Mediaboss Marketing

Supporters of Kemal Kilicdaroglu, the leader of Turkeys opposition Republican Peoples party, wave Turkish flags at the rally in Istanbul. Photograph: Lefteris Pitarakis/AP

Opposition to Turkeys authoritarian president, Recep Tayyip Erdoan, has been re-energised by the success of a month-long, cross-country anti-government justice march and last weekends unprecedented mass rally in Istanbul attended by more than a million Turks.

The show of strength momentarily shocked the government into nonplussed silence. This week is supposed to be dominated by a series of official events marking the first anniversary of the 15 July attempted coup the planned culmination of which is Erdoans address to parliament in the early hours of Sunday morning, exactly a year since the attempt was launched.

Erdoan will stress the perils the nation has faced and his own heroic steadfastness, by way of justifying his subsequent harsh crackdown. But the anniversary is being dominated instead by excited talk of a resurgent Turkish democracy, led by Kemal Kilicdaroglu of the centrist main opposition party, the Republican Peoples party (CHP). He has vowed to fight Erdoans one-man regime and overturn what he calls the second coup the Erdoan power grab that has followed the failed putsch.

Turkey was on the brink of a new beginning after one of the darkest periods in its recent history, Kilicdaroglu told an estimated crowd of 1.5 million people in Istanbul on Sunday. Its a new climate, a new history, a new birth, he said.

A shy, unassuming man, Kilicdaroglu has often been dismissed as a political lightweight. But his show of defiance has transformed his image and that of the CHP, and mitigated the sense of hopelessness many Turks feel about the repressive political climate.

Turkey is no longer the country of 25 days ago, said Murat Yetkin, a columnist for the Hurriyet newspaper . There are signs that the pacifistic but huge action of the justice march has started to change the ruling Justice and Development partys (AKP) stance. It may also have changed the wider political culture in Turkey.

About 190,000 people have been detained, fired or suspended from their jobs since the coup attempt, which Erdoan is accused of exploiting to neutralise opponents. They include judges, army and police officers, lawyers, academics, politicians and journalists. Kilicdaroglu has been widely abused and threatened by AKP officials and supporters, and condemned as subversive and a traitor.

Erdoan went even further, at one point condemning the justice marchers as terrorists. But as people from different, non-political backgrounds rallied to Kilicdaroglus banner, Erdoan was forced to back off. This was partly because polling showed scant public sympathy for his stance. Even AKP supporters were unhappy, particularly over the politicisation of the judiciary, Yetkin said. The march was supported by the main pro-Kurdish opposition party whose co-leader, Selahattin Demirtas, is in jail on terrorism charges as well as trade unionists and other civil society groups, and ordinary citizens.

No one expects an overnight miracle [but] Kilicdaroglu has reinjected hope in millions of Turks who are deeply worried about the rapid deterioration of their democratic and secular system, wrote Semih Idiz, a commentator. The government was caught completely off guard by this act of protest [that] garnered a lot of public sympathy on the way.

Kilicdaroglu is now trying to build on the momentum by pushing a list of 10 demands. They include restoring parliaments authority, lifting the state of emergency, re-establishing judicial independence and releasing detainees. The effect would be to roll back sweeping executive powers granted to Erdoan after he narrowly won last Aprils constitutional referendum.

Kilicdaroglu promised further street protests and warned on Tuesday against AKP attempts to abuse the commemorations. He is also organising what he calls the worlds biggest petition on behalf of the detainees, some of whom are taking legal action in the European court of human rights.

An AKP spokesman, Mahir Unal, said the CHP leader was playing a dangerous game and accused him of encouraging anarchy. If you are calling on people to hit the streets, this is fascism, Unal said this week. But Erdoan has remained unusually quiet.

Increasingly vocal domestic resistance is putting growing international pressure on Erdoan to ease his iron grip on Turkish society. Relations with the EU commission and European parliament are already strained. The US ambassador to Turkey recently urged the government not to abuse its counter-terrorism powers. And the Netherlands and Austria have followed Germany in refusing to allow Turkish ministers to address expatriate Turks on the coup anniversary.

