Mediaboss Marketing

Advertisement

There has lately been an uptick of articles in the media, particularly the Western media, warning about the impending end of Indias democracy. Concurrently, many officials in Indias ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have engaged in illiberal rhetoric toward minorities. The government has acted in authoritarian ways toward social media, most recently attempting to intimidate Twitter in an attempt to censor voices critical of the governments handling of the COVID-19 crisis. Indias rank in democracy indexes has subsequently dropped.

For example, a recent article in Responsible Statecraft stated that the Modi government demolished the secular foundations of Indian democracy, replacing it with a Hindu state in which non-Hindus are at best tolerated, dangerously mixing truths with falsehoods. An uninformed reader could be forgiven for thinking that Indias democratic constitutional disposition had been abolished and replaced with a fascist dictatorship la Hitler. While, on one hand, it is certainly true that the rhetoric and actions of the BJP would lead one to that conclusion, it is also true, on the other hand, that the Indian state, built on the basis of the 1949 constitution, has not been replaced. This would be like arguing that the former U.S. President Donald Trumps rhetoric and incitement amounted to the replacement of the U.S. government and constitution with a racist dictatorship.

In reality, reports of the collapse of Indias democracy are often alarmist and misinformed. Indias institutions particularly the courts remain strong; democracy remains vibrant especially at the local and state levels, where the BJP has been defeated multiple times and where opposition parties control many governments and most importantly, its society remains heterogeneous, thus inhibiting a centralized tyranny. India is a far cry from being a one-party state.

It is important, however, to differentiate between democracy and liberalism.

In an interview with journalist Yascha Mounk, Raghuram Rajan, former governor of the Reserve Bank of India, noted that despite some institutional erosion in the past few years:

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

there is a sense, still, that the ultimate strength of India is a free and fair election, which is partly why the BJP pulled out all the stops to try and win the [recent] West Bengal [state] election to try and show, we can do it there also, in the stronghold of Mamata Banerjee, the leader of the opposition there. We can beat her. The people love us. And theyre showing that to us. The BJPs current leadership flourishes under the sense that theyre liked by everyone, under every circumstance.

Democracy in India is strong and entrenched, especially at the state level. A bigger problem is the lack of a competent political party that could challenge the BJP on the national level. The party that used to fill this role, the Indian National Congress, or simply the Congress Party, has its own set of problems. While it avoids much of the ethno-religious rhetoric of the BJP, it lost legitimacy because of its history of stifling bureaucratic policies, its role serving as a front for feudal interests, and most damaging, its own anti-democratic dynastic politics. The BJPs emergence had much to do with its promise of development and competence rather than its core Hindu-nationalist ideology, which only appeals to a relatively narrow base. The BJPs platform for development and good governance is why ambitious politicians have defected to it from the Congress Party. Minus Prime Minister Narendra Modis charisma, it is not self-evident that the BJP would have staying national power. India is sorely in need of a functional alternative to the BJP that can provide an alternative to that party at the center.

Get briefed on the story of the week, and developing stories to watch across the Asia-Pacific.

The BJPs inability to handle the COVID-19 crisis and get much done is not just a reflection of its own capabilities, but a reflection of Indias weak state, an institutional deficiency that results in the state not being able to get much done. This phenomenon goes back thousands of years, as I have previously discussed at The Diplomat. Democracy works extremely well for Indias society, because it is the means by which different identity groups in a highly heterogeneous society can share and balance power. It prevents any individual or group from becoming too strong and imposing their will on the customs of other groups. Indias post-independence constitution and the entrenchment of federalism and ethnic-based states has merely perpetuated a system that will never look like Chinas centralized, totalitarian state. Indias very diversity itself pushes back against any democratic backsliding.

However, despite Indias democratic norms and heterogeneity, Indias society is not particularly liberal, and this is reflected in the actions of its elected governments. Indias famed tolerance is more a function of different caste, religious, and ethnic groups maintaining a peaceful coexistence with each other rather than converging into a shining melting pot (outside of certain circles and big cities). Tolerance is not celebration and oneness.

Todays cultural and social trends are not necessarily evidence of democratic backsliding, but are rather evidence of social norms in India that are illiberal toward speech, individual expression, and criticism. As the political scientist Francis Fukuyama wrote, individual freedom in India has been limited much more by things like kinship ties, caste rules, religious obligations, and customary practices. But in some sense, it was the tyranny of cousins that allowed Indians to resist the tyranny of tyrants. Indias democratically elected rulers, from all parties and on all levels union (central), state, and local behave in an illiberal manner because the society from which they spring is in many ways illiberal, sociologically speaking. Parties across the ideological spectrum have resorted to censorship, libel cases, and intimidation by the police. Mamata Banerjee, the chief minister of the state of West Bengal, whose party, the local All India Trinamool Congress, was recently lauded for defeating the BJP, has herself often intimidated critics. The desire of every local potentate to carve their own fief is a strong factor that prevents any party from establishing an authoritarian government at the central level.

