Mediaboss Marketing

Global democracy is sick.In the United States, Donald Trump's supporters in the Republican Party continue to steamroll the Democrats and other pro-democracy forces. To say that the latter have for the most part been hapless, uncoordinated and paralyzed by denial is not overstating the case.

Political scientists and other experts have warned that in the wake of the Trump presidency and the coup attempt of January 2021, the country is now an "anocracy," hovering in limbo between naked authoritarianism and a slowly failing democracy.

As I have repeatedly warned this is an existential struggle: If the Republicans and the larger white right achieve their goals the United States will become a living nightmare for anyone who is not a rich white "Christian" heterosexual male, or otherwise deemed to be a "real American" and one of the MAGA-elect Trump cultists.

RELATED:Putin's war and the battle for democracy: How this conflict raises the global stakes

Writing at the Financial Times, columnist Martin Wolf describes this moment of peril and impending disaster:

"An American 'Caesarism' has now become flesh." I wrote this in March 2016, even before Donald Trump had become the Republican nominee for the presidency. Today, the transformation of the democratic republic into an autocracy has advanced. By 2024, it might be irreversible. If this does indeed happen, it will change almost everything in the world.

Thus, health permitting, Trump will be the next Republican candidate. He will be backed by a party that is now his tool. Most important, in the words of David Frum, erstwhile speechwriter for George W Bush, "what the United States did not have before 2020 was a large national movement willing to justify mob violence to claim political power. Now it does." It does so because its members believe their opponents are not "real" Americans. A liberal democracy cannot long endure if a major party believes defeat is illegitimate and must be rendered impossible.

Political scientist Thomas Homer-Dixon echoed these concerns in a widely read essaylast December in the Globe and Mail, warning that American democracy could collapse by 2015, "causing extreme domestic political instability, including widespread civil violence, and that by 2030, "if not sooner, the country could be governed by a right-wing dictatorship":

We mustn't dismiss these possibilities just because they seem ludicrous or too horrible to imagine. In 2014, the suggestion that Donald Trump would become president would also have struck nearly everyone as absurd. But today we live in a world where the absurd regularly becomes real and the horrible commonplace.

Leading American academics are now actively addressing the prospect of a fatal weakening of U.S. democracy. Once Republicans control Congress, Democrats will lose control of the national political agenda, giving Mr. Trump a clear shot at recapturing the presidency in 2024. And once in office, he will have only two objectives: vindication and vengeance.

In the shadow of such darkness we must not surrender to despair. That is how the global right and the fascist movement wins. Instead, those who believe in true social democracy and the liberal democratic project must stare unflinchingly into the darkness, exile the hope-peddlers and nave optimists who believe that compromise with such evil is possible, critically assess the reality of the crisis, and then organize and rally to victory.

Two months ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin, a hero and champion of the global right, unleashed a devastating war of aggression against Ukraine. The Ukrainians have resisted valiantly, andRussia's military has been embarrassed. What many experts foresaw as a quick campaign of conquest appears that it will now be a long slog of grinding death and destruction. The United States and its NATO allies have rallied to the aid of Ukraine; for the moment, at least, Western democracy seems (superficially) renewed through conflict with its former Cold War enemy.

French President Emmanuel Macron recently defeated Marine Le Pen and the far-right National Rally Party in that country's recent elections. However important that victory appears during this moment of democratic crisis, one should still be cautious for what it ultimately means about the power of the global right and its power in France and other Western European democracies. In her newsletter Lucid, historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat unpacks the larger significance of Le Pen's near-miss, which could have led to "the first female-led far-right government in Europe":

In the conclusion to my 2020 book on the subject, I singled Le Pen out in suggesting that such a shift is inevitable. "That male model of authoritarian power... may give way in the future as female-led authoritarian states emerge. ... Yet a female-led rightist state would pose no threat to authoritarianism's appeal as a legitimating force of misogyny, kleptocracy, and, in many countries, White racial domination." ...

