Mediaboss Marketing

Author: Ward Berenschot, University of Amsterdam

Indonesias upcoming presidential elections will be boring, despite plenty of drama on the surface. In October 2023, Indonesias Constitutional Court, headed by President Joko Jokowi Widodos brother-in-law, ruled that Jokowis son Gibran Rakabuming Raka could run for the vice-presidency.

This twist not only undermined trust in the independence of the Court, it also upset the presidential race. Frontrunning candidate Prabowo Subianto was quick to enlist Gibran as his vice-presidential candidate, a savvy move that seems to have succeeded in increasing his lead in the polls over his two rival candidates Ganjar Pranowo and Anies Baswedan. This decision also signalled that Jokowi no longer supports Ganjar, a candidate from his own party. Jokowi has chosen dynasty over party loyalty.

Yet this apparent coalition between Jokowi and Prabowo his rival in the previous two presidential elections suggests a worrisome trend that is making Indonesian politics predictable. Indonesias elections are turning into contests between interconnected elites who have similar visions for the countrys future.

When Jokowi first competed for the presidency against Prabowo in 2014, the elections really seemed to matter. As Indonesians faced a choice between a reformist former furniture salesman and a former military commander-cum-oligarch with a history of human rights offences, the fate of Indonesias democracy hung in the balance. Yet after another polarising election in 2019, Jokowi appointed Prabowo as his minister of defence. This not only boosted Prabowos electoral changes, but also ensured that Jokowi would not face any real opposition during his second term in office.

During his second term, Jokowis dominance deepened the long-standing tendency of Indonesias political parties to avoid oppositional roles. Indonesias political parties prefer the perks and patronage associated with being in power. In 2021, Jokowi had the support of seven out of nine parties represented in parliament, jointly holding 81 per cent of the seats. Jokowi also consolidated the support of Indonesias economic elites by making them ministers in his cabinet. As Indonesias political and economic elites fell in line behind Jokowi, the newspapers and television channels they owned followed suit and adopted a remarkably uncritical stance towards the President.

The consolidation of power by a relatively small and interconnected clique of political and business elites facilitated a gradual yet sustained crackdown on critical civil society voices. This process involved legislative efforts to regulate civil society and disband organisations deemed in opposition with Indonesias state ideology of Pancasila, which sees its citizens equal in rights and duties regardless of ethnicity or religion. These efforts extended to undermining independent checks and balances. In 2019, a law was adopted which placed the corruption eradication commission, the Corruption Eradication Commission, under political tutelage.

This move sparked student protests across the country, leading Jokowis government to extend its use of repressive techniques making arbitrary arrests, intimidating dissidents and threatening university student expulsions. There are also indications that ruling politicians have hired anonymous cyber troops to promote government policies and harass online critics. The suppression of civil society voices has been felt across the country. Police violence and arrests of community leaders are regularly used to suppress protests of rural communities against companies taking their land. According to a recent poll, upwards of 62 per cent of Indonesians say that they are afraid to express their political opinions. As such, observers commonly view Indonesias democracy as regressing.

This consolidation of power is shaping the character of the upcoming presidential elections. Anies Baswedan, who is running an opposition campaign, has regularly called for change. His campaign has been targeted in various ways. Entrepreneurs who donated money to Anies campaign, have had their tax returns especially scrutinised. Politicians associated with Nasdem, a political party supporting Anies, were suspected of corruption.

The main contest in the upcoming elections, then, involves two candidates closely tied to the current government. Ganjar Pranowo is the governor of Central Java and a staunch supporter of Jokowis presidency. His running mate, Mahfud MD, is a minister in Jokowis cabinet. Their opponent, Prabowo, is the Minister of Defence in Jokowis cabinet. His running mate, Gibran Rakabuming, is relatively inexperienced but seems to have been chosen primarily to signal to voters that Prabowo has the support of the current president and Gibrans father.

Both Ganjar and Prabowo have made active efforts to present themselves as Jokowis heir. Prabowo is winning this contest after having made Gibran his vice-presidential candidate. Unsurprisingly, Jokowi tried to broker a coalition between Prabowo and Ganjar. Both candidates originate from the same ruling elite, they offer similar pro-business electoral programs and they both seek to uphold Jokowis policies.

