Mediaboss Marketing

Torcello is an associate professor of philosophy at the Rochester Institute of Technology.

Plato, one of the earliest thinkers and writers about democracy, predicted that letting people govern themselves would eventually lead the masses to support the rule of tyrants.

When I tell my college-level philosophy students that in about 380 B.C. he asked "does not tyranny spring from democracy," they're sometimes surprised, thinking it's a shocking connection.

But looking at the modern political world, it seems much less far-fetched to me now. In democratic nations like Turkey, Great Britain, Hungary, Brazil and the United States, anti-elite demagogues are riding a wave of populism fueled by nationalist pride. It is a sign that liberal constraints on democracy are weakening.

To philosophers, the term "liberalism" means something different than it does in partisan U.S. politics. Liberalism as a philosophy prioritizes the protection of individual rights, including freedom of thought, religion and lifestyle, against mass opinion and abuses of government power.

In classical Athens, the birthplace of democracy, the democratic assembly was an arena filled with rhetoric unconstrained by any commitment to facts or truth. So far, so familiar.

Aristotle and his students had not yet formalized the basic concepts and principles of logic, so those who sought influence learned from sophists, teachers of rhetoric who focused on controlling the audience's emotions rather than influencing their logical thinking.

There lay the trap: Power belonged to anyone who could harness the collective will of the citizens directly by appealing to their emotions rather than using evidence and facts to change their minds.

In his "History of the Peloponnesian War," the Greek historian Thucydides provides an example of how the Athenian statesman Pericles, who was elected democratically and not considered a tyrant, was nonetheless able to manipulate the Athenian citizenry:

"Whenever he sensed that arrogance was making them more confident than the situation merited, he would say something to strike fear into their hearts; and when on the other hand he saw them fearful without good reason, he restored their confidence again. So it came about that what was in name a democracy was in practice government by the foremost man."

Misleading speech is the essential element of despots, because despots need the support of the people. Demagogues' manipulation of the Athenian people left a legacy of instability, bloodshed and genocidal warfare, described in Thucydides' history.

That record is why Socrates before being sentenced to death by democratic vote chastised the Athenian democracy for its elevation of popular opinion at the expense of truth. Greece's bloody history is also why Plato associated democracy with tyranny in Book VIII of "The Republic." It was a democracy without constraint against the worst impulses of the majority.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Click here to read the original article.

Related Articles Around the Web

The rest is here:
Why tyranny could be the inevitable outcome of democracy - The Fulcrum

It does not need a committee to determine the reasons for Labours election defeat: a divided party, an unpopular leader too sympathetic to leftwing autocrats, dithering over Brexit, failure to deal with the charge of antisemitism, an ill-thought-out manifesto. The list goes on (Defeated MPs call for unflinching Labour review, News).

The need is for action and I fear diagnosis will be a comforting substitute for doing something. Doing something will be up to the next leader. He or she must be personable, intelligent, articulate, diligent, pragmatic and a master of detail. Their primary job will be to oppose a populist government. Labour needs to develop plans to deal with the perennial problems: housing, transport, the NHS, care for the old, drugs. Then there are more recent and more intractable problems: climate crisis, automation, globalisation, fake news and internet intrusion.

The choice of leader will determine the future of Labour and, indeed, whether it has a future. It is not just Labour that is at risk but democracy. The members of the party must get this right.Philip SymmonsGillingham, Dorset

After much thought, I have decided to join the Labour party so that I can cast a vote in the election of a new leader. I read that Barbara Ellen is considering doing the same (Should I rejoin Labour to vote for a new leader? Tricky..., Comment). Dont hesitate, Barbara.

Indeed, why doesnt the Observer, which has printed much excellent commentary on the lamentable state of the party under Jeremy Corbyn, mount a campaign to encourage all who believe in the need for a moderate leader to do likewise? The party needs an influx of new members to help bring this about.Claire CoxheadBasildon, Essex

Michael Savages piece on the four ex-Tories who paid the electoral price for opposing Brexit only goes part of the way, (Out but not down: Tory anti-Brexiters tell where the next battle will be fought, News). The MPs from both major parties who took a stand on principle should all be recognised. Their enforced exit from the Commons is a sharp commentary on the state of British politics and the inadequacy of its electoral system. Whether or not one agrees with their politics, there needs to be some way of keeping these brave MPs in politics.

