brutal civil war that started in 1975 and only ended in 2002. The war began after Angola became independent from Portugal in November 1975. The two former anti-colonial movements, MPLA and UNITA, engaged in a protracted power struggle that led to devastation. About 500 000 people died in the war. Many roads, bridges, and buildings were damaged.

Currently, the opposition holds about a third of the seats in the National Assembly. In 2017, the opposition complained of widespread irregularities in elections won by MPLA.

It remains to be seen how the National Electoral Commission (CNE) will demonstrate its independence. It is composed in proportion to party representation in parliament. Another concern is Angolas decision to count votes from a central place and not at local polling stations as is the norm.

Angolas oil-driven economy has remained stagnant for six years despite being a major oil producer. The cost of living has been on the increase, and in their statement this week, the Bishops noted that unemployment and the poverty situation in Angola are issues that need to be addressed urgently.

Economists also say Angola has a huge international debt, most of it owed to China.

Continue reading here:
Catholic Bishops in Angola call for the consolidation of democracy. - Vatican News

ROME One year after a military coup overthrew Myanmars democratic leadership, the nations outspoken top Catholic prelate has called for dialogue and an end to violence but cast doubt on the future of democracy in the Southeast Asian country.

Speaking to Crux, Cardinal Charles Maung Bo of Yangon said the armed conflict that has bloodied Myanmar for the past year has brought our country to its knees.

On Feb. 1 last year Myanmars armed forces, the Tatmadaw, led a coup overthrowing the elected government of Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, 76, the countrys democratic leader, on charges of election fraud.

Aung San Suu Kyi who was put on trial and sentenced to six years in prison for incitement against the military, breaching coronavirus restrictions, and breaking a telecommunications law faces a swath of other charges, including corruption and bribery, that could land her 150 years in prison.

In the wake of last years coup, Peoples Defense Forces (PDF) resisting military control have sprung up across the country and have clashed with government forces in a conflict that has turned into a bloody standoff with both sides refusing to back down.

According to the United Nations human rights office, at least 1,500 people are known to have been killed so far in the armed resistance, with potentially thousands more killed in armed conflict that are still unaccounted for. At least 11,787 have been unlawfully detained, with some 8,792 remaining in custody.

In his comments to Crux, Bo said he is encouraging both sides to dialogue, but now there is painful distaste for talks and the military and resistance forces are in a stalemate.

In terms of democracys future in Myanmar, Bo said the military has promised a disciplined democracy, which clearly implies certain restrictions.

There are no reasons for optimism in Myanmar at present. But hope is another matter, he said, adding, Democracy is the undying fire in the hearts of the people. No stakeholder in Myanmar can run this nation for long if they deny that.

Bo also reflected on the role of young people in the resistance, the advocacy of Pope Francis for peace in the country, and the role of the Church as bloodshed continues.

Please read below for Cruxs full interview with Cardinal Charles Bo:

Crux: Its been one year since the military coup began. Since then, the situation has quickly deteriorated. Did you expect the situation would become so violent and so drastic?

Bo: As the date approached for swearing in the newly elected government there were rumours. At Christmas I normally invited both the democratic leader and the Commander in Chief for a cordial meeting. For Christmas 2020, only the Commander in Chief came. I was deeply disappointed that I could not bring them together.

The peoples reaction to the February 1 action of the military was massive. In the beginning it was non-violent. I always feared that bloodshed would ensue. Sadly, it happened. Brutal violence took over. As I said in the post-Christmas message, the whole Myanmar is now a war zone. Embittered youth seek solutions through armed response. The army is historically known for a no mercy approach. We have buried more than a thousand people in this war of no victory. We need to arrest this deadly spiral. As of now, we agree with your assessment: Yes, it is violent and drastic.

The reason given for the coup was related to allegations of election fraud. Do you think the military is open to holding new democratic elections if Aung San Suu Kyi is not among the candidates, or is this a complete regression to previous times? In other words, is democracy completely lost in Myanmar, or do you think there is still hope?

I am a firm believer in dialogue. Did we need such response to allegations of election fraud? Problems created by human beings can only be solved by human beings, not by guns. So much violence and so much blood letting could have been avoided through dialogue. Sadly, it is not happening.

About future elections: At first the Commander in Chief promised elections within a year. Then it was extended to 2023. But they promise disciplined democracy which clearly implies certain restrictions. Among the thousands regarded as enemies who are incarcerated there are at least five hundred NLD [National League for Democracy] members. They were the part of democracy till recently. There are no reasons for optimism in Myanmar at present. But hope is another matter. Democracy is the undying fire in the hearts of the people. No stakeholder in Myanmar can run this nation for long if they deny that.

