Mediaboss Marketing

Published 6 July 2020

After more than 200 years, Thomas Muir of Huntershill has been restored to the roll of the Faculty of Advocates following a successful plea by Ross Macfarlane QC.

Muir was an advocate and political reformer in late eighteenth-century Scotland who, during an age of revolution, promoted democratic ideas including support for universal suffrage, which were seen by some as subversive.

Muir practised as an advocate from 1787 until being struck off in 1793 following his indictment by Lord Braxfield of the High Court of Justiciary on the charge of sedition. While he was facing trial, and was a fugitive from justice, the Faculty expelled him from membership. He was brought to trial, convicted, and sentenced to transportation, before escaping to America and revolutionary France in pursuit of his political campaigns, where he died in 1799 at the age of 33.

Muirs sentencing sparked a controversy that has persisted until the present day. Soon after his trial, concerns were being expressed that the political climate of the times had resulted in an unacceptable erosion of civil liberties, and in the 1840s a monument was erected in Calton Cemetery in memory of Muir and the other political martyrs of the time. Muir has since become known as the father of Scottish democracy for his exploits.

Mr Macfarlanes submission to the former Dean of Faculty, Gordon Jackson QC, centred on his discovery of key documents that proved a decree of fugitation lodged against Muir had never held legal effect and so voided the grounds for his expulsion from Faculty.

Mr Macfarlane showed that the decree against Muir had been reponed by an interlocutor of the Court of Session six months after being issued due to Muirs inability to make the trial by the High Court, during which he was sentenced as a fugitive. As the only reason for Muirs expulsion from Faculty, Mr Macfarlane moved that the granting of this appeal should now enable his restoration.

In his letter reinstating Muir to Faculty, Mr Jackson said: On any view of it, the trial and conviction of Muir fell far short of any notions of fairness and the due processes of Scots law.

Mr Jackson described Mr Macfarlanes work as being in the proud traditions of the Faculty of Advocates in their quest for justice, their dogged and meticulous research methods and the persuasive quality of their argument.

Mr Macfarlane said: Muir was passionate, eloquent and charismatic, albeit perceived as anti-establishment in his own time.

And on the matter of his reinstatement to Faculty, I cant do better than leave the last word to Muir himself: I have dedicated myself to the cause of the people. It is a good cause. It shall ultimately prevail. It shall finally triumph.

SLN managing editor Graham Ogilvy said: Those with an interest in Thomas Muir might like to know that a plaque of the Scottish advocate adorns the walls of the Cuban embassy in London.

A copy of the plaque was given to me by the late sculptor Ian Swann after the original was presented to the Cuban ambassador to commemorate Muirs time as a prisoner of the Spanish in Havana after his rescue from Indians on the Yucatn peninsula, where he had been shipwrecked.

Read the original post:
'Father of Scottish democracy' Thomas Muir of Huntershill restored to roll of Faculty - Scottish Legal News

On June 28 Lazarus Chakwera of the Malawi Congress Party (MCP) won the countrys presidential electoral rerun. He led a nine-party opposition coalition, the Tonse Alliance (Together Alliance). His running mate was the vibrant and popular Saulos Chilima, the leader of the United Transformation Movement (UTM).

The Tonse victory appears to have consolidated the countrys democracy, at the same revealing redefined roles of a new consensus built on the judiciary, the military and civil society organisations. At first glance, Malawians have voted for the party they rejected in 1994 as part of their transition towards constitutionalism through multiparty democratic elections after 31 years of death and darkness. (On achieving independence in 1964, the prime minister and later president, Hastings Banda, declared Malawi a one-party state under the MCP.)

Twenty-six years later, the MCP has benefited from the complex machinations and attempts to impose transitional leadership succession that have characterised Malawian politics for the past decade and a half. In 2004, president Bakili Muluzi of the United Democratic Front (UDF) acrimoniously ended his second tenure, after failing to amend the Constitution to allow him to run for a third term. After he left office, Muluzi foisted on his party and country the little-known former deputy governor of the Reserve bank of Malawi and later finance minister, Bingu wa Mutharika. This came at a time when the opposition was boycotting the electoral process.

Within months, Wa Mutharika and Muluzi had fallen out, with corruption and treason charges levelled against the former president by the incumbent. Mutharika proceeded to form his own political party, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), while sequestering legislators from the UDF. In April 2005, Muluzi went public, apologising to Malawians for having facilitated Wa Mutharikas ascension to office. He was then forced to flee the country and went into self-exile in the United Kingdom until May 2008.