See the rest here:
Talk of resurgent Turkish democracy dominates failed coup anniversary - The Guardian

We are witnessing a striking shift in the global paradigm of how the world views nuclear weapons.

The Titan II ICBM at the Titan Missile Museum in Arizona (Steve Jurvetson, CC BY-NC 2.0)

On July 7, 2017, at a UN Conference mandated by the UN General Assembly to negotiate a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons, the only weapons of mass destruction yet to be banned, 122 nations completed the job after three weeks, accompanied by a celebratory outburst of cheers, tears, and applause among hundreds of activists, government delegates, and experts, as well as survivors of the lethal nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and witnesses to the devastating, toxic nuclear-test explosions in the Pacific. The new treaty outlaws any prohibited activities related to nuclear weapons, including use, threat to use, development, testing, production, manufacturing, acquiring, possession, stockpiling, transferring, receiving, stationing, installation, and deployment of nuclear weapons. It also bans states from lending assistance, which includes such prohibited acts as financing for their development and manufacture, engaging in military preparations and planning, and permitting the transit of nuclear weapons through territorial water or airspace.

We are witnessing a striking shift in the global paradigm of how the world views nuclear weapons, bringing us to this glorious moment. The change has transformed public conversation about nuclear weapons, from the same old, same old talk about national security and its reliance on nuclear deterrence to the widely publicized evidence of the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from their use. A series of compelling presentations of the devastating effects of nuclear catastrophe, organized by enlightened governments and civil societys International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, was inspired by a stunning statement from the International Committee of the Red Cross addressing the humanitarian consequences of nuclear war.

At meetings hosted by Norway, Mexico, and Austria, overwhelming evidence demonstrated the disastrous devastation threatening humanity from nuclear weaponstheir mining, milling, production, testing, and usewhether deliberately or by accident or negligence. This new knowledge, exposing the terrifying havoc that would be inflicted on our planet, gave impetus for this moment when governments and civil society fulfilled a negotiating mandate for a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination.

Perhaps the most significant addition to the treaty, after a draft treaty from an earlier week of talks in March was submitted to the states by the expert and determined president of the conference, Ambassador Elayne Whyte Gmez of Costa Rica, was amending the prohibition not to use nuclear weapons by adding the words or threaten to use, driving a stake through the heart of the beloved deterrence doctrine of the nuclear-weapons states, which are holding the whole world hostage to their perceived security needs, threatening the earth with nuclear annihilation in their MAD scheme for Mutually Assured Destruction. The ban also creates a path for nuclear states to join the treaty, requiring verifiable, time-bound, transparent elimination of all nuclear-weapons programs or irreversible conversion of all nuclear-weapons related facilities.

The negotiations were boycotted by all nine nuclear-weapons states and US allies under its nuclear umbrella in NATO, Japan, South Korea, and Australia. The Netherlands was the only NATO member present, its parliament having required its attendance in response to public pressure, and was the only no vote against the treaty. Last summer, after a UN Working Group recommended that the General Assembly resolve to establish the ban-treaty negotiations, the United States pressured its NATO allies, arguing that the effects of a ban could be wide-ranging and degrade enduring security relationships. Upon the adoption of the ban treaty, the United States, United Kingdom, and France issued a statement that We do not intend to sign, ratify or ever become party to it as it does not address the security concerns that continue to make nuclear deterrence necessary and will create even more divisions at a timeof growing threats, including those from the DPRKs ongoing proliferation efforts. Ironically, North Korea was the only nuclear power to vote for the ban treaty, last October, when the UNs First Committee for Disarmament forwarded a resolution for ban-treaty negotiations to the General Assembly.

Ready to Fight Back? Sign Up For Take Action Now

Yet the absence of the nuclear-weapons states contributed to a more democratic process, with fruitful interchanges between experts and witnesses from civil society who were present and engaged through much of the proceedings instead of being outside locked doors, as is usual when the nuclear powers are negotiating their endless step-by-step process that has only resulted in leaner, meaner, nuclear weapons, constantly modernized, designed, refurbished. Obama, before he left office was planning to spend one trillion dollars over the next 30 years for two new bomb factories, new warheads and delivery systems. We still await Trumps plans for the US nuclear-weapons program.

