Mediaboss Marketing

After the Citizenship Amendment Act became a reality in the middle of December, protests broke out across India. By now, about 25 people have been killed around the country, most of them falling to police bullets. Even in the Jayaprakash Narayan movement against Indira Gandhi in the mid-1970s and the subsequent Emergency, such massive nationwide protests and police killings did not take place.

Despite the governments claims that the Opposition is behind the protests, they mostly are spontaneous. Again, contrary to the governments suggestion, it is not just the Muslim community that is demonstrating. People of all religions especially students have participated in a big way.

The panicked Bharatiya Janata Party-controlled Central government has let the police loose on protesting students and general public in states ruled by the party. But the police baton-charges, teargas shelling and firing have failed to cow down Indians: to the contrary, they have resurrected the spirit of Indian democracy.

In Hindutva political theory, there is no discourse about citizenship of human beings in relation to state and society. The concept of citizenship first formulated by Aristotle in Greece. He defines citizen as a person who has the right to participate in deliberative or judicial offices of the state. According to him aliens and slaves have no citizenship rights.

This idea was developed by later European thinkers, who broadly defined a citizen as a person who could vote and receive the benefits for continuing life and making the life better in the process of living in a given state. Immigrants were given the right to ask for citizenship based on their contribution to that society and state through their labour power, not based on religion or creed, caste or race.

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Bharitya Janata Party want to rely on ancient Indian literary sources for their understanding of the concept of the citizen. But there is no proper definition of citizenship in moar ancient Indian texts: they all support caste-based karma theory but not a rational theory of citizenship. Even Kautilyas Arthashastra, a treatise about statecraft, fails to define who a citizen is.

The only book that talks about the citizen, known as the nagarika, is Vastyayanas Kama Sutra. But it offers a rather perverted definition of the role: the nagarika is a householder and enlightened person. What should he do? According to Kama Sutra, having put his clothes and ornaments, [he] should during the afternoon converse with his friends. In the evening there should be a singing and after that the house holder, along with his friends should await in his room, previously decorated and perfumed, the arrival of a woman who may be attached to him.

The woman with whom the nagarika is supposed to engage with is a ganika a courtesan. But there is no discussion about the state and its membership in this text at all.

No democratic state should give citizenship to either migrants or to refugees based on their religious background. But the Citizenship Amendment Act provides a fast track to citizenship for undocumented migrants from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh if they are not Muslim.

This is a theocratic law, to say the least. According to Hindutva theoreticians like Subramanyan Swamy, no Muslim is persecuted in these Islamic nations so they have no need to seek residence in India. If so, why mention religion in the Act at all and arouse the ire of Indias Muslims? The mention of religion in the Act provides serious grounds for Indian citizens belonging to that religion to be anxious that all of them could be rendered stateless. That suspicion has deepened now.

Even considering that Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh discriminate against their minorities, why should a mature democracy like India, which has well-acclaimed Constitution, do the same? Our founding fathers would not have wanted this.

Assuming that the US decides tomorrow that illegal migrants of all religions will get citizenship, except if they are Hindu. Hindus who are already US citizens will realise that they are being told they are unwanted.Once such a law is enacted, how do they think that non-Hindus will treat them as good citizens? This is the main problem that the Indian Muslims will face with the countrys new citizenship law.

Even though India has functioned as a constitutional democracy for seven decades, our idea of human rights and citizenship remains underdeveloped. We need to evolve in our understanding of several matters, particularly how to negotiate between civil rights and religious faith. If the line between religion and civil rights is erased, our democratic system will collapse.

Though Indias ancient and medieval texts do not provide us a sophisticated theory of citizenship or on how democratic institutions should function, modern Indian thinkers like BR Ambedkar have provided some guidance on these matters. Still, to sustain democracy, we needs to read and re-read the western theories of human and civil rights.

The foundational principle of democracy is that though majority elects government, the minority that voted to the opposition should always feel secure in every institution of the nation. A government should never equate itself with nation, as the BJP-RSS are doing. That is self destructive.

Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd is a political theorist, social activist and author and the Former director, of the Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy at the Maulana Azad National Urdu University in Hyderabad.

Read more:
CAA-NRC debate: If religion is allowed to colour civil rights, Indias democracy will be imperiled - Scroll.in

From one corner of what we used to call the Western world to another, democracythe notion that a free people can freely select their leaders and then trust them enough to give them the room to leadis in deepening trouble. Increasing shares of the population believe the system no longer works, that only dividing into tribes, flexing muscle and going way outside the box will protect "us" against "them."

