Archive for the ‘Democracy’ Category

Hindu Democracy, Punyabhoomi And The Idea Of Bharat – Swarajya

In my previous article, I described the BJP as a Hindu Democratic Party, in an evidence-based manner by interpreting their recent record of legislative and executive actions.

On this basis, it was demonstrated that they do not even qualify to be considered a traditional right-wing or even traditionally conservative party.

Among interesting feedback to the article was confusion that it implies the BJP is like the Democratic Party of the USA.

This view is wildly off the mark, but it underscores that the default Indian political understanding broadly divides politics into modern liberalism (akin to the US Democrats/British Labour) and traditional conservatism (like the US Republican Party/British Conservatives).

This is a very narrow binary view that does not reflect the reality of Indian politics at all.

A second and very pertinent piece of feedback is that the original article appears to impose a western construct (Christian democracy) upon India. However, thats not quite the case, as this article describes.

Christian democracy is simply an umbrella term for a range of European parties who all have a common imperative with the BJP the preservation of a homeland safe for their faiths, while also maintaining a functional modern democracy, i.e. not a theocracy.

Hindu Democracy : A Form of Liberal Conservatism

The BJPs recent legislative record is wide ranging. Some laws address core political objectives: the elimination of Article 370 and the CAA law and the pursuit of UCC.

Others address reformist goals like the farm laws, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and the GST. Other recent legislative actions are very liberal minded supporting workers compensation rights, consumer rights, maternity care and abortion rights and transgender rights.

In political science, this is liberal conservatism. The conservative basis is forward looking it just values orderly evolution that focusses on preserving the basic cultural fabric of the land.

If the underlying basis is too rigid, it becomes a right wing traditional polity or theocracy, instead of a liberal conservative entity. Hinduism is a forward- looking religion that enables this.

There is no compromise or hypocrisy in liberal conservatism. The BJPs support, for example, of maternity, abortion or transgender rights is not driven by the modern feminist or LGBT movements.

Those groups are not sole guardians of these rights. Rather, it reflects the fact that Hinduism itself respects women and has never been antagonistic to the third gender; the western approach to these is alien to India; the factual legislative record shows that the BJP has evolved its own independent, native liberal doctrine.

Arguably, the Anglophone liberal versus conservative dichotomy reflects the lack of evolution of polities in both the US and UK, as compared to India.

This backwardness of their politics shows up in the pronounced polarisation of their local politics. Modern democracies in lands with strong cultural moorings have often tended towards liberal conservatism the BJP in India, the Christian Democrats in Germany, Austria and Italy, the LDP in Japan, the Liberal Party in Australia being examples.

Neither the US nor UK have a political party that is avowedly liberal conservative; the only significant party of the kind in the Anglosphere is the Liberal Party of Australia (LP).

The LPs conservatism in Australia was primarily racial Robert Menzies, who was their Prime Minister from 1949-1966, was a strong supporter of the White Australia policy.

The term Hindu Democratic Party is derived from the most well known mainstream form of liberal conservatism involving religion and native culture as a base Christian democracy in Europe.

But why associate the BJP with a western construct at all? This is a very good question. Several features of the western political spectrum simply do not apply to India. Such terminology cannot be carried over wholesale without any nuance.

However, we live in a global world today. As India grows in power and influence, we interact more with the world. It is important to understand how politics is interpreted by the outside world, and to have a well considered description of Indian political mainstream using a best approximation, even if the association cannot be perfect.

Liberal Conservatism: The Dominant Politics of Strongly Rooted Cultures

An interesting behaviour seen post-World War 2 is that all modern democratic nations that have either strong religious or native cultures, or are the punyabhoomi of major faiths, have all developed liberal conservatism as the principal local political form.

In Germany, Konrad Adenauers CDU came to power in 1949, and dominated German politics, having collectively ruled for over 50 of 70 years.

Besides Angela Merkel and Adenauer, Helmut Kohl and Ludwig Erhard are famous Christian Democrats; Merkel and Erhard were practising Lutheran Protestants, the other two Catholics.

