Mediaboss Marketing

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, theorists once thought democracy was both optimal and inevitable. After decades of democratic backsliding, this proved far too optimistic. So was the global perception of the Chinese Communist Partys (CCP) future path. The champions of engagement policies thought that by interacting with China, enhancing economic ties, binding them with international agreements, and then coupling them with a stronger middle class and the pursuit of the rule of law in the country, China would be free and democratic eventually.

It has not happened. On the contrary, China moved the world toward a much more autocratic system. Even so, the world has been reluctant to face reality: Western democracies wishful thinking led to the rise of authoritarianism and the decline of democracy. Theorists who once advocated appeasement strategies bear the responsibility of mending it and redirecting the free world to a position far more capable of combating authoritarianism. This starts with a proper strategy toward China and by treating the crisis of democracy as a global problem that demands coordinated global action.

The 2020 Varieties of Democracy report found that 2020 was the first time since 2001 that the world has more autocratic institutions than democratic ones. Increasing autocracy threatens the rights of people in every corner of the world. This is a global emergency that awaits a coordinated response from the free world.

The decline in democracy means the lack of democratically accountable governments, resulting in increased corruption, human rights violations, and conflict. Like poverty, hunger, and climate emergencies, citizens suffer under autocratic systems. Yet the world lacks the willingness to tackle it like other global problems. Although there is humanitarian assistance worldwide to fight hunger and internationally orchestrated actions to decrease carbon emissions, the international community has not found a vision for how democracy can prevail after the delusional dreams of the end of history failed. The West walked the wrong path and fed the rise of authoritarianism by engaging them without accountabilityits time for action to repair these mistakes.

When the military coup took place in Myanmar, global leaders joined hands to condemn it and demand democratic rights for people. At the same time, China defended the coup by claiming it a major cabinet reshuffle. The Thai junta also claimed the coup was an internal affair and others should not intervene. Authoritarian countries have abused the concept of sovereignty to evade the most basic monitoring from the rule-based international community and commit appalling human rights violations without being held accountable. Countries that are similar support one another, hence why autocracies grow. With China leading the way and Russia following closely, the world is faced with a camp of tyrants who despises universal value.

To tackle authoritarian expansion, the free world and its supporters have to consolidate their efforts and align their goals. It comes with a shift in perception: China is a threat to democracy, and the decline of democracy affects everyone, the same as with climate emergencies and public health crises. Democratic leaders must form alliances to discuss possible policies that can effectively curb the influence of these authoritarian regimes, including blocking their infiltration and propaganda.

When it comes to policy aimed at the CCP, policymakers have to understand how the regimes legitimacy is built. The two major sources of legitimacy are nationalism and economic benefits, instead of a popular mandate. In China, where a large part of the population has enjoyed material gains and is caught in the fanatical rhetoric of patriotism, the public invisibly signed a social contract and tacitly allowed the autocracy to grow. Occasional resistance movements have occurred in China but with, at best, limited influence.

But with the economy slowing and the prospect of being caught in the middle-income trap apparent, the CCP has to develop a new source of legitimacy to compensate. Nationalism must be boosted for the party to survive, and the best way to do it is by creating mythical, glorified national narratives and establish enemies. Thus came the emergence of wolf warrior diplomacy, and a leader, Chinese President Xi Jinping, who ranks unifying (or annexing) Taiwan as the primary mission of achieving national rejuvenation and revoking a century of humiliation. Former Chinese leader Deng Xiaopings mantra of biding Chinas time has gone, and a nation that aims at creating an authoritarian global order has arisen.

When China becomes more aggressive on the international stage, the sole correct response is not appeasing the country but standing firm. This barbaric conduct, including genocide in Xinjiang and the suppression of Hong Kong, must result in economic punishment. This can create a vicious cycle for the CCP; the weaker the economy is, the more aggressive the nationalism will become and the greater the partys isolation will grow, sparking more economic problems. When the cycle spirals, the CCP will need to find a different source of legitimacy, an additional incentive for the people to support the intangible social contract.

Hundreds of millions of Chinese peasant workers would face unemployment problems when the country is stuck in the middle-income trap. The overloaded social benefits system with its aging population, originated by the one-child policy, would start to crack. And the extreme wealth gap has driven more conflicts across social strata. Even though the party declares it has lifted the country from poverty, more than 600 million people still live with an income under $155 per month, and Chinese incomes are below the global average per capita.

Its seemingly invincible economic engine, fueled by the successful transition to modernity over the last four decades, has disguised the genuine face of China. Yet, a country is always fragile when it has to rely on its economic performance to suppress peoples voices. The West should separate the hardworking and honest Chinese people from the regime and trust they will pursue freedom when the time and conditions have come. When the people realize there is a need for them to reshape their relationship with the CCP, that will lead to reform and to a more democratic and freer future.

