Mediaboss Marketing

The strength of a nation depends on its institutions, which must be independent and display intellectual integrity and vigour in performing their duties. India is a functioning parliamentary democracy, but its institutions seem to buckle before challenges. We must make institutions stronger, and therefore more effective, writesB K CHATURVEDI,former cabinet secretary and member of the erstwhile Planning Commission.

-

THIS week, at a G-7 conference, India reaffirmed its commitment to democracy in a joint statement. The statement, which India has signed, says, We are at a critical juncture, facing threats to freedom and democracy from rising authoritarianism, electoral interference, corruption, economic coercion, manipulation of information including disinformation, online harms and cyber-attacks, politically-motivated internet shutdowns, human rights violations and abuses, terrorism and violent extremism.

While the statement contains very clear affirmations of our values, several Indian policies have raised concerns in the international media.

Also read:India signs joint statement at G-7 for freedom of expression: Internet curbs threat to democracy

The 2021 World Press Freedom Index produced by Reporters without Borders (RSF), a French NGO, again placed India at 142nd rank out of 180 countries. The report mentioned that with four journalists killed in connection with their work in 2020, India is one of the most dangerous countries for journalists trying to do their job properly.

When Freedom House, an organisation based in the US, released its report on the functioning of democracies in March, it had downgraded Indias ranking from free to partly free. It observed, Rather than serving as a champion of democratic practice and a counterweight to authoritarian influence from countries such as China, Modi and his party are tragically driving India itself toward authoritarianism.

There may be issues with these assessments, and one may legitimately contest the views of these organisations, but they are one indicator of how some in the international community view the functioning of democracy in India.

Quite apart, the strength of a nation lies in how independently and with how much intellectual integrity the different parts of its democratic institutions carry out their responsibilities.

Also read:Freedom in the World 2021

Despite more than seven decades of a functioning parliamentary democracy, several institutions have not taken strong roots in our country. Some institutions have often not shown intellectual integrity when faced with challenges. A major issue is that corruption remains high, which weakens institutions and their effectiveness.

The recent Assembly election in West Bengal highlighted several major weaknesses in the working of some institutions. Our Election Commission has, over the years, acquired an image of a very strong and independent body. Unfortunately, it did not manifest in the West Bengal election. The polls were announced to be held in eight phases. Given the presence of a large number of paramilitary forces there, this schedule was difficult to understand.

There were allegations that it was done to favour the party ruling at the Centre so that its leaders could campaign in most of the constituencies right till the end. Since Prime Minister Narendra Modi has the image of a very popular leader, a long campaign was important for the BJP if it wanted to win this election. Further, the election was held when the country was going through one of the worst epidemics.

The Election Commission ought to have been really strict in implementing safety norms during the West Bengal election, but there was very little evidence of this. Large political meetings were allowed with blatant disregard for social distancing or wearing of masks.

The recent cyclone in West Bengal and the visit of the Prime Minister to review the losses in the state was yet another occasion when our institutions did not act in the spirit of the Constitution, as they must in a mature democracy. In our setup, the Prime Minister generally visits states ravaged by floods or other natural disasters.

During these visits, it is customary to hold meetings with the Chief Minister and other officials, including the Chief Secretary. Generally, meetings with public representatives are also held. It would have been appropriate if this was done. Unfortunately, it seems the bitterness of the elections affected the visit.

After handing over the papers to the Prime Minister, the Chief Minister chose not to stay back any further. She returned to the cyclone-affected areas along with the Chief Secretary.

While it was unfortunate that the West Bengal Chief Minister left the meeting with the Prime Minister early, the orders of the central government calling the Chief Secretary to report to the Government of Indiaissued immediately after this incidentviolated the All India Service Rules.

No concurrence of the state government or the officer was taken and, only a couple of days back, the government of India had agreed to his extension as Chief Secretary for three months. The entire incident did not reflect mature institutional functioning.

The Supreme Court of India is the highest judicial forum in the country. Sometime back, four of its judges held a press conference to express concerns about its functioning. When Article 370 was abolished in Jammu and Kashmir and many public representatives were put behind bars under various laws, several Habeas Corpus petitions were filed. Such petitions require urgent hearings as human freedom is at stake in them. Sadly, these petitions were kept pending for months. The courts did not take cognizance of them.

