Archive for the ‘Democracy’ Category

LETTER: Join the Nationwide Effort to Fight Voter Suppression and Defend Democracy, May 8 – The Village Green

Dear Editor,

Every American should be alarmed at the efforts to restrict access to free, fair and accessible voting that are gaining momentum across the country.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice (https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-march-2021) 361 bills have been introduced in 47 states, all designed to restrict access, increase voting requirements, or introduce mechanisms that give undue control to the party in power within a states government. Limiting absentee voting, expanding voter roll purges, and reducing early voting and voting hours are just a few of the provisions being advanced in these bills, with Georgia, Florida, Texas and Arizona among the states moving most rapidly to pass such legislation.

It is too easy to shake our heads and think there is nothing we can do about it. After all, our own Senators and Representatives are not supporting such anti-democracy actions. But in fact there are actions we can take. And if we care about the future of our democracy, we cannot sit on the sidelines. We can contact voters in states where state legislators are acting to suppress the vote, to share information about these suppression efforts and what they can to about it. And we can advocate for national bills now in Congress to protect voters rights and assure fair representation across the country.

To help connect our community with national efforts to support and strengthen our democracy and fight voter suppression, SOMA Action has formed a new committee, the Democracy Action Committee. The committee will kick-off its work this Saturday, May 8th, noon to 2 pm, as we join with hundreds of other groups around the country to celebrate the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Action Day. We will set up information tables at two locations in our towns: on Sloan Street by the South Orange train station and at the Open Air Retail Market at Yale St. and Springfield Ave. All community members are urged to drop by, with masks on, to learn more and to get information on how each of us can take action.

It is up to us all of us to make good on Benjamin Franklins warning about American democracy: We have ourselves a Republic, if we can keep it.

Valyrie Laedlein, Member of the Democracy Action Committee of SOMA Action

Original post:
LETTER: Join the Nationwide Effort to Fight Voter Suppression and Defend Democracy, May 8 - The Village Green

Protecting our Democracy: Reasserting Congress Power of the Purse – Brookings Institution

Chairman Yarmuth, Ranking Member Smith, and members of the Committee, my name is Molly Reynolds [1] and I am a Senior Fellow in the Governance Studies Program at the Brookings Institution.

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on how Congress can better fulfill its constitutional obligation to provide for, and effectively oversee, the executive branch. My research has explored a range of topics related to congressional rules and procedures, including changes in the congressional budget process since the adoption of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act. My goal today is to provide context for why and how Congress requires additional tools to effectively monitor the executive branchs execution of congressional decisions.

In this context, I want to make four main points today.

1. The structure of the U.S. constitutional system and the incentives facing members of Congress mean that Congress needs procedures in place to ensure that that the executive branch is complying with congressional intent.

Because the Constitution separates legislative functions from executive ones, and because Congress must rely on the executive to implement its policy choices, divergence between Congresss intent and policy outcomes is inevitable; the individuals charged with executing federal programs on a daily basisfrom agency heads down to career civil servantswill always encounter situations in which the language of the law does not provide sufficient guidance.[2]

Indeed, it is because of this inevitability that Congress must design and, periodically, re-design mechanisms to monitor, as effectively as possible, the activities of the executive branch in response to congressional decisions.

It is not only this constitutional division of labor that creates the need for effective oversight mechanisms. It is also the fact that, as the branch charged with implementing policy, the executive branch has types of expertise that make it better equipped to make certain detailed decisions. As the policy problems facing the nation have become more complex and numerous, Congress has frequently found itself incapable of writing statutes that set forth all of these specific choices.

In addition, as a political matter, Congress often prefers to leave detailed decisions to the executive branch. In some cases, this is due to shared preferences between the congressional majority enacting a policy and the president charged with implementing it. But in other situations, it is because Congress prefers to leave the most politically challenging issues to another branch to resolve.

Together, these circumstances mean that Congress must design ways to monitor this inevitable potential for slippagedivergence that can and does occur regardless of whether the branches are controlled by the same political party. Even in an era of high partisan polarization, it is vital to remember that the need for monitoring and oversight tools is structural and fundamental to the constitutional system.

Continue reading the full testimony here. Watch the full video of Reynoldss testimony (starting around the 43:00 mark) and the rest of the hearing below.