The Ban Treaty affirms the states determination to realize the purpose of the Charter of the United Nations and reminds us that the very first resolution of the UN in 1946 called for the elimination of nuclear weapons. With no state holding veto power, and no hidebound rules of consensus that have stalled all progress on nuclear abolition and additional initiatives for world peace in other UN and treaty bodies, this negotiation was a gift from the UN General Assembly, which democratically requires states to be represented in negotiations with an equal vote and doesnt require consensus to come to a decision.

Despite the recalcitrance of the nuclear-deterrence-mongers, we know that previous treaties banning weapons have changed international norms and stigmatized the weapons leading to policy revisions even in states that never signed those treaties. The Ban Treaty requires 50 states to sign and ratify it before it enters into force, and will be open for signature September 20 when heads of state meet in New York for the UN General Assemblys opening session. Campaigners will be working to gather the necessary ratifications and now that nuclear weapons are unlawful and banned, to shame those NATO states which keep US nuclear weapons on their territory (Belgium, Germany , Turkey, Netherlands, Italy) and pressure other alliance states which hypocritically condemn nuclear weapons but participate in nuclear-war planning. In the nuclear-weapons states, there can be divestment campaigns from institutions that support the development and manufacture of nuclear weapons now that they have been prohibited and declared unlawful. See http://www.dontbankonthebomb.com To keep the momentum going in this burgeoning movement to ban the bomb, check out http://www.icanw.org. For a more detailed roadmap of what lies ahead, see Zia Mians take on future possibilities in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

Read the original:
Democracy Breaks Out at the UN as 122 Nations Vote to Ban the ... - The Nation.

Jean-Claude Juncker. NurPhoto/SIPA USA/PA Images. All rights reserved.In March this year Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the European Commission, presented five scenarios for the future of the European Union.

They failed to include ideas about how the future EU could make its citizens happier, healthier or better off. The scenarios were more about reforming European integration and finding ways to make Europeans less frustrated about the European project, as living in a peaceful cooperation without a war for many decades no longer seems to be enough. And for many people, just ask the Brits, it is clearly not enough.

In a response to these five scenarios, European civil society came up with an alternative vision, the 6th scenario. In this paper, inspiring policy goals, with potential to unite Europeans in reinvigorating the European project are put into the spotlight.

In our view, Europe (and the whole world), needs a future with sustainability at its heart. Because it is not progress that economic growth is skyrocketing, if at the same time millions of people cannot afford food or basic services. Equally, it is not progress if we manage to eradicate poverty - for a while at least - if we do this by undermining the ecological preconditions of our wellbeing. We would still end up condemning future generations to dangerous climate change, and the loss of one third of our crop yields due to the disappearance of pollinators.

So all in all, even if we achieve absolute financial and macro-economic stability, improved security and a more efficiently managed EU, if future reform does not achieve a deep socio-economic transition towards sustainability, it is simply good for nothing.

Of course, Junckers paper only presents broad ideas about European integration, and the devil is always in the detail. Following up on the five scenarios, the European Commission has published five reflection papers on different topics, including globalisation, the social dimension of Europe, and most recently on the future of EU finances.

The reflection paper on finances includes a lot of nice language, sometimes even too nice and too optimistic in its assessment of the current situation, but it also proposes some new ideas, which could truly contribute to sustainability and building strong democracies.

As an important innovation, it includes common European values: peace, democracy, the rule of law, freedom, fundamental rights, equality and solidarity as criteria for determining EU value added. Even though EU value added might seem like a small technical detail, it is still the most important criterion in making the decision as to whether a project or investment is worth financing with EU money.

Adding common European values to these criteria is a new idea, explicitly added to the list in response to public pressure. Others include supporting the EU objectives and obligations as enshrined in the Treaty, spill-over effects for instance between regions - as a result of Cohesion Funds payments, and the slippery concept of generating public good at a European level, which noticeably means something totally different for a Budget Commissioner and for a civil society activist.