In Italy, Alcide de Gasperis Christian Democrats came to power in 1946, and that party continuously ruled until 1981, and then came back to power again a few times.

In Israel, the Likud Party has been the dominant political force since the 1970s, with leaders like Menachem Begin, Ariel Sharon and now Benjamin Netanyahu being Likud leaders.

In Japan, the Liberal Democratic Party has dominated postwar politics. Everyone from first PM Shigeru Yoshida to Hayato Ikeda famous for driving their postwar economic miracle to Shinzo Abe were LDP leaders.

In Ireland, a Catholic bastion, the Fine Gael and Fianna Fail founded by their longest serving leader Eamon de Valera have dominated politics.

All these parties have something in common they are liberal conservative ones, and the majority classify themselves as Christian Democratic. Italy and Ireland are homes of Catholicism. Germany the home of Protestantism/Lutheranism, Israel the Jewish homeland and Japan the home of Shintoism.

It is not a coincidence that they all developed analogous polity right upon foundation.

The organic rise of the BJP is a similar story. From a more traditionally conservative origin in the Bharatiya Jan Sangh days, it evolved into a more right wing populist entity and rapidly gained a stable vote share of at least 20 per cent in every general election.

Over the past two decades, it has solidified itself as the principal political pole of India.

Neither the US nor UK have a native faith. While there is a Church of England, that is simply the result of a political split King Henry VIII wanted an annulment but the Vatican wouldnt grant one. So he split and created his own church for convenience.

The US is a young frontier country with a stagnant two-party system.

Hindu Democracy: A Liberal Conservative Approach to Dual Imperatives.

Countries that are both a democratic society and the home of a major faith realise that they also safeguard that faith, while simultaneously managing the uniform policy imperatives of being a modern democratic society.

They all maintain legal secular rights for individuals. However, they all make it clear that politics serves the culture, and not the other way around. Therefore, the dominant culture will always receive a first-among-equals treatment by polity, even when individuals from different faiths are treated alike from the perspective of basic law.

This distinction arises from the fact that politics does not hold a land together. Its culture does. India has a dominant culture thats readily visible to everyone from a natural born person to a stranger looking from outside in.

That culture is Dharmic. India safeguards Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism.

The power of Dharmic culture over polity has demonstrably manifested itself in the fact that the moment the artificial basis of Nehruvian western liberal-socialism weakened, the BJPs liberal conservative polity took hold rapidly within less than two decades.

It has since cemented itself under Narendra Modi, while the Congress has been reduced from over 75 per cent of Lok Sabha to under 10 per cent essentially a large regional party.

A country that had no other basis for socio-political cohesion would simply have fallen apart into civil war, as many countries have. Had India lacked such a basis for cohesion, the end of the Congress would have been the end of the political nation state of India.

However, that did not happen. India has instead politically united into the strongest form in several decades. So much so that assorted wags hyperventilate that India is authoritarian.

Why Did The BJPs Emergence Take So Long ?

Given this political history, a question remains if countries with such strong religious and cultural foundations took a common approach, why didnt India do so at its inception?

At this point it might be somewhat clear it almost did. People like Sardar Patel and S P Mukherjee advocated this path.

One can take a look at the dire situation in 1948-50: Muladi massacre, Barisal riots, Anderson bridge massacre, Sitakunda massacre and more just in Bengal, with even more in Punjab.

Each day brought more grim news.

S P Mukherjee, among others, argued strenuously for a population transfer. Objections to this included the difficulty of transferring crores of people, treatment of property and more; those in favour argued that at least non-Muslims must be allowed to move to India.

Nehru opposed this, with fatal consequences for millions of Hindus. The arguments came to a head when S P Mukherjee quit the government during the Nehru-Liaquat Pact and founded BJPs predecessor the BJS.

Mukherjee later died in custody while protesting the imposition of Article 370. Sardar Patels demise preceded Mukherjees. With its brightest leaders gone, the BJP took another generation to become a political force.

