Mediaboss Marketing

IN DECEMBER IT will have been ten years since Muhammad Bouazizi, a Tunisian street peddler, set himself on fire. He was protesting against harassment by local police, who often demanded bribes to let him carry on earning his modest living. His death inspired the Arab spring: a series of popular uprisings that toppled autocrats, Tunisias included, across the Middle East.

Yet in Bouazizis hometown of Sidi Bouzid, deep in the hinterland, few people plan to commemorate him. He escaped to his maker and left us with this misery, says Haroun Zawawi, one of several young jobless men sitting near the roundabout where Bouazizi lit the match. On a nearby wall someone has mockingly scrawled revolution upside down. People dont feel it has improved their lives, says the citys MP, Naoufel ElJammali. Theres nostalgia for dictatorship.

Tunisia is often praised for being the first Arab country to throw off the yoke of autocracy, and the only one where genuine democracy survives. Elections are still held, the secret police are relatively docile and women participate extensively in public life. But most Tunisians judge the revolution based on the performance of the economy, which has not improved under the new dispensation. Incomes have fallen by a fifth over the past decade; unemployment has been stuck above 15% for years. Powerful unions block reforms. Illegal migration to Europe is up fourfold on last year. Bickering politicians give people little reason to stay.

Tunisia is one of the few countries where more educated people are less likely to find work. So parliament recently passed a law granting jobs to graduates who have been unemployed for a decade. It could not afford to keep that promise, even before covid-19 forced it to lock down the country from March until May. The coronavirus has disrupted important sources of revenue, such as remittances, trade and tourism. The government expects the budget deficit to widen to about 7% of GDP because of the pandemic; the economy is expected to shrink by 6.5% this year.

Tunisia had been in talks with the IMF about a loan, but those were suspended in July, when the prime minister, Elyes Fakhfakh, resigned over allegations of a conflict of interest. His replacement, Hichem Mechichi (Tunisias eighth prime minister in ten years), wants to form a technocratic government without political parties. That is, in part, because the parties cannot agree on much. The largest is Ennahda, which is Islamist. Its leader, Rachid Ghannouchi, who is the speaker of parliament, has feuded with Kais Saied, the president, over nominees and power. Mr Ghannouchi himself narrowly survived a confidence vote last month after being accused of exceeding his authority.

Nine years ago Ennahda won Tunisias first free election, promising something new. Now its members look tired. Asked what is his biggest achievement, Mr Ghannouchi replies: Jalusna (Were sitting here). Whereas Islamist movements elsewhere have been crushed, Ennahda is still at the forefront of Tunisias politics. But critics say it has acquired the traits of the regions old patriarchies. Mr Ghannouchi, who is 79, has led Ennahda (or its precursor) for 50 years. In 2012 the party decided that he would serve only two more terms as leader, ending this year. Now he wants to change the rules. He preaches Muslim democracy but rules like a traditional Arab, says Abdelhamid Jlassi, a former deputy leader of Ennahda who quit in March. The disillusion is spreading. In parliamentary elections last October the party mustered only a third of the votes it won in 2011.

In a presidential election the same month Mr Saied won in a landslide, attracting a huge share of the youth vote. A stiff law lecturer and political outsider, he promised to stamp out corruption. But he also appears hungry for power. The president is in charge of the army, security forces and foreign policy. Mr Saied also wants more say over domestic policy, which parliament claims as its turf. He sparred with Mr Ghannouchi over who should pick the prime minister before choosing Mr Mechichi, a loyal bureaucrat. In the long term Mr Saied would like to move to a system of indirect elections for parliament, with local councils holding more power.

There are some in parliament who seem inclined to do away with democracy altogether. Abir Moussi was a high-ranking official in the party of Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, the old dictator, and she is nostalgic for the old days. She calls the Arab spring a spring of ruin, blaming Ennahda for the upheaval. Like Mr Saied, she is openly homophobic. She now heads the Free Destourian party, which won 16 seats (out of 217) in last years elections and led the challenge to Mr Ghannouchi. Members of the middle class who fared better under Ben Ali like her calls to restore the order of pre-revolutionary Tunisia (when Ennahda was outlawed). According to recent polls, she is the countrys most popular politician.

