Archive for the ‘Democracy’ Category

An interview with Ron Daniels on universities and democracy – Inside Higher Ed

In his new book, What Universities Owe Democracy (Johns Hopkins University Press), Johns Hopkins University president Ronald J. Daniels argues that American democracy is in peril -- and that institutions of higher learning are uniquely poised to rescue it. Inside Higher Ed spoke with Daniels about what universities can do to help ensure that liberal democracy fulfills its promise of justice and equality for all.

The interview has been edited for space and clarity.

Q: Why do universities owe democracy anything?

A: If one looks at liberal democracy, a number of core institutions are implicated in fostering its effectiveness: an independent judiciary, competitive political arrangements in state and federal legislatures, the media. Universities stand in a similar position as a bulwark institution of democracy, for several reasons. One is the very significant role they play in promoting social mobility and achieving the promise of Jeffersonian democracy, of equal opportunity and of ensuring that the most meritorious are able to get the benefits of higher education, which we know are significant. Second, universities play a very important role in equipping students, who upon graduation will go out into the world and be citizens, with the skills to be effective participants in a very hurly-burly political process.

Third, universities are critical for the role they play in creating and storing knowledge, and particularly in ensuring that there are verifiable facts to help mediate claims that are made in democracy. And finally, given the success weve seen over the last several decades in making universities more diverse, and to the extent that we have this incredible opportunity when students are brought together from different geographic, religious, racial and political backgrounds, it seems to me to be a really important moment in which we can educate them to navigate difference, and maybe move beyond some of the really pernicious aspects of our current democracy where theres such extreme polarization and demonization of those who hold views different from your own.

Q: As you point out in the book, universities have in recent years done a much better job of increasing diversity in admissions and access than in fostering interaction among diverse constituencies once theyre on campus. How can universities improve on that?

A: Over the last several years, we have allowed students, when they come into our residential programs, to be able to self-select the people with whom they share residence rooms. That sorting has -- not surprisingly -- just replicated a lot of the sorting that has taken place in America generally. And to the extent that students find people before they come in who share the same socioeconomic status, sometimes religious status, geographic identity and so forth, weve allowed them to undermine the unique opportunity that is provided when you bring all these students together in a very intense environment for four years. So I think the move that several institutions have made over the last couple of years -- Duke, for one, and this past year we decided to do the same -- to end the ability of students to self-select, is really important.

Were also thinking more about the ways in which we use architecture and the creation of new spaces to encourage the interaction of students across different groups. Thats not just an afterthought; its core now to how were thinking about campus design. In the context of a new student center were building here at Hopkins, the one cardinal rule we have is that no one owns space, that basically students can rent space in various meeting and conference rooms. And its exciting to imagine the kinds of meetings that student groups will have side by side with one another; it just increases the possibility of collision. At another level, it recognizes the complexity of our students. For two hours you may be going to a meeting with the Republicans on campus, but for the next two hours, youre going to a meeting of the Black Students Union, and then after that, youll drop by our LGBTQ group. We carry multiple identities, and what this is trying to do is encourage collision, but also demonstrate the complexity that our students bring in the multiple identities they have.

The other thing that were trying to do is very deliberately create more moments of debate on campus. Instead of holding events where theres just a single speaker who attracts a particular portion of the student body, we are bringing in people with widely divergent perspectives and giving them a forum on campus. In this way, were trying to reinforce the sense that we can have really good and productive conversations across pretty deeply held differences and at least understand the extent to which, at core, the differences are motivated by wholly different underlying values or reflect different understandings of the facts. The university is an important site for this kind of contestation and interrogation of ideas that brings us closer to the truth. Weve got to be more intentional about how were modeling these moments so that we get out of the rut of suspicion, distrust and deep acrimony that is so dominant in contemporary politics.

Q: You dont delve too deeply into the debate over free speech on campus -- the trend in recent years of shouting down or disinviting speakers with unpopular or controversial views. How can universities balance protecting free speech with ensuring inclusivity for all?

A: Its not that Im nave about or dismissive of these moments when speakers are deplatformed or disinvited. Generally, I believe theyre bad for universities. And I feel strongly that one has to accord as wide a berth as possible to accommodate different and provocative views. But at the same time, when we talk about core values, we also have a core value in ensuring that every person who is enrolled in the university, irrespective of their background, deserves a right to full participation and a sense of entitlement of being in the institution. That is a starting point as well. And so what Im hopeful we are able to do -- and of course, there are times when this is tested, and its difficult -- but it seems to me that as you declare and reinforce, for very good reason, the commitment to free speech and to the contestation of ideas, its also important that we dont in any way undermine the sense of entitlement of everyone whos enrolled in our institution to be here and to be full and active members of that conversation.

