Mediaboss Marketing

According to the EconomistIntelligence Units Democracy Index 2019, Estonias democracy scores slightlydeclined in 2019, making the country fall behind the United States.

In the 2019 DemocracyIndex, compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit, a British business withinthe Economist Group providing forecasting and advisory services throughresearch and analysis, Estonia is a flawed democracy with the score of 7.90in 2019. In 2018, Estonia scored 7.97, which shows a small decline.

And, in 2018, Estoniaranked higher than the United States, which in both 2019 and the year beforescored 7.96. In the overall index, Estonia is ranked 27th, just behind Maltaand ahead of Israel.

The good news is,however, that in Eastern Europe, Estonia scores the highest and is ranked thefirst. The scores for the Baltic states moved closer together, as Estonia theleader saw confidence in political parties decline, while Latvia the laggard saw the share of women in parliament increase. Estonia remained thehighest-ranking country in eastern Europe, with a score of 7.90 and a globalranking of 27th, the Economist Intelligence Unit noted in its report.

The most democratic country in the world, according to the index, is Norway, followed by Iceland, Sweden and New Zealand. Finland is ranked fifth, Ireland sixth, and Denmark and Canada share the seventh spot. Australia and Switzerland finish up the top 10.

Lithuania is ranked 36th with the score of 7.50 (tied with Slovenia); and Latvia 38th with the score of 7.49. Poland is ranked 57th and Russia (classified as an authoritarian regime) ranks 134th, alongside with Congo.

Altogether, there are22 full democracies in the world, 54 flawed democracies, 37 hybrid regimes and54 authoritarian regimes.

In 2019, some 68 countries experienced a decline in their total score compared with 2018, but almost as many (65) recorded an improvement, the report pointed out. The other 34 stagnated, with their scores remaining unchanged compared with 2018.

Three countries(Chile, France and Portugal) moved from the flawed democracy category to beclassified as full democracies. Malta moved in the opposite direction,falling out of the full democracy category to become a flawed democracy.

According to themethodology of the index, the countries that are full democracies must have thedemocracy score higher than eight; flawed democracies greater than six and lessthan or equal to eight; hybrid regimes greater than four and less than or equalto six; and authoritarian regimes are scored less than or equal to four.

A full democracy is a countryin which not only basic political freedoms and civil liberties are respected,but which also tend to be underpinned by a political culture conducive to theflourishing of democracy. The functioning of government is satisfactory. Mediaare independent and diverse. There is an effective system of checks andbalances. The judiciary is independent and judicial decisions are enforced.There are only limited problems in the functioning of democracies.

A flawed democracy, under which Estonia falls, is a country that also has free and fair elections and, even if there are problems (such as infringements on media freedom), basic civil liberties are respected. However, there are significant weaknesses in other aspects of democracy, including problems in governance, an underdeveloped political culture and low levels of political participation.

According to theEconomist Intelligence Units measure of democracy, almost one-half (48.4%) ofthe worlds population live in a democracy of some sort, although only 5.7%reside in a full democracy, down from 8.9% in 2015 as a result of the USbeing demoted from a full democracy to a flawed democracy in 2016. Morethan one-third of the worlds population live under authoritarian rule, with alarge share being in China.

The report also notedthat in 2019, the average global score for democracy fell from 5.48 in 2018 to5.44. This is the worst average global score since the index was firstproduced in 2006, the report said. The 2019 result is even worse than thatrecorded in 2010, in the wake of the global economic and financial crisis, whenthe average global score fell to 5.46.

The Economist Intelligence Unit is a British business within the Economist Group providing forecasting and advisory services through research and analysis, such as monthly country reports, five-year country economic forecasts, country risk service reports, and industry reports.

Cover: Democracy Index 2019 map.

Continue reading here:
Estonia's democracy score slightly declines; falls behind the US - Estonian World

Ten years ago, in January 2010, the Supreme Court released its disastrous Citizens United decision. The court, either through remarkable naivety or sheer malevolence, essentially married the terrible idea that money is speech to the terrible idea that corporations are people.

The ruling put a for sale sign on our democracy, opening up a flood of corporate, special interest, and even foreign money into our politics.

Through Citizens United and related decisions, the Court made a bad situation worse. We saw the proliferation of super PACs, which can accept and spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections, and the rise of dark money, which is undisclosed political spending that can come from any special interest, including foreign countries.

One-fifth of all super PAC donations in the past 10 years have come from just 11 people.

In the 10 years since the decision, theres been $4.5 billion in political spending by outside interest groups, compared to $750 million spent in the 20 years prior to the case.

From 2000-2008, there were only 15 federal races where outside spending exceeded candidate spending. In the same amount of time following Citizens United, this occurred in 126 races. Now, almost half of all outside spending is dark money that has no or limited disclosure of its donors.

That money isnt coming from the farmers suffering through Donald Trumps trade war or the fast-food workers fighting for a living wage. Its coming from the wealthiest donors, people often with very different priorities than the majority of Americans. In fact, a full one-fifth of all super PAC donations in the past 10 years have come from just 11 people.

