Mediaboss Marketing

When President Trump visited Poland earlier this month, he praised the country as a defender of Western values and democracy. But now, the countrys democratic institutions are quickly unraveling as the government pushes legislation that would essentially make its Supreme Court irrelevant.

On Thursday, lawmakers in the lower house of the Polish parliament voted in favor of a controversial bill that would give the government complete control over the Supreme Court.

The bill would essentially grant the ruling party the power to appoint new Supreme Court judges and calls for the immediate dismissal of the courts current judges, except those who had been chosen by President Andrzej Duda.

Specifically, the bill states that the National Judicial Council will select new judges. A law passed earlier this month made it so that the councils membership predominantly consists of people appointed by the president.

In a hard-hitting column, the Washington Posts Anne Applebaum argued that having a supreme court packed with pro-Duda judges could enable the government to falsify elections, evade corruption investigations, and prosecute opponents.

This is a blatant attack by Polands government on the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law, said Lydia Gall, a Balkans and Eastern Europe researcher at Human Rights Watch, in a statement.

The bill was submitted by the right-wing, EU-skeptic, and nationalist Law and Justice party (PiS), which controls both the upper and lower houses of parliament and picked President Duda. Since winning October 2015s democratic elections, the party has been determined to dismantle Polands checks and balances.

Now that the bill has been approved by the lower house, it moves on for a vote in the upper house. If it passes, it would then go to the president to be signed and passed as law.

In his July 6 speech in Warsaw, Trump questioned whether the West has the will to survive in its fight against radical Islamic terrorism.

Repeatedly throughout the speech, Trump praised Poland as a defender of the West.

Just as Poland could not be broken, I declare today for the world to hear that the West will never, ever be broken, Trump said. Our values will prevail, our people will thrive, and our civilization will triumph.

His nationalistic message was clear: The United States has Polands back even as the government is undermining its democracy. His speech may have even emboldened Polish legislators to consolidate the governments power by making it clear that the US was perfectly content with the countrys rightward drift.

I am here today not just to visit an old ally, but to hold it up as an example for others who seek freedom and who wish to summon the courage and the will to defend our civilization, said Trump.

Over the weekend, thousands of government opponents protested the bill and the governments attempts to consolidate power in Warsaw and several other cities.

The Krakow Post interviewed a number of protestors who said they were afraid for their countrys future. One protestor said it was his first time demonstrating since communism ended in Poland 27 years ago.

Now it is more dangerous. Very, very dangerous, Robert, a local 51-year-old engineer, told the Krakow Post. Communism was part of external control by Russia. But [the Law and Justice Party] is an internal thief of law.

The European Union, which Poland joined in 2004, has warned that the Polish government could be sanctioned and have its voting rights suspended if it passes the supreme court law.

Frans Timmermans, the European commissions first vice president, said on Wednesday that the EU is very close to triggering Article 7, a never-before-used rule that allows the EU to suspend member countries voting rights. It was established to ensure that all EU countries respect the common values of the EU, according to Politico.

Trump, in other words, should have probably held off in holding Poland up as an example of a smoothly-functioning democratic nation.

See more here:
Trump praised Poland as a defender of the West. But their democracy is unraveling. - Vox

The dearth of foreign leaders willing to publicly criticize Mr. Xi has added to a sense of despair and isolation among activists. Many say they feel abandoned by the United States in particular, and they worry that President Trump will prioritize trade with China at the expense of human rights.

People are full of sorrow, anger and desperation, said Zhao Hui, 48, a dissident writer who goes by the pen name Mo Zhixu. We hope the democratic activists who still remain can keep the flame alive. But bringing about change to the bigger picture might be too much to ask.

The passing of Mr. Liu, who preached peace and patience, has provoked debate about the best path toward democracy. Many activists argue that more forceful tactics are necessary to counter what they see as unrelenting government hostility. Some have pushed for mass protests, while a small number believe that violence is the only option, even if they do not endorse it outright.

Some have turned to believe in violent revolution, said Hu Jia, a prominent dissident who served more than three years in prison for his activism and still faces routine surveillance. It makes people feel the door to a peaceful transition has closed.