Q: As you point out, universities are among the most liberal institutions in America, with the vast majority of faculty identifying as liberal. Given the widening gap between Democrats and Republicans over the value of a college education, how can universities better reflect the plurality of views in the country, including conservative ones?

A: There is no debate over the reality that our universities are increasingly populated on the faculty side by people who register Democrat. And as Im walking the campus, and Im teaching classes, Im very alert to the extent to which this left lean is affecting the educational mission of the university. The student view is that even though they at times will know, not surprisingly, the political and ideological convictions of the faculty, they also report that faculty do understand their professional obligations, and ensure -- particularly in classes in political science, and history, and so forth -- that conservative views are generously and faithfully presented to the students.

I think a more serious challenge is the extent to which a lot of the important intellectual work being done in conservative political circles is not taking place on our campuses; its taking place in think tanks, and in other centers outside the university. I think thats really bad for our campuses, and its bad for America. Particularly with a significant portion of this country identifying themselves as conservative, we want to have these views embedded in our campus. And we want to have those views developed and refined here, in a setting where the people advocating for them have to contend with challenges from the left in the same way that the quality of analysis and scholarship being done by progressives will be strengthened by their interaction with conservative scholars.

Q: Is the goal to encourage more conservative thought and exploration among faculty members? How do you do that?

A: Every time there is an opening in a department for a new faculty member, there is invariably a discussion as to what should the priorities be? It seems to me that its entirely appropriate in that setting for faculty to be thinking about the importance of reaching out to scholars who are conservative, and to see them as important additions to our scholarly environment.

Q: You argue that stewarding facts is one of higher educations chief functions. But as we know, misinformation and untruths have gained a real foothold in the digital age. How should higher education deal with people such as climate deniers, who distort facts for their own purposes?

A: It starts with the sense that we have expertise. And typically, we also have research and data that can help discredit some of the distortions and fake facts that are circulating. Given that, it seems to me that the university has a role to play first and foremost in making its research, its facts, its data available and accessible to the broader world. Something I discuss in the book is the unique opportunity that [Johns Hopkins] had over the duration of the pandemic to do just that with the Coronavirus Resource Center. That site initially tracked the level of COVID infection and mortality internationally, and then we got more finely grained data at a subnational level and went on to provide data and analysis on a number of different dimensions of the pandemic. That was a moment in which the university was able to step into a breach where there was no comparable tracking instrument offered by national or NGO organizations.

From that we learned just how important it was to be able to share facts and expertise with the public and to do so in ways that made good use of data visualization tools, and good commentary around the data, so the public could really have confidence in the information. And I think there are lessons for that in other areas; whether its across medicine, public health or economic and social affairs, universities play a significant role in that kind of data stewardship. And I think theres an even larger role we can play.

Q: What are the challenges of teaching citizenship in a country where people -- depending on such things as race, geography, education, level of wealth -- have such vastly different experiences of what its like to be a citizen?

A: Ive really been moved by the possibilities for creating agreement on what we should be educating for when we talk about the character, the performance and the aspirations of American democracy. Im looking right now at a set of documents produced by a bipartisan group of academics, educators and other experts, called, Educating for American Democracy. They have been working for some time on the development of a comprehensive K-12 curriculum that essentially develops a road map for how at each stage one can educate students in the knowledge and the required skills and habits for American democracy. That to my mind shows what is possible here. We may be divided on a number of issues, but its striking to me that when you put a bipartisan group together and ask them to work on this, it turns out, we can agree on the fundamentals. And to the extent that we cant, it really does behoove us to share that understanding and deliberately educate for it.

Q: Shortly into your tenure as president, Johns Hopkins eliminated legacy preferences in admissions. Why was that so important to you, and how does it connect with your larger goal of deploying universities to strengthen American democracy?

A: In many parts of this country, universities are understood to be highly elitist, exclusionary institutions where, rather than busting up privilege, were reinforcing it. Legacy admissions and the open commitment to their perpetuation cant help but foster that narrative. I do understand the putative benefits of multigenerational affiliation with the university and the financial contributions that ostensibly follow from that, but even if thats all true -- and the empirical data, and our own experience, suggests that its overstated -- the question is, what is the cost of that commitment, in terms of how people understand the idea of the university being this powerful place, in which you can dramatically increase social mobility and change the trajectory of peoples lives? So many different outcomes are associated with the receipt of a university degree. And given how important that benefit is, to say we openly will continue a practice that confers significant benefits on people whose children have had every advantage in terms of stability of family, quality of education, nutrition and other dimensions, to say that after all those differences, we are going to put the thumb on the scales once again in favor of those groups, seems to me to be indefensible. The practice is really at odds with our foundational role and with democracy.

