Mediaboss Marketing

By Dr. Ken Mulliken

All of human kind originated in Southern Africa, our tour guide, Richard Randall, announced as he greeted us in Johannesburg, so I want to welcome you home.

This reminder of our shared ancestry, as distant as it may be, set the theme for this years Democracy Project field experience in South Africa.

This month, 14 students from Southern Oregon University traveled to South Africa as part of SOUs Democracy Project. Involving students, faculty members and community partners, the Democracy Project (abbreviated here to DP) is a comprehensive international examination of democracy, organized by the SOU Honors College.

To solve shared challenges of the 21st century, emerging student leaders need a solid understanding of conflict resolution and how democracy is understood, implemented and promoted around the world. The DP is consistent with the mission and vision statements of Southern Oregon University and the Honors College, as it supports intellectual growth and responsible global citizenship.

Some of the issues studied through the DP include the historical evolution of democracy, sovereignty, freedom, nationalism, citizenship, immigration, patriotism, imperialism, colonialism, liberty, security, justice and equality. DP participants examine criteria in the Democracy Index and articles in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They compare and contrast the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights with national constitutions around the world, keeping in mind questions such as, what is the proper role of government? and, in a democracy, what is the appropriate balance between individual liberties and human rights?

Our educational experience in South Africa is the fourth field trip of the DP. Expanding from the first field trip to Washington, D.C., previous international DP field trips have studied India, Switzerland, Austria, Germany and the Czech Republic. Through conversations with journalists, professors, university students and business leaders, these field trips have been organized to better understand how democracy is structured and practiced on various jurisdictional levels.

Building on these international experiences, the DP has hosted annual symposiums at SOU, which are facilitated and moderated by SOU Honors College scholars. These symposiums explore the threats and challenges to democracy in the 21st century, and the degree to which the promotion of sustainable democracy is valuable and viable.

The first symposium, called "Crisis in Kashmir: Negotiating a Democratic Solution," was hosted by the SOU Honors College in April 2016, and attended by 125 local high school students. SOU Honors College scholars hosted the second symposium, called "Seeking Refuge: The Syrian Crisis," in April 2017, with more than high-school students participating. The third symposium is planned for April 2018, and will focus on issues relating to African democracy.

Mark Twain is credited with two quotes that relate to the learning objectives of the DP. The first is, Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness.

This observation is directly applicable to democracy and conflict resolution today. At different times in history, and in various locations around the world, peoples customs, language, cuisine and clothing have contrasted sharply. However, what makes history and international travel relevant to our lives today is the underlying commonality of humanity.

As our South African tour guide noted, our ancestors all originated in southern Africa, if you trace our linguistic and genetic origins back far enough. No matter when one is born, or where one is raised, we share several fundamental concerns. These concerns include love, marriage, family, employment, health, availability of food and fresh water, clothing, shelter and freedom of personal expression. International travel reveals that we are more similar than we are different.

The second relevant quote attributed to Mark Twain is, History doesnt repeat itself, but it rhymes. We see this as a recurring theme in our DP research.

In Germany, the societal divisions evident during the period of Nazi rule in the 1930s and 1940s have been replaced by recent concerns about massive immigration from war-torn Syria. In India and Pakistan, religious disagreements divide Hindus and Muslims, dating back to independence in 1947. In South Africa, more than 40 years of racial segregation under the system of apartheid have given way in recent decades to a period of truth and reconciliation, which has had mixed social results.

Twain was right, history doesnt repeat itself, but the fundamental core of human relationships is remarkably similar, irrespective of time or location. Our DP research indicates that the health of a nations democracy, and the likelihood of its long-term sustainability, rests on one ultimate and essential question do people see themselves more as a part of, or apart from others in society? This question seems overly simplistic on the surface, but the answer affects all subsequent decisions, both on an individual and collective basis.

At some level, domestic politics and international relations will always be arenas of competing interests, however, if we focus on goals in the Democracy Index and articles in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we can collectively accomplish more together than we can individually.

