Mediaboss Marketing

Zambian democracy is in peril. There are many forces both visible and invisible, overt and covert, internal and external, conscious and unconscious that are imperiling Zambian democracy which we fought so hard for to birth prior to the 1991, culminating in the multiparty dispensation victory by the people in the 1991 elections.

Prior to those elections, there was a one-party dictatorship which saw many independent minded and opposition leaders detained without charge or trial, jailed, compromised or refused to run for elections held under the dictatorship and some fled into exile. We are not going back to that period except over our dead bodies. Only those who did not live under that dictatorship would want to go back.

There are many books written under that period, two of mine included: 1. Thoughts Are Free: Prison Experience and Reflections on Law and Politics in General (1991), and 2. Class Struggles in Zambia, 1889-1989 and the Fall of Kenneth Kaunda, 1989-1991(1992). Our reaction therefore is not theoretical or merely an academic exercise to show ones intellectual prowess.

This article will name a few entities that are a danger to democracy in Zambia, pointing out with evidence why we think the behaviour or writings of these entities pose a danger to democracy in Zambia. And behind any entity we name are living and breathing individuals that are responsible for this. Everything that is anathema to democracy in Zambia is propelled by human beings, named or unnamed.

We will start with the public media which is taxpayer-funded and is supposed to promote democracy as constitutionalised in Zambia and as expected of an institution of public trust. The Sunday Times of Zambias editorial comment of March 22, 2020 is one of the greatest threats to Zambian democracy in a long time. I hypothesise that there was corroboration in writing of that editorial with a scholar based in England. We will start with that scholar although I have no proof that there was collaboration. It is my opinion. It is difficult to distinguish that editorial from the writer of the lengthy article in the same paper by Dr. Katiba Mbinga, a lecturer in the History Department, University of London.

The article on page 10 is entitled, Bill 10 and the UPNDs Hidden Agenda. Dr Mbinga laments the following after indicating that the opposition and pseudo intellectuals and arm chair critics who have been roundly opposed to Bill 10, an innocent documentwithout elaborating its salient points, concludes: I am afraid if this is multiparty we fought for in 1991, and then reverting to the one party government is better. Bill 10, an innocent document? Of course, a document is simply a piece of paper. But innocent? The Bible is innocent but look at the carnage it had wrought throughout history.

Dr Mbinga is advocating for a return to a one-party state dictatorship. His quarrel is that the opposition and the pseudo intellectuals and arm chair critics have not given any concern to the depth and complexities of Bill 10 or are not offering any credible explanations to their opposition to this Bill and in the entire article he laments how the allied entities are not credible alternatives and their aim is to criticise everything the government does or proposes.

Unfortunately, Dr Mbinga offers absolutely no evidence or analyses as to what the opposition, pseudo intellectuals and arm chair critics have given in opposition to Bill 10 and Zambian economics and politics in general. He does not seem to have read the numerous court documents, editorials, writings of lawyers like Professor Muna Ndulo, Michelo Hansungule, etc, practising lawyers like John Sangwa SC, Elias Munshya and others about Bill 10.

He has not read the contributions by many opposition parties in the forum provided by the News Diggers newspaper and The Mast newspaper. He does not seem to be aware that the very newspaper that gave him the platform to write his article, the Times of Zambia, does not give the opposition the platform to publish their critique and visions of governorship as it does to the government.

This goes the same for the Zambia Daily Mail and Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation (ZNBC). He is not aware that the government killed the main independent newspaper, the dynamic The Post newspaper; that the government has recently closed an independent TV station without following procedure.

Dr Mbinga does not seem to be aware of the dangers to democracy posed by Bill 10 because he does neither summarise his so-called salient points, nor the breadth and tenor of the criticisms offered in opposition to this Bill. One wonders who is a pseudo intellectual and arm chair critic here. He has behaved in the same vein as the opposition and pseudo intellectuals and arm chair critics that he criticises in his support for one-party state dictatorship. He is a danger to multiparty democracy which we fought so hard for.

The Sunday Times editorial regurgitates precisely the arguments of Dr Mbinga when it states that the oppositions alleged offer of bribery to Independent MPs to oppose Bill 10 causes it to come to the conclusion that: We should revisit the whole essence of plural politics and the problems it has caused in Zambia in polarising the citizenry along tribal and regional lines.

Like Dr Mbinga, the Times does not supply any evidence of its claims that opposition to Bill 10 has caused degeneration in the dispensation of democracy and whether it is this opposition that has brought into play any tribal and regional politics. The Times has not supplied any evidence that the opposition tried to bribe any Independent MPs in the Bill 10 saga. The Times has not looked at itself whether it has fully covered the reasons the opposition and others have given in opposition to Bill 10.

The Times must have access to court filings and all written articles and documents that oppose Bill 10, but the newspaper has not taken time to summarise these arguments like it has for the government side in promoting Bill 10. Did I miss a concerted summary of the documents including extended arguments offered in court or any published interview that the Times must have had with those vehemently opposed to Bill 10? The Times simply wants the country to consider going back to one party state dictatorship like Dr Mbinga does. The paper knows as well that the Zambia Daily Mail and ZNBC have behaved exactly the same as the Times in not giving the opposition the forum to participate in informing the public as to why they are opposed to Bill 10 and the alternative vision for the country.

Behind the Times, the Daily Mail, ZNBC are real living breathing human beings propagating the system Zambians rejected in 1991 and all of Africa rejected in that same decade. All to save the demise of this government with the help of Bill 10. This Bill 10 is a danger to democracy in Zambia. These allied entities are a danger to multiparty democracy. The individuals behind them are a danger to democracy in Zambia.

The Times is totally oblivious to some of the reasons why the opposition and others go to alternative means of participating in democracy. It is precisely because the Times, The Daily Mail and ZNBC are hostile to covering credible and well-reasoned platforms of the opposition that the latter seek out alternative platforms.

It is so hypocritical when the Times states with a straight face that: By pushing their complaints onto the streets as much as in the courts, opposition leaders are disrupting peace and blackmailing governments to have things their way. Dont you want to laugh or cry when you read such? Hello Times of Zambia, we are in a democracy.

We won our independence by going onto the streets and to the hostile courts. We did the same after one party state dictatorship was imposed in 1993. We did the same under Frederick Chiluba, Levy Mwanawasa, Rupiah Banda, Micahel Sata and Edgar Lungu. This is the stuff from which democracy emanates. They are doing the same in all democracies otherwise democracy dies. In Zambia you The Times dont provide an alternative platform so that the opposition does not resort to the streets or courts or social media. Even going to the streets is curtailed by the Public Order Act. Are you aware of that Mr or Mrs Times of Zambia?

