Mediaboss Marketing

To the Editor:

Re G.O.P. Voting Bills Ratchet Up the Penalties on Poll Workers (front page, May 16):

If Republicans would only support policies that a huge majority of people actually want fair elections, living wages, affordable quality health care and child care, taxation of the very wealthy, to name but a few they would no longer need to gerrymander voting districts or pass restrictive voting bills to prevent majority rule.

Joe Biden garnered seven million more votes than his opponent, and the Republicans in Congress represent far fewer Americans than do the Democrats. Can we get rid of the filibuster and get our democracy back, please?

Beatrice ShushanCarlsbad, Calif.

To the Editor:

The G.O.P. is splitting apart over Donald Trump, while hemorrhaging young voters and suburban women. The Republicans fight culture wars and advocate few policy positions. They throw their truth tellers overboard, making the party smaller and smaller still. Their big tent is becoming a pup tent.

The former president never reached 50 percent approval in four years in office. He lost the popular vote twice. He incited an insurrection against the government. His big lie has no chance of prevailing over time against the truth.

This iteration of the Republican Party isnt sustainable. It cant win the presidency with Mr. Trump, and cant win without him. So what do Republicans do? Suppress the vote, cause people to lose trust in our elections and institutions, refuse to accept electoral decisions by the courts, and use their state majorities to advance partisan control of elections.

All this is groundwork to take power and assert minority authoritarian rule. Democracy is truly in crisis.

David PedersonMinnetrista, Minn.

To the Editor:

Liz Cheney and Jeb Bush should team up to form a third party. What beautiful and perfect irony that relatives of the leaders of the George W. Bush administration join to save our democracy.

A platform of moral authority and fiscal conservatism would attract not only the multitudes of disaffected former Trump supporters, but also many Democrats who are uncomfortable with the partys progressive direction.

If nothing else, a new third party would help accomplish what Ms. Cheney urged to ensure that the former president never again gets anywhere near the Oval Office.

To the Editor:

Re The Wrong Way to Distribute Vaccines, by Ezekiel J. Emanuel and Govind Persad (Opinion guest essay, May 25):

The suggestion that it is unethical to allocate vaccines equitably across all nations when some countries are faring worse against the ravages of Covid-19 than others misses one crucial fact: Vaccines are at their most effective when preventing surges of the virus, not combating them once they have taken hold.

When outbreaks occur, the critical tools available to governments are of the nonpharmaceutical variety, such as lockdowns, distancing and mask wearing. Vaccines are also a part of the solution, but with up to three months needed for a two-dose Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccination, followed by a two-week wait in order to achieve full protection, they are not an acute intervention even if there are enough to go around.

We dont know where the next surge will hit or when the next variant will emerge, which is why Covaxs goal to protect the most vulnerable everywhere is, at this stage of the pandemic, the right thing to do. This not only means maximizing the chances of survival for the health workers, elderly and vulnerable whose lives are most at risk, but also minimizing the chances that new, more dangerous variants will come along.

The real issue with vaccines today is not how to divvy up a small slice of the pie for less wealthy nations but how to make their slice bigger, which is why governments and manufacturers of vaccines must do everything in their power to get as many doses as possible to Covax now.

Seth BerkleySoumya SwaminathanRichard HatchettDr. Berkley is chief executive of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Dr. Swaminathan is chief scientist of the World Health Organization. Dr. Hatchett is chief executive of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations. Their organizations co-lead Covax.

To the Editor:

Re A Push in Texas to Polish Stains of Race History (front page, May 21):

Its understandable that Texan educators and politicians would err, as have most nations throughout history, on the side of covering up our atrocities. Perhaps the larger educational moment involves asking, Why is there such a push to obscure now?

It appears the social upheaval of our historical moment is producing pressing and unsettling questions. For example, how do we explain to our children that the land upon which we founded our nation was stolen through the Doctrine of Discovery, which entitled colonial powers to claim ownership of Indigenous lands.

How do we teach our kids that the men who crafted our founding documents owned Black people? What are we to make of the Declaration of Independence phrase all men when considering equality?

If we were to see through our delusion of moral superiority, our approach to history would have to deepen and become more nuanced and honest. No wonder many Americans prefer to simply remember the Alamo.