If the EU budget is to support European values, including peace, maybe it should not start by diverting more and more European money to defence research, or by increasing its present assistance to partner countries in capacity building, as well as in military missions. Europe must remain a peace project.

It is also rather sad that building democracy is an emerging need in Europe, but let us face it: with recent developments in countries like Hungary, Poland or Bulgaria, where NGOs are under increasing state pressure that makes it difficult to operate freely and represent citizens interest, this is a reality.

Many Europeans think that these efforts should go well beyond supporting educational exchange programmes or NGO activism. Making the rule of law and the respect of fundamental rights an ex ante condition in accessing EU funds would be a strong message not only to national governments, but also to European citizens.

Many of us are already tired of turning Brussels into a punching bag for populist politicians. It is high time that the EU stands up for itself and also for its values, because no community of any kind can be successful without holding to common values.

Of course in a strong democracy citizens need to make well informed decisions, and when it comes to the functioning of the EU, the role of national and European decision makers, and particularly to specific European decisions in areas from food security to energy performance of buildings or youth unemployment, people today are surprisingly ill informed.

Especially if it lies in the interest of national governments to keep it that way. Otherwise it would be hard to carry out national consultations when false claims such as: Hungary is committed to reducing taxes. Brussels is attacking our country on this are being made. If you are not aware: tax rules are unanimously decided in the EU, with the consent of each Member State. The EU would be doing itself a big favour if the future budget also supported programmes to improve the EU literacy of the people.

Surely, strong democracies, resilient economies and a fair society need to be founded on a broader basis than just a bit more knowledge and common values. Therefore, within the cross-sectoral alliance of civil society organisations SDG Watch Europe, we have developed a set of sustainability principles, which, if mainstreamed into the future EU budget, hold the potential for meaningful reform.

These principles should work together to ensure that EU spending and lending makes peoples lives better, reduces our unsustainable environmental impact and builds a resilient economy where socio-economic inequalities are reduced.

Within our PeoplesBudget campaign, we will work towards introducing sustainability proofing, a new and innovative approach in the design and implementation of the future EU budget, which can ensure that the budget contributes in the greatest way possible to sustainability and the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals for the benefit of all Europeans.

More here:
How could we use the EU budget to strengthen democracy? - Open Democracy

The monsoon session of Parliament starts on 17 July. It is almost 70 years since independence. As an institution, Parliament is central to the very idea of democracy and was assigned a pivotal role in our Constitution by the founding fathers of the republic. Yet, so many decades later, it has neither evolved nor matured as it could, might or should have. If anything, slowly but surely, it has diminished in stature and significance. Indeed, it is now more a symbol than the substance of a vibrant democracy that has taken deep roots among our people. The time has come for citizens, whom it represents, to evaluate that performance.

There are three designated roles for Parliament in a democracy. It is responsible for legislationlaws of the landby which people govern themselves. It must ensure accountability of governmentson policies or actionsto the people. It should engage in discourse and debate on issues that concern the nation and the citizens. How has it fared in performing these roles?

The process of legislation is slow and lagged. There are times when it extends from one Parliament to the next. Laws are often passed in a rush through loud voices or large numbers. There is little scrutiny of draft legislation. And there is almost no follow-up on rules when laws are put in place.

It would appear that governments are more accountable to people at election time than they are to Parliament in session. The examination, analysis and evaluation by Parliament, so essential for invoking accountability, are not quite there. The only means, it seems, are questions asked by MPs, many of which are pedantic, unclear or on behest. For searching or probing questions, governments do their best to provide as little information as possible in answers.

Discourse and debate on issues of national importance were an attribute and highlight of Parliament during the first two decades of the republic, until around 1970. But this has eroded and diminished with the passage of time. There is discussion but it is often partisansometimes a dialogue of the deafbetween groups where party lines are sharply drawn. Thus, differences lead to protests in the form of walk-outs or rushing to the well of the house.

