Mediaboss Marketing

Social democracy has been the most powerful political force in Europe since the second World War. Its politics built the welfare state and healthcare systems in west European countries, Along with conservatism it was one of the twin pillars of European politics. Yet conservatism is fracturing in Europe, and trade unions and social democracy are in decline.

The dominance of neo-liberal or rational market economics reversed many of the post-war gains in living standards, and inequality has been growing in recent decades. The share of all income in many western economies going to labour (employees and self-employed) has fallen from 75 per cent to 60 per cent.

The reasons for this reverse cannot be simplistically attributed to weak unions and social democratic parties without recognising the rebalancing of the power against them.

Unions in Ireland, for example, have no right to collective bargaining. The reasons for this power shift are externally driven. The main reason given is the decline of core working-class bases in manufacturing and mining, and the fragmentation of workplaces as jobs were shipped abroad.

In the past the worlds top firms employed hundreds of thousands who were paid well and unionised. Todays top firms [by value] employ far fewer, with many on insecure contracts. They usually dont manufacture but outsource, too often to nasty sub-contractors of scale.

The top tech and service firms fight against the right of workers to organise for better pay and conditions while avoiding taxes as part of their obsession with increasing shareholder value. Ironically, this has been compounded by privatisation and outsourcing of many formerly decent public service jobs into anti-union firms.

Another reason has been the rise of financialisation. The financial sector used to be a sound, prudent source of finance which oiled the wheels of commerce and industry. It has become a vast, dominant beast sucking the life blood out of productive firms and eventually the State itself. Financial deregulation was and remains a major mistake by all politicians, but particularly social democratic parties.

The neo-liberal economic policies which led to the crash of 2008 are only being marginally reformed. Banks, too big to fail, are already bigger now than they were then.

A further reason for the rise of capital has been the extraordinary rapid technological change which also boosted globalisation. The rewards of globalisation have been very unevenly distributed. Most of the rewards have been taken by the tech giants, and they have immense power over personal and corporate data and the media. They make vast and often untaxed profits. They now appear to be out of control because regulation has fallen so far behind technological change.

Globalisation has also boosted migration, and many social democratic parties (though not all) have tended to avoid confronting the issues that arise. Ironically, social democrats appeared to take a free-market approach to immigration. They neglected the kind of regulation and intervention they would normally seek in the labour market.

Social democrat parties had built their reputations on establishing broad protective safety nets for all equally. However, increasingly fractured politics has allowed this purpose to be diluted into many single-issue agendas, impacting on the overarching collective identity of equal protection for all. Thus identity politics has weakened the collective appeal of broad left parties.

Social democrats also neglected climate change. They ceded their belief in the strong state overseeing the market. They began to believe instead that the market was dominant, and sought to service it, neglecting their support amongthe working and middle classes.

The state sets the rule in which markets operate. When markets failed in banking, insurance and auto industry, it was the state that rose to the rescue in many countries.

Ireland now has the greatest market inequality in the EU, but thanks to our welfare and taxation system overall inequality is reduced to the average.

The most effective way to reduce Irelands high-market inequality is not more welfare but for the State to legitimise trade unions give them and workers the human right to collective bargaining with all firms.

Unionised firms have higher wages and are more efficient and innovative in areas of competition. Within a decade such market inequality would be reduced and our public services, welfare and tax system would be enhanced.

Inequality is not just a moral issue, but with the top 5 per cent or 10 per cent taking more and more national income from those below, money is ceasing to circulate, to be invested or to create demand. This is reflected in negative interest rates, with too much money chasing fewer investment opportunities.

Recently, the conservative Financial Times called for a Reset of Capitalism in a banner headline. The model has come under strain, particularly the focus on maximising profits and shareholder value. These principles of good business are necessary but not sufficient. Its time for a reset.

With climate change and the possible destruction of our planet within a generation, it is time for a radical change, not a reset.

Paul Sweeney is former chief economist with Ictu, and a former member of the Labour Party

Follow this link:
Why we are turning our backs on social democracy - The Irish Times

As the country confronts its third impeachment procedure in fewer than 50 years, and in the midst of a presidential campaign as acrimonious as any in U.S. history, Americas democracy is undermined by extreme partisanship. In the Trump era and beyond, Americans should change Washingtonby drawing inspiration from the man who lent his name to the federal capital.