Sometimes that works out, sometimes not. Israel is headed for its third election in a year. The United Kingdom finally has its Brexit champion in Boris Johnson, but at the risk of dissolving the U.K. and rekindling the hypernationalism that almost destroyed the world twice over. Closer to home: Chicago rejected conventional powers such as Toni Preckwinkle and Bill Daley in favor of a little-known former prosecutor who best represented change; Lori Lightfoot's mayoralty is a work in progress.

And then there's the impeachment of Donald Trumpin some ways the biggest challenge American democracy has faced in many decades. The challenge is stark as the division is reflected among this state's congressional delegation: Every Democrat voted "yes" and every Republican "no." And, in my view, both major political parties are failing the test.

I sympathize and largely agree with the Democratic dismay at the performance of Trump, both as president and as a person. Someone who would literally sell out the health of our planet to create a few jobs in coal country, someone who would hold the futures of more than a million young Dreamer adults hostage to satisfy the nativist fringe, someone who would suggest that late U.S. Rep. John Dingell of Michigan burns in hell because his widow backed impeachment, deserves no respect.

But changing that situation is the stuff of elections. Whether or not you or I like it, Trump was elected president.

In seeking to overturn the results of the 2016 electionand Republicans are right, that is the effect of impeachmentDemocrats need to have at least a semblance of national unity behind them, lest the GOP turn the tables next time a Democrat is president. But they don't. Though the Muller report found substantial evidence of an apparent cover-up, it did not make a case for alleged collusion with Russia by Trump and his inner circle. Though Trump in my view did try to shake down Ukraine to damage a domestic political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, the country is divided down the middle on whether proof of that is sufficient. The votes to convict are not there in the Senate.

The Democrats would have been better off to censure and not impeach. The unprecedented rebuke would help their 2020 nominee, and maybe divide Republicans, making a case for change to voters. Instead, they overplayed their hand.

If Democrats failed to listen to voters, however, Republicans are totally deaf.

Where is the GOP outrage that this president invited Russian and then Ukrainian interference in our election? Where is the objection when this president forbids from speaking aides who could give firsthand testimony about what occurred, testimony that congresses for two centuries have routinely received? Where is the recognition that members of a trial juryand that's what the U.S. Senate isneed to at least try to be impartial and not work as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has to coordinate everything with Trump's defense team?

I'm old enough to remember what happened when a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, was impeached for hitting on a young White House aide and then lying about it. Though he wasn't convicted, leaders of his party here and nationally castigated him. He apologized for his actions. Where's the apology from Trump, the vow not to sin again? It doesn't exist. There is "nothing" to apologize for or express regrets about, only "perfect" phone calls, he says.

Perhaps all of this will be a distant memory in a few months. I fear not. The Trump impeachment has been a fiasco for democracy, on both sides.

See more here:
Trump impeachment is a fiasco for democracy -- on both sides - Crain's Chicago Business

ByDoug Donovan

The impeachment of President Donald Trump is playing out against a backdrop of troubling social conditions that have collided in previous eras of U.S. history to threaten the country's democratic principles, according to a Johns Hopkins University political science professor.

A new book by Robert Lieberman explores five eras when "American democracy has seemed fragile and at risk of backsliding" due to four critical threats: political polarization, racism and nativism, economic inequality, and excessive executive power.

In the book, Four Threats: The Recurring Crises of American Democracy, Lieberman and co-author Suzanne Mettler of Cornell University identify the presence of those four conditions in the 1790s, in the 1850s leading up to the Civil War, in the Gilded Age, during the Great Depression, and in the 1970s during the Watergate scandal.

The book, scheduled to be published in August, demonstrates that these conditions have existed in various combinations during moments when American democracy was threatened. "What is uniquely alarming about the present," Lieberman said, "is that all four of these conditions exist in American politics today. This combination of threats is the critical backdrop to the Trump impeachment. In particular, we're witnessing the lethal combination of executive power and extreme polarization."

The House of Representatives on Wednesday voted almost entirely along party lines to impeach Trump on two charges: abuse of executive power and obstruction of Congress. Trump is accused of threatening to withhold military aid to Ukraine until its leader announced investigations that would benefit Trump politically by damaging a possible Democratic rival in the 2020 election, according to the impeachment articles.