For some voters, her "softer" feminine image likely goes a long way in making her seem acceptable. Her tasteful and understated clothing blunts the brute force of her racist proposals, such as her idea of eliminating birthright citizenship to more easily target French Muslims for discrimination. ...

In fact, as the global right doubles down on its attention to families claiming it is a priority to protect children and schools from pedophilic homosexuals, satanist Soros puppets, childless left-wing radicals, and more being a mother, who can mobilize other mothers, will become an advantage in politics.

In the coming years, shifts in far-right tactics intended to normalize extremism and the aging of the current strongman cohort will likely produce a new wave of illiberal female leaders.

While these authoritarians won't pose bare-chested, in the tradition of Benito Mussolini and Putin, they will be just as racist, corrupt, and violent as like-minded male leaders, and just as dedicated to using disinformation to create the alternate reality they need to stay in power.

A hopeful commitment to the basic idea that progress and societal improvement are attainable constitute the beating heart of the centuries-old Western democratic project. The fascist tide can be beaten back by leaning into those democratic and pluralistic values and dreams and then making them real for the mass public.

The global democracy crisis is real; the future remains unwritten and what happens next is very much in flux.

What do we know and where do we go from here? In an effort to answer these questions, I recently spoke with Andrew Viteritti,a senior member of the global forecasting team at the Economist Intelligence Unit,about its recent report, "Democracy Index 2021: the China Challenge."

In this conversation, Viteritti explains the unit's findings that how global democracy has fallen to its lowest levels since the Economist began tracking it in 2006. He also reports that in many "advanced" or "mature" democracies there is growing cynicism and distrust of government and its ability to solve problems such as price inflation or the COVID pandemic, and that those sentiments are being exploited by illiberal and other anti-democracy forces. Viteritti also discusses the challenge that China's "state capitalism" model represents for global democracy, and what Donald Trump's coup attempt of 2021 and related events tell us about extremepartisan political polarization and how it has imperiled the basic functions of government.

Toward the end of this conversation, Viteritti expresses optimism that despite all these challenges to democracy in the U.S. and around the world, democratic institutions have shown themselves to be much stronger than many expected, which should be a source of hope for the future.

This conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

How are you feeling about democracy and the overall state of the world, as it faces so many political and other crises?

The most recent edition of the Democracy Index shows that we've seen another bad year for democracy. The average global score has continued to decline. It is now at an all-time low by our measurements, 5.28 out of a scale of 10. That is a bigger decline than what we saw even in our previous studies, in the 2020 study, which is remarkable when you consider that was the year when the coronavirus pandemic hit. That had many implications for the state of democratic institutions, and also public perceptions towards government.

Our average global score for democracy has continued to decline, and is now at an all-time low. ... The decline we saw in 2021 was only matched once before, in 2010, in the shadow of the global financial crisis.

It is important to note that the decline that we saw in 2021 was only matched once before in our history of the study, which started in 2006. That was in 2010, in the shadow of the global financial crisis.

In our new study, many of what we call "full democracies" have also now fallen down to the "flawed democracy" category. We saw the number of authoritarian regimes increase as well. We also saw every region suffer a decline in its average score, except for Eastern Europe. The score there was unchanged. It is a very reasonable response to all this to feel very concerned and very discouraged.

The public mood, both here in the United States and around the world, is that something is very wrong. How do we quantify that?

One of the tools that we use for scoring individual countries is called the World Values Survey. It's authoritative, it's global in focus, it's up to date and it's standardized. We have results for the 165 countries and two territories that we cover in the Democracy Index. What we are seeing is that there is certainly a souring of public attitudes worldwide toward political institutions, the capacity of governments to respond to pressing concerns about the state of the economy and economic security, political concerns and also social concerns.

This is a trend that we've seen become acute in specific regions across the world as well as in specific countries, the United States included. These trends were at play before the coronavirus pandemic happened, but the pandemic accentuated and aggregated these trends, and even made these negative trends appear in countries where we had not seen evidence for such attitudes before. One example would be Canada, where there is a growing skepticism towards the ability of government to respond to these big societal and economic and political issues.

