Mediaboss Marketing

For some time, the word democracy has been circulating as a debased currency in the political marketplace. Politicians with a wide range of convictions and practices strove to appropriate the label and attach it to their actions. Scholars, conversely, hesitated to use itwithout adding qualifying adjectivesbecause of the ambiguity that surrounds it. The distinguished American political theorist Robert Dahl even tried to introduce a new term, "polyarchy," in its stead in the (vain) hope of gaining a greater measure of conceptual precision. But for better or worse, we are "stuck" with democracy as the catchword of contemporary political discourse. It is the word that resonates in people's minds and springs from their lips as they struggle for freedom and a better way of life; it is the word whose meaning we must discern if it is to be of any use in guiding political analysis and practice.

The wave of transitions away from autocratic rule that began with Portugal's "Revolution of the Carnations" in 1974 and seems to have crested with the collapse of communist regimes across Eastern Europe in 1989 has produced a welcome convergence towards a common definition of democracy.1 Everywhere there has been a silent abandonment of dubious adjectives like "popular," "guided," "bourgeois," and "formal" to modify "democracy." At the same time, a remarkable consensus has emerged concerning the minimal conditions that polities must meet in order to merit the prestigious appellation of "democratic." Moreover, a number of international organizations now monitor how well [End Page 75] these standards are met; indeed, some countries even consider them when formulating foreign policy.2

Let us begin by broadly defining democracy and the generic concepts that distinguish it as a unique system for organizing relations between rulers and the ruled. We will then briefly review procedures, the rules and arrangements that are needed if democracy is to endure. Finally, we will discuss two operative principles that make democracy work. They are not expressly included among the generic concepts or formal procedures, but the prospect for democracy is grim if their underlying conditioning effects are not present.

One of the major themes of this essay is that democracy does not consist of a single unique set of institutions. There are many types of democracy, and their diverse practices produce a similarly varied set of effects. The specific form democracy takes is contingent upon a country's socioeconomic conditions as well as its entrenched state structures and policy practices.

Modern political democracy is a system of governance in which rulers are held accountable for their actions in the public realm by citizens, acting indirectly through the competition and cooperation of their elected representatives.3

A regime or system of governance is an ensemble of patterns that determines the methods of access to the principal public offices; the characteristics of the actors admitted to or excluded from such access; the strategies that actors may use to gain access; and the rules that are followed in the making of publicly binding decisions. To work properly, the ensemble must be institutionalizedthat is to say, the various patterns must be habitually known, practiced, and accepted by most, if not all, actors. Increasingly, the preferred mechanism of institutionalization is a written body of laws undergirded by a written constitution, though many enduring political norms can have an informal, prudential, or traditional basis.4

For the sake of economy and comparison, these forms, characteristics, and rules are usually bundled together and given a generic label. Democratic is one; others are autocratic, authoritarian, despotic, dictatorial, tyrannical, totalitarian, absolutist, traditional, monarchic, oligarchic, plutocratic, aristocratic, and sultanistic.5 Each of these regime forms may in turn be broken down into subtypes.

Like all regimes, democracies depend upon the presence of rulers, persons who occupy specialized authority roles and can give legitimate commands to others. What distinguishes democratic rulers from nondemocratic ones are the norms that condition how the former come to power and the practices that hold them accountable for their actions. [End Page 76]

The public: realm encompasses the making of collective norms and choices...

Read this article:
Project MUSE - What Democracy Is. . . and Is Not

It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see...""You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?""No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.""Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy.""I did," said Ford. "It is.""So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?""It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.""You mean they actually vote for the lizards?""Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course.""But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?""Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?""What?""I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?""I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."Ford shrugged again."Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happenned to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it.""But that's terrible," said Arthur."Listen, bud," said Ford, "if I had one Altairian dollar for every time I heard one bit of the Universe look at another bit of the Universe and say 'That's terrible' I wouldn't be sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin. Douglas Adams, So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

Continue reading here:
Quotes About Democracy (1071 quotes)

Cambodias prime minister Hun Sen is close ally of China. Photograph: Heng Sinith/AP

Cambodia has hit back at criticism over its decision to expel a US-funded pro-democracy group, accusing Washington of political interference and describing American democracy as bloody and brutal.

