Mediaboss Marketing

The Kurds

[W]hen we refer to all Kurdish fighters synonymously, we simply blur the fact that they have very different politics. . . right now, yes, the people are facing the Islamic State threat, so its very important to have a unified focus. But the truth is, ideologically and politically these are very, very different systems. Actually almost opposite to each other. Dilar Dirik, Rojava vs. the World, February 2015

The Kurds, who share ethnic and cultural similarities with Iranians and are mostly Muslim by religion (largely Sunni but with many minorities), have long struggled for self-determination. After World War I, their lands were divided up between Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Turkey. In Iran, though there have been small separatist movements, Kurds are mostly subjected to the same repressive treatment as everyone else (though they also face Persian and Shiite chauvinism, and a number of Kurdish political prisoners were recently executed). The situation is worse in Iraq, Syria, and Turkey, where the Kurds are a minority people subjected to ethnically targeted violations of human rights.

Iraq: In 198689, Saddam Hussein conducted a genocidal campaign in which tens of thousands were murdered and thousands of Kurdish villages destroyed, including by bombing and chemical warfare. After the first Gulf War, the UN sought to establish a safe haven in parts of Kurdistan, and the United States and UK set up a no-fly zone. In 2003, the Kurdish peshmerga sided with the U.S.-led coalition against Saddam Hussein. In 2005, after a long struggle with Baghdad, the Iraqi Kurds won constitutional recognition of their autonomous region, and the Kurdistan Regional Government has since signed oil contracts with a number of Western oil companies as well as with Turkey. Iraqi Kurdistan has two main political parties, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), both clan-based and patriarchal.

Turkey: For much of its modern history, Turkey has pursued a policy of forced assimilation towards its minority peoples; this policy is particularly stringent in the case of the Kurdsuntil recently referred to as the mountain Turkswho make up 20 percent of the total population. The policy has included forced population transfers; a ban on use of the Kurdish language, costume, music, festivals, and names; and extreme repression of any attempt at resistance. Large revolts were suppressed in 1925, 1930, and 1938, and the repression escalated with the formation of the PKK as a national liberation party, resulting in civil war in the Kurdish region from 1984 to 1999.

Syria: Kurds make up perhaps 15 percent of the population and live mostly in the northeastern part of Syria. In 1962, after Syria was declared an Arab republic, a large number of Kurds were stripped of their citizenship and declared aliens, which made it impossible for them to get an education, jobs, or any public benefits. Their land was given to Arabs. The PYD was founded in 2003 and immediately banned; its members were jailed and murdered, and a Kurdish uprising in Qamishli was met with severe military violence by the regime. When the uprising against Bashar al Assad began as part of the Arab Spring, Kurds participated, but after 2012, when they captured Kobani from the Syrian army, they withdrew most of their energy from the war against Assad in order to set up a liberated area. For this reason, some other parts of the Syrian resistance consider them Assads allies. The Kurds in turn cite examples of discrimination against them within the opposition.

Read the original here:
Democracy and Barbarism: A Preview of our Winter 2020 Issue - Dissent

The many problems with American democracy are a central reason the country has made so little progress in tackling major challenges during a decade of economic growth, Harvard Business School concludes in an ambitious report out this week.

More precisely, the report blames the Democratic and Republican parties for looking to advance partisan advantage over the public interest wasting a valuable opportunity to improve health care, the education system and infrastructure during a time of expansion so the country might become more globally competitive in the long haul.

"Electoral and legislative rules serve the parties well but cause gridlock and disable our democracy," concludes the report, one of the most comprehensive in a long roster of recent studies about governmental dysfunction and its consequences.

Titled "A Recovery Squandered," it is the latest in a series on the country's economy produced by the school. With Harvard professors Michael Porter and Jan Rivkin as principal authors, it is based on research as well as interviews with the public and members of the business school's prestigious alumni network. (A main author of the chapter on gridlock was Katherine Gehl, the founder of Democracy Found, which advocates for alternative voting systems.)

Among the most important conclusions:

The report marshals a variety of statistics to make its central argument including:

The report calls for reforming the rules of Congress to remove what it says are obstacles to bipartisanship.

