Mediaboss Marketing

Tunisia currently faces its most critical political crisis since the 2011 revolution that introduced democracy. On Sunday 25 July, President Kais Saied announced that he was removing Prime Minister Hichem Mechichi, as well as thedefense and justice ministers. He also said he would suspend Parliament, insisting his actions were in line with the constitution. This intervention was a result of protests around the country over the governments handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, with a spike in cases. There has also been a drop in the economy and employment. Tunisia is the last living successor of the Arab Spring, but with its president putting a freeze on the entire government, the future of Tunisian democracy seems unstable.

According to The Guardian, President Saieds invoking an emergency article of Tunisias constitution came as a result of the intensified demonstrations against the countrys largest party-the moderate Islamist Ennahda (IE) faction. In his speech, Saiedexplained that Parliament would be suspended for 30 days, though he said it can be extended if needed until the situation settles down.After the announcement, tens of thousands of people flooded the streets of major cities to celebrate the suspension of political parties. However, as he stated he would assume executive authority with the assistance of a new PM, he received major backlash from authorities.

Parliament Speaker Rached Ghannouchi, head of the Ennahda, said to Turkish television: [K]ais Saied is dragging the country into a catastrophe. Additionally, the political elite emphasizes how the president has failed to deliver the democracy he was elected for. United States Secretary of State Antony Blinken encouraged Saied to adhere to the principles of democracy and human rights. He also urged Tunisias leader to keep an open dialogue with all political actors and its people.According to Reuters, the dramatic move has been labeled a coup by some experts, but Saied has rejected all accusations.

With the Tunisian governments failure to handle the pandemic, there has been an outbreak of popular discontent of parliamentary politics. Thousands of people defied COVD-19 restrictions in demonstrations, which sparked clashes with security forces in several cities on Sunday, right before the Presidents announcement. Over 18,000 people among Tunisias population of 12 million have died of coronavirus since the pandemic began. Restrictions have had severe effects on health services and the vital tourism industry. However, President Saieds actions to sack the government and freeze all parliamentary positions are extremely drastic. Many politicians already warn that invoking article 80 of the constitution, which allows the president to take exceptional measures in the event of imminent danger, effectively translates to total executive power for an unspecified period. Putting a hold on the democracy Tunisia has built up over 10 years will impose serious consequences on its citizens.

Tunisia has been recognized as the sole success of the 2011 Arab Spring, but the current crisis has roots in a dispute over the constitution during economic pressures. Throughout his presidency, Kais Saied, an independent without a party affiliation, has made no secret of his desire for a new constitution that puts the president at center stage. Reuters reported that when he was elected president in October 2019, he described his victory as a new revolution. Additionally, he has previously threatened to dissolve parliament as a way to overhaul a complex political system plagued by corruption. However, the biggest dispute has been with the IE and its veteran leader Rached Ghannouchi.

Over the past year, Saied and Ghannouchi have clashed various times over cabinet reshuffles and control of security forces, which has complicated efforts to handle the pandemic and address an expanding financial crisis. Saied was one of the legal advisers who helped draft Tunisias 2014 democratic constitution, although he soon spoke out against elements of the document. Now, the political elite of Tunisias revolution is emphasizing his role as its executioner, claiming the government suspension and freezing of parliament are an attack on democracy.

As protests exploded in January, it was the government and Parliaments old parties that faced the publics anger as COVID-19 cases spiked. President Saieds decision to fire the PM and suspend the government, with plans to reestablish it, has not shown any signs of improvement. He has yet to make any significant moves. The place where the Arab Spring started, is now a test for an administration that pledged to strengthen global democracy. Some experts believe that the Arab Spring is not dead, but Tunisia needs outside encouragement. Particularly, a pushback against the autocrats is needed. The country has received far too little support from other democracies in Europe and the U.S. Their pro-democracy credibility is crucial to support the Tunisian government in re-establishing democracy.