What issues and problems are most urgent in our community, region, state and nation? What bothers you and makes you frustrated or angry? What motivates you to take action? Is it homelessness, mental illness, child neglect, drugs, diseases, sex trafficking, water rights or animal abuse? How about pollution, loss of biodiversity, global warming, income inequality, legal injustice, infant mortality, high-school graduation rates, inadequate health care, high crime, lack of access to education, bigotry and prejudice or racism?

In addition to these, there are so many other issues that are crying out to be solved, and are worthy of our thought, attention and action. Ignorance of the issues, or belief that ones actions wont matter are insufficient excuses for apathy. A successful and sustainable democracy depends on all of us being informed and taking action. It requires seeing others as "a part of" rather than "apart from. Awareness, engagement and collaborative action are the goals for the Democracy Project at Southern Oregon University.

Dr. Ken Mulliken is executive director of the Honors College at Southern Oregon University.

Read the original post:
SOU's Democracy Project: Are we 'a part of or apart from'? - Ashland Daily Tidings

Broadcast and cable news reluctance to talk about gerrymandering, let alone address the outsized impact it has in state and federal elections, has allowed American democracy to quietly become less representative. As movements build behind redistricting reform, the question remains: Will TV news ever care about gerrymandering?

A yearlongMedia Mattersstudyfoundthat cable news shows brought up gerrymandering in only five segments between July 1, 2016, and June 30, 2017. During that same time period, broadcast morning news programs and nightly newscasts didnt discuss gerrymandering at all. And this isnt a new trend; for years, media have shown areluctance to discussgerrymandering and redistricting. Given the outsized influence partisan and racial gerrymandering has on American democracy, these issues deserve more coverage.

Partisan gerrymandering is not exactly new, butsince 2010, Republicans have takenit to a new level. The Associated Press (AP)foundthat in the 2016 election, gerrymandering helped create the conditions that led to four times as many states with Republican-skewed state House or Assembly districts than Democratic ones. Additionally, among the two dozen most populated states that determine the vast majority of Congress, there were nearly three times as many with Republican-tilted U.S. House districts. As University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stonewrotefor HuffPost, Although partisan gerrymandering has been with us from the beginning, it is now worse than ever, because computer modeling enables legislators to design districts that almost precisely maximize their political advantage.

Racial gerrymandering whichinvolvesspreading minorities across voting districts, leaving them too few in number in any given district to elect their preferred candidates, or concentrating the minority vote in certain districts has also helpedRepublicans hold on to their majority. AsThe Washington Posts Wonkblog explained, Since the minority electorate leans liberal, packing minorities has the same effect as packing Democrats, causing the district map to favor Republicans in the same way it favors whites.The New York Times editorial boarddescribedthe radical racial gerrymandering that resulted inunconstitutional districtsin North Carolina as the GOPs unscrupulous efforts to fence off black communities.

While Republicans have been attacking the heart of American democracy, media coverage has been lacking, to say the least. At the same time,activistsandpoliticians fromboth sides of the aislehave been calling for independent, nonpartisan groups to take the charge on redistricting in the near future. With momentum rising, the question remains: Will media, specifically broadcast and cable news, ever care about gerrymandering? So far, the answer appears to be no.

Read this article:
Gerrymandering is ruining our democracy. Will television news ever care? - Salon

Economic forces feeding on coercion and corruption are responsible for the assault on science and democracy in the country like never before, according to ecologist Madhav Gadgil, who headed an expert panel on the conservation of the Western Ghats. This attack was more intense than the one by religious fundamentalism.

Delivering a lecture on Science and democracy in contemporary India in memory of Kerala Sasthra Sahithya Parishad activist I.G. Bhaskara Panicker, he said the Kerala government should drop the Athirappilly hydroelectric project as it was unviable.

He alleged the governments in power at the Centre earlier too had assaulted science and democracy. Mr. Gadgil claimed that the previous Union government had tried to suppress the report of the Western Ghats panel terming it anti-development. The panel had termed projects such as the Athirappilly hydroelectric project unviable, citing available data.

Mr. Gadgil said the River Research Foundation had authentic data from the Central Water Commission on the amount of water flowing in the Chalakudy river and it also had data about the amount of electricity that could be produced as part of the project. The amount of water in the Chalakudy river was far less than what was mentioned in the project document prepared by the proponents of the project. The claim on power production too was highly exaggerated. The impact on tribespeople, irrigation and tourism too were analysed and found unfavourable. During a hearing on the project, the officials could not counter any of these objections, he said.