One is the regularly applied policy of the House majority leadership known as the Hastert rule, because GOP Speaker Dennis Hastert started applying it in the early 2000s. It says no bill will be put to a floor vote until a majority of the majority supports it, or sometimes until it is assured of passage entirely with the majority's votes. This effectively negates the need for the minority party's input in policy making.

The report also blames the role that business plays in politics for exacerbating the problems with democracy: "We believe that much of today's business involvement in politics may actually be working against business' longer-term interests."

It cites the hiring of former government officials, especially those who lobby their former colleagues, and a lack of transparency by companies about their political involvement as two of the problem areas.

The report is not all doom and gloom, however, with the authors noting that many companies and their leaders are trying to "adopt a broader corporate purpose as their central goal, going well beyond maximizing shareholder value."

A consensus is emerging, the report states, for a new role for business in politics and it proposes a set of voluntary standards.

These include a reduction in spending on special-interest lobbying; greater support for solutions-oriented candidates; an end to hiring former government officials to lobby; and support for democracy reforms to reduce partisanship and change electoral and legislative rules.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

See original here:
Partisanship and democracy's other ills holding down the economy, Harvard study says - The Fulcrum

Are Chinese leaders correct in thinking that the U.S. is in irreversible decline, despite our current economic vitality? The impeachment process in the House of Representatives certainly reinforces the view of certain foreign, authoritarian leaders that the U.S. is descending into a political chaos that characterizes third-world democracies and which often leads to one-person rule.

The impeachment of President TrumpDonald John TrumpMaxine Waters warns if Senate doesn't remove Trump, he'll 'invite Putin to the White House' Trump signs .4 T spending package, averting shutdown Twenty-five Jewish lawmakers ask Trump to fire Stephen Miller over 'white nationalist' comments MORE resembles attempts to impeach presidents in the Philippines.That former U.S. territory has a constitution that in some ways is, and in important ways is not, like that of the U.S. The Philippine impeachment process is divided between two houses, as in the U.S. Attempts to impeach presidents in the Philippines, however, have become routine in recent years, even an annual event from 2004 to 2008. The current president of the Philippines has been fighting off attempts to impeach him since his election in 2016

Until the ongoing efforts to oust President Trump, however, the Philippines and the U.S. differed in terms of acceptance of the election results. In the Philippines, as is well recognized, political corruption has been endemic. Given credible evidence of a corrupted election, as often happens, the only way to remove a president is through impeachment and conviction.

Removing a corrupt president of the Philippines in the next election is not possible because a president can serve only one six-year term.

The U.S. House voted to impeach only after all efforts to show corruption of the 2016 presidential election failed. Moreover, unlike the Philippines, theres no reason to believe that the next presidential election will be corrupted.

The impeachment of President Trump is really all about the struggle over institutional power as between Congress and the president.

Since Woodrow Wilson, progressives have opposed the Constitutions structure of separation of powers. They dont like a president independent of Congress. Instead, they would prefer a parliamentary system with a prime minister who is the creature of the legislature.

Our Framers empowered the president, when necessary, to obstruct the Congress. As James Madison wrote in Federalist 48, The legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its authority, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex. Therefore, said Madison, It is against the enterprising ambition of this department that the people ought to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions.

As Madison explains in Federalist 51, the Constitution has been designed to weaken the Congress through bicameralism and to strengthen the president and the judiciary, the two weaker branches, so that they can defend themselves against legislative abuse of power.

We have had relatively few impeachments over 230 years, even though our Constitution makes all civil Officers of the United States subject to impeachment. Almost all impeachments in the U.S. have been of federal judges.Understandably so, because federal judges do not stand for election and, therefore, can be involuntarily removed only by impeachment.

Still, why has there been only one cabinet officer Secretary of War William Belknap ever impeached? Until recently, political relations between the president and Congress, regardless of party alignment, were such that when a cabinet officer became a liability for the president in his relations with Congress, a president regretfully would accept the cabinet officers resignation.