Western diplomats say Tunisias democracy has proven surprisingly resilient. Its politics are broadly rooted. Its Islamists have been restrained and conciliatory. There has been very little of the bloodshed that characterised the clash between old and new systems elsewhere in the Arab world. But many Tunisians are less sanguine. Protesters demand jobsyet make matters worse by blocking oil and phosphate exports. Voter turnout is trending down. Even in the capital of Tunis no big events are planned to mark Bouazizis death. Politicians play down the anniversary or, like Ms Moussi, curse it.

This article appeared in the Middle East & Africa section of the print edition under the headline "Ten years after the revolution"

Continued here:
In Tunisia, cradle of the Arab spring, protesters want jobs - The Economist

Text Size:A- A+

What is likely to replace the first republic? When? How? Can we still save the republic? What is to be done?

These are the most critical and difficult questions of our time that political sense and political science must confront. They do not admit of a correct answer, at least as long as history admits the inescapability of contingency. Let me only, in conclusion, sketch three possible courses that the journey of democracy may take in the near future, without assigning probabilities.

The first route leads to a long Indian summer. We may be witnessing a quick transition from the first socialist, secular, democratic republic to a quasi-democratic, firmly majoritarian, and crony-capitalist republic. We could date the inauguration of the second republic to 2014, when the BJP started consolidating its electoral, ideological, and coercive power into a new one-party dominance system. Unlike the famous Congress system of consensus, the new BJP system is based on a concentration of power, a sectarian ideology, and the social exclusion of minorities. This second republic need not have a new constitution for as long as the Modi regime can define and redefine the threshold of tolerance for deviations from constitutionally mandated procedures. The constitutional form of parliamentary democracy may remain untinkered with, yet for all practical purposes India could become a Latin American-style presidential democracy where the supreme leader draws power from the people and is answerable only to them. The public could be continuously mobilised to undo the republic.

In such a new dispensation our political system, while retaining the label democracy, would in practice be describable as competitive authoritarianism. Elections would be held without fail, but only in order to affirm the supreme leaders popularity. Instead of being one among many episodes in a representative democracy, elections might then become the only available democratic episodes. Any form of political contestation outside the electoral arena dissent, protests, and human-rights struggle or civil-society activism would be ruthlessly suppressed. For its survival and popular endorsement, the second republics ruling dispensation would depend on occasional electoral endorsement, a massive propaganda machine, formal and informal regimentation of the independent media, indirect control of the judiciary and other autonomous institutions, continuous crusades against internal enemies, and regular military adventures, especially preceding an election.

Also read: India attracted the world once. But it wasnt because of its ambition to be a Hindu Rashtra

India may never formally be declared a Hindu Rashtra. It would be unnecessary, for the second republic is likely to be a non-theocratic majoritarian state with a de facto hierarchy of religious communities. An American style melting pot model could be tried in India, with the pot bearing a distinct Hindutva stamp. We are unlikely or so I hope despite the Delhi riots of February 2020 to witness large-scale anti-minority pogroms, in part because the regime would like to avoid the international outcry that is bound to follow such violence. In any case, since the need of the day in our second republic would be to reduce the minorities, mainly Muslims and Christians, to the status of second-rung citizens, quotidian put-downs and symbolic violence would suffice.

Dalits and adivasis may not face the same kind of onslaught, because the ruling regime in the second republic would be cognizant of the political benefits of accommodating them, at least symbolically. To grind their noses into the dust would in any case seem unnecessary, given a de facto hegemony of upper-caste Hindus. In our New India the politics of social justice would effectively have taken a back seat, with any expression of Dalit or Adivasi upsurge being nipped in the bud or tamed. While the imposition of Hindi on non-Hindi states would be deemed an unnecessary upsetting of the apple cart, cultural homogenisation in all other respects would be the states agenda. Our second republic may not be quite the Hindu Rashtra of Savarkars dreams, but as close to its 21st-century version as required and feasible.

Good Journalism matters,

more so in a crisis

Coronavirus, economy, tension with China are events unrivalled in recent times.

They demand clear, fair & questioning reporting, writing & pictures.

ThePrint consistently brings you the stories that matter, from where they happen.

