Mediaboss Marketing

In the current moment, it is important to be clear why comparisons with China are not only specious but also dangerous

Chinas developmental pathway over the last century has been spectacular. No country in history has ever grown faster and more dynamically. Not only have hundreds of millions been lifted out of poverty, but social indicators have improved dramatically. Indias developmental record has been much more mixed. Since the 1990s, the Indian economy has grown impressively, but it remains far behind China in its global competitiveness. Poverty has come down, but employment prospects for the majority remain limited to low-wage informal sector jobs that are, by definition, precarious. Maybe, most startling of all, improvements in basic social development indicators have lagged, so much so that as Jean Drze and Amartya Sen have pointed out, India has actually fallen behind Bangladesh and Pakistan.

Comparing these track records, some commentators, including voices in the Government, have drawn a facile lesson. Indias problem is that it is just too democratic. Unlike China, making and implementing key decisions about public investment and various reforms is impossible in the din of multiple and contradictory democratic voices. What is needed are firmer and more independent forms of decision-making that are insulated from this cacophony.

This line of thinking has at various times been embraced by sections of the Left (Leninism) and multi-lateral technocrats and bankers, but, increasingly, has become the animating fantasy of right-wing leaders and movements, ranging from elected autocrats such as Donald Trump, Brazils Jair Bolsonaro and Narendra Modi. The strangeness of these bedfellows alone should be cause for alarm. But in the current moment, it is especially important to be clear why comparisons with China are not only specious, but very dangerous.

The claim that less democracy is good for development does not stand up to comparative, theoretical and ethical scrutiny. Contrary to those who believe economic management cannot be left to the whims of democratic forces, the comparative evidence clearly shows that democratic regimes have on balance performed better than non-democratic regimes.

China, with a history of state-building going back two millennia, and an exceptionally well-organised, disciplined and brutal form of authoritarianism, has done especially well in transforming its economy. Africa and West Asia, where authoritarian governments of every stripe have dominated, remain world economic laggards. The Latin American military dictatorships of the 1960s and 1970s had a terrible economic and social record, and it was with the return of democracy and the pink wave of Left populist parties that prosperity and social progress were ushered in. Taiwan and South Korea are also instructive. Their economic take-offs happened under military regimes and relied on labour repression. Their transitions to democracy saw their economies move up to the next level and become much more inclusive.

Most pointedly though, one only has to look within India to understand how development and democracy can thrive together. By just about any measure, Kerala and Tamil Nadu have done more to improve the lives of all their citizens across castes and classes than any other States in India and it is no coincidence that both have also had the longest and most sustained popular democratic movements and intense party competition in the country. In contrast, in Gujarat, where single party Bharatiya Janata Party rule has been in place for nearly a quarter century, growth has been solid but accompanied by increased social exclusion and stagnation in educational achievement and poverty reduction. The comparative record leaves little doubt that on balance, democracies are better at promoting inclusive growth.

The theory behind the authoritarian fantasy also does not hold up. First, the assumption that authoritarianism supports forms of decision-making that can rise above the hubbub of democratic demand-making to get things done presumes that those in command will serve the general interest rather than catering to the powerful and that when they enjoy such autonomy, they actually know what to do with it. This is just hubris. On both these points, democracies are in fact more likely to meet the necessary conditions for successful decision making. Elected representatives, no matter how venal, have to win re-election, which means answering to a broad swath of the electorate.

The conflicts and noise that democracy generates may complicate things, but in the end, having to respond to a broad spectrum of interests and identities not only protects against catastrophic decisions, but actually allows for forms of negotiation and compromise that can bridge across interests and even balance otherwise conflicting imperatives for growth, justice, sustainability and social inclusion. The remarkable progress the United Progressive Alliance governments made in building a welfare state (National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, the Right To Information, the right to food and other programmes) is a testament to how a democracy can master even the most complex policy goals. As democratic theorists have long argued, the common good cannot and should not be determined by science, profits, technocrats or autocratic fiat. What it is and how we get there can only emerge out of sustained societal deliberation.

Indias tryst with democracy was born not only of its liberation movement but also of its affinity with what makes democracy ethically unique: it promotes equality by endowing all citizens with the same civic, political and social rights even as it protects and nurtures individuality and difference. And this is where the China-India comparison is so problematic, indeed unconscionable.