Canada just endured mass protests and disruptions by a so-called Freedom Convoy of truckers supposedly protesting COVID restrictions and protocols. What do we know about such anxieties and anger?

That reflects an increasing skepticism toward government and the capacity of governments to act effectively to solve collective problems. Canada is a very mature and strong democracy. But we still have seen a slippage in that country's ranking in our study in the functioning of government and measures of the health of political culture.

There has also been a hardening of attitudes. This has manifested itself in various countries. For example, in the United States there is intense polarization. Society has become incredibly divided, to the point where public consensus has virtually collapsed on even basic fundamental issues such as election results and public health practices around the pandemic. That was a trend that we discussed at length in our 2020 report for the Democracy Index and another trend that we explored in our most recent 2021 edition for the United States.

Polarization has become the biggest threat to U.S. democracy, making it very hard for political institutions to function. Looking at the data, there is little to suggest we're going to see things get better anytime soon.

Polarization now has become the biggest threat to United States democracy, because not only has it generated an intense cleavage in United States society where we have these two camps that do not see eye to eye, but it has translated into the fact that it is now very hard for political institutions and democratic institutions to function. Looking at the data, there is little to suggest that polarization and that hardening of attitudes is going to ease up anytime soon. Reproductive rights are a big fault line right now. And of course, we're in a period where key elections are approaching, the midterms this year and the presidential election in 2024. Both Republicans and Democrats are going to frame these elections in existential terms. This does not bode well for the state of polarization in the United States, nor does it suggest that we're going to see things get better anytime soon.

Whatever happened to the "end of history" and the ultimate triumph of liberal democracy?

In this year's Democracy Index report we focus on what we describe as the "China challenge." We are in a moment where there is tension and conflict between two very distinct political systems. Is there a "China model" for democracy? What are its features? Is that sustainable? Can it be exported? Does China's leadership even want their system of government to be exported? Our quick answer to that is no.

We also look at the Western democratic model. Is there a democratic recession in the West, which many have been talking about, and which our studies certainly suggest is true over the years? We examine the causes and symptoms, and then ultimately what can be done to stop it. Ultimately, is the Western model of democracy with its supposed superiority sustainable?

There are some reasons to be optimistic when it comes to the state of democracy in the world, including the United States. One, we've seen very impressive voter participation in the United States. There was record voter turnout in the November 2020 elections. There was also record voter turnout in the runoff elections in Georgia that took place shortly afterward. And there are many reasons to believe we're going to see high voter participation and political engagement continue throughout this year, especially in the run-up to the midterms.

It is impossible to not think of the extraordinary events that happened at the beginning of 2021, which was our assessment period for the new study. Of course, we saw Donald Trump refuse to accept the results of an election that was held in a free and fair way. We saw Republican lawmakers also back that effort. We saw a sizable portion of the electorate refuse to accept those results.

It was extraordinary to see that Joe Biden's inauguration took place very smoothly, and during his first year in office he didn't face any major disruptions. That points to the strength and durability of U.S. political institutions.

It was pretty extraordinary to then see that Joe Biden's inauguration took place very smoothly. During Biden's first year in office, he didn't really face any major disruptions. To our eyes, that points to the strength and durability of United States political institutions. It is fair to assume that a smooth transition of power for Biden and a lack of disturbances over the first year in office for the new president would not have taken place in a country with weaker democratic institutions.

But at the same time, it is important not to take those institutions for granted. It remains to be seen whether these institutions can withstand similar types of stresses to those they saw at the beginning of 2021 and even during 2020, whether in terms of frequency or in terms of magnitude.

What do we know about the health of global democracy and how it was impacted by the pandemic?

There is a valid question as to whether, once we emerge from the pandemic, we will see any improvement in the democracy scores in our study. That may very well happen, especially since some of the indicators we use include public perceptions of things like whether governments are responding to crises effectively, and also questions about personal freedom.