Early in his second term, Mutharika began planning for his successor, requesting that his DDP deputy vice-president of the country, Joyce Banda, step aside for his younger brother, law professor Peter wa Mutharika, who was teaching in the United States at the time. Banda resisted and was unceremoniously removed from the party and government and forced to stay at home; she immediately formed her own party, the Peoples Party.

On April 5 2005, the unexpected happened. President Bingu wa Mutharika had a cardiac arrest and died. Thereafter, the DPP discovered that the Constitution provided for the vice-president, in this instance Joyce Banda, to take over, which she did. In the ensuing chaos, allegations emerged that key DPP officials had asked that either the attorney general or the commander of the defence forces, General Henry Odillo, take over the running of the country for a time to prevent Banda from assuming power.

In the presence of the police inspector general, Peter Mukhito, Odillo refused. Banda was able to succeed Bingu wa Mutharika and serve out the remaining term until the May 2014 elections. The DPP reorganised, with Peter Mutharika as the leader, and won the May 2014 poll. Meanwhile, an internal corruption case, the Cashgate scandal, had embroiled Joyce Bandas administration, resulting in the loss of public confidence and the possibility of arrest and detention. She fled the country into four years of self-imposed exile.

Peter Mutharika became president in May 2014 and, within weeks of his inauguration, Odillo was relieved of his duties. No explanation was provided, but it was clearly tied up with the recalcitrant position he took in 2012. In the run-up to and beyond the May 2019 elections, Mutharika continued attempting to retain the services of a discredited Malawi Electoral Commission, confronting and attempting to forcibly retire members of the judiciary and the military. Senior officers had to approach the courts to block the presidential decrees, and were successful in these efforts.

As the country prepared for the 2019 polls, Mutharika fell out with his deputy and vice-president, Chilima. As had become fashionable, Chilima also established his own party, the UTM, that is reported to have connected with the young people across the nation, particularly in urban areas.

The May 28 2019 election result, later criticised by the courts as The Tippex Election, had the DPP winning with 38.57%; the MCP and the UTM gained 35.41% and 20.24% of the vote, respectively. The two losing parties, the MCP and UTM together with the Human Rights Defenders Coalition (HRDC) approached the courts, citing irregularities. One of their criticisms was about the role played by the electoral commission director, Jane Ansaha, who was accused of being partisan and biased. The electoral commission and the governing DPP appealed against the injunction.

But the high court of Malawi, in its verdict of the May 2019 election, overturned the results.

It was clear that, to defeat the incumbent, the opposition parties had to reach an accommodation of sorts before the polls an elite pact. As the elections approached, it was evident that Chilima would be the kingmaker between the governing DPP and the old, established MCP.

The short history of the Tonse Alliance, whose main leaders marched on the streets on March 12 2020 and since been inaugurated in power by June, reflects an entity emerging from a shot-gun wedding whose lasting endurance remains to be tested. This is because the marriage of convenience emerged from a sober evaluation of the losing percentages in the May election against the narrow victory of the incumbent, Peter Mutharika. On this the sums were obvious; if the two combined then they would dislodge Mutharika. The losing parties were reacting to the 150 day cooling period before the presidential re-run opportunity offered by the court ruling succeeding to gain office as the logical outcome.

The question is: How deep is this relationship and will it combine the ideological idiosyncrasies and constituencies of the MCP and UTM?

Significantly, as part of his new appointments, including a vice-president, minister of economic planning and public sector reform, and minister of finance, Chakwera has also removed the partisan acting police inspector, Duncan Mwapasa, and installed George Kainja with instructions to clean up the battered image of the police.

What has the Malawi election delivered? An entity that comprises a complex elite sits in the political saddle, while providing an opportunity for the judiciary, the electoral commission and the military to act in concert towards consolidating democracy in the country.

As Malawians rush into the streets to celebrate, they must be aware of the implications of what the poll has delivered, and keep a watchful eye on the extent the actors remain true to their ideal of acting as servant leaders.

The rest is here:
Consolidating democracy in Malawi: A case of recycled elite pacts? - Mail and Guardian

Dear Editor,

I note that my friend and CARICOM Brother, Dr. Ralph Gonsalves of St. Vincent and the new CARICOM Chairman, seems determined to throw stones towards Guyana.

Statements which are certainly premature.

As one of the most experienced leaders in the Region, and the longest serving Prime Minister, I remain disappointed that he has not taken a page out of the Book of many other CARICOM Heads of Government and Leaders of political and social groupings.

That is to maintain a level of cohesion and comradery within CARICOM.

When we behave this way, we earn the disrespect of outsiders and weaken the foundation pillars of CARICOM.

No sensible leader should contribute to the creation of this kind of environment.

I read a report by the Opposition Leader of St. Vincent. He certainly did not glorify democracy in St. Vincent.