Robert Lieberman

Professor, political science

Trump's administration has asserted executive privilege to refuse subpoenas that have been issued during the congressional investigation, a strategy that the impeachment articles characterized as obstruction. Republicans in Congress argue that Democrats have incorrectly elevated the facts to the level of impeachable offenses due solely to their partisan revulsion for Trump. The GOP says the Democrats have been seeking Trump's ouster since his victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016.

"Congressional Republicans have been unwilling to challenge the president and instead have used impeachment as yet another battle in the scorched-earth war against the Democrats," Lieberman said. "The result is that the checks and balances built into the constitutional structure, which are intended to prevent the excessive concentration of power in the hands of a single person or group, are breaking down in front of us. This, I fear, is dangerous for the future of the American regime."

He contrasts that extreme partisanship to the near impeachment of President Richard Nixon, who was also facing charges of abuse of power and obstruction of justice. Nixon also faced a contempt of Congress charge for asserting presidential privilege when refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas.

Nixon and his Republican allies were prepared to battle impeachment until the Supreme Court ruled that executive privilege did not protect White House audio recordings in which the president is heard conspiring to obstruct the Watergate investigation. Republican support collapsed when the transcript of the "Smoking Gun" tape was made public on Aug. 5, 1974. Nixon resigned four days later on Aug. 9, 1974.

"Watergate was bitterly partisan, but not to the extent where politics became a battle of mortal combat, as it seems to be today," Lieberman said.

Several Trump administration officials have invoked executive privilege by refusing to testify in the House impeachment investigation. Lieberman said it is possible that some Republicans could abandon Trump if the Supreme Court orders administration officials to testify. For now, though, the GOP-controlled Senate is set to clear Trump. Lieberman said it is worrisome that Republicans who do not contest the underlying facts of the impeachment case have done little to hold Trump accountable.

"There was a small number of Republicans who recognized that even though Nixon was a member of their party that he had abused his power," Lieberman said.

One of those Republican's was Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan's father, Congressman Lawrence Hogan. The elder Hogan was the only Republican member of the judiciary committee to support all three articles of impeachment against Nixon.

"That's inconceivable today," Lieberman said.

The impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1998 was also partisan, but less so than today, Lieberman added. The House passed two articlesperjury to a federal grand jury and obstruction of justice. But two others, a second perjury count and abuse of power, were defeated even though Republicans held a majority in the House. And the GOP-controlled Senate ultimately acquitted Clinton after a 1999 trial.

What is fascinating about the political climate today is that Trump's approval ratings have barely budged since he entered office, despite the turmoil of his tenure and impeachment, Lieberman said.

That was not true for Nixon, who was very popular when he won a landslide reelection in 1972. By the time Nixon resigned in 1974, his approval ratings had tanked.

During the November 1998 election, as impeachment of Clinton was advancing, the Republican Party lost five seats in the House and gained no seats in the Senate. Typically, the opposition party gains seats in off-year elections during a president's second term.

And Clinton's popularity reached a record high during the impeachment process and remained high through the end of his second term.

For Trump, Lieberman said, "none of this had made a dent in his popularity." His support, like the nation and Congress, is "highly polarized." Therefore, it is almost impossible to gauge how voters will respond as Trump seeks a second term in the 2020 electionsother than that voters are most likely to display the nation's deep partisan divide yet again.

"It's not clear what effect impeachment will have on the election," Lieberman said. "The people who liked Trump in 2016 still support him. Those who didn't still don't."

Read this article:
Contemporary politics hearken to past threats to U.S. democracy - The Hub at Johns Hopkins

The Kurds

[W]hen we refer to all Kurdish fighters synonymously, we simply blur the fact that they have very different politics. . . right now, yes, the people are facing the Islamic State threat, so its very important to have a unified focus. But the truth is, ideologically and politically these are very, very different systems. Actually almost opposite to each other. Dilar Dirik, Rojava vs. the World, February 2015

The Kurds, who share ethnic and cultural similarities with Iranians and are mostly Muslim by religion (largely Sunni but with many minorities), have long struggled for self-determination. After World War I, their lands were divided up between Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Turkey. In Iran, though there have been small separatist movements, Kurds are mostly subjected to the same repressive treatment as everyone else (though they also face Persian and Shiite chauvinism, and a number of Kurdish political prisoners were recently executed). The situation is worse in Iraq, Syria, and Turkey, where the Kurds are a minority people subjected to ethnically targeted violations of human rights.

