Mediaboss Marketing

By LETTERSMore by this Author

Autocracy denotes a state led by a supreme and absolute power.

This, supposedly referring to Jubilee Party by the editorial of May 15, is misleading and could paint the ruling party as dictatorial with no internal democracy.

It is an affront to political parties that wish to rein in errant members.

Political parties, by their registration, ascribe to a constitution and code of conduct which every paid-up member, especially those elected by either a geographical majority in a first-past-the-post process or through the party list, swore to uphold.

That forms the currency under the articles of the Constitution that define the ambits and latitudes within which members practise their right to participate in the affairs of a party.

Internal party democracy is, therefore, not a literally pursuit but a prescription of small doses of privileges donated to the membership.

It is a window to ensure upright and popular follow-through of popular ideas reduced into a party manifesto.

Most jurisdictions have adopted either of two variants of democracy direct democracy and representative democracy.

The former denotes a polity where the people influence or dictate government policy through direct participation as was successfully practised in ancient Athens. Switzerland is among modern democracies that practise it, in some of its cantons.

Though a federal state, the hybrid system allows voters to determine minor issues of policy such as renovation of their local school or the more significant national issues like foreign policy.

Every citizen receives a ballot and a brochure and may post their vote by mail in a system generally known as popular initiative.

In the latter, the electorate is represented by an elected class with tenure of office. As practised in the United States, checks the danger of tyranny of the majority resulting from direct democracy.

It is only fair that the excesses of direct democracy within political parties or other institutions be directed and borne by internal structures, such as the National Executive Committee.

The framers of the Constitution chose a hybrid system that incorporates aspects of both direct and representative democracies for a people-driven, popular governance structure for example, the use of the referendum (popular initiative) to amend the Constitution.

Legislative amendments may also be carried out through referral by Parliament to the people.

Finally, the recall clause is available to facilitate constitutionally sanctioned direct democracy, where constituents petition to withdraw an individual or a representative from office.

Political parties are creatures of law and regulated by it. In enforcing party rules, due process and fair administrative procedures take precedence.

Frank Mwendani, deputy head of legal affairs - Jubilee Party - and Tony Moturi, head of legal affairs, ODM Party

Link:
Political parties are vanguards of the rule of law and democracy - Daily Nation

These days, it can feel like some politicians are working against experts in public health and other fields when it comes to actions surrounding COVID-19. There's always been a tension between populism and expertise, but our media landscape and strong partisan polarization are pushing that tension to its breaking point or so it seems, anyway.

As with many issues we've covered on this show, there's more to it than meets the eye, and we are digging into the relationship between expertise and democracy this week in a collaborative episode with our colleagues at Penn State's Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences. The Huck Institutes produce The Symbiotic Podcast, a show that explores how scientists are collaborating in new ways to solve complex global problems.

In this episode, you'll hear Symbiotic Podcast host Cole Hons and Democracy Works host Jenna Spinelle in conversation with Taylor Scott, associate director of the Research-to-Policy Collaboration, and Democracy Works host Michael Berkman. We discuss how organizations like the Research-to-Policy Collaboration seek to promote engagement between researchers and legislators and what both groups can do to make the relationship stronger. We also talk about why expertise is important in a democracy and what happens when it is undermined.

Don't forget, we are still taking questions for the second annual Democracy Works listener mailbag episode. We'll read your questions on the show and choose three submissions to win Democracy Works mugs.Submit your question here.

Read the original here:
Democracy Works: The People Vs. The Experts And Those Caught In The Middle - WPSU

00Author: Murray Hiebert, Bower Group Asia

COVID-19 has been tough on the health and economies of Southeast Asia, but the regions fledgling quasi-democracies are also under threat. Efforts to control the virus are giving authoritarian rulers the perfect cover to adopt draconian levers to rein in their opponents and critics.

In Thailand, Prayut Chan-o-cha a general who seized power in a 2014 coup and then became prime minister through carefully orchestrated elections in 2019 took advantage of an existing emergency decree to impose sweeping control measures in March. As COVID-19 continues to spread, the control measures grant him the authority to censor or shut down media if deemed necessary.

For example, a 42-year-old Thai artist was arrested after posting online that he had arrived from Spain and exited Bangkoks main international airport without any screening. He was charged under the Computer Crimes Act and could be punished for up to five years in prison because his post created panic for the public and eroded their confidence in Suvarnabhumi airport in the words of the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society.

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, best known for his brutal war on drugs, signed a law in late March granting himself special temporary power for three months. On 1 April, he ordered the police and the military to shoot violators of his enhanced community quarantine if they were unruly or threatened law enforcement officers. Three days later, a man in his early 60s, apparently drunk, was shot dead after allegedly threatening police at a checkpoint with a scythe.

In April, the Philippine police arrested seven activists distributing food assistance north of Manila and charged them with violating emergency laws. They were indicted with inciting sedition after anti-government newspapers were found in their vehicle. In early May, ABS-CBN the countrys largest television broadcaster was forced off the air in a move many observers interpreted as Dutertes attempt to further muzzle the media at a time when unbiased reporting on COVID-19 outbreak was needed.

In Myanmar, the military appears to be taking advantage of COVID-19 by leveraging the power it retained during reforms that gave rise to a quasi-civilian government. In late March, the military set up a powerful 10-member COVID-19 taskforce to investigate cases of the virus and suppress disinformation by punishing those who create panic among the people. This taskforce, made up of senior military officers and cabinet ministers appointed by the military, was created two weeks after the government had established a COVID-19 committee led by State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi.