It has not looked back since.

The BJP retains a historical memory of its foundation. Its first two acts upon acquiring the 2019 mandate that gave it reasonable strength in both houses of Parliament, were to deal with two items its founder fought over eliminating Article 370 and passing the Citizenship Amendment Act, which serves to fulfill at least partly, the goal of enabling non-Muslim refugees from partition era lands the ability to gain citizenship in India, as Amit Shah explained.

The current position of strength within Indian polity gives the BJP the opportunity to cast the future of Bharat in the terms it should have always been.

This land is the sacred land and guardian of not merely one but multiple great faiths Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism.

The guardianship of this history and culture cannot be sacrificed at the altar of tactically expedient identity politics. There is much to be done, but it must also be acknowledged that the BJP has been true to its history, and remains the only national party that understands and has the dedication to accomplish the political goal of ensuring that India remains a place where its native faiths and culture can flourish.

Visit link:
Hindu Democracy, Punyabhoomi And The Idea Of Bharat - Swarajya

Republicans have taken up the politics of bigotry, putting US democracy at risk – The Guardian

Republicans are outraged outraged! at the surge of migrants at the southern border. The House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, declares it a crisis created by the presidential policies of this new administration. The Arizona congressman Andy Biggs claims, we go through some periods where we have these surges, but right now is probably the most dramatic that Ive seen at the border in my lifetime.

Donald Trump demands the Biden administration immediately complete the wall, which can be done in a matter of weeks they should never have stopped it. They are causing death and human tragedy.

Our country is being destroyed! he adds.

In fact, theres no surge of migrants at the border.

US Customs and Border Protection apprehended 28% more migrants from January to February this year than in previous months. But this was largely seasonal. Two years ago, apprehensions increased 31% during the same period. Three years ago, it was about 25% from February to March. Migrants start coming when winter ends and the weather gets a bit warmer, then stop coming in the hotter summer months when the desert is deadly.

To be sure, there is a humanitarian crisis of children detained in overcrowded border facilities. And an even worse humanitarian tragedy in the violence and political oppression in Central America, worsened by US policies over the years, that drives migration in the first place.

But the surge has been fabricated by Republicans in order to stoke fear and, not incidentally, to justify changes in laws they say are necessary to prevent non-citizens from voting.

Republicans continue to allege without proof that the 2020 election was rife with fraudulent ballots, many from undocumented migrants. Over the past six weeks theyve introduced 250 bills in 43 states designed to make it harder for people to vote especially the young, the poor, Black people and Hispanic Americans, all of whom are likely to vote for Democrats by eliminating mail-in ballots, reducing times for voting, decreasing the number of drop-off boxes, demanding proof of citizenship, even making it a crime to give water to people waiting in line to vote.

To stop this, Democrats are trying to enact a sweeping voting rights bill, the For the People Act, which protects voting, ends partisan gerrymandering and keeps dark money out of elections. It passed the House but Republicans in the Senate are fighting it with more lies.

On Wednesday, the Texas Republican senator Ted Cruz falsely claimed the new bill would register millions of undocumented migrants to vote and accused Democrats of wanting the most violent criminals to cast ballots too.

The core message of the Republican party now consists of lies about a crisis of violent migrants crossing the border, lies that theyre voting illegally, and blatantly anti-democratic demands voting be restricted to counter it.

The party that once championed lower taxes, smaller government, states rights and a strong national defense now has more in common with anti-democratic regimes and racist-nationalist political movements around the world than with Americas avowed ideals of democracy, rule of law and human rights.

Donald Trump isnt single-handedly responsible for this, but he demonstrated to the GOP the political potency of bigotry and the GOP has taken him up on it.

This transformation in one of Americas two eminent political parties has shocking implications, not just for the future of American democracy but for the future of democracy everywhere.

I predict to you, your children or grandchildren are going to be doing their doctoral thesis on the issue of who succeeded: autocracy or democracy? Joe Biden opined at his news conference on Thursday.