Ultimately, many in the media and among activists want to see a version of India come into being that accords with their own preferred vision, rather than dig deeper into the complexities of Indias history and sociopolitical evolution. It is not conducive to an accurate analysis of Indias politics to view it through the dichotomous lens of democracy versus authoritarianism, and of freedom versus fascism. Political systems are in a constant state of change based on the dynamics of the actors and institutions involved, and there is no one particular endpoint. For example, the English and then British political system witnessed numerous battles for power between royal authority and the nobility, then between the king and parliament, and then between the established and working classes before becoming what it is today.

There is every reason to believe that a society as diverse as Indias will likewise witness a constant tug-of-war between various groups, political parties, regions, and institutions, and that it is unreasonable to expect India to develop a Western-style liberal democracy right off the bat, if ever. India will continue to evolve in a direction that will probably be both relatively democratic given democracys enormous popularity and legitimacy in the country but also relatively illiberal, given political and social attitudes. But Indias democracy and constitutional order will remain strong and resilient, with its ethnic heterogeneity, regionalism, and multiplicity of groups providing a cushion against the entrenchment of authoritarianism, even if this is expressed in terms of group identities rather than individual rights.

View original post here:
Why India's Democracy is Not Dying The Diplomat - The Diplomat

As the leaders of the worlds wealthiest nations wrapped up their first in-person summit since the outbreak of the pandemic, they released a joint communiqu on Sunday, underscoring areas of solidarity and the differences that remain when it comes to tackling a host of global crises.

The group, including President Biden, did not reach agreement on a timeline to eliminate the use of coal for generating electric power, a failure that climate activists said was a deep disappointment ahead of a global climate conference later this year.

The leaders sought to present a united front even as it remained to be seen how the plans would be executed.

The agreement represented a dramatic return of Americas postwar international diplomacy, and Mr. Biden said it was evidence of the strength of the worlds democracies in tackling hard problems.

Speaking to reporters after the summit, Mr. Biden said the leaders endorsement of a global minimum tax would help ensure global equity and a proposal to finance infrastructure projects in the developing world would counter the influence of China, providing what he said was a democratic alternative.

Those initiatives, he said, would promote democratic values and not an autocratic lack of values.

Everyone at the table understood and understands both the seriousness and the challenges that we are up against and the responsibility of our proud democracies to step up and deliver to the rest of the world, Mr. Biden said.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain, who hosted the summit, said that the gathering was an opportunity to demonstrate the benefits of democracy.

That would start, he said, with agreements to speed up the effort to vaccinate the world, which he called the greatest feat in medical history.

Asked about the failure to go further on climate policy by setting firm timelines, Mr. Johnson said that the general criticism was misplaced and failed to take into account the full scope of what was achieved during the summit.

I think it has been a highly productive few days, he said.

Mr. Biden hoped to use his first trip abroad to show that democracy, as a system of government, remained capable of addressing the worlds most pressing challenges.

The communiqu issued on Sunday fleshed out some of the proposals that have dominated the summit and was explicit in the need to counter the rise of China.

Three years ago, China wasnt even mentioned in the G7 communiqu, according to an administration official who briefed reporters on its contents. This year, there is a section on China that speaks to the importance of coordinating on and responding to Chinas nonmarket economic practices and the need to speak out against human rights abuses, including in Xinjiang and Hong Kong.

The communiqu promised action against forced labor practices in the agricultural, solar, and garment sectors.

It also noted the need for supply chain resilience and technology standards so that democracies are aligned and supporting each other.

At the same time, the nations agreed to an overhaul of international tax laws, unveiling a broad agreement that aims to stop large multinational companies from seeking out tax havens.

The administration official called it a historic endorsement to end the race to the bottom in corporate taxation with a global minimum tax that will help fund domestic renewal and grow the middle class.

But for all the good will and declarations of unity, there were questions about how the proposals would be translated into real-world action.

For instance, on the tax laws, a number of hurdles have yet to be overcome.

The biggest obstacle to getting a deal finished could come from the United States. The Biden administration must win approval from a narrowly divided Congress to make changes to the tax code, and Republicans have shown resistance to Mr. Bidens plans.

See the article here:
Biden: Summit Offers Democratic Alternative To Chinese Influence. - The New York Times

(Washington, DC) The United States Congress should swiftly pass two critical laws needed to protect and advance the right to vote, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the For the People Act, Human Rights Watch said today. Both pieces of legislation are essential to protecting US democracy.