It is true that Myanmars military was previously in control for many years, but now the people have tasted democracy, albeit briefly. Do you think the military is surprised by the level of resistance theyve faced in the wake of the coup, especially from young people?

Yes and no. In many ethnic areas the [militarys] control was and is contested. Even during the democratic interlude, the military retained control, through the constitution they themselves had written. The fact that they already held that control makes it strange why they launched this coup which has brought our country to its knees.

The army faces a new generation that is sailing through the social media cosmos. It cannot be controlled and forced back to dark days. The people tasted a limited form of democracy in those five years. They were exposed to values such as freedom of speech, critical education, the right of free assembly, and they could also see that Myanmar has much to offer Asia and the world.

Our young people are our greatest resources, they struggle not only for democracy but for the opportunities that come with that. They see how opportunities pulled millions out of misery in other Southeast Asian countries and, for example, South Korea. They will not easily be subdued. The army knows this. It is why the struggle reaches to every corner of the country.

Clearly the situation at its current status is not sustainable. You have had conversations with some of the military leaders, and Im sure you have also met with members of the resistance. Do you perceive there to be an openness on either side to resolving the conflict in a peaceful way, to having a dialogue? Or is everyone set on digging in their heels?

There are two governments, one that claims legitimacy, one in the shadows. There are two armies, one well equipped and battled hardened, the other in the shadows full of anger and commitment but without proper command or weapons. So, this is going to be painful stalemate with disastrous results for the ordinary people. So, we urge for dialogue to both the groups. Now there is painful distaste for talks.

The time for talks will come. This is what I and other religious leaders have tried to prepare for. It is why I have tried to keep open the channels for dialogue with everyone. But neither side appears ready to compromise now. We are at a stalemate. Violence cannot be arbiter of this nations destiny. Its time is over.

What do you think it would take for all sides to put down their weapons?

No one will put down their weapons easily. The Tatmadaw are not the types to give in. But a good leader knows when to sue for peace, when the cost is too high. All the wars that the Myanmar army waged are against its own people. After 70 years there is no clear victory. This realization should strike home to the army as soon as possible. This nation cannot stay on a permanent conflict mode. The army has many motives in waging the war; economic interests are the major ones. They need to understand a free and open economy gives more gain for all.

Sadly, the enablers of this conflict are from outside, those with geostrategic interests and those who flourish through arms industry. Our curse is our resources. Russia makes profit from the sale of weapons and gains a foothold in Asia. Great nations like China and even Japan, which should want stability in the region, can goad the army into talks, a durable peace is possible. Yet even when peace comes, this nation will take years to heal. The world needs to engage all the stakeholders, make them part of the solution. If this realization is missing, we are riding a long-haul turbulence.

Pope Francis many times has expressed his closeness to Myanmar and has prayed for peace to prevail, including with his special Mass for Myanmar last year. What has his support meant to the people of Myanmar? Has his advocacy had any direct impact on the situation?

The popes witness is poignant. His love for this country was shown when he chose this small country for his pilgrimage of peace. After this conflict broke out, the pope has prayed at least ten times in public for Myanmar. Each time his words are encouraging. In the special Mass for Myanmar, he spoke of Myanmars dramatic and painful experiences of violence, conflict and repression. His words continue to be balm of healing to our people.

His words matter since they give visibility to the wounds of Myanmar. Of course, he was principally speaking to encourage the Christian minority in Myanmar. But he is a significant world leader with a moral voice. Despite all risks, during his visit to Myanmar he met all stakeholders here, including the army leader. The Pope urged all to strive for peace.

Although the Commander in Chief has visited many religious leaders, myself included, we do not yet see the results of these conversations. Christians along with all others continue to suffer, thousands are displaced, churches continue to be attacked. We wish to see a positive move towards de-escalating conflict.

Many religious in Myanmar have taken bold actions, standing in front of tanks and soldiers to prevent further civilian bloodshed. Given the ongoing violence, the increasing death toll, and the displacement of so many, what should the Churchs role be? How can it best help the people and contribute to peace at this time?

The first role of priests and religious is to accompany the people. The Church is more than the consecrated persons, and therefore we can work at many levels, such as seeking dialogue and attempting to bring humanitarian assistance to the afflicted. In many areas the practical help is being blocked. This is one of the matters I raised with the military leaders. My requests were heard, promises were made, but we are waiting for the outcome. We continue our efforts along with all religious leaders.