We can sustain this only if you pay for what you read & watch.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

And now to consider the second possible route. This would involve a period of uncertainty, a no-mans land between the first and the second republic. It may result from simultaneous movements in both directions, preventing either a firm hegemony or its effective reversal. The counterbalancing could come from various directions. The BJP might keep losing power in the states while continuing its success story at the centre. The regional forces might, belatedly, offer effective resistance to the BJPs political hegemony and its drive for cultural homogenisation. Or the BJP might lose national power in 2024, only to bounce back sooner or later, as Indira Gandhi did quite soon after her defeat in 1977. This might delay the transition to the second republic. Though unlikely, opposition might even come from within. An intense power struggle within the BJP, however inconceivable it seems at the moment, might possibly defer or deter this transition. We cannot rule out another version of this internal challenge: a party other than the BJP might use the template of nationalism and Hindutva, or its milder versions, to defeat the BJP in elections. As a popular advertisement has it, Impossible is Nothing.

Also read: Indias democracy crumbling? Constitution shows how to create democracy in unlikely settings

There are other possibilities as well. The balancing might come from a hidden hand outside the electoral-political domain. Attempts to smother diversities could trigger resistance from other social cleavages, such as caste and language, that the regime might find difficult to overlook or polarise to its advantage. Or, while the regime continues to dominate elections and public opinion, its success might be undermined by abject failure with handling the economy. Signs of such failure are in evidence already: an economic slowdown that does not look just cyclical; farm distress triggered by an agrarian crisis and accentuated by climate change; the highest recorded rate of unemployment, and rising inflation.

So far, the regimes handling of the economy has been amateurish at best; its attempts with data suppression and impatience with ideologically unaligned economic advisers have, to put it euphemistically, raised eyebrows everywhere. It is possible, therefore, that the large numbers of those at the bottom of the pile will begin to connect their economic distress and absence of hope on the horizon with an incompetent government and punish it. Popular movements could channelise such disaffection. Even as the institutions of democracy keep collapsing, powerful movements might, as they have in the past, fill the vacuum for a time and retrieve some democratic balance. Any or all of these counterweights to the BJP might temporarily halt or slow the hegemonic march of the BJP, but not challenge its fundamentals. For all we know, in real life this might be the most optimistic scenario.

A third route, a mirage for the moment, promises a reversal of hegemony and reclamation of the republic by the public. This route too involves a radical transition: there can be no return to the ancien regime represented by parties like the Congress. In this route, the second republic would show a new configuration of power, a renewal of the idea of India, a new social contract. It may be hard to visualise what such a transition might entail, let alone how it can be brought about. The last essay in my book (chapter 15) tries to respond nevertheless to this all-important question: What is to be done? The strategy suggested there (in 2017) remains relevant in its broad outlines. The immediate focus should be on mass movements on the economic front, mainly involving distress-affected farmers and unemployed youth. In the medium run, a political reconfiguration involving existing parties and social movements would be needed. In the long run, there can be no escaping the battle of ideas that necessitates a reaffirmation of nationalism, the recovery of pluralist religious traditions, and a reconnection with our languages.

Also read: Modi calls Constitution a holy book but his government violates its letter and spirit

The strategy and the tactics of this third, counter-hegemonic, route need constant fine-tuning. But two lessons are already clear. First, a struggle to rescue Indian democracy cannot be separated either from the battle to save the Indian model of a diverse nation, or from the need to resurrect the promise of an inclusive welfare state. A single point save democracy or save constitution movement is unlikely to succeed. The political battle has to go hand in hand with struggles in the economic and cultural spheres. And second, the electoral arena may not be central to the historic mission of reclaiming the republic. We are unlikely to witness a repeat of 1977 when an authoritarian ruler quietly stepped down after an electoral defeat. Mass mobilisation and popular resistance outside the electoral arena are going to be prerequisites for any effective reversal of the hegemonic power.

The ongoing anti-CAA movement of 2020 offers a glimmer of what such resistance might look like. It is hard to anticipate how this movement might appear in the mirrors of the future, or even by the time this book is published. It might well turn out to be a short-lived protest of the north-east and the Muslim community. In any case, such a movement is unlikely to become the fulcrum of a counter- hegemonic politics. And yet the dynamics of this movement does have all the elements of what a dramatic turnaround might involve: the outpouring of masses on the street; an outburst of new ideas, slogans, and poems; the sudden fusing of issues and social groups; the evaporation of fear in the face of state repression.