There are two reasons for this decline. Parliament does not meet or work long enough. And there are institutional constraints on its performance while working.

The chart (Parliament in India) sets out the number of sittings and the time lost in disruptions, in days per year, for the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha during the period from 2012-2016. This straddles the tenure of two governments in equal parts. The time lost due to disruptions, reported in hours and minutes, has been converted into days on the premise that, as a norm, Parliament meets for 6 hours per day. In these five years, on an average per annum, the Lok Sabha met for 69 days of which 20 days were lost to disruptions, while the Rajya Sabha met for 68 days of which 20 days were lost to disruptions. In the total number of sittings, disruptions took away 30% of the time in the Lok Sabha and 35% of the time in the Rajya Sabha. Both houses did sit for extra hours but that made up for a very small proportion of the time lost. Even when the Parliament sits and meets, there is more noise than debate, more shouting than listening, and more statements than engagement or debate.

The duration for which Parliament meets in India, compared with other democracies, is short. In the UK, both the House of Commons and the House of Lords meet for more than 150 days per year. In the US, both the House of Representatives and the Senate meet for 133 days per year. In Japan, as a norm, the Diet meets for 150 days per year and this is often extended.

It is not as if our members of Parliament (MPs) are not paid enough. The salary, constituency allowance and office expenses paid to each MP are Rs1.4 lakh per month. In addition, there is a daily allowance for presence in Parliament or its committees, plus free housing, furnishing, electricity, water, telephones and healthcare, which taken together add up to Rs1.52 lakh per month. Thus, the cost-to-country of an MP is more than Rs35 lakh per year, which is almost 40 times the per capita income of the nation. In addition, there are lifetime pensions.

Incomes apart, there are assets of MPs. The Association for Democratic Rights (ADR), which analyses the election affidavits filed before the Election Commission, reports that in the 2014 Lok Sabha, as many as 82% of the MPs have assets worth more than Rs1 crore each, as compared with 58% in 2009 and 30% in 2004. In the present Lok Sabha, on an average, a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP is worth Rs11 crore while a Congress MP is worth Rs16 crore. The assets of the 165 MPs from the 2009 Lok Sabha who were re-elected to the 2014 Lok Sabha jumped from Rs5 crore to Rs12.5 crore per MP in just five years. The Rajya Sabha is a similar story. It is reported that two-thirds of its members have declared assets of more than Rs20 crore each.

It is clear that the elected representatives of our people are not representative of the people. Incomes and assets apart, the criminalization of politics is a reality that stares us in the face. ADR reports that 34% of the MPs in the 2014 Lok Sabha faced criminal charges, as compared with 30% in 2009 and 24% in 2004. The ADR data also show that, across parties, candidates facing criminal charges were more than twice as likely to win as compared to those with a clean record.

The story of state legislatures on sittings, disruptions, assets, criminal charges, and what is described as unparliamentary behaviourthat extends to smashing furniture and physical violence in the houseis far worse. This, too, needs exposition.

The factors underlying these developments and deterioration are not rocket science. The barriers to entry in politics are formidable. The only access comes from kinship or money. And muscle power matters as a determinant of success. However, any meaningful analysis of this reality would need another column.

In fairness, there are institutional constraints on the performance of MPs as well. The allocation of time for MPs to speak is proportional to the strength of their political party in the house and its leadership decides who gets to speak and for how long. The speaker of the Lok Sabha or the chairman of the Rajya Sabha have little discretion in the matter. The only other opportunities for MPs are during question hour or zero hour. Answers to unstarred questions are simply laid on the table of the house. Starred questions are too many. Only a few come up for discussion. And these are just not taken up if the concerned MP is not present at the time. In zero hour, the speaker or the chairman have the discretion to invite an MP to speak, but time is too little and speeches are often drowned out in pandemonium.