Like Dr Mbinga, the Times concludes the editorial, In Zambia, there is need to take claims of opposition leaders having evidence against malpractices by those in power with a hefty pinch of salt. Yes, the courts are already doing that by throwing out cases on technicalities or rephrasing issues that are not before them or butchering constitutional law by imposing interpretations that dont fit or ignoring clearly laid down transitional provisions or constitutional articles. You, The Times dont even publish what these claims are and that some of the claims are published by government agencies like the Auditor General and the Financial Intelligence Centre. When these agencies report the truth, they are discredited by the government and their personnel removed or moved around.

One of the visionary leaders within the government was lawyer Kelvin Bwalya Fube KBF. The Times has, unless I missed it, not summarised his excellent two volume set, Zambia Must Prosper: Actualising Zambias Prayer For Prosperity (2018) and Zambia Must Prosper II: The Blueprint For Zambias Rapid Economic Transformation(2019). These books would offer a dynamic workable vision for the PF.

But examine where KBF is and how he has been removed from the party that he helped win the 2015 elections, if they won at all, and look at where some of the people Zambians let go in 2011 are: enjoying themselves after Satas death. Those people were removed because they were a danger to democracy, they still are. Those people who brought them in, are a danger to democracy in Zambia.

The Times newspaper brings in tribalism as if it is a creature of the opposition. Lawyer Elias Munshya has publicly declared that the government is basically a Northern and Eastern alliance government. Look at the majority of the Cabinet, Ministers, Permanent Secretaries, Army and Police personnel, directors and managers of public agencies, Tribunals, Cabinet Office, Courts, Ambassadors and all conceivable appointments this government has made and judge for yourself who is consciously and silently promoting tribalism and indignities against the victims of being left out of appointments or being declared fired in the Public Interest.

And this tribalism heightened under the current PF regime, starting with President Sata. And it is all documented by looking at the contents of newspaper reports on these appointments and by reading excellent books including my compilation, The Case Against Tribalism in Zambia(2016); Charles Mwewa, King Cobra Servant King Has Struck: My Letter to President Michael C. Sata(2012); Charles Mwewa, Allergic to Corruption: The Legacy of President Michael Sata of Zambia(2019); Chisanga Puta-Chekwe, Cobra in the Boat: Michael Satas Zambia. These books dont only talk about the subject matter, they talk further about political and economic failings of the PF government and how to improve the potentialities. The Mast, Diggers, intellectuals, authors, civil society and many other entities have pointed out the phenomenon of tribalism in Zambia under this regime as well as the political and economic failings and the way forward. The Times, the Daily Mail, ZNBC do not venture into these their uncharted territories but want to turn the tables against those who are doing things in good faith. We refuse. We know who the enemies of democracy are and we know the people behind the veil. They are as transparent as a clear October sunny day. They are hiding under Bill 10 and the Times and Dr Mbinga dont even seem to know it. But Zambians know it. Dont push them too far.

The author teaches Law of Evidence; Criminal Law; and Research Methodologies and Writing in Law. The views in this article are solely his. Send comments to: forthedefence@yahoo.ca

See the original post:
Naming the real dangers to democracy in Zambia - themastonline.com

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The Quarantine Report. Im Amy Goodman. The death rate from the coronavirus pandemic continues to accelerate, with worldwide confirmed deaths topping 145,000. In the United States, deaths surged to another record high Thursday, nearly doubling to surpass the previous record set just a day before, at 4,591, U.S. residents died over a single 24-hour period.

Well, today we continue my conversation with Noam Chomsky, the world-renowned political dissident, linguist and author of more than a hundred books. Hes a laureate professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Arizona, Tucson, and professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he taught for more than half a century. Professor Chomsky joined us last week from his home in Tucson, Arizona, where he is sheltering in place his wife Valeria. We spoke just after President Donald Trump foreshadowed this weeks announcement that he would cut off U.S. support for the World Health Organization. This is Trump addressing reporters last week.

REPORTER 1: Is the time to freeze funding to the WHO during a pandemic of this magnitude?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: No, maybe not. I mean, Im not saying Im going to do it, but were going to look at it.

REPORTER 2: You did say that youre going to do it.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We give a tremendous no, I didnt. I said were going to look at it. Were going to investigate it. Were going to look at it.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about what hes threatening to do right now? First they reject the WHO tests, that would have been critical, and now saying theyre going to defund the World Health Organization.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, this is typical behavior of autocrats and dictators. When you make colossal errors which are killing thousands of people, find somebody else to blame. And in the United States, its unfortunately the case, for well over a century, century and a half, that its always easy to blame the yellow peril. The yellow Theyre coming after us. Weve seen this all through my life, in fact way before. So, blame the World Health Organization, blame China, claim that the World Health Organization has insidious relations with China, is practically working for them. And that sells to a population thats been deeply indoctrinated for a long time, way back to the Chinese Exclusion Acts in the 19th century, to say, Yeah, those yellow barbarians are coming over to destroy us. Thats almost instinctive.

And its backed up by the echo chamber, so, you know, say, Rush Limbaugh. Science is one of the four corners of deceit, along with the media, academia I forget one of the others, but theyre the four corners of deceit. They live on deceit. You keep driving that into peoples heads. They say, Why should we believe anything? Why should we believe the news? Its just fake news. Theyre all trying to destroy our savior, our president, the greatest president ever.

Im old enough to remember as a child listening to Hitlers speeches over the radio, Nuremberg rallies. I couldnt understand the words, but the tone and the reaction of the crowd, the adoring crowd, was very clear and very frightening. We know what it led to. Its hard to it comes to mind at once when you listen to Trumps ravings and the crowd. I dont suggest that hes anything like Hitler. Hitler had an ideology, horrible ideology, not only massacring all the Jews and 30 million Slavs and the Roma, and conquering much of the world, but also an internal ideology: The state, under control of the Nazi Party, should control every aspect of life, should even control the business community. Thats not the world were in. In fact, its almost the opposite, business controlling the government. And as far as Trump is concerned, the only detectable ideology is pure narcissism. Me, thats the ideology. As long as I am smart enough to keep serving the real masters, pour money into the pockets of the very wealthy and the corporate sector, and theyll let you get away with your antics.