Prime minister Hun Sen, the strongman who has ruled Cambodia for more than three decades, has taken a strident anti-American line in the increasingly tense run up to a 2018 election.

The US state department criticised Cambodias decision to expel the National Democratic Institute (NDI) on Wednesday and a statement from the US embassy in Phnom Penh questioned whether Cambodia was a democracy.

In an open letter on Thursday, the Cambodian government asked whether the United States was coming to Cambodia to help or hinder the Khmer people and blamed it for contributing to the rise of the genocidal Khmer Rouge in the 1970s.

Cambodians are well aware of what a democratic process means. You do not need to tell us what it is, the letter said, describing US-style democracy as bloody and brutal.

We wish to send a clear message again to the US embassy that we defend our national sovereignty, it added.

Tensions have risen anew in Cambodia, with rights groups and the United Nations expressing alarm and the opposition accusing Hun Sen of persecution ahead of next years election.

After the governments order to expel the NDI and a threat to shut a newspaper founded by an American journalist if it didnt pay back taxes immediately, the US state department voiced concern at the government curtailing freedom of the press and civil societys ability to operate.

Government supporters have threatened to protest at the US embassy in Phnom Penh, the pro-government Fresh News web site reported on Thursday.

The protests are likely to be in large scale against the US embassy in Phnom Penh like in the 1960s because of the American interference in Cambodias sovereignty, it said, citing an anonymous government source.

The spillover from the US war in neighbouring Vietnam in the 1960s and 70s helped bring to power the Khmer Rouge regime, whose rule was marked by the genocide of at least 1.8 million Cambodians through starvation, torture, disease and execution.

Hun Sen, the former Khmer Rouge commander who is one of Chinas closest regional allies, has warned of a possible return to war if his party doesnt win elections.

In a statement on its website on Wednesday the NDI called on Cambodia to reconsider its decision to shut it down. The institute said it worked with all major parties and that its work was strictly nonpartisan.

Kenneth Wollack, NDI president, said the NDI has fulfilled all legal obligations for registration.

Hun Sen has also targeted local media in what rights groups say is a growing crackdown ahead of the election.

Cambodias ministry of information on Wednesday revoked the license of a local radio station for selling air time to the opposition Cambodia National Rescue Party.

The station also rents out space to the US government-financed Voice of America (VOA) English news outlet.

Original post:
Cambodia calls US democracy 'bloody and brutal' as charity row escalates - The Guardian

Election daywasn't even over when members of the ruling People's Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) began praising both themselves and the way the poll was organized. This deserved top marks, said a leading politician from the MPLA, which has held power since Angolagained independence from Portugal in 1975.

It is true that Angola's 2017 general elections were noticeably less chaotic than previous ones. Plus there was a marked absence of violent clashes seen elsewhere in Africa, such as in Kenya after the elections held there earlier this month.

But awarding top marks is going too far. For one thing, Angola's National Electoral Commission accredited far too few election observers from opposition partiesto enable effective election monitoring in this vast Central African country. For another, the commission took so long to negotiate the accreditation of observer missions from Europe and North America that they either lost patience and gave up or were only able to send minuscule delegations that were virtually ineffective.

Johannes Beck heads DW's Portuguese for Africa service

Climate of fear

In any case, the organization of the elections was the smallest problem. A bigger one was the lack of opposition voices and critical opinions.

The MPLA dominated media coverage, giving the opposition National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (Unita) and other parties little chance to be heard.

Many Angolans were, and still are,fearful of freely expressing their opinion. Those who exercised their constitutional right to demonstrate risked being beaten by the police. Those with links to opposition parties risked ruining their chances of a career either in the government or with one of the numerous private companies controlled by the MPLA.

In Angola, even meeting with friends to discuss a book outlining non-violent methods of resistanceriskslanding people in prison.