Mr. Lius allies remain incensed by the Chinese governments handling of his case. Officials disclosed that Mr. Liu, 61, had advanced liver cancer only when it was too late to treat it, prompting accusations that his medical care was inadequate. The authorities have also prevented his wife, Liu Xia, an artist and activist, from speaking or traveling freely.

The scrutiny facing government critics is likely to grow even more suffocating in the months ahead.

The Communist Party will hold a leadership reshuffle this fall, at which Mr. Xi is expected to win another five-year term and appoint allies to key positions. In the run-up to the meeting, the party is tightening its grip on online communications and escalating pressure on critics.

Human rights advocates say that the party appears increasingly hostile toward dissent and intent on quashing even small-scale movements. Over the past two years, dozens of human rights lawyers have been jailed and accused of conspiring with foreign forces to carry out subversive plots. Mr. Xis government, wary of grass-roots activism, has also increased oversight of domestic and foreign nonprofit organizations.

Yaxue Cao, an activist who grew up in China but is now based in the United States, said Mr. Lius death was the climax of a long and continuous stretch of ruthless elimination. She recited a long list of critics who had been sidelined since Mr. Xi rose to power in 2012, which she said had led to a culture of fear and intimidation.

The party has been working systematically to block the path forward, she said. A few hundred or a few thousand activists are nothing for the party.

Advocates say they were startled that foreign leaders did not speak out more forcefully about the treatment of Mr. Liu. While American diplomats called on China to allow Mr. Liu to travel abroad for cancer treatment, Mr. Trump did not speak publicly about the case.

Western countries have adopted a policy of appeasement, Mr. Hu said. The Communist Party has the resources to whip whomever they want.

The Chinese government has defended its treatment of Mr. Liu and accused foreign critics of meddling in its affairs.

While China has seemed less responsive to foreign pressure on human rights issues in recent years, several activists said they thought it was still important for world leaders to speak out.

We hope the West can maintain its moral position, Mr. Zhao said. Even though the pressure is not as effective as it should be, it needs to be expressed.

Despite the governments efforts to limit dissent, some of Mr. Lius supporters say they have emerged more energized in the days since his death. They see hope in a middle class that is increasingly outspoken; grass-roots activists who are taking on issues as varied as pollution and forced demolitions of homes; and a generation of young advocates who have taken on causes like feminism and rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender citizens.

How long can such an approach last before discontent boils over? said Maya Wang, a researcher at Human Rights Watch in Hong Kong. One only needs to look at the protests, particularly in the countryside, to see the enormous grievances there are out there.

In the aftermath of Mr. Lius passing, his admirers have found ways around the governments controls on speech to honor him. Several supporters uploaded photos of the ocean this week as a tribute to Mr. Liu, whose ashes were spread at sea.

Wu Qiang, a dissident intellectual, drove about 400 miles last week from Beijing to the northeastern city of Shenyang, where Mr. Liu was being treated, to be near him in his final days. Mr. Wu, 46, said Mr. Lius death had left many of his admirers with a desire to turn sorrow into strength.

On one side is darkness; on the other side is hope, he said. We need to find a new way forward.

Iris Zhao contributed research.

Read the original post:
In China, Despair for Cause of Democracy After Nobel Laureate's Death - New York Times

Dennis Gronquist

Stillwater

To the editor:

Mark Krzmarzick seems like a fairly well informed writer and reader of the News Press. Good for him. I hope its not liberal brainwashing. In his Letter to the Editor, Writers arguments filled with holes on July 6, it is evident that he is still somewhat confused, as are many other people, over the difference between a democracy and a republic.

Yes, Mark, I agree with Merriam-Webster, even though it is a poor source for explaining this difference. Wikipedia or Blacks Law Dictionary are somewhat better, but it is still somewhat confusing as they are similar. Both democracies and republics may have laws written by representative governments. Thats a no brainer. But your attempt to clarify the terminology is not helping. What we just agreed upon does not change the fact that we do not have a democracy or a democratic republic. Yes, there are similarities.

To quote Steve King, Our Founding Fathers crafted a constitutional republic for the first time in the history of the world because they were shaping a form of government that would not have the failures of a democracy in it, but had the representation of democracy in it.

