Mediaboss Marketing

Facebook announced today it would fund a project called Defending Digital Democracy. The project, co-founded by the campaign managers for both Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, aims to thwart outside interference in elections.

The Belfer Center at The John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University announced the project earlier this month. Eric Rosenbach, Co-Director of the Belfer Center and former Assistant Secretary of Defense will be heading it up. In a Harvard press release he said:

Americans across the political spectrum agree that political contests should be decided by the power of ideas, not the skill of foreign hackers. Cyber deterrence starts with strong cyber defense and this project brings together key partners in politics, national security, and technology to generate innovative ideas to safeguard our key democratic institutions.

The announcement came during Black Hat, an annual security event held in Las Vegas. Reuters reports Facebook Chief Security Officer Alex Stamos said:

Right now we are the founding sponsor, but we are in discussions with other tech organizations. The goal for our money specifically is to help build a standalone ISAO (Information Sharing and Analysis Organization) that pulls in all the different groups that have some kind of vulnerability.

Stamos declined to say how much money Facebook would be contributing to the Defending Digital Democracy project. He did, however, announce that Facebook would be offering a $1 million Internet Defense Prize for researchers this year, according to Financial Times.

The social network also announced it would be investing in education by joining forces with CodePath, a training company that provides free education for engineers.

Facebook has shown a vested interest in fighting fake-news, though perhaps this isnt entirely altruistic. The social network might not have intentionally meddled in the 2016 Presidential election, but the role that false news articles on Facebook played cant be overstated.

In a few long years well start the entire US Presidential election circus all over again, in the mean-time weve got hundreds of elections from the State to Federal level occurring first. The Defending Digital Democracy team has more than its fair share of work ahead.

Update 1:47 PM CST : A representative for Facebook contacted us to say that the social network was disclosing it pledged $500,000 to the Defending Digital Democracy project.

Facebook funds Harvard effort to fight election hacking, propaganda on Reuters

Read next: It's time to fear Amazon

Excerpt from:
Facebook teams with Harvard to defend democracy from hackers - TNW

A general view shows the plenum during the swearing-in ceremony of the 20th Knesset, the new Israeli parliament, in Jerusalem March 31, 2015.. (photo credit:REUTERS)

The idea that the lone citizens choice at the ballot box makes a difference stands at the heart of democracy. A politician receives the backing of a group of like-minded constituents to implement a given policy. The politician is voted into office and proceeds to pass laws that advance a specific agenda. The laws are then implemented and have a direct impact on our lives. There is, in this democratic process, a direct link between the people and the government.

Unfortunately, it does not always work this way. In Israel, and in other democracies, governance is weak, which is another way of saying that laws passed in the Knesset or decisions made by the cabinet do not always get implemented. As a result, our politicians do not solve long-standing market failures, such as Israels housing shortage and related exorbitant housing prices; and preparedness for catastrophes remains unsatisfactory, as witnessed during the 2010 Mount Carmel forest fire.

A 2005 study by Doron Navot and Eli Reches found that in Israel, 70% of government decisions ranging from public housing to privatization of the sea ports, from reforms in the Israel Electric Corporation to the construction of a light rail in Tel Aviv are left unimplemented. There are no signs that the situation has improved in the past decade.

The result of this disconnect is not only a failure on the part of consecutive governments to govern. The impact is much more pernicious and debilitating to the democratic process.

Unimplemented legislation and cabinet decisions tend to undermine the publics faith in democracy. Many citizens will ask themselves: If politicians and ministers do not follow through with the decisions they make, why bother to vote?

In an attempt to restore faith in the democratic process, the Knesset this week decided to form a new professional department to combat the phenomenon by which ministers do not implement laws passed by the legislature. Assuming the Knesset actually follows through on this initiative, it could improve Israeli governance.

The new body would focus on ensuring that ministers do not bury laws passed by the Knesset by failing to prepare the necessary secondary legislation needed for working out the technical details to implement the laws. There are 51 laws awaiting such secondary legislation, according to the Knesset research department.