Since the troubled transition from the administration of former President Donald Trump, state legislators throughout the US have introduced hundreds of bills that would restrict access to voting, many of them echoing Trumps false claims about the 2020 presidential election results. These state laws represent backsliding in the US from voting systems historically aimed at upholding the rights of voters and respecting the will of the people. Without federal action, the rights of voters will be seriously impaired, particularly those of Black, brown, and low-income voters, Human Rights Watch said.

Two laws pending before Congress would help the United States ensure that the will of the people, not of politicians, determines the outcome of an election, said Nicole Austin-Hillery, US director at Human Rights Watch.Passage of both the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the For The People Act would be a crucial step toward guaranteeing every American a baseline level of voting access, free from efforts to hamper, dilute, or nullify their votes.

The United States has along history of discriminationagainst Black and brown people exercising the right to vote. Even after the federal enactment of the US Voting Rights Act in 1965, which aimed to reduce discrimination in voting, Black, Latinx, and Native American citizens experienced many obstacles to voting. Changes by some states in recent years, including those enabled by a 2013 US Supreme Court case Shelby County v. Holder, which eviscerated federal oversight under the act have made voting harder, not easier. The Covid-19 pandemic hasexacerbated these problems. Trumps promotion of a false narrative about the results of the 2020 election, echoed by his allies, is a serious attack on the concept that every vote should count. It also harms the millions of voters of color who came out in record numbers to speak through the ballot box.

The decentralized administration of elections in the United States means thatno state administers elections in exactly the same way as another state. Each US state has a chief election official who has ultimate authority over elections, but which official holds this power varies from state to state. For example, many states rely on their secretary of state as their chief election official, some require governors to appoint top election officials, and others use appointed bipartisan election commissions. It is a patchwork quilt of voting systems.

The groundswell of new state laws began early this year with the introduction of253 bills proposing voting restrictions across 43 statesas of February 19, according to the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice. That number rose to at least 389 bills in 48 states as of May 14, the Brennan Centerreported recently. The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the For The People Act would increase federal oversight of state laws that might restrict the right to vote and quell the voices of the most vulnerable voters.

The US should urgently take action to protect the rights of voters, Austin-Hillery said. In the words of the late Congressman John Lewis, the vote is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have. No voter should be blocked from using it.

Here is the original post:
US: Action Needed to Protect Democratic Rights - Human Rights Watch

The strength of a nation depends on its institutions, which must be independent and display intellectual integrity and vigour in performing their duties. India is a functioning parliamentary democracy, but its institutions seem to buckle before challenges. We must make institutions stronger, and therefore more effective, writesB K CHATURVEDI,former cabinet secretary and member of the erstwhile Planning Commission.

-

THIS week, at a G-7 conference, India reaffirmed its commitment to democracy in a joint statement. The statement, which India has signed, says, We are at a critical juncture, facing threats to freedom and democracy from rising authoritarianism, electoral interference, corruption, economic coercion, manipulation of information including disinformation, online harms and cyber-attacks, politically-motivated internet shutdowns, human rights violations and abuses, terrorism and violent extremism.

While the statement contains very clear affirmations of our values, several Indian policies have raised concerns in the international media.

Also read:India signs joint statement at G-7 for freedom of expression: Internet curbs threat to democracy

The 2021 World Press Freedom Index produced by Reporters without Borders (RSF), a French NGO, again placed India at 142nd rank out of 180 countries. The report mentioned that with four journalists killed in connection with their work in 2020, India is one of the most dangerous countries for journalists trying to do their job properly.

When Freedom House, an organisation based in the US, released its report on the functioning of democracies in March, it had downgraded Indias ranking from free to partly free. It observed, Rather than serving as a champion of democratic practice and a counterweight to authoritarian influence from countries such as China, Modi and his party are tragically driving India itself toward authoritarianism.

There may be issues with these assessments, and one may legitimately contest the views of these organisations, but they are one indicator of how some in the international community view the functioning of democracy in India.

Quite apart, the strength of a nation lies in how independently and with how much intellectual integrity the different parts of its democratic institutions carry out their responsibilities.

Also read:Freedom in the World 2021

Despite more than seven decades of a functioning parliamentary democracy, several institutions have not taken strong roots in our country. Some institutions have often not shown intellectual integrity when faced with challenges. A major issue is that corruption remains high, which weakens institutions and their effectiveness.