In hisfarewell addressin 1796, George Washington called on his people to exercise vigilance for the dangers of parties and the baneful effects of the spirit of party on national unity and the honesty of public debates. It isthe interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain the spirit of party,wrote the first president of the United States.

While Washingtons letter is read in the U.S. Senate each year on his birthday, Republicans and Democrats seem to agree on only one thing: locking the political system so as to alternate power to each other by preventing independent or third-party candidates from winning elections or even participating in the public discourse.

One stratagem of the two parties that best illustrates their objective connivance is the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPB), aprivate organization founded by the Republican and Democratic parties in 1987 with a name suggesting a public and independent entity. The CPB governs presidential and vice-presidential televised debates down to their most minute details, effectively reserving access to dozens of millions of voters to their candidates.

Today, as in 2016, Donald TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump puts Kushner in charge of overseeing border wall construction: report Trump 2020 national spokesperson gives birth to daughter New McCarthy ad praising Trump includes Russian stock footage MORE and Bernie SandersBernie SandersSaagar Enjeti: Bloomberg exposes 'true danger' of 'corporate media' Doctor calls for standardizing mental fitness tests for elected officials Warren: Bloomberg is betting he 'only needs bags and bags of money' to win election MORE, two antisystem independents, are seeking the Republican nomination and the Democratic nomination, respectively, because that is the only path to get elected in the current political and electoral system.

Both men are supported by many among Americans who can no longer abide the established political class. A political elite whose supposed expertise has produced globalization with growing inequalities and outsourced jobs, ultra-economic liberalism with the undoing of safety nets and increasing private money in elections, the war in Iraq and the Great Recession of 2008. A political elite that did not see coming the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the impact of Hurricane Katrina and the so-called Islamic State.

Sick for decades, in a fevered confusion of party interests and the national interest, the American democracy is now in peril. Its revival is crucial, not only to the future of the American people but also to the quality of relations of the United States with other countries.

Any reform must loosen the death grip of power held by the two major parties, at both the local and federal levels.

Ideally, a fundamental reform would include, at minimum, a nonpartisan commission with the mission to end gerrymandering and draw electoral districts, such as has existed inCanadasince 1964; a dose of proportional representation in elections to state legislatures and Congress; and the abolishment of the Electoral College through the establishment of universal direct suffrage in presidential elections.

Realistically, the entrenched party duopoly as well as constitutional amendment rules make fundamental reform unlikely.

Yet, changes are feasible notably, adding a none of the aboveoption on all ballots and requiring a minimum 60 percent turnout, in the absence of which a runoff election would take place. Other options include increasing public financing for independent and third-party candidates and shortening presidential campaigns, as well as eliminating the Commission on Presidential Debates, with TV networks reclaiming their independence from the two major parties and opening presidential and vice-presidential debates to independent and third-party candidates.

In order to cultivate a more representative democracy, each American owes it to her/himself to reject the ambient frenetic cacophony, to mobilize by placing national interests above party interests, and to take counsel and hope from the prime infancy of the republic.

Indeed, the spirit of independence that provided the impetus for the birth of the United States also brought the first Founding Father to run without a party label and be elected the first president as an independent.

In his farewell address, Washington had this premonitory warning for his fellow Americans. Partisanship, he wrote, serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, and foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.

French journalist and political commentator Marie-Christine Bonzom worked in Washington for 26 years as a reporter for the Voice of America and as a correspondent for the BBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and other foreign media.

Read more here:
Our political parties are wrecking our democracy here's what we can do about it | TheHill - The Hill

First lady Melania Trump was booed at Baltimore Tuesday while addressing a youth summit organized for raising awareness about the opioid crisis. But the first lady took the incident in stride and defended the protest as a part of democracy.

Reacting to the booing, the first lady told CNN: We live in a democracy and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the fact is we have a serious crisis in our country and I remain committed to educating children on the dangers and deadly consequences of drug abuse.

According to reports, the heckling lasted for about a minute and the audience continued to be boisterous throughout her speech. However, Melania pressed on, undeterred.

Melania was also booed and cheered by the participants when she left the stage after concluding the speech at the auditorium of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.