On paper, Angola may appear to be a model democracy. But in recent years, the MPLA has succeeded in creating a climate of oppressionin which no real democracy can flourish.

Chance for a new beginning

This was the first time in decades that Angola truly stood a chance of starting anew - after 38years as president, this year Jose Eduardo dos Santos chose not to run for reelection.

For the time being, dos Santos remains the MPLA party leader. This is one reason his successor and newly-elected president, Joao Lourenco, probably won't dare touch the billion-dollar interests of the dos Santosfamily.

Lourenco's career as former secretary general of the MPLA and defense minister of Angola leaves me with little hope that he will usher in democratic change.He may perhaps perform some cosmetic surgery and remove dos Santos'sdaughter Isabel, Africa's richest woman, from her post as head of thestate oil company, Sonangol. This would also appease internal MPLA critics.

But I don't thinkLourenco is likely to end the repression of human rights defenders and protesters, liberalize the media, or allowlocal and provincial governments to hold free elections. He is too much a MPLA man for this.

But if Angola is to really become a functional democracy, such fundamental changes are urgently needed.

True democracy isn't only visible on election day. True democracy needs openness, tolerance and the rule of law every day of the year.

Read the rest here:
Opinion: Democracy in Angola is more than just holding elections - Deutsche Welle

Over the past seven months, Donald Trump has attacked what for many are the pillars of American democracy. Hes blasted the news media, sowed distrust in the election process, and fired the FBI director for apparently political reasons. He has torn at the U.S.s racial fabric, perhaps to embolden his base. Political scientists, historians, and other experts have been trying to gauge how much damage hes inflicting on democracy. The New Yorker wondered if the U.S. might be on the verge of a new civil war.

Damaging the American political process has global ramifications. But an examination of other countries experiences shows that Trump may not be as successful in destroying U.S. norms and institutions as media coverage fearfully suggests. In many ways, he isnt unique. A wave of authoritarian-leaning populists has swept the globe in the past 15 yearsThailands Thaksin Shinawatra, Italys Silvio Berlusconi, Hungarys Viktor Orban, the Philippines Rodrigo Duterte, many otherswho share his disdain for institutions, the media, and politics as usual. Yet from Italy to Argentina, some countries that have elected these types of leaders not only survived them but also rebuilt their democraciesthey were battered but not destroyed.

Photographer: John Francis Peters for Bloomberg Businessweek

To be sure, Trumps presidency is less than a year old, and its premature to declare American democracy safe. The BrightLine Watch survey, which regularly questions political scientists about the state of U.S. democracy, found in May that American democracy remains healthy, but its health under Trump has worsened for the first time in recent history, according to the New York Times. There are signs that his leadership is exacerbating partisanship and reducing trust in the media and other institutions.

As Yascha Mounk of Harvard notes, decimating a democracy can take time. Early in their careers, Turkeys Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Venezuelas Hugo Chvez, and Hungarys Viktor Orban also seemed like they might be constrained. A few years after Erdogan, Orban, and Chvez took power, smart people also warned of excessive worry about democratic breakdown, he wrote.

Yet democracy is proving stronger under stress in the U.S. than it is in such places as Turkey, and Trump is a less effective populist than Erdogan or Chvez. Instead of Americas 1860s, the Trump and post-Trump era might look far more like Italy and Argentina in the 21st century.

In Italy, Berlusconi dominated politics from 1994 until 2011. He blended business and politics like Trump, undermined the media, attacked the judiciary, and oversaw an erosion of democracy that left a legacy of popular mistrust of institutions. Berlusconis approach hurt Italys economy as wellit was one of the worst-performing in the world during his time at the top.

But Italys democrats ultimately prevailed, calling on the countrys relatively strong democratic institutions and culture andslowlylearning to offer policy solutions rather than just blasting the leader. Anti-Berlusconi Italians protested his rule throughout his tenure. Although he controlled much of the broadcast media, dogged reporters continued to probe his scandals. Prosecutors charged him with alleged crimes even as Berlusconi oversaw passage of legislation that shielded him from charges. Eventually, prosecutors won a conviction against him for tax fraud. Politicians who once had been allied with him eventually turned against him as his reckless and pseudo-dictatorial styleand inability to solve problemsdrove a wedge in his coalition in 2010 and 2011.