(Rev.) Tom MartinezChandler, Ariz.

Go here to see the original:
Opinion | Democracy Is Truly in Crisis - The New York Times

As Prime Minister Narendra Modi completes his seventh year in office, Indias perceived democratic backsliding has invariably formed the underlying context of political assessments of his tenure. The governments handling of Covid-19s second wave has added to anxieties related to the suppression of democratic norms.

These concerns were validated by a host of annual democracy rankings earlier this year, which downgraded Indias status to a flawed democracy or electoral autocracy. Irrespective of ones view on the conclusions, these reports have thrown up a set of larger questions over methods to assess democratic robustness, the internal and external variables that shape democratic health, and the roots of the crisis of liberal democracy.

Is Indias democratic backsliding an outlier or part of a historical pattern? In the early 1990s, political scientist Samuel Huntington described the pattern of global democratisation as a series of three waves and reverse waves. The first long wave lasted for almost a century until the end of World War I; the second short wave was in the aftermath of World War II; and the third medium wave began in the late 1970s, lasting till the dawn of the new century.

Since then, the world has been under the grip of a democratic recession. The rising concern among scholars and commentators on how democracies die to borrow the title of a book on this trend is neither surprising nor unwarranted.

Also Read | Pakistans balancing act between the US and the Taliban will affect India

At the outset, the sharp disagreement over democracy ratings, as witnessed in India, is inevitable, since democracy itself, in academic literature, is an essentially contested concept. There are endless debates among scholars on how best to measure democracy. In fact, dissatisfaction among academics with Freedom House and Polity scores led to the establishment of V-Dem that employs more comprehensive indicators and statistically robust techniques. Much like any complex social phenomenon, a snapshot picture of democracy (in terms of headline numbers) will have inherent limitations of subjectivity.

As each of these reports privileges some components of the definition of democracy and relies heavily on expert-based judgments, they capture certain parts of reality and filter some parts out.

This lack of a singular framework of measurement of democracy does not, however, mean that we must not take them seriously. Notwithstanding political rhetoric, these institutes follow a very methodologically rigorous protocol on how to define democracy, best practices to measure the concept, and aggregation of various components into single indices. Further, all these reports share a very high degree of correlation and their datasets (along with methodological details) are publicly available. Their data is regularly employed in the statistical analysis of economic, political, and social policy.

At the heart of criticism are the ideological biases of the experts. We cant be sure about the ideological preferences of these experts as the institutes refrain from sharing the identity of individual country experts, for understandable reasons. Even as these reports document rising populism, they are subject to the same populism-driven distrust of experts. These institutes must therefore assuage these rising concerns by greater transparency.

But we must recognise that there is a certain consensus democracy in every region of the world is under attack by populist leaders and their supporters who are exploiting nationalistic appeals to concentrate power. As a result, dissenting voices (including all sorts of minorities) are facing the heat of this anti-pluralist backlash.

The big decline in Indias ratings hinges on a decline in civil liberties and deterioration in political tolerance. And not surprisingly, the actions and inactions of the Modi government have been highlighted as the driving factor in Indias democratic backsliding.

While India must focus on the home front to regain its political legitimacy, global trends cannot be discounted in this decade of democratic recession. For example, in the previous two reversal waves, shocks to geopolitical order (such as wars), new States with weak institutions (which could not keep up with increasing pressures on the system), and neighbourhood effects were important drivers.

We must also not discount the shifting geopolitical order with the rise of China and increasing economic inequalities across the globe in understanding democratic recession. States in the developing world are unable to keep up with governance demands in face of an economic slowdown. And, most countries are facing renewed challenges with new types of non-State actors (including Big Tech) trying to influence domestic politics.

In many parts, where the rate of backsliding has been steep, especially in consolidated democracies such as India, there is also a simultaneous collapse of the ancien regimes under the weight of their inefficiencies. The liberal model of democracy is struggling as its promise of fostering equality and giving a voice to all citizens in politics has remained, to a great extent, unfulfilled. As BR Ambedkar warned, political democracy can only be sustained with the foundation of social and economic democracy.

