Mediaboss Marketing

It has become common to argue that most Africans are not that committed to democracy. Commentators often suggest that Africans care more about development than democracy, and that voters especially those in rural areas dont really understand democracy. They would thus happily trade away their political rights for a strong man who can get things done.

This narrative has proved to be durable despite being wrong.

In our new journal article for the Keywords series of the African Studies Review, we investigated three issues. First, is there support for democracy in Africa? Second, what kind of democracy do people want? Third, why are the desires of African citizens so often silenced?

Drawing on survey data collected by the Afrobarometer between 2016 and 2018, we show that strong majorities think that democracy is the best political system for their country.

Contrary to claims that Western style democracy is unAfrican, we find widespread support for a form of consensual democracy, which combines a strong commitment to political accountability and civil liberties with a concern for unity and stability.

Democracy in Africa has come under considerable pressure over the last decade. Satisfaction with the way that democracy is performing has fallen. This is in part due to a decline in public confidence in the quality of elections how free, fair and credible they are.

We argue that this has only had a modest impact on support for the principle of democratic government, in part because African citizens continue to view authoritarian rule as a worse option. Of the 35 countries surveyed, the proportion of citizens who suggested that non-democratic political systems might be preferable only exceeded 20% in eSwatini and Malawi.

This figure is now likely to have declined in both countries. Malawians faith in democracy was revived by a peaceful transfer of power in 2020. And the people of eSwatini have been protesting against a failing authoritarian regime.

Even in states in which the reintroduction of multiparty politics has been associated with political controversy and conflict, such as Cote dIvoire, Togo and Uganda, more than three quarters of citizens say that democracy is preferable.

It is, therefore, time to stop doubting that African citizens want democracy, and start asking what kind of democracy people want. We argue that there is widespread demand for a form of consensual democracy, in which a desire for elections and checks and balances on those in power goes hand in hand with a concern to maintain national unity.

Consensual democracy has four main features:

Multiparty elections

We show that the vast majority of Africans support selecting their government through multi-party elections. Three-quarters of those surveyed agreed that

We should choose our leaders in this country through regular, open and honest elections.

Almost 65% also agreed that many political parties are needed to make sure that (the people) have real choices in who governs them. Most rejected the idea of one-party rule.

Political accountability

Our article also shows that most Africans want political accountability and the rule of law. Over three quarters of respondents agreed that

The constitution should limit the president to serving a maximum of two terms in office.

Only 34% agreed that the government getting things done was more important than being accountable to citizens.

Civil liberties and political rights

Respondents also wanted to be able to express their own opinions and engage in political activities. Over three quarters (76%) agreed that a citizens freedom to criticise the government was important or essential for a society to be called democratic.

This extends to the right of association, with over 60% of individuals believing they should be able to join any organisation, whether or not the government approves.

Consensual politics

Strong support for rights, elections and accountability goes hand-in-hand with a concern to prevent excessive freedom and competition, lest they lead to disunity and instability. Many citizens worry about violence around elections; they want parties to put aside their differences and work for the common good.

Most respondents were therefore against the use of street protests to settle disputes, even though they often sympathised with protesters aims.

There are of course variations in how people feel about these issues, both across the continent and within countries.

Respondents in eSwatini, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi and Mozambique were less committed to elections, but only in Lesotho did this drop below 50%.

Namibians and South Africans were more willing to trade accountability off against efficiency perhaps because of majority support for the ruling party.

Yet, what is striking is the consistency of support for the four pillars of consensual democracy across the continent. What does this mean for African politics? Why is this reality not more accepted?

Our article outlines three key episodes in which support for democratic government has been silenced. We also identify vulnerabilities that authoritarian leaders could exploit.

Leaders who can persuade citizens that their country faces a grave risk of violence and instability may be able to legitimise backsliding on democracy whether or not the risk actually exists. This is a cause for concern because supporters of democracy in Africa dont always reject all authoritarian alternatives.

Yet, as our study shows, the overwhelming majority of Africans support consensual democracy.

The argument that multi-party politics is incompatible with African ways of life stretches back to racist colonial officials. It was also used by nationalist leaders to justify creating one-party states after independence. But it is not true, and has become a lazy excuse for authoritarian regimes that are neither popular nor legitimate.

In a decade in which activists have risked their lives to advance democratic causes in Algeria, Angola, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, eSwatini, Ethiopia, Gambia, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe, it is time to recognise that most Africans do not want authoritarian rule.

It is both misleading and patronising to suggest that democracy has somehow been imposed by the international community against the wishes of ordinary people. Instead, it has been demanded and fought for from below.