Its pretty striking to see what happened at the Davos conference this January. Thats the meeting of the people who are called the masters of the universe CEOs of the major corporations, you know, big media stars and so on. They get together in Davos once a year, congratulate each other on how wonderful they are, put on a pose of dedicated humanists who couldnt do you know, just totally devoted to the welfare of the people of the world. Youre safe leaving your fate in our hands because were such good guys.

Trump came along and gave the keynote address. They dont like Trump. His vulgarity is incompatible with the image that theyre trying to project of cultivated humanism. But they wildly applauded him, lustily applauded every word, because they know that he does recognize which pockets you have to fill with dollars and how to do it. And as long as he does that, as long as he serves his major constituency, theyll let him get away with the antics in fact, like it, because he mobilizes a crowd that will back policies like his legislative achievements. Main one is a tax scam that pours money into the hands of the corporate coffers and harms everyone else. The deregulation is great for business. They love it. They can destroy the environment and harm people as much as they want. Very harmful to the population.

You cut back on pollution constraints, on auto emission regulations, what happens? People die of pollution, of mercury poisoning. The waters are poisoned. And the world, it goes, is facing disaster. Youre accelerating the disaster. As I said, even in the February 10th budget, while cutting back on protection against diseases in the midst of a raging pandemic, increases funding for fossil fuel production, which is going to destroy us all. Of course, a lot more money for the Pentagon and for his famous wall. But thats the world were living in here, not everywhere. As I said, the Asian countries have been acting sensibly. New Zealand actually seems to have killed it also. Taiwan is doing very well. In Europe, Germany has maybe the lowest death rate in the world, Norway, as well. There are ways to react.

And there are ways to try to destroy everything what President Trump is leading, with the support of the Murdoch echo chamber, Fox News and others. And amazingly, this conjuring act is working. So, with one hand, you raise your hand to heaven: Im the chosen one. Im your savior. Im going to rebuild America, make it great again for you, because Im the servant. Im the loyal servant of the working class, and so on. Meanwhile, with the other hand, youre stabbing them all in the back. And to carry this off is an act of political genius. You have to recognize that serious talent is involved, whether intuitive or conscious planning. Its devastating. Weve seen it before. We see it now in dictators, autocrats, sociopaths who happen to get into leadership positions. And its now happening in the richest, most important country in world history.

AMY GOODMAN: So, you have this situation in the United States where the economy has been brought to a standstill because of the absolute catastrophe of this pandemic, that people have to isolate although isolation is a luxury. For so many essential workers, they have to come out into this pandemic and face enormous threat to their own lives. If you can talk about whether you see this pandemic perhaps threatening global capitalism overall or shoring it up, and how the trillions of dollars that are being put into these stimulus packages are going to simply intensify inequality or actually going to help people at the bottom?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Thats a choice, not an inevitability. I mean, the corporate sector is working hard to plan for a future of the kind that youre describing. The question is whether popular organizations will be able to impose enough pressure to make sure that this doesnt happen.

And there are ways. Take the corporate what you just described. The corporations right now are hiding their copies of Ayn Rand and rushing to the nanny state and asking for benefits from the public to overcome the results of their criminal behavior. What have they been doing for the last years? Profits have been going sky high. Theyve been indulging in an orgy of stock buybacks, which are devices to increase the wealth for the rich shareholders and for management while undermining the productive capacity of the enterprise at a huge scale, setting their offices somewhere in a little room in Ireland so they dont have to pay taxes, using tax havens. This is not small change. This is tens of trillions of dollars, robbing the taxpayer. Does that have to be the case?

Take the current giveaway to corporations. It should be accompanied by conditionalities term were familiar with from the IMF. They should be required to ensure that there will be no more use of tax havens, there will be no more stock buybacks, period. If they dont do that, with a firm guarantee, no money from the public.

Is that utopian? Not at all. That was the law, and the law was enforced, up until Ronald Reagan, who turned on the spigot to rob as much as you like, with Milton Friedman and other luminaries in the background telling him, Thats liberty. Liberty means rob the public massively by things like tax havens and stock buybacks. So theres nothing utopian about these conditions. It says, Lets go back to a period of pretty much regimented capitalism, which developed since Roosevelt, was carried through til the 70s, when it began to erode, and, with Reagan, just ended.

There should be further conditionalities, should be working people should be placed part of management should be representatives of workers. Is that impossible? No, its done in other countries, Germany, for example. There should be a requirement that they guarantee a living wage not just minimum wage, a living wage. Thats a conditionality that can be imposed.

Now, we can move further and recognize notice that all of this is pre-Trump. Trump is taking a failing, lethal system and turning it into a monstrosity, but the roots were before him. Just think back to the reason why the pandemic occurred in the first place. Drug companies are following capitalist logic. They dont want to do anything. The neoliberal hammer says the government cant do anything the way it did in the past. Youre caught in a vise. Then comes along Trump and makes it incomparably worse. But the roots of the crisis are pre-Trump.

The same with the healthcare system. Like we know that everyone knows they should know the basic facts. Its an international scandal: twice the costs of comparable countries, some of the worst outcomes. The costs were recently estimated by a study in The Lancet, one of the worlds leading medical journals. They estimated that the costs, the annual annual costs to Americans are close to half a trillion dollars and 68,000 lives lost. Thats not so small.

AMY GOODMAN: World-renowned political dissident, linguist and author Noam Chomsky. When we come back, hell discuss conditions in Gaza during the pandemic, and the rise of authoritarianism around the world, and the progressive response. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: The Puerto Rican rapper Residente, performing the Quarantine Edition of his new song Ren. This version includes his mom and about 30 other musicians who joined him from their homes.

This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The Quarantine Report. Im Amy Goodman, as we return to Part 2 of our conversation with Noam Chomsky, world-renowned linguist, political dissident and author. I asked him about Gaza, one of the most densely populated places on Earth, where at least 13 cases of COVID-19 have been reported. The World Health Organization reports there are just 87 ventilators for Gazas 2 million residents. Nearly 300 cases and two deaths have been confirmed in the West Bank. This is Professor Chomsky.

AMY GOODMAN: If you can talk for a moment, globally, about whats happening on an issue that has been close to your heart for decades, and that is the Occupied Territories, Gaza and the West Bank, what it means for a place like Gaza, called by the U.N. and people around the world a kind of open-air prison of almost 2 million people, what the pandemic could mean there?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Its almost impossible to think about. Gaza is 2 million people who are in the living in a prison, open-air prison, under constant attack. Israel, which is the occupying power, recognized by everyone in the world except Israel Israel is imposing has been imposing very harsh sanctions ever since the Palestinians made the mistake of carrying out the first free election in the Arab world and electing the wrong people. The United States and Israel came down on them like a ton of bricks.