View original post here:
Tunisia Facing Its Biggest Threat Against Democracy As President Suspends Parliament - The Organization for World Peace

The faceless bureaucrat is a caricature Americans love to hate. Even though most government administrators are under-resourced and underpaid, partisans of all stripes find it easy to criticize civil servants for any failing. Now a subset of these dedicated individuals is being drawn into hyperpolarized fights about voting, and the impact on democracy will be devastating.

The person most responsible for providing your right to vote is someone who lives in your community. This individual a clerk, recorder or election administrator rallies an army of your neighbors to fill vital roles like the poll worker to deliver democracy to you each election season. This person is also likely toreceive threatsagainst their personal safety or fear for their wellbeing simply for doing their job during an election cycle with no parallel.

The 2020 presidential election was always going to be a challenge. President TrumpDonald TrumpMajority of Americans in new poll say it would be bad for the country if Trump ran in 2024 ,800 bottle of whiskey given to Pompeo by Japan is missing Liz Cheney says her father is 'deeply troubled' about the state of the Republican Party MORE elicited very strong opinions among the electorate. Either you loved him or you hated him, and there was very little in between. The onset of COVID-19 in the middle of the primary election season cascaded into confusing policy changes, which set the stage for election battles no one quite expected.

Threats against election officialsstarted earlyin 2020. Theycontinuedthrough Election Day, and, even months after, administrators continued toreceive threatsserious enough to warrant law enforcement action.

Local election administrators are not the decision-makers when it comes to setting the rules of the road for voting. They dont have a say on voter registration deadlines or the number of days (if any) of early voting available to voters. Election rules are most commonly set by state law, in accordance with broad requirements outlined in federal law, the Constitution and jurisprudence.

The local administrator is legally bound to administer the election as statutes, regulations and directives mandate. In 2020, a slewofadditional policy changesaimed at insulating voters from the pandemic came through direct orders from governors, secretaries of states from both parties, bipartisan election boards and courts. Caught in the middle were the election administrators who were left to operationalize the multitude of last-minute policy changes for their voters.

Though election administrators are oftenelected or appointed by partisan officials, the professional expectation is that they will put aside their own preferences to run a free and fair process. I have been privileged to work with election administrators in red, purple and blue jurisdictions. At the end of the day, they all want every eligible voter and only eligible voters to participate. They strive for clean elections, where the number of ballots cast matches the number of participating voters, and where audits with rules set by statute confirm the results. Its a point of personal pride for administrators to have both high turnout and high security.

Yet, pride will only take you so far. Many election officials wereforced into hidingduring some of the worst moments of the 2020 cycle. Some saw their families homes burglarized. Dedication to a cause can be heroic, but no job is worth your familys safety.

As a result of this rise in threats against election administrators and their families, a huge number of election officials are leaving before the next federal cycle, including abouta thirdof all of Pennsylvanias county administrators. The loss of institutional memory and fidelity to a free and fair election will take a generation to replace.

If the dedicated individuals who understand the intricacies of voting laws refuse to serve any longer, I expect fierce partisans to take their place, even at the local level. Its already happening insecretary of state conteststhat will occur next yearas both parties pour millions into historically sleepy races.

And even if a proud and public partisan wins the local administrator job, taking clearly political actions in office will only serve to undermine confidence in the outcome for a huge part of the electorate. Imagine if a local election official served as a local campaign chair for one of the candidates. Even acting in accordance with the law wont be enough to overcome the reasonable assumptions of bias in any official actions.

Furthermore, the job is highly complex. Though many Americans only think of voting a handful of days every two years, what was once a relatively clerical responsibility now requires expertise in cybersecurity, database management, logistics and information technology. Partisan loyalties have no role and being a strong party member wont make the job easier. In fact, its often members of yourownpartythat ask you to cross the line.