Q: You probably heard about the Brown alum who started an organization called Leave Your Legacy, which tries to persuade other alumni from various schools to avoid giving money to their alma maters unless they end legacy admissions.

A: I think to the extent that the rationale is very much based on the assumed interest of alumni in continuing this practice, the alumni saying, Hey, wait a second, were not there for that, helps shift the political dynamic in a way that creates possibilities for governing boards to shift their practices. I see this only as constructive in ensuring a more principled resolution of this issue.

Q: Is there anything we havent touched on that we should have?

A: I probably should have said this earlier, but what I really try to do in the book is emphasize the extent to which I -- and indeed, so many people -- feel this is a perilous moment for democracy. And it is interesting that if one looks back over the years in the United States, whenever there has been a sense that democracy has been in peril -- you know, whether it was during the Civil War, or the two world wars -- the universities, with support from government, have really understood their role as bulwark institutions of democracy. And I fear in this moment, as much as we do to support democracy, there is an opportunity here to do more. And doing more with some urgency is really essential right now. Were not bystanders. We are indispensable institutions to democracy flourishing.

Continued here:
An interview with Ron Daniels on universities and democracy - Inside Higher Ed

Massachusetts is not the democratic bastion you think it is – WBUR

Turnout in Bostons preliminary municipal elections last month wasterrible. Commentators and editorial boards blamed civic apathy especially given the ways in which Massachusetts has worked to make voting more accessible. Some of this commentary would have you believe the commonwealth is a democratic bastion. And while its true that our legislature has passed important voting reforms, in reality, Massachusetts democracy remains politically unequal.

To truly be a safeguard of democracy, the Massachusetts legislature must prioritize dismantling barriers to the ballot that affect communities who are historically the targets of voter suppression. That means protecting ballot access for Black and Hispanic communities who are disproportionately disenfranchised by incarceration.

Reforms like mail-in voting and expanded early voting are unquestionably important, but do little to redress political inequality. Research shows those reforms should not be credited for record 2020 turnout, and some, like MIT Professor Adam Berinsky, have cautioned that they can actually exacerbate political inequality. Why? Because these reforms can bolster turnout for already high-propensity, disproportionately white and affluent voting communities, but fail to remove obstacles to participation by Black, Hispanic and low-income voters. Indeed, political scientists have long shown this to be true of convenience voting reforms, and a MassVOTE report demonstrated this was the case in 2020 in Massachusetts.

Leaders in the state House have already demonstrated their support for making only mail-in voting and expanded early voting permanent this session. I hope they reconsider. The state Senate recently demonstrated a commitment to racial and political equality, by adopting an amendment to end the de facto disenfranchisement of eligible incarcerated voters filed by Sen. Adam Hinds, and passing it as part of the VOTES Act.

There are between 7,000 to 9,000 citizens in Massachusetts serving time for misdemeanors, or who are incarcerated while awaiting trial (held in jail because they cannot afford bail), who have the right to vote but cannot exercise it. These eligible voters often do not know they are eligible to vote, and cannot access absentee ballots or informational materials about the candidates. Those few who can access absentee ballot applications often find that, for a variety of reasons, their ballots are erroneously rejected. Advocates refer to this as de-facto or jail-based disenfranchisement.

Reforms like mail-in voting and expanded early voting are unquestionably important, but do little to redress political inequality.

The Hinds amendment and jail-based voting bills, S. 474 also filed by Sen. Hinds and H. 836 filed by Reps. Liz Miranda and Chynah Tyler, would fix that. They would ensure those 7,000 to 9,000 eligible incarcerated voters can cast a counted ballot by placing commonsense requirements on sheriffs, department of corrections officials and the secretary of commonwealth.

But even if those pieces of legislation are adopted, jails and prisons will continue to strip hyper-incarcerated communities of political power. The approximately 9,000 citizens serving felony convictions also lose the right to vote. This is a recent development: for the first 200 years of Massachusetts history, we did not deprive Mass. citizens of their right to vote while serving prison sentences. Only 20 years ago, Mass. took the right to vote away from anyone serving a felony conviction after Gov. Celluccis petition to pass felony disenfranchisement on the ballot succeeded.