That relations between the political branches have drastically deteriorated is reflected by the fact that no cabinet officer ever had been held in contempt of Congress until 2012. First, the Republican-controlled House held Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt in 2012 for failure to turn over documents related to Operation Fast and Furious. In July of this year, the Democrat-controlled House voted to hold Attorney General William BarrWilliam Pelham BarrWelcome to third-world democracy and impeachment Barr announces crackdown targeting violent crime in seven US cities Republicans eschew any credible case against impeachment MORE and Commerce Secretary Wilbur RossWilbur Louis RossWelcome to third-world democracy and impeachment Second top White House telecom adviser resigns in less than a year Judge rejects DOJ effort to delay House lawsuit against Barr, Ross MORE in contempt for failure to turn over documents related to attempts to place a citizenship question on the 2020 census.

Under our system of separation of powers, of course, the president acting through the attorney general decides whether to prosecute the contempt. Contempt has become a toothless substitute for impeachment when the House is controlled by one party and the Senate and executive are controlled by the other party.

The Democratic majority, fearful that President Trump will be reelected, feels compelled to remove him. If he gets reelected, it is a virtual certainty that by the end of a second term he would nominate a replacement for Justice Ruth Ginsburg. That prospect terrifies the left for so many reasons.

As relates to Congress, the issue is the potential dismantling of the administrative state. The Trump administration has done much to deregulate the economy. More importantly, President Trumps two Supreme Court appointments are opponents of the delegation doctrine. In last terms Gundy case, Justice Neil GorsuchNeil GorsuchWelcome to third-world democracy and impeachment Supreme Court denies Trump request to immediately resume federal executions House, Senate Democrats call on Supreme Court to block Louisiana abortion law MORE wrote for three justices in dissent that Congresss overly-broad practice of delegating to federal agencies is unconstitutional. Even without another appointment, Justice Samuel AlitoSamuel AlitoWelcome to third-world democracy and impeachment Justices grapple with multibillion-dollar ObamaCare case Supreme Court denies Trump request to immediately resume federal executions MORE has indicated in a separate concurring opinion that, in a future case, he might join the four dissenters. Justice Brett KavanaughBrett Michael KavanaughWelcome to third-world democracy and impeachment Collins announces Senate reelection bid Toxic McConnell-Schumer relationship strains impeachment talks MORE, who did not participate in the decision, is expected in a future case to join the three dissenters, possibly providing a majority of five. As Justice Elena KaganElena KaganButtigieg, Klobuchar lay out criteria for potential judicial nominees Welcome to third-world democracy and impeachment Justices grapple with multibillion-dollar ObamaCare case MORE wrote for the four-justice plurality, if the view of the dissent prevails, most of the government is unconstitutional.

The only way the left can preserve the administrative state built by Franklin D. Roosevelt is to remove President Trump and intimidate the justices by threatening to pack the court. Fortunately, the constitutional system created by Madison and the other Framers has, thus far, prevented the U.S. from descending into a third-world democracy.

John S. Baker Jr. is professor emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University and chairman of Our Citizenship Counts, a group of legal scholars and community partners. He has been a consultant to USAID, USIA (now part of the State Department), the Justice Department, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Separation of Powers, and the White House Office of Planning. Follow him on Twitter @JohnSBakerPHD.

Go here to see the original:
Welcome to third-world democracy and impeachment | TheHill - The Hill

The rise of right-wing populists across the world has destabilised constitutional democracy, a form of government that protects citizens against the brute power of majorities on the one hand, and limits the proclivity of elected governments to hold and exercise immense power on the other. Citizens are shielded, and governments controlled by constitutions, institutions, the rule of law, an independent judiciary, fundamental rights, and democratic civil societies.

Populists relentlessly undermine constitutional safeguards by appeals to an undifferentiated and amorphous category called the people, and focus on elections that have brought them to power. Though populists claim that they have reclaimed power from the iron grip of corrupt elites and institutions, citizens have been rendered more not less vulnerable. Unsurprisingly, a veritable publishing industry has grown around the deleterious effect of right-wing populism on constitutional democracy, democratic erosion and decline.