It is not only time. MPs do not quite have the freedom to speak in our Parliament as in other democracies. For one, they are afraid of what the party leadership might think, which could affect their future. For another, party whips, of three types, are a problem. A one-line whip is non-binding, informing members of the vote. A two-line whip requires attendance in the house for the vote. A three-line whip is a clear-cut directive to be present in the house during the vote and cast their vote in accordance with the party line. Any violation of this whip could lead to an MPs expulsion from the house. In India, the anti-defection law stipulates that a three-line whip can be violated only if more than one-third of a partys MPs do so. This is the unintended consequence of a law that might have mitigated one problem but created another, which is emasculating our Parliament as an institution.

It is not beyond redemption at least yet. The constitutional provisions are impeccable. Yet, these remain unused and are sometimes misused by the political system. There is also a redeeming feature in our parliamentary process. The standing committees and select committees can be diligent and are often not partisan. Alas, these committees are often used in form than substance. Moreover, their recommendations are not binding.

It is essential to recognize the complexity of this problem before we can find or design solutions. The answers lie, inter alia, in electoral reform through public funding of elections, combined with political reform that mandates disclosure on the sources of financing for political parties, and sets rules for elections within political parties to foster intra-party democracy that has been stifled not only by dynasties but also by oligarchies.

In conclusion, I can do no better than invoke R.K. Laxman, the legendary cartoonist who often depicted what ailed India with perception, wit and satire. I recall a wonderful cartoon about Parliament and democracy, in his strip You Said It. The then prime minister, Indira Gandhi, had her arm around the shoulder of a visiting Prince Charles, the monarch in-waiting even now (watched by Laxmans iconic common man with a wistful smile on his face), saying, The difference dear Prince is that, while you are a parliamentary monarchy, we are a hereditary democracy. This syndrome is now much more widespread than it was then. The hereditary principle of dynastic families in politics has spread much beyond the Congress Party, cutting across party lines, to most regional parties in India. The BJP is a little different at present but it is no exception to the rule. And it cannot be immune from what happens in our polity and society.

Almost 70 years after we began life as a republic, there is a clear and present danger that we could be the worlds most vibrant democracy with the worlds least effective, and perhaps most dormant, Parliament. It is time for MPs in India to reclaim their rights in Parliament as representatives of the people.

Deepak Nayyar is emeritus professor of economics, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. He served as chief economic adviser, government of India, from 1989-91, and as vice-chancellor, University of Delhi, from 2000-05.

Comments are welcome at views@livemint.com

First Published: Thu, Jul 13 2017. 11 57 PM IST

Go here to see the original:
Vibrant democracy, dormant Parliament - Livemint

This post is part of Mischiefs of Faction, an independent political science blog featuring reflections on the party system.

Weve heard a lot lately about the threats to democracy in the US and other Western countries where as recently as a year ago, we naively assumed certain truths to be self-evident, and certain structures and values to be in place. Attacks on a free press, scapegoating religious and ethnic minorities, and delegitimizing political opposition are all ways to contribute to a transition back to authoritarianism, if thats your goal. But there are other ways! You can also hasten the decline of democracy by supporting the rapid rise to power of a political amateur.

The latest round of this kind of thing is the story thats circulating about the WTF movement. This is the latest in a series of efforts to create web-based democracy that circumvents parties, this time led by tech company founders Mark Pincus and Reid Hoffman. From one of the more prominent pieces describing the movement: What WTF isnt: Pro-politician, Pincus said. So wed like to see either political outsiders or politicians who are ready to put the people ahead of their career.

That sentence should be pretty chilling if you think about it. The idea that politicians ambition is possibly no longer compatible with pursuing good public policy is disturbing and maybe at least partially true but if so, that is a bug and not a feature of robust democratic institutions. You can read an excellent defense of party politics here. Its the political outsider angle that I want to address, with specific attention to how amateur approaches to politics can undermine democracy.

Imagining a political outsider coming in and curing what ails politics is fun and romantic, and its not new. On its face, this idea seems very democratic what could be closer to the ideals of democracy than casting the bastards out and infusing political leadership with new blood, with people who know life outside of the profession of politics? Like many things, this is intuitive but incorrect. Political amateurism presents a threat to democracy.