These include a law regulating the way rabbinical courts work, which was supposed to be addressed by the Justice Ministry by 2004; and a law requiring the Defense Ministry to arrange for the operation of the Fund to Clear Mines by July 2011 neither of which has been implemented.

But creating a regulatory body might not be enough. Many ministers resist implementation of laws passed by previous governments either because they opposed these laws on ideological grounds or because they do not want to allocate part of their limited budget for it, or a combination of both.

Also, ministers are replaced at a dizzying speed. Even if they want to implement legislation they are unable to, because they do not stay in office long enough. Since the present government was created a year and a half ago, five ministers left and seven have been appointed. Ten portfolios including defense and interior have switched hands. The Economy portfolio has been held by four ministers.

Our short-lived governments are another factor that hurts governance. Since 1996, a finance minister or an interior minister has served on average 18 months. Eli Cohen is the 14th economy minister during this period; Yoav Gallant is the 13th construction minister.

Under these circumstances, it is unrealistic to expect a coherent policy as articulated in legislation to be implemented, no matter how many regulatory bodies are created by the Knesset.

The real solution to the problem of governance is taking steps to ensure that governments last longer and that ministers remain in their positions for an entire term, perhaps through electoral reform.

The lifeblood of democracy is the citizens conviction that they can bring about change with a vote. Without effective governance, democracy is seriously compromised.

Share on facebook

See the rest here:
Governance and democracy - The Jerusalem Post mobile website

There is a difference between the much-avowed claims of accountability and justice in the Panama case and the way the real story has started to shape up in the aftermath of the JIT report.

There is an element of truth in the recent public statements of government representatives that the Panama case has turned out to be more a case of political wrangling than being a legal matter. Our political history is replete with extra-constitutional attempts to demonise civilian rule and the democratic process at large. If the Panama affair is only about regime change then it will hardly serve any real justice. At least there is a growing realisation that accountability must be meted out for all those whose names are included in the Panama Papers.

Analysts see a possible division between Nawaz Sharif and the establishment on critical aspects of domestic and foreign policy, which has aggravated the ongoing political crisis in the country. According to some political analysts, these differences became irreducible when the government raised concerns about the lack of coordination between the establishment and the relevant government officials on matters regarding CPEC. This may not be the only factor for the current inner strains of state apparatus but it is an indicator of lack of confidence which has often had consequences for civilian governments.

Analysts are of the view that the Panama case, therefore, may not be only about legal proceedings against allegedly ill-gotten wealth but more about the exercise of power to prevail in a conflict. Divided civilian forces are vying for a larger political role in case the government succumbs to the Panama imbroglio.

There is no good omen for the nascent democracy of Pakistan as its sitting prime minster is under siege to an evolving popular perception that democracy is not the right kind of rule or governance for this country. The losers in all this are those citizens of this country whose political rights will be trampled if, Heavens forbid, this becomes another case for the infamous Doctrine of necessity.

The saga of corruption triggered by the Panama case has turned out to be an anti-democracy campaign rather than a judicial inquiry into an individual and his family. There seem to be deliberate attempts to discredit democracy and political institutions of public representation which signals at a deep division within the power structure of Pakistani state.

The protracted tug of war between Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan does not seem to strengthen democratic processes. It is more about jeopardising the very foundations of democracy in Pakistan. The political campaign of the PTI is restricted to an anti-Nawaz tirade which stops short of providing an alternate democratic choice for the wretched people of Pakistan. The PTI wants to see Nawaz Sharif out of power and for that end it is thought by some that the party would go far enough to seek the support of undemocratic forces. Nawaz Sharif, on the other hand, is only interested in clinging to power at any cost one that may even derail the democratic process.

The most ardent advocates of right-wing politics in Pakistan, the PTI and the PML-N, are striving to outdo each other by articulating a moralising discourse of politics. With an appeal to different social classes, both parties do not have a transformative political agenda to address the structural causes of poverty and underdevelopment in Pakistan. Driven by a traditional top-down economic growth model, the PML-N seeks the support of the conservative trading classes and business people who fear losing their businesses in an era of economic liberalisation. These business people and traders see religion as a potential force to assert their power to influence political and economic policy. The PTI, on the other hand, has formulated a short-term political strategy of anti-corruption discourse that moralises politics by emphasising behavioural change and cosmetic reformism as political alternative.