At a time when intellectual rigour is in desperately short supply across the political spectrum, they represented an important corner of political depth and bravery. They must not be lost to politics.Michael MeadowcroftLeeds

What is the matter with our nation over prisoners and their treatment? (Prisons chaos fuels massive legal bill as violence surges, News.) Throughout the lives of one unheeding government after another, the consensus of those steeped in experience and knowledge has been disregarded to our grave cost. Too often, the focus has been on reinforcing the long-disproved premise that prison works, rather than reserving that costly last resort for those relatively few offenders where public safety demands it. On 20 July 1910, then home secretary Winston Churchill clearsightedly spoke of the need for a constant heart-searching and an eagerness to rehabilitate representing the mark and measure... and virtue of a nation.

Practitioners confronting these realities daily have long recognised that early, measured and skilled non-custodial interventions are the more effective strategy rather than over-reliance on an incarceration likely to result in a more deeply ingrained criminality on release. The longer we fail to act on this truism the greater the societal and economic damage.Malcolm FowlerSolicitor and higher court advocate (retired)Kings Heath, Birmingham

Among the social chaos that once was public services the most scandalous is the neglect of children. Sonia Sodha rightly draws attention to the governments disgraceful complicity in outsourcing its responsibility for the care of vulnerable youngsters to privatised childrens homes (How did childrens homes become centres of profit-making and abuse?, Comment).

At one time, local authorities, under democratic control, provided and ran childrens care homes. There is no justification for, or such a thing as, modest profit-making out of vulnerable people, be it children in care, the elderly or prisoners. The responsibility for caring and providing for the vulnerable is a moral imperative that lies with all of us in the form of the state. Commerce and markets are not interested in care, which involves the exercise of values, kindness integrity, justice, safeguarding and the professional capabilities and development of staff. Commerce is only interested in the minimum at the greatest profit.Dr Robin C RichmondBromyard, Herefordshire

With reference to flight-shame, Rowan Moore writes: One persons return flight from London to Edinburgh generates more carbon emissions than an average Somalian or Ugandan produces in a whole year (The airport as a flight of fantasy, The New Review).

Targeting passengers misses the point. The factors determining the carbon footprint of a flight include the weight of the aircraft, fuel, contents of the hold and the passengers. To achieve a significant reduction in carbon emissions, we need fewer flights rather than fewer people on each flight. Clive CoenProfessor of neuroscience, Faculty of Life Sciences & MedicineKings College London

Does the moral case for veganism consider the wellbeing of the smallest, most crucial, life forms in our food production systems? (The man who could make history in a crucial case for ethical vegans, News)

The synergy between livestock and crop production farming fosters biologically rich, fertile soils through grazing and application of farmyard manure and reduces the need for agrichemicals on croplands.

Globally, soils have been depleted of organic matter, biological life and carbon stores by intensive, agrichemical-dependent agriculture. Much plant-based food is produced this way: grains, pulses, plant oils, nuts, fruit and vegetables. Many of the key vegan sources of protein, fats and oils are unsuitable for UK production and imports significantly increased in Veganuary last year. By choosing food produced close to home to high environmental and ethical standards, and high animal welfare standards, we can make a difference. Healthy soils that store carbon and support biodiversity are vital. Specific dietary exclusions may not be the answer.Rosalind EdwardsFreshford, Bath

Although I can just about forgive Euan Ferguson (Television, The New Review) because at least he mentions Spiral (the most consistently brilliant cop series ever), he is nevertheless at least two fine series short of a full review. Where on earth is Pose (bold, beautiful, brilliant) and Giri/Haji (the most stunningly different cop drama to grace the small screen)?Bryan RatcliffWorcester

Original post:
Letters: democracy is at risk, as well as Labour - The Guardian

Finally, 2020 and a few days respite from the seemingly endless onslaught of year-end emails from political parties and Vancouver Mayor Kennedy Stewart.

Even though I have never made a political contribution, my inbox was stuffed over the holidays with urgent pleas to donate and qualify for a 2019 tax deduction.

It wasnt quite 11th hour when the last one arrived. Almost certainly delivered via party bot, it arrived at 8:02 p.m. on Dec. 31 from Team Stewart. Twelve hours earlier, Id been told that with only 16 hours left to reach a goal of $6,500, the campaign has raised $3,900 from close to 120 small donors. Each of them gave between $5 and $100, can you?

On Christmas Eve, I got two requests from Team Stewart. The final one was sent at 11:52 p.m. when most normal people were asleep or spending time with loved ones.

Nothing arrived on Christmas Day. For this year at least, political operatives and their bots took the day off.

Its no surprise that federal parties were trying to winkle out every last donation before the clock started ticking on a new year filled with the promise of more donations and tax credits.

