Mediaboss Marketing

Facts about Democracy will tell you about a type of government where the people are involved in the decision making of the state affairs. These people will choose their representative in the assembly or parliaments by using their votes in the election. Democracy is found in various countries in the world. It is very popular since the people have rights to define their government. Lets check other interesting facts about democracy below:

There are four elements which define democracy based on Larry Diamond. He was a political scientist. The first one is related to the free and fair elections where people can choose and replace the government. The second one is related to citizen participation in the politics and civil life. The third one is related to the human rights of all people. The last element is related to the application of laws where all citizens are equally treated before the law.

The term democracy is taken the word demokratia. It is a Greek word.

Democracy facts

The term democracy is taken from two words, demos and kratos. The latter one means power or rule, while the former one means people. Therefore, it is translated as rule of the people.

The Greek city states applied democracy since the 5th century BC. It was considered as the common political system there.

Facts about Democracy

The major application of democracy during the ancient time was spotted in Athens.

Aristokrata is defined as rule of elite. It is considered as the antonym of democracy.

Democracy Picture

Democracy is also different from oligarchy and absolute monarchy. The latter one is used to define a government ruled by a small number of people. The absolute monarchy is applied when a government is ruled by an individual.

The social norm, political equity and upward control are some fundamental elements of democracy based on one theory. Check facts about David Ben Gurion here.

Democracy Image

The elements found in liberal democracy include civil liberties, equality before the law, political pluralism, human rights and due process.

The application of democracy is not only seen in government, but also in the system of various organizations in the world. Get facts about David Cameron here.

Democracy Pictures

Do you like reading facts about democracy?

See more here:
10 Facts about Democracy | Fact File

Media watch: A Disaster for Democracy

Americans have mixed feelings about many institutions amid the virus crisis, a recent Gallup poll found, but theyre unanimous in their disdain for one institution: the media. Thats a disaster for a liberal democracy, sighs National Reviews David Harsanyi and the blame lies with the press own blinkered, sanctimonious and transparently partisan temperament. That especially includes prestige outlets like The Washington Post and The New York Times. While institutional bias at the two papers isnt new, both used to have a corresponding level of professional gravitas that engendered reader trust. No longer, as shown by the frivolous gotchas rather than pertinent questions theyve flung at President Trumps coronavirus task force briefings. Bottom line: The medias ineptitude and malfeasance are especially dangerous during a pandemic.

Physician: Next Up, Herd Immunity

At Spectator USA, critical-care physician and medicine professor Matt Strauss cheers draconian measures to suppress COVID-19 through enforced social distancing, which have already suppressed the outbreak in Wuhan, China, and will likely achieve the same in the West in coming weeks and months. But in the long term, policymakers should aim to achieve herd immunity in a controlled and strategic manner, lest the virus return with a vengeance once lockdown measures are lifted. That would involve deploying widespread testing, as Germany and South Korea have done, plus exploiting the virus unique mortality profile people under 50 are 25 times less likely to die of COVID-19 than people over 80 to gradually expose less vulnerable groups until herd immunity is achieved. Yes, social distancing was necessary, otherwise neither young nor old would have taken the pandemic seriously. That said, once these measures have proved their effect, and the virus is demonstrably suppressed, public health authorities could consider ratcheting restrictions down while remaining mindful of demographic vulnerability among the elderly and infirmed.

Conservative: Dons Inconvenient Popularity

When polls showed that President Donald Trump was receiving unusually high marks for his handling of the coronavirus pandemic, liberals and their media allies went, first, through the denial stage, quips The Federalists Mollie Hemingway. The left had tried to craft a narrative that the coronavirus spread was Trumps fault and just couldnt believe the American people wouldnt accept it. Then ideologies began blaming [Trumps] press conferences and now theyre demanding he shut them down. Its shameful but unsurprising and all too telling that such calls for censorship have also gained the support of a spokesman for Communist Chinas Foreign Ministry.

Libertarian: Digital to the Rescue

A vibrant digital economy is catering to the publics myriad needs as the pandemic forces the world to retreat indoors, cheers the Taxpayers Protection Alliances Ross Marchand at The Washington Examiner. Thanks to e-commerce and countless tech firms, people can be #TogetherApart and support each other. Companies and organizations can hold meetings via Skype and Zoom. Those seeking health information can follow epidemiologists and intellectuals on social media. The digital domain also offers speedy deliveries of foodstuffs and other essential items. The vital role of these tech services shouldnt be lost on lawmakers, like Sen. Josh Hawley, who question their value and scheme to regulate them out of existence. Over-regulation will only make us less prepared in the future.

Religion beat: A Corona Great Awakening?

