Mediaboss Marketing

Samoa has long been touted as a beacon of democracy and political stability in the Pacific, a region troubled by military coups and civil strife. The prime minister, Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi, is the worlds second longest serving prime minister, having held the office for more than 22 years.

But the latest election in the country, held last month, saw the most serious challenge to Malielegaois ruling Human Rights Protection party (HRPP), and has left the country without a clear result. In the weeks since, the government has used every method available to it and some that arguably are not to hold on to power. What the government is doing is effectively a bloodless coup.

While other Pacific nations have used military force to take or retain government, Samoas seemingly democratic system has been white-anted to similar effect; its apparent stability obscuring the gradual deconstruction of democracy over the last few decades.

During this time, frequent constitutional amendments and legislative rewrites have skewed electoral rules, politicised the public service and eroded the rule of law. Dissent has been discouraged through media regulation and criminal libel laws. The legislature and executive have become controlled by a dominated cabinet.

But the most significant structural reform the governments contentious 2020 restructuring of the judiciary, customary land and chiefly titles seeded unexpected political opposition.

Malielegaois deputy prime minister, Fiame Naomi Mataafa, one of the most senior female parliamentarians in the Pacific region, resigned to protest the undermining of the rule of law in Samoa. The resulting political momentum saw the founding of the FAST party which Fiame has led since March 2021.

Despite the prime ministers public confidence that HRPP would retain a strong majority, the stunning election results saw HRPP and FAST locked at 25 seats apiece with independent Tuala Iosefo Ponifasio holding the balance of power.

When results were officially confirmed, the electoral commissioner declared Samoas gender quota for 10% female MPs had been met, with the election of five women out of 51 MPs.

However, the commissioner then reversed his position and an additional woman MP representing HRPP was appointed. The following day, independent MP Tuala announced he was throwing his support behind FAST, meaning parliament was again deadlocked, this time at 26-26.

Ironically, the use of the quota aimed to increase womens parliamentary representation stopped the country from getting its first female prime minister.

Unsurprisingly, FAST has challenged the activation of the womens quota in the supreme court. On the eve of the court hearing that might break the deadlock, the head of state a separate position to the prime minister made the unprecedented decision to void the election results and call a fresh poll.

The calling of fresh elections is Samoas most significant test to date of the rule of law. FAST has filed a further legal challenge, questioning the head of states powers to send the country back to the polls.

While Samoa awaits the courts determination, election preparations are under way. No new candidates are permitted and many candidates have withdrawn, significantly reducing the number of seats in which HRRP fielded multiple candidacies, splitting their vote, and making it more likely they might see victory this time around.

Petitions alleging corrupt or illegal practices have been filed against a significant number of the successful candidates, but these candidates are free to stand again with those claims unresolved, sidestepping the courts role to address electoral corruption.

The government has attempted to block Facebook access, citing concerns about its impact on fair and peaceful elections.

Government leadership has consistently sought to delegitimise the court process through unsubstantiated allegations of judicial bias. Its public narrative lauds a rightful return to the polls for the people to decide the election outcome, not the courts. But the courts proper role to interpret the constitution and adjudicate disputes in accordance with law cannot be aborted because one side anticipates an outcome it does not like.

Make no mistake, what is happening in Samoa is a bloodless coup and ignores the results of an election that has revealed a deep desire for change in the country after 40 years of one-party rule.

It sets a dangerous precedent for developing countries and is a blow to democracy in the Pacific. It also sends a warning to international partners, who have praised Samoas stability and development gains, but perhaps because of these gains have overlooked the significant erosion of the rule of law in the country in the last 20 years.

Read this article:
Samoa is experiencing a bloodless coup. The Pacifics most stable democracy is in trouble - The Guardian

Vice President Kamala Harris listens as President Joe Biden speaks about distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, in the East Room of the White House, on Monday, May 17, 2021, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Since the Biden administration came to power in the United States, solidarity among democracies has been emphasized more than ever. Although he does not use the term "Cold War," President Joe Biden says that there is a competition between democracy and autocracy with China, which he considers "the only competitor." In this camp of "democracy" propelled by the Biden administration, Japan is naturally the most promising partner as the country has advocated a "quad" summit of Japan, the U.S., Australia, and India, and has been the world's foremost proponent of the concept of a "free and open Indo-Pacific."

On the other hand, democracy is said to be undergoing a crisis on a global scale. The coup d'etat in Myanmar and the ensuing chaos have been a setback for countries seeking democracy. The "one country, two systems" framework in Hong Kong has effectively been dismantled. Even among the European Union member states that make democracy an eligibility requirement for participation, there is a tendency toward autocracy, as in Poland and Hungary. To begin with, the U.S. itself was experiencing a crisis of democracy during the last months of the Trump administration. The Chinese Communist Party is boasting about the superiority of its own system in dealing with COVID-19.