Such hopes appear romantic today. But if democracy is about instituting uncertainty into the heart of public life, there are perhaps no reasons powerful enough to snuff out all hope.

This excerpt from Making Sense of Indian Democracy by Yogendra Yadav has been published with permission from Permanent Black and Ashoka University.

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

News media is in a crisis & only you can fix it

You are reading this because you value good, intelligent and objective journalism. We thank you for your time and your trust.

You also know that the news media is facing an unprecedented crisis. It is likely that you are also hearing of the brutal layoffs and pay-cuts hitting the industry. There are many reasons why the medias economics is broken. But a big one is that good people are not yet paying enough for good journalism.

We have a newsroom filled with talented young reporters. We also have the countrys most robust editing and fact-checking team, finest news photographers and video professionals. We are building Indias most ambitious and energetic news platform. And we arent even three yet.

At ThePrint, we invest in quality journalists. We pay them fairly and on time even in this difficult period. As you may have noticed, we do not flinch from spending whatever it takes to make sure our reporters reach where the story is. Our stellar coronavirus coverage is a good example. You can check some of it here.

This comes with a sizable cost. For us to continue bringing quality journalism, we need readers like you to pay for it. Because the advertising market is broken too.

If you think we deserve your support, do join us in this endeavour to strengthen fair, free, courageous, and questioning journalism, please click on the link below. Your support will define our journalism, and ThePrints future. It will take just a few seconds of your time.

Support Our Journalism

Read more:
What will replace the first Indian republic? Three journeys democracy can take now - ThePrint

With the 19th Amendments passage now 100 years in the rearview, most American women alive today have been eligible to vote since the age of 18, or 21 for those who came of age before 1971. Balsam resident Luisa Teran de McMahan, however, was 40 years old before she was allowed to cast an American ballot.

We take it for granted, but not all countries have the right to vote for their leaders, and the fact that in this country we can vote for our local leaders and vote for our government and vote for our president, thats important, she said. You want to choose who is going to guide you or who is going to be the leader. You want to have someone who you believe is capable of handling situations and problems.

Originally from Venezuela, McMahan moved to the United States in July 2006 on a J1 visa, teaching second grade math and science at a bilingual school in Greenville, South Carolina. The Venezuela of McMahans childhood was an affluent, democratic, stable country, but by the time she left that was already beginning to change. Hugo Chavez would be elected to this third term in December of that year, and in the seven years since hed first gained power the country had already seen a string of violent conflicts between the government and its opposition in response to Chavez dictatorial bent.

I came for the American Dream, if you want to call it that, she said. I came with the hope of being able to stay one way or another.

Single at the time, she began to explore the world of online dating and ended up meeting a man named Brian McMahan, who was chairman of the commission for a rural county whose population was smaller than that of the entire city where she now lived. Luisa grew up in the city of Barquisimeto, which at the time had a population of about 1 million, and went to college in the capital city of Caracas. Greenville was by far the smallest town shed ever called home.

But the two fell in love, and in 2008 they married. The following year, Luisa secured her green card and left Greenville for Jackson County. Marrying an American citizen had made her eligible to apply for the green card, but earning it was still a process.

We had to prove to the U.S. government that he really loved me, and I really loved him and that the marriage was legitimate, she said.

They gathered together an enormous file of documents to prove this claim, including copies of all the emails theyd sent each other before meeting in person and the telephone bills that showed how many times theyd talked on the phone and how long the conversations were.

It was a lot of money we had to pay in fees to change my status, she said. We did what we had to do.

The green card allowed her to remain in the United States as a permanent resident. She could hold a job, travel freely and enjoy many of the same right that U.S. citizens enjoy but she couldnt vote. Only citizens are allowed to vote, and the McMahans had to make it through three years of marriage before Luisa could apply for citizenship. By the time that date rolled around in 2012,she wasnt in a hurry to make the move. It was an expensive process, for one thing, and family life was busy. The McMahans had their first child, and then their second one, plus work and church and all the other responsibilities that come with being part of a community. It was really the election of President Donald Trump in 2016 and the ensuing uncertainty as to what immigration policies his administration might enact that spurred her to start the citizenship process.