In January, the Supreme Court-appointed a committee to look into the problems faced by the farmers in light of their agitation. All the members appointed to this committee were generally seen to be in favour of the three central legislations that the farmers are opposing.

Similarly, the question of electoral bonds is still pending in the Supreme Court since 2017, although it has significant implications on the flow of funds to various political parties. The expeditious listing and hearing of the bail application of a pro-government TV anchorand subsequent relief to him has given rise to the belief that there is a strong influence of the government over the courts.

Also read:Farm laws: Supreme Court-appointed committee submits report

Day-to-day administration in our country is carried out by the executive. There are major chinks in the armour of this arm of government. For example, the functioning of the governors of states has been a cause of worry for a very long time. Over the years, chief ministers have complained about the conduct of several governors.

In July 2016, the conduct of the governor of Arunachal Pradesh, who imposed Presidents rule, was criticised heavily by the Supreme Court. Sometime back, the Governor of Maharashtra administered the oath of office to the Chief Minister at 8 am, after the President was woken up even earlier in the morning to revoke Presidents rule!

Also read:Maharashtra: How things played out on a day marked by intrigue

Electoral processes need to be free. However, recently, it has been noticed that before elections, the CBI, the Enforcement Directorate, and the income tax authorities launch investigations or carry out raids on the candidates of Opposition parties. The timing of these raids raises questions about their independence and fairness.

The functioning of the legislatures of states and Parliament, too, raises questions. The most basic question is the number of days our parliamentarians sit to discuss issues. Sadly,neither Parliament nor the state legislaturesare meeting enough.

According to recent reports, 19 state Assemblies met, on average, for 29 days a year. The last time our Parliament was in session for more than 100 days in a year was in 1988! Unless legislators meet and hold the executive accountable, democracy cannot be strong.

What independent institutions can achieve was evident some months back in the United States presidential election. It is remarkable that despite nearly 50 challenges to the election coming from different states, all the judges expeditiously rejected them.

According to reports,86 judgesand theUS Supreme Courtrejected the suits that challenged the election. The executive also responded very independently to the election process.

Even where President Donald Trump intervened personally and wanted a state governor to withhold the election result or ensure it is not certified, the governors refused. Arizona Governor Doug Hobbs, who is Republican, refused all pressures and certified the results.

After the 2020 election result, the US executive acted under the rules and laws despite pressure and did not delay decisions, nor did it just sit on papers. Even the investigating agency in the US, the FBI, and the Attorney General stood firm.

United States Attorney General William Barrsaid, To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election. Within days of his comment, he announced his resignation.

What is important for our democracy is to be strong, its institutions to function independently and with intellectual integrity. This approach must get strong support from all political parties. This will have strong positive results for the rule of law. It will make our nation strong.

(The author is a former Cabinet Secretary and former member of the Planning Commission. The views are personal.)

Read the rest here:
Indian Democracy is only as strong as its institutions - The Leaflet

Breadcrumb Trail Links

The notwithstanding clause is a dangerous and altogether unnecessary tool

Author of the article:

Publishing date:

Canadas democracy has always been considered resilient and well immunized against the democratic backsliding that is occurring in other liberal democracies. Yet there is one feature of Canadas Constitution that undermines this rather smug assessment: Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms the infamous notwithstanding clause which permits Parliament and the provincial legislatures to provisionally suspend the operation of the charter with respect to certain fundamental rights and freedoms.

In recent weeks, we have seen two provincial premiers resort to the notwithstanding clause in order to insulate legislation from charter scrutiny. In Ontario, Premier Doug Fords Progressive Conservative government announced that it plans to invoke the notwithstanding clause in order to restore parts of the Protecting Ontario Elections Act that restricts third-party election advertising and that had been struck down by a judge for infringing freedom of expression.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

And in Quebec, the Coalition Avenir Qubec government of Premier Franois Legault has invoked the notwithstanding clause as part of Bill 96, which seeks to amend Canadas Constitution to identify Quebec as a nation and make French its official and common language. In 2019, the Legault government also resorted to the notwithstanding clause when it passed Bill 21, An Act Respecting the Laicity of the State, which is intended to eradicate religious symbols in most of the public sector.