Since 2011, Italy has held multiple free elections, and its once-battered press has regained some of its vibrancy. Judges and prosecutors protect their hard-won independence, perhaps even more so in the wake of Berlusconis attempts to immunize himself from the law. Many civil society groups that had taken some progress for granted before Berlusconi became energized by his time in office. The allure of a one-man fix for the country was tarnished, although the legacy of popular mistrust of institutions remains a major problem. As the journalist Alexander Stille wrote in the New Republic, Berlusconi failed because his megalomania led him to self-destruct and because of his rank incompetence in tending to the countrys business.

A similar political dynamic occurred in Argentina. From 2003 to 2015, Nstor Kirchner and his wife and successor, Cristina Fernndez de Kirchner, ruledand damaged Argentine democracy in similar ways that Berlusconi damaged Italy. They attacked courts, the bureaucracy, and the media, and they tried to rule through orders instead of working through the legislature. They also tried to undermine basic factual knowledge: Theyd so politicized the governments important Indec statistics agency that it became discredited by the time Fernndez de Kirchner left office. Like Berlusconi, the couple did lasting damage to the economy.

But Argentinas democracy survived as well, and in many ways its reviving. As Shannon ONeil of the Council on Foreign Relations writes, in several Latin American nations, including Argentina, citizens have turned against populism over time, tired of chaotic politics and poor governance. Latin American citizens, she notes, have used massive public protests to shame corrupt officials and back democracy. Theyve formed citizens movements, pushed to pass laws cementing separation of powers, and increasingly elected middle-of-the-road candidates. In Argentina, exhaustion with populism led to electing the moderate Mauricio Macri in 2015. He has tried to restore the independence of government agencies from presidential dominance and stop the habit of presidents amassing more and more power.

On the other hand, some countries havent recovered from authoritarian-leaning populism. Thailand had less history with democracy than Italy, and its institutions were incapable of or uninterested in standing up to an authoritarian populist such as former Prime Minister Thaksin. The middle classes often responded not by trying to strengthen democratic institutions but by abandoning them. Many opinion leaders supported military coupswhich occurred in 2006 and 2014as means of ousting a populist. Thailand also exists in a region where autocracies are the norm, and other countries did little to sanction Thaksin during his time as prime minister. In contrast, Italy and Argentina belong to regional communities of democracies that are willing to condemn and punish leaders who subvert rights and freedoms.

Realizing that countries with weaker institutions and norms survived authoritarian populists doesnt mean all is fine in the U.S. Like Italy, it could suffer damage without a complete meltdown. Although Americans are losing faith in many institutions, those institutions are performing relatively well right now. So far, the judicial system has repeatedly checked potential attempts to undermine the rule of law. The media has hardly been cowed. The U.S. militarys leadership has pushed back against Trump rhetoric without suggesting a breach in civilian control: After his comments on Charlottesville, leaders of many military branches issued messages affirming the importance of tolerance. And, as Josh Chafetz of Cornell Law School notes, Congress is providing a check on Trumps powers. It may not be happening as swiftly or as comprehensively as some Democrats might like, but the legislative branch is making its weight felt in the Trump era in a manner that, if it continues, bids fair to leave Trump with a reputation as an extraordinarily weak modern president.

When every day seems to bring more outrageous Trump statements, its difficult to believe any checks are still working. And winding up like a much bigger, wealthier post-Berlusconi Italy may come as cold comfort. Americans invested in protecting democracy must remain vigilant: supporting fact-based media, pushing lawmakers to pass legislation curtailing presidential power rather than relying on aged democratic norms to constrain the chief, and addressing structural factors such as inequality that helped facilitate Trumps rise. But a Caracas-on-the-Potomac future as yet seems unlikely. Kurlantzick is senior fellow for Southeast Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Read this article:
A Survival Guide for Democracies - Bloomberg