Mediaboss Marketing

Representatives of Democracy Without Borders (DWB) recently participated in two events in London and used the opportunity to advocate democratic global governance.

On 2 November 2019 Andreas Bummel, DWBs Executive Director, spoke at the Battle of Ideas which, in their words, provides a unique forum to discuss the big issues of our time. The topic, Does the world need a government?, was originally proposed by Ian Crawford, a professor of planetary science and astrobiology at Birkbeck College. Andreas shared the platform with Ian Crawford, Mary Kaldor, an emeritus professor of global governance at London School of Economics, and Tara McCormack, a lecturer on international politics at University of Leicester. The panel was moderated by Rob Lyons, Academy of Ideas.

Andreas argued that the world does indeed need a government to tackle global threats and challenges. He pointed out that in his view this means a system of multilevel government from the local to the global level that is based on the principles of subsidiarity and federalism. At all levels democratic participation and representation of citizens as well as the rule of law, separation of powers, checks and balances and the protection of minority rights would have to be implemented, he went on to explain. In terms of the global level this would imply a world parliament. As a first step he introduced the proposal of a UN Parliamentary Assembly, DWBs main program.

With the exception of Tara McCormack, the other panelists expressed support for a federal system of global governance as well. Ian Crawford argued for a world government from the perspective of a cosmic world view and big history. Mary Kaldor emphasised the requirement for global governance to reinvigorate substantive local democracy as well as the rule of law and human rights. Tara instead argued that democracy was under pressure in nation-states and that this should be the focus instead of global institutions.

Many comments and questions in the discussion indicated a fear that nation-states would cease to exist in a system of global government. However, the panelists made it clear that nobody advocates a unified global state.

At The Fourth Groups Politics Summit 2019 on 19 November 2019 John Vlasto, DWBs representative in the United Kingdom, debated whether Globalism is outdated for the 21st century with Ben Habib, Member of the European Parliament for the Brexit Party. John was joined by James Sancto, CEO of We Make Change; Ella Whelan, a Co-Convenor of the Battle of Ideas; and the debate was moderated by Lewis Iwu, a former world debating champion.

Ben opened the debate by describing a spectrum from extreme globalism at one end, with no nation states, to extreme nationalism at the other, with no global governance, and argued that we should aim for somewhere in between. He then gave a reasoned criticism of the European Union from a financial perspective, including its protectionist tendencies, and the way in which the euro has been introduced and managed, and concluded that Brexit would be good for Britain.

Apart from the conclusion, which ignores the benefits of the European Union, John had little to disagree with. John argued, as Andreas had at the Battle of Ideas, that more effective and accountable global governance is needed to tackle global challenges, such as the sustainability crisis, the urgency of which is beginning to make such political change possible. Ella argued that globalism is inherently undemocratic as democracy operates at the national level. John countered that this surely calls for expanding democracy to the global level to manage our globalised economy. He introduced DWBs core proposal of a UN Parliamentary Assembly as a realistic first step towards this. James pointed out that nationalism and globalism do not have to be seen as being in tension, since effective global governance rests on effective national governance we need both.

Votes were taken at the beginning and end of the debate. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the vast majority at this progressive event started in favour of globalism, and remained in favour of globalism.

At both events the core argument against democratising global governance was that national democracy needs reinvigorating first. But this is back to front. Many decisions that affect people are now made at the global level, beyond the reach of national democracy, which disenfranchises national electorates and leads to a feeling of powerlessness and being out of control. This cannot be addressed at the national level. The only solution is to democratise global governance, putting the people back in control of the global decisions that affect them. Once we have global democracy, national democracy will be reinvigorated, as it will be able to focus on the national issues within its control. To reinvigorate national democracy, first we must democratise global governance.

Link:
Democratic global governance advocated at events in London - Democracy Without Borders

It probably shouldnt surprise us that, after hearing from witnesses who testified consistently that the president attempted to bribe a foreign head of state in order to get dirt on a political opponent, the needle hasnt moved on those who oppose impeachment. Weve been here before. On several occasions, hopes have been raised that this is the moment Trumps enablers will finally abandon him. But it has never happened.