This has led to an unresponsive and dysfunctional government. With so many politicians in the pockets of their big donors, its been even harder to make progress on issues like gun safety, health care costs, or climate change.

Not to mention, were left with the most corrupt president in American history, whos embroiled in a series of scandals that threaten our prosperity, safety, and security.

SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT

Get our best delivered to your inbox.

To name just a few of these scandals: Trump urged a foreign country to investigate his political opponents. His lawyers associates funneled money into Trumps super PAC through a sham corporation. The National Rifle Association spent tens of millions of dollars in unreported dark money to elect him while allegedly serving as a Russian asset.

Trump and his accomplices should be held accountable, through congressional impeachment, the judicial process, or both. But we also need meaningful anti-corruption reforms.

Thanks to a class of reformers elected in 2018, weve already begun that process. Last year, the House of Representatives passed the For the People Act (H.R. 1).

H.R. 1 would strengthen ethics rules and enforcement; reduce the influence of big money while empowering individual, small-dollar donors; and, along with a bill to restore the Voting Rights Act, protect every Americans right to vote. It also calls for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

Sadly, this bill is being blocked by Mitch McConnell in the Senate.

These reforms are all popular with the American people. We can unrig the system and restore that faith by fighting for these priorities, and by pressuring elected officials to act. Join groups like End Citizens United or Let America Vote to push back against our rigged system and put people ahead of corporate special interests.

Together, we can restore trust in government, prevent corruption, strengthen our national security, and ensure Washington truly works for the people.

More here:
Citizens United: The Court Ruling That Sold Our Democracy - Common Dreams

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said Wednesday that Americans must work to protect their democracy and freedom, and the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump is part of that effort.

Theres no guarantee that next year people will live in more freedom than today, and the prospect for our children is even more in doubt, Schiff, the lead House manager in the trial, said during his opening arguments on the Senate floor.

He said freedom is not an immutable law of nature and instead every generation has to fight for it.

Were fighting for it right now, Schiff added.

The seven House managers, Democrats who are acting as prosecutors in the trial, began their arguments on Wednesday and will continue to present their case over three days. Trumps lawyers will then present their defense.

The House of Representatives impeached the president in December on two articles abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Democrats argue Trump abused his official powers when he withheld U.S. military aid for Ukraine, allegedly in an attempt to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rivals. They further claim Trump improperly blocked Congress from investigating his conduct.

During the trial phase, U.S. senators will determine whether Trump is convicted of those charges and removed from office, or acquitted.

Trump is the third president to be impeached. No president has been removed from office.

Here is the original post:
WATCH: Every generation has to fight for democracy and freedom, Schiff says - PBS NewsHour

One week, its that old Malthusian David Attenborough telling us the moment of crisis has come. The next its that young Malthusian Greta Thunberg telling us our house is still on fire and inaction is fuelling the flames.

Both express the key elements of todays environmentalist script. The shrill tone. The end-is-nigh urgency. The act-now-or-else command. And underwriting this script, as ever, is the core idea of contemporary environmentalism namely, the climate emergency. This is the idea that so imminent and existential is the threat of climate change that world leaders need to act as if they are at war. They need to declare a state of emergency. Theres no time for deliberation or debate anymore, because, well, our house is on fire. In this state of emergency, all civil liberties and democratic freedoms can be suspended. All dissent and debate silenced. Only then will the authorities, using all force necessary, be able to do what needs to be done to protect us from the enemy. It just so happens that this enemy happens to be us, and our all-consuming passions.

This wartime analogy has long lurked on the deep-ecological fringes of the environmentalist movement. It crops up, for instance, in James Lovelocks 2009 broadside, The Vanishing Face of Gaia. He writes that surviving climate change may require, as in war, the suspension of democratic government for the duration of the survival emergency.

But only now has it entered the mainstream. So, in May last year, the Guardian revised its style guide, stating that instead of climate change, the preferred terms are climate emergency, crisis or breakdown. That same month, the UK became the first nation state to declare a climate emergency, days after similar declarations from Scotland and Wales. In June, New York City became the worlds largest city to declare a climate emergency. And then, in November, the European Parliament, with new Commission president Ursula von der Leyen leading the charge, did likewise, for the EU. Little wonder Oxford Dictionaries made climate emergency its word of the year.

Not everyone has been quite as keen to embrace the emergency rhetoric. In November, a few MEPs from the European Parliaments largest bloc, the European Peoples Party, struck a note of caution amid the EUs clamour for a declaration of climate emergency. They were worried that the language was just a little too redolent of Nazi-era Germany.

Which is understandable. The Emergency Decree for the Protection of the German People, issued on 28 February 1933, permitted the suspension of the democratic aspects of the soon-to-disappear Weimar Republic, and legally sanctioned the Nazis suppression and persecution of political opponents. That, after all, is what states of emergency tend to entail: a clampdown on civil and democratic freedom in the interests of preserving the state against a perceived existential threat. And that is what the climate emergency entails, too.