All Mass. citizens regain the right to vote after serving a prison sentence, yet many formerly incarcerated citizens believe that they have been permanently stripped of their voting rights. Some are told that by corrections officers. Having seen headlines about those citizens like Crystal Mason in other states, many simply fear that attempting to vote could lead to a felony conviction.

Professor Ariel White at MIT has shown that even those released after serving short jail sentences are less likely to vote than they would be otherwise, and that this impact is more pronounced for Black voters. Political scientists Vesla Weaver and Amy Lerman show that contact with the criminal legal system makes people withdraw from civic life in myriad ways. And further research suggests this impact on civic engagement can extend to families and loved ones of those incarcerated.

Achieving full democratic participation in Massachusetts will require that we end the disenfranchisement of all citizens in prisons and jails.

Ending the disenfranchisement of people entangled in the legal system starting with those who maintain the right to vote while incarcerated must be our legislatures election reform priority, if for no other reason than it is unconstitutional and strips political power from a population that is 60% Black and Hispanic, and disproportionately poor.

Passing the jail-based voting bills to ensure those citizens who legally have the right to vote are able to exercise that right is an important first step. But going forward, our legislature and the democracy reform movement at large must consider the additional ways that incarceration and policies perpetuate inequities in political participation, and maintain political and racial inequality.

Achieving full democratic participation in Massachusetts will require that we end the disenfranchisement of all citizens in prisons and jails.

The Mass. legislature can and must act now to begin to redress the harm done to impacted communities by way of political suppression. If the legislature wants to build a participatory, equitable democracy, it must listen to those people supporting the jail-based voting bills and amendment #1 to the VOTES Act, and pass it.

Follow Cognoscenti on Facebook and Twitter.

View post:
Massachusetts is not the democratic bastion you think it is - WBUR

Opinion | What Does a University Owe Democracy? – The New York Times

And, perhaps most serious of all, an unmistakable pulse of dogmatism has surfaced on campus. Though Daniels doesnt think theres a full-blown speech crisis on campus, he recognizes that something is badly amiss when, according to a 2020 Knight Foundation survey, 63 percent of college students feel the climate on their campus prevents some people from saying things they believe because others might find them offensive.

Its hard to argue with Danielss solutions. End, once and for all, legacy admissions. Institute a democracy requirement in school curriculums. Enhance openness in science and reform the peer-review process. Curb self-segregation in university housing. Create spaces for engagement and foster the practices of reasoned disagreement and energetic debate.

All essential proposals and all the more necessary in an era of right-wing populism and left-wing illiberalism. Still, Id add two items to Danielss list of what universities owe democracy.

The first is an undiluted and unapologetic commitment to intellectual excellence. What spurred Dorian Abbot to action was a comment from a colleague that if you are just hiring the best people, you are part of the problem. But if universities arent putting excellence above every other consideration, they arent helping democracy. They are weakening it by contributing to the democratic tendency toward groupthink and the mediocrity that can come from trying to please the majority.

The second is courage. Most university administrators, I suspect, would happily subscribe on paper to principles like free expression. Their problem, as in Abraham Lincolns parable of a runaway soldier, isnt with their intentions. I have as brave a heart as Julius Caesar ever had, says the soldier of Lincolns telling, but, somehow or other, whenever danger approaches, my cowardly legs will run away with it. Right now, we have an epidemic of cowardly legs.

Courage isnt a virtue thats easily taught, especially in universities, but sometimes it can be modeled. After Abbots talk was canceled at M.I.T., the conservative Princeton professor Robert George offered to host the lecture instead; it is scheduled for Oct. 21 on Zoom.

Courage begins with de-cancellation. Wisdom, thanks to books like Danielss, can then take wing.

Read more from the original source:
Opinion | What Does a University Owe Democracy? - The New York Times

Irish Times view on the murder of Sir David Amess: attacking democracy – The Irish Times

On the spectrum of acts than can be described as political, the everyday mundanity of constituency work in a politicians local clinic and the lone-wolf murder of a politician lie about as far apart as is possible to imagine. The first, the expression in its purest form of politics as engagement with the ordinary citizen; the second, the ultimate substitution of the individual for that engagement, the act of one who looks into his heart to know what is right and arrogates to himself the entitlement to act on it, democracys antithesis.