Israels policy, as was explained by Dov Weissglas, the person in charge of the withdrawal of Israeli troops, the withdrawal of the settlers and imposition of the new regime he explained frankly, We are putting the people of Gaza on a diet, just enough to keep them alive, meaning wouldnt look good if they all die, but not anything more than that. So, not a piece of chocolate or a toy for a child. Thats out. Just enough to stay alive. And if you have a serious health problem, maybe you can apply to go to the hospital in East Jerusalem. Maybe after a couple of weeks, youll be allowed to go. Maybe a child is allowed to go, but his mother is not allowed to come.

If the pandemic there are now a couple of cases in Gaza. If that extends, its a total disaster. International institutions have pointed out that by 2020 thats now Gaza will probably become barely livable. About 95% of the water is totally polluted. The place is a disaster. And Trump has made sure that it will get worse. He withdrew funding from the support systems for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank UNRWA, killed the funding; Palestinian hospitals, killed the funding. And he had a reason. They werent praising him enough. They werent respectful of the god, so, therefore, well strangle them, even when theyre barely surviving under a harsh and brutal regime.

Incidentally, this extends to Palestinians in Israel, as well. Human rights activists in Israel pointed out recently theres articles about it in Haaretz that Israel finally began to set up a few drive-by testing areas only in Jewish areas, not in the areas with Palestinian population. And to make sure that the intended results would follow, they announced it only in Hebrew, not in Arabic, so Palestinians wouldnt even know. Well, thats within Israel. In the Occupied Territories, far worse.

And the Trump hammer came in saying, Were not even going to give you a penny, because youre not respectful enough of me. I dont know how to describe this kind of thing. I cant find words for it.

AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky, what do you think is required in an international response to stop the rise of authoritarianism in response to this pandemic? For example, in the Philippines, where the authoritarian leader, Trump ally, Duterte, talks about killing people; the massive crackdown, without support of the people of India, 1.3 billion people, with Narendra Modi. President Trump was in India as the pandemic was taking off, never saying a word about it, packing a stadium of 100,000 people. You have Orbn in Hungary, who is now ruling by decree. What would it take to turn that around to be a progressive response?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, actually, whats happening, to the extent that you can find some coherent policy in the madness in the White House, one thing does emerge with considerable clarity namely, an effort to construct an international of the most reactionary states and oppressive states, led by the gangster in the White House. Now, this is taking shape.

I can run through it, but since you mentioned India, Modi, who is a Hindu nationalist extremist, is systematically moving to destroy Indian secular democracy and to crush the Muslim population. Whats happening in Kashmir is horrifying. It was bad enough before, now getting much worse. Same with the Muslim population, a huge population in India. The current lockdown is almost you can almost describe it as genocidal. Modi gave, I think, a four-hour warning saying total lockdown. Thats over a billion people. Some of them have nowhere to go. People in the informal economy, which is a huge number of people, are just cast out. Go walk back to your village, which may be a thousand miles away. Die on the roadside. This is a huge catastrophe in the making, right on top of the strong efforts to impose the ultra-right Hindutva doctrines that are at the core of Modis thinking and background.

Whats happening in quite apart from this, India in fact, South Asia generally is going to become unlivable pretty soon, if current climate policies persist. Last summer, the temperature in Rajasthan went up to 50 degrees centigrade. And its increasing. Theres hundreds of millions of people in India that dont have access to water. Its going to get much worse, could lead to a nuclear war between the two powers that basically rely on the same water resources, which are declining under global warming: Pakistan and India. I mean, the horror story thats developing is, again, indescribable. You cant find words for it. And some people are cheering about it, like Donald Trump and his friend Bolsonaro in Brazil, a couple of other sociopaths.

But how do you counter a reactionary international? By developing a Progressive International. And there are steps to that. They dont get much publicity, but this I think its this coming December, there will be a formal announcement of what has been in process for some time. Yanis Varoufakis, the founder and leading figure in DiEM25, the progressive movement in Europe, very important Varoufakis and Bernie Sanders came out with a declaration calling for a Progressive International to combat and, we hope, overcome the reactionary international based in the White House.

Now, if you look at the level of states, this looks like an extremely unequal competition. But states are not the only things that exist. If you look at the level of people, its not impossible. Its possible to construct a Progressive International based on people, ranging from the organized political groups that have been proliferating, that have gotten a huge shot in the arm from the Sanders campaign, ranging from them to self-help mutual aid, self-help organizations that are rising in communities all over the world, in the most impoverished areas of Brazil, for example, and even this astonishing fact that I mentioned, that the murderous crime gangs are taking responsibility for bringing some form of decent protection against the pandemic in the favelas, the miserable slums, in Rio. All of this is happening on the popular level. If it expands and develops, if people dont just give up in despair but work to change the world, as theyve done in the past under much worse conditions, if they do that, theres a chance for a Progressive International.

And notice, bear in mind, that there are also striking cases of internationalism, progressive internationalism, at the state level. So, take a look at the European Union. The rich countries in Europe, like Germany, have recently given us a lesson in just what the union means. Right? Germany is managing pretty well. They probably have the lowest death rate in the world, in organized society. Right next door, northern Italy is suffering miserably. Is Germany giving them any aid? No. In fact, Germany even blocked the effort to develop euro bonds, general bonds in Europe which could be used to alleviate the suffering in the countries under the worst conditions. But fortunately for Italy, it can look across the Atlantic for aid from the superpower on the Western Hemisphere, Cuba. Cuba is, once again, as before, exhibiting extraordinary internationalism, sending doctors to Italy. Germany wont do it, but Cuba can. China is providing material aid. So, these are steps towards progressive internationalism at the state level.

AMY GOODMAN: World-renowned political dissident, linguist and author Noam Chomsky, laureate professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Arizona, Tucson, professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he taught for more than half a century. Noam Chomsky joined us last week from his home in Tucson, Arizona, where hes sheltering in place with his wife Valeria. Go to our website at Democracy Now! to see Part 1 of our conversation.

When we come back, a new policy at New Yorks public hospitals requires medical workers who call in sick to produce a doctors note. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: Lean on Me by Bill Withers. The legendary singer-songwriter Bill Withers died last month at the age of 81 from heart complications. We were showing, during that music break, nurses dancing around the world to give strength to each other, themselves and their patients.