Back in 2018, Premier Ford introduced legislation cutting the size of Torontos city council in half, and announced that he would be prepared to invoke Section 33 in order to save the law in the event that it was found to violate the charter. In the face of public opposition, both Ford and his attorney general cavalierly defended the proposed use of Section 33 by touting their access to all the tools in the toolbox.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The willingness of our leaders to resort to the notwithstanding clause is cause for concern. Although the invocation of Section 33 does not offend the rule of law because the notwithstanding clause is, indeed, in the constitutional toolbox, it nevertheless poisons the liberal-democratic well from which free citizens draw their water.

Section 1 of the charter already anticipates that there will be circumstances in which rights and freedoms may lawfully be curtailed. But the courts have imposed a rigorous, multi-pronged test under Section 1 that requires the government to establish that the law or action responds to a matter of pressing and substantial concern, that its objective is rationally connected to the abridgement of a charter right, that the impairment of the right must be minimal and that there must be proportionality between the benefits of the law and the deleterious effects of the impairment.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

With Section 33, however, governments are not required to satisfy a judge that any of these conditions are present. Except to the extent that a governments purpose is articulated in legislative debate, the exercise of justifying the abridgement of constitutionally protected rights and freedoms can be dispensed with altogether when such an exercise risks producing an inconvenient or embarrassing result for the government.

The notwithstanding clause is the product of some heavy-handed, high-stakes bargaining amongst federal and provincial negotiators during the constitutional negotiations of 1981. The insistence by then-premiers Peter Lougheed, Allan Blakeney and Sterling Lyon on the inclusion of such a constitutional override clause was crucial in securing the requisite provincial support for the patriation package.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The principal justification for such an override was perhaps best articulated by constitutional law scholar Peter Russell: A belief that there should be a parliamentary check on a fallible judiciarys decisions on the metes and bounds of our fundamental rights and freedoms. However, almost four decades after the inclusion of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canadas Constitution, we have had the benefit of a rich and well-developed jurisprudence under Section 1.

It is high time we recognize that the escape hatch of Section 33 undermines Canadas commitment to protecting civil liberties, erodes the legitimacy of our democracy, renders it vulnerable to democratic backsliding and compromises Canadas credentials as a global champion of human rights and liberal-democratic values.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The problem is not that first ministers will be tempted to use all the tools in the constitutional toolbox, but that Section 33 is a dangerous and altogether unnecessary tool. It simply has no place in the constitutional toolbox of any mature and robust liberal democracy. It ought to be repealed.

National Post

Peter L. Biro is the founder of Section1.ca, a democracy and civics education advocacy organization, a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and chair emeritus of the Jane Goodall Institute, Global. He is a lawyer, business executive and the editor of Constitutional Democracy Under Stress: A Time For Heroic Citizenship.

Listen to our new podcast, COVID Conspiracies, on Apple Podcasts or Spotify

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of NP Posted will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Read the original here:
Peter L. Biro: Section 33 has no place in a liberal democracy. It ought to be repealed - National Post

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland delivers remarks on voting rights at the Department of Justice on Friday. Tom Brenner/Pool/Getty Images hide caption

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland delivers remarks on voting rights at the Department of Justice on Friday.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland on Friday offered a fierce defense of voting rights, which he described as an indisputable "cornerstone" of American democracy, as he outlined a series of measures meant to protect those rights.

"There are many things open to debate in America, but the right of all eligible citizens to vote is not one of them. The right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy, the right from which all other rights ultimately flow," Garland said during remarks to the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.

Following former President Donald Trump's baseless claims of a stolen 2020 election, many Republican-led legislatures across the country have in recent months sought to pass restrictive voting measures that critics have argued are often designed specifically to disenfranchise racial minorities and the poor.

Garland noted that at least 14 states have passed new laws this year to make it harder to vote. Those states include Georgia, Florida and Arizona.

"To meet the challenge of the current moment, we must rededicate the resources of the Department of Justice to a critical part of its original mission: enforcing federal law to protect the franchise for all eligible voters," Garland said.

As part of this mission, Garland said the Justice Department would double the number of voter enfranchisement lawyers in the Civil Rights Division and more closely scrutinize laws that relate to the right to vote, including examining state legislation for possible disenfranchisement against Black voters and other people of color.

Garland also said the department would examine recent reviews of state 2020 election results. The Department of Justice has already raised concerns about a GOP-led review of ballots in Maricopa County, Arizona.

The attorney general said his department's ability to protect voting rights was hampered by a 2013 Supreme Court decision that struck down a key provision in the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Garland called on Congress to advance two bills on voting rights that have the backing of most Democrats but seem unlikely to pass.