However one might like to measure or evaluate Chinas development successes, there is no way to discount the human cost of the party-made great famine that took some 35 million lives, a cultural revolution that made enemies out of neighbours, a one child policy that devastated families and erased a generation or the violent, systematic repression of the Uyghur Muslim and Tibetan minorities. These were not unfortunate excesses or the inevitable costs of development. These were and are the irredeemable instincts and predations of an authoritarian state, one which now denounces as historical nihilism any interpretations of the past that challenge the partys official history. Conversely, while Indias democracy has been quarrelsome, cumbersome and often dominated by elites, it has also opened social and political spaces for subordinate groups and has built a sense of shared identity and belonging in the worlds largest and most diverse society. It has preserved individual liberties, group identities and religious and thought freedoms, all the things that confer recognition on human beings. To even pose the question of a trade-off between these freedoms and the role they have played in building a pluralistic nation and some cold, utilitarian calculus of development not only does violence to the very idea of human agency and dignity but completely abstracts from the very different social and historical realities of India and China.

Beyond these comparative arguments for democracy, one need look no further than the object lesson the BJP government has provided to dismiss the authoritarian fantasy. The democratic backsliding has been clear. The Government has not only sought to centralise, insulate and personalise decision-making but has also aggressively undermined the independence of democratic institutions and silenced and imprisoned Opposition voices, all in the name of nationalism and promoting development. Yet, the development track is dismal at best. While corporate business interests and the billionaire class have flourished, the overall economy has sputtered and since COVID-19 has experienced the worst contraction of any sizeable economy in the world. Demonetisation and the disastrous response to the second COVID-19 wave were not just instances of utter policy incoherence fuelled by the sycophancy and myopia that comes with an inwardly focused government, but exposed a degree of callousness and arrogance rarely seen in a democracy. On the social front, the pursuit of Hindutva a prototypical variant of authoritarian ethnic nationalism has shaken Indias democratic norms and institutional foundations and weaponised a politics of polarisation and demonisation that threaten to unravel the social fabric of the nation.

Rather than look to China, it is time to defend the noise of Indian democracy.

Patrick Heller is Professor of International Affairs and Sociology, Brown University, U.S.

See more here:
Lead In defence of India's noisy democracy - The Hindu

Calling on election officials across the U.S. to recognize that the nation is at a critical crossroads, a non-profit legal advocacy group on June 30 cited the 14th Amendment as it demanded Republicans who aided the January 6 insurrectionincluding former President Donald Trumpbe barred from holding public office in the future.

The democracy watchdog Free Speech for People sent letters to the secretaries of state of all 50 states as part of its 14point3 campaign, calling attention to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which states:

No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

If you want to be elected president, you have to be 35 years old, you have to be a natural-born citizen, and you cannot take an oath of office and then turn around and incite an insurrection, said Ben Clements, board chair and senior legal advisor for the organization. We are asking state election officials to do their job and follow the mandate of the Constitution.

The organization launched the campaign amid signs that Trump is preparing another presidential run in 2024, with rallies planned in key states this summer. At his first event over the weekend, Trump repeated the baseless lie that President Joe Biden was not the legitimate winner of the 2020 election, calling it the scam of the century and the crime of the century.

Should Trump attempt to seek another term, Free Speech for People said, state election officials are duty-bound to ensure his name is left off ballots because he incited hundreds of his supporters to wage a violent attack on the Capitol building on January 6 as lawmakers were preparing to certify Bidens victory.

Secretaries of state have a duty to ensure that candidates who seek to appear on their state ballots meet the constitutional qualifications for serving in public office, said Alexandra Flores-Quilty, the groups campaign director. We are urging them to make clear that insurrectionists such as President Trump are barred from ever again holding public office, as is required under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

While the former president explicitly told his supporters on January 6 to stop the steal and to go to the Capitol and demonstrate against the certification of the election results, other Republicans including Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) faced backlash for their roles as well.

Both senators amplified false claims that the election had been stolen and objected to the counting of votes in Arizona and Pennsylvania. They persisted in obstructing the democratic process even after the insurrection, in which five people were killed and more than 140 were injured.