The book under review comes as a proverbial breath of fresh air because it spells out in some detail what the core components of constitutional democracy are. The argument is crisp and clear. The two authors prefer to concentrate on a minimalistic and legalistic approach to democracy, and eschew the complications that presumably stalk political philosophy. Conventional wisdom, they argue, about what properly counts as democracy is hazy. It tends to concentrate heavily on the subjective preferences of voters for this party over that. The core institutions of liberal constitutional democracy, that mutually reinforce each other, are electoral competition, the right to free speech and association, and the rule of law.

Autonomous bureaucracy

The first two are self-explanatory, but the rule of law demands various preconditions: a bureaucracy that is autonomous of the executive, rule-following, and an independent judiciary.

The argument is interesting and weighty tomes can be, and have been written on each of these core components. For example, the preconditions of competitive electoral politics are a level playing field for all parties. Each vote counts for just one, no one should be privileged because he is far, far more influential than others, and no one disadvantaged because she is not influential at all. In political philosophy, however, the right to free speech is tracked by anxious debates on, for example, what counts as limits on this right: sedition, defamation, pornography, incitement to hate and violence, and blasphemy. Finally, the rule of law raises vexed questions about the nature of law, whether law can be its own source and justification, and the right to civil disobedience.

Curbs on media

The problem with a minimalistic institutional approach to democracy is that the power of each one of these institutions can be insistently subverted by, as the authors themselves register, threats that curb the autonomy of the media. Corporate ownership of media houses assures that a compliant media truncates free speech. Rabid nationalism and an irresponsible social media places limits on the right. Above all, draconian laws inhibit opposition. Finally, the authors ask us to imagine a situation where the awesome communicative skills of a leader are combined with (a) an ability to exploit government and (b) tactical skills. Each right-wing populist studied by the authors fits the bill. Populists appeal to, and are elected by social groups who detest inherited privilege, distrust institutions, and above all resent immigrants and strangers who have appropriated land, resources, and employment. No matter that these so-called immigrants might have contributed to the wealth of society through labour.

At the end of the argument, the authors recognise that only public action and collective mobilisation can neutralise democratic decline and erosion. The specific recommendations they make are meant for the United States but hold relevance for us in the postcolonial world. For instance, political parties must not compromise on democratic principles, so that civil and political society can work together. Put otherwise, laws and institutions are tools. And the effects of tools depend upon the motives and good faith of those who wield them.

In the final instance, the effectiveness of institutional design is dependent upon deep political commitment to the value that democracy places upon each citizen. This commitment might be incipient, it might well be sparked off by a social movement or campaign. What is important is that such movements stretch across the political divide and reach out to those who support populist leaders.

Civil society must be inclusive not exclusionary. Right-wing populism can only be fought by a democratically aware civil society. Ultimately, the two authors recognise the power of politics. Politics can be messy but it can be occasionally creative.

How to Save a Constitutional Democracy; Tom Ginsburg and Aziz Z. Huq, Oxford University Press, 1,595.

Neera Chandhoke is a former professor of Political Science of Delhi University.

You have reached your limit for free articles this month.

Register to The Hindu for free and get unlimited access for 30 days.

Find mobile-friendly version of articles from the day's newspaper in one easy-to-read list.

Enjoy reading as many articles as you wish without any limitations.

A select list of articles that match your interests and tastes.

Move smoothly between articles as our pages load instantly.

A one-stop-shop for seeing the latest updates, and managing your preferences.

We brief you on the latest and most important developments, three times a day.

Not convinced? Know why you should pay for news.

*Our Digital Subscription plans do not currently include the e-paper ,crossword, iPhone, iPad mobile applications and print. Our plans enhance your reading experience.

Here is the original post:
How to Save a Constitutional Democracy review: Of, by, and for the people - The Hindu

Loyola Marymount University is proud to host the Sixth Democratic Presidential Primary Debate.We almost lost the opportunity more than once for the very reason we want to host it: because our society exhibits increasing difficulty in navigating disagreement and honoring differences while pursuing solutions that benefit everyone.