It raises a few questions. Given the unpleasant, brown-shirted whiff steaming off the idea of a climate emergency, why are political and cultural elites in the EU, the UK and the US so willing to embrace it? And, more pertinently, why now?

It cannot be fully explained by reference to the state of the environment, no matter how devastating the Australian bushfires, or destructive the floods in northern England. For there is always more to environmentalism than environmental challenges. And the more in this case is the seismic shift in the post-2016 political landscape. It is a landscape in which Western elites find themselves mortally threatened, not so much by climate change, but by those they can blame for it the people. And this is precisely why climate change has resurged as an issue over the past few years, and why the profoundly anti-democratic idea of a climate emergency lies at its heart. Because it is being mobilised against the populist threat.

The shift in tone of the climate-change issue is marked. When environmentalism last enjoyed its moment in the blazing Sun, in the mid-2000s, it was still of course a catastrophist narrative. It could hardly have been otherwise, given its anti-Enlightenment, Malthusian origins. But the approach was condescendingly scientistic rather than shrill and panic-stricken. The truth was inconvenient, rather than compelling. An IPCC report would offer a very likely range of future scenarios, rather than offer a singularly scary warning. But then environmentalism preached to estranged, often understandably bored electorates, rather than recalcitrant, restive ones.

This patronising, scientistic tone reflected environmentalisms political, ideological function, as a legitimising gloss painted on to Western political elites administration of things. It was the handmaiden of technocracy and managerialism. It allowed post-Cold War elites to disavow modernity, justify long-term economic stagnation, and provide their Third Way governance with a semblance of purpose.

The financial crash and subsequent economic crisis was to sideline environmentalism. From 2008 onwards, justifying economic stagnation no longer needed a green dressing. It could become, as austerity, a policy and ideology in its own right. Hence, from the UK to the crisis-ridden eurozone, politicians of all stripes now talked of fiscal responsibility, of cutting back and consuming less.

2016 changed everything. The populist challenge to the political classes of Europe and the US, which had been stirring for a while, erupted in the form of Brexit and the election of Donald Trump as US president. And environmentalism resurged in response. It had always served as a way of managing the public, of justifying the political classs mode of governance. Now it could serve as a way of quelling the populist challenge. Of diminishing peoples democratic aspirations. Of suppressing the rejection of technocracy and managerialism. After all, what is politics or taxes or Brexit beside the climate emergency?

Climate activists, a uniformly bourgeois bunch as opposed to Brexit as they are to Trump voters, have rallied. Rising Up!, the group that was to launch Extinction Rebellion in 2018, staged its first action in November 2016. And the teachers pets of the Climate Strike movement began theirs in the summer of 2018.

Sometimes they have positioned themselves explicitly against Brexit, or Trump. But often they dont need to. Their climate-emergency message does the job implicitly, functioning, as it does, as an all-purpose means to diminish and even suppress the democratic ambitions of the revolting masses.

Little wonder, then, that environmentalism is so central to the preservation of the status quo today. The climate emergency is the elites response to the populist challenge. It represents the suspension of peoples democratic aspirations. The suspension of politics. But, as has been demonstrated ever since 2016, the populist challenge resists suspension.

Tim Black is a spiked columnist.

Picture by: Getty.

To enquire about republishing spikeds content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Read more:
The climate emergency is a threat to democracy - Spiked

SYRIZA leader Alexis Tsipras. (Photo by Eurokiniossi/ Stelios Missinas)

ATHENS Speaking to Saturdays edition of Efimerida Ton Syntakton, main opposition SYRIZA party leader Alexis Tsipras expressed his view that the government of New Democracy will not see the end of its four-year term, and how he also believes that it is quite possible to see a political power shift to social democracy in Greece, along the lines of the Spanish governmental alliance between the socialists and the Podemos party.

The collapse of Mitsotakis government has begun, while New Democracy officials and the prime minister himself are exploring the idea of snap elections to prevent the loss of political equilibrium, said Tsipras and that their policy and the reactions it causes, are forcing them to draft an early elections plan.

The ruling New Democracy on Friday voted the re-enforced proportional system of distributing seats after national elections, but because the draft did not collect the minimum 200 votes required by the constitution to go into effect on the next national elections (which will be held on the current system of simple proportionality, introduced by the SYRIZA government), the new system will go into effect on the next but one elections. The issue relates to the number of bonus seats awarded to the winning party, which was abolished under the current electoral law.

Criticizing the re-introduction of the system Syriza abolished when once in government, Tsipras said that they (New Democracy) underestimate the fact that whenever next elections are held-will be held on the current system of simple proportionality, and now they mention double elections, so what are they thinking of doing? Go to the polls claiming votes by telling voters that the first ballot is of no value-so wait for the next one? They are risking a big surprise, he noted.

In any case we will be ready to claim a victory in the elections, whenever they may be held, as the popular support for SYRIZA and a government of democratic and progressive co-operation, will not include New Democracy as part of the solution, concluded Syrizas leader.

See original here:
Tsipras: "New Democracy Will Not See the End of Its Four-Year Term" - The National Herald