Hawley also drew ire after a photograph of him raising his fist in support of the insurrection went viral. The two senators were joined by 145 other Republicans in the House and Senate who voted to overturn the election results hours after the chaos at the Capitol had been brought under control.

Formerly elected officials who engaged in the violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, or who gave aid or comfort to the insurrectionists must be held accountable, said Free Speech for People president John Bonifaz, and if they seek to appear on the ballot again for any public office, secretaries of state and chief election officials must be clear: The Constitution bars it.

Go here to read the rest:
Democracy watchdog cites 14th Amendment in effort to ban insurrectionist lawmakers from public office - Milwaukee Independent

American democracy is at a moment of profound risk. The failure to address the threats to our system could lead the country to a point of no return on the road to autocracy. Finding a solution, fighting fiercely to defend the right of all Americans to choose their form of government, is essential. But, what if the most commonly prescribed solutions are unrealistic or unachievable right now?

Outrage, no matter how justified, is not enough. The stakes are too high to keep raising alarms and wishing for outcomes that cannot happen in our current environment. Yes, the situation warrants outrage and a burning sense of urgency. But it also demands realism and a long-term strategy. The effort to degrade our democracy by giving fewer and fewer people more and more power over the fate of the country, to corrupt our system and to institutionalize the racism and inequality within it has been ongoing for decades. The solution to it will not come in one bold stroke.

We are in a war to define what America is. We must choose our battles carefully and seek victories that will methodically advance us to our ultimate goal. Some will equate such realism with defeatism. But there is nothing more defeatist than placing ones faith in calls for what cannot happen, in wishful thinking. That only plays into the hands of the enemies of democracy who have been working methodically to advance their goals for decades.

While those who value the aspirations and ideals that underpin our system are currently profoundly concerned about the hundreds of pieces of legislation being advanced by the Republican Party nationwide to restrict voting rights, they make a mistake if they see these moves as unprecedented. What is more, even if implemented, they would not represent the most damaging factors contributing to the degradation of democracy in America.

The Constitution itself is part of the problem. Its allocation of disproportionate power in our Senate and electoral college to less populous states is profoundly undemocratic and guarantees that proportionally fewer and fewer Americans will have more power over time. Today, the 50 Democrats in the Senate represent 43 million more people than the 50 Republican in the Senate. By 2030, roughly 70 percent of Americans will be represented by 30 percent of our senators. It is a grotesque imbalance that gives the minority effective veto power over efforts to curb their disproportionate power.

Our campaign finance laws are part of the problem. Since the Supreme Courts disastrous and ill-conceived Citizens United decision, which equated money with speech thus giving those with more money a louder voice in American politics, the power of check-writers to choose those who write our laws has only grown. Dark money and other techniques that eliminate transparency from the funding of political leaders has institutionalized corruption in our system. And there is little hope of getting incumbents in Congress to do anything meaningful about this right now because they see this broken system as serving their interests.

Another deeply flawed decision by the Roberts court, Shelby County, limited the ability of the federal government to defend the voting rights of minorities. Other court decisions have enabled states to gerrymander congressional districts thereby protecting incumbents and in many cases reducing the rights of voters whose party did not control the state legislature.

There is no doubt that the hundreds of voter suppression laws currently being considered nationwidevirtually all being promoted by a GOP terrified of demographic change in America and seeking to rig the system to enable whites and the rich to maintain control over a country that will in just two decades have a non-white majoritywill make a bad situation worse. They must be fought against by every means possible as should all factors that pervert and corrupt our system.

Currently, however, there is a widely held view that the way to fight those laws is to focus on having Democrats break the filibuster and then pass a set of laws that will help combat somebut far from allof the above problems. The filibuster is another extra-constitutional tool often used to preserve the rights of whites at the expense of people of color. As currently employed it also gives a Senate minority veto power over many vital issues in which their views run contrary to that of a large majority of Americans.

The filibuster should definitely go. Getting rid of it and passing the For the People Act and other legislation protecting voting rights would be a great step to take to help fix what is broken in our democracy. Ending it would also create an opportunity to fix other flaws in the system from campaign finance (with new laws) to the disproportionate power of less populous states (by admitting new states like the District of Columbia or Puerto Rico). It would also make the Senate more productive and more like the deliberative body it was originally envisioned to be.