In February, Luisa went to Atlanta to get fingerprints and biometrics taken at the immigration office. She was given an appointment in Charlotte several months later to complete the second step, which included a citizenship exam and a test to prove that she could read and write in English. The stakes were high.

If you dont pass, you have to start over again, she said. They dont reimburse you anything.

But, she did pass, and on Aug. 15, 2017, she was naturalized as a citizen of the United States.

Luisa voted for the first time the following year, in 2018, a milestone that would have been a big deal for anybody. But for her it was especially important, because her husband was on the ballot. Brian is currently serving his fourth term on the Jackson County Board of Commissioners after winning re-election in 2018. One of the 8,589 votes cast to elect him was his wifes.

When my first time to vote came, we all went together, she said. We made it a family affair, and we took pictures. It was meaningful because I was voting for my husband for the first time.

While Luisa and Brian didnt yet know each other during his first two political campaigns in 2002 and 2006, they were married when he won his contest in 2014, and in 2010, when he lost by just 68 votes.

It was a little awkward, said Luisa, knowing that she could have helped narrow that gap were she eligible to vote.

Especially in a small election like the county election, one or two or 10 votes makes a big difference, she said. I felt a little frustrated, but then maybe it was for the best because those first four years of (our son) Henrys life, he was home way more than after he was elected again.

Now, as a full citizen of the U.S., Luisa loves knowing that this country is her home, and that she will always have a voice at the ballot box.

We believe in democracy here, and voting is a big part of it, she said.

See the original post:
'We believe in democracy': For commissioner's wife, winding road leads to citizenship, voting rights - Smoky Mountain News

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Benny Gantz clashed at Sundays cabinet meeting, with the premier accusing protesters against him of trampling on democracy, while the Blue and White chief responded that people had a right to demonstrate and must be protected.

I condemn any violence. It has no place, on either side, and we have zero tolerance for any manifestation of violence or any threat of violence, Netanyahu said at the meeting.

I see an attempt to trample on democracy. There is a distortion of all the rules. Nobody restricts the demonstrations. On the contrary they are accommodating toward them, he said. But, he added, its a coronavirus incubator, there are rules that are not enforced, no one restricts it and no one has even tried to restrict it.

Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email and never miss our top storiesFree Sign Up

No outbreaks have so far been traced back to the protests.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the opening of the cabinet meeting, August 2, 2020 (Screen grab/Channel 13)

These demonstrations are fueled by a media mobilization, the likes of which I dont remember before, the premier declared. They are encouraged, allowed to paralyze neighborhoods and block roads, in stark contrast to everything that was accepted in the past.

The prime minister continued his protest of media coverage of the events, saying: I condemn the one-sidedness of most media outlets. They do not report the demonstrations they participate in them. They add fuel.

There has never been such a distorted mobilization I wanted to say Soviet but it has already reached North Korean terms of the media in favor of the protests, he said.

Netanyahu said the media ignored wild and unfettered incitement, including daily calls including the day before yesterday to murder the prime minister and his family.

Gantz, who also serves as alternate prime minister, responded to Netanyahu at the meeting emphasizing his belief that the right to demonstrate is the lifeblood of democracy and condemning violence against protesters.

Defense Minister Benny Gantz (GPO)

As a government, we have a responsibility to allow the demonstrations to take place and to protect the demonstrators, who were unfortunately attacked yesterday.

Gantz said he discussed the issue with Public Security Minister Amir Ohana, adding that he reiterates his call for everyone to refrain from violence, and for the Israel Police to act with the minimum force necessary to maintain the law.

The latest Jerusalem rally on Saturday night drew some 10,000 participants, according to estimates. It was by and large peaceful. Five people were taken into custody for allegedly accosting those protesting against Netanyahu and 12 people were detained at the end of a protest after police said they refused to vacate the area.

Protesters have for weeks been holding regular rallies outside the Prime Ministers Residence on Balfour Street in Jerusalem, as well as in Tel Aviv and other areas, calling on the premier to resign due to his indictment on corruption charges. They have been joined in recent weeks by people protesting the governments economic policies during the coronavirus pandemic, with crowds in the thousands and rising.

Netanyahu has protested media coverage of the protests, which he claims blows them out of proportion. On Saturday night, he again lashed out at TV news stations, as his Likud party accused the major networks channels 12 and 13 of delivering propaganda for the anarchist left wing demonstrations.