Mr. Gadgil said the Kasturirangan panel was appointed later to modify the recommendations of the panel headed by him. He said that the Kasturirangan panel had not consulted them while preparing the report, which was unethical. To justify their actions, they lied that they had used better quality satellite data, he said. Mr. Gadgil said he was ready for a debate on the recommendations prepared by both the panels to prove his point.

As far as the assault on democracy and science was concerned, he said there was not much of a difference between the situation in States ruled by BJP such as Maharashtra and Goa or non-BJP parties like Kerala and Karnataka.

Even a Left Front government was supporting capitalistic projects like special economic zones against peoples interests, he said, citing the example of the Indian Oil Corporation plant at Puthuvype.

See the rest here:
Science and democracy under threat, says Gadgil - The Hindu

Protest leader Joshua Wong leaves Hong Kongs high court in a prison van after his sentencing. Photograph: STRINGER/Reuters

For Hong Kongs embattled democracy movement the 20th anniversary of the UKs handover to China has been nothing short of an annus horribilis.

But on Thursday afternoon, just minutes after the former British colonys high court had transformed him into one of the citys first prisoners of conscience, Joshua Wong struck a decidedly an upbeat tone.

See you soon, the 20-year-old protest leader tweeted after he and two friends, Nathan Law and Alex Chow, were jailed for their role in launching 2014s umbrella movement, a historic 79-day occupation that drew hundreds of thousands of young people out on to the streets.

For Wong, who was sentenced to six months behind bars, the ruling is a particularly heavy blow. The student activist, who found fame as Hong Kongs teenage face of protest during the 2014 demonstrations, had hoped to run for political office after turning 21 in October. This weeks sentence has scuppered those dreams for at least five years.

It has also delivered a body blow to Hong Kongs wider democracy movement, already reeling from the disqualification of four its lawmakers from parliament and the growing sense that the international community has abandoned it for fear of upsetting Beijing.

Many supporters in the court were crying because we didnt want to accept this result, said Ray Chan, a pro-democracy politician and Hong Kongs first openly gay legislator, who was among those to turn out in support of Wong, Law and Chow.

The sentences constituted an attempt to intimidate young Hong Kongers who were considering taking to the streets to protest against Beijings refusal to grand them genuine democracy.

But for Chan, and many others within the pro-democracy camp, the message is: we will not be cowed.

It cannot make all of us keep quiet, Chan vowed. We still have hope because we have so many young people who are prepared to sacrifice their freedom to fight for democracy for our society.

I want to make it more positive - a few months is not too long a period, Chan said of his jailed friends. Never give up!

Benedict Rogers, a British human rights activist who knows all three of the campaigners, said he could also see a silver-lining to the storm clouds that have been gathering over Hong Kongs democracy movement.

Rogers decried the trios imprisonment as a travesty of justice. They are absolutely delightful, he said. All three of them are among the most intelligent, bright, thoughtful and fun people that I can think of and the idea that they are guilty of a criminal act is absurd.

[But] if anything is to galvanise the international community into realising that Hong Kongs basic freedoms and one country, two systems are now really on a knife edge if not already dead then it is the sentencing of three young men who have committed no crime apart from a political crime.

In a statement, Wongs party, Demosist, accused Chinas president, Xi Jinping, of eroding the civil and political freedoms that Hong Kong was promised after its return to Beijings control and lamented the immense humiliation the government had inflicted upon their struggle for change.

But Rogers said that by turning the three men into political prisoners, authorities were giving them even greater legitimacy and boosting the very cause they were trying to undermine. When you look throughout history at people who have become iconic figures, theyve often done so because of spending periods of time in prison, he said. One only has to think of Gandhi, or Nelson Mandela or Aung San Suu Kyi, and countless others.

Eddie Chu, a pro-democracy legislator, was another who refused to be downbeat. Chu accused the Communist party of attempting to wipe out a generation of potential candidates by having those who might seek election to oppose its rule thrown in jail.

