Mediaboss Marketing

People who study democracies around the world will be watching the 2022 midterm elections for new signs of how vulnerable the U.S. system has become.

Why it matters: Even if the true test doesn't come until the 2024 presidential election, the year ahead could set the stage and weaken American democracy in a more lasting way.

People who study democracies around the world will be watching the 2022 midterm elections for new signs of how vulnerable the U.S. system has become.

Why it matters: Even if the true test doesn't come until the 2024 presidential election, the year ahead could set the stage and weaken American democracy in a more lasting way.

Experts are watching:

The big picture: In other countries where democracies have eroded, it hasnt necessarily happened all at once, said Sarah Repucci, who heads research and analysis at Freedom House, a nonprofit that researches democracies around the world.

Details: In the U.S., among primary challenges drawing the most attention has been the race targeting Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state who stood up to pressure from Trump.

Attacks on the election system could become a self-fulfilling prophecy if they drive experienced people out of the field, said Brendan Nyhan, co-founder of Bright Line Watch, a group that monitors the status of American democracy.

Between the lines: Signs of deeper erosion of American democracy predated the 2020 elections.

The other side: The incentives in next year's contests to challenge the legitimacy of the elections may be weaker than in 2020 for two reasons, Nyhan said: Republicans are favored to make gains. And Trump wont be at the top of the ticket.

The bottom line: The 2024 election is likely to be a bigger test.

Continued here:
What the democracy watchers worry about - Axios

Not so long ago, in a galaxy not so far away democracy was in danger. Our current political environment is filled with threats to democracy, from the rise of authoritarian populism around the world, to the massive expansion of state power during the Covid-19 pandemic that may never fully be undone.

As constitutional law researchers, we are interested in how these threats emerge and what can be done about them. We argue in a recent paper that several useful lessons can be drawn from a surprising source: the Star Wars films.

You might fairly ask why we draw these lessons from Star Wars and not Weimar Germany or ancient Rome. But we think that there is an important role for culture in telling these stories in an accessible way.

More people will see Shakespeares Julius Caesar than will read detailed histories of the fall of the Roman republic. Far more people will see Star Wars, and reflect on its stories, than will ever deeply consider the risks of democratic decay in our society.

Star Wars is not just a series of science fiction films, but a cultural phenomenon. Its stories resonate with countless millions. If we can use this to highlight some of the ways that democracies die and maybe help people think about contemporary political challenges in a new way that seems like a worthwhile effort.

In the most common telling, the rise of the Empire in Star Wars is a story about the dangers of concentrating power in one person, who can then tyrannically misuse it. This lesson is always worth learning, as this threat is very real. But in fact, Star Wars also teaches a different lesson: an overly weak government is a major threat to democracy.

The Galactic Republic in Star Wars is a dysfunctional political system. The senate is full of squabbling delegates that, faced with the invasion of a planet, form an investigative committee. No one has faith in the leadership. There is no military, other than the Jedi, a tiny religious order of space wizards. Even when a secessionist movement threatens the Republic with vast military force, the senate cannot agree to create an army.

It is this total failure of the political system to protect the welfare of the Republic that gives Chancellor Palpatine who later becomes the evil emperor emergency powers to act unilaterally. As war continues, he accrues even more power, and the senate begs him to stay in office long after his term expires. This is how the seeds of the Empire are laid: an overly weak government fails and people turn to a strong leader.

This has been called the Publius paradox, first observed by American founding father Alexander Hamilton. If the government was not strong enough, Hamilton said, leaders may have to over-leap the bounds imposed by law in times of crisis, which may make them impossible to control later. Binding government too tightly, for fear of creating tyrants, may indeed create tyrants.

Star Wars teaches this lesson vividly: the disorder that can come when a state is not strong enough is the perfect breeding ground for a would-be emperor to agglomerate power and be met with, as one character laments, thunderous applause.

Literature on democratic decay often advises that states can avoid tyranny and dictatorship through commitment to the rule of law. Star Wars presents an interesting twist on this lesson: commitment to law alone does not help.