Mr. Gonsalves and others use the term democracy with gay abandon. He must know that throughout modern history, democracy is a chameleon term used for a variety of reasons and those of us who ought to know better should be careful not to ply this term without providing detail and credible information.

The truth is democracy means different things to different people and experienced political figures ought to be careful when we apply the term without providing data. In a few hours, we will be celebrating the Independence anniversary of the United States of America.

A country and the people I believe the majority of Guyanese cherish. A place where Guyanese have a family-member, relative, or friend resident there and in the majority of cases, enjoying the American way of life with the many avenues for upward mobility and where we happily refer to as the land of opportunities.

There and elsewhere the struggle to define and refine democracy is ongoing.

I quote from the Book, The Challenge of Democracy written by Janda, Berry and Goldman which states in the first chapter of the second edition, as follows: Which is better: to live under a government that allows individuals freedom to do whatever they please or under one that enforces strict law and order? Which is better: to allow businesses and private clubs to discriminate in choosing their customers and members or to pass laws that enforce equality among races and sexes?

For many people, none of these alternatives is satisfactory. All of them pose difficult dilemmas of choice. The dilemmas are tied to opposing philosophies that place different values on freedom, order, and equality. End of quote.

Even before we cut the umbilical cord with Great Britain, Demerarians (as Guyanese were then called) looked to the US for guidance and succor.

We can be reminded, however, that the first twelve Presidents beginning with George Washington, James Maddison, James Munroe, Andrew Jackson and others were slave owners in that democracy prompting Martin Luther King (jnr), a century after the American Civil War to note and I quote I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed We hold these truths to be self -evident, that all men are created equal.

President David A. Granger has neither violated our Constitution nor broken our laws but yet we see so many throwing stones at him and the government he leads.

And I wonder, Dear Editor, if the underlying philosophy of these stone throwers is that they regard our erect and proper leader as being one of the other folks.

I wonder, for I can find no valid reasons for this relentless stone-throwing by a few people in the US, Guyana and the Caribbean. I wonder.

Yours faithfully,

Hamilton Green

See the rest here:
Mr. Gonsalves and others use the term 'democracy' with gay abandon - Stabroek News

Democracy can refer to a system of government or to a particular state that employs this system. The word entered English around the 1570s, from the Middle French dmocratie, but it originally comes, via Latin, from the ancient Greek demokratia, which literally means rule (kratos) by the people (demos). The Greek demokratia dates all the way back to the 5th century b.c., when it was used to describe the government in some city-states, notably Athens.

There are two kinds of democracy: direct and representative. Direct democracy is when the people are directly involved in governing the state. Representative democracy, which characterizes the U.S. system, occurs when people elect representatives to ensure their interests in government. When we think of democracy today, we usually think of a representative one in which all or most people are able to participate. This concept didnt originate until a very long time after democracys ancient roots.

In 507 b.c., Cleisthenes, the leader of Athens, introduced a series of reforms designed to allow the people to have a voice in ruling the city. It included three different political bodies: the governors, the council of representatives, and the courts. Only male citizens over the age of eighteen could vote, excluding those from outside the city, slaves, and all women. This system of government lasted until around the 400 b.c., when it began to waver, with conquests by neighbors gradually weakening it further. Athenian democracy was probably not the first example of democracy in the ancient world, but it is the best-known early version, and it is from here that we draw the word and its governmental philosophy.

Another well-known example of early democracy was the Roman Republic. Like Athens, it wasnt what we would think of today as a full democracy. Again, only adult male citizens were eligible to participate. Italy continued the tradition in a few of its medieval city-based republics. Venice, and Florence particularly, had governmental systems that included political participation by the people, if in a limited way.

Democracy also found its way into monarchical European states through the concept of the parliament, which was a council that advised the monarch. For the most part, only those who already had power could participate in parliaments, though Sweden allowed peasants to participate in its council (the Riksdag) starting in the 15th century.

The Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries brought a greater questioning of established authority to mainstream philosophy and discourse. This trend had a strong impact on the fledgling United States, which, when it won its independence from Great Britain in 1783, set up a system of representative democracy to represent its people. France was also impacted by this model. The French Revolution in 1789 was an attempt to achieve democracy, though the country didnt achieve it until the mid-1800s.

It was not until the 20th century that universal or broader suffrage, or the right to vote, was extended in most countries, and it was in the 20th century that democracy spread. By the beginning of the 21st century, almost half of the countries of the world had some variety of democratic or near-democratic system.

Types of democracies are classified according to various distinguishing features, including constitutional democracy, democratic socialism, Jeffersonian democracy, liberal democracy, parliamentary democracy, or presidential democracy, to name a few.