Given that the presidents base of support comes primarily from white evangelicals, it is important to understand Christian nationalism in order to explain their loyalty. One of the court evangelicals, Franklin Graham, recentlygave us a window into that world.

During his November 21 interview with Graham, Metaxas, a Salem Radio Network talk-show host, asked the son of the late evangelist Billy Graham, What do you think of what is happening now? I mean, its a very bizarre situation to be living in a country where some people seem to exist to undermine the president of the United States. Its just a bizarre time for most Americans.

Franklin Graham, president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelical Association, responded, Well, I believe its almost a demonic power that is trying

At which point Metaxas interjected, I would disagree. Its not almost demonic. You know and I know, at the heart, its a spiritual battle.

Graham agreed

As Peter Wehner summarized, the message is that, in this spiritual battle, we all have to chose sides.

For Graham and Metaxas, it appears that agreeing with them equates to agreeing with Godand disagreeing with them, at least when it comes to Donald Trump, means doing the work of the evil one.

For these Christian nationalists, its not enough to say, God is on our side. If you dont agree with them, you are engaged with a demonic power. There is no authoritarian tool more controlling than the one that wields the power to define the playing field like that. It is a pronouncement that leaves no room for debate or nuance. Youre either all in or all out. Anyone who buys into what theyre saying has no choice but to defend Trump. To do otherwise is a pathway to eternal doom with the devil.

To further the argument that God is on Trumps side, Rick Perry recently opined about how the president is the chosen one.

Apparently, Perry also said that Obama was chosen by God. Its funny how we never heard that when Obama was actually president. But what Perry was articulating is a theological argument for the omnipotence of God, who has unlimited power to control everything. Leaving that one aside for the moment, it is worth examining the rhetoric Perry used.

I actually gave the president a little one-pager on those Old Testament kings about a month ago, and I shared it with him, he continued. I said, Mr. President, I know there are people that say you said you were the chosen one, and I said, You were.

I said, If youre a believing Christian, you understand Gods plan for the people who rule and judge over us on this planet in our government, he added.

He was comparing Trump to kings in the Old Testament and referred to Gods plan for those who rule over us. That goes to the heart of something Katherine Stewart wrote about Christian nationalists.

The great thing about kings like Cyrus, as far as todays Christian nationalists are concerned, is that they dont have to follow rules. They are the law. This makes them ideal leaders in paranoid times

I have attended dozens of Christian nationalist conferences and events over the past two years. And while I have heard plenty of comments casting doubt on the more questionable aspects of Mr. Trumps character, the gist of the proceedings almost always comes down to the belief that he is a miracle sent straight from heaven to bring the nation back to the Lord. I have also learned that resistance to Mr. Trump is tantamount to resistance to God.

This isnt the religious right we thought we knew. The Christian nationalist movement today is authoritarian, paranoid and patriarchal at its core. They arent fighting a culture war. Theyre making a direct attack on democracy itself.

As you can see, Graham wasnt the first one to claim that resistance to Trump is tantamount to resistance to God. Stewart has been hearing that one for a few years.

We have to grapple with the fact that Christian nationalists are launching a direct attack on democracy itself. That is because real democracy poses a threat to the kind of authoritarianism they embrace. The roots of that were explained by William Barr during his speech to the law school at Notre Dame. He began by articulating his own view of human nature.

Men are subject to powerful passions and appetites, and, if unrestrained, are capable of ruthlessly riding roughshod over their neighbors and the community at large.

No society can exist without some means for restraining individual rapacity.

Barr goes on to suggest that, when the founders talked about self government, they didnt mean what we think they did.

In the words of Madison, We have staked our future on the ability of each of us to govern ourselves

This is really what was meant by self-government. It did not mean primarily the mechanics by which we select a representative legislative body. It referred to the capacity of each individual to restrain and govern themselves.

But if individual rapacity is the problem, what is the source of those restraints?

[T]o control willful human beings, with an infinite capacity to rationalize, those moral values must rest on authority independent of mens will they must flow from a transcendent Supreme Being.