The global surge of nationalist-populist leaders did not happen in a vacuum. Nor can their continued popularity be easily wished away. Many of these leaders have cemented a solid support base, and the political opposition in many of these countries still remains largely discredited. While these leaders remake politics in their country that is more amenable to their ideological worldview, the line between disagreements and dissent will continue to remain thin. This means that the expansive notions of democracy that were envisioned during the rapid march of global democratisation of the 1980s and 90s will continue to remain under stress in the near future.

This is not to say that the supporters of democracy must learn to live with truncated notions for the foreseeable future. It is to suggest that they must participate in a more clear-eyed appraisal of the backsliding and chart out the path of recovery. Democracy is strengthened through dialogue on divergent issues. On the home front, this would require both resolve to engage with the current churning, and more inclusive intention to re-envision the idea of India.

Rahul Verma is a fellow, Centre for Policy Research (CPR), New Delhi

The views expressed are personal

Read the original here:
Assessing the quality of Indian democracy - Hindustan Times

With changes to voting and campaign finance rules, Maryland sets the pace for nation

BALTIMORE Several voting and campaign finance reform bills that the Maryland General Assembly passed this session became law in Maryland after Gov. Larry Hogan chose not to sign them. The new laws increase access to early voting, improve on the state's vote-by-mail system, and reduce the role of large and corporate donors in races for governor. While none of the bills got Gov. Hogans endorsement, many of the bills earned bipartisan support in the state legislature.

We are disappointed that Gov. Hogan did not sign these common sense reforms, especially the update to the Fair Elections Act, which he used to win office, Said Maryland PIRG Director Emily Scarr, With these new laws Maryland has firmly positioned itself as a leader on democracy reforms."

The events of 2020 made a clear case for why American democracy desperately needs reform. Butwhile an important federal election reform bill called the For The People Act has stalled in the U.S. Senate, a handful of states, notably Maryland, are pushing forward with building a better democracy.

The Maryland bills passed recently include:

States have often been described as laboratories of democracy and, in recent years, Maryland has been one of the most productive laboratories. In fact, many of the reforms in the stalled federal For the People Act are already in use in Maryland. Over the last decade, Maryland has passed automatic voter registration, has expanded access to mail-in balloting and, after the state legislature passed enabling legislation in 2013,five Maryland cities and counties established successful public campaign financing programs to empower small donors.

Groups including Maryland PIRG, Common Cause Maryland, the League of Women Voters of Maryland, the Maryland State Conference of the NAACP, Disability Rights Maryland, and the Maryland ACLU have worked with legislators and activists to advocate for these reforms.

So, while partisan gridlock stymies reform just across the state line in Washington, DC, Maryland is showing that there is a path forward for building a democracy that works for everyone.

Our democracy works best when we all participate and everyones voice is heard, in Maryland, the 49 other states and DC, said Scarr. Instituting these electoral reforms is a powerful way to ensure we have a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

View post:
Maryland democracy reforms go into effect without signature from Gov. Hogan - State PIRGs

Voters stand in line before casting their ballots under Sheikhs 42C heat. (Photo: Greg Mills)

The authors were members of the international election monitoring team convened by the Brenthurst Foundation, and were based in the Sahel region in eastern Somaliland.

A dirty white, bullet-pocked house, without electricity and running water, does not merit a second glance in the town of Burao high in the east of Somaliland. Yet this former colonial governors residence shaded by a giant acacia was the site of the Grand Conference of the Northern Peoples in Burao, held over six weeks, concluding with the declaration of Somalilands independence from Somalia on 18 May 1991.

Since then, the Somalilanders have stuck with a winning formula, despite the absence of international recognition and the tepid democratic enthusiasm of much of the Horn of Africa.

Only Somaliland is not ranked as unfree (with a score of 42/100) on Freedom Houses political rights and civil liberty rankings. Ethiopia (22), Djibouti (24) and Somalia (7) all rank as unfree, the same as Uganda (34), Rwanda (21), Burundi (14), Egypt (18), Sudan (17), South Sudan (2), and Eritrea (2) in the next regional ring. Only Kenya (48) to the south enjoys partly free status.

Somaliland uses democracy to keep its people together. Its steady democratic performance and progress is a breath of fresh air in a continent where right now its an uphill struggle for democrats.

Only seven countries of 49 in sub-Saharan Africa are now in the free category. This is the lowest figure since 1991, with less than 10% of the population of the continent now living in countries classified by Freedom House as free.