There is also a risk that the trends that we've seen in policymaking by governments during the pandemic could in fact become "sticky" and thus could outlast the pandemic. There is an open-ended question as to whether governments will walk away from these restrictions quickly as the pandemic recedes. It's not a question that we have an answer to at the moment, because we're still in the middle of the pandemic.

Where does your optimism come from? I am quite surprised by it.

When we closed out 2020 and started 2021, it was a pretty dark moment for the United States for many reasons. And even just to see that bright spot in terms of the durability of the country's democratic institutions is very valid, valuable and positive, and certainly a reason to be optimistic.

What about what experts call "democratic backsliding," or the many examples of how Republicans are seeking to undermine democracy with their new Jim Crow strategy and other attacks?There is great concern about an existential democracy crisis in America, and perhaps even violent insurrection or civil war.

Polarization is one of the biggest issues in the country, and it hasn't gotten any better over the past year. We're not at the point of civil war, but we do have to keep an eye on this issue of polarization because there's nothing to suggest that it's going to go away immediately.

Where do these global trends bring us? How close are we to democratic collapse?

Our previous report was published at the beginning of 2020. In those two years, we see considerable slippage in terms of democracy at the global level. Certainly, that is alarming. One would assume that if we continue to see that happen next year, it could well be that the decline will continue to gain momentum and become harder to reverse.

What happens once the pandemic eases? There is reason to believe that will relieve some of the pressure that we've seen weighing down on the democracy scores of countries across the world. We will have to wait and see where the data takes us next year.

Read more on "democracy" and its discontents:

Link:
Global forecaster on "another bad year for democracy": Is the world near a dire tipping point? - Salon

On April 28, the Biden administration announced a new global partnership that sets norms for the use of technology by nation-states: the Declaration for the Future of the Internet. While the declaration might seem like a reproach of the digital authoritarianism of Russia and China, it is far more likely to warn off wavering democracies from internet transgressions.

The statement was signed by 61 nations and aims to establish a code of practice for how democratic countries should engage with the web. The declarations vision for the internet is broadaspiring to promote universal internet access, protect human rights, ensure fair economic competition, design secure digital infrastructure, promote pluralism and freedom of expression, and guarantee a multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance. While this is an ambitious scope for a three-page nonbinding document, the priorities are admirable and reflect the diverse interests of the signatories. This is especially notable when compared to an early draft leaked in 2021, which was far more focused on U.S. economic interests.

At a glance, it is easy to see why much news coverage framed the agreement in opposition to China and Russia, as some Biden officials have presented the declaration as an alternative to the model of digital authoritarianism. This contextualization also aligns neatly with the mindset of strategic competition toward China, which is prominently held by some members of the Biden administration. However, China and Russia are all but certain to ignore this declaration. The Biden administration knows this and is more likely trying to affect the behavior of wavering democratic nations that have committed questionable, although not outright authoritarian, internet transgressions.

No single nation on the list seems dramatically out of place, yet many of the participating countries cannot boast a flawless record on internet freedoms. Colombias digital freedoms have recently been in decline, and especially concerning are efforts by the Colombian military to expand online surveillance of journalists and politicians. Niger, despite completing its first-ever peaceful and democratic transition of power in 2021, also experienced around 10 days of state-initiated internet blackout. Hungary, apparently the most reluctant signatory in the EU, targeted journalists with Pegasus, a highly invasive spyware system. Israel is guilty of approving the sale of Pegasus not just to Hungary but also to Mexico, where it may have been used in mass surveillance of government critics, and to Saudi Arabia, which infamously used the spyware in its plot to surveil and later murder Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi (Mexico and Saudi Arabia are not signatories). Oh, also, the former president of the United States is predominantly responsible for an online disinformation campaign that has undermined faith in the nations core democratic process.