In the speech, Melania Trump reached out to the students amidst the chorus and said: I am so proud of you for the bravery it takes to share that you have been strongly affected by the opioid epidemic in some way,

The first lady also sought to showcase her work with Be Best focused on children's well-being, online safety, and opioid abuse.

Noting that promoting awareness on these issues was one of the top priorities, Melania assured. I am with you in this fight and encourage you if you are struggling with addiction right now, reach out for support. It is never too late to ask for help.

It is also no secret that the Trump administration had strained relations with the city of Baltimore. In a controversial July tweet, Trump had stoked a controversy by calling Baltimore a rat and rodent-infested mess, that provoked Democrats. In Trumps words, the place is where no human being would want to live.

Trump donates salary to tackle the opioid crisis

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump donated his third-quarter salary to tackle the opioid epidemic in the country.

According to White House, Trump gave $100,000 to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health looking after the federal public health offices, per CBS news. First Lady Melania Trump speaks with children during a Toys for Tots event at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling in Washington, D.C., Dec. 11, 2018. Photo: Getty Images/ Nicholas Kamm

The Trump administration has made tackling the misuse of opioids a national priority. Estimates suggest that more than 70,000 Americans died in 2017 from drug overdoses and the bulk of them were related to opioids. The opioid crisis is also curbing the nations life expectancy and is a national emergency, the Time reported.

The Presidents second-quarter salary was donated to the surgeon generals office.

Continued here:
Melania Trump Booed At Youth Summit, Says It's 'A Democracy, They're Entitled To Boo' - International Business Times

When delivering the 17thNelson Mandela Lecture, chief justice Mogoeng Mogoeng referred to those living in comfort zones as traitors. His scathing statement was done in a nonpartisan manner, castigating those in power and society for the ever-widening gap between the economic classes, which has created a major crisis in our unbalanced society.

Corruption in Mzansi has reached cancerous proportions. In fact, so pervasive is this phenomenon that it can be labelled the Aids of democracy, which is destroying the future of this generation and the next. The corruption epidemic in our country reflects the more general, and now legendary, climate of unethical leadership and bad governance found throughout the political spectrum.

After 26 years of democracy, our rich country remains a land of peasants, and increasingly of landless urbanised populations living on the margins in squalid squatter camps bursting at the seams; political dynamite waiting to explode. Our silent emergency comes in the form of pernicious killers such as poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy and widespread unemployment. Current statistics do not capture the full and often intangible extent of massive human suffering and lost opportunities.

When democracy dawned in 1994, many hoped for liberty, prosperity and a new beginning. They have been cruelly disappointed. This situation is unacceptable and untenable. Mzansi is a powder keg. Vision, foresight and courage are urgently required to forestall these cataclysmic events.

Farouk Araie

Johannesburg

JOIN THE DISCUSSION:Send us an e-mail with your comments. Letters of more than 300 words will be edited for length. Send your letter by e-mail tobusday@bdfm.co.za. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.

Originally posted here:
LETTER: Graft is the Aids of democracy - Business Day

We saw an interesting twist to an unambiguous peoples verdict in Maharashtra. The Bharatiya Janata Party-Shiv Sena alliance campaigning on an unabashed Hindutva platform obtained a clear mandate, winning 160 of the 288 seats in the state assembly. The BJP won 105 seats of the 152 it contested, a strike rate of over 70%. The Shiv Sena had a strike rate of about 40%, wining 56 of 124 for which it ran. Clearly, it was a win for the worst form of Hindu revanchism, for the Shiv Sena stands for or stood for everything right of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. It was an unambiguous victory for combined retrograde ideologies of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Shiv Sena.

The people of Maharashtra had spoken and, under normal circumstances, their wishes should have been respected. But the election results clearly told the Shiv Sena that their time was running out. The BJP, the once-junior partner of the alliance, was now the engine of the Hindutva front in Maharashtra. The Sena could no longer be sure of its place in Maharashtra politics the next time, so it bailed out of the alliance.

The pre-election alliance of the BJP and Shiv Sena won over 42% of the popular vote, while the two Congresses together won only 32.6% of the popular vote. If there was any morality and decency left in our politics, the rightful government in Maharashtra should have been of the two undesirables. But that was not to be. Udhav Thackeray pulled out of the right-wing formation.

Nationalist Congress Party founder Sharad Pawar has never made any bones that he believed in to old adage that politics is the art of the possible. What Otto von Bismarck said was a little more. He actually said: Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable the art of the next best. In Maharashtras case, it clearly was the less worse.