Iraq: In 198689, Saddam Hussein conducted a genocidal campaign in which tens of thousands were murdered and thousands of Kurdish villages destroyed, including by bombing and chemical warfare. After the first Gulf War, the UN sought to establish a safe haven in parts of Kurdistan, and the United States and UK set up a no-fly zone. In 2003, the Kurdish peshmerga sided with the U.S.-led coalition against Saddam Hussein. In 2005, after a long struggle with Baghdad, the Iraqi Kurds won constitutional recognition of their autonomous region, and the Kurdistan Regional Government has since signed oil contracts with a number of Western oil companies as well as with Turkey. Iraqi Kurdistan has two main political parties, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), both clan-based and patriarchal.

Turkey: For much of its modern history, Turkey has pursued a policy of forced assimilation towards its minority peoples; this policy is particularly stringent in the case of the Kurdsuntil recently referred to as the mountain Turkswho make up 20 percent of the total population. The policy has included forced population transfers; a ban on use of the Kurdish language, costume, music, festivals, and names; and extreme repression of any attempt at resistance. Large revolts were suppressed in 1925, 1930, and 1938, and the repression escalated with the formation of the PKK as a national liberation party, resulting in civil war in the Kurdish region from 1984 to 1999.

Syria: Kurds make up perhaps 15 percent of the population and live mostly in the northeastern part of Syria. In 1962, after Syria was declared an Arab republic, a large number of Kurds were stripped of their citizenship and declared aliens, which made it impossible for them to get an education, jobs, or any public benefits. Their land was given to Arabs. The PYD was founded in 2003 and immediately banned; its members were jailed and murdered, and a Kurdish uprising in Qamishli was met with severe military violence by the regime. When the uprising against Bashar al Assad began as part of the Arab Spring, Kurds participated, but after 2012, when they captured Kobani from the Syrian army, they withdrew most of their energy from the war against Assad in order to set up a liberated area. For this reason, some other parts of the Syrian resistance consider them Assads allies. The Kurds in turn cite examples of discrimination against them within the opposition.

Read the original here:
Democracy and Barbarism: A Preview of our Winter 2020 Issue - Dissent

The many problems with American democracy are a central reason the country has made so little progress in tackling major challenges during a decade of economic growth, Harvard Business School concludes in an ambitious report out this week.

More precisely, the report blames the Democratic and Republican parties for looking to advance partisan advantage over the public interest wasting a valuable opportunity to improve health care, the education system and infrastructure during a time of expansion so the country might become more globally competitive in the long haul.

"Electoral and legislative rules serve the parties well but cause gridlock and disable our democracy," concludes the report, one of the most comprehensive in a long roster of recent studies about governmental dysfunction and its consequences.

Titled "A Recovery Squandered," it is the latest in a series on the country's economy produced by the school. With Harvard professors Michael Porter and Jan Rivkin as principal authors, it is based on research as well as interviews with the public and members of the business school's prestigious alumni network. (A main author of the chapter on gridlock was Katherine Gehl, the founder of Democracy Found, which advocates for alternative voting systems.)

Among the most important conclusions:

The report marshals a variety of statistics to make its central argument including:

The report calls for reforming the rules of Congress to remove what it says are obstacles to bipartisanship.

One is the regularly applied policy of the House majority leadership known as the Hastert rule, because GOP Speaker Dennis Hastert started applying it in the early 2000s. It says no bill will be put to a floor vote until a majority of the majority supports it, or sometimes until it is assured of passage entirely with the majority's votes. This effectively negates the need for the minority party's input in policy making.

The report also blames the role that business plays in politics for exacerbating the problems with democracy: "We believe that much of today's business involvement in politics may actually be working against business' longer-term interests."

It cites the hiring of former government officials, especially those who lobby their former colleagues, and a lack of transparency by companies about their political involvement as two of the problem areas.

The report is not all doom and gloom, however, with the authors noting that many companies and their leaders are trying to "adopt a broader corporate purpose as their central goal, going well beyond maximizing shareholder value."

A consensus is emerging, the report states, for a new role for business in politics and it proposes a set of voluntary standards.

These include a reduction in spending on special-interest lobbying; greater support for solutions-oriented candidates; an end to hiring former government officials to lobby; and support for democracy reforms to reduce partisanship and change electoral and legislative rules.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

See original here:
Partisanship and democracy's other ills holding down the economy, Harvard study says - The Fulcrum