The United States is unique when it comes to how pervasive politics is in election administration. Its a feature unlikely to change anytime soon. But if voters expect professional, well-run elections, recent threats against election officials and all that it causes are a crisis deserving far greater attention. Election administrators deserve greater protection and threats against them must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. American democracy may just depend on it.

Matthew Weil is director of the Elections Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington. He previously served in staff roles at the Treasury Department and at the United States Election Assistance Commission.

Read more:
The bureaucrats vital to democracy | TheHill - The Hill

By Henal Patel and Shennell McCloud

In the midst of a long-overdue racial reckoning and partially in response to it America is experiencing a new wave of voter restriction laws harkening back to the decades of Jim Crow. Indeed, many of these laws are specifically designed to suppress the votes of Black and brown Americans across the country who showed up in strong numbers in 2020.

Concerned Americans watch day after day as efforts to pass democracy protection legislation in Washington are thwarted by political obstacles.

Were clutching tightly to hard-won rights while people in power are determined to yank us back decades.

We do, of course, need Congress to act. But we also need states like New Jersey to be a bulwark against these trends and to hold the line for the opposite stance: to say we are not afraid of more people voting. We wholeheartedly embrace democracy and seek to expand it.

So what should New Jersey do?

It is true that we have recently passed a slew of pro-democracy initiatives: online and automatic voter registration, restoring the vote to those on probation and parole, ending legislative prison-based gerrymandering and, most recently, early in-person voting.

But we have failed to enact a fundamental and logical opportunity to increase access to the ballot something that 20 states and Washington D.C. already have: same-day registration. In these states, people can register and vote on the same day. They have democracy in a day.

In contrast, New Jersey maintains a three-week arbitrary voter registration deadline that disenfranchises people every election. Studies have shown that same-day registration increases turnout by an average of 5%, with as much as a 10-percentage-point increase for young people. Studies have also shown that the greatest voter turnout increase is on Election Day and the days leading up to it. If your goal is to make voting as easy as possible, there is simply no reason to prohibit people from registering on the day they cast their ballot.

Same-day voter registration has also proven to increase voter turnout among people of color while denying people that access disproportionately affects African-Americans and Latina/Latino communities.

Of course, that is the point of many of todays new laws but New Jersey shouldnt be a member of that club.

A recent study found that Black voter turnout is on average 2 - to 17-percentage points higher and Latina/Latino is on average 0.1- 17.5-percentage points higher in states with same-day voter registration than similar states that do not have same-day voter registration. When enacted in North Carolina, African Americans made up 36% of those who utilized same-day registration to vote in the 2008 presidential election, even though they only made up 22% of the voting-age population.

Beyond voter turnout, same-day registration is an effective way to achieve more accurate voter rolls. When a voter registers at a new address, the voter rolls are updated and county elections departments have a more accurate picture of registered voters within their jurisdiction. These rolls also ensure that mail-in ballots and important voting information can be sent to the right address. In this way, same-day voter registration will help election officials.

Finally, contrary to scare-mongering claims, same-day registration is secure. Voters will be required to provide the same information they do in traditional voter registration, and county election officials will have the time to verify eligibility before counting their votes.

We like to think of ourselves in New Jersey as an enlightened state pushing back against many of the dangerous trends facing America right now. But we cannot claim to be a leader in the fight to save our democracy until we make voting as accessible and equitable as possible. Right now, we are behind 20 other states on this essential issue.

Legislators should pass A4548/S2824 and Gov. Phil Murphy should sign same-day registration into law quickly. Let them know.

Henal Patel is the director of the Democracy & Justice Program at the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice.

Shennell McCloud is the CEO of Project Ready, a nonprofit social justice organization.

Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe today to NJ.com.

Heres how to submit an op-ed or Letter to the Editor. Bookmark NJ.com/Opinion. Follow us on Twitter @NJ_Opinion and on Facebook at NJ.com Opinion. Get the latest news updates right in your inbox. Subscribe to NJ.coms newsletters.