In his maiden speech at the state department on 4 March, Antony Blinken conceded that the erosion of democracy around the world is also happening here in the United States.

The secretary of state didnt explicitly talk about the Republican party, but there was no mistaking his subject.

When democracies are weak they become more vulnerable to extremist movements from the inside and to interference from the outside, he warned.

People around the world witnessing the fragility of American democracy want to see whether our democracy is resilient, whether we can rise to the challenge here at home. That will be the foundation for our legitimacy in defending democracy around the world for years to come.

That resilience and legitimacy will depend in large part on whether Republicans or Democrats prevail on voting rights.

Not since the years leading up to the civil war has the clash between the nations two major parties so clearly defined the core challenge facing American democracy.

Read more here:
Republicans have taken up the politics of bigotry, putting US democracy at risk - The Guardian

Letter to the editor: Democracy for all people, not just the powerful – TribLIVE

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

In the 1800s the Republican Party championed the democratic principles of freedom, liberty, justice and equality for all. The Democratic Party stood for the wealthy and powerful, the plantation owners, the captains of industry. It was a tug of war between democracy and oligarchy.

Today we are in that same tug of war. This time the Democrats espouse those principles, while the Republican legislators are in the pockets of the wealthy and powerful. It is evident in their refusal to increase the minimum wage, while endorsing huge tax cuts for the top 1%, reducing the inheritance tax, using taxpayer money to bail out bad acting, too big to fail banks and Wall Street all actions that continue to redistribute money upwards. The list goes on, especially in the regulatory area by eliminating workers rights and reducing financial and environmental standards.

They have failed to hold the wealthy and powerful accountable for their criminal behavior. One standard of justice for the rich and powerful, another standard for everyone else.

Republican lawmakers believe that government should stay out of the way of business making money with no regulation, no social contract, no protection for workers. This type of government might work for the wealthy, but not for you and me. Who is going to protect us from domestic and foreign terrorists, pandemics, the ravages of climate change?

This is not an individual task, but together by pooling our resources, we can help one another. That is what democracy is all about, government of, by and for the people, not just for the wealthy and powerful.

Joanne Garing

North Huntingdon

Categories:Letters to the Editor | Opinion

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

More Letters to the Editor Stories

Link:
Letter to the editor: Democracy for all people, not just the powerful - TribLIVE

Children’s Museum Program Focuses on Kids and Democracy | – wkok.com

LEWISBURG The Lewisburg Childrens Museum is offering some education on the democratic process. Executive Director Kahla DeSmit says encouraging a lifelong love of learning through hands-on imaginative play has always been the goal of the Lewisburg Childrens Museum. She says some of its latest programming focuses on the importance of voting and how the democratic process affects every aspect of our lives.

Helping them to understand concept of voting and what the democratic process can look like in their own lives, DeSmit adds.

Partnering with the National Constitution Center, the Mauch Project, and the League of Women Voters of the Lewisburg Area, the museum is adding a new virtual class to its current voting booth and womens suffrage exhibits.

DeSmit says their latest programs may encourage civil discourse and community involvement at an early age, We really want to encourage children and families to be emboldened to stand up for what is right, and we hope we can do it in a fun and kid-friendly way.

You can enjoy the museums interactive exhibits Wednesdays and Fridays from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., and Saturdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., while following CDC guidelines on masks and social distancing.

See the original post:
Children's Museum Program Focuses on Kids and Democracy | - wkok.com

In America, a cancer is eating democracy from the inside, and China has clocked the weakness – ABC News

China's top diplomat, Yang Jiechi, got uncomfortably close to the truth when he lectured American officials about creating turmoil by invading other countries, having a "Cold War mentality" and trying to impose its democracy on the world.

Of course, Yang would not admit to China's appalling human rights record, crushing of dissent, or flouting international rules and claiming disputed territory.