In early November, when the Democratic National Committee pulled out of an agreement with UCLA because of a labor dispute with the UC system, LMU was chosen to host.Then, last Friday, a similar controversy threatened to derail the debate, this time involving a dispute between workers on our campus and their employer, Sodexo.

Although LMU was not a party in the negotiation, the labor dispute still threatened the debate.The union had promised to picket the debate over stalled contract talks, and by noon all seven candidates had pledged their support for the workers and the workers struggle forhigher wages and improved health benefits.

LMU consistently urged both parties to negotiate in good faith towards an agreement, and with the help of friends like DNC Chair Tom PerezThomas Edward PerezClintons top five vice presidential picks Government social programs: Triumph of hope over evidence Labors 'wasteful spending and mismanagement at Workers Comp MORE, they succeeded in arriving at an equitable solution. The two sides exhibited the virtues LMU prizes but our society too often lacks listening patiently, honoring differences, and working together to find common ground.

The first time LMU almost lost the debate was within hours of the Democratic National Committees announcement in November. Activists opposed LMUs selection on the grounds that, as a Catholic institution, we should not accommodate candidates whose positions are incongruent with those of the Catholic Church. Others urged the DNC to back out of holding the event at LMU because they made assumptions concerning the universitys policies on health care, gender equity, and inclusiveness.

We knew that hosting the debate would invite such criticism. Despite the fear among some that conflicts between these kinds of opposing ideas may be intractable, our willingness to confront divisive issues head-on is essential to who we are.

LMU has a long history of hosting speakers with varying perspectives. We faced similar criticism when President Bill ClintonWilliam (Bill) Jefferson ClintonIvanka Trump says father is 'energized' by impeachment fight California Gov. Newsom defends 'wine caves' after debate mention Democrats hope to focus public's attention on McConnell in impeachment battle MORE joined us as our commencement speaker in 2016 and when Ben Shapiro spoke on our campus earlier this year.

We hosted these speakers not because all at LMU agreed with their views, but because of our commitment to intellectual debate, which is central to our Jesuit and Marymount identity. We explore all ideas with open hearts and critical minds championing a culture of authentic encounter.

We could shut our doors to opinions deemed unacceptable, or to personalities whom some consider objectionable, but if we did, the lesson to our students would be the opposite of what we aim to impart.

At LMU, we educate with purpose.We challenge our students to use their education for the sake of the common good, which means learning at every turn, slowing down to discern what might otherwise be overlooked and seeking solutions to humankinds most pressing problems for the betterment of all.

We favor engagement over intransigence, because the only way we are going to create the world we want to live in is if we listen to other perspectives, attempt to hear other voices, and meet people where they are.

Since the establishment of the first Jesuit college five centuries ago, Jesuit higher education has prided itself on doing just that. The Jesuit rhetorical arts, a pillar of our core curriculum, demand reflection and compassion in the interest that reason be attained and expressed responsibly, withgrace.

The truth is, while watching the debate, most viewers wont be thinking about where its being held. Their attention will be on what is said, who gets the bump, and ultimately who will win the Democratic Partys nomination: the here and now.However, what our country needs most is routinely open and constructive discussion. Let us embrace the areas where our ideas may be in conflict, with the goal of gaining deeper understanding and finding solutions that build humanitys collective strength.

Reaching accord within a single political party, let alone a nation, is hard enough. But we have a chance, through dialogue, where we listen and question, where each of us is prepared to melt a bit, to move a bit, to walk away changed, through our engagement.

Together, we hold the responsibility for our human future to discern the beauty and truth amidst the tumult, not just on the debate stage, but in our world, as we attempt to accommodate our differences and understand the disconcerting even if that includes being a part of the controversy every now and then.

Timothy Law Snyder, Ph.D. is the President of Loyola Marymount University, which is the venue for the sixthDemocratic Presidential Primary Debateon Dec. 19, 2019. The event may be followed on social media via #DemDebateLMU.

More:
Tonight's debate almost didn't happen, but democracy thrives through honest exchange of ideas | TheHill - The Hill