Owing to the dominance of candidates associated with Jokowis government, there has been little critical debate about Jokowis policies. Election campaigns are important occasions to discuss such dilemmas, yet there has been very little debate about whether Indonesias current government has benefited Indonesians. Instead, most reporting on the elections has focused very narrowly on the personal dramas of who gets selected for the vice-presidency and how that affects opinion polls.

The more interesting story is what the presidential race tells us about the evolution of Indonesias democracy. Comparable candidates promising continuity, a weakened civil society and the relative absence of public debate about important dilemmas benefit the political and business elites currently in power. But such elections are unlikely to benefit Indonesian citizens. Without a meaningful choice and a strong opposition, the upcoming elections are unlikely to discipline the elites currently in power.

Ward Berenschot is Professor in Comparative Political Anthropology at the University of Amsterdam and Senior Researcher at the Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies.

Read more from the original source:
Indonesias increasingly opposition-less democracy - East Asia Forum

WASHINGTON, D.C. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will not rehear a case that could have drastically impacted redistricting and precedent under the Voting Rights Act.

Today, the 5th Circuit denied Louisiana Republicans cynical request for the entire 5th Circuit to reconsider the ability of private parties, such as nonprofit organizations and voters, to bring claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) to remedy discriminatory maps and voting practices.

This action is the latest in Ardoin v. Robinson, a lawsuit filed on behalf of Black voters challenging Louisianas congressional map for diluting the voting strength of Black voters under Section 2 of the VRA.

Earlier this month, Louisiana Republicans asked the entire 5th Circuit as opposed to the typical three-judge panel to rehear a decision affirming that Louisiana must draw a new congressional map. Specifically, Republicans challenged part of a November ruling confirming the ability of private litigants (civil right groups, individual voters, etc) to bring lawsuits under Section 2 of the VRA. In legal terms, this concept is known as a private right of action.

Louisiana Republicans asked the 5th Circuit to reconsider its Voting Rights Act precedent after a catastrophic ruling from the 8th Circuit in November that held that private litigants can no longer bring lawsuits under Section 2 of the VRA. Crucially, this ruling only applies to seven states in the 8th Circuit: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota.

Today, the 5th Circuit denied this radical request, meaning that the decision will not be reheard and Louisiana Republicans attempt to block private groups and voters from bringing claims under Section 2 is stalled. This is a victory for voters and private groups in the three states covered by the 5th Circuit: Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. There remains established precedent for a private right of action under Section 2 of the VRA in the 5th, 6th and 11th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals.

The timeline for Louisiana to adopt a new congressional map remains the same.

The Legislature now has until Jan. 30 to enact a new map or inform the court that it will not be enacting a new map. At that point, there are three distinct paths forward:

With the 5th Circuit declining to reconsider its prior decision, Louisiana is one step closer to a fair map for 2024.

Read the order here.

Learn more about the case here.

Go here to read the rest:
5th Circuit Will Not Rehear Case Jeopardizing Voting Rights Act Precedent - Democracy Docket

In democratic and open societies, everyone can freely express themselves, fully participate, and enjoy their rights and freedoms. But in Europe, democracy also has its enemies. Some have made attempts to exploit societal division and spread disinformation to weaken the democratic voice of citizens or to distort election campaigns.

For this reason, the Commission has put forward new measures to:

There is a growing concern in the EU that the openness of our societies can be exploited by foreign governments. 81% of respondents to a recent EU survey agree that foreign interference in our democratic systems is a serious problem. At the same time, we must continue to find ways to make our democracies more resilient by encouraging active participation in our democracies.

This new package builds on the European Democracy Action Plan adopted in 2020, and is an important additional action to strengthen democracies across the EU ahead of the 2024 European elections.

Protecting democracy

Factsheet on the Defence of Democracy proposals

Press release: Defence of Democracy Commission proposes to shed light on covert foreign influence

Questions and answers: Defence of Democracy

Eurobarmoter survey on democracy

The rest is here:
New measures will increase transparency to better protect European democracy - European Union

American democracy has never been perfect, and it has always faced challenges. Yet, the assault on free and fair elections occasioned by former President Donald Trump and his supporters has little historical precedent.