Leading organizations that have been compiling data on democratic trends around the world are also becoming increasingly concerned. The title of the 2021 annual report of the U.S.-based Freedom House organization is "Democracy under Siege," and the title of the annual report of the V-DEM Institute headquartered at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden is "Autocratization Turns Viral."

According to V-DEM data, in 2010 there were 41 countries that were rated as liberal democracies, but by 2020 there were only 32. The number of countries rated as "democracies," which includes countries rated as "electoral democracies" that are not so liberal but still hold relatively fair elections, dropped from 98 in 2010 to 92 in 2020.

Freedom House categorizes countries into three levels: "free," "partly free," and "not free." Its data also shows that the number of free countries fell from 89 in 2010 to 84 in 2020. Both organizations use their own measurements to make these assessments, but I calculated the correlation coefficient between the two organizations' original data before classification to be about 0.95, which is extremely high, so it would not make much difference in the analysis.

The V-DEM report also points out that the population of autocratic countries accounts for 68% of the world's population, while the population of the 32 free democracies is only 14%. The reason the population of autocratic countries has reached 68% is that, under V-DEM's assessment, India has fallen from an electoral democracy to an "electoral autocracy" where elections are held, but people's rights are violated. The crisis facing democracy is evident in the fact that the "world's largest democracy" is now regarded as not democratic enough. (V-DEM classifies despotic countries that do not even hold elections as "closed autocracies," and refers to both "electoral autocracies" and "closed autocracies" together as "autocracies.")

Under these circumstances, can democracies compete with the rise of China? President Biden says, "We have to prove democracy still works," but is that really possible?

The challenges for democracies are great. Excessive optimism, as in the immediate aftermath of the end of the Cold War, was a mistake. But I think it is also a mistake to be overly pessimistic about democracy. First, I am sure that there are many people (perhaps more than a majority) around the world who want democracy. It is obviously the case if you look at the protests staged by people in places such as Hong Kong and Myanmar. People living in autocratic countries, 68% of the global population, do so not because they think autocracy is good. Some of them are actively resisting, while many others are putting up with it out of necessity.

Second, if we look at the long-term trend from the 20th century to the 21st century, it is clear that the number of autocratic countries has been decreasing. It is true that the situation in many countries is worse than it was in 2010, but if we include electoral democracies that hold fair elections, there will still be more democracies in 2020.

Third, if the specific challenge for democracies at this stage is to protect their freedom from the threat of autocratic countries, we must remember that democracies still have plenty of power. In the four categories of political systems defined by V-DEM, the gross domestic product in 2019 as a percentage of the world total was 17% for closed autocracies, 12% for electoral autocracies, 11% for electoral democracies, and 60% for liberal democracies. Most of the share of closed autocracies (13.6% of the total) comes from China. In other words, there are only 32 free democracies, but their economies still dominate the world. There is no reason to underestimate this market size and economic power.

In the end, the only external threat to democracies is China. Even against China, the economies of the liberal democracies as a whole are overwhelmingly large: the GDP of the G7 countries alone accounts for 45% of the world's GDP. Dazed by China's remarkable rapid growth since the beginning of the 21st century, the Chinese people and much of the world have been under the illusion that the future lies under autocracy. It is quite possible for liberal democracies to prove the superiority of democracy as a system of governance if they earnestly work together.

(By Akihiko Tanaka, President, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies)

Link:
Global Perspective: Democracies still have edge over autocracies like China - The Mainichi - The Mainichi

PHOTO VIA HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY OFFICE OF ELECTIONSAlleging discrimination against Black and Latino voters, a coalition of groups has filed a federal lawsuit challenging a new Florida elections law that includes additional restrictions on voting by mail.

The lawsuit filed Monday in U.S. district court in Tallahassee is at least the third challenge to the law, which was passed last month by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis during an appearance on Fox News.

The law (SB 90) was one of the most controversial issues of the 2021 legislative session and came after a relatively smooth 2020 election in Florida. Republican lawmakers contended the changes were needed to ensure election security and prevent fraud in future elections.

But the lawsuit filed Monday on behalf of the groups Florida Rising Together, Faith in Florida, UnidosUS, the Equal Ground Education Fund, the Hispanic Federation and Poder Latinx, contends that the changes dealing with issues such as voting by mail could curtail voting by Black and Latino residents.