In The Wall Street Journal, Robert Nicholson wonders: Could a plague of biblical proportions be Americas best hope for religious revival? After all, the pandemic has remade everyday life and wrecked the global economy in a way that feels apocalyptic. For a nation with a biblical foundation, however, cataclysms need not mark the end. They are a call for repentance and revival. As the pandemic subjects US hospitals to a fearsome test, Americans can find solace in the faith of their forefathers. Great struggle can produce great clarity.

Compiled by The Post Editorial Board

Link:
A disaster for democracy and other commentary - New York Post

Erik Asplund and Toby James discuss the dilemmas countries around the globe face about holding or postponing elections during the pandemic, and set out some guidelines to follow in ensuring democratic participation remains fair and open during the crisis.

Photo byTedward QuinnonUnsplash

One of the defining characteristics of a democracy is that it holds regular, periodic elections.This requirement was famously enshrined into the Article 21(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The certainty of holding an election means that citizens are given the opportunity to remove or extend the mandate for their representatives and leaders.

At the same time, there are occasions where a natural disaster, famine or epidemic may mean that holding an election will potentially introduce considerable threats to human life. The problem has been laid bare with the pandemic coronavirus disease (Covid-19). From citizens queuing to vote at polling stations to public officials counting votes in crowded halls, elections have suddenly become opportunities for the spread of the infectious disease, as much as democratic rituals.

As a result, during March 2020 only, more than 12 national and 20 subnational elections originally scheduled for MarchMay have been postponed by 30 countries around the globe. Further postponements are likely given the rapid spread of the virus.Meanwhile, some countries have indicated that national elections will go ahead as originally planned. This includes parliamentary elections in Mali (first round scheduled on 29 March), which have already been postponed several times since 2018 due to security challenges.Parliamentary elections in South Korea (19 April) and presidential elections in Poland (10 May) are still on schedule too.

Why are some countries pausing and others not during the Covid-19 pandemic? The decisions about whether to continue or cancel are not straightforward, and the conclusions of policy-makers deliberations are not always closely linked to the confirmed number of cases of infected people, or whether countries are democracies that remain strong or those experiencing democratic backsliding (according to global state of democracy indices).Unlike Mali, which has 2 reported cases, both South Korea (9,241 cases as of 26 March) and Poland (1,080 cases as of 26 March) have had many reported cases.Democracies have both continued (Germany) and postponed (United Kingdom) elections, and so have states that have seen democratic backsliding (compare Russia and Poland).

Debates echo around the globe. The spirit of Abraham Lincoln in 1864 has been cited ahead of the US Presidential election. We voted in the middle of a Civil WarWe voted in the middle of World War I and II. And so, the idea of postponing the electoral process is just seems to me, out of the question, Joe Biden has reportedly said.Elsewhere, however, French President Emmanuel Macron has repeatedly said we are at war against the coronavirus, as he announced that the second round of local elections due to be held on 22 March would be postponed. Researchers noted that the health of both voters and election officials could be put at risk. Many poll workers are often older, retired volunteers, studies show.

Postponements might at first glance undermine our experience of democracy.If people cant vote when they would have been able to, there could be a sense of loss of voice.The term of office for incumbent legislators and leaders have been extended without consulting the public. There has been no opportunity to bring about a change in policy direction. Concerns are greater where countrieshave already seen some democratic backsliding and have been criticized by civil society for using coronavirus to extend their mandate.

As a new International IDEA Technical Paper, Elections and COVID-19, sets out, democracy can also be undermined by holding elections during these times.For example:

Figure 1. Voter turnout in French municipal elections

There are ways that democracy could be kept on track and many countries have shown considerable innovation and quick thinking in adapting to this new scenario. In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) developed recommendations on preventative actions for election officials and the general public which encourage voting methods that reduce contact with other people, the cleaning and disinfection of voting equipment as well as social distancing measures for in-person voting. In South Korea, the National Election Commission has communicated a range of special health and safety measures which include advance voting for confirmed Covid-19 patients in care centres to protect their right to vote.

In Bavaria, Germany all-postal voting mechanisms have been introduced which completely excludes in-person voting in order to mitigate health risks of contagion posed through close contact. Also, New Zealands Electoral Commission is considering extending existing alternative voting arrangements, designed for voters unable to attend a polling station to vote in person, to all voters for its general election scheduled for 19 September 2020.

For countries that are planning to run elections despite the current health pandemic, lessons from other countries will be crucial. However, for countries where people lack access to clean water, disinfectants, protective clothing or a functional postal service there may be good reasons to either implement extraordinary measures or to postpone elections until a time when the threat of virus has dissipated.

The International IDEA Technical Paper therefore makes recommendations for how policy-makers should continue. There is no one-size-fits all answer for every scenario, but there are general principles that should be applied. Inter-agency collaboration is essential and there should be:

The global spread of Covid-19 has already profoundly impacted the health and welfare of citizens around the world. The decisions that policy-makers make about the holding of elections will have a further profound effect, shaping the health of democracy in the future.