To reverse the decline of global democracy, the first step is to hold the strongest authoritarian regime accountable, putting pressure on it to seek a new popular mandate from its own people. Democratic leaders should form alliances and implement coherent strategies that put human rights policies as preconditions of further engagement. Trade agreements should be signed only after China has demonstrated tangible and visible enhancement on its human rights record, such as abolishing all the concentration camps in Xinjiang. Divide and conquer efforts run by China, such as the 17+1 initiative, should be reviewed rigorously and opposed if necessary. Chinese state actions should be scrutinized or banned if they threaten core interests in democratic countries, and individuals affiliated with the CCP should be treated as their complicit colluders.

In this intertwined and globalized world, its impractical to form wholly detached blocs. But for the sake of the Chinese people and the future of democracy, the free world must do its best. Whether through decoupling or divergence, the regimes legitimacy must be continually challenged and have limits set on its influence. International bodies like the World Health Organization and the United Nations should be reformed as most of them are compromised by Chinas infiltration and have abandoned universal values in favor of acting in Beijings interests.

I still believe that democracy prevails, but it relies on consolidated efforts from individuals and institutions that believe in it. If we dont walk the walk, we will regret handing future generations a more autocratic world. Perception drives actions. Its time for the West to recognize the decline of democracy as a global problem and resolve it with international action. The Wests misjudgment fed the rise of the largest threat to democracy, and it must bear the responsibility of restraining it.

Read the original:
Engagement Created China's Threat to Democracy Worldwide - Foreign Policy

At a Wednesday House Appropriations Committee hearing, the Secretary of States Office testified in opposition to a bill that would permit the use of ranked choice voting in local elections. At the same hearing, proponents of the bill said ranked choice voting is a pro-democracy reform that will strengthen elections and faith in government.

Under a ranked choice voting system, voters may rank multiple candidates in order of preference. For single-winner elections, votes are tabulated using a method called instant runoff voting. After voters first-choice votes are tabulated, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated. Subsequently, votes for the eliminated candidate are transferred to the next ranked candidate on those ballots. Votes are retallied, and the process continues until one candidate reaches a winning threshold.

The method gets a bit more complicated in elections for multiple-member offices. After the winning threshold is calculated based on the number of seats to be filled and the number of votes cast, ballots are counted in rounds and votes are transferred to candidates based on who has been eliminated and who has passed the winning threshold.

Jay Jennings, Legislative Director for the Secretary of States Office said the bill, sponsored by Rep. Kirsten Harris-Talley (D Seattle) would result in diminished voter confidence.

House Bill 1156 encourages entirely new methods to be adopted in an unknown number of jurisdictions from school board members, city council members, port districts and the like. These are unpredictably spread throughout the state, sometimes in overlapping counties.

According to a legislative summary of the bill, here are a few the main provisions.

Jennings says the number of local jurisdictions and potential outcomes of elections within each will lead to voter confusion.

There are 1,086 eligible jurisdictions, so the number of possible permutations seems nearly infinite, Considering the potential number of variations, you may share our concern regarding voter confusion. As proposed, each of the governing bodies and jurisdictions could choose a new and slightly different method for casting ballots, and a new and slightly different algorithm to determine the outcome of an election. And all of this is to be presented on one ballot.

Jennings and another testifier also lamented what they say is a high cost burden up to $8.2 million for the Secretary of States Office. But Sharon Hanek, a testifier from Pierce County, said the bills fiscal note leaves out the costs for counties, which she says could involve upgrading or buying new tabulation machines, as well as increased labor costs associated with potential audits.

In 2006, Pierce County voted to implement ranked choice voting. But three years later, after the 2008 election, voters repealed the system. Some voters reportedly felt that it helped elect an unqualified assessor-treasurer.

Linda Brewster, Chair of the democratic reform organization, Fix Democracy First, said that the bills fiscal impact is a small price to pay for increased voter engagement.

Rather than being forced to choose what sometimes feels like the lesser of two evils, I could give voice to my priorities. I could better represent my concerns using this method. And voters feel more engaged is priceless. Its always a good thing. Itll increase voter turnout and decrease voter cynicism, said Brewster.

Another testifier, Kelsey Breseman, said the current voting system allows for discussions of policy in elections to be crowded out by concerns over electability.

Under our current system, it is considered hopelessly naive to use your conscience when exercising one of your primary civic duties. Having and using personal values is subsumed by this no-win game which is played at all levels of government. As a voter, instead of voting to represent your stances on issues, our current system requires folks to engage in guessing games redirecting critical conversations about issues and policy to endless discussions of who or what is electable. Do you feel manipulated? Because I do, said Breseman.