Everyone in the Star Wars universe is obsessed with legality, even the bad guys. Yet it is only formal compliance with law that anyone thinks about, not the consequences of these legal actions. If Queen Amidala signs a treaty at gunpoint justifying the illegal invasion of her planet, we are told, the senate will think this makes it all okay. Almost no one questions Palpatine gathering more emergency powers and staying in office for far too long once this is approved by the senate.

Star Wars reminds us that we should not be misled into thinking that people using the language of law must be doing the right thing. Many autocratic and undemocratic regimes around the world wrap themselves in the law to justify their wrongful actions. To prevent the erosion of democracy, we have to look at how the law is used (and misused), and what legal actions do.

Finally, Star Wars shows the risk of not knowing who is in charge. In the films, we see serious confusion over who is the ultimate guardian of the common good of the Republic and defender of the constitutional order: the supreme chancellor or the Jedi Council. It is clear that both consider themselves the ultimate custodian of the political community.

This ends badly, with Jedi master Mace Windu trying to overthrow Palpatine because he has sensed a plot to destroy the Jedi. It is unclear who, if anyone, authorised him to depose the elected head of the Republic. He then concludes that Palpatine is too dangerous to stand trial and tries to summarily execute him.

Star Wars shows the risk of having two rival guardians of the political order, with no means to choose between them. This constitutional tension tips over into chaos when their opposing claims meet in violence, and Palpatine uses the fact of this plot as a reason to consolidate the Republic into an Empire with him at its head.

These are important lessons to learn for anyone who wants to build and maintain a stable democratic state.

David Kenny is Associate Professor of Law and Fellow at the Trinity College Dublin. Conor Casey is Lecturer in Law, School of Law & Social Justice at the University of Liverpool.

This article first appeared on The Conversation.

See the original post:
Lessons from Star Wars about the decline of democracy - Scroll.in

Aditi Tandon

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, November 26

Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday called for a national awakening against family-based political parties describing outfits controlled and run by families as a danger to Indian democracy.

In wide-ranging remarks on the occasion of the Constitution Day celebrations at the Central Hall of Parliament, the prime minister also flagged the trend of public felicitation of politicians convicted of corruption as a matter of grave concern asking if this was the society we wanted for our youngsters.

He also questioned the past governments for not stressing constitutional duties enough and noted that if the path of duties had been emphasised after Independence, rights of the people would have been naturally secured.

But the PM's most direct attack was on dynastic politics.

"India is a democratic nation. Parties have their special significance and are a tool to taking the principles of the Constitution to the people. But can parties that themselves have lost democratic character protect Indian democracy? Today, India is moving towards a danger from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. Political parties for the family, by the family are a danger to democracy," the PM said in veiled attacks on the Congress and other family-run parties.

Drawing a distinction between families that send more than one person into politics on the basis of merit and parties that are controlled by a single family over generations, the PM said a national awakening is needed towards this threat.

"Family-controlled parties are a threat to our democratic character. They are the antithesis of what the Constitution teaches us. I dont say more than one people from a party cant enter politics on the grounds of merit but a party run by one family for generations, controlled by one family is a danger to democracy. We need national awareness to this end," said the PM, citing an example of Japan where a similar movement against dynastic politics succeeded.

The PM then went on to question people who fete those convicted of corrpution.

"Does the Constitution license corrpution? It is a matter of concern that after courts have convicted someone of corruption, there is a competition to fete and honour such people publicly for political purposes. What impression does such a trend give to youngsters? Won't they feel it is normal to be corrupt because society will accept you after some years? Chances for improvement should be given to such people but the competition to honour them in public is worrisome," the PM said.

He also lashed out at the past governments for squandering Mahatma Gandhi's legacy of stress on national duties saying had duties been emphasised right since Independence the rights of people would have been protected in normal course.

"Mahatma Gandhi in his lifetime stressed duties by way of cleanliness, women's empowerment. After Independence the seeds he had sown should have transformed into a thriving tree but governance structures that took root stressed only rights. It would have been better if after Independence, duties would have been emphasised. That way rights would have been protected on their own," the PM said, noting that fulfilment of duties led to the creation of a cohesive society and every time someone does their duty, someone else's right is protected.

The prime minister asked for moving towards the path where citizens seek to realise their rights through the performance of their duties.

The PM also took the occasion to take a jibe at the opposition with 13 parties, including the Congress, boycotting the Constitution Day event.