These are certainly troubling behaviors for democratic nations, yet they are symptoms of an ongoing struggle for democratic preservation, not the presence of more systemic digital authoritarianism as in China or Russia. It is in these cases that the declaration can make a difference at the political margins. This is especially true if the declaration partners hold one anothers feet to the fire. By both privately and publicly criticizing these state behaviors, as well as offering legitimacy to pro-democratic voices that are resisting state overreach, the coalition of signatories can perhaps tilt the scales.

There are signs from the Biden administration that this more modest goal is the projects true ambition. At the declarations White House launch event, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan asserted that it is not about what we are against, its about what we are for. Its about an affirmative vision. Sullivan is contending that the declaration is about the behavior of the signatoriesnot the rest of the world.

Comments from Tim Wu, a White House special assistant co-leading this initiative, also support this interpretation. In a prepared speech to the Internet Governance Forum in December 2021, Wu asked: What should the duties and responsibilities of a nation-state be with respect to the internet? He then went on to list specific practices that democratic states should rise above, including state-condoned disinformation, internet shutdowns, online radicalization, economic concentration and government surveillance. All of these harms can be illustrated, of course, by at least one of the declarations signatories. However, it is clear from Wus speech that the immediate target of the declaration is not China but, rather, improving the behavior of signatory nations and those nations that may realistically aspire to join.

The reason to point this out is not to argue that the declaration is hypocritical but instead to note that it can have impactespecially if it leads to a more self-critical conversation within this group of nations, in which they directly and, if necessary, publicly identify violations of the declarations principles. Of course, without this frank discussion, the critics calling the declaration redundant and distracting will be proved right, especially as no enforcement mechanisms are written into the statement.

The White House is correct to think a renewed effort is worthwhile. According to Freedom House, global internet freedom has declined for 11 consecutive years. Unfortunately, the decline is not isolated to the web, as the global recession of democracy continues unabated. Freedom House writes that nearly 75 percent of the worlds population lived in a country that faced deterioration in 2021. One metric puts the global height of democracy in 2012, suggesting a full decade of decline. The Economist Intelligence Units Democracy Index scored global democracy at its lowest point since the index started in 2006. Another study suggests that the average citizen of the world is experiencing the same level of democracy as in 1990 during the collapse of the Soviet Union.

At best, the expansion and modern shaping of the internet has emerged contemporaneously with this enormous challenge to the democratic world. More likely, it has contributed to it. A meta-analysis of almost 500 research studies found that digital media has led to declining institutional trust, growing polarization and an advantageous environment for populists in established democracies. An ongoing literature review examining the interaction between social media and democracy is pointing in a similar direction. So, not only is there democratic backsliding both on and off the web, but there may also be a self-perpetuating interaction between the two.

This is the dire context to which the Biden administration is responding. Its also clear evidence that the Declaration for the Future of the Internet is not enough, even though the effort is valuable. It still pales in comparison to the comprehensive regulatory systems for online platforms that the European Union is implementing through the Digital Services Act, Digital Markets Act, the AI Act and others. Further, it is not sufficiently backed by an explicitly pro-democratic technology policy agenda, although there are related efforts by the White House to expand high-speed internet access, fund research and development into privacy preserving technologies, and enforce more consumer protections.

Despite its nonbinding nature and lack of enforcement, this declaration is better than none. The Declaration for the Future of the Internet at least shows a marked and renewed interest in fighting for the webs potential for democracycertainly an improvement over the prior two presidential administrations. If the Biden administration and the coalition of signatories are willing to follow through with hard conversations that push back on digital transgressions, then there is progress to be made for the future of the internet.

Original post:
The Declaration for the Future of the Internet Is for Wavering Democracies, Not China and Russia - Lawfare

The Youth Department of the Council of Europe launches the call for participants for the Youth Here: Democracy Now! The Council of Europe Youth Action Week which will take place in Strasbourg between 27 June and 2 July 2022.