Over the last few years, we have experienced a never-ending series of attacks on our democracy by a man who stands for nothing other than his own power. We have seen one of our two major parties turn its back on the American experiment in favor of raw power.

For the last several years, the most powerful check on these efforts has been the courts. As imperfect as our judiciary is, it has undeniably been the strongest bulwark against the anti-democratic plot to curtail voting, rig election rules and subvert the outcome of free and fair elections.

In the run-up to 2020, the courts protected the right to vote in the face of a world-wide epidemic. After the election, the judiciary rejected more than five dozen lawsuits filed by Trump and his allies to overturn the election results. In the years that followed, courts sided with voters against a tidal wave of new voter suppression laws.

Despite these victories, 2023 began with a dark cloud hanging over our democracy. Two critical cases were awaiting decisions in the conservative 6-3 Supreme Court. Pundits and prognosticators predicted the worst that both cases would be lost and voting rights would be set back for a generation.

They were wrong. The courts did their job. Democracy was protected.

The first of those cases, Moore v. Harper, was the most important. Over the last two decades, conservative legal groups had concocted a legal theory that state courts were powerless to review or strike down state laws that restricted voting in federal elections or rigged congressional maps. Conservatives thought Moore would be the vehicle for the Court to adopt this fringe independent state legislature theory. Instead, the Court rejected it and reaffirmed the role of state judges in protecting free and fair elections.

The second Supreme Court case involved the Voting Rights Act (VRA). Alabama thought it could use that case, Allen v. Milligan, to gut the remaining main protection of the VRA, Section 2. Instead, the Court reaffirmed 40 years of jurisprudence and interpretation of this critical law. The result is that next fall, Black Alabamians will have the opportunity to elect two congressional candidates of their choice.

As it was in previous years, one of the main story lines in 2023 is the staggering record of losses Republican lawyers had in court.

These were not the only successes for redistricting in court. Following the decision in Allen, federal courts in Louisiana and Georgia similarly struck down congressional and state legislative maps for violating the rights of Black voters. In a separate case, a three-judge panel struck down South Carolinas congressional map for violating the constitutional rights of Black voters by racially gerrymandering a critical swing district.

Perhaps the biggest redistricting victory of the year came earlier this week, when New Yorks highest court ordered the states Independent Redistricting Commission to redraw the states congressional map in time for 2024. This has the potential for Democrats to gain four to six new seats next year.

Democracy did not only win in redistricting cases, the courts protected voting rights as well.

In Pennsylvania, the courts rejected two Republican lawsuits aimed at restricting mail-in voting. In a third Pennsylvania victory, a federal court struck down the states rejection of otherwise valid mail-in ballots that have an incorrect or missing date on the outer envelope.

Voters in Georgia and Florida both gained relief from key portions of new laws prohibiting them from receiving food and water while waiting in long voting lines. Georgia also saw its law that required mail-in voters to put their birth date on their absentee ballot envelope struck down. Florida had its newest voter suppression law, enacted just this year, partially blocked.

In the Lone Star State, a federal judge struck down Texas rule requiring clerks to reject mail-in ballots if the ID number did not match the voters registration record. Iowas so-called English-only law, which mandated that all election materials be in English, was invalidated. Arizonas latest effort to make voter registration more difficult met a similar fate. And, in Michigan, after that states voter transportation ban was challenged in court, the Legislature wisely repealed it.

This year also saw important developments against election deniers. In Arizona, Republican efforts to overturn the results of the 2022 elections dragged into this year, but with no success. Not only were Kari Lake and other failed election denier candidates unable to prevail in court, their lawyers were sanctioned for filing frivolous lawsuits. Meanwhile, after refusing to properly certify the 2022 election and losing in court, Republican officials in Cochise County, Arizona were indicted in 2023.

Perhaps most importantly, Trump was indicted in Washington, D.C. for his effort to overturn the 2020 election. In Georgia state court, he was one of 18 defendants indicted for racketeering in connection with his effort to subvert that states 2020 presidential results. In addition, fake electors in Michigan and Nevada were indicted, while criminal investigations continue in several other states.