Disclaimer: Views expressed in this commentary are those of the author, who is a staff member of International IDEA. This commentary is independent of specific national or political interests. Views expressed do not necessarily represent the institutional position of International IDEA, its Board of Advisers or its Council of Member States.

About the authors

Erik Asplund is a Programme Officer in the Electoral Processes Programme at International IDEA. He has worked directly with over a dozen electoral management bodies from around the globe. He is currently based in Stockholm, Sweden.

Toby James is a Visiting Academic at International IDEA and Professor of Politics and Public Policy at the University of East Anglia, UK. His most recent book is Comparative Electoral Management (Routledge, 2020).

More:
Elections and Covid-19: making democracy work in uncertain times - Democratic Audit UK

The coronavirus pandemic is a global health crisis that is also a political crisis. Marshalling an effective humanitarian response while maintaining security and creating the conditions for an economic recovery will put unprecedented strain on even the most resilient governments.

American leaders are rightly focused on bolstering our health system and preserving our economy. Yet this crisis also requires a response that puts democracy at its core. Democracy is vital to preventing future pandemics, resisting the influence of our rivals, and securing an economic and social recovery. Targeted foreign assistance that has both direct humanitarian relief and support for democratic institutions, particularly for the most vulnerable nations and those targeted by malign influence campaigns, can protect American interests and restore global security.

History is awash with stories of American leaders turning inward in the face of threats from overseas, but this would be a mistake. Generations have learned the hard way that withdrawing from world affairs exposes our nation to greater peril. This crisis is no exception. It will tempt many American leaders to argue for diverting strategic foreign assistance to support domestic responses. This will only leave our nation even more exposed as foreign nations fail to manage the pandemic and our great power competitors expand their influence at our expense.

We are only in the early stages of this crisis. We are already seeing that governments grounded in accountability, transparency, the rule of law, and citizen governance are best positioned to respond to the crisis and create lasting conditions for social stability and economic recovery not susceptible to authoritarianism. History suggests that if any democratic institutions crack under the strain of this pandemic, we could expect to see new threats to global stability and American interests.

South Korea and Taiwan, with capable democracies, have managed the health emergency and sustained citizen trust. China and Russia, on the other hand, have repressed key medical information, imprisoned civilian voices, and peddled disinformation campaigns designed to exploit the divisions in Western democracies. Authoritarian regimes are also using this crisis as an excuse to centralize their power at home.

We see the coronavirus threatening nations all around the world that have been on the pathway to successful democracies. From Ethiopia to Tunisia, societies in lockdown will soon experience major economic contractions. Democracy assistance will help enable partners to deliver more effective responses and thereby push back against populist authoritarian appeals. From Colombia to Mongolia, leaders are trying to manage the pandemic in ways that keep democratic institutions functioning and responding to citizen needs. Whether they can do so will shape the trajectory of their countries and of their effectiveness as American partners.

While the response to the pandemic must focus on strengthening health systems and government capabilities, these efforts should be paired with affirmative support for the kind of accountable and transparent oversight that will reduce opportunities for corrupt authorities to bungle necessary public health measures. We know that democracies are more responsive to civilian voices, more resilient to such malign foreign influence, make more reliable allies, and ensure the United States does not speak alone when advocating for unalienable rights around the world.

Our great power competitors stand ready to exploit these dynamics to advance their strategic positions and weaken ours. We cannot allow the pandemic to cause the United States to shrink from a global leadership role. By investing in democracy development, our country can respond effectively to this unprecedented health challenge, create conditions for an economic recovery, and minimize the opportunities for authoritarian states such as China to use this crisis to their advantage.

Authoritarianism transformed the coronavirus from a local epidemic into this global pandemic in which the unelected Chinese Communist Party is complicit. Now China is running a disinformation campaign that aims to weaponize the coronavirus against the United States and its democratic allies. The coronavirus lays bare the threat that authoritarian states like China pose. By suppressing information, dismantling civil society, and pumping out disinformation, these regimes endanger us.

Democracy assistance can check the influence of such regimes and give vulnerable nations the tools to resist disinformation campaigns. As it has always been, American global leadership will be required for these efforts. More strategic investments in the resilience of our allies and partners will be essential to containing the coronavirus, mitigating the effects at home and abroad, and ensuring that the United States is positioned to maximize its advantage and retain its critical global leadership role.

Daniel Twining is president of the International Republican Institute. Patrick Quirk is senior research director with the International Republican Institute.

Read more from the original source:
Democracy will win this battle | TheHill - The Hill

In the middle of a national crisis, Britain has become a parliamentary democracy without a parliament. The police now have extraordinary powers to fine and arrest those who break the lockdown. Do I hear you say that these are necessary powers for a time of pandemic? Maybe they are. But we have no parliament to raise the alarm if those powers are abused or hysteria and the urge to punish replace the calm implementation of the law.