While SB 90 imposes unjustified burdens on all voters, it places disproportionate burdens on Black voters, Latino voters, disabled voters, and voters who face greater challenges in exercising the right to vote, even in the best of circumstances, the 91-page lawsuit said. SB 90 imposes specific obstacles on voters ability to cast ballots through in-person voting, mail voting, and the use of secure drop-boxes for early voting.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution. It names as defendants Secretary of State Laurel Lee, Highlands County Supervisor of Elections Penny Ogg, Gadsden County Supervisor of Elections Shirley Green Knight, Osceola County Supervisor of Elections Mary Jane Arrington and Hillsborough County Supervisor of Elections Craig Latimer. The four supervisors are named as representatives of the rest of Floridas county elections supervisors.

The challenge seeks an injunction and focuses on four parts of the new law:

--- Restrictions on the availability and use of drop boxes, where residents can drop off vote-by-mail ballots. The lawsuit contends, in part, that the additional restrictions will particularly affect people who work during the day and voters seeking to avoid long lines at polls.

--- Identification requirements for requesting vote-by-mail ballots. The lawsuit contends that the requirements could prevent many people from obtaining vote-by-mail ballots.

--- Restrictions on providing such things as food and water to people waiting in line to vote. The lawsuit contends that areas with large numbers of Black and Latino voters have traditionally had longer wait times for voting and that churches and other organizations have provided food, water and other aid to voters.

--- A requirement that third-party voter registration groups provide a disclaimer to people signing up to vote. The lawsuit contends that disclaimer is intended to and will have a chilling effect on third party voter registration organizations.

Floridas Republican-controlled Legislature and other GOP-led legislatures across the country moved quickly this year to change elections laws as former President Donald Trump has falsely blamed rigged and fraudulent elections for Democrat Joe Bidens victory in November. Courts rejected numerous lawsuits in which Trump and his supporters challenged the handling of the November elections. Trump defeated Biden handily in Florida.

During an appearance May 6 on the Fox News show Fox & Friends to sign the Florida bill, DeSantis called it the strongest election integrity measures in the country and said it keeps us ahead of the curve after the 2020 election.

Were not resting on our laurels, and me signing this bill here says, Florida, your vote counts, your vote is going to be cast with integrity and transparency, and this is a great place for democracy, DeSantis said.

But the law was immediately hit with two lawsuits from groups such as the League of Women Voters of Florida, the Florida State Conference of the NAACP, Disability Rights Florida and Common Cause. Those cases are pending.

The lawsuit Monday was filed on behalf of the other groups by attorneys from the Advancement Project National Office, Demos, LatinoJustice PRLDEF and the national law firm Arnold and Porter Kaye Scholer LLP.

It pointed to a history in Florida of efforts to discriminate against Black and Latino voters.

Floridas recent legislation attacking the voting rights of its Black and Latino residents is like a virus attacking the human heart, the lawsuit said. Without a remedy to undo the effects, our democracy will die.

Support local journalism in these crazy days. Our small but mighty team is working tirelessly to bring you up to the minute news on how Coronavirus is affecting Tampa and surrounding areas. Please considermaking a one time or monthly donationto help support our staff. Every little bit helps.

Follow@cl_tampabayon Twitter to get the most up-to-date news + views.Subscribeto our newsletter, too.

See the original post here:
'Democracy will die': Florida's recent law restricting voting by mail access faces yet another lawsuit - Creative Loafing Tampa

The Museum of Australia Democracy (MoAD) is abuzz following the opening of its latest exhibition, answering the perplexing question what do honeybees and democracy have in common?

HiveMind: Honeybees, Democracy and Me officially launched yesterday, ahead of World Bee Day tomorrow, 20 May, giving visitors a unique look at a little-known history of Australias federal parliaments.

The exhibition commemorates the achievement of William Yates, a Victorian Liberal backbencher in the 1970s, who first introduced beekeeping to Australian Parliament House grounds (now Old Parliament House).

On 1 April 1976, Yates asked the then Speaker of the House, Billy Snedden, if he could keep bees on Parliament grounds. Thinking it was an April Fools joke, the Speaker granted permission, not realising it was a serious request.

Three days later the beehives appeared in the Speakers garden.

Peter Yates AM, son of William Yates, said his father always had a sense of humour and wanted to bring some fun to Parliament when he became the Member for Holt (located in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne, Victoria).

Holt had never been won by a Liberal politician before and hasnt been since, Mr Yates said.

He didnt expect to win so arriving here, he decided that Parliament House was pretty boring, and people were too serious.

While the introduction of the bees was a contentious topic at the time, Australia was one of the first countries in the world to allow beekeeping on Parliament House grounds and William Yates became a recognisable figure among the hives.

Mr Yates said his father was a person who had ideas that were often not of then, but of the future.

Dad was prescient, he knew how important bees were to agriculture.

