Mediaboss Marketing

Over the past seven months, Donald Trump has attacked what for many are the pillars of American democracy. Hes blasted the news media, sowed distrust in the election process, and fired the FBI director for apparently political reasons. He has torn at the U.S.s racial fabric, perhaps to embolden his base. Political scientists, historians, and other experts have been trying to gauge how much damage hes inflicting on democracy. The New Yorker wondered if the U.S. might be on the verge of a new civil war.

Damaging the American political process has global ramifications. But an examination of other countries experiences shows that Trump may not be as successful in destroying U.S. norms and institutions as media coverage fearfully suggests. In many ways, he isnt unique. A wave of authoritarian-leaning populists has swept the globe in the past 15 yearsThailands Thaksin Shinawatra, Italys Silvio Berlusconi, Hungarys Viktor Orban, the Philippines Rodrigo Duterte, many otherswho share his disdain for institutions, the media, and politics as usual. Yet from Italy to Argentina, some countries that have elected these types of leaders not only survived them but also rebuilt their democraciesthey were battered but not destroyed.

Photographer: John Francis Peters for Bloomberg Businessweek

To be sure, Trumps presidency is less than a year old, and its premature to declare American democracy safe. The BrightLine Watch survey, which regularly questions political scientists about the state of U.S. democracy, found in May that American democracy remains healthy, but its health under Trump has worsened for the first time in recent history, according to the New York Times. There are signs that his leadership is exacerbating partisanship and reducing trust in the media and other institutions.

As Yascha Mounk of Harvard notes, decimating a democracy can take time. Early in their careers, Turkeys Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Venezuelas Hugo Chvez, and Hungarys Viktor Orban also seemed like they might be constrained. A few years after Erdogan, Orban, and Chvez took power, smart people also warned of excessive worry about democratic breakdown, he wrote.

Yet democracy is proving stronger under stress in the U.S. than it is in such places as Turkey, and Trump is a less effective populist than Erdogan or Chvez. Instead of Americas 1860s, the Trump and post-Trump era might look far more like Italy and Argentina in the 21st century.

In Italy, Berlusconi dominated politics from 1994 until 2011. He blended business and politics like Trump, undermined the media, attacked the judiciary, and oversaw an erosion of democracy that left a legacy of popular mistrust of institutions. Berlusconis approach hurt Italys economy as wellit was one of the worst-performing in the world during his time at the top.

But Italys democrats ultimately prevailed, calling on the countrys relatively strong democratic institutions and culture andslowlylearning to offer policy solutions rather than just blasting the leader. Anti-Berlusconi Italians protested his rule throughout his tenure. Although he controlled much of the broadcast media, dogged reporters continued to probe his scandals. Prosecutors charged him with alleged crimes even as Berlusconi oversaw passage of legislation that shielded him from charges. Eventually, prosecutors won a conviction against him for tax fraud. Politicians who once had been allied with him eventually turned against him as his reckless and pseudo-dictatorial styleand inability to solve problemsdrove a wedge in his coalition in 2010 and 2011.

Since 2011, Italy has held multiple free elections, and its once-battered press has regained some of its vibrancy. Judges and prosecutors protect their hard-won independence, perhaps even more so in the wake of Berlusconis attempts to immunize himself from the law. Many civil society groups that had taken some progress for granted before Berlusconi became energized by his time in office. The allure of a one-man fix for the country was tarnished, although the legacy of popular mistrust of institutions remains a major problem. As the journalist Alexander Stille wrote in the New Republic, Berlusconi failed because his megalomania led him to self-destruct and because of his rank incompetence in tending to the countrys business.

A similar political dynamic occurred in Argentina. From 2003 to 2015, Nstor Kirchner and his wife and successor, Cristina Fernndez de Kirchner, ruledand damaged Argentine democracy in similar ways that Berlusconi damaged Italy. They attacked courts, the bureaucracy, and the media, and they tried to rule through orders instead of working through the legislature. They also tried to undermine basic factual knowledge: Theyd so politicized the governments important Indec statistics agency that it became discredited by the time Fernndez de Kirchner left office. Like Berlusconi, the couple did lasting damage to the economy.