When all others fled, like INGOs, the Church stayed with the people despite huge risks to life. Its presence offers a measure of security to the beleaguered population. The Churchs mission is first of all to pastorally accompany and listen to our people. Second, we seek to serve one another, to be of help at times of grief or of need. Third, we must defend the rights and human dignity of all people. In all this the Church is highly challenged since it is also wounded in different ways. I have indicated in my encouragement to all that this wounded Church needs to be the healer. We live with this challenge as a Church in Myanmar.

Follow Elise Ann Allen on Twitter:@eliseannallen

The rest is here:
On democracy in Myanmar, cardinal says there's 'no reason for optimism' - Crux Now

India has underlined the need to distinguish between political ideologies that are part of a pluralistic democratic polity and the radical ideologies that subscribe to terrorism, emphasisng that any attempt to paint both of them with the same brush is "inaccurate" and "counterproductive".

Speaking at the Ambassador-level Annual Briefing to Member States organised by the United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT), India's Permanent Representative to the UN Ambassador T S Tirumurti said India has always maintained that nations should not go back to pre-9/11 era when terrorists were being divided into 'your terrorist' and 'my terrorist'.

He said the categorising them weakens the collective resolve to combat terrorism.

Tirumurti said there is a need to understand is that in democracies right-wing and left-wing are part of the polity and come to power through elections reflecting the majority will of the people.

"Democracy by definition contains a broad spectrum of ideologies and beliefs. We need to distinguish between the political ideologies which are part of a pluralistic democratic polity, as against radical ideologies which subscribe to terrorism. Our fight is against such radical ideologies and not against democracy. To paint them with the same brush is inaccurate and counterproductive," he said.

Amid efforts to prepare report of the Secretary-General mandated by the General Assembly to assess the threat posed by the terrorist acts on the basis of xenophobia, racism, and other forms of Intolerance, or in the name of religion or belief, Tirumurti underlined that "we should not be selective in our approach but in fact seek to implement a zero-tolerance against terror."

Tirumurti, currently the Chair of the 1988 Sanctions Committee as well as of the Counter-terrorism Committee of the Security Council, said the overall threat of terrorism has only increased.

"The threat posed by al-Qaeda, ISIL and their affiliates in Asia as well as in Africa, and their links with those designated under 1267 need to be recognised and addressed," Tirumurti said.

He said the recent report of 1988 Taliban Sanctions Committee highlighted how the close link between the Taliban, especially through the Haqqani network, and al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups still continues.

"We need to ensure that radical groups in one region do not draw sustenance from another," he said.

Tirumurti said he looked forward to enhancing synergies between the Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) and the United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT), both of which play complementary roles.

"One of the aspects, which has not been fully explored is the role victims of terrorism and their networks can play in countering terrorism. We know that the UNOCT has put a spotlight on this issue. We are also reaching out to civil society to support our efforts on counter-terrorism," he said.

Tirumurti also referred to the adoption of 7th review resolution of the Global Counter Terrorism Strategy (GCTS) in June last year, when it was reaffirmed that there cannot be any excuse or justification for any act of terrorism, regardless of motivations of the terrorist actors as underlined in relevant UN Security Council resolution.

The review also, more importantly, rejected the divisive efforts of a few member states, looking for labeling terrorism based on motivations, especially based on political and other ideologies. It is important that the UN response to terrorism remains united, unambiguous, and unequivocal, he said.

Tirumurti noted that it is equally important that the integrity of the GCTS is preserved and attempts to undermine this hard-earned consensus are stopped.

He also voiced concern over the "real emerging threat" posed by the terrorist use of information and communications technologies, emerging technologies such as social media, new payment methods, video games, encrypted messaging services, cryptocurrencies and drones for which most of the member states do not have adequate response capabilities.

"We have been witnessing cross-border terrorist attacks through drones. Global expert bodies such as Financial Action Task Force or FATF have been raising red flags about terrorist financing, and laxity of certain member states in bringing their practices at par with international Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT) standards," he said, calling for the need to strengthen efforts of FATF.

"Countering terrorist narratives, particularly through internet and other online means, have remained a challenge. Enhanced online presence of young people during pandemic has exposed them to exploitation by a terrorist group through hate speech and recruitment. Let us not forget that the greatest violators of human rights are the terrorists," he said.

Here is the original post:
Radical ideologies subscribing to terrorism and political ideologies part of democracy are not same, says - Economic Times