Supporters of ranked choice voting also say that it will decrease negative campaigning. A 2020 study by the University of Technology Sydney found that the introduction of ranked choice voting improved the civility of debates with candidates in some municipalities.

Municipalities in California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico and New York have implemented ranked choice voting in local elections. One state, Maine, has used it in statewide and federal elections. And in 2020, Alaska voters approved a ballot measure that will require use of ranked choice voting in future state and federal elections.

Supports say a reform like ranked choice voting meets the moment at hand for American democracy.

With ranked choice voting we have a chance to let citizens vote in ways that would represent their true values and stances, said Breseman. You can list your actual preferences instead of picking between two people you would not like to see hold office or throwing away your vote. This is critical to a restoration of trust in what is now a very beaten down America.

On Thursday, the House Appropriations Committee moved the bill out of executive session in a bipartisan, 22-11 vote.

According to a new release from FairVote Washington, the cities of Olympia, Bellingham, Gold Bar, Spokane, and Seattle have each declared support for HB 1156.

Public service journalism is important today as ever. If you get something from our coverage, please consider making a donation to support our work. Thanks for reading our stuff.

Read the original:
Advocates say ranked choice voting will restore trust in democracy; Secretary of State's Office opposes it - Washington State Wire

Even as our nation longs to put the trauma of the January insurrection behind, and to move on and deal with the pressing issues of a pandemic, there can be no moving on until the full story is told and all the attacks instigators and accomplices are held accountable.

And that cant happen until participants and witnesses are questioned under oath by an independent commission a group beholden to no one and to no political party.

If there is a way to unite a deeply divided nation around a set of truths, it is to delve into what happened on Jan. 6 and the days and months leading up to it to uncover all the facts, expose the guilty, and assure, to the extent possible, that the seat of government will never again be threatened.

Over last weekend, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in a letter to her Democratic members, introduced the idea of a 9/11-style commission to protect our security.

Referencing the interim report prepared by retired Army Lieutenant General Russel Honor, assigned by Pelosi to assess Capitol security after the attack, the speaker wrote, It is clear from his findings and from the impeachment trial that we must get to the truth of how this happened.

Its an idea this editorial board proposed back on Jan. 8 as a sort of after action report on the events leading up to the attack, how it might have been prevented, and who was complicit in inciting the riot aimed at overturning a lawful election and the peaceful transition of power.

In the intervening days days in which more than 230 arrests have been made, new video released documenting the moments of horror and the full extent of the threat, and timelines drawn and redrawn even more questions have emerged.

Some of those might have been answered in the course of the Senate impeachment trial of former president Donald Trump had it not been short-circuited by the decision of House impeachment managers not to call witnesses.

And while their decision might have made no difference to the outcome, the nation should have heard from Republican Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler about her conversation with House minority leader Kevin McCarthy or better yet, from McCarthy himself. When telephoned in the middle of the riot by McCarthy, did Trump really say, Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are thus proving Trump refused to do anything to stop the riot?

There must still be an accounting for delays in deploying the National Guard and for the failure of the Capitol Police to prepare for what turned into a bloody onslaught.

There is still no definitive answer to whether any members of Congress led possible surveillance tours of the Capitol ahead of the insurrection for those later involved.

Yes, the list of people an independent inquiry can and should put under oath is a long one.

The 9/11 Commission took a long-overdue look at the roots of international terrorism and the ways in which the intelligence community was hampered by both laws and its own tradition of stovepiping intelligence that should have been shared. So, too, a Jan. 6 commission must take an equally hard look at domestic terrorism and the ways in which white supremacists and militia groups have been allowed to grow and prosper.

The words of the 9/11 Commission ring as true today as they did then: We did not grasp the magnitude of a threat that had been gathering over time.

The 9/11 Commission, created by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush, took nearly 21 months to complete its work, which included more than three dozen recommendations for policies and legislation aimed at preventing the next attack. Pelosi is absolutely right that a Jan. 6 commissions membership will be key bipartisan, above reproach, and small in number (the 9/11 Commission had only 10 members), with an abundance of staff.

Most Americans want answers answers they didnt get from a truncated impeachment process. The right-wing extremists who inspired and carried out the attack are still here, and Congress should not assume that the outrage of Jan. 6 cant happen again.

Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us on Twitter at @GlobeOpinion.

Continued here:
An assault on this democracy demands answers - The Boston Globe

Spain will on Tuesday mark the 40th anniversary of an attempted right-wing coup which for hours left the country in a state of political chaos.