But he insisted the tactic would fail: Hong Kong people will not be defeated.

View original post here:
Hong Kong jailings could lend democracy cause greater legitimacy - The Guardian

Democratic process should continue. Democracy should not be derailed. A common statement that every political party utter thousands of times. But not all stand with this statement in testing time. Stances change when personal interests clash with this saying. This is something which is observed after the Supreme Court historic verdict in the Panama Case. The deliberate effort is made to make the judgment and the honourable judges of the Supreme Court controversial. Even though everyone knows that an independent judiciary is part and parcel in a democratically ruled country.

Last month, Nawaz Sharif was politically eliminated by an independent and transparent judicial process. The decision was widely criticised especially by the ruling party but one thing is for sure that the whole process and action were within the limits of the constitution of Pakistan and no undemocratic force was behind this case. The unanimous and unprecedented judgment against the sitting prime minister altered the political landscape in our country. It was a watershed moment for the country`s democratic evaluation and has been described as a step forward in efforts towards establishing the rule of law. It signifies a milestone in the development of an independent judiciary, not subservient to the executive. Many independent and credible jurists have regarded the decision as setting a good precedent that will survive the test of time.

Significantly it is a victory for the PTI, a political truth that must be acknowledged. If it were not for the relentless campaign of Imran Khan and his party, the accountability of elected officials would not have been possible. After Mr Sharif`s disqualification, Mr Khan sensibly distanced himself from the perception of a personal war against Mr Sharif. But the ousted prime minister, instead of accepting the judgment, as he and his party affirmed during the proceedings of the case, adopted a collision course. He changed his stance and labelled the decision a conspiracy and directed the partys canons towards the honourable judges. Mr Sharif is not willing to accept his lower political profile.

After the verdict, every political leader stated categorically that democracy is not in danger. But the ouster PM described the event as a setback to democracy. His narration that no prime minister in the country`s 70-year history had been allowed to complete his or her term is beyond comprehension. The fact is that it is the term of parliament that is enshrined in the Constitution and not of the prime minister. It is so apparent that all his talk about democracy and civilian supremacy is about personal political survival. Mr Sharif, unfortunately, directed the anger of his dismissal from the office in an unfortunate direction. He is now trying to present himself as a revolutionary but no one knows what sort of revolution he is talking about.

In order to defend his position, Mr Sharif is appearing to contradict many of his own statements and actions. For example, before setting on his GT Road journey he had to accept that ex-PM Yousaf Raza Gallani should not have been disqualified. But for that he created pressure to make him leave the office. Similarly, the ouster PM and his party had been taking the credit that they made the judiciary an independent institution but during his journey back to Lahore he made fiery speeches against the verdict and termed the decision as conspiracy. One finds it even more contradictory when they express their intentions to file a review petition before the same judiciary which they tried to malign.

The Supreme Court had given more than ample time to the Sharif family to prove their innocence against the charges. But unfortunately they could not produce any credible documents in the court and to the JIT, rather created more complications for themselves by presenting forged documents. Had they given the proofs in the court, they would not have to clarify themselves on roads.

Mr Sharif should also understand that it is decision within the constitution. He was trying to build a narrative that a representative of 20 million people was ousted by five people. The reality is that the constitution which made him the representative of the 20 million people, the same constitution has empowered the honourable judges to disqualify any MNA who is not honest.

While the gloves are already off as political parties run a sordid campaign against each other, post-Panama matters are becoming dirtier. The present political scenario in the country reminds us of the political period of 1990s, when the Sharifs and the Bhuttos attacked each other politically in very personal and aggressive terms. Whatever the judicial fate of Mr Sharif, it has always been clear that the overall democratic stakes are greater than any individual`s political future. The PML-N should continue to act honourably and protect the overall democratic process.

The decision of the Supreme Court is not a blow to democracy but a blow to dynastic politics that has been the biggest deterrent to the development of democratic institutions and values in the country. Most importantly, democracy is the rule of people by the people. It must not become a means to perpetuate dynastic rule. The people`s mandate does not make someone above the law. Democracy will further thrive when our electorate will gain more trust of the people.

See the original post:
Democracy should move forward - The Nation