Mediaboss Marketing

For President Xi Jinping, the 20th anniversary of Hong Kongs return to China is a moment to toast the reunification of a nation and hail its unstoppable rise. But for activists such as Eddie Chu, one of the leading lights of a new generation of pro-democracy politicians, it has become an occasion for something quite different.

Boot-licking. Unprecedented boot-licking! he says, a smile breaking across his face as he reflects on how many members of the local elite have chosen to mark two decades of Chinese rule by plastering their homes and businesses with patriotic slogans and red flags in the hope, he suspects, of currying economic favour.

That is quite the opposite of what Hong Kong people wanted to see in 1997. We wanted to see democracy. Democracy is not boot-licking.

On Saturday morning, Chinas authoritarian ruler, who is making a rare three-day tour of the former British colony, will lead celebrations of two decades of Chinese control alongside Hong Kongs incoming chief executive, Carrie Lam.

At a flag-raising ceremony just down the road from where the umbrella revolution happened an unprecedented eruption of dissent in the autumn of 2014 the pair will remember the moment this city of 7.3 million residents returned to China after 156 years of colonial rule. A flypast and a sea parade will follow. By night, the skies over Victoria harbour, from where the royal yacht Britannia departed on 1 July 1997, will be illuminated by a spectacular 23-minute blaze of fireworks.

The moving occasion of Hong Kongs return to the motherland like a long-separated child coming back to the warm embrace of his mother, is still vivid in our memory, Xi told a dinner on Friday night.

But for members of Hong Kongs democracy movement, the anniversary is accompanied by a profound sense of uncertainty and trepidation.

Twenty years after Britains departure thrust this hyperactive lair of capitalism into the hands of a Leninist dictatorship, campaigners such as Chu fear Beijing is preparing to up the ante in its battle for control.

Ten pro-democracy legislators, of which he is one, are at risk of losing their jobs as a result of government-backed legal challenges against them. There are fears that under Hong Kongs new leader, who was elected by a tightly controlled selection committee, there will be a renewed push to enact controversial anti-subversion legislation.

And while Xi has sought to strike an upbeat tone during his visit, recent comments by another senior Communist party figure who vowed to consolidate Chinas control of the former colony has put activists on edge.

The relationship between the central government and Hong Kong is that of delegation of power, not power-sharing, Zhang Dejiang, Chinas number three official, said, adding that Hong Kong could only be governed by those who posed no threat to [its] prosperity and stability.

Feeding into activists sense of foreboding is the feeling that many western governments have now cut them loose for fear of damaging their economic relationships with the worlds second largest economy.

The foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, issued a carefully worded statement about the anniversary on Thursday, saying it was vital that Hong Kongs autonomy be preserved. But Johnson made no direct mention of growing fears about the erosion of Hong Kongs freedoms, or even of Beijings alleged abduction of a local bookseller who held a British passport.

The British government is just awful. Im afraid I cannot find any kind words to say about that, says Martin Lee, a 79-year-old barrister who is the elder statesman of Hong Kongs democracy movement.

Like many, Lee is convinced that China is gradually stripping away the freedoms promised to Hong Kongs citizens under the one country, two systems formula and that Britain has done nothing to intervene.

On Friday, a spokesperson for Chinas foreign ministry appeared to confirm those fears, telling reporters that the joint declaration, a deal negotiated by London and Beijing guaranteeing Hong Kongs way of life for 50 years, was a historical document that no longer had any practical significance.

Suzanne Pepper, a veteran chronicler of the citys quest for democracy, says campaigners can no longer count on London or Washington for support: As long as there is not blood in the streets, they dont care.

Not everybody is lamenting Saturdays landmark anniversary, however. The streets around Xis waterfront hotel are dotted with clusters of pro-government supporters and decorated with banners that read I love Hong Kong and One country, two systems has the strong vitality. Lilac posters hanging from bridges and lampposts carry the celebrations official catchline: Together. Progress. Opportunity. Skyscrapers have been decked out in bright red banners and neon displays that read: Warmly celebrate the 20th anniversary of Hong Kongs return to China.

Amid the omnipresent propaganda, there is also genuine patriotic fervour. Hong Kong people should be proud of the achievements of the motherland and all the progress our country has made, enthused Li Li, a guide at a government-sponsored exhibit about Chinas space programme that has been erected in Victoria Park to coincide with this weeks party.

Many more have greeted the anniversary and the presidential visit with nonchalance.

Chu estimated that about a third of the population was split between pro-democracy and pro-government supporters. The rest couldnt care less about the anniversary, and were most worried about the traffic jams caused by the massive security operation to protect Xi.

Swaths of the citys waterfront are sealed off with towering white and blue barricades, with agents patrolling the streets with assault rifles in their hands. Too many police! jokes one of hundreds of officers patrolling the area, sweat beading on his neck.

Lee says the lack of interest many young people are showing in Xis visit underline how disconnected they feel from mainland China and how Beijings policies have lost their hearts and souls.

Oh, this is the ruler of a neighbouring country thats what they feel, he says, pointing to a recent poll suggesting that only 3% of 18-to-29-year-olds consider themselves Chinese, the lowest rate since 1997. The young people want democracy. They dont want to be brainwashed.