What was possible in Maharashtra went way beyond what was thinkable. The secondary theme of the BJP-led alliances campaign was to arrest the growth of corruption in the state by promising to arrest Sharad Pawars nephew Ajit Pawar and change his way of life in jail. The suddenly marooned BJP found a lifesaver when Ajit Pawar did an Udhav Thackeray on his family party, the National Congress Party. It had nothing to do with policy or political morality. It was a question of his place in the family pecking order. Like Sonny Corleone, Ajit Pawar too had a tendency towards the rash and went alone to meet his fate.

Now we have the likelihood of a Shiv Sena-led government with the two Congresses supporting it from within. The BJP may very well say it is glad to have the Shiv Sena monkey off its back. Narendra Modi once described the Shiv Sena as a hafta collection party. Now the BJP can hope to muscle into the Shiv Sena base in Indias richest state.

But this is not a simple art of the possible power play. This newly scrambled alliance of a renegade Hindutva group with the two Congresses has major implications for Indian politics. Soon after the Supreme Courts somewhat judicially dubious verdict on Ram birthplace in Ayodhya, many in the Congress welcomed the judgment, just as many of its leaders welcomed the scrubbing of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution that gave Kashmir its special status. By deciding to remain quiet on it, the so-called liberal or centrist parties in our political firmament made their ideological choice. They all moved rightwards. Now they are allied with the ugly face of that reality. Allied with a party that viscerally hates religious, ethnic and regional minorities. So where does this leave Indian politics? Do we now have two right wing formations?

When the team led by BR Ambedkar wrote the Constitution, they obviously did not contemplate the capricious disregard for norms and disregard for decency and consistency inherent in our leaders. How we look is a no longer a concern. In the Maharashtra drama, we saw all provisions and expectations of the Constitution flouted and trampled on by all the constitutional authorities.

The Maharashtra governor, Bhagat Singh Koshiyari, a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh apparatchik, willingly accepted signatures by all the newly elected Nationalist Congress Party MLAs on sheets of paper attached to Ajit Pawars letter of support to the BJPs chosen legislative party leader, Devendra Fadnavis. Commonsense would have told Koshiyari that while some support for Ajit Pawar was possible, all was impossible. Did the governor allowed his Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh affiliations that to overpower his sense of morality? Clearly he has shown himself as not fit to hold that position. Prime Minister Narendra Modi took recourse a rarely used provision intended to be deployed during a war or financial emergency to facilitate the daybreak coup leading to Fadnavis being sworn in as chief minister.

What we have witnessed in these past weeks in Maharashtra is a complete collapse of the notion of politics being about vision for a better future and what is best for the people. Instead we saw a sordid drama played out in five-star hotels in Bombay, with money replacing vision and ideas.

The Pawar family schism that so impacted Maharashtra politics is yet another metaphor for the collapse of the party system in the country. From Punjab to Tamil Nadu, we now have a party system that is neither constitutional nor legal. Though the founders of this Republic never used the term political party even once in the Constitution, from day one we were intended to be and are a party-based democracy. When people elect representatives they are in fact choosing parties.

How parties function then becomes critical to our democracy. If parties did not function or are not required to function in a prescribed Constitutional and democratic manner, the leadership inevitably migrates into the hands of an elite, as we have seen in almost all our political parties now. These political parties have come together on the basis of a shared region, religion or caste, with any one of these impulses being the dominating motive for coming together. The only party that claims a pan-Indian appeal has long ceased to be anything but an old feudal order presided over by an aristocracy. None of these parties has a formal membership, a formal requirement for membership, forums for participation and articulating aspirations of their communities, facilities to choose leaders by any formal process other than general and often simulated acclaim.

We have seen the transition of democratic styles in many of the worlds established democracies. The United States saw power passing from a self-nominating convention nomination process to a primary-based system that binds the convention to the choice of individual party members. This kind of a transition did not happen in India. On the other hand, we migrated from a system where parties consisted of equals sharing a common purpose and sometimes goals to one where power passed into the hands of a self-perpetuating political aristocracy. Like the Gandhis, Pawars and Thackerays.

View original post here:
As the losers of the Maharashtra election take power, is democracy really the winner? - Scroll.in