But Argentinas democracy survived as well, and in many ways its reviving. As Shannon ONeil of the Council on Foreign Relations writes, in several Latin American nations, including Argentina, citizens have turned against populism over time, tired of chaotic politics and poor governance. Latin American citizens, she notes, have used massive public protests to shame corrupt officials and back democracy. Theyve formed citizens movements, pushed to pass laws cementing separation of powers, and increasingly elected middle-of-the-road candidates. In Argentina, exhaustion with populism led to electing the moderate Mauricio Macri in 2015. He has tried to restore the independence of government agencies from presidential dominance and stop the habit of presidents amassing more and more power.

On the other hand, some countries havent recovered from authoritarian-leaning populism. Thailand had less history with democracy than Italy, and its institutions were incapable of or uninterested in standing up to an authoritarian populist such as former Prime Minister Thaksin. The middle classes often responded not by trying to strengthen democratic institutions but by abandoning them. Many opinion leaders supported military coupswhich occurred in 2006 and 2014as means of ousting a populist. Thailand also exists in a region where autocracies are the norm, and other countries did little to sanction Thaksin during his time as prime minister. In contrast, Italy and Argentina belong to regional communities of democracies that are willing to condemn and punish leaders who subvert rights and freedoms.

Realizing that countries with weaker institutions and norms survived authoritarian populists doesnt mean all is fine in the U.S. Like Italy, it could suffer damage without a complete meltdown. Although Americans are losing faith in many institutions, those institutions are performing relatively well right now. So far, the judicial system has repeatedly checked potential attempts to undermine the rule of law. The media has hardly been cowed. The U.S. militarys leadership has pushed back against Trump rhetoric without suggesting a breach in civilian control: After his comments on Charlottesville, leaders of many military branches issued messages affirming the importance of tolerance. And, as Josh Chafetz of Cornell Law School notes, Congress is providing a check on Trumps powers. It may not be happening as swiftly or as comprehensively as some Democrats might like, but the legislative branch is making its weight felt in the Trump era in a manner that, if it continues, bids fair to leave Trump with a reputation as an extraordinarily weak modern president.

When every day seems to bring more outrageous Trump statements, its difficult to believe any checks are still working. And winding up like a much bigger, wealthier post-Berlusconi Italy may come as cold comfort. Americans invested in protecting democracy must remain vigilant: supporting fact-based media, pushing lawmakers to pass legislation curtailing presidential power rather than relying on aged democratic norms to constrain the chief, and addressing structural factors such as inequality that helped facilitate Trumps rise. But a Caracas-on-the-Potomac future as yet seems unlikely. Kurlantzick is senior fellow for Southeast Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Read this article:
A Survival Guide for Democracies - Bloomberg

Graves at Sanctuary Wood military cemetery in Ypres, Belgium. Never before, and certainly never on this scale, had the bodies of ordinary soldiers been treated with such individual respect. Photographs: Christopher Furlong/Getty

In my study I have a grainy oval photograph of Mr and Mrs Weldrick from Barnsley, both stern-faced and wearing hats, standing behind their sons grave in a field in Flanders. The Weldricks had two sons and two daughters. At the age of 16, one of the daughters got herself into trouble, as they used to say, and the baby was brought up as one of the Weldricks own children. That baby was my grandmother. For years, she would also make the annual pilgrimage to Belgium to put flowers on her brothers grave though he was really her uncle. I remember that she kept pressed cuttings of the flowers. And this year, for the first time, I am also going and taking my own son with me.

The Commonwealth War Graves Commission celebrates its centenary this year. For 100 years it has buried the dead, collected information about them, and maintained those distinctive white graves in famously well-kept cemeteries. Never before, and certainly never on this scale, had the bodies of ordinary soldiers been treated with such individual respect. For centuries, the rank and file were discarded in mass graves, with only the officers deemed worthy of individuation.

With the work of the War Graves Commission, other ranks were given the same honour as officers; they were all buried alongside each other, all with the same sized headstone. This democracy in death was revolutionary stuff at the time, and there were many who complained that the commission gave the families of the dead little choice in how their loved ones were to be commemorated.