Visit link:
Protecting our Democracy: Reasserting Congress Power of the Purse - Brookings Institution

Chads covert coup and the implications for democratic governance in Africa – The Conversation CA

The recent spate of military coups in Africa, which were intended to be transitional, might instead be a risk for democracy in the long term. There might be a short term need to maintain security. But the military may not necessarily be a credible partner to build democratic governance. Military intervention could mean that people might continue to be in a state of stagnant democracy.

Chad is the most recent example of this. Soon after the death of President Idriss Deby, the military swiftly took over power. They immediately installed his 37-year-old son Mahamat, a military commander, as interim president. He will now lead an 18-month Transitional Military Council. Parliament and the government have been dissolved and the constitution suspended.

Upon the death of the president, the constitution stipulates that his duties should be provisionally exercised by the president of the National Assembly. The military has ignored these arrangement. By suspending the constitution it has effectively overseen an unconstitutional change of government.

The military has stated that the dissolution of Parliament and suspension of the constitution are provisional. It claims that these measures are intended to maintain stability. And to ensure a peaceful and democratic transition of power. These arguments are not particularly convincing.

First, the military government has already created an atmosphere of fear. It has banned demonstrations and dispersed protesters using disproportionate and repressive force. Second, it has refused calls for a ceasefire and dialogue with the Front for Change and Concord in Chad, the rebel group alleged to be responsible for Derbys death. This goes against the tenets of a peaceful transition to civilian government, which should rightly consider an inclusive dialogue with all stakeholders.

Third, the military junta has appointed a civilian prime minister, Albert Padacke. The new prime minister was the runner up during the April 11 presidential elections. He is seen as a Deby ally and is, therefore, not a credible civilian stakeholder.

But Chad isnt the first African country to go down this path. Recent examples of military coups include Mali in August 2020, Sudan in April 2019, Zimbabwe in 2017, and Egypt in February 2011 and July 2013. In these cases, transitional military councils were established to oversee smooth and peaceful democratic transitions.

They took over under the guise of restoring democratic governance by maintaining order and temporarily overseeing political transitions. But early signs are not particularly promising.

In Mali, after pressure from regional bodies like the Economic Community of West African States, the transitional military council was dissolved and a civilian-led transitional government was put in place.

But the countrys civilian vice president, Assimi Goita, is the military commander who led the coup. Other cabinet ministers are also military commanders. So, the military still wields significant influence over a so-called transitional civilian government.

Sudan also presents a particularly tenuous case. Since the ouster of former president Omar al-Bashir, some progress has been made to appoint a more inclusive cabinet. But the countrys transitional agreement also secures the militarys dominant role in political and economic life for the foreseeable future.

Egypt and Zimbabwe which have completed their transitions from popular uprisings to civilian leadership, have already shown how much influence the military can wield over democratically elected governments. In both cases, the military stepped in under the guise of restoring democratic governance following popular uprisings. Zimbabwe managed to transition from military to civilian rule. However, the military is embedded in government. Egypt remains a military state.

Even with these examples, the risks of Africa returning to the widespread military rule of the late 60s to early 80s is low. Nevertheless, there is a potential risk of sliding into a culture of military siege on democratic governance.

The danger here is that democratically elected governments can become dependent on the military. Civilian governments, which are installed by a military process, may seek to please the military in order to remain in power. In the process, the military can become the key determinant of civilian governments legitimacy.

Eventually, they may become more and more autonomous and less accountable to oversight from government. And may begin to make demands on the government, such as demands for increased wages, better housing, expensive military equipment. They could also demand that governments divert resources to the military to consolidate its power. Because these governments depend on the military for their legitimacy, they would be hard-pressed to resist these demands.

Eventually, governments that are propped up by the military can easily become authoritarian. With the support of the armed forces, they can crack down on political opposition or any form of anti-government protest. This undermines democracy because political freedoms are suppressed. The political space becomes increasingly restricted, which can lead to a replication of the same conditions which precipitated the military take-over.

Military interventions may be deemed necessary in the short term to maintain peace and security. But, they are inherently unconstitutional. No doubt, Chad is still in its initial stages of a military led transition, but it may yet become another example of how democratic progress can be subverted by the military. What eventually happens will be significant not only for the Chadian democracy, but for what can become an uncomfortable path to democratic governance in Africa.