The reasons are simple. Incumbents have little interest in changing things, even though a vast majority of Africans regularly polled prefer democracy to other forms of government, despite the popularity among elites of the Big Man thesis.

Somaliland also shows that you dont have to be rich to be democratic. Despite a tiny national budget of just $250-million for its 3.5 million people, tough geography and a hostile climate, Somaliland is to the contrary showing the way for much richer African countries how to do it.

A place that has made something out of virtually nothing is how former Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo describes the progress made by Somaliland. His trip there in May 2019 was the first by an African president since the territory re-declared its independence in May 1991.

In June 1960, Somaliland gained its initial independence from Britain before making an ill-fated decision to join former Italian Somaliland five days later in a union that was envisaged ultimately to include French Somalia (now Djibouti), the Somali-dominated Ogaden region of Ethiopia (now Region 5) and a chunk of northern Kenya.

In the centre of the capital, Hargeisa, is the independence memorial, comprising a MIG-17 fighter-bomber erected on a plinth. This commemorates the event when, having lost control of the province, Siad Barre ordered his air force, operating from the local airport, to bomb the city which had been briefly captured by local Somali National Movement (SNM) liberation fighters in May 1988. Flown by Zimbabwean mercenaries, among others, this resulted in many thousands of civilian casualties.

By the time of Siad Barres fall three years later, the main cities of Hargeisa and Burao had been razed to the ground. Not for nothing was Hargeisa known as the roofless city after systemic looting by Mogadishu had stripped it of roof sheeting and even doors and their frames.

Somalilanders have since sought stability on the principle of maximum ownership and the reality of minimum resources.

Peace did not require vast external financing. There was none available anyway at the time. In fact, the absence of outsiders may be precisely the reason for its success, at least compared with its southern neighbour, Somalia, which has lurched violently from peace conference to initiative, peacekeeping mission to external military intervention, and failing government to fragile coalition seemingly with little discernible progress. In Somalia, conflict entrepreneurs have fed off both the fighting and the talking in a top-down process financed by donors mostly taking place outside the country.

Somalilands peace conferences were by contrast managed and financed by locals, bringing their own food and shelter. The last conference in 1993 was held over five months under the trees in the western city of Boroma.

Such dialogue, long a feature of Somaliland society, was organic, bottom-up rather than top-down. Somalilanders concentrated on achieving peace, not on acquiring comforts and financial rents for delegates from a peace process. Despite its obvious dysfunctionality, Somalia somehow refuses to countenance Somalilands right to a divorce, clinging chauvinistically to the notion that the marriage can be repaired. And Africa blindly stumbles on with hopes for reunion and fears of the impact of accepting the current two-state reality.

The recovery since has similarly demanded persistence and the principle of inclusion.

The former British protectorate has developed a stable, democratic system of politics, merging modern and traditional elements. In 2002, Somaliland made the transition from a clan-based system to multiparty democracy after a 2001 referendum, formalising the Guurti as an Upper House of Elders, which secures the support of traditional clan-based power structures. There have since been regular elections and a frequent turnover of power between the main political parties. The 2003 presidential election was won by Dahir Riyale Kahin by just 80 votes in nearly half a million from Ahmed Mahamoud Silanyo.

The tables were turned in 2010, with Silanyo winning 49% of the vote to his opponents 33%. Muse Bihi Abdi, a former SNM fighter, who had earlier served as a Soviet-trained fighter pilot in the Somali Air Force, was elected in November 2017, receiving 55% of the vote, becoming the countrys fifth president, and cementing a tradition of peaceful handovers of power rare to the region.

On 31 May 2021, around the 30th anniversary of Somalilands independence and the 20th anniversary of its multiparty democracy, despite Covid-19, the parliamentary and local district elections went off smoothly, with 1.1 million voters registered by the National Electoral Commission (NEC), and the establishment of 2,709 polling stations countrywide.

Unlike Somalilands previous six elections, which were mostly funded by outsiders, 70% of the $8-million budget was financed internally. And despite delays in the election, caused by a standoff between the presidency and opposition parties over the nomination of members of the NEC, and challenges with the iris biometric voter registration system, these were the most competitive yet, with 246 candidates for 82 parliamentary seats and 966 for 249 district municipality posts across the six regions.