Democracy is hard. Its not as simple as picking an election date and site and counting up the votes. It also requires thinking about how different perspectives and stakeholders will be integrated into a system, what to do with the losers of a particular process, and how to balance individual freedom with community concerns. The practice of democracy requires dealing with the reality that disagreement is bound to crop up anytime you get more than one human being in a discussion.

Movements like WTF embrace the pernicious myth of populism that beneath elite squabbles there exists widespread unity of principles. It is true that most people want broadly similar things: peace, safety, prosperity. But theres a lot of disagreement about how to achieve those things. Productive approaches to politics acknowledge this denying it wont make it go away.

Political science research has documented the challenge of embracing democratic values. In Stealth Democracy, Elizabeth Theiss-Morse and John Hibbing found that their respondents lacked understanding of the free speech and assembly, favoring outlawing political parties and interest groups, and had a generally low level of appreciation for their fellow citizens values and lifestyles.

In a classic study of political knowledge, Michael Delli Carpini and Scott Keeter found that those who know more about politics are more likely to embrace democratic values like political tolerance. These differences are, of course, observed within the general population, not among people who are interested enough in politics to think about running for office. But its possible these differences would be present at that level. And we are not currently without evidence. What weve seen so far from an administration that lacks political experience is an accompanying lack of regard for democratic values, especially ones about legitimate opposition and criticism of the government.

Another seminal work in political science, Richard Neustadts Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents, addresses the different tools presidents have to accomplish their goals. They can resort to unilateral tools executive orders and what Neustadt calls command over those who answer to them in the executive branch. Or they can work with others, usually Congress, to get things done. Neustadt argues that its when presidents are weaker less skilled that they go the command route.

Again, the Trump presidency bears this out. Working with Congress is difficult. Knowledge of policy, legislative procedure, and the political incentives of other politicians (who their constituents are, who their opponents are likely to be) helps build a coalition. Absent this knowledge, its easier to just govern through executive orders.

On a somewhat different note, the idea that the scientific community can come in and fix the problems of politics presents its own risks. Globally, technocratic approaches have a bad track record. Yet another classic work of political science makes this case. In Seeing Like a State, James Scott documented what happens when solutions are imposed from above without attention to the ways people live and make sense of their worlds. Scott treats authoritarian government as a distinct factor that can work in concert with what he calls high modernism a belief that rational and scientific principles can solve public policy problems.

These examples are particularly important to remember when people from the scientific community make claims about rational, science-based governance. Scientific research and knowledge obviously have a critical contribution to make when we are thinking about what policies actually solve problems, and have greatly improved the lives of many people. But one of the points in Seeing Like a State is that solutions that seem rational and obvious from one perspective are incompatible with local practices or the realities of implementation. This insight seems worth considering as we contemplate whether web-based centrist movements can address the diverse needs of American society. Who gets to define the mainstream America that Pincus describes? Who gets to identify and meet its policy needs? We need politics to help us answer those questions.

Recent revelations about Donald Trump Jr.s meeting with a Russian lawyer during the 2016 campaign illustrate some of the pitfalls of being a political amateur. Trump Jr. apparently took this meeting despite its violation of both campaign finance law and norms about influence by foreign entities in political campaigns. A narrative has arisen in response suggesting that incompetence is at the root of these decisions. Similarly, Paul Ryan defended Trumps efforts to get James Comey to end the Russia investigation by saying, he [the president] is new at this. Its possible that lack of practice at this game and understanding of its rules is to blame for these events. It may also be the case that these are just excuses. Either way, its not much of a case for putting political amateurs in charge.

Its clear that American politics has some issues. Confidence in institutions is low. Economic inequality threatens the basis of the American dream. Our criminal justice system has problems. Congress seems stuck unable to address issues from the environment to the budget. Lots of people feel they dont have much of a political voice.

But the impulse to concentrate a lot of power in the hands of people who dont know what theyre doing isnt going to improve American democracy. These problems require expertise, appreciation for political nuance, and understanding of the tensions inherent in democratic governance. These alone probably arent enough to fix our system. But theres no substitute for the foundation they provide.

Read this article:
Political amateurs are a threat to democracy - Vox