They are desperately trying to brainwash the public, in order to bring down a strong prime minister from the right, Likud wrote in a post retweeted by Netanyahu.

Israelis protest against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the Sde Yaakov bridge in the Jezreel Valley, northern Israel, on August 1, 2020. (Anat Hermony/Flash90)

Netanyahu further accused the media of ignoring the violent nature of the protests and the calls within them to murder the prime minister and his family.

The premier is on trial for a series of cases in which he allegedly received lavish gifts from billionaire friends and traded regulatory favors with media moguls for more favorable coverage of himself and his family. He has denied any wrongdoing, accusing the media and law enforcement of a witch hunt to oust him from office.

Also Sunday, Science and Technology Minister Izhar Shay of Gantzs Blue and White party called on Netanyahu to publicly calm the tensions.

The prime minister must take responsibility and calm things down, Shay told the Ynet news site. I do not know where this is going, but it is clear that the public is showing its heart. Weve insisted on the ability of the Israeli public to demonstrate [despite the coronavirus pandemic], that the basic democratic right should be in every law and regulation. Some are against us, and we respect that.

An estimated 10,000 people packed Jerusalems Paris Square Saturday night to call for Netanyahus resignation, in the largest-yet rally by a burgeoning anti-government movement that has brought activists, many of them young and newly politically active, to the streets.

Israelis protest against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu outside the Prime Ministers Residence in Jerusalem on August 1, 2020. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

Tensions were especially high after a number of earlier protests saw attacks by suspected assailants against protesters.

Police allowed the protesters to remain in the square until around 1 a.m. but, once most people had left on their own, began calling for the remaining group to leave. Eventually officers were deployed to physically remove the remaining core of demonstrators and 12 people were detained or arrested, police said.

Another protest was held outside Netanyahus private home in the coastal town of Caesarea, while thousands waved flags and chanted against the premier on bridges and highway overpasses across the country.

Hundreds also gathered at Charles Clore park in Tel Aviv to protest the governments economic policies during the coronavirus pandemic.

The demonstrators dispersed from each of those rallies without major police intervention.

Agencies contributed to this report.

Continue reading here:
Netanyahu: Protesters are trampling on democracy; Gantz: They must be protected - The Times of Israel

ROME Human lives and jobs are not the only things threatened by the coronavirus pandemic: In many countries, democracy and efforts to build a more just world also are under attack, said Father Arturo Sosa, superior general of the Jesuits.

Democracy can be one of the victims of the pandemic if we do not take care with our political condition, Sosa told Vatican News. At this time, for example, many governments including so-called democratic governments are taking the path of authoritarianism.

The interview was published on the eve of the July 31 feast of St. Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Jesuits. Pope Francis, also a Jesuit, joined Sosa and his confreres for a feast-day lunch at the orders headquarters near the Vatican.

In the interview, Sosa said many governments are using the pandemic as an excuse to restrict or end their assistance to migrants and refugees, which is a great mistake if we want to make the world more fraternal and just.

To discriminate against migrants would be and is a great danger and would be a sign of a world that we do not want, he said.

The Jesuit superior said he also is concerned about how some businesses are using the pandemic as an excuse to fire workers or reduce salaries and benefits, including for health care.

In other words, the pandemic is an occasion to take steps forward or to take steps backward, he said. And we must be very aware of this as the Catholic Church and as people committed to justice and peace so that we can build a more welcoming, more democratic society.

Inspired by St. Ignatius, he said, Jesuits and other Catholics know that being close to the poor is always important, but especially during this pandemic.

If we are not capable of looking at the world up close, sharing the point of view of the poor, which is the point of view of the crucified Jesus, then we will make mistakes in our decisions, he said.

The heart of the Ignatian experience and, therefore, of Ignatian spirituality, is a personal and profound encounter with Jesus Christ, crucified and risen, which leads to such a familiarity with God that one can find him in every thing and every moment, Soso said. That intimate relationship becomes a source of true freedom because it helps a person be fully available to do only that which God desires, without attachments to any person, place or institution.

See the original post:
Jesuit superior warns of pandemics threat to democracy - Crux: Covering all things Catholic