The task of democratic development and entrenchment in Africa is enormous. There are no quick fixes. The current wave of military interventions or covert coups can be viewed as a movement to protect and support democracy in Africa. But it remains to be seen whether the military is a credible partner to achieve this objective.

Continued here:
Chads covert coup and the implications for democratic governance in Africa - The Conversation CA

We Have to Prove Democracy Still Works – The New York Times

michael barbaro

From The New York Times, Im Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily.

Today, during his first address to Congress, President Biden makes the case for vastly expanding the role of government and taxing the countrys wealthiest to pay for it. We watched with our colleague, White House reporter, Jim Tankersley.

Its Thursday, April 29.

So, Jim, I want to start this conversation by getting something very important out of the way immediately. Was this technically a State of the Union address, or was this not a State of the Union address? And can we just call it the State of the Union even if its not?

No, I believe we are prohibited by the Constitution from calling it a State of the Union. This was an address to a joint session of Congress, but not an official State of the Union, as is typically the case in a presidents first year in office.

So the first one not State of the Union, instead, just big important speech to Congress.

Yeah, Joe Bidens been president for almost 100 days. But what hes doing here is less of a report to the country on how the country is doing and more of a report to the country on how things are going in that very young administration of his.

Got it. So lets talk about what this speech looked like and felt like in the room. I know neither of us were there. But it feels like these speeches are always defined by the moment in which they are delivered. And this one had the context of the pandemic. This was the first joint address from the president to Congress since the pandemic really began to radically alter all of our lives in the U.S. So how present did that all feel?

It was kind of weird.

You know, the seats were not full because of Covid restrictions. There were only 200 people, instead of the normal 1,600 for a speech like this. They were all spaced out at distance. And there werent as many cabinet members. There werent as many Supreme Court justices.

Madame Speaker, the President of the United States.

A Congress that is normally sort of jockeying for position to greet the president as he walks down the aisle, looked sparse, like the crowd at the N.B.A. Finals bubble last year when there really were very few people around. And it made for some weird moments, you know? Biden was walking down, and hes sort of fist bumping people, not shaking hands like politicians expect, certainly like I would think that Joe Biden had not imagined in his mind all those years hes been envisioning himself president.

Right.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

And then punctuating all that, there was certainly not a normal backdrop for him as he took the lectern flanked for the first time ever by two women.

Right, which he went out of his way to memorialize.

He did.

Anyway, thank you all, Madame Speaker, Madame Vice President.

He seemed really fired up by that particular line that kicked off the speech.

No president has ever said those words from this podium. No president has ever said those words. And its about time.

Then he settles into the actual thing that presidents always do at the start of a speech to Congress, which is to tell them how things are going in the country, really. And usually, thats very positive.

Now, after just 100 days, I can report to the nation, America is on the move again.

And in sort of quick and staccato phrases that will sort of mark this speech throughout the evening, he says

Crisis to opportunity, setbacks in the strength we all know life can knock us down. But in America, we never, ever, ever stay down.

The president tried to do a delicate two-step, which is to both acknowledge the gravity of the moment that America is still in. I mean, theres still a deadly pandemic raging around us.

Theres still more work to do to beat this virus. We cant let our guard down.

While also trying to claim credit for putting the worst of that pandemic hopefully, behind us.

Our progress these past 100 days against one of the worst pandemics in history has been one of the greatest logistical achievements logistical achievements this countrys ever seen.

And, Jim, while the president touched on a variety of items in this speech, foreign and domestic restrictions on guns that he would like to get passed, immigration reform he would like to get done, his determination to stand up to authoritarian regimes overseas it very much like the real focus of this address and what I want to talk to you about was President Bidens vision for the role of American government. And its a very expansive vision. And thats what he really seemed to be up to in this speech.

Yes, absolutely. This was an economic policy speech. But more than a policy speech, it was selling America on the idea that, hey, the government is back. Big government spending initiatives are back. And bigger government even than we have now is on the way. And its going to be really great for you personally. And he does this sort of looking backwards and forwards.

Throughout our history, if you think about it, public investment and infrastructure has literally transformed America.

He ticks through the great achievements of the federal government in American history.

The transcontinental railroad, interstate highways, united two oceans and brought a totally new age of progress to the United States of America.