Critics say that Somalilands democracy has been facilitated by the dominance of a single clan, the Isaaq, unlike Somalia, which has to balance the competing interests and ambitions of four major clans and several smaller ones. But this argument understates the differences between the Isaaqs sub-clans and sub-sub clans, ignores the internal violence that accompanied the birth process, which had to be resolved, and overlooks the tremendous hard work that went into it.

The focus on the relative integrity of the clan system, president Abdi contends, also underestimates the impact of the democratic culture of the SNM. For 10 years, he says from his offices in Hargeisa, the SNM was struggling for democracy, refusing the dictatorship of Siad Barre. The democracy we now have was also based on the constitution of the SNM, which was very democratic, in which there were regular elections every two years, and in which the central committee operated like a parliament.

He cites the example of former president Silanyo who was removed in the 1989 SNM elections and yet accepted the change. We have a tradition of accepting results and changing power, and accepting leadership even outside of the SNM, which is very unusual, he points out, among African liberation movements.

Donors have helped in sponsoring the local civil society group that provides election oversight: in 2021, the European Union was the principal contributor to the $2-million budget of the Somaliland Non-State Actors Forum (Sonsaf), which deployed nearly 900 monitors countrywide and ran an Election Situation Room in Hargeisa staffed by 16 operators collecting and collating countrywide incident reports between April and July 2021.

This is how donors can spend money well and wisely in supporting local governance initiatives and the cause of peace and stability.

Of course, as with any democracy, there are challenges of consolidation. Delays to the election process have resulted in officials serving well beyond their original mandates, while journalists face problems of access and pressure from authorities. There are instances of minor clans being subject to political and economic marginalisation, and violence against women remains a serious problem in a highly patriarchal society.

We observed the 31 May election in Sahel region, including Burao, the former colonial capital of Sheikh and the villages of Ina Dhakool and Qoyta, the latter the site of a casualty clearing station during the civil war. For all of its diplomatic isolation, Somaliland is strongly globalised. The link with the diaspora is in the names of Buraos suburbs, including Xaafada London, Abu Dhabi and Jarmalka (Germany).

Yet Somaliland is synonymous with grinding poverty and dirt-scrabble hardship. A high percentage, too, of the population is illiterate, requiring assistance at the polls, many of which were run by university students. The slow pace of voting is accompanied by constant grumbling on a high Somali volume setting. Regardless, the enthusiasm was palpable, not least among the very old and young. Preference is patiently given to disabled and woman voters. A voting age of 15 might seem low, and a cynical way of vote-stealing, but it serves as a deradicalising mechanism for the largest demographic: 70% of Somalilands 3.5 million population is under the age of 30. The younger generation sees democracy as a means of diluting the impact of the clan system.

Democracy demands and creates a high-trust and transparent environment. Assisted voters, about one-fifth of those in our area of observation in 46 polling stations, would be asked their preference to be filled in by the presiding officer, and showed immediately to the agents representing the three parties in the station. These practices help to ensure votes are respected. The crowds were not voting just for political parties; they voted for nationhood and the pride for self-determination.

Somalilands commitments to improving democratic norms and standards and its regular change of leaders at the polls have made it a regional democratic superpower. Its progress should shame those much richer African countries where incumbents are rolling back democratic progress, since this threatens their power and financial privilege.

Those African leaders government and oppositions alike committed to democracy should recognise Somalilands undoubted progress from war to peace. The opposite also holds true. DM

Continue reading here:
Somaliland: The power of democracy - Daily Maverick

Andrew Yang thinks community boards are a bastion of democracy even if they end up obstructing his agenda as mayor.

At a Battery Park press conference on Tuesday announcing his plans for democracy reform which include lowering the municipal voting age to 16 and granting non-citizens the right to vote Streetsblog asked Yang how community boards fit into his vision. Are these groups of citizens who are appointed by borough presidents and local council members more likely to be conduits of popular democracy or do they have too much influence over city governance?

What an interesting question. I feel like community boards are tremendous because its people stepping up in their neighborhoods trying to address and resolve issues that matter to them and their neighbors, the candidate replied. I have a very hard time imagining how you could see community boards as anything but positive for democracy, because its a very high level of civic engagement.