Here is the original post:
Africans want consensual democracy why is that reality so hard to accept? - The Conversation Africa

Interpreters play an essential role in making critical interactions possible every single day, whether the venue is a courtroom, a doctors office, or the United Nationsand sometimes they even facilitate the functioning of democracyitself.

Middlebury Institute of International Studies (MIIS)ProfessorLeire Carbonell Aguero, a 2003 graduate of theMA in Conference Interpretation program,called it a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity when she was recruited by fellow alumna Maureen Sweeney MPA 94 to lead a team providing interpretation support for the Biden-Harris presidentialcampaign.

According to2019 Census data, 22 percent of voting-age Americans speak a language other than English at home, with about two-thirds of those speaking Spanish. As a result, without interpreting support, a significant portion of the electorate would be shut out of full participation in the democraticprocess.

Members of the Biden campaign reached out to our team atTiller Language Services, says Sweeney of the firm she co-leads with business partner Todd Dennett, after learning about our live and remote interpreting services for other high-level clients. Sweeney then connected with colleagues at MIIS.

It was the beginning of summer 2020 when Maureen and Todd contacted me with the opportunity to be the chief interpreter of the Spanish booth for the Biden campaign, says Carbonell. From that moment on, I worked to put together a core team of five interpreters to cover weekly assignments for the campaign. Four of these five were Middlebury Institutegraduates; two were Carbonells classmates, one was a former student of hers, and the other was fellow professor Cas Shulman-Mora MATI95.

It was a true privilege for me to put together such an amazing and talented team, says Carbonell. Together, we covered more than 40 assignments for the Biden campaign from August through Election Day. In addition, I helped assemble a team of 44 interpreters for the pre-watch parties for the presidential debate. Im very happy to report that, out of those 44 interpreters, 29 were MIIS graduates, including a few of my currentstudents!

In total, Sweeney and Dennetts firm provided interpretation for more than 135 campaign-related events in languages including Chinese, French, Japanese, Korean, and Spanish. The majority of our interpreters for this project were graduates of the Institute, says Sweeney, who later this month will serve as deputy chief of the interpreting corps for the Tokyo Summer Olympic Games, with fellow MIIS alum Alexandre Ponomarev MACI 00 serving as chief. We were thrilled to work with so many highly qualified language services professionalsand believe this project goes to show the value of high-level interpretation to the successful functioning of democraticinstitutions.

Carbonell describes it as the highest honor of hercareerto be asked to interpret President Joe Bidens inaugural remarks for Spanish-language media. For the Spain-born Carbonell, though, the stakes were personal as well asprofessional.

The inauguration happened in the same year that I became an American citizen, she says. I came to the U.S. in 2001 for an MA in Conference Interpretation at MIIS. To be part of facilitating conversations that are so important to the functioning of democracy in the U.S. was something I could have never imagined when I arrived here. Thanks to our interpretation, key information was accessible to people who only speak Spanish, who are part of our country and have the right to participate in the political process. Every time I interpreted for the campaign, I felt that, in a way, it was my own story that I was telling. I felt that I was closing the circle and giving back to my new country, a country that has given me somuch.

The opportunity was both unique and uniquely meaningful for Carbonell. I will always treasure it. Paraphrasing Amanda Gormans words in her inaugural poem for the country, I came out of this experience knowing that together, we will continue to climb the hill, in all languages, cultures, andcolors!

Originally posted here:
Facilitating Democracy: Alumnae Led Interpreting Team for Presidential Campaign and Inauguration - Middlebury College News and Events

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (Project Syndicate)With the annual inflation rate in the United States reaching 5% in May,economistsandinvestorsare right to beapprehensiveabout deficit spending, public debt, and the risk of sustained price growthwhich is higher now than it has been for almost four decades. But it would be a mistake to respond to these concerns by pumping the brakes on the economy.

No, the government cannot borrow and spend as much as it likes without paying any costs, as some progressives wouldhave us believe. But nor can those worried about inflation ignore the deeper problem afflicting the U.S.: deep political polarization, accompanied by an erosion of trust in government. A rapid economic recovery, spearheaded by public policies that encourage employment and wage growth, is the best chance the U.S. has to restore trust in governmentand in democracy.

The first step to reversing Americas political dysfunction is to show that both the economy and the government can work for all.

The real risk stemming from inflation is that it will distract us from this fundamental issue.

Joseph Stiglitz: The fear of inflation is a red herring designed to distract us from the need for policies to reduce inequality

To be sure, there is no silver bullet against political dysfunction. Some commentators are understandably worried that the U.S. has already reached a point of no return. After all, amajorityof Republicans cling to the false belief that Donald Trump won the 2020 election, and by some estimates, 15% of the U.S. population areadherentsof the pro-Trump QAnon conspiracy theory. These figures point to a difficult road ahead.