The Youth Action Week is the flagship event of the Democracy Here | Democracy Now campaign and of the anniversary of 50 years of the youth sector in the Council of Europe. The event is organised under the patronage of the Irish Presidency of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and in partnership with the City of Strasbourg.

It will bring together activists, civil society, member States and partners of the youth sector to strengthen the youth campaign for revitalising democracy and celebrate the 50th anniversary of the youth sector of the Council of Europe.

Objectives

The week will result in a pledge for action containing proposals and recommendations for action at local, national and international level in the framework of the Democracy Here | Democracy Now youth campaign aiming to revitalise democracy and support the meaningful participation of young people in democratic processes and institutions.

Read more about the Youth Action Week

Apply online

Deadline for applications 19 May 2022, 11 AM CET.

Continue reading here:
Youth Here: Democracy Now! Apply now to take part in the Council of Europe Youth Action Week (Strasbourg, 27 June 2 July 2022, DL 19 May 2022, 11AM...

If you awakened this morning to news that the candidate you wanted didn't win and you failed to vote, then you shouldn't have anything to say.

According to election sources, there were only 48,848 votes cast out of 232,752 eligible voters in Hamilton County. Half of those votes were cast by mail and during early voting.

This alone is an indictment against the eligible voters of Hamilton County, who evidently did not care or think it necessary to vote.

Democracy does work! But it requires the active participation of citizens at the poll.

The casting of one's ballot is the most powerful participation that is constitutionally afforded to eligible citizens. But when there is a failure on the part of citizens to exercise this right, it also renders citizens void of power, as well as the lack of a voice in who serves in leadership.

So, if you are not pleased with the outcome of the election, then you may want to turn your displeasure to the 183,904 eligible, non-voting citizens of Hamilton.

This includes you. If you were among the non-voters.

Now all that can be done is learn the lesson of voter apathy and vow to do better.

But for now, "it is what it is." Therefore, we must pull together and do our part in building and maintaining a viable and harmonious city and county, where citizens can with great pride call home.

Dr. Jean Howard-HillFormer UTC Outstanding Professor of the Year 2006, UTC, Political Science Department

Link:
Democracy And The Will Of The People Must Be Reflected In Voting And Active Participation Of Citizens - The Chattanoogan

Kathmandu: Political instability, rising unemployment, widespread corruption, poor service delivery and a looming economic crisis may have dismayed many people in Nepal. However, there is something to cheer about as well Nepals grassroots democracy has taken root.

On May 13, Nepal will hold its second elections for 753 local governments. The first election of local governments under the new constitution which was promulgated in 2015 and adopted a three-tier system of government was held in 2017. However, Nepal plunged into a deep political crisis after the dissolution of the House of Representatives in December 2020; much before the expiry of the term.

Due to the fragile political situation, there were fears of the derailment of local elections, posing a threat to the newly-established federal structure. Due to pressures from civil society and the media, however, major political parties, irrespective of their differences, agreed to hold elections for local governments on time.

Elections in six metropolitan cities, 11 sub-metropolitans, 276 municipalities and 460 rural municipalities will be held under the first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system.

The ruling alliance partners, the Communist Party of Nepal (CPN) (Maoist Centre), led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal, and the CPN (Unified Socialist), chaired by Madhav Kumar Nepal, were not in favour of delaying the local elections due to their relatively weak organisational structures. Later, the Nepali Congress agreed to forge an electoral alliance, and those parties decided to hold elections on time as well.

The Election Commission also took a firm stance in favour of holding elections before the expiry of the terms of the incumbent leadership. The main opposition, CPN- Unified Marxist-Leninist (UML), also warned against attempts to delay the electoral process.

Also read: Debate: First Past the Post Means India is Only a Namesake Democracy

Local governments in Nepal are empowered by both rights and resources. The constitution grants 22 exclusive political and administrative rights to local governments. Similarly, there is a long list of concurrent powers that the three-tiers of government can implement in coordination with each other. Holding the elections for local governments on time is, then, imperative to strengthen local democracy and governance.