The military taskforce runs parallel to the civilian government and ensures that the military retains a high profile as the country prepares for elections before the end of the year. The military also arranged facilities in key cities to quarantine people infected by COVID-19 and sent military helicopters to deliver medical supplies to remote regions of the country.

In Cambodia, where Prime Minister Hun Sen cracked down on opposition political parties and shrunk the countrys political space ahead of 2018 elections, the National Assembly passed a state of emergency law granting Hun Sen greater power in handling the pandemic. Between January and April, Human Rights Watch documented the arrest of at least 30 people on charges of spreading fake news, including commentaries on the governments handling of the pandemic.

No opinion polls in Southeast Asia have measured public perceptions about the more authoritarian measures governments introduced to tackle the pandemic. A Gallup poll of Thai attitudes toward the governments overall handling of the virus in late April found 81 per cent disapproval the highest among 18 countries. In contrast, 80 per cent of people in the Philippines approved of their governments handling of the virus, in line with Dutertes approval ratings during his war on drugs.

Interestingly, the poor rating of the Thai government seems to be due to perceptions of officials not going far enough rather than being too draconian. Veteran politicians criticised Prayuts administration for not using hard measures earlier to control the virus.

There is no evidence that the use of tough policies in Cambodia, the Philippines, Thailand or Myanmar are producing a more effective pandemic response. Any public health practitioner would immediately tell you that responding to a public health crisis requires eliciting the willing cooperation and support of the people, says Robertson. Using power to arrest, quarantine and curfew violators is an exercise that resembles emptying the ocean with a bucket. Advances toward democracy in Southeast Asia that came at immense cost are at risk of being steadily eroded away.

Murray Hiebert is Head of Research at Bower Group Asia and Senior Associate of the Southeast Asia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Washington DC. He is author of Under Beijings Shadow: Southeast Asias China Challenge (Forthcoming: August 2020).

Continue reading here:
COVID-19 threatens democracy in Southeast Asia - East Asia Forum

Washington, May 24 (Xinhua) David Litt, a former speechwriter for Barack Obama, when the latter was President of the United States, has said the spread of COVID-19 which has so far claimed nearly 100,000 lives in the US, is a failure of democracy at the root.

Its become commonplace to refer to COVID-19 as the worst public health crisis of our lifetimes. But what has cost the United States so many lives and jobs during the pandemic is not, at root, a failure of public health. Its a failure of democracy, Litt wrote in an article published by Time magazine this week.

Poll after poll has shown that a clear majority of Americans trust, want our leaders to heed the experts advice. Yet that hasnt happened. We were far too slow to implement social-distancing guidelines a delay epidemiologists found is responsible for 90 percent of U.S. coronavirus deaths, he said.

Now were acting far too quickly to reopen the economy, he added.

Dozens of U.S. states have rolled out reopening plans in late April, with Georgia, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas among the first to allow certain nonessential businesses to resume operations.

The writer pointed out that lower-income and non-white Americans are those most likely to suffer from the U.S. governments flailing response to the coronavirus.

Citing a report analyzing the changes in the U.S. political map in recent years from the University of Chicagos Law Review, Litt said Americans political power has been further diminished.

As we battle the coronavirus, American lives depend on a successful government response. But with rare exceptions, House Members jobs do not, he said.

In early March, for example, as the virus was spreading, the first 15 U.S. states to report cases of the coronavirus accounted for 56 percent of Americas population but only 30 percent of Americas senators. No wonder the Senate was initially slow to act, he said.

So as of Friday night, the United States has reported over 1.6 million cases of COVID-19, according to Johns Hopkins University.

Furthermore, Litt said the corporations increasing clout with policymakers has pushed the U.S. government into acting more slowly and reopening more quickly than the American people believe is safe.

That capitalistic influence has more influence on policymaking than the peoples welfare, in Litts view, is no surprise.

From the way we manage elections to the way we fund campaigns, from the congressional districts we draw to the lobbyists we include in the policymaking process, the story is the same, he said.

The American republic is a government of fewer people, by fewer people, for fewer people than at any time in the past half-century. And We, the People, are suffering because of it, Litt concluded.

(David Litt is the author of Democracy in One Book or Less: How It Works, Why It Doesnt, and Why Fixing It Is Easier Than You Think as well as Thanks, Obama: My Hopey, Changey White House Years. )

Read the original post:
Rapid spread of COVID 19 in the US reflects failure of democracy, says Obamas speech writer - NewsIn.Asia

Who We Are

Democracy for America is a member-driven, people-powered political action committee. Our mission is building and empowering a broad coalition of grassroots organizers to elect the New American Majority -- people of color and white progressives -- to fight for inclusive populism at all levels of office in all 50 states.

Over our decade-plus of activism, DFA has consistently been on the front lines of our nations most prominent political and ideological battles. We make progressive change happen using our time-tested election-member-issue organizing model:

Here at DFA, we believe that YOU have the power: That's why every endorsement and issue campaign we run is inspired and informed by the knowledge of our on-the-ground, grassroots members. DFA members arent an email list or an ATM for candidates blessed by Washington insiders -- they are the source of our strength and some of the smartest, hardest-working progressive activists our country has ever seen. Were proud of all that the DFA family has been able to accomplish together since Gov. Dean founded our organization in 2004, and we look forward to being a vital part of the growing progressive movement for years to come.

Link:
Democracy for America : About Democracy for America