With a minority government in Ottawa and no guarantee of how long this Parliament will last, theyre all scrambling to pay off election debts and restock their war chests.

More curious is Stewarts aggressive fundraising that began almost the moment he announced in November that he would be seeking re-election. But that election isnt until Oct. 15, 2022.

The rules set by the B.C. government for municipal elections limit donations to $1,200 per year for independent candidates like Stewart or $1,200 to either a single candidate running with a political party or the party itself.

But there are no limits on how much money municipal candidates can raise, only on how much can be spent in election year and during the 28-day campaign period.

Spending limits are unique to each municipality based on population and the positions for which the candidates are running. In 2018, the limit for Vancouver mayoralty candidates was $210,175 and $107,793 for council candidates.

But Stewart raised $320,228, according to his amended disclosure statement.

Kennedy also had the benefit of four campaign volunteers employees of unions seconded to the campaign who continued to receive their salaries. That prompted the citys Independent Election Task Force to recommend in its June 2019 report that those salaries be reported as candidates spending.

Because the B.C. legislation doesnt have contribution limits, the task forces recommendations focus on spending.

Among its four priority recommendations is extending the 28-day campaign period and having it start immediately after Labour Day in order to reduce the influence of unlimited spending in the pre-campaign period.

Its not just the holiday bots and begging that I have a problem with. I resent that the tax credits for federal and provincial political donations are more attractive than for other charitable donations. Donations to municipal candidates or parties are not eligible for tax credits, despite the Union of B.C. Municipalities efforts to them included.

Donate $1,275 to federal or provincial political parties and the tax credit is $650. Donate to a charity and the maximum tax credit amounts to less than a third of the value. So, if some Scrooges only make donations to write down their income, the choice is unequivocal. Political donations are the big winners.

Most charitable organizations also dont have anywhere near the money to do the sophisticated outreach that larger political organizations do. Even if they did, many donors carefully scrutinize what percentage charities spend on administration and fundraising. Most want their money spent on the cause theyre passionate about, not spent on raising more money.

I understand that democracy comes at a price and that running election campaigns cost money. But how much is too much to spend on getting elected or on getting your favourites elected? And does it affect voter turnout?

Municipal spending limits that came into effect in 2018 drastically reduced the amount parties spent in Vancouver. But voter turnout remained above its historic average.

In the 2019 general election, the Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats and Greens could have spent just over $29.06 million, while the Peoples Party of Canada could have spent $27.6 million. Of course, to spend it, they had to raise it.

Those amounts are a drop in the bucket compared to the United States where Bernie Saunders recently bragged that if he becomes Democrats presidential candidate he could raise $1 billion, while Michael Bloombergs self-financed campaign spent more than $155 million on advertising in 2019 and Bloomberg didnt even enter the Democratic race until mid-November.

Still, as the Vancouver task force pointed out, Canadas campaign financing rules arent perfect. Despite recent changes to municipal, provincial and federal laws, more could be done to ensure that money isnt a barrier to candidacy and wealthy contributors dont exert disproportionate influence.

Of course, I would also like someone to sneak in an amendment banning party bots during the holiday celebrations.

Not that it will happen because I suspect it must be at least as lucrative as it is annoying.

dbramham@postmedia.com

Twitter: @bramham_daphne

View original post here:
Daphne Bramham: Party bots and holiday begging are an annoying cost of democracy - Vancouver Sun

As we enter a new year, the running battle between the worlds governments and the world-changing technology known as cryptocurrency continues. As 2019 drew to an end, Swiss president Ueli Maurer asserted that Facebooks digital currency (not a real cryptocurrency), Libra, has failed because central banks will not accept the basket of currencies underpinning it.

Politicians want to regulate or, if possible, kill cryptocurrency.

Large firms like Facebook want to capture cryptocurrencys potential without rocking those governments boats.

Cryptocurrency advocates want democracy. Yes, democracy.

Of all the important words in the English language, democracy (from the Greek demokratia, rule by the people) may be the most fuzzily defined. Some people define it in terms of raw majoritarianism, others as one of various forms of representative government.

I define democracy in words used by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. Democracy, to my mind, is government that enjoys the consent of the governed.

Not just the consent of 50% plus one of the governed, and certainly not just the consent of a few big players who can afford lobbyists and bribes to get their way, but the consent of ALL the governed.

One major hinge on which the door of democracy as I define it swings is control of money who may create it, how it may be used, and what portion of it must be handed over to government for public uses those paying the bills may or may not approve of.