Whether its World War II or railroads or you know, the space race.

These are investments we made together as one country, and investments that only the government was in a position to make. Time and again, they propel us into the future. Thats why I propose the American Jobs Plan, a once-in-a-generation investment in America itself.

Then he goes on to spend the bulk of the speech really, laying out his vision for Americas economic future, which is really two proposals that total $4 trillion in cost to taxpayers and form the Biden Economic Agenda.

Right. And, Jim, you have talked to us on the show about the first part of that plan, the American Jobs Plan, this very progressive version of what we might think of as traditional infrastructure rebuilding bridges, roads, pipes, railroads, housing in a way that seeks in Bidens words to fight climate change and achieve racial justice. So how does he talk about this not yet passed component of his agenda?

I was really struck actually by his focus in talking about that part and his just repeated use of the word jobs.

This is the largest jobs plan since World War II.

Jobs, jobs, jobs.

It creates jobs to upgrade our transportation infrastructure. Jobs, modernizing our roads, bridges, highways. Jobs, building ports

He is talking about every single piece of that physical infrastructure agenda as a job creator, the biggest job creator since World War II.

For too long we failed to use the most important word when it comes to meeting the climate crisis jobs.

And not just any jobs, blue collar jobs.

So many of you so many of the folks I grew up with feel left behind, forgotten, in an economy that so rapidly changing its frightening.

And he is really trying to speak to voters without college degrees whove been left behind by the economy, who he says he can create better paying, good jobs for.

The American Jobs Plan is a blue collar blueprint to build America. Thats what it is.

Right, windmills should be built in Pittsburgh, not Beijing.

There is simply no reason why the blades for wind turbines cant be built in Pittsburgh instead of Beijing. No reason.

Right, you know, this is Biden trying to take that progressive vision of a low-carbon future, but say it in sort of you know, Joe from Scranton terms.

And all the investments in the American Jobs Plan will be guided by one principle, buy America. Buy American.

Right, his message being, especially to Republicans, how could you not support a jobs plan? I mean, Republicans might look at this plan and say actually, we think its a climate plan and a social justice plan. But what Biden is saying is, no, Im telling you that its a jobs plan and asking how you could possibly not support it.

Right, thats exactly what hes doing. And yes, Republicans are protesting that there are studies out there showing that it wont create many jobs or any at all. But Biden is just blowing right past all that criticism and saying, millions of jobs, good paying jobs, thats what this proposal is all about. And Congress needs to pass it now.

And so whats the truth? Will this bill create jobs?

It really depends on which study you look at. There are some studies that say itll create millions of jobs. Theres one pretty notable one that says it wont. And so, the experts disagree.

Got it. And then Biden turns to the second part of this grand infrastructure spending plan, which we had not really gotten much of a glimpse of until this speech.

To win that competition for the future, in my view, we also need to make a once-in-a-generation investment in our families and our children. Thats why Ive introduced the American Families Plan tonight.

So this is what the White House calls the American Families Plan, which is a different sort of infrastructure. Its human infrastructure and a structure about people. And it breaks down into several categories. Its $1.8 trillion split between spending and tax incentives.

First, is access to good education.

So theres an education component which includes free universal preschool for three and four year-olds across the country, but also two years of free community college for anybody.

American Families Plan will provide access to quality affordable child care.

It includes help for child care, so to reduce the cost of child care, particularly for low-income workers, but also paid family and medical leave so that workers who get sick or need to take care of a loved one whos sick can do so, but not lose their jobs or their income. And thats paid by the government.

In March, we expanded tax credit for every child in the family.

And then, it extends a bunch of tax credits that are meant to fight poverty, including an expansion of the child tax credit that the White House estimates will cut the child poverty rate in half.

We can afford it.

And as he has often done in selling his physical infrastructure plan, Biden casts this families plan in competitiveness terms.

When this nation made 12 years of public education universal in the last century, it made us the best-educated, best-prepared nation in the world. Its, I believe, the overwhelming reason that propelled us to where we got in the 21st in the 20th century. But the worlds caught up, or catching up. Theyre not waiting.

Basically saying, look, if we dont invest in our families, our children, our workers just like we invest in our roads, bridges, pipes, charging stations, whatever, were not going to keep up with China and our other big competitors on a global scale right now to win the economic future of the world.