As the nation's chief law enforcement official, Garland also vowed to combat disinformation campaigns that may deter people from voting, as well as publish guidance for how states should move forward with mail-in ballots a topic that became a focal point of the partisan divide during the 2020 race.

"Nearly two and a half centuries into our experiment of 'government of the people, by the people, for the people,' we have learned much about what supports a healthy democracy," Garland said. "We know that expanding the ability of all eligible citizens to vote is the central pillar. That means ensuring that all eligible voters can cast a vote; that all lawful votes are counted; and that every voter has access to accurate information. The Department of Justice will never stop working to protect the democracy to which all Americans are entitled."

Later Friday, Vice President Harris, who's been put in charge of the Biden administration's efforts on voting issues, lauded new measures signed into law in Nevada, where state Democrats there pushed for expanded voting access.

More here:
AG Garland Vows To Defend Voting Rights As The 'Cornerstone' Of American Democracy - NPR

Still, Shapiro and many other experts believe political parties have suffered a major loss in clout, which in turn has been a loss for democracy in general.

"Political parties are the core institution of democratic accountability because parties, not the individuals who support or comprise them, can offer competing visions of the public good," write Shapiro and his Yale colleague, Frances Rosenbluth, in a2018 opinion piece. Voters, they argue, have neither the time nor the background to research costs and benefits of policies and weigh their personal interests against what's best for the majority in the long run.

To show what can go wrong with single-issue voting that lacks party guidance, Shapiro and Rosenbluth point to California's notorious Proposition 13, a 1978 ballot initiative that sharply restricted increases in property taxes. At first, the measure seemed like a win to many voters. Yet over the years, the new rule also decimated local budgets to the point where California's per-pupil school spending now ranks near the bottom of a list of the 50 states.

Parties serve many other important roles, including facilitating compromise, says Russell Muirhead, a political scientist at Dartmouth University and Rosenblum's co-author. As an example, Muirhead points to theUS Farm Bill, which the two parties renegotiate roughly every five years. Each time they sit down, "the Democrats want food support for urban people and Republicans want support for farmers, and somehow, they always come to an agreement," Muirhead says. "The alternative is favouring one side or simply passing nothing at all."

Perhaps most important, the US's two main parties have traditionally cooperated in acknowledging their opponents' legitimacy, as Rosenblum and Muirhead write. Other nations, such as Thailand, Turkey and Germany, have banned political parties that their governments have seen as too destabilising to democracy. American parties' cooperation has helped keep the peace by reassuring US voters that even if they lose today, they may well win tomorrow. Now, however, this fundamental rule is being broken, say Rosenblum, Muirhead and others, with some party leaders even accusing their opponents of treason.

Read the original post:
Can we have democracy without political parties? - BBC News

"Our entire democracy is now at risk." Those are the unvarnished words of more than 100 scholars with expertise in the history of democratic breakdown around the world.

Now, they're warning the U.S. could transform into a political system that doesn't meet even "minimum conditions" for free and fair elections. We'll hear their warnings, and solutions.

Susan Stokes, professor of political science and director of the Chicago Center on Democracy at the University of Chicago.Co-director of Bright Line Watch, an academic initiative to monitor democratic practices in the U.S. and call attention to threats to American democracy.

Jack Beatty, On Point news analyst. (@JackBeattyNPR)

Anna Grzymala-Busse, professor of international studies and director of The Europe Center at Stanford University. Senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institution for International Studies and the Hoover Institution. (@AnnaGBusse)

Steven Levitsky, professor of government and director of the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies at Harvard University.

New America: "Statement of Concern" "We, the undersigned, are scholars of democracy who have watched the recent deterioration of U.S. elections and liberal democracy with growing alarm."

Democratic Erosion: "Civil Society and Democratic Decline: A Look at Poland" "Poland was once seen as a model post-Soviet transition to democracy. Between 1989 and 2014, Poland built democratic institutions, joined the EU, NATO, and the OSCE, and experienced significant economic growth."

The Guardian: "American democracy is at risk from Trump and the Republicans. What can be done?" "Academics rarely agree about the big issues, and generally hesitate to enter the political fray by signing collective public statements."

Read this article:
Democracy At Risk: Scholars Offer Warnings And What Can Be Done - WBUR