A better definition is to quote Benjamin Franklin, We have a constitutional republic, if we can keep it.

The Founders established limits on what government can do without public approval. When these constitutional limits are routinely violated by government, and we do nothing about it, our government is openly evolving into something other than what was originally intended and what has served us and the world so well. A prime example is the Democratic Party with a socialist candidate and platform. Then, there are the bogus Oklahoma public trusts used by the City Council to justify double utility rates and other excessive fees, simply because the state allows it.

They do not serve the common man, but their governmental entities at public expense. In doing so, they violate not only the Oklahoma state constitution, but the U.S. Constitution; the supreme law of the land.

The best example of a true democratic republic is still the Democratic Peoples Republic of (North) Korea, the proud DPRK, with its million man army. To suggest our government is a democratic republic is not only in error, its ludicrous.

If the majority ruled, Hillary Clinton would be carrying on the socialist practices of her predecessor. Thankfully, the Constitution defines an electoral college that temporarily saved us from paying the welfare state in Mexifornia; who, like our city employees, will always want more.

Read more from the original source:
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: We're no democracy, thank goodness - Stillwater News Press

In her July 13 op-ed in Foreign Affairs, How U.S. Officials Can Craft Innovative Human Rights Policy, former Ambassador Sarah Mendelson recalls her work as a senior, politically-appointed foreign policy official in the Obama administration. Her personal mission, as she recalls, was to elevate human rightsfirst within USAID, and later when she worked for the US Mission to the United Nations.

Her initiatives to promote civil society and human rights within small powers such as post-Ben Ali Tunisia are admirable. However, her implicit suggestion that we ought to elevate human rights in our relations with great powers such as China and Russia is strategically incorrect. Our countrys policies vis-a-vis great powers (and to some extent medium powers, such as Turkey) must be guided, first and foremost, by a grand strategy rooted in our strategic interests, not one that aims to reflect our values.

In January 2010, Ambassador Mendelson was asked by the Obama administration to join USAID. Right away she embarked on a proactive agenda to push human rights to the top of the priority chain. Yet nearly three years later, as she was about to travel to Russia to assess the impact of Americas civil society promotion efforts there, Putin decided to quickly shut down USAIDs presence in Russia.

Ambassador Sarah Mendelson. Credit: Center for Strategic and International Studies/Flickr/Creative Commons

Astoundingly, she writes, she felt upset that there was no consequence (from the U.S. government) for Russias actions. This is a worrying sentiment from a senior official whose work impacts U.S. national security. Why should there have been a consequence for Putins crack-down on a political opposition promoted by USAID? Shouldnt she have expected that to be the reaction of an authoritarian leader?

Both the U.S. and Russia have nuclear arsenals that could bring about the worlds destruction. The situation is is tense, in Syria and in Eastern Europe, where American forces are in close proximity to an increasingly bellicose Russia. There can be no room for error. There can and should be real consequences for Russian strategic misbehavior: for example, a Russian attack on one of Americas NATO allies, or meddling in the U.S. elections. But Putins reaction to the Obama administrations democracy promotion in Russia (which the Kremlin viewed, probably correctly, as efforts to undermine his regime), does not rise to the level of injury Mendelson seemed to suggest.

If anything, Putins increasingly repressive measures should have had the opposite impact on Ambassador Mendelson: They should have caused her to reconsider attempts to elevate civil society promotion in powerful nations like Russia, an on-again/off-again adversary, especially since the results were so blatantly contrary to her intentions. And she should have considered, when reflecting on her time in government, whether her enthusiastic efforts to increase support to political opposition inside Russia inadvertently contributed to Putins decision to try to undermine Hillary Clinton during the 2016 elections.

Despite or because of USAIDs closing in Russia, Ambassador Mendelson continues, she doubled-down on her efforts to promote civil society in Russia. Following Putins closure of USAID, her team worked to establish centers in various parts of the world as places where members of civil society could learn to be more resilient and develop skills that made them better connected to the people they were meant to represent than to their foreign donors. This is both disappointing and illogical. Disappointing because it exudes undiplomatic arrogance: Does she really think that individuals who are courageous enough to risk their lives being part of the opposition in politically repressive countries like Russia or China need foreign officials (many born and bred in an elite, upper-class bubble), to teach them on how to be more resilient? And how does resilience training for activists in repressive countries look like? Solitary confinement in the morning, starvation in the afternoon, sleep deprivation at night, and torture at dawn?