"I wonder if we could have written even a single page had we been tasked with the drafting of the Constitution in today's times when politics overwhelms national interest more often than not. The founders of the Indian Constitution, on the other hand, had national interest foremost in their minds and kept personal differences apart to give us the Constitution," Modi said to a thunderous applause.

He added that the Constitution Day event in Parliament was not a BJP or a government function.

"This is an event to hail the memory of Dr BR Ambedkar and other founders of the Constitution and has been organised by the presiding officers of the two Houses. Their chairs have a dignity which everyone must honour," the PM said, recalling that the opposition had similarly boycotted in Parliament his speech to mark the 150th anniversary of Dr Ambedkar.

The PM also asked past governments why they never thought of celebrating Constitution Day as a marker of evaluation of whether governance was headed in the right direction.

"These very people asked why the NDA government decided to celebrate Constitution Day. What was the need? It is surprising that while we hail an event associated with Dr Ambedkar's memory, such thoughts should even cross someone's mind. The country will not accept this," the PM said.

President Ram Nath Kovind also addressed the event calling for MPs to perform their duties as expected of them under the Constitution.

The President later led a joint reading of the Preamble.

Here is the original post:
'Parties for the family, by the family' a threat to democracy: Modi - The Tribune

The big annual United Nations forum for debate on climate change ended this month in Glasgow in a way that left many attendees bewildered. Money men have taken the thing over.

COP26, as the event was called, was less like its predecessors and more like a second Davos the January meeting of the World Economic Forum where the global economys moguls and regulators meet to map out our economic future. Dozens of private jets arrived for COP26, bringing investors and fossil-fuel lobbyists in embarrassing profusion. The finance writer Gillian Tett noted that between 2015 and today, the tribe of COP attendees had been transformed from one of environment ministers, scientists and activists to one of business leaders, financiers and monetary officials. That is bound to render the movements tactics and goals less democratic.

For environmentalists, COP26 ended in disarray, with the worlds two largest coal-burning countries, China and India, refusing to sign on to a phaseout of that dirtiest of fuels. For the finance industry, prospects were rosier. The new Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero united 450 financial institutions around a private-sector plan to move the world to so-called net-zero carbon emissions. Bank of America, BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, Vanguard and Wells Fargo have signed on. Insurers (like Lloyds), ratings agencies (like Moodys), pension funds (like the California Public Employees Retirement System) and financial-service providers (like Bloomberg) have also given their backing. They are ready to roll even if the COP activists are not.

The group is fronted by Mark Carney, a former Goldman Sachs executive and a former governor of both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, who is now the United Nations special envoy for climate and finance. About $130 trillion was said to be at the alliances disposal. That is serious money. It is more than the world generates in a year, and about six times the gross domestic product of the United States.

The alliances plan is vague. It involves driving upward convergence around corporate and financial institution net-zero transition plans and using financial levers to impose carbon-neutral rules on economic actors. The upshot: The alliance wouldnt disburse the funds on climate projects. It would direct how those funds could be invested, favoring behaviors the finance industry deemed virtuous and freezing out those it deemed not. This would be an extraordinary concentration of political power in bankers hands exactly the place where prudence might counsel us to fear power most.

We cant get to net zero by flipping a green switch, Mr. Carney announced late last month. We need to rewire our entire economies. That is a euphemistic way of describing the sought-after energy transition, which would inevitably mean enormous expense, widespread disruption and a reassignment of many property claims. The question is whether financiers as opposed to, say, scientists or voters ought to be trusted to do the rewiring. The alliance seems to want to resolve that question before the wider public even realizes that it has been asked.

A case can be made that money managers have a certain legitimacy in leading any international effort to save the planet. It is the same legitimacy that such politically active celebrities as Charlize Theron and Bono and Sean Penn have. Their power isnt democratic but it somehow feels like it is. Youve voted for those stars by buying their products.

A banker, too, is someone to whom you have yielded a part of your dreaming self. You have handed him control of your savings. And fighting climate change requires predicting the future or at least making reasonable assumptions about it. That is just what you trust your investment adviser to do, at least with that narrow part of your future that is measured by the Dow Jones industrial average. What is more, if rewiring the world is really our goal, then it will take resources of the sort that only the financial system controls. Theres no budget of any country that can do what we need to do, said John Kerry, the Biden administrations climate envoy, at an early meeting of Glasgow Financial Alliance in April.