Growing pains

Due to a lack of experience and knowledge, many local bodies failed to perform well in their first term. It was the first time in Nepals political history that a totally new setup was instituted from the grassroots level.

For the first time, local legislatures were allowed to draft the necessary laws for the provision of services. Additionally, the concept of federalism was, itself, new to Nepal and came into practical operation only after the 2017 elections. If elections are held on time, leaders will gradually overcome the challenge and learn how to make this system function effectively. It is widely expected that local government leaders will perform better than they did in their first terms.

Despite these shortfalls, the first elected local governments, under the new constitution, have performed relatively well in terms of providing services to the people over the last five years. People now can get all services at their doorsteps, unlike in the past, when they would need to visit the capital, Kathmandu.

Their work has laid a good foundation for the future and timely polls are needed to keep up the pace of the work. Holding elections on time means creating a robust institution at the local level.

Women in government

These local governments have also begun to bear fruit in that they are contributing to grooming female leaders at the local level. According to a study conducted by Asia Foundation, in the 2017 elections, 91% of second-ranking positions such as those of deputy mayors in municipalities and vice-chairpersons in rural municipalities were won by women. However, men won 98% of the top posts; of mayors and chairpersons.

Similarly, women were elected as members of ward committees, in line with the mandatory legal provisions. Additionally, scores of women from marginalised communities, mainly the Dalit community, came to power in the elections. As per the law, every ward committee should have at least one Dalit member.

This increased representation of women is likely to continue after the second elections, although there are concerns that the number of women could dwindle due to the electoral alliance among five parties.

As per election law, parties must field at least one female candidate if they are contesting both the top two posts of chief and deputy chief. However, this rule does not apply if the parties field a candidate for only one of the top seats. Even though they are in an alliance, political parties can show that they are contesting only one of the top seats and, therefore, take advantage of this loophole in the law.

However, most major political parties have picked female candidates in vital metropolitan cities.

Also read: Will Differences on MCC Grant Break Nepals Ruling Coalition?

For instance, the Nepal Congress has nominated Srijana Singh as its mayoral candidate for Kathmandu Metropolitan City; the CPN (Maoist Centre) has nominated Renu Dahal as a mayoral candidate for the Bharatpur Municipality. Similarly, the main opposition, the CPN-UML, has nominated female candidates for the deputy mayors seat in Kathmandu as well as other places. All these exercises contribute to more and more female representation in Nepal politics.

As women already constitute 33% of the representatives in federal houses, the number of female representatives is increasing, even at the grassroot level.

Female leaders often face the criticism that they can only fight elections because of reservation. However, this is gradually changing as the number of women fighting elections directly against male candidates is increasing across the country. In the future, women will not have to rely on quotas to join politics and, as such, the representation of women at the local level is likely to create a new debate on the reservation policy.

The first five-year term has made women leaders confident that they can perform equally with men. Ahead of the candidate selection process, dozens of women who served as deputy mayors for the last five years openly claimed the top position, stating that they could now take on the leadership of local governments. Now, they can claim the tickets for provincial and federal parliamentary elections as well.

The increase in the number of female representatives has also helped minimise corruption and the provision of effective services to locals. Local governments led by women appear to be paying more attention to health, education, and womens issues. After the 2017 elections, 18 of the 753 local governments were led by women and these local bodies saw fewer complaints of corruption and irregularities.

Since a large volume of funds has started trickling down to local government coffers, timely elections will facilitate development at the grassroots level. Some local governments provide quality health and education facilities at the local level. Similarly, infrastructure development has taken off. Senior citizens, orphans, and the poor and marginalised receive incentives from the local government. Moreover, the school enrolment rate has increased due to the measures taken at the local level.

The May 13 local election is, therefore, vital to strengthen inclusive and participatory local democracy.

Kamal Dev Bhattaraiis a Kathmandu-based journalist and political commentator.

Read the original post:
Timely Local Polls in Nepal Mean the Return of Grassroots Democracy - The Wire