The PTI and the PPP could have come up with a strong political narrative to differentiate between a legal proceeding that takes its course in the court and a pro-democratic stance at the same time so as to resist the demonisation of democracy. Both mainstream political parties must realise that they will not be the beneficiaries of the politicisation of the Panama case and they have much to learn from the political history of Pakistan. The ongoing battle of powers needs to be understood in the larger context of our national political history rather than reducing it to a frivolous sloganeering of Go Nawaz Go.

There lies some serious political ambiguity at the core of the anti-Nawaz campaign that tends to obfuscate the legality of the matter to salvage those who disdain public accountability. One would have no problems in demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif from public office but it must be decided through a legal process rather than through political means. If justice is not served in a court of law, there should be a well-concerted political movement for public accountability of the institutions mandated to dispense justice. Institutional accountability, and not individual discretions, is key to the creation of a robust democratic system that promotes the fundamental principles of accountability, transparency and inclusive justice. Likewise, all institutions of the state must be governed by the principles of accountability, transparency and inclusiveness. There are larger political matters at stake when we fail to evolve a democratic political culture through institutional reforms and restructuring.

Our political history is the best guide to help revisit our hitherto political ad-hocism in favour of a long-term strategy of civic engagement, institutional reforms and restructuring, equitable resource allocation and de-mobilisation of a militaristic mindset. This is an uphill task but there are no short cuts to do away with the long accumulated political mess of 70 years. We must now show the needed political intrepidity to question the outmoded political gimmicks of oppression, regimentation and absolutism. Democracy, religio-cultural pluralism, tolerance and peace go hand in hand to build a prosperous and people-centric polity.

We have all the reasons to dislike or be suspicious of Nawaz Sharif for what he did with money but we cannot condone the threats to democracy. Nawaz Sharif and public officeholders of his ilk will ultimately be gone if we strive to build a robust democracy where there are no sacred cows and where there is no one above the law.

For the institutions to deliver to the people there must be a strong system of public accountability so that a common citizen finds reasons to defend them. This will, in turn, engender social legitimacy of political institutions and will help flourish democracy in the long run. This was what happened in Turkey in the recent past where citizens came out to defend their democratic institutions against a possible putsch. If we want to position ourselves as a modern democratic country in the comity of civilised nations we must learn quickly to build those institutions which will save us from the tyranny of our brand of Jacobins in the making. It will also help build a political system with the ability of self-cleansing rather than having to take recourse to JITs and the likes.

The writer is a freelance columnist based in Islamabad.

Email: [emailprotected]

Continued here:
Democracy first - The News International

Wednesday July 26 2017

East Timorese President Francisco Guterres (front left) and first lady Cidalia Mozinho (front right) vote during parliamentary election in Dili, on July 22, 2017. PHOTO | VALENTINO DARRIEL de SOUSA | AFP

As the country gears up for the August 8 General Election, there is an array of political opinions as to the right candidates for the various elective positions.

Everything is up for debate; from a candidates age, qualifications and ethnicity to competence, integrity and experience.

It is the acceptance that we have a working vehicle and merely need a competent driver, that I would like us to question.

While in Singapore, I was engaged in an enlightening debate, where we moved from questioning leaders to the underlying system of leadership.

Democracy, has consistently been perpetuated, especially by the West, as a symbol of freedom and prosperity, while differing ideologies have been attacked by both propaganda and an army carrying a democratic flag in the name of liberation.

This reached its peak during the Cold War era and it has since spilled over into the 21st century, while democracy has been enshrined in constitutions the world over, including Kenyas.

There is undoubted substance to the prodemocratic debate.

However, alternative views are subjected to evil glances and are not offered an effective, fair podium to present their case.