But when he sat down with his American counterparts in Alaska, he made it clear that there is another big voice in the world and the American led so-called "global liberal order" does not run the game.

Perhaps his most telling comment, though, was that far from being a model of democracy, "many people in the United States have little confidence" in their own government.

America and by extension, the West is going through a period of soul searching where it appears exhausted, unsure of itself, and hypocritical.

Reuters: Frederic J. Brown/Pool

Many people no longer believe in the "promise of democracy". Freedom House an organisation that measures the health of democratic nations globally now counts 15 years of declining democracy.

Democracy is rotting from the inside: deformed by weak institutions, tribalism, the tyranny of the rich and an elite who dominate positions of power, racism, sexism, and crippling inequality.

The growing gap between rich and poor is a cancer that is eating democracy.

Take the US: there, the wealth of someone in the top 1 per cent of society is 950 times greater than a member of the bottom 50 per cent.

The poor have seen their factories close down, their neighbourhoods trashed; they have lost their homes while the rich have grown richer.

They have still not recovered from the global financial crash of 2007/08, while the bankers who caused the disaster are back receiving their bonuses.

The rich in America pay lower taxes today than they did before the crash.

In his new book, Capital and Ideology, French economist Thomas Picketty says inequality has less to do with the economy than the political choices governments make.

In 2008 US President Barack Obama sided with the bankers over the people.

As Picketty writes: "Every human society must justify its inequalities; unless reasons for them are found, the whole political and social edifice stands in danger of collapse."

AP:Evan Vucci

How does America justify such gross inequality? And the entire political edifice is in danger of collapse. Do we need any more evidence than four years of Donald Trump in the White House and the storming of the Capitol Building?

74 million people voted for Trump: the election of Joe Biden and his appeals to decency will not bridge that divide.

The Democrats champions of neoliberalism that put the market ahead of people have been part of the problem.

In country where life expectancy among the poor has been decreasing and many feel abandoned by Washington, democracy, in the words of economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton, looks like a "scam".

The wealth gap has played into a culture war which, combined with racism, has been rich pickings for demagogues and political populists who feed on fear and anxiety.

In America it helped put Trump in the White House, while in Europe it has inspired a revival of the far right, contributed in no small part to Brexit, and has fuelled a backlash against immigration and refugees.

In Australia, we have largely avoided the worst of political extremism and even the most egregious inequality. But there are worrying signs.

In recent years the wealth gap has widened. Research from the University of New South Wales and the Australian Council of Social Services last year showed that the average wealth of the top 20 per cent of income earners is 90 times that of the lowest 20 per cent.

This was based on pre-COVID figures; after the pandemic the situation may worsen.

AAP: James Gourley

Picketty has pointed out that inequality is built into our societies, predating the Industrial Revolution and the technology age. We keep finding new ways to justify it.

The times when inequality decreased were during periods of war or upheaval or long stages of economic growth like the decades following World War II.

Reducing inequality, Picketty argues, depends on the decisions made by governments and is not possible without increasing taxes on the rich.

But where is the appetite for that type of reform? Politicians who take a high-taxing agenda to an election inevitably lose. People vote for their own interests and the poor get poorer and angrier and our politics becomes more divided and toxic.

China is becoming more aggressive in tone and actions, while the US is strengthening its regional alliances.

Democracies die. We are seeing that around the world. Often they're killed by the people we elect.

Harvard University Professors in Government, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, say democracies die in war, but they also die at the hands of elected leaders: "Presidents or Prime Ministers who subvert the very process that brought them to power."

Leaders who have presided over shocking inequality and others who exploit it for their own gain. As the poet William Blake wrote: "A dog starved at his master's gate predicts the ruin of the state."

We should heed those words today.

China's Yang Jiechi certainly knows America's weakness, and perversely it is what has been America's strength: its democracy.

He might also have reminded them that while the poor in America get poorer, China has lifted 700 million people out of poverty.

Follow this link:
In America, a cancer is eating democracy from the inside, and China has clocked the weakness - ABC News