Reminded that community boards often impede life-saving bike lanes and traffic calming infrastructure, Yang insisted he had no issue with them.

Its interesting. Again, I appreciate the people that want to give a voice to interests in their communities. I just see that as something to be admired, Yang said.

Community boards have no actual authority to make laws or veto city projects their volunteer roles are purely advisory. Yet over the years, city government, especially the Department of Transportation, has given community boards an outsized amount of influence that is mostly used to discourage the administration from carrying out road redesigns that can make the city safer.

Members of community boards have delayed street calming measures and crucial bike infrastructure across the city in many cases for years, costing lives. Their members have stoked a racist police crackdown on delivery cyclists, advocated for tow pounds over affordable housing, suggested that some pedestrians deserve to die, and that low-income workers dont have a right to relieve themselves with dignity. They have opposed popular programs like open streets and the installation of Citi Bike racks, and demand the right to break traffic laws when the laws dont suit them.

One community board even used city money to buy itself a fancy car.

Mostly, their objections to changing the lived environment boils down to complaints overa loss of parking spaces, a position that is out of step with a city that largely does not own cars, and would prefer to see valuable curbside real estate used for something else. Sometimes, members of community boards complain about a lack of engagement by the DOT.

In 2018, New Yorkers voted to amend the city charter to limit the service of community board members to four consecutive two-year terms. The amendment also stated that borough presidents must turn over demographic information on the citys 59 community boards to ensure that they actually represent their neighborhoods, but so far that data has been spotty.

Yang clearly hasnt acquainted himself with the lengthy, paint-peeling community board process (sometimes there are fisticuffs and Epstein allegations!) since he was asked about community opposition to bike infrastructure at the Bike NY forum in March.

Other candidates werent much better. The New York Times-endorsed Kathryn Garcia said she would keep the boards advisory role, but wouldnt let them stop the DOTs bike network. Shaun Donovan said something about introducing improvements as part of a comprehensive set of options. Ray McGuire had his bicycle in the frame behind him.

Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, who is virtually running neck-and-neck with Yang in the recent polls that still show undecided dominating, said he would use credible messengers to dispel the notion that bike lanes are akin to gentrification. But he also said this: Ive communicated with community board members around the borough, and Im telling you that at the heart of their concerns, they feel, Eric, no one is talking to us; theyre talking at us.

Scott Stringer had a somewhat valiant, if unrealistic plan for addressing community boards: I will commit to this: As mayor, Ill go to community boards. Ill build consensus around the table.

While Yang was in front of the Statue of Liberty to ostensibly talk about his democracy reforms, he also took the opportunity to hypea recent New York Times story that detailed how Adams reaped campaign donations from firms with business before the city, and then multiplied those donations under the citys matching funds program.

Seeing another candidate violate these rules and then dismiss it as a paperwork issue is extraordinarily upsetting, Yang told reporters, adding that he had filed a complaint with the citys Campaign Finance Board. New York: Eric Adams took your tax dollars and used them to amplify special interests here in New York City that did not need it.

Streetsblog asked Yang if he too could be accused of amplifying special interests since his top campaign adviser was a longtime lobbyist in New York for clients like the Police Benevolent Association and Uber. The lobbyist, Bradley Tusk, literally referred to Yang as an empty vessel, which we pointed out to the candidate.

I think theres a major, major distinction between people who work on your campaign who may have lobbied at some point, which I think is true with just about every campaign, and violating campaign finance rules in front of all of us, Yang replied.

Adamss campaign responded to Yangs critique with its own letter to the CFB, alleging self-dealing between Yangs mayoral campaign, his nonprofit, and his presidential campaign.

Andrew Yang literally paid himself from his own campaign to run for office and had his campaign buy more than $225,000 worth of copies of his book, Adamss campaign spokesperson Evan Thies said in a statement. Hes funneled more than $1 million from his dark money nonprofit to his two campaigns, loaned his bankrupt presidential campaign hundreds of thousands of dollars, and left a trail of highly questionable activity between multiple entities that promote him. If anyone deserves to be investigated, its Andrew Yang.

Go here to see the original:
Andrew Yang Says Community Boards are 'Positive For Democracy' Even When Reminded That They're Not - Streetsblog New York