A 2016 research by the Economist Intelligence Unit found there were only 19 true democracies across the globe despite some 100 countries claiming to be democratic.

Libya was found to have made the most significant democratic leap, though social and economic stability have significantly deteriorated; a mirror of Iraq after the second Gulf War.

As citizens, we generally seek social and economic prosperity married to freedom of expression, and this is colourfully advertised on the cover of the democracy can.

Upon slight inspection though, there is an appreciation that inequality generally prevails and the economic gap widens.

Moreover, there is invariably a limit to your freedom of expression despite your constitutional right.

As such, no one can wholly debate that democracy is a full-proof ideology, but the question remains as to what would be an accepted alternative.

There are nations that have adopted a deliberately controlled democratic ideology with some desired success.

China, UAE, Bahrain, South Korea, Singapore, Qatar and Rwanda are some of the selected case studies that come to mind for the alternative pseudodemocracy.

These are all progressive being either a class leader or trending above global average in GDP per capita and quality of livelihood.

These nations indicators all trend positively with the aggressive adoption of progressive investments across various sectors.

These countries are run by a small circle of highly patriotic, selfless, competent and authoritative leaders not dictators but authoritative.

These nations ensure the national interest is placed first beyond the democratic interests, which may sound like an oxymoron at first glance.

Votes may be effectively influenced and policies successfully lobbied for by dominant puppeteers, despite an objective narrative.

Kenya has flirted with the idea of banning plastic bags for over 12 years despite the widely acknowledged impact they have on the environment, while judicial enforcement is mentioned as a bottleneck in the fight against corruption.

India, the largest democracy, sees laws go through multiple steps and years before implementation, while South Africa and the USA carry the same burden of doing what is voted for versus what is right. Effectively, majorities in Parliament, Congress or alternative, are required by the government of the day to have its way during its term until the next government comes in and faces a similar battle.

Rwanda and Singapore, have small circles of decision makers who review a policy and if accepted, its implementation is near immediate while its enforcement is absolute.

You will find both these nations in the lower half of the democracy index.

Rwanda is dubbed Africas Singapore, given its no-nonsense approach to corruption, vibrant economy, investor friendly policies and the unique air of acceptance of controlled liberties.

The nations that adopt selective aspects of democracy unquestionably need competent selfless leaders.

Kenya has 45 per cent of the population living in poverty, a frustrated middle-class segment, rampant corruption and nervous foreign investors.

There perhaps are some who would be willing to listen to a hybrid form of democracy.

There, perhaps, may be an opportunity for a candidate to unapologetically present an alternative leadership concept to fellow Kenyans.

Investors hold on to cash while foreign governments issue travel advisories, fearing violence

Uhuru urges supporters to vote in large numbers to give him another term. #ElectionsKE

See the article here:
Is democracy overrated as a system? - Daily Nation

The German and EU flags fly at half mast outside the Reichstag building in Berlin | Adam Berry/AFP via Getty Images

Christian Democrats have the fewest populist supporters.

By Christian Krug

7/25/17, 3:00 PM CET

A significant number of Germans support populist ideas, according to a new survey, but their views are moderate and most are pro-EU and pro-democracy.

Around 1,600 German voters were asked to answer multiple-choice questions as part of aBertelsmann Foundationstudy.Almost 30 percent were found to havepopulist views and 34 percent partial populist views.

What surprised us is that many of those categorized as populists think the membership of Germany in the EU is a good thing, said Christina Tillmann, director of Bertelsmanns Future of Democracy program.

Its definition of populism was being anti-establishment and believing that the political establishment should directly reflect the will of the people.A slight majority of Germans were found to be frustrated with the way democracy works, but there was overwhelming support for democracy as a political system.

According to the research, Christian Democrat voters were the least likely to hold populist views (40 percent), while half of Social Democrat and the Left party voters were dubbed populists. Sixty percent of supporters of the right-wingAlternative for Germany fell into the populist category, according to Bertelsmann.

More here:
German populists support democracy and the EU: study POLITICO - POLITICO.eu