I wonder if you can put the scale of all this education spending, the child care spending, the paid leave spending, the child tax credit spending into context for us.

I think the best context to put it in is that its unprecedented at this moment in the nations economy for a president to do this. We do not have the same economy that we had when we did the space race, or when we built the railroads, or won World War II. We have an economy that depends to a much larger degree on women working, on workers of color, and in particular, on service workers who need knowledge and skills to do their jobs better. This is a far bigger spending agenda than Barack Obama ever proposed. Certainly much bigger than the Democrat president before him Bill Clinton proposed. And so what you have is for the first time, the meeting of the moment of what Democrats think is a renewed interest in big government with the heightened struggles of a 21st-century economy.

Well be right back.

So

How does President Biden in his speech, talk about financing all of this?

He does not shy from that either.

How do we pay for my Jobs and Family Plan? I made it clear we could do without increasing the deficit.

Theres been a long time in America where this idea was you couldnt really talk about increasing taxes. It would be political suicide. But he goes right at it.

I will not impose any tax increase on people making less than $400,000. But its time for corporate America, and the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans to just begin to pay their fair share.

And basically says were going to raise taxes on very high earners people making more than $400,000 a year, which is just a small sliver at the top of Americans by income earning and corporations. And were going to get $4 trillion out of those two places.

A lot of companies also evade taxes through tax havens in Switzerland and Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. And they benefit from tax loopholes and deductions for offshoring jobs and shifting profits overseas.

And then he ticks through a whole list of both tax increases and increased enforcement from the I.R.S.

And the I.R.S. is going to crack down on millionaires and billionaires who cheat on their taxes. Its estimated to be billions of dollars.

to force people who had been cheating on their taxes to stop.

I believe what I propose is fair. Fiscally responsible

You know, Republicans are very much opposed to these tax increases and to the scope of the spending he wants to do. Theyre arguing that its going to be wasteful, that its not going to solve the problems that he says, that the government is not well-positioned to tackle these issues, and that the tax increases are going to hurt the economy. But Biden goes right at that argument in the speech, basically saying

Trickle down trickle-down economics has never worked. And its time to grow the economy from the bottom and the middle out.

Hey, the dominant Republican philosophy for more than a generation now trickle-down economics, cutting taxes at the top and everybody will benefit has not worked.

The pandemic has only made things worse. 20 million Americans lost their job in the pandemic working and middle-class Americans. At the same time, roughly 650 billionaires in America saw their net worth increase by more than $1 trillion in the same exact period.

What he is saying is we have huge, long-running problems in our economy. The pandemic showed us those problems. They showed us the people who were hit unequally. You know, some people at the top amassed huge amounts of wealth, while everybody else feared for job loss. And its governments job now to start solving those problems, or helping to solve those problems, not just in a short-term way, but in a long-term durable way. And someone needs to pay for that. And that someone is the people who have been winning at this economy for a long time, the rich and big companies. And so its this economic argument, which he calls middle out, where the people who are the big successes in the economy can afford to supply the money to help everybody else have a shot at success too.

Jim, it was interesting that Biden didnt really talk about inequality. He didnt use that word. He didnt render that judgment say that whats wrong in the United States is inequality. But the policies hes talking about are very clearly intended to fix inequality in a system.

He does more of a show, dont tell on that. He talks about the 600-plus very wealthy people who amassed huge wealth during the crisis. And then he talks about people who lost their jobs. He talks about all of this sort of like inequalities you might say, without really saying the word. And its a way to sort of try to connect with people where they are in their homes. Like, inequality as a concept. But your job, what you observe around you in the economy thats real. And I think thats what hes trying to do here is speak about inequality in much more personal terms, as opposed to theoretical or even just broad macroeconomic terms.

But I wonder if this is also a way to appeal to Republicans who have not been very supportive of Bidens spending plans.

I dont think theres very much that the president did in the speech to try to appeal to Republicans in Congress. But I do think hes trying to appeal to Republicans across the country. Hes trying to speak in the language of blue collar, often conservative America, even if he doesnt expect that thats going to translate into any votes from Republicans in the Senate or in the House. But by trying to appeal to Republican voters, hes giving some cover to moderate Democratic senators to join him. If youre Joe Manchin, if youre Mark Kelly of Arizona or Krysten Sinema of Arizona, and you need some Republicans to reelect you, heres Joe Biden speaking to those voters for you and giving you some permission to go along with him.