Sprinkled in among all these lawsuits were numerous cases where Republicans failed in court to make voting more difficult. As it was in previous years, one of the main story lines in 2023 is the staggering record of losses Republican lawyers had in court.

For that, as well as the victories for voters, we can all be grateful. For another year at least, democracy was on the docket and it won.

Read more:
Democracy Was on the Docket in 2023, and It Won - Democracy Docket

OPINION:

President Biden is running for reelection to save what he calls democracy from Caesar Augustus in waiting: former President Donald Trump.

Since Bidenomics is as popular as Dylan Mulvaneys commercials for Bud Light, the presidents reelection team aka the Suicide Squad has decided that the road to victory lies in convincing voters that the likely Republican nominee is a sinister figure who would transform the land of the free into a nation of storm troopers, stiff-arm salutes and tax reform.

Mr. Biden told a fundraiser in September, Donald Trump and his MAGA Republicans are determined to destroy American democracy.

American democracy is here defined as at least 8 million illegal aliens in the past three years, trillion-dollar deficits and a war on fossil fuels. Why, the ex-president and his MAGA brownshirts might even turn the Department of Justice and the FBI on his opponents and raid their homes.

How can you destroy what doesnt exist? America is not a democracy, though were moving in that direction at alarming speed.

We started as a republic with certain democratic features. In the purest sense, democracy means majority rule in all cases with no safeguards for the rights of minorities.

If America were a democracy, presidents would be elected by direct popular vote. They would not be limited to two terms but could die in office, as Franklin Roosevelt did.

Large and small states wouldnt have the same representation in the Senate. Nine appointed (that is, unelected) officials would not determine the meaning of the Constitution.

The federal government would work as well as California.

The Founding Fathers feared democracy, not because they were plutocrats in powdered wigs, but because they knew, as students of history, thatdemocracy never worked. Thats why the word democracy appears nowhere in our nations founding documents.

The Constitution speaks of establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare, all of which have been degraded by the president and his party.

As we become more democratic, we become more dysfunctional.

A republic protects the rights of citizens. A democracy ignores them when its convenient, like gun control laws that violate the Second Amendment.

A democracy is spendthrift. A republic is frugal. A republic punishes criminals. A democracy punishes everyone else. A republic jealously guards our sovereignty. A democracy is happy to surrender it piecemeal to international bodies.

Democracy is a supersized government.

In a republic, holding public office is a trust, not a career. In a democracy, someone who is dumb as topsoil can be elected in a one-party state and spend decades in the most powerful deliberative body in the world and then ascend to the presidency.

President Woodrow Wilson got us into World War I to make the world safe for democracy. Look at how well that worked. We toppled monarchies to see them replaced by totalitarian regimes.

Democracy is about expanding the franchise to the point of absurdity. On Dec. 6, Rep. Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts Democrat, introduced legislation to allow 16-year-olds and incarcerated citizens (felons in prison) to vote in federal elections.

If 16-year-olds have the wisdom and maturity to vote, why not 12-year-olds, especially with members of the teachers unions to guide them?

Who better to have a hand in making our laws than those convicted of repeatedly breaking our laws? Marxists who believe crime is caused by economic injustice can relate to incarcerated citizens.

The Democratic Party wants to see elections dominated by the clueless, like the 25% of college students who think the Holocaust is a myth.

Democracy is a con. Elites control the process and make the masses think theyre in charge.

When did we vote on President Bidens college debt forgiveness scheme, government paying for the genital mutilation of minors, open borders or international climate change initiatives that will send us reeling back to the Stone Age?

Democracy is the religion of the party that doesnt believe in God. Politicians like Mr. Biden and Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer are its high priests.

Mr. Biden cant even quote the preamble to the Declaration of Independence correctly. During the 2020 campaign, the president declared: We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women are created by the, you know, you know, the thing.

Who better to lead a crusade to save democracy from The Donald and his MAGA meanies?

The best thing Mr. Biden could do for representative government would be to take a civics course after he resigns from office.

Don Feder is a columnist with The Washington Times.

See the original post here:
Biden saving a democracy: The religion of a party that doesn't believe in God - Washington Times