It is no simple hyperbola to describe the brutal killing of well-liked family man, and diligent local MP Sir David Amess in Southend on Friday as more than a personal tragedy. It must be seen as an attack on democracy itself. And it matters not whether his killer was an Islamist extremist, in common with the culprit behind last weeks bow-and-arrow murders in Norway, or a far-right militant, as in the killing of MP Jo Cox in 2016. Or indeed the previous killings of individual British MPs by the IRA Ian Gow in 1990, Sir Anthony Berry in 1983, Unionist Robert Bradford in 1981, and Airey Neave in 1979 a grim 42-year litany of public representatives who died in the line of duty.

On this island the IRA was also responsible for the murder of Senator Billy Fox in 1974, in recent memory the only member of the Oireachtas to have been killed.

Inevitably in Britain attention has now turned again to the issue of better protecting MPs and doing so without jeopardising all-important access in clinics or even on the street. That may not be entirely possible. Just as importantly, however, there is the need to challenge the increasingly toxic and coarsened culture of politics in the UK and beyond. Polemics about Brexit and migration have undermined a consent to be governed that is the cornerstone of a healthy democratic space. Here, that consent is the key product of the Belfast Agreement, an acceptance by the IRA among others that such methods are not acceptable.

More here:
Irish Times view on the murder of Sir David Amess: attacking democracy - The Irish Times

What Have We Done With Democracy? A Decade On, Arab Spring Gains Wither – The New York Times

TUNIS, Tunisia For roughly three months after Tunisians toppled their dictator in January 2011 in an eruption of protest that electrified the Arab world, Ali Bousselmi felt nothing but pure happiness.

The decade that followed, during which Tunisians adopted a new Constitution, gained freedom of speech and voted in free and fair elections, brought Mr. Bousselmi its own rewards. He co-founded a gay rights group an impossibility before 2011, when the gay scene was forced to hide deep underground.

But as the revolutions high hopes curdled into political chaos and economic failure, Mr. Bousselmi, like many Tunisians, said he began to wonder whether his country would be better off with a single ruler, one powerful enough to just get things done.

I ask myself, what have we done with democracy? said Mr. Bousselmi, 32, the executive director of Mawjoudin, meaning We Exist in Arabic. We have corrupt members of Parliament, and if you go into the street, you can see that people cant even afford a sandwich. And then suddenly, there was a magic wand saying things were going to change.

That wand was held by Kais Saied, Tunisias democratically elected president, who, on July 25, froze Parliament and fired the prime minister, vowing to attack corruption and return power to the people. It was a power grab that an overwhelming majority of Tunisians greeted with joy and relief.

July 25 has made it harder than ever to tell a hopeful story about the Arab Spring.

Held up by Western supporters and Arab sympathizers alike as proof that democracy could bloom in the Middle East, Tunisia now looks to many like a final confirmation of the uprisings failed promise. The birthplace of the Arab revolts, it is now ruled by one-man decree.

Elsewhere, wars that followed the uprisings have devastated Syria, Libya and Yemen. Autocrats smothered protest in the Gulf. Egyptians elected a president before embracing a military dictatorship.

Still, the revolutions proved that power, traditionally wielded from the top down, could also be driven by a fired-up street.

It was a lesson the Tunisians, who recently flooded the streets again to demonstrate against Parliament and for Mr. Saied, have reaffirmed. This time, however, the people lashed out at democracy, not at an autocrat.

The Arab Spring will continue, predicted Tarek Megerisi, a North Africa specialist at the European Council on Foreign Relations. No matter how much you try to repress it or how much the environment around it changes, desperate people will still try to secure their rights.

Mr. Saieds popularity stems from the same grievances that propelled Tunisians, Bahrainis, Egyptians, Yemenis, Syrians and Libyans to protest a decade ago corruption, unemployment, repression and an inability to make ends meet. Ten years on, Tunisians felt themselves backsliding on virtually everything except freedom of expression.

We got nothing out of the revolution, said Houyem Boukchina, 48, a resident of Jabal Ahmar, a working-class neighborhood in the capital, Tunis. We still dont know what the plan is, but we live on the basis of hope, she said of Mr. Saied.

But popular backlashes can still threaten autocracy.

Mindful of their peoples simmering grievances, Arab rulers have doubled down on repression instead of addressing the issues, their ruthlessness only inviting more upheaval in the future, analysts warned.

In Mr. Saieds case, his gambit depends on economic progress. Tunisia faces a looming fiscal crisis, with billions in debt coming due this fall. If the government fires public workers and cuts wages and subsidies, if prices and employment do not improve, public sentiment is likely to U-turn.

An economic collapse would pose problems not only for Mr. Saied, but also for Europe, whose shores draw desperate Tunisian migrants in boats by the thousands each year.