See more here:
Gangster in the White House: Noam Chomsky on COVID-19, WHO, China, Gaza and Global Capitalism - Democracy Now!

By Ryan Moser and Cailtin Sherman

Our current crisis has made it clear that Gov. Phil Murphy has the best interests of New Jerseyans at heart. His decision to conduct local elections on May 12 entirely by mail shows that. Every registered voter will automatically receive their ballot and can return it without paying for postage.

His more recent decision to delay our primary elections until July 7 does as well. Unfortunately, his plans to continue that election with in-person voting, rather than opting for universal vote by mail, puts our health and our democracy at risk.

As we saw in Wisconsin, attempting to hold an in-person election in these times not only risks a public health disaster, but may also damage the legitimacy of the results. The majority of our poll workers are in high-risk groups, and reducing the number of polling locations to lower their risks means more crowding and longer lines. On the other hand, we know that the risk of contracting COVID-19 from mail is minimal, and that universal vote by mail, though not perfect, increases voter participation.

With New Jerseys additional window of time, and with federal election security funding from the CARES Act, Gov. Murphy must make every effort to ensure voters have safe options to cast their ballots securely and with confidence. To achieve this, the Hudson County Progressive Alliance calls on New Jersey to invest in a universal Vote By Mail system, ease barriers to requesting absentee ballots, and increase local election workforces.

Gov. Murphy originally supported moving to vote by mail but seems to have changed his mind recently. This change of heart comes after public comments from some prominent political leaders. Recently, David Wildstein of the New Jersey Globe reported that Hudson County Democratic Organization Chair Amy DeGise is against a universal vote-by-mail primary in Hudson County. She claims that it is not in the culture in Hudson, because our strongest voting blocs are not going to vote by mail.

At a time when the culture of all our institutions -- from our schools and churches to our very streets -- is being forced to change, we cant let appeals to the way weve always done things get in the way of maintaining health and safety.

She went on to claim that those voters who are likely to vote by mail are those who dont typically vote. The participation of such voters must seem like a bad thing to DeGise. We beg to differ.

DeGises resistance to vote by mail seems little more than another attempt by the Democratic Party establishment of Hudson County to assure that their chosen candidates win primary elections, this time by limiting safe, secure options for voters. Such voter suppression tactics are expected from Republicans, such as those who caused the disaster in Wisconsin. They are surprising from a self-branded progressive like DeGise.

Vote by mail gives access to many voters who are not normally able to get to the polls: those with mobility issues, those who work multiple jobs, and those who simply struggle to balance the demands of family and work. In our current world, this includes those who worry about contracting a potentially fatal virus from a crowded polling place.

None of us should have to choose between our health and our democracy.

Responding to similar critiques on Twitter, DeGise claims that she advocated to postpone the election, but keep in-person voting, because vote by mail does not ensure safety and that the cognitively and visually impaired, seniors, (and) non-English speakers ... all have issues with vote by mail.

However, both the CDC and the WHO have explained that the risk of transmission of COVID-19 through the mail is low. In addition, many states that have universal vote by mail set aside times, including Election Day, for voters who need assistance to cast their ballots in person. Further, vote by mail allows seniors, non-native English speakers, and other groups to take the time to review their ballots at home, or alongside a friend or loved one who can offer assistance.

DeGise is right that universal vote by mail will not magically solve accessibility issues for all voters. However, if we act now, we can create a vote-by-mail system that will work for New Jersey.

This starts with changes to our current mechanism for requesting mail-in ballots. Right now, the application to receive a ballot in the mail must be printed and mailed to the clerks office. However, many people do not have access to a printer at home. We need an online application system so that people displaced by COVID-19 can easily update their information and receive their ballots where they are now, even if that is not where they are registered to vote.

In order to handle the increased pressure that this will put on our local governments, the state must invest in local Boards of Elections so they can significantly increase their workforces. Raising public awareness, tracking requests, and mailing and tabulating final votes, in addition to offering in-person assistance to those who may still need help, will be a monumental task.

To have all this ready by July 7, we urge Gov Murphy to make needed investments now in these reforms to vote by mail, and for our local leaders like Amy DeGise to embrace them.

The final word from DeGise on this issue is that she wants to ensure (the) entire enfranchisement of (her) entire community. We think thats a great idea. And we think that vote by mail is a safe and powerful first step toward making that happen.

Ryan Moser of Jersey City and Caitlin Sherman of Weehawken are members of the Hudson County Progressive Alliance.

Send letters to the editor and guest columns for The Jersey Journal to jjletters@jjournal.com.

Read the original:
Vote by mail is the best choice for health and democracy | Opinion - NJ.com

The issue of democratic backsliding in Central and Eastern Europe has received substantial attention in recent years, and many observers are now concerned the coronavirus crisis could exacerbate the problem. Licia Cianetti and Sen Hanley write that while there are genuine threats to democracy in countries like Hungary and Poland, viewing the entire region through the lens of backsliding may obscure more than it reveals.

In recent years, Central and Eastern European (CEE) democracies once hailed as remarkable success stories of democratic transformation have increasingly attracted media and academic attention as cases of democratic reversal. The consensus is that democracies across the region are in decline and some might be backsliding towards semi-authoritarian hybrid regimes or even full authoritarianism. Since the election of illiberal populist governments with absolute parliamentary majorities in Hungary in 2010 and Poland in 2015, these two once model democratisers are now seen as models of democratic backsliding a trend that some fear may be turbocharged by the ways in which these government have dealt with the coronavirus emergency.

Figure 1: Mentions of democratic backsliding in Google Scholar results

Scholarly interest in the phenomenon of democratic backsliding has exploded in the last decade. Although there has been much dispute both over labels some scholars prefer terms like democratic erosion and the mix of causes driving the process, the basic contours of democratic backsliding are widely agreed: it is gradual, led by democratically-elected governments (often right-wing populist) and begins with attacks on constitutional checks-and-balances, the judiciary and media pluralism. The dynamic is, as Nancy Bermeo puts it, one of slow but relentless executive aggrandisement.

Threats to democracy, especially in one-time democratic trailblazers, are serious, and merit serious scrutiny and serious action. There is a risk, however, that reading the entire region through the lenses of backsliding may obscure as much as it reveals. Indeed, the growing pessimistic consensus about democratic regression in Central and Eastern Europe risks repeating in reverse some of the same mistakes of the previous optimistic consensus about the regions democratic progress.

A reverse transition paradigm?