But a number of Democratic senators oppose ending the filibuster. Their reasons are often specious (see Krysten Sinemas recent Washington Post oped for a great example of this). And the cold hard reality is that if all 50 Democrats are not willing to line up behind this reform, it will not happen, and that Sinema and Joe Manchin are not the only Democrats reluctant to make this change.

That said, we should push for it. We should do all in our power to change their minds. The president can and should play a more active role in seeking such reform. However, if we care about democracy, we also need to consider as the White House has reportedly done, the possibility that not enough Democrats will change their minds on the filibuster and that therefore, voter protection legislation like the For the People Act will not pass. What then?

The apparent conclusion of some within the White House, deeply frustrating to many progressives and others seeking to stave off this latest wave of voter suppression measures, is that if filibuster reform and voter protection laws cannot be passed, that they need to focus on doing what they can to pass other legislation that gives them a chance of bucking the long-term pattern with midterm elections and actually preserving or increasing their majorities in the House and Senate in 2022. They have come to the recognition that failing to do so, and allowing the GOP to retake the majority in the House, the Senate, or both will only accelerate that partys attacks on democracy and effectively make essential social and economic progress not to mention approval of new members of the judiciary impossible. It is a tough view for many to swallow. But the stakes are so high this calculus deserves serious consideration.

In other words, voter suppression is a grave threat. But if the cost of focusing on impossible solutions to it is increasing the odds of GOP wins in 2022, then a different approach is needed.

Opponents of voter suppression will rightfully argue that if these laws are put into place, it will make Democratic victories in 2022 that much less likely. The concern is real. That said, pushing for something that is basically just a wish dressed up as a political objective wont make it any more real, and that push takes time and energy away from other paths that might make a difference regarding next years elections.

Combatting naivete on this front cuts both ways, however. Those who want to defend democracy need to be realistic about whether the anti-filibuster cavalry is just over the horizon. But those who want to focus on winning in 2022 by virtue of the accomplishments of the president need to also invest in ways to combat those who will not be competing fairly next year.

This includes mobilizing a massive grass-roots effort to offset the effects of voter suppression laws. It includes funding the court challenges nationwide that will be required to roll back those laws that are unconstitutional or violations of existing legislation. It includes focusing resources on the communities that have been targeted by the suppression laws to ensure they are able to get to the polls and offset efforts to purge the rolls. It includes using technology to help make it easier for voters to know when polls are open or closed, where they are located, where problems may be emerging and so on. And, above all, it includes a massive effort to support candidates who will ensure Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and, not coincidentally, the preservation of our democracy.

It also includes doing what is possible to ensure the passage of more major legislation that has widespread benefits and is broadly popular as the American Rescue Plan has been and as the American Jobs Plan and the American Families Plan will be. We should not lose sight of the fact that a substantial majority of Americans support this president and that his initiatives are more popular than those of many presidents in recent memory. The few times the party of the incumbent president has done well in midterms have been when the country was at a moment of special need. We are in such a moment. But seizing it will require that the Democratic party remain unified around the president. Allowing factionalism or frustration with political reality to dilute our strength at this moment is the worst possible thing we can do if we wish to win this existential battle to preserve our democracy.

So, by all means, let us call for the sweeping reforms we need. Let us maintain our sense of urgency. Let us fight for filibuster reform if there is any way it is possible. Let us demand accountability for the wrong-doing of the prior administration. But above all, because the stakes are so high, let us be realistic about what is possible and formulate a strategy that enables us to win within the context of that reality.

Read more here:
Outrage Won't Save Our Damaged Democracy. Here's What Will. - Daily Beast

Check out these state vaccination numbers. Here are the top 10, with the percentage of the adult population that has received both shots: Vermont, 64.6 percent; Maine, 60.5; Massachusetts, 60.4; Connecticut, 59.4; Rhode Island, 57.7; New Jersey, 55.3; New Hampshire, 54.9; Maryland, 54.4; Washington, 53.3; and New Mexico, 52.9. (New York, for those of you who insist that New York is the center of the known universe, is next, eleventh, at 52.7.)