In short, in the Framers view, free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people a people who recognized that there was a transcendent moral order antecedent to both the state and man-made law and who had the discipline to control themselves according to those enduring principles.

When you combine that with the belief among Christian nationalists that the only true religion is Christianity, you have the antithesis of democratic pluralism. Instead, you have authoritarian theocracy. That loops us back to Franklin Graham and the rest of the court evangelicals, who take it upon themselves to define who is on Gods side and who is doing the work of the devil.

Years ago, Sara Robinson captured what it takes to leave that kind of authoritarian mindset.

We must never, ever underestimate what it costs these people to let go of the beliefs that have sustained themExternally, it always means the loss of your community; and often the loss of jobs, homes, marriages, and blood relatives as well. Internally, it requires sifting through every assumption youve ever made about how the world works, and your place within it; and demands that you finally take the very emotional and intellectual risks that the entire edifice was designed to protect you from. You have to learn, maybe for the first time, to face down fear and live with ambiguity.

While the loss of community can be traumatic, the prospect of sifting through every assumption youve ever made about how the world works is overwhelming. As she points out, the entire edifice is designed to protect you from fear and the threat of ambiguity. For most people, scaling that one is too much to ask.

Im not going to suggest that it is impossible for Trumps supporters to change their minds. But when we watch them reject one rational case after another, it is important to understand the depths of what binds them, as well as the threat that poses to our democracy.

The Washington Monthly is in the midst of its annual fundraising drive. If you think our work is valuable and important, theres something you can do to help:make a donationtoday. For a limited time, your contribution will be matched, dollar for dollar, thanks to a generous challenge grant fromNewsMatch. Thank you for your support!

Continued here:
Why Christian Nationalism Is a Threat to Democracy - Washington Monthly

Between the December 2019 elections in the United Kingdom and the November 2020 elections in the United States, the major global tech platforms will probably scramble to neutralize calls for their regulation or dismemberment.

Under the oxymoronic rubric of self-regulation, Facebook, Twitter and Google are already considering ways to appear responsible and protective of the integrity of those two elections. Twitter has pledged to stop running political ads, and both Google and Facebook are considering suspending precise targeting of political ads.

In 2016 Facebook played pivotal roles in the election of Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, the Brexit referendum and the electoral college victory of Donald Trump in the United States.

The shocks of 2016 awakened journalists and regulators to the ways that social media undermines democracy. After a decade of shallow proclamations of their democratic potential, its clear that Facebook, Twitter and Google are, in fact, major threats to democracy.

First, their targeted advertising services sever any sense of democratic accountability from the campaigns and parties that deploy them. Ads only reach the eyes for which they are intended and thus never face scrutiny or response from opponents, critics or journalists.

Second, their algorithms amplify divisive, emotionally triggering content that can distract or disgust voters and undermine trust in democratic politics, institutions and ethnic or religious minorities.

And third, Facebook, Twitter and Google are designed to motivate people to do things like shop or vote. They undermine efforts to deliberate or think deeply about problems. Democracies need both motivation and deliberation.

The fate of Trump lifted into office in 2016 in part by the power of Facebook to motivate and organize his core white nationalist supporters preoccupies both critics and champions of Facebook, Twitter and Google.

But more than 60 countries will hold elections in 2020. Facebook and Google will be important variables in almost all of them. The first of these elections will be in January in Taiwan, where more than 89% of adults use Facebook regularly a much higher percentage than almost any other country. With an eye on the unrest in Hong Kong and the mainland governments brutality toward Muslim groups in western China, tensions will be high. Expect agents of the Peoples Republic of China to flood Facebook with propaganda.

Other 2020 elections where Facebook and Google are likely to play a role include those in Poland, Greece, Moldova and France. The French senate elections are likely to be flooded by propaganda from ethno-nationalist forces domestically and anti-European Union efforts from outside. Parliamentary elections in Serbia, Lithuania, Georgia, Peru and Venezuela are also sure to be fraught.

But developed countries like France and the US should be able to take care of themselves. Their public spheres are robust and diverse. Citizens of both countries have many sources of information and many ways to communicate with each other. Despite seeing its two major postwar parties crumble in recent years, voters in France have managed to keep proto-fascists out of power in most of the country. And Trumps unpopularity is firm, widespread and could grow as impeachment efforts progress.