What freedom is it if you will not even allow the dead bodies of peoples relatives to be cared for in the way they like. It is a memorial not to freedom but to rigid militarism, complained Viscount Wolmer, in a parliamentary debate on the subject in 1920. Some from such aristocratic families found it particularly egregious that all the bodies were to be treated the same. But the TUC spoke for many when it insisted that those visiting the dead will expect to find equal honour has been paid to all who have made the same sacrifice, and this result cannot be attained if differences are allowed in the character and design of the memorials erected.

It was a fascinating debate basically, freedom v equality and though I cannot imagine the result being the same today, the fact that the War Graves Commission carried the day meant that the graveyards of the first world war stand as a powerful witness to the final obliteration of all social divisions.

My son and I hire cycles in Ypres, and follow the map out of town into the sunny blissful pastoral that is the Flanders countryside. This must have been what it was like before the guns and the trenches, full of cows and goats and birdsong. We pass several little cemeteries, some with just a few hundred men. And then to Georges final resting place, at the edge of a field, a long way from Barnsley.

Private George Weldrick of the 2nd Battalion York and Lancaster Regiment, died of his wounds 100 years ago next April. He was 25. His older brother had been killed at the start of the war but his body was never found. So, too, both of his cousins. But George fought throughout the worst of it, at the front, in the trenches, in the infamous Ypres Salient surrounded by lagoons of mud and death. In the end he was killed during the German spring offensive of 1918.

As far as I can tell, George was wounded in the same battle that the Germans let loose 2,000 tonnes of mustard gas. Many were blinded. A few days later, he died of his wounds. Standing in this lovely field, I cannot begin to imagine the horror he experienced.

I dont much care for the larger cemeteries such as Tyne Cot or, worst of all, the Roman-style triumphalism of the Menin Gate a sepulchre of crime as Siegfried Sassoon rightly called it. These places rally a militaristic spirit that doesnt sit right with me. But out in the fields of Flanders, away from the trumpets, in the little cemeteries, behind a hedge, at the back of someones garden, there is space and calm to remember the stupidity of war. Lest we forget.

Giles Fraser was in Ypres to make a documentary on how the first world war changed the way we remember the dead. It will be broadcast on BBC Radio 4 on 10 November 2017

Link:
It took the horrors of the trenches to finally bring a democracy to death - The Guardian

Posted August 25, 2017 10:20:36

It's been a month of burka stunts and citizenship chaos, in which door-stopped politicians have been bluntly asked: is our democracy broken?

But amidst the chaos, perhaps we need to ask ourselves: what are democracy's values? In Australia, 2017, that is. A trip to ancient Greece isn't necessary.

Just mosey on down to Canberra and Old Parliament House, now known as the Museum of Australian Democracy (MoAD), which this year celebrates its 90th birthday.

As part of the anniversary, a bunch of us 100 to be precise, including Dick Smith, Kerry O'Brien, Warren Mundine, Susan Ryan, Jenny Brockie were invited to participate in a glittering occasion last week, called Democracy 100 You Can Make a Difference.

We heard ex-prime ministers Bob Hawke and John Howard muse out loud about our democratic future, in an intriguing interplay dubbed a "multi-partisan conversation", brokered by Annabel Crabb and broadcast on the ABC.

Then, at the end of our Greek-inspired menu with beautiful wines from the Canberra region, the invited guests at 15 tables were exhorted... to play a game!

You could almost hear the quiet groan. Please, no role-playing, with partygoers asked to be senators or parliamentarians, fulminating on some confected set of issues. Luckily, the game turned out to be considerable fun.

We were distributed a deck of cards in three different colour sets, devised as part of a complicated process undertaken over the last 18 months by the museum and the University of Canberra's Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis.

They'd questioned 1,244 Australians recruited at random, and 10 focus groups, about their attitudes towards democracy.

Out of that arose some consensus, which was very broad in nature.

And as part of the game we were asked to put ourselves through a mild form of House of Representatives tension and rank the ideas raised by the survey participants in order of importance.