And here are the bottom 10, from forty-second to fifty-first (because the District of Columbia is included), with the same percentages: West Virginia, 36.7; Utah, 36.7; Georgia, 35.4; Idaho, 35.4; Tennessee, 34.7; Louisiana, 34; Wyoming, 33.8; Arkansas, 33.6; Alabama, 32.1; and pulling up the bottom, it practically goes without saying, is dear old Mississippi, at 29.2 percent.

See a pattern here? Yes, its mostly geographic, with a few exceptions. But the starker snapshot here is blue versus red. The top 10 are a blue state sweep. With the exception of Georgia, which in 2020 barely voted blue for the first time in more than a quarter-century, the states gathering at the bottom are all scarlet-hued. This pattern extends: Of the bottom half of states, there are two blue ones, Georgia and that other newly minted and barely blue state, Arizona. Of the top 25, there are just three red states: #22, Iowa; #23, Nebraska; and #25, South Dakota (theyre all in the mid-40s, percentage-wise).

Continued here:
Anti-Vaccine Fanaticism Will Prolong the Pandemic and Endanger Democracy - The New Republic

Health ministry workers check the temperature of mask-wearing fans before the start of a soccer match in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, on March 25, 2021. (Dieu Nalio Chery / AP file)

Research by Vanderbilts Latin American Public Opinion Lab found that in Haiti, the COVID-19 pandemic rallied support for the incumbent administration, even though the publics commitment to it and to democracy itself was weak before the pandemic. The paper, published in PLOS ONE, was co-authored by Noam Lupu, associate professor of political science and associate director of LAPOP, and Elizabeth J. Zechmeister, Cornelius Vanderbilt Professor of Political Science and director of LAPOP.

Other LAPOP surveys have found that commitment to the most fundamental tenet of democracyregular electionshas been wavering. The COVID-19 pandemic occurred during that shift, which could have created fertile conditions for decreased support for democracy in a country like Haiti, where there is high corruption and weak rule of law.

The majority of public opinion research related to the pandemic has focused on developed, wealthy democracies. So we wanted to knowhow might a monumental health crisis shape attitudes in less developed contexts, like Haiti? Lupu said. Our goal was to assess whether and how the introduction of a new crisisthe COVID-19 pandemicwould shift public opinion toward the president, elections and democracy. Does the public lash out against the incumbent government, does it rally around the executive as if the pandemic were an act of war, or does it shift in deference to authority and authoritarian principles?

To answer these research questions, the authors conducted a phone survey of a nationally representative sample of Haitians from April 23 to June 10, 2020, with 2,028 voting-age respondents. The questionnaire was structured such that half the respondents were asked 10 questions about views on the pandemic and then a set of questions on various topics that included the issues of interest: presidential approval, support for postponing elections, tolerance for coups and support for democracy. The other half of the respondents answered in the reverse order, being asked the second set of questions before being asked the 10 questions about the pandemic.

They found that considering the pandemic first modestly boosted responses that indicated presidential approval and intentions to vote for the incumbent president. This result shows that a rally effect can occur even in the most unlikely of placesan unstable context in which the president is struggling to maintain order and support. They did not find data supporting the notion that the onset of the pandemic eroded democratic attitudes, even in an unstable context like Haiti.

The authors also found evidence of increased deference toward the executives authority, which may be an under-explored outgrowth of rally dynamics. When asked if the president ought to be given leeway to postpone elections in the face of a major health crisis, like the COVID-19 pandemic, the vast majority of Haitians agreed, and they were even more likely to do so if they answered the set of pandemic questions first.

Then-Mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani, floated postponing his departure from office while riding a wave of approval following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, for example, Zechmeister said. However, we find no evidence of a broader shift in democratic attitudes. Our data show that support for a democratic form of government held steady, and that the onset of the pandemic does not appear to have bolstered a broader set of authoritarian attitudes in Haiti. Our results are reassuring for those who worry that the pandemic will inevitably undermine democratic values.

See the original post:
Survey in Haiti shows democratic attitudes can persist in countries with weak governance, even during pandemic - Vanderbilt University News