In addition, such centers require the U.S. government to finance, lead, support, and sustain them. So the U.S. will (and in some instances already) becomes a foreign donor to centers that teach activists to pay less attention to foreign donors. This does not make sense.

The Ambassador is critical of President Donald Trumps and Secretary of State Rex Tillersons omissions regarding human rights and civil society. Yet this is precisely what is needed at this point in history. Putting aside Iraq for a second (since she is not suggesting promoting human rights through military force), think of the regionswhere the U.S. has tried promoting civil society over the last two decadesEastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle East. Today the sovereignty of Georgia and Ukraine has been torn to shreds by Russias counter-reaction (from sending in little green men, to increasing cyber attacks on those countries critical infrastructures). Meanwhile political factionalism and corruption in both countries has made future progress impossible.

Promoting human rights, democratic institutions, or civil society can remain the aspiration of individual diplomats, but American foreign policy must first be guided by strategic interests. Today, the U.S. should seek to find ways to cooperate with China and Russia on Syria, Iran, North Korea, and other pressing challenges, rather than to promote civil society in Beijing or Moscow, and thereby inadvertently trigger an unnecessary and dangerous escalation in hostilities.

Dr. Oleg Svet is a defense analyst. The views expressed here are his own.

Read more from the original source:
When Pushing Democracy on Others Backfires - The American Conservative

Javier Lpez

The aftershocks of the Great Recession are still being felt. The trail of suffering in the shape of unemployment and destruction of wealth has transformed the map-making of the western world, ending up by provoking a real geopolitical recession with an Anglo-American epicentre aka the cradle of global capitalism. Likewise, the coordinates of the political agenda are being modified; old conflicts are resurfacing, new cracks appearing. Once again, distribution of wealth, inequality and their effects are returning to the centre stage of public debate. Why is this?

We are reproducing the abnormal levels of inequality of the Gilded Age,precursor to the First World War and the following Great Depression. Fairness and social mobility are linked (The Great Gatsby Curve); in fact, if you want to live the American Dream, you should go to Scandinavia. Similarly, inequality in relation to income and between genders develops along parallel lines. Fairness acts as a social glue creating connections of mutual trust.

With inequality, there are various patterns of correlation that allow us to argue that fairer societies have better social results, as well as being healthier, more peaceful and cooperative (Wilkinson and Pickett). There is a correlation between inequality and infant mortality, life expectancy, unwanted pregnancies and rates of mental illness. Social vulnerability goes hand in hand with emotional fragility. In Spain, the OECD country after Cyprus where inequality has increased most, consumption of antidepressants has tripled in the last ten years.

One of the basic axioms of the dominant mode of thinking has been: inequality is the price to be paid for market efficiency. Until now. Endless academic literature links problems with growth to current levels of inequality. Its connection to secular stagnation has also come up, as inequality distorts demand, holds back family consumption levels and favours over-indebtedness. Therefore, it is worth recalling that an increase in salaries would activate the economy.

According to no less than the IMF, less inequality allows for a faster and more longer lasting growth (see here). All this invites us to transition to the following discourse: a move from growth for redistribution towards redistribution for growth. The left should take note. Only strategies of equal and balanced growth will guarantee recovery in the economies of industrialized countries.

At the same time inequality acts as a solvent for democracy. The decline of the middle class undermines the political order and damages traditional politics. The polarization of income outcomes contributes to political polarization and weakens support for inclusive democratic and economic institutions. Inequality undermines interpersonal trust and encourages the sensation of lack of control. These ingredients are the basis of the reactionary political cocktail that is battering the world.

In this way, the components of welfare that end up defining social class and socio-economic context are being reconfigured (State, family and labour market). We fall back on the family more and require more help from the State due to the lack of quality labour opportunities. Put simply, labour has ceased to be the main source of prosperity and stability: a historical breakdown of the utmost gravity, aggravated by aggressive labour reform, a weakening of collective bargaining, and the consolidation of precarious and poorly paid employment.