Instead, we should attend to the places where citizens have little but Facebook through which to view their countries, governments and the world.

Myanmar and Sri Lanka will both hold parliamentary elections in 2020. Both countries also have Buddhist majorities that have grown violent and defensive in recent years. Sri Lanka only recently emerged from a decade of civil war against its Tamil, mostly Hindu, minority. In Myanmar, nationalists use Facebook to stoke hostility toward a minority Muslim ethnic group, the Rohingya.

Despite years of pleas and warnings by human rights groups, Facebook has failed to make any major changes to how it operates in Sri Lanka or Myanmar.

In an effort to head off serious regulatory scrutiny in Europe and North America, the big three Facebook, Twitter and Google have all lately taken to proposing various internal reforms. Yet their efforts have been focused on the experiences of Europeans and North Americans.

Dont judge their efforts by how things go for Donald Trump in 2020. Look to Taiwan, Sri Lanka and Myanmar.

Here is the original post:
Digital democracy will face its greatest test in 2020 - The Guardian

As a longtime resident and educator in Clarke County, Ive been following the recent discussions over how much authority local school councils should have in relation to the authority of the superintendent, district office and school board. The Clarke County School District is one of the first designated charter school districts in Georgia and has a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate what our local schools can do when they truly belong to their local community of students, educators and parents. Charter district designation allows schools to gain waivers from state regulations in order to use better forms of student assessment and evaluation, curriculum, staff development, resource and staff allocations, teaching methods and creative partnerships with businesses and nonprofits.

Allowing decision-making at the school level is the one best way of reviving democracy. In an age where political incivility dominates the newsfeed, young people and adults across America are increasingly questioning the importance of democracy itself. Recently, The Atlantic magazine devoted its entire issue to the theme, Is Democracy Dying?

Our public schools have done little to support the health of our nations democracy, and school-based educators are not to be blamed. What we have experienced is the misguided prevailing belief that top-down mandates with rewards and punishments would improve academic achievement, reduce the achievement gap between groups of students and show progress on underlying social and economic issues in our country. However, after almost two decades of state, federal and district accountability measures and ratings, overall achievement in our nation is no better, and children are now living with the greatest economic disparity since the Great Depression. What we dont need is more of the same.

School-based educators, students and parents want to see more relevant school work. They want students learning to connect to pressing issues in their communities and make their world a better place to live. Our local schools in Clarke County, with the exception of a few buildings still to be renovated, have attractive and modern facilities, an abundance of talented and incredibly hard-working educators, caring and engaged parents and generous, forward-looking community leaders in our Classic City. What our schools lack is clearly delineated authority to act upon their local concerns and aspirations. CCSD being a designated a charter district can provide the means to give each school the latitude and resources to carry out their plans. This can only happen if district agents willingly shift authority to support and facilitate decision-making at the local school community level.

Our children need us to listen to their concerns. We need to commit to making their lives better. We need to help them use their education to make important and lasting changes in their communities. And we need to help them learn that their leadership and civic engagement are at the very center of resuscitating a faltering democracy.

Glickman is a professor emeritus of education at the University of Georgia, author of 11 books and advisor to two governors.

See the article here:
Letters to the Editor: School-Based Education Is Essential to Democracy - Flagpole Magazine

While it may seem like in UK politics couldnt get any more confusing right now, Netflixs new documentary takes a look at what has been happening in recent times in South America. The Edge of Democracy explores how in Brazil over the last few years one president was impeached, another ex-president was imprisoned and democracy was left hanging in the balance.

The Edge of Democracy is available to stream on Netflix now.

The documentary chronicles the scandals that have hit two of the biggest names in Brazilian politics in the last few years, resulting in impeachment, prison and a nation teetering on the edge. This is all explored through the lens of filmmaker Petra Costas own political and personal history, resulting in a highly intimate study of not only Brazilian democracy and two disgraced presidents, but the impact this has had on a young filmmaker and her family.

Read more here:
Is The Edge of Democracy on Netflix? What is it about? - Radio Times