In 2002, Thomas Carothers published a celebrated critique of what he termed the transition paradigm. He identified five flawed underlying assumptions that policymakers and democracy promoters held about democratisation. Chief among these were the assumption that a country moving away from authoritarianism was in transition towards democracy and a tendency to think in terms of a linear path with options all cast in terms of the speed and direction with which countries move on the path, not in terms of movement that does not conform with the path at all.

He also questioned an over-focus on elections as watershed moments of democratic change and the underestimation of the importance of having a functioning state in place. Instead of asking how is the transition going? he argued that analyses should ask what is happening politically? and sketched two common real-life scenarios that transitioning states were more likely to settle into: a corrupt, feckless pluralism or more authoritarian dominant power politics.

Carothers famous and controversial essay was in places overstated. In hindsight, it reads as a prescient warning not just of the prevalence of hybrid regimes manipulating democratic institutions for authoritarian ends in the post-Soviet space and Africa, but also of the weakness of many supposedly consolidated democracies in Central and Eastern Europe. Many bore more than a passing resemblance to Carothers scenario of feckless pluralism. However, more importantly for the current debate on Central and Eastern European democracies, it serves as a warning that we should not fall into a possible backsliding paradigm with flawed assumptions which are a mirror image of the transition paradigm.

Through this lens, all democracies in the region become potential backsliders, and their political life is analysed only in terms of the extent (and forms) of their backsliding. Any change or event risks ending up being investigated only as a potential signal that a country is backsliding, about to backslide, prone to backsliding, or resilient to backsliding. In other cases, forms of (un) democratic change that may fit backsliding only awkwardly such as the Czech Republic have been crammed into a narrative defined by the experiences of Hungary and Poland.

However, while many democracies in Central and Eastern Europe are in aggregate deteriorating, genuine backsliders where democratic fundamentals are in slow motion free fall appear the exception not the rule. Anna Lhrmann and Staffan I. Lindbergs rigorous measurement of autocratisation episodes using the V-Dem dataset finds that, of the EUs 10 CEE member states, only Hungary and Poland have experienced democratic erosion. Two more cases (Serbia and North Macedonia) appear if we add in the four CEE candidate states.

The risk of a backsliding paradigm, focusing on a limited number of worst cases, is that it limits our capacity to think about the range of (un) democratic transformation taking place elsewhere in the region. To understand the bulk of CEE cases, where there is neither clear democratic progress nor sharp regress, we are left either with the shaky-looking notion of non-backsliding states being consolidated democracies, or loose and as yet under-theorised, residual categories centring on qualified or low-quality stability, arrested development or stagnation.

A paradigm that allows for only three possible directions of travel may blind us to trajectories that dont follow a linear pattern of advance, stasis or retreat. Even stagnant does not mean immobile with the possibility, for example, of near misses or swerves into and out of authoritarianism; some archetypically backsliding phenomena such as political populism may be deeply ambiguous in their effects, particularly those with a centrist anti-corruption orientation such as Slovakias new main governing party OLaNO, while classic bulwarks of democracy such as local civil society can be harnessed to bolster backsliding and illiberalism.

Backsliding through elections only?

The backsliding paradigm is in less danger of reproducing some of the other flaws of its predecessor. Nevertheless, rereading Carothers classic essay suggests some additional pitfalls to be avoided.

Elections were seen in the transition paradigm as being central too central according to Carothers in cementing democratic breakthroughs. They seem, implicitly, to play a similar watershed role now in the emerging backsliding paradigm, kickstarting the process by putting illiberal or democratic disloyal politicians into power. However, turning Carothers thinking around, the election of such politicians does not necessarily lead to backsliding (for example, if institutions are robust and checks and balances too entrenched). At the same time, not all agents of backsliding need be elected politicians corrupt private interests can capture parties and institutions warping democracy so much that it tips into a special kind of authoritarian hybrid regime the interpretation Michal Klma gives of the decline of standard West European style party politics in the Czech Republic.

Echoes of the transition paradigms over-optimistic underplaying of social-structural determinants can also be found in the emerging reverse transition paradigm. Many accounts of backsliding in Central and Eastern Europe have tended to dwell on the immediate political context such as electoral volatility, polarisation or the rise of populist actors and ideologies; external shocks such as the Great Recession, the refugee crisis or the woes of the Eurozone; or changes in external actors policies such as the fading out of the EUs accession conditionalities. The fact that one-time democratic front-runners such as Hungary and Poland succumbed to backsliding has tended to reinforce the view of backsliding as contagion driven by the rise of illiberal ideas and unscrupulous elites that can spread regardless of structural conditions.

This is in some ways unsurprising. The ongoing nature of the process makes the backsliding paradigm prone to presentism, over-focusing on a limited selection of current events at the expense of wider historical and social context. When it comes to explanatory factors, many of the usual suspects such as human development, inequality, or ethno-linguistic divisions do, at best, a patchy job in distinguishing CEE backsliders from countries with more variegated patterns of (un)democratic development. The coronavirus crisis stands as a sobering reminder of the reality and power of exogenous shocks. Moreover, as Albert O. Hirschman famously pointed out, some of the most unhelpful paradigms are precisely those which pessimistically see change as blocked off by structural factors.

But any sense that backsliding can happen anywhere and everywhere and perhaps already is happening will need to be qualified by a reappraisal of constraining cultural, social and economic limits a process already underway in scholarly reassessment of the rash of panicky it could happen here reactions to the election of Donald Trump, whose authoritarian instincts have damaged but not derailed American democracy, despite the fact that systematic gerrymandering of congressional boundaries and efforts at voter suppression make some key elements of US democracy deeply flawed.

The limits of paradigms

No one would deny that processes of democratic backsliding have taken hold in countries such as Hungary and Poland and some other Third Wave democracies beyond Europe. But it is important not to look at the whole of the CEE region as potential Hungaries. Seeing the entire region through a very narrow lens limits our ability to make sense of much of it.

Not all that is bad about democracy in Central and Eastern Europe is an effect of backsliding or a sign of incipient backsliding. As Hirschman reminds us, large-scale social change typically occurs as a result of a unique constellation of highly disparate events and is therefore amenable to paradigmatic thinking only in a very special sense. This applies both to CEE states unfortunate enough to exemplify the backsliding paradigm and to the less well reflected upon journeys of those that do not.

A longer, fully referenced version of this piece has been uploaded as a working paper in the APSA pre-print service here. The authors welcome comments and feedback.

Please read our comments policy before commenting.