We were asked a number of questions: What do you think are Australia's most important democratic values? What should the responsibilities of champions of democracy be? What could be done to strengthen our democracy?

In the "values" category, I wonder how you would choose between the ten options offered to us?

We had an extra wild card on which to write down our own idea as a group.

Mr Howard, who was at our table, nominated "listen to the mob", which I didn't agree with.

It reeks of anti-thinking in my view. But guess what? I lost the argument! Just as politicians who don't manage to persuade their confreres do. Welcome to their world, I thought to myself.

In the "how to strengthen democracy" category, these were the options culled from the focus groups:

Again, I don't know how you would answer. But that is surely the point of our system. We are entitled to our own views, our own rankings and to argue with each other but to use words, not stunts or swords.

One first-time voter from the surveys nailed it, in my view:

"We need to get more involved but they don't have time for us and our views. Apart from election time. Then they're interested in us. Maybe that's what needs to change. They need to be as interested in our views when they've been elected."

Without a doubt, the times demand we talk rather than yell more.

Topics: government-and-politics, canberra-2600

View post:
Democracy in 2017 needs fewer stunts and swords, more genuine discussion - ABC Online

Many observers believe our democracy is in trouble. This is supported by polls showing a large majority of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction, and only 26 percent believe the national government is making effective progress.

Scholars of democracy warn of what they call democratic deconsolidation the increasing disaffection citizens have with democracy as a form of government. Globally, this is reflected in data showing that the percentage of citizens believing it is essential to live in a democracy has fallen in many democratic nations, particularly among millennials; only 30 percent of Americans in this cohort agree with this statement, for example.

So, is America experiencing democratic deconsolidation? The data suggest we might be, but this apparent trend can be altered. We can do that by adopting reforms that foster trust and hope among those who feel alienated or left behind.

To this point, the American system is more resilient than other democracies because of the strong role played by state and local governments, and the opportunities they present for testing innovative reforms on a smaller scale. Reforms that amplify previously silenced voices and open up opportunities for political participation can go a long way toward improving citizens confidence in Americas political system. Limiting the power of concentrated interests, making it easier to vote, donate money or time to a campaign or political party, and take part in governmental decision-making should be embraced by anyone who espouses the American ideal of liberty and justice for all.

Here are just two examples of how locales are attempting to reinvigorate democracy.

In 2015, Seattle became the nations first city to try a type of campaign financing called democracy vouchers. Under the law, each registered voter receives $100 in vouchers to spend however theyd like on candidates for city offices. The vouchers are funded by a property tax levy that costs the median homeowner only $11.50 a year. This program helps offset the outsized effect of big-money donors, and undercuts the sense of powerlessness that average citizens feel under our predominant system of campaign finance that favors wealthier interests.

In 1995, the Texas legislature passed a statute allowing local school districts to adopt cumulative voting as the method of choosing board members. Under this system, voters cast votes equal to the number of open seats, as usual, but they are allowed to cast all their votes for one candidate, if they prefer. Many corporate boards already use this method to improve the diversity of representation. The Texas experience shows it also works to encourage more representative political participation.

The legacy of our forebears is an unwavering belief in the possibility of a more perfect union. Their efforts to foster this ideal established for succeeding generations the responsibility to live up to that dream. Advocating for the above types of reforms is a tangible way to meet that responsibility and thereby counter the disturbing trend toward democratic deconsolidation.

Rob Baker, Ph.D., teaches political science at Wittenberg University and is a regular contributor.

Read the original here:
COMMENTARY: Some ways to strengthen our democracy - MyDaytonDailyNews

Roy Cooper greets supporters during an election party hosted by the North Carolina Democratic Party on Nov. 8, 2016; Pat McCrory, Republican candidate for Governor of North Carolina, during a debate at WRAL studios in Raleigh, N.C., on Oct. 18, 2016.Ethan HymanRaleigh News & Observer/Getty Images; Chris SewardCharlotte Observer/Getty Images

Weiser is the director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law; Weiner is a senior counsel in the program.