Yet when we most need the States help, it faces aggressive processes of fiscal consolidation. Austerity is a painful medicine; it has caused a massive increase in unemployment and a fall in adjusted salaries (2010-2015). At the same time, fiscal consolidation based on cutbacks in public spending exacerbates social stratification.

The fiscal rules institutionalized during the Eurozone crisis (Fiscal Compact) are a deflationary anchor that acts as a straitjacket. The dysfunctional design of the single currency is a machine that worsens divergences, incapable of dealing with asymmetrical shocks. Completing the institutions of monetary union and increasing the member states room for fiscal manoeuvring should be at the heart of any progressive European Project.

Market globalization and liberalization acts in this way. On the one hand, it has taken millions of people out of poverty in recent decades, especially in Asia, yet on the other hand a significant part of the middle classes and workers in the developed world do not feel any benefit (Milanovic). Therefore, the perverse logic of focusing on net profit must be accompanied by the logic of profit distribution.

The automation and digitalisation of the economy act in a similar way. Its clear that technological advances produce profit, but they also generate a strong skills bias in the labour market and renovate the typology of job positions. If public powers do not counteract, compensating and rebalancing the losers and winners, there will always be people prepared to smash machines with hammers or tempted to impose terrible commercial blockades.

This new clothing of inequality also brings with it the opening of new wounds that activate fears and identity crises. Generational and territorial gaps explain to a large extent recent European election results. The mechanisms of intergenerational solidarity are ceasing to function, and in the eyes of many young people the promise on which democracy is built has been broken: that the future is a desirable place to inhabit.

Jeremy Corbyn has achieved a spectacular increase in his electoral base, mobilizing young people and those who previously abstained with the pledge to restore that promise. He has managed to be seen as a politician who is honestly worried about the daily problems of many of them, indeed the majority. Quite a rara avis, and he has reintroduced the topic of socio-economic conflict into the electoral conversation.

At the same time, urban/rural cleavages operate powerfully in the political conflict. Diverse urban centres integrated into the global value chain versus a periphery either rural or suffering from deindustrialisation (Guilluy). A breeding ground for Rousseau-istic resentment and identity withdrawal. A new logic emerges from all this globalism versus nationalism/nativism which crosses traditional political conflicts. And all this cannot be understood without one factor: inequality.

This new logic, between defending open and closed societies, has landed on territorial fault lines. Le Pen only managed to garner one in ten votes in Paris. Trump, 4% in Washington DC, theBrexiteers,one in four ballot papers in inner London. Emmanuel Macron skilfully positioned himself as an opposing party in the conflict, becoming the new strong man in a Europe lacking directional signposts.

But the risk provoked by the activation of this axis of conflict is looming in France: a left in total breakdown. To repair the progressive electoral base, it is necessary to put into practice a program of redistribution against inequality. The recipes of the twentieth century have been as follows: Keynesian management of economic policies of demand, state industrial planning, preservation of collective bargaining, fiscal redistribution through taxes and a system of social welfare. This road map remains valid but must adapt to multiple changes: the peculiarities of the Eurozone, an economy and market that is internationally integrated and changes in social structures.

We have to construct a new tax framework of public regulatory spending which redistributes in the most efficient way and inspires a fairer predistribution. And all this must be done tending to the vectors of transformation represented by urban concentration, ageing of the population and climate change. The leverage to rebuild the social contract should be the political threats that torment Europe, just as in the glorious thirty years (1945-1975); without threat, there can be no agreement. Because inequality explains, at least in part, the fracturing of the pillars that have held up the developed world: economic growth, middle classes, liberal democracy and the American order (Lizoain).

Like every Herculean task, the fight against inequality demands a narrative that supports it and gives it shape. A new narrative of equality in defence of economic growth, protection of democracy and the deepest sense of freedom: autonomy and dignity.

This post originally appeared in Spanish in the CTXT contexto y accin blog.

Javier Lpez has been a Spanish Member of the European Parliament since 2014. He is the holder of the Spanish Socialist delegation in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, Member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly of the European Parliament.

Read this article:
Democracy Without Glue - Social Europe