Note: This article gives the views of theauthors, not the position of EUROPP European Politics and Policy or the London School of Economics.

_________________________________

About the authors

Licia Cianetti Royal Holloway, University of LondonLicia Cianetti is a Leverhulme Early Career Fellow at Royal Holloway, University of London.

Sen Hanley UCL School of Slavonic and East European StudiesSen Hanley is an Associate Professor in Comparative Central and East European Politics at the UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies.

Read more from the original source:
We must go beyond the 'backsliding paradigm' to understand what's happening to democracy in Central and Eastern Europe - EUROPP - European Politics...

Support this progressive voice and be a part of it. Donate to COHA today. Click here

By Marcia Cury

Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaros statements are at first shocking, leaving one wondering what he really means. But they are not surprising in the context of the paranoid rhetoric that has always characterized his administration. Since the start of the Coronavirus pandemic that is ravaging the world, for which the World Health Organization (WHO) has established preventive measures, the President of Brazil stands out for his public statements refusing to take any precautions. Contrary to all predictions of the consequences of infection, Bolsonaro insists on minimizing the risks posed by the virus and defies social distancing guidelines. He calls the disease a fantasy and hysteria whipped up by the media.[1]

Jair Bolsonaros remarks and inaction fit into his pattern of political practices. But in the middle of an unprecedented crisis, his behavior is sounding alarm bells about the near term social and political fallout.

Bolsonaro the Science Denier

Jair Bolsonaro has never been the center of attention for implementing important projects during his long political career, but rather for his cavalier attitude towards dictatorship, racism, homophobia, and gender equality, which are sensitive subjects in such an unequal and violent society as that of Brazil. A denial of science guides most of his speeches on a wide variety of topics, and this has been no different during the pandemic. He first showed this irresponsible approach when he said on national TV that he opposed the preventive measures instituted by the governors and mayors. He criticized the social distancing guidelines by saying that unemployment might have a worse impact on society.[2] According to Bolsonaro, people should live their lives normally because it will only be possible to create antibodies and a barrier to the disease if some people get infected.[3] His public appearances, during which his followers gather in the streets to greet him, have also been common and drawn the attention of the international press.

The ProSul hemispheric[4] meeting held by video conference on March 16, 2020, convened to discuss joint measures to confront the pandemic, was marked by the absence of the Brazilian president. At this important event, the country was represented by Foreign Minister Ernesto Arajo. In another display of his lack of commitment to mitigation efforts, Bolsonaro skipped the meeting of heads of the Judicial, Legislative, and Executive Branches of the Government of Brazil to establish common objectives for fighting the spread of the virus in the country. Instead, Luiz Henrique Mandetta, the Minister of Health, represented the Executive Branch.

In recent weeks Bolsonaros image has suffered as people begin to question his capacity to handle the crisis, including high-ranking public officials who have publicly expressed disagreement with his approach to containing the virus. The population is caught up in public confrontations between the Minister of Health, who defends social distancing policies, and the statements and practices of Jair Bolsonaro, who constantly questions the seriousness of the pandemic. This divergence of opinion has rattled the Presidents legitimacy, even among military officers, who, for a time, backed the Minister of Health when the President threatened to fire him. The growing breach, however, came to head on Thursday April 16, when President Bolsonaro fired his minister, Luiz Henrique Mandetta.[5]

The conflicting messages emanating from the chief executive and his health minister have led the population to pay less attention to mitigation measures and relax social distancing. Another controversy revolves around the Presidents public advocacy for increasing production of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients. Bolsonaro has promoted this drug on radio and TV, although it is still the subject of research and debate among doctors and scientists as to whether it really is an effective treatment for the virus.[6]

Echoing Trumps controversial strategy

It is striking that, just like U.S. President Donald Trump, Bolsonaro is using the pandemic to fuel his unrelenting ideological war. In the context of an unprecedented crisis, this is jeopardizing the economy and the countrys fragile democratic stability.

The Brazilian president continues to act as if this were a political campaign and all he needs to do is whip up his base. Now he is trapped by economic indicators that are no longer showing signs of strong growth. The pandemic can transform this precarious economic slowdown into a crisis.. Added to this is his constant preoccupation with remaining in power and his dream of reelection. Taking his usual stance of someone who has no concept of the responsibility inherent in his position, Bolsonaro reverts to anti-establishment discourse, a persecution complex, and extremist ideas to exacerbate the conflict, in a desperate attempt to hang onto the support of his base as well as his authorityboth of which are increasingly fragile.

The show put on by Bolsonaro and his ideological promoters is a peculiar relaunching of an imaginary Cold War scenario in which the pandemic is supposedly just hysteria mounted by the opposition for political gain. For example, the president used primarily social media to spread fake news stories of shortages at a food distribution center in Minas Gerais, supposedly caused by the stay-at-home policy. The story was immediately refuted and Bolsonaro took down his posts.[7]

A war of words can be costly for the economy. His most recent attacks were aimed at China, the countrys top trading partner. The Presidents son and federal lawmaker, Eduardo Bolsonaro (whom the President is thinking of appointing ambassador to the U.S.), and the Minister of Education, Abraham Weintraub, went on Twitter to blame China for spreading the virus, insinuating that the country is profiting financially from the pandemic. The last tweet, which the Minister has since deleted, prompted a reply from the Chinese embassy in Brazil. Ill will has been sown and people now fear a breakdown in trade relations between the two countries, to the inevitable detriment of Brazil.[8]

An irrational fear of socialism hamstrings government aid

Domestically, the conservative tone of Bonsonaros political agenda is in step with the various social sectors that make up his base. But now, the dystopian reign of the Bolsonaro family has found faith to be a useful tool. He recently called upon the population to fast in response to the pandemic, clearly a move meant to stir his faithful followers, including many Evangelicals. However, this pandemic affects all sectors of the country and will likely cost many lives. The most vulnerable people face uncertainty and have already lost income due to the crisis.[9] This is especially true in a country in which a sizable number of workers have informal jobs, without any social security protections.

The anti-government ideology so fiercely preached by the President and his team, despite the urgent hunger people are facing, has him refusing to believe the facts and figures in front of him. The Presidents other son, Rio de Janeiro Council Member Carlos Bolsonaro, says that any state intervention would be a sign that the country is moving toward socialism, because with the economy paralyzed, people would be dependent on the State even to eat.[10] And Rubem Novaes, president of the countrys main public bank, Banco do Brasil, says we must resist state intervention because later it will be hard to dismantle the welfare state.[11] It was only after pressure from the public and the National Congress that Bolsonaros proposal to allow employers freedom to lay off workers and suspend labor contracts was rolled back. The Legislative Branch has ensured that families losing their incomes and livelihoods will receive some government compensation.