Democracy is also used for non-governmental organizational systems, such as a workplace democracy, which applies democratic principles in professional contexts. An advocate of democracy or democratic values is called a democrat, not to be confused with a member of the U.S. Democratic party.

Original post:
Democracy | Definition of Democracy at Dictionary.com

In both a republic and a democracy, citizens are empowered to participate in a representational political system. They electpeople to represent and protect their interests in how the government functions.

In a republic, an official set of fundamental laws, like the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, prohibits the government from limiting or taking away certain inalienable rights of the people, even if that government was freely chosen by a majority of the people. In a pure democracy, the voting majority has almost limitless power over the minority.

The United States, like most modern nations, is neither a pure republic nor a pure democracy. Instead, it isa hybrid democratic republic.

The main difference between a democracy and a republic is the extent to which the people control the process of making laws under each form of government.

Pure Democracy

Republic

Power Held By

The population as a whole

Individual citizens

Making Laws

A voting majority has almost unlimited power to make laws. Minorities have few protections from the will of the majority.

The people elect representatives to make laws according to the constraints of a constitution.

Ruled By

The majority.

Laws made by elected representatives of the people.

Protection of Rights

Rights can be overridden by the will of the majority.

A constitution protects the rights of all people from the will of the majority.

Early Examples

Athenian democracy in Greece (500 BCE)

The Roman Republic (509 BCE)

Even when the delegates of the United States Constitutional Convention debated the question in 1787, the exact meanings of the terms republic and democracy remained unsettled. At the time, there was no term for a representative form of government created by the people rather than by a king. In addition, American colonists used the terms democracy and republic more or less interchangeably, as remains common today. In Britain, the absolute monarchy was giving way to a full-fledged parliamentary government. Had the Constitutional Convention been held two generations later, the framers of the U.S. Constitution, having been able to read the new constitution of Britain, might have decided that the British system with an expanded electoral system might allow America to meet its full potential for democracy. Thus, the U.S. might well have a parliament rather than a Congress today.

Founding Father James Madison may have best described the difference between a democracy and a republic:

The fact that the Founders intended that the United States should function as a representative democracy, rather than a pure democracy is illustrated in Alexander Hamiltons letter of May 19, 1777, to Gouverneur Morris.

In a pure democracy, all citizens who are eligible to vote take an equal part in the process of making laws that govern them. In a pure or direct democracy, the citizens as a whole have the power to make all laws directly at the ballot box. Today, some U.S. states empower their citizens to make state laws through a form of direct democracy known as the ballot initiative. Put simply, in a pure democracy, the majority truly does rule and the minority has little or no power.

The concept of democracy can be traced back to around 500 BCE in Athens, Greece. Athenian democracy was a true direct democracy, or mobocracy, under which the public voted on every law, with the majority having almost total control over rights and freedoms.

In a republic, the people elect representativesto make the laws and an executive to enforce those laws.While the majority still rules in the selection of representatives, an official charter lists and protects certain inalienable rights, thus protecting the minority from the arbitrary political whims of the majority. In this sense, republics like the United States function as representative democracies.

Perhaps as a natural outgrowth of Athenian democracy, the first documented representative democracy appeared around 509 BCE in the form of the Roman Republic. While the Roman Republics constitution was mostly unwritten and enforced by custom, it outlined a system of checks and balances between the different branches of government. This concept of separate governmental powers remains a feature of almost all modern republics.

The following statement is often used to define the United States' system of government: "The United States is a republic, not a democracy. This statement suggests that the concepts and characteristics of republics and democracies can never coexist in a single form of government. However, this is rarely the case. As in the United States, most republics function as blended representational democracies featuring a democracys political powers of the majority tempered by a republics system of checks and balances enforced by a constitution that protects the minority from the majority.

To say that the United States is strictly a democracy suggests that the minority is completely unprotected from the will of the majority, which is not correct.

As a republics most unique feature, a constitution enables it to protect the minority from the majority by interpreting and, if necessary, overturning laws made by the elected representatives of the people. In the United States, the Constitution assigns this function to the U.S. Supreme Court and the lower federal courts.

For example, in the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared all state laws establishing separate racially segregated public schools for black and white students to be unconstitutional.

In its 1967 Loving v. Virginia ruling, the Supreme Court overturned all remaining state laws banning interracial marriages and relationships.

The constitutionally-granted power of the judicial branch to overturn laws made by the legislative branch illustrates the unique ability of a republics rule of law to protect the minority from a pure democracys rule of the masses.

Read more:
Republic vs. Democracy: What Is the Difference?