The unraveling of longstanding democratic norms (not to mention decency norms) in Washington, D.C., is understandably transfixing many Americans. But we should not lose sight of the fact that democratic values are under assault in the states, too.

Nowhere is this more prevalent than in North Carolina . There, a case questioning some basic tenets of representative government is playing out before the state Supreme Court right now. On the surface, the case involves a power struggle between the newly elected Democratic governor and the Republican-controlled state legislature over control of the state election process. But more importantly, the case is about how much a legislative majority can manipulate the rules to make its advantage permanent regardless of what the voters decide.

North Carolina is a closely divided state. It voted just under 50% for Obama in 2008 and for Trump in 2016, and it regularly holds some of the closest Senate and gubernatorial elections in the country. In 2010 Republicans rode a national wave to take control of the state legislature for the first time since 1899 and assumed full political control of the state in 2013. In 2016, however, the incumbent Republican Governor lost his reelection bid to Democrat Roy Cooper. Then things turned ugly.

Seventeen days before Cooper was to take office, the Republican-dominated legislature passed a package of sweeping changes designed to limit his authority, which the outgoing Republican governor signed into law. The centerpiece of this effort was a plan to ensure continued Republican dominance of powerful state and county boards of elections , which are responsible for running elections in the state and have been controlled by appointees from the Governors party for more than a century. (The original law was struck down by a state court in March but then reenacted over Coopers veto with only minor changes.)

The new law extends the tenure indefinitely, for all intents and purposes of the sitting Republican-appointed Executive Director of the State Board of Elections, North Carolinas leading election official. She would otherwise have been supplanted by a new Democratic appointee. The law also awards half the seats on state and local election boards to Republicans, which allows them to block any changes to voting rules adopted by the previous Republican-controlled bodies. The law even says Republicans get to chair all election boards during every crucial election year when the President, Governor and all statewide officials are on the ballot.

These changes leave little doubt as to who would really be in charge of North Carolinas election process and that is the point. Some legislative leaders openly admitted that one of their main goals of the election board law was to keep Republicans in power.

State legislators have tried to justify this power grab by pointing to Democrats efforts to increase their political power in the state in the 1970s and 1980s. But while North Carolina Democrats dont have clean hands, this latest Republican gambit to control the election process is part of a dangerous historic escalation.

North Carolinas new election board law is part of a series of actions the Republican majority in the legislature has taken to consolidate their hold on power since 2010. They passed aggressive gerrymanders that gave their party 10 of the closely divided states 13 congressional seats and super-majorities in both houses of the state legislature. They also sought to disenfranchise Democratic-leaning constituencies especially African-Americans and young people by imposing sweeping new voting restrictions, including cutbacks to early voting, strict voter ID requirements and reductions in voter registration opportunities.

These prior efforts to game the political system have been roundly rebuked by the courts. The U.S. Supreme Court recently struck down both North Carolinas congressional and state legislative maps as unconstitutional racial gerrymanders . And last year, the Fourth Circuit federal appeals court struck down the states new voting law, famously criticizing the almost surgical precision with which the legislature targeted black voters.

As the state supreme court considers the constitutionality of this latest effort to change the states electoral laws later this month, the legislatures nakedly partisan motives and its past efforts to tweak the system for partisan advantage will likely loom large over the courts deliberations as they should. As more and more courts are recognizing, efforts to rig the electoral system are simply inconsistent with constitutional democracy.

Whether the North Carolina legislature gets away with its electoral power grab could have widespread repercussions. Although its democratic breakdown is extreme, the state is the canary in the coal mine. Throughout the country, democratic norms are under tremendous pressure. State legislatures are increasingly experimenting with anti-democratic electoral laws, like new restrictions on voting access and extreme gerrymandering . These anti-democratic strategies are gaining traction at the national level, where a presidential commission is expected to promote regressive voting laws.

The North Carolina Supreme Court is neither the first nor the last court to face an important test of the strength of our constitutional democracy. How it performs could be an early sign of whether we are in for more bad news or are finally turning a corner.

Go here to read the rest:
Democracy In North Carolina Could Disappear. Is Your State Next? - TIME