The government will pay them the equivalent of US$ 120, not the mere US$ 40 per month initially proposed by Paulo Guedes, the ultra-neoliberal Minister of Finance. The Provisional Measure now includes an up to 70% wage reduction for up to 90 days and the suspension of labor contracts for up to two months. These wage losses will be offset by an extension of unemployment insurance which already exists in the country to help workers who lose their jobs in the formal economy.

What is happening now in Brazil is a crisis that includes public health issues, a financial emergency, and political uncertainty. The publics apprehension and dissatisfaction can now be heard in the pots-and-pans protests against Bolsonaro that make up the soundtrack of Brazilian nights. But just as part of society is beginning to make its dissatisfaction with the President heard, there is fear over what comes next as Bolsonaro becomes isolated. The blow to his legitimacy also threatens Brazilian democracy.

What we are currently witnessing, while not a complete reversal of civilian control over the armed forces as required for a democratic system, is at least a relativization of it. The Executive Branch, through the office of the Vice-President and eight of the 22 Cabinet Ministers, is full of people whose names are embellished with military titles. Their actions are imbued with nostalgia for the countrys dictatorial past. And a policy of military officers not engaging in politics is giving way to the politicization of the military, sometimes in direct confrontation with democratic institutions such as when General Augusto Heleno called the National Congress blackmailers.[12] In the case of the breach between the Minister of Health and the President, however, Bolsonaro has won the day, at least for now. During the pandemic crisis Bolsonaro will continue to be Bolsonaro. That is no surprise from a leader who got elected by taking conservative and authoritarian discourse to new heights, in an atmosphere of widespread fake news. But this is a precarious moment. It has been demonstrated that the scenario of a society in isolation, with people focused on protecting lives and fearing the impacts of a crisis, is primed for political manipulation. And the danger is even more real when it goes beyond the paranoia and irresponsible actions of a joking president, to include control by other institutional actors. In such a context one may imagine the possibility of the military co-governing. These are people who represent a recent authoritarian past, and who present themselves as the new salvation for a country that has lost its way. This situation demands that we remain vigilant, to ensure the survival of Brazils fragile democracy.

Mrcia Cury is a Senior Research Fellow at COHA and historian who holds a Doctorate in Political Science. She is also a postdoctoral fellow in the post-graduate program in history at the UEFS in Brazil. She is the author of El Protagonismo popular chileno: experiencias de clase y movimientos sociales en la construccin del socialismo (1964-1973). Santiago: LOM Ediciones, 2018.

End notes

[1] Em evento esvaziado nos EUA, Bolsonaro nega crise e diz que problemas na bolsa acontecem,https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mercado/2020/03/em-evento-esvaziado-nos-eua-bolsonaro-nega-crise-e-diz-que-problemas-na-bolsa-acontecem.shtml

[2] Pronunciamento do Senhor Presidente da Repblica, Jair Bolsonaro, em cadeia de rdio e televiso, https://www.gov.br/planalto/pt-br/acompanhe-o-planalto/pronunciamentos/pronunciamento-em-cadeia-de-radio-e-televisao-do-senhor-presidente-da-republica-jair-bolsonaro

[3] Exclusivo!, Jair Bolsonaro fala que coronavrus histeria e conta que vai fazer festa de aniversrio, https://www.tupi.fm/brasil/exclusivo-jair-bolsonaro-fala-que-coronovirus-e-histeria-e-conta-que-vai-fazer-festa-de-aniversario/

[4] Prosul is a conservative forum that groups right-wing governments of the Americas

[5] AP News. April 16, 2020. https://apnews.com/26dc693cc9777da62e2b609e97ae57f8?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

[6] Pronunciamento do Senhor Presidente da Repblica, Jair Bolsonaro, em cadeia de rdio e televiso, https://www.gov.br/planalto/pt-br/acompanhe-o-planalto/pronunciamentos/pronunciamento-do-senhor-presidente-da-republica-jair-bolsonaro-em-cadeia-de-radio-e-televisao-4

[7] Bolsonaro publica vdeo falso sobre desabastecimento e depois apaga, https://www.agazeta.com.br/brasil/bolsonaro-publica-video-falso-sobre-desabastecimento-e-depois-apaga-0420

[8] Eduardo Bolsonaro culpa China pelo coronavrus e Embaixada responde: contraiu vrus mental, https://www.cartacapital.com.br/carta-capital/eduardo-bolsonaro-culpa-china-pelo-coronavirus-e-embaixada-responde-contraiu-virus-mental/

https://twitter.com/BolsonaroSP/status/1240286560953815040 ; https://twitter.com/EmbaixadaChina/status/1247001670808154113

[9] Efeitos econmicos negativos da crise do Corona vrus tendem a afetar mais a renda dos mais pobres, https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdp/tecnot/tn003.html

[10] Partimos para o socialismo, diz Carlos Bolsonaro sobre crise do coronavrus, https://www.cartacapital.com.br/Politica/partimos-para-o-socialismo-diz-carlos-bolsonaro-sobre-crise-do-coronavirus/

O desenho é claro: partimos para o socialismo. Todos dependentes do estado até para comer, grandes empresas vão embora e o pequeno investidor não existe mais. Conseguem a passos largos fazer o que tentam desde antes de 1964. E tem gente preocupada com a fala do Presidente.

— Carlos Bolsonaro (@CarlosBolsonaro) April 1, 2020

[11] Caiam na real: governadores e prefeitos oferecem esmolas com dinheiro alheio, diz Presidente do BB, https://politica.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,caiam-na-real-governadores-e-prefeitos-oferecem-esmolas-com-dinheiro-alheio-diz-presidente-do-bb,70003257728

[12] General Heleno diz que Congresso faz chantagem para ficar com R$30 bi do oramento, https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mercado/2020/02/general-heleno-diz-que-bolsonaro-e-alvo-de-parlamentarismo-branco-na-discussao-sobre-orcamento.shtml

Em mais um lamentável episódio de invasão de privacidade, hábito louvado no Brasil, vazou para a imprensa uma conversa que tive com o Dr. Paulo Guedes e o Gen. Ramos.

— General Heleno (@gen_heleno) February 19, 2020

Read more here:
Bolsonaro, COVID-19, and the Crisis of Brazilian Democracy - Council On Hemispheric Affairs