Involuntary taxation is the opposite of the consent of the governed. Its the opposite of democracy. We can have financial regulators and central banks, or we can have democracy. We cant have both.

Cryptocurrency threatens the reign of government over money. It bodes a future in which, as an old antiwar slogan puts it, the Air Force will have to hold a bake sale if it wants to buy a new bomber.

Thats the future I want. Its also the future that politicians, regulators and central bankers fear.

They dont want to have to ASK you to fund their schemes. Theyre not interested in requesting your consent. They prefer to simply demand your compliance.

The ability to anonymously handle our finances without reporting them to government or involuntarily giving it a cut is a revolutionary development. And its here, now. More and more of us are using cryptocurrency, and the politicians are panicking.

While cryptocurrency wont entirely kill involuntary taxation land cant be easily hidden, so we can expect property taxes to persist it will make the global economy harder for governments to manipulate and milk.

The inevitable future of cryptocurrency, absent a new Dark Age in which we all go back to plowing with mules and reading rotting old books by candlelight, is a future without income and sales taxes (to name two of the biggest and most pernicious).

The ruling class will do everything it can to prevent the coming separation of money and state.

Theyll fail. And democracy will flourish. See you at the bake sale.

Continue reading here:
Real Democracy Requires a Separation of Money and State - CounterPunch

The Trudeau government claims to have a human rights-driven foreign policy. But everything the prime minister says he most values and wishes to promote is a product of democracy. As political scientist Sheri Berman has written, while democracies can be illiberal and oppressively populist, non-democratic governments restrict the benefits of liberalism to elites and oligarchs on whose support the government depends. Undemocratic liberalism is a myth.

A Canadian foreign policy that champions the values of inclusive and accountable governance, including by promoting human rights, womens empowerment and gender equality, and respect for diversity and inclusion, as Trudeaus mandate letter to Champagne dictates, or that promotes a feminist approach to development, as does the mandate letter to Minister of International Development Karina Gould, must therefore build on a strategy of expanding and strengthening democracy abroad.

A directive to increase support for democracy abroad is in Champagnes mandate letter, and Trudeau has promised to establish the Canadian Centre for Peace, Order, and Good Government to lend expertise and help to people seeking to build peace, advance justice, promote human rights and democracy, and deliver good governance. This sounds promising, although what the centre, if and when it is established, will actually do is unclear. And Trudeaus record on democratization over his first four years in office is mixed.

Canada was at the forefront of unsuccessful efforts to force the autocratic Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro from office, declaring his re-election last year to be fraudulent. This was important, but the costs to Canada were low.

By way of contrast, when Saudi diplomats in Istanbul murdered and carved up with a bone saw Jamal Khashoggi, a dissident journalist they didnt like, Canada announced a review of existing arms export permits to the kingdom and a freeze on new ones while continuing to ship to Saudi Arabia $14 billion worth of light armoured vehicles.

Canada did impose sanctions on 17 Saudis linked to Khashoggis murder. The named individuals, who of course did not include Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, were already in Saudi jails when Canada sanctioned them, rendering the act symbolic at best. To claim that Canada will increase its support for freedom of the press in the face of such timidity, as Trudeau does in his letter to Champagne, takes some cheek.

It is regarding China, however, where the stakes on the health of global democracy are perhaps highest. China seeks superpower status, and as its reach expands so does its ability to persuade, cajole and coerce. Canada has so far held firm against Chinese pressure to free Huawei Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou, who is out on bail in Vancouver while awaiting possible extradition to the United States. It is widely believed that Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor are being detained in China as a retaliatory measure.

But Canada treats China solely as a desired trading party and not as an ideological adversary. This is a mistake. Canadas values are not the values of the ruling Communist Party of China. And while Canada lacks the economic levers of, for example, the United States, it is not without means to pressure the Chinese government and its affiliates. Meng is not the only member of Chinas aristocracy with multi-million-dollar mansions in Canadian cities or children in Canadian universities. Such individuals are vulnerable to sanctions, asset-freezes and visa restrictions.

Canada should consider such measures against officials involved in human rights abuses against Uighurs in Chinas Xinjiang province and against pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong. Of course, there will be repercussions from China. But if Canada is serious about supporting democracy and human rights abroad, it must be willing to pay a price for doing so.

If the Canadian government decides that price is too high, or that such tactics are ineffective, let it articulate an alternative strategy. The future strength of our liberal democracy depends on the strength of liberal democracy elsewhere. We need a foreign policy built on that reality.

Originally posted here:
2020: The year Canada must focus on strengthening global democracy - OpenCanada