But we should remember that people tend to trust democracy more when it delivers on its promises of stability, shared prosperity, and effective measures to fight poverty.

American democracy is in trouble, and a robust, inclusive government-led recovery may offer the last best chance of putting it on a sounder footing.

For example, those who grow up in stable democracies where there is rapid economic growth and adequate public servicesare much more likelyto oppose autocrats and unaccountable technocrats. By the same token, periods of economic stagnation and soaring inequality tend to fuel polarization and a loss of public trust, as has happened in the U.S. and many other countries around the world in recent decades.

The U.S. economy used to create good jobswith decent pay, reasonable levels of security, and career-building opportunitiesfor workers from all kinds of backgrounds and with all kinds of skills. For 35 years after World War II, workers at both the bottom and the top of the income distribution benefited from robust employment growth and rapidwage increases.

But this era came to an end in the 1980s, when median wages stagnated and inequality began to creep up. Rather than enjoying wage gains, men without a college degree started experiencingsharp declinesin job options and real (inflation-adjusted) earnings.

The Americans who have been experiencing wage declines and dwindling opportunitiesare overrepresentedamong those moving to the extremist fringes of U.S. politics. If you think the economy isnt working and cannot work for you, it is understandable that you might be sympathetic to opportunist politicians and media figures calling for a rigged system to be dismantled.

Getting the economy working again offers the best chance to rescue American democracy. The risk of a little higher inflation is no reason to squander the opportunity.

Of course, economic problems are not solely responsible for the sorry state of U.S. politics. The Republican Party, too, has played an outsize role in the dysfunction. Starting with Richard Nixons Southern strategywhich sought to capitalize on white backlash against the Democrats 1960s civil-rights agendathe GOP decided that polarization was good politics.

The more the Republican Party has shifted to representing white, non-college-educated voters (a shrinking share of the population), the more it has had to rely on voter suppression and other anti-democratic tactics to maintain its position, a trend that has peaked with Trump.

But the Democratic Party is not blameless. The Wall Street bankers who caused the 2008 financial crisis were rescued not just by George W. Bush but also by Barack Obama. It was the Obama administration that ultimately decided to help the banks and the bankers at all costs, and which later chose not to prosecute any of the guilty parties.

Voters suspicions about a too-cozy relationship between government and finance were confirmed, accelerating the loss of trust in institutions and supplying plenty of ammunition to those already inclined to regard government as the problem, not the solution.

If this diagnosis is correct, the first step to reversing Americas political dysfunction is to show that both the economy and the government can work for all. Generating jobs and wage growth for Americans of all backgrounds and skills should be a top priority. While we could focus simply on expanding the size of the overall economic pie and then redistributing it, that strategy is unlikely to leave voters feeling invested in the system. Enabling people to contribute meaningfully to the economy and society is a much better way to get them on board.

If infrastructure spending, expansionary fiscal and monetary policies, safety-net enhancements, job-generating investments, and other official measures are seen to be part of a robust recovery, that will further support the idea that government still works. Trust in state institutions cannot be restored simply by extolling their virtues in the abstract. Citizens must see and experience the benefits that come from institutions functioning effectively.

Can American democracy be rescued through a well-crafted economic recovery? There is no guarantee. The U.S. economy has neglected workers without college degrees (and increasingly workers with college degrees, too) and catered to the needs of large corporations for so long that it may be too late to change course now. With corporate Americafunneling investmentinto technologies to automate jobs, surveil workers, and push down wages, the plight of the average American worker may continue to deepen.

It also might be too late to reverse the toxic polarization that has sundered American society. Most die-hard Trump supporters have already shown that they will not change their minds under any circumstances.

All the same, getting the economy working again offers the best chance to rescue American democracy. The risk of a little higher inflation is no reason to squander the opportunity.

Daron Acemoglu, professor of economics at MIT, is co-author (with James A. Robinson)ofWhy Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty and The Narrow Corridor: States, Societies, and the Fate of Liberty.

This commentary was published with permission of Project Syndicate The Real Inflation Risk

Menzie Chinn: Heres how to tell if this spurt of inflation is here to stay

Stephen Roach: The ghost of Arthur Burns haunts a complacent Federal Reserve thats pouring fuel on the fires of inflation

James K. Galbraith: Bidens economic rescue plan is bold enough to actually work

Michael Boskin: Beware Americas soaring public debt

Originally posted here:
Our fragile democracy depends on a robust economic recovery for all, so this is no time to slam on the brakes out of inflationary fears - MarketWatch

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