Meanwhile everyone is asking questions about how ministers, the National Health Service and Public Health England failed to provide enough protective kit for doctors and nurses and wondering why Britain is lagging so far behind Germany in its ability to test the population. Everyone, that is, except the House of Commons and the House of Lords. They voted to give the state the right to restrict freedom of movement, and then exercised their own right to freedom of movement pretty damn decisively by getting the hell out of Westminster on March 26. They will not return until April 21.

The Scottish parliament will be back at work on Wednesday. The Welsh Assembly has replaced full sessions with emergency Senedd meetings. As New Zealand went into lockdown, opposition politicians set up an Epidemic Response Committee to scrutinize the governments responseto the crisis while the full parliament was closed.

Even in my darkest moments, I dont want the entire political class to go down with COVID-19. But businesses and charities, and every branch of central and local government, are finding a way to work around the lockdown. The streets may be silent but WhatsApp and Google Hangout have never been more alive as millions of people reorganize their working lives. We are in a country where primary schools believe it essential to protect their pupils education with online lessons, but our political leaders cannot or will not use new technology to protect the nations democracy. Announcing the extended Commons recess last week, the Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle said work was underway to give Members of Parliament the technology they need to stay connected during the break, including the possibility of a virtual parliament and virtual select committees.

Four days on, and there is no sign of that work coming to fruition, and more disturbingly, no clamor for democracy to be restored.

The contrast with last year could not be more striking. When Boris Johnson tried to prorogue Parliament to force through Brexit, his opponents went wild. Nicola Sturgeon called Johnson a tin potdictator. Jo Swinson, then the Liberal Democrat leader, said Johnson was engaged in a dangerous and unacceptable course of action.Opposition journalists, your correspondent included, said that Johnson was trying to rule as an absolute monarch rather than a democratic leader, and warned that we used to have civil wars to put men like him in his place

Where are those voices now? A national emergency ought to be a moment to strengthen democracy not dispense with it.

The government, to its credit, is holding daily press conferences and trying its best to be open. The days when Dominic Cummings could order ministers not to appear on BBC Radio 4s Todayprogram or any other news outlet he had taken it into his head to dislike, now belong to a lost and trivial age. But press conferences are no substitute for Parliamentary scrutiny. I can go into the technical reasons, if readers are interested. TV political correspondents, in particular, ask two or three questions in one go, because their editors want shots of them covering every angle. The result is the argumentative flow gets lost and politicians can choose which question to answer.

But technicalities are our smallest concern now. This should not be an either/or choice. We used to have a free pressandparliamentary democracy. Now and for the foreseeable future, we just have one when we should have both.

The use of online technology to reopen democratic institutions strikes me as a partial answer to the loss of liberty we are all experiencing. I and I suspect many others face a dilemma. On the one hand, we look at the exhausted staff in the NHS, the suffering of the sick and dying, and think that any measure, however draconian, is justified if it limits the pain. On the other, we worry that emergency powers could become permanent and have an instinctive dislike of a country where people grass up their neighbors for taking more than one jog or bike ride a day.

Or as an officer in the Northamptonshire policeput it to the BBC:We are getting calls from people who say I think my neighbor is going out on a second run I want you to come and arrest them. We have had dozens and dozens of these calls.

The inquisitorial urge to call out, cancel and no-platform was already far too strong in Britain. The last thing we need is for the pandemic to accentuate it.

Its not just that we have no parliament. Local councils have suspended their sittings too. Where are citizens meant to go if their chief constable decides he wants to imitate Vladimir Putin or council bureaucrats close local parks leaving parents with nowhere to take their children? Nationally and locally, the representatives who would have given them a hearing have gone absent without leave.

Readers going half-mad under house arrest may not believe me, but Britains lockdown is liberal by continental standards. As of tomorrow, the French will be required to keep a record of when they leave their home. Going out to take the children for a walk or for physical exercise must be within a distance of one kilometer maximum of your home, for one hour, the French prime minister Edouard Philippe added.

As the body count rises in Britain, we may face similar restrictions, and once again, they should be subject to robust political debate before the government imposes them.

Write like this and there is a danger of sounding as if you believe that police officers are fascists, or that Tory ministers want to introduce a dictatorship. For what it is worth, I have nothing but admiration for and sympathy with everyone in the civil and emergency services wrestling with how to keep society functioning.

There should be no need for me to say that, however. Democratic accountability and parliamentary government are not optional extras. There should be no either/or choice. Free countries do not give the state the power to operate without scrutiny or constraint. And those that do, do not remain free societies for long.

Nick Cohen is a columnist for the Observer and author of Whats Left and You Cant Read This Book. This article was originally published on The Spectators UK website.

Read the original:
Whatever happened to parliamentary democracy? - The Spectator USA