Yet Mr. Saieds office has not made any contact with the International Monetary Fund officials who are waiting to negotiate a bailout, according to a senior Western diplomat. Nor has he taken any measures other than requesting chicken sellers and iron merchants to lower prices, telling them it was their national duty.

People dont necessarily support Saied, they just hated what Saied broke, Mr. Megerisi said. Thats going to be gone pretty quickly when they find hes not delivering for them, either.

For Western governments, which initially backed the uprisings then returned in the name of stability to partnering with the autocrats who survived them, Tunisia may serve as a reminder of what motivated Arab protesters a decade ago and what could bring them into the streets again.

While many demonstrators demanded democracy, others chanted for more tangible outcomes: an end to corruption, lower food prices, jobs.

From outside, it was easy to cheer the hundreds of thousands of protesters who surged into Cairos Tahrir Square, easy to forget the tens of millions of Egyptians who stayed home.

The people pushing for Parliament, democracy, freedoms, we werent the biggest part of the revolution, said Yassine Ayari, an independent Tunisian lawmaker recently imprisoned after he denounced Mr. Saieds power grab. Maybe a lot of Tunisians didnt want the revolution. Maybe people just want beer and security. Thats a hard question, a question I dont want to ask myself, he added.

But I dont blame the people. We had a chance to show them how democracy could change their lives, and we failed.

The revolution equipped Tunisians with some tools to solve problems, but not the solutions they had expected, Mr. Ayari said. With more needs than governing experience, he said, they had little patience for the time-consuming mess of democracy.

A Constitution, the ballot box and a Parliament did not automatically give rise to opportunity or accountability, a state of affairs that Westerners may find all too familiar. Parliament descended into name-calling and fistfights. Political parties formed and re-formed without offering better ideas. Corruption spread.

I dont think that a Western-style liberal democracy can or should be something that can just be parachuted in, said Elisabeth Kendall, an Oxford University scholar of Arabic and Islamic studies. You cant just read Liberal Democracy 101, absorb it, write a constitution and hope that everything works out. Elections are just the start.

Arab intellectuals often point out that it took decades for France to transition to democracy after its revolution. Parts of Eastern Europe and Africa saw similar ups and downs in leaving dictatorships behind.

Opinion polls show that emphatic majorities across the Arab world still support democracy. But nearly half of respondents say their own countries are not ready for it. Tunisians, in particular, have grown to associate it with economic deterioration and dysfunction.

Their experience may have left Tunisians still believing in democracy in the abstract, but wanting for now what one Tunisian constitutional law professor, Adnan Limam, approvingly called a short-term dictatorship.

Still, Ms. Kendall cautioned that it is too soon to declare the revolutions dead.

In Tunisia, rejection of the system that evolved over the last decade does not necessarily imply embrace of one-man rule. As Mr. Saied has arrested more opponents and taken more control, last month suspending much of the Constitution and seizing sole authority to make laws, more Tunisians especially secular, affluent ones have grown uneasy.

Someone had to do something, but now its getting off-track, said Azza Bel Jaafar, 67, a pharmacist in the upscale Tunis suburb of La Marsa. She said she had initially supported Mr. Saieds actions, partly out of fear of Ennahda, the Islamist party that dominates Parliament and that many Tunisians blame for the countrys ills.

I hope therell be no more Islamism, she said, but Im not for a dictatorship either.

Some pro-democracy Tunisians are counting on the idea that the younger generation will not easily surrender the freedoms they have grown up with.

We havent invested in a democratic culture for 10 years for nothing, said Jahouar Ben Mbarek, a former friend and colleague of Mr. Saieds who is now helping organize anti-Saied protests. One day, theyll see its actually their freedom at risk, and theyll change their minds.

Others say there is still time to save Tunisias democracy.

Despite Mr. Saieds increasingly authoritarian actions, he has not moved systematically to crack down on opposition protests, and recently told the French president, Emmanuel Macron, that he would engage in dialogue to resolve the crisis.

Lets see if democracy is able to correct itself by itself, said Youssef Cherif, a Tunis-based political analyst, and not by the gun.

Mr. Bousselmi, the gay rights activist, is torn, wondering whether gay rights can progress under one-man rule.

I dont know. Will I accept forgetting about my activism for the sake of the economy? Mr. Bousselmi said. I really want things to start changing in the country, but well have to pay a very heavy price.

Go here to read the rest:
What Have We Done With Democracy? A Decade On, Arab Spring Gains Wither - The New York Times