The recent Assembly election in West Bengal highlighted several major weaknesses in the working of some institutions. Our Election Commission has, over the years, acquired an image of a very strong and independent body. Unfortunately, it did not manifest in the West Bengal election. The polls were announced to be held in eight phases. Given the presence of a large number of paramilitary forces there, this schedule was difficult to understand.

There were allegations that it was done to favour the party ruling at the Centre so that its leaders could campaign in most of the constituencies right till the end. Since Prime Minister Narendra Modi has the image of a very popular leader, a long campaign was important for the BJP if it wanted to win this election. Further, the election was held when the country was going through one of the worst epidemics.

The Election Commission ought to have been really strict in implementing safety norms during the West Bengal election, but there was very little evidence of this. Large political meetings were allowed with blatant disregard for social distancing or wearing of masks.

The recent cyclone in West Bengal and the visit of the Prime Minister to review the losses in the state was yet another occasion when our institutions did not act in the spirit of the Constitution, as they must in a mature democracy. In our setup, the Prime Minister generally visits states ravaged by floods or other natural disasters.

During these visits, it is customary to hold meetings with the Chief Minister and other officials, including the Chief Secretary. Generally, meetings with public representatives are also held. It would have been appropriate if this was done. Unfortunately, it seems the bitterness of the elections affected the visit.

After handing over the papers to the Prime Minister, the Chief Minister chose not to stay back any further. She returned to the cyclone-affected areas along with the Chief Secretary.

While it was unfortunate that the West Bengal Chief Minister left the meeting with the Prime Minister early, the orders of the central government calling the Chief Secretary to report to the Government of Indiaissued immediately after this incidentviolated the All India Service Rules.

No concurrence of the state government or the officer was taken and, only a couple of days back, the government of India had agreed to his extension as Chief Secretary for three months. The entire incident did not reflect mature institutional functioning.

The Supreme Court of India is the highest judicial forum in the country. Sometime back, four of its judges held a press conference to express concerns about its functioning. When Article 370 was abolished in Jammu and Kashmir and many public representatives were put behind bars under various laws, several Habeas Corpus petitions were filed. Such petitions require urgent hearings as human freedom is at stake in them. Sadly, these petitions were kept pending for months. The courts did not take cognizance of them.

In January, the Supreme Court-appointed a committee to look into the problems faced by the farmers in light of their agitation. All the members appointed to this committee were generally seen to be in favour of the three central legislations that the farmers are opposing.

Similarly, the question of electoral bonds is still pending in the Supreme Court since 2017, although it has significant implications on the flow of funds to various political parties. The expeditious listing and hearing of the bail application of a pro-government TV anchorand subsequent relief to him has given rise to the belief that there is a strong influence of the government over the courts.

Also read:Farm laws: Supreme Court-appointed committee submits report

Day-to-day administration in our country is carried out by the executive. There are major chinks in the armour of this arm of government. For example, the functioning of the governors of states has been a cause of worry for a very long time. Over the years, chief ministers have complained about the conduct of several governors.

In July 2016, the conduct of the governor of Arunachal Pradesh, who imposed Presidents rule, was criticised heavily by the Supreme Court. Sometime back, the Governor of Maharashtra administered the oath of office to the Chief Minister at 8 am, after the President was woken up even earlier in the morning to revoke Presidents rule!

Also read:Maharashtra: How things played out on a day marked by intrigue

Electoral processes need to be free. However, recently, it has been noticed that before elections, the CBI, the Enforcement Directorate, and the income tax authorities launch investigations or carry out raids on the candidates of Opposition parties. The timing of these raids raises questions about their independence and fairness.

The functioning of the legislatures of states and Parliament, too, raises questions. The most basic question is the number of days our parliamentarians sit to discuss issues. Sadly,neither Parliament nor the state legislaturesare meeting enough.

According to recent reports, 19 state Assemblies met, on average, for 29 days a year. The last time our Parliament was in session for more than 100 days in a year was in 1988! Unless legislators meet and hold the executive accountable, democracy cannot be strong.

What independent institutions can achieve was evident some months back in the United States presidential election. It is remarkable that despite nearly 50 challenges to the election coming from different states, all the judges expeditiously rejected them.

According to reports,86 judgesand theUS Supreme Courtrejected the suits that challenged the election. The executive also responded very independently to the election process.

Even where President Donald Trump intervened personally and wanted a state governor to withhold the election result or ensure it is not certified, the governors refused. Arizona Governor Doug Hobbs, who is Republican, refused all pressures and certified the results.

After the 2020 election result, the US executive acted under the rules and laws despite pressure and did not delay decisions, nor did it just sit on papers. Even the investigating agency in the US, the FBI, and the Attorney General stood firm.

United States Attorney General William Barrsaid, To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election. Within days of his comment, he announced his resignation.