See the article here:
People in 20 other states can get democracy in a day. New Jersey, unfortunately, isnt one of them. | Opinion - NJ.com

BOSTON Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey today joined a coalition of 22 attorneys general in calling on Congress to immediately act to safeguard democracy by passing legislation to protect against voter suppression and election subversion and, if necessary, reforming the filibuster.

Our democracy is at risk as more and more Republican-led legislatures push forward with dangerous legislation aimed at restricting voting access for communities of color, AG Healey said. These discriminatory policies are ripped from the same playbook as Jim Crow. Voting rights is the most important issue of our time, and its on us, as elected officials, to stand up and do whats needed to ensure the right to vote. Congress must act now.

In todays letter to Congressional leadership, the attorneys general describe how their offices worked to ensure that the 2020 general election was conducted freely, fairly, and with integrity. According to the letter, several factors contributed to the failure of former President Trump to overturn the elections democratic outcome including that the legal arguments used were generally so extraordinarily weak that they did not have even the veneer of legitimacy. Certain election officialsboth Republican and Democraticrefused to buckle under pressure at critical points, placing election integrity and our democracy, ahead of partisanship. And the attack on the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, while dangerous, was inept. The attorneys general argue for robust federal protections to protect the will of the voters and ensure that we are not left relying on the hope that future subverters will be similarly incompetent.

Eighteen states have already passed laws that create new barriers to voting or make it easier to overturn election results. In a statement issued on June 1, more than 100 democracy scholars explain, [W]e have watched with deep concern as Republican-led state legislatures across the country have in recent months proposed or implemented what we consider radical changes to core electoral procedures in response to unproven and intentionally destructive allegations of a stolen election. The statement argues that laws being passed in large key electoral battleground states are dangerously politicizing the process of electoral administration and seek to restrict access to the ballot. The scholars warn that these laws could enable some state legislators or partisan election officials to do what they failed to do in 2020: reverse the outcome of a free and fair election.

The attorneys general argue in the letter that the profound challenges confronting our democracy demand that Congress act to prevent voter suppression and election subversion. Irrespective of ones views on the value of the filibuster in general, it must not be allowed to stop Congress from addressing these issues so fundamental to our Constitution and democracy.

Joining AG Healey in sending todays letter are the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

###

See the original post here:
AG Healey Calls on Congress to Pass Legislation to Safeguard Democracy - Mass.gov

A former National Security Council official whose testimony about former President Donald Trumps contacts with Ukraines government led to the presidents first impeachment trial unloaded about the continued threat he believes Mr Trump poses to the republic.

Speaking with The Washington Post for a discussion coinciding with the launch of his book, Here, Right Matters, retired Lt Col Alexander Vindman excoriated Mr Trump over the events of 6 January and explained that he believes the president has done more damage to the US than just about anyone else in recent history.

Hes an enormous threat, said Mr Vindman. I can make cold, hard calculations about the threat...former president of the United States Donald Trump poses. He continues to pose a keen threat based on propagating this lie that the election was stolen, in fact, he was the one trying to steal the election.

Mr Vindman added: Hes a vile man that has done more damage to the United States than any other leader in recent U.S. history.

The Independent has reached out to the office of Mr Trump for comment.

Mr Vindman left the NSC in July 2020 following his testimony to congress about Mr Trumps activities, citing bullying and retaliation from members of the Trump administration. He previously served as director for European affairs.

Mr Trump claimed to have never met Mr Vindman in a February 2020 tweet that simultaneously accused the military officer of being very insubordinate, causing his superior to file a horrendous report about him. The former president famously demonized members of his administration and the broader White House and military spheres who criticised him in any way following their respective exits from his administration.

The 45th president survived both impeachment efforts launched by Democrats over the Ukraine scandal as well as the attack on the US Capitol earlier this year, though his second impeachment trial ended in the most bipartisan support for a presidential impeachment in US history.

Follow this link:
Trump continues to pose a keen threat to US democracy, says impeachment witness Alexander Vindman - The Independent