He knew how important bees are to our society and so to have this role of his acknowledged in this way by the Museum of Australia Democracy is something that all of our family is incredibly proud of.

Yates left parliament in 1980, taking his beloved bees with him, caring for them until the day he died.

In 2017, the tradition of beekeeping at Parliament House was reignited by Cormac Farrell following a parliamentary report on honeybees.

The head beekeeper said the idea behind bringing the bees back to parliament was due to a sustainability initiative implemented to recognise the critical role bees play in agriculture and to educate parliament on the industries that rely on bees.

Without them we basically wouldnt have a lot of our crops, Mr Farrell said.

It was really about making that connection to that understanding and having an extra, practical hive on site allows people to experience what its like to be a beekeeper.

Honey from these hives appear as gifts for visiting dignitaries and groups but the other unbee-lievable link to parliament is bees have a very clear and democratic voting system.

Bees actually use a democratic voting system as part of their daily lives, Mr Farrell said.

So, our democracy is not a unique human thing, its something that stretches literally back to the time of the dinosaurs.

When bees are making life and death decisions, they do sort of an interpretive dance in the dark that other bees have to feel to figure out the vote.

The biologist Professor Thomas Seeley discovered that it takes 27 votes in a bee democracy for a decision to be made.

Mr Farrell said that politicians often get a kick out of the honeybee democracy, especially when looking at how the hives choose and remove their leaders.

Sometimes the queen will start to lose her mojo the colony will crush her to death and cook her but they also like to chew her wings off and throw her out the front door so she cant get back in, he said.

There is no back bench for bees!

Along with sharing objects and stories of honeybees in Australian Parliament, the exhibition features a hand-made democratic hive collaborative art installation.

It started as a collaborative art piece constructed by members of the public during the Enlighten Festival in March 2020.

Members of the public were invited to write words of advice or life lessons on hexagonal panels to become part of a honeycomb puzzle, panels which are now displayed in the HiveMind: Honeybees, Democracy and Me exhibition.

MoAD director, Daryl Karp, said it is a light, playful look at the history of honeybees on the grounds of the nations decision-making house and an insight into how the collective decision making of bees can teach us many things.

Bees provide a template for democracy, the sweet spot of collective decision making, Ms Karp said.

They are natures example of democracy in action, and we hope to take visitors to the real heart of what democracy is in a way that, hopefully, surprises and inspires.

HiveMind: Honeybees, Democracy and Me is now open at the Museum of Australian Democracy, Old Parliament House in Canberra. This is a free, non-ticketed exhibition on show until 2022.

For more information, visit http://www.moadoph.gov.au/exhibitions/hive-mind/

For more:

See the original post:
The unique exhibition celebrating democracy and bees - Canberra Weekly

Every nation visualizes its history within certain periods. English historians usually rely on their monarchies to define time; they refer to Tudor England, Regency England, and Victorian England. In France, everything before 1789 is considered lancien rgime, followed then by the Revolution, then a number of republics and empires. (They are currently on republic for the fifth time.) Germany is even more straightforward: There is the broad sweep of German history before Adolf Hitlers rise to power and World War II, then Stunde Null, or zero hour, to mark Nazi Germanys capitulation on May 8, 1945, and then the postwar era begins.

Some scholars and activists, by the same token, break down American history into presidencies or party systems. But it might be more accurate to think of our history in terms of a recurring cycle of Reconstructions. The First Reconstruction, after the Civil War, saw the birth of multiracial democracy, the enactment of laws and constitutional amendments to protect it, and then its steady decline as white supremacists pursued Redemption, Jim Crow, and nearly a century of night. Then came Brown v. Board of Education, the dismantling of de jure American racial apartheid, a wave of civil rights activism, and a federal government that would send federal agents and National Guard units to enforce it all.

From 1957 to 1968, American democracy expanded by greater leaps and bounds than at any other point since the destruction of the Confederacy. The Supreme Court enshrined the one person, one vote rule into constitutional law despite intense opposition from conservatives and business interests. Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to ensure free and fair elections across the entire country. Even the Constitution itself was amended twice more, this time to abolish poll taxes and to give presidential electors to the District of Columbia.

This time, multiracial liberal democracy proved slightly more enduring than it did in the nineteenth century. The Voting Rights Acts most effective protections survived just shy of 50 years before a conservative Supreme Court majority gutted them in 2013. And today, multiracial democracy is under attack again, and arguably the most concerted attack in our history. Activists like the Reverend Dr. William J. Barber II, who rose to national prominence while protesting anti-democratic measures in North Carolina that same year, have argued that the right to vote is inextricably linked with fights for social and economic justice.

Read more:
Our 250-Year Fight for Majority Rule and a Multiracial Democracy - The New Republic