But that is the problem. Governments lack the money to do these things because they lack the legitimacy. The money that Mr. Kerry proposes using for a climate-rescue program has not been levied in taxes for that purpose. It is peoples personal property, their private investments, their life savings. People might be willing to surrender it for the noble purpose of saving the planet, but in a democracy the government must first ask their permission. Until they assent, it is not the governments money.

In most cases, it is not the banks money either. Mr. Carney, for one, seems to have lost sight of that. We have all the money needed, he said at the summit. No. Bankers have the money in the sense of holding it, but not in the sense of being free to do what they will with it. A banker merely stands at one of the choke points through which other peoples money passes. In most cases he is permitted to stand there only so long as he is selfless. He is a fiduciary. He is bound by law and custom to protect only the interest of the people whose money he is holding. He cannot wield that money in his own interest whether financial or ideological.

Bankers have always chafed at these traditions. Certain investment consultants in the alliance forthrightly declare that shilly-shallying while the world overheats is itself a violation of fiduciary responsibilities. The Biden administration shares this view. Earlier this fall, the Labor Department drafted a rules change in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act that would require fiduciaries to consider environmental, social and governance factors as well as the interest of the depositor.

Banks have a hard time ignoring traditional fiduciary rules as long as they have competitors who obey them because, in theory at least, depositors will flock to other banks that are focused more single-mindedly on returns. A project such as the Glasgow Financial Alliance therefore comes with the expectation of government protection, protection from competition. At the April meeting of the alliance, the Morgan Stanley managing director Thomas Nides said, This is a time for financial institutions not to compete but to work together. Deciding whether this is a good idea depends on whether you believe financial institutions, acting in concert, are more likely to promote decarbonization or protect their own prerogatives.

At Glasgow a few self-nominated representatives from a very rich industry laid claim to a special role in shaping the human future. In doing so, they opened a rift. Climate activists were skeptical, noting that many alliance members continue to be involved in financing oil extraction. The bankers of the alliance, on the other hand, seem to believe society is ready to follow their lead. Voters, not bankers, should be the judge of that.

Originally posted here:
Opinion | Bankers Took Over the Climate Change Summit. Thats Bad For Democracy. - The New York Times

The many instances of leaders and members of the ruling party in Kerala using their clout to suppress rights, deny justice and protect wrongdoers, as in the Thiruvananthapuram adoption row and the recent Aluva domestic violence death, are symptomatic of an ugly political culture. From the very beginning, the Communist governments in the state were accused of promoting cell rule, where the party system overshadowed the official state machinery. The party functionaries at different levels were placed on the top and rules of a democratic government were bent to suit their preferences.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, fringe Communist groups that revolted against mainstream parties had warned about the danger of party functionaries gaining the upper hand in a democratic set-up. The mismatch between the basic structure of Communist parties and the democratic system has often been pointed out. The structure, envisaged at a time when the parties were operating from underground and existed as a resistance force, is no longer relevant. This structure seldom allows democratic principles to thrive as everything revolves around the partys interests.

The CPM leadership, too, is aware of the reality that unchecked interference of the party in day-to-day functioning of the government would invite a West Bengal-like situation. But all the sincere efforts to curtail the clout of party functionaries have come to naught. Officials who resisted party interference are either intimidated or tortured and democratic institutions are made silent witnesses. Rules are liberally flouted to dole out favours to the kith and kin of leaders. Anything that stands in the way of the partys wish is mercilessly steamrolled.

And the partymen believe that the impressive victory in the Assembly polls is a licence to do all this. The party machinery that has become a parallel government will oppose any attempt to disturb the status quo. The party secretaries at different levels are more powerful than the elected representatives or even ministers. But CM Pinarayi Vijayan, who is also a member of the party Politburo, can bring in lasting changes if he wishes. He is the unquestioned leader in the party and the government. He can show the party bureaucrats their place and preserve the democratic spirit in governance. Whether he wants such a change is the million-dollar question.

The rest is here:
A party at odds with principles of democracy - The New Indian Express