What is important for our democracy is to be strong, its institutions to function independently and with intellectual integrity. This approach must get strong support from all political parties. This will have strong positive results for the rule of law. It will make our nation strong.

(The author is a former Cabinet Secretary and former member of the Planning Commission. The views are personal.)

Read the rest here:
Indian Democracy is only as strong as its institutions - The Leaflet

Breadcrumb Trail Links

The notwithstanding clause is a dangerous and altogether unnecessary tool

Author of the article:

Publishing date:

Canadas democracy has always been considered resilient and well immunized against the democratic backsliding that is occurring in other liberal democracies. Yet there is one feature of Canadas Constitution that undermines this rather smug assessment: Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms the infamous notwithstanding clause which permits Parliament and the provincial legislatures to provisionally suspend the operation of the charter with respect to certain fundamental rights and freedoms.

In recent weeks, we have seen two provincial premiers resort to the notwithstanding clause in order to insulate legislation from charter scrutiny. In Ontario, Premier Doug Fords Progressive Conservative government announced that it plans to invoke the notwithstanding clause in order to restore parts of the Protecting Ontario Elections Act that restricts third-party election advertising and that had been struck down by a judge for infringing freedom of expression.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

And in Quebec, the Coalition Avenir Qubec government of Premier Franois Legault has invoked the notwithstanding clause as part of Bill 96, which seeks to amend Canadas Constitution to identify Quebec as a nation and make French its official and common language. In 2019, the Legault government also resorted to the notwithstanding clause when it passed Bill 21, An Act Respecting the Laicity of the State, which is intended to eradicate religious symbols in most of the public sector.

Back in 2018, Premier Ford introduced legislation cutting the size of Torontos city council in half, and announced that he would be prepared to invoke Section 33 in order to save the law in the event that it was found to violate the charter. In the face of public opposition, both Ford and his attorney general cavalierly defended the proposed use of Section 33 by touting their access to all the tools in the toolbox.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The willingness of our leaders to resort to the notwithstanding clause is cause for concern. Although the invocation of Section 33 does not offend the rule of law because the notwithstanding clause is, indeed, in the constitutional toolbox, it nevertheless poisons the liberal-democratic well from which free citizens draw their water.

Section 1 of the charter already anticipates that there will be circumstances in which rights and freedoms may lawfully be curtailed. But the courts have imposed a rigorous, multi-pronged test under Section 1 that requires the government to establish that the law or action responds to a matter of pressing and substantial concern, that its objective is rationally connected to the abridgement of a charter right, that the impairment of the right must be minimal and that there must be proportionality between the benefits of the law and the deleterious effects of the impairment.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

With Section 33, however, governments are not required to satisfy a judge that any of these conditions are present. Except to the extent that a governments purpose is articulated in legislative debate, the exercise of justifying the abridgement of constitutionally protected rights and freedoms can be dispensed with altogether when such an exercise risks producing an inconvenient or embarrassing result for the government.

The notwithstanding clause is the product of some heavy-handed, high-stakes bargaining amongst federal and provincial negotiators during the constitutional negotiations of 1981. The insistence by then-premiers Peter Lougheed, Allan Blakeney and Sterling Lyon on the inclusion of such a constitutional override clause was crucial in securing the requisite provincial support for the patriation package.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The principal justification for such an override was perhaps best articulated by constitutional law scholar Peter Russell: A belief that there should be a parliamentary check on a fallible judiciarys decisions on the metes and bounds of our fundamental rights and freedoms. However, almost four decades after the inclusion of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canadas Constitution, we have had the benefit of a rich and well-developed jurisprudence under Section 1.

It is high time we recognize that the escape hatch of Section 33 undermines Canadas commitment to protecting civil liberties, erodes the legitimacy of our democracy, renders it vulnerable to democratic backsliding and compromises Canadas credentials as a global champion of human rights and liberal-democratic values.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The problem is not that first ministers will be tempted to use all the tools in the constitutional toolbox, but that Section 33 is a dangerous and altogether unnecessary tool. It simply has no place in the constitutional toolbox of any mature and robust liberal democracy. It ought to be repealed.

National Post

Peter L. Biro is the founder of Section1.ca, a democracy and civics education advocacy organization, a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and chair emeritus of the Jane Goodall Institute, Global. He is a lawyer, business executive and the editor of Constitutional Democracy Under Stress: A Time For Heroic Citizenship.

Listen to our new podcast, COVID Conspiracies, on Apple Podcasts or Spotify

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of NP Posted will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Read the original here:
Peter L. Biro: Section 33 has no place in a liberal democracy. It ought to be repealed - National Post