This is how the coup that threatened Spain's fragile democracy unfolded, less than six years after dictator general Francisco Franco died in 1975:

The assaultOn the evening of February 23, 1981 about 200 Civil Guard officers stormed the lower house of parliament, firing assault rifles in the air as MPs debated the investiture of a new centrist government.

The group was led by lieutenant-colonel Antonio Tejero, who ordered everyone to lie on the floor.

Only three people did not dive for cover, outgoing prime minister Adolfo Suarez, his deputy general Gutierrez Mellado and the leader of the newly legalised Communist party, Santiago Carrillo.

In Madrid, rebels took over the studios of Spain's public TV and radio for about 90 minutes before they were dispersed by riot police.

Inhabitants of the Spanish capital locked themselves at home and some packed their bags, preparing to flee.

King's counterstrikeKing Juan Carlos immediately sought to shut down the coup. From the Zarzuela Palace near Madrid he called generals across the country and ordered them to respect the new government.

In 1978, Spain had adopted a constitution that was overwhelmingly supported in a referendum and which established a parliamentary monarchy.

During the night that followed the coup attempt, the monarch took action against its political leader Alfonso Armada, a general who had been the king's military instructor and later his secretary.

Juan Carlos barred Armada from the Zarzuela Palace and rejected his proposal to form a new government.

Just after 1:00 am, the king went on television in his uniform as Captain General of the Armed Forces to say he had ordered all measures be taken to maintain the constitutional order.

"The Crown, ... will not tolerate, in any degree whatsoever, the actions or behaviour of anyone attempting, through use of force, to interrupt the democratic process of the Constitution," he said.

The rebels who stormed parliament surrendered at noon on February 24, less than a day after launching their attempted coup.

The contextThe coup attempt came amid widespread disenchantment with Suarez, who had been appointed prime minister by Juan Carlos in 1976.

By February 1981, the king had fallen out with Suarez, a centrist who faced fierce opposition from the Socialists and pressure from military officials angered by the Communist Party's legalisation.

The military was also upset by the government's failure to end the Basque separatist group ETA's long-running campaign of violence.

Suarez presented his surprise resignation on January 29, 1981 following a meeting with military leaders at the Zarzuela Palace.

Armada immediately tried to take advantage of his influence over the king to be appointed as Suarez's replacement.

When that failed, Armada pushed ahead with preparations for the coup with Tejero and Milans del Bosch.

A military court sentenced all three men to 30 years in jail.

Armada received a pardon in 1988 while Milans del Bosch was released in 1990 and Tejero in 1996.

View post:
The attempted coup that put Spain's democracy on tenterhooks - Economic Times

Certainly, it was an irregular voting year. In some states, the pandemic prompted more Americans to vote by mail than the total number who voted at all in 2016. But election officials in every single state have said repeatedly that, despite the many challenges 2020 brought, they saw no evidence of fraud that could have altered the outcome of the election.

And after votes were cast, when Congress attempted to use its best tool of self-defense, they let Trump go unpunished for his attempted power grab.

Americans ought to remember the names of those Republicans who objected to the outcome of a free and fair election, the representatives who stuck by Trump in the impeachment vote, and the senators who acquitted him after his trial.

Cruz was the first senator to raise an objection during the joint session of Congress on January 6. He has repeatedly fueled Trumps lies about widespread irregularities and fraud in the election, telling Fox Newss Sean Hannity the night before the Capitol riot that if members of Congress voted to certify the election, what an awful lot of voters are going to hear from that is you dont think voter fraud is real. Cruz repeated Trumps baseless claims of fraud in the Senate, lending legitimacy to the lie that Joe Biden wasnt duly elected. He also objected to Pennsylvanias votes after the violence, and still maintains that he did the right thing.

Hawley was the first senator to publicly state that he would object to the election results, saying he wanted to highlight the failure of some states, including notably Pennsylvania, to follow their own election laws (he is notably not an elected official in Pennsylvania)and was pictured raising a fist in a seeming sign of solidarity with protesters before they breached the Capitol on January 6. He still objected to the count after Congress reconvened, but provided no evidence of fraud in either Arizona or Pennsylvania. Like Cruz, he says he has no regrets, insisting that his constituents concerns deserve to be heard.

Hyde-Smith twice objected to certifying the election results, blaming her constituents for her vote: The people I represent do not believe the presidential election was constitutional and cannot accept the Electoral College decision, she said. She then claimed to be alarmed with the erosion of integrity of the electoral processerosion she contributed to by perpetuating claims of fraud.

Originally posted here:
Remember the Republicans Who Betrayed Democracy - The Atlantic