So in trying to appeal to Republican voters, hes actually just trying to keep the 50 Democrats in the Senate the Democratic caucus together and supporting both of these major infrastructure bills?

Yes. What Biden needs for any bill of this type to pass, including one that eventually might get bipartisan support is for all Democrats to hang together. And that I think, was a big part of the mission of the speech here was to hold his very, very narrow margins in the House and the Senate kind of in line while he seeks to push the agenda through.

Jim, watching Biden outline these proposals and how to pay for them, I kept thinking back to the election and to this sense that in choosing Biden, the country chose what Biden himself advertised as the return to normalcy in the conduct and in the disposition of the president. And as a kind of safe ideological choice, Biden sold himself as a moderate Democrat with pretty middle-of-the-road views.

But as we have seen at a few key junctures with Biden since the election, it feels like this speech marked the emergence of a distinctly progressive president, a president that is seeking to really expand the role of government as a leveler of the field, as an equalizer, as a fixer of social wrongs. And thats not exactly who we necessarily thought we were going to be getting.

Well, heres the sort of wild thing. Almost every policy proposal on the economy that Joe Biden laid out in the speech he campaigned on. This is not new. Some of it dates back to 2019. Some of the stuff he was talking about when nobody really gave much of a shot to the Democratic nominee. It got kind of buried, because so many of his rivals almost all of them, really were much more progressive than he was. They were pushing even bigger tax increases, even bigger spending increases. In that field, Joe Biden really was moderate. In the context of American history, Joe Biden is pushing a very progressive agenda.

But its all on brand for him, because hes been talking about it all along. And the way he talks about it is different than the way that other politicians talk about it who are progressive. And so I think all that has come together so that both things are true. It is both true that this is seems to a lot of people, and particularly to Republicans like, whoa, not the Joe Biden we thought we were getting. We thought hed govern in a different way. But for anybody who was reading the details of his plans, hes very consistent.

Are you telling me I wasnt reading the plans?

Visit link:
We Have to Prove Democracy Still Works - The New York Times

UK unites G7 to take action against democratic threats – GOV.UK

Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab will today (Tuesday 4 May) bring together some of the worlds leading democracies for talks and decisive action on the most critical global issues at the G7 Foreign and Development Ministers Meeting in London.

In the first major in-person diplomatic gathering since the pandemic began and the first gathering of G7 Foreign Ministers since 2019, Dominic Raab will lead discussions on pressing geopolitical issues that threaten to undermine democracy, freedoms and human rights. This includes relations with Russia, China, and Iran, as well as the crisis in Myanmar, the violence in Ethiopia, and the ongoing war in Syria.

The G7 includes the UK, US, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the EU. Following talks through the day, the foreign ministers will hold a dinner discussion with guest nations Australia, India, the Republic of Korea, South Africa, and Brunei as the current ASEAN Chair.

The Foreign Secretary will use the evening to outline his vision for cooperation between the G7 and the nations of the Indo-Pacific region to develop stronger trade ties, ensure stability and tackle climate change.

Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said:

The UKs presidency of the G7 is an opportunity to bring together open, democratic societies and demonstrate unity at a time when it is much needed to tackle shared challenges and rising threats.

The addition of our friends from Australia, India, the Republic of Korea and South Africa, as well as the chair of ASEAN reflects the growing significance of the Indo-Pacific region for the G7.

The discussions in the morning will cover the coup in Myanmar. The Foreign Secretary will urge G7 nations to take stronger action against the military junta. This includes expanding targeted sanctions against individuals and entities connected to the junta; support for arms embargoes, and increased humanitarian assistance for the most vulnerable in the country.

The discussions will then turn to the situation in Libya, and the ongoing war in Syria. The afternoon session will cover the situation in Ethiopia, as well as Somalia, the Sahel, and Western Balkans. The foreign ministers will also discuss Russias ongoing malign activity including through the build-up of troops on the border with Ukraine, and its imprisonment of opposition figure Alexei Navalny and the situation in Belarus.

View original post here:
UK unites G7 to take action against democratic threats - GOV.UK