For all the indifference and uncertainty, Hong Kongs protest movement appears in buoyant mood. Tens of thousands are expected to turn out on Saturday afternoon for an annual march marking the return to China. Their rallying cry will be Twenty years of lies. [It] was going to be Communist party officials, get out of Hong Kong, but they decided that was a bit too provocative, says Pepper.

Last September, a record number of young anti-Beijing activists were elected to Hong Kongs legislative council, or Legco, in what one victor called a democratic miracle. However, many of them could now be forced from office, mostly because of government legal challenges over protests the activists took part in while being sworn in last year.

If two to three of them lose their seats, then the whole political balance will change totally, and then Beijing will have absolute control of this legislature, warns Chu, who was to shout Democracy and self-determination and Tyranny must die while taking his oath.

Pepper said she was not optimistic that Beijing would offer concessions to activists, even though Hong Kongs incoming leader has pledged to heal the divide and build bridges. This is a bridge between democracy and dictatorship, said Pepper. How she is going to bridge that, I dont know.

Chris Patten, Hong Kongs last governor, has offered a more upbeat appraisal of the city he once ran, saying he was encouraged by the really profound sense of citizenship of its young activists. Above all, I think I am pleased about the way in which Hong Kong people themselves are the reason for it still being a cause of optimism rather than pessimism.

Lee, who is famed for an impassioned defence of democracy that he gave after Britains withdrawal, says he is an eternal optimist about his movements chances under a new, young leadership. These young people are our hope for the future. Im very proud of them.

Sitting in his chambers between a bust of Winston Churchill and a statuette of the Goddess of Democracy, the symbol of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, Lee remembers strolling through the umbrella movements main camp, a sprawl of tents and political debate, three days before police finally cleared it, in December 2015.

There were two little birds singing on the ground. [It was as if they were saying:] I wish I were free, you know? The air was fresh, he reminisces. I miss those days.

Additional reporting by Benjamin Haas and Wang Zhen.

Read this article:
'We wanted democracy': is Hong Kong's two-systems experiment over? - The Guardian

On Wednesday, the Washington Post published an article titled, "Why Donald Trump's diet is bad for America's health." That's right amid journalists' sustained hysteria over President Trump's efforts to discredit the mainstream news media, the mainstream news media is critiquing his diet.

To be clear, the article was amusing and I would never argue it shouldn't have been written or deserved to be censored. But it's just not necessary for a mainstream outlet to publish an article that goes after the president for his diet while working to convince the country that it's fully committed to rescuing our precious democracy from the "darkness." Editors at the Post should have passed and suggested it be submitted to Slate or Salon or another progressive publication.

This article, by the way, is just one of many similar examples of mainstream outlets finding laughably creative ways to attack Trump. Which is why Trump and his supporters argue the mainstream media will find any way at all to attack the president. The publication of this article doesn't exactly rebut their argument.

Really it's somewhat remarkable that mainstream journalists have the audacity to complain about Trump attacking the credibility of the media when their publications continue to willfully provide him with the ammunition to do so. Those are the very headlines that Trump allies blast around on social media or rant about on the radio, incrementally making Americans less and less inclined to trust the serious reporting from top outlets.

Yes, the Post publishes opinion articles from people on both sides of the aisle. Still, this one was filed under the paper's news analysis section, and almost comically embodied Trump allies' constant complaints about the press finding every possible way to critique him.

If you are concerned about the president discrediting you, do not provide him with the tools to do so. I, too am worried about the disintegration of trust in the media. I think it's important to have gatekeepers who can be counted on to tell readers the truth in a balanced way. But the media will never earn back the country's trust if it insists on publishing trivial attacks that only make the president's work of undermining their credibility so much easier.

Emily Jashinskyis a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.

Continued here:
Democracy Dies in Double Scoops: WaPo publishes article critiquing Trump's diet - Washington Examiner

By Ed Kellerman Special to The Sun

Would you like some good news on international affairs? About a place that survived a dictatorship and revolution, and created its own constitution and democratic government? Its not America, but Tunisia.

Yes, Tunisia! Battered by centuries of invasions and a 35-year dictatorship, four groups forged a new constitution to win a Nobel Peace Prize in 2014.

During a week-long School for International Training faculty workshop, seven professors met with historical and archeological experts, members of Parliament and political parties, non-governmental organization leaders, two Nobel Prize-winning groups and the Tunisian president. We found that every Tunisian carries a serious torch for democracy and our local coordinators, Mounier Khalifa and Najeb Ben Lazreg, spun stories from ancient cultures to current political intrigue.

After the fall of former President Zine el Abidine Ben Ali in 2011, Tunisians set up a Troika, an alliance between three parties the Congress for the Republic, with a provisional president; Ettakatol, led by the president of the National Constituent Assembly; and the Islamic party of Ennahdha, led by Rached Ghnaoucchi.

For a year, National Constituent Assembly President Mustafa Ben Jafar wrote most of the new constitution through 600 meetings with lawyers, technocrats, religious leaders, trade unions, business leaders and party leaders. They developed their Four Freedoms Dignity through jobs, social justice through equality, liberty through freedom of conscience, and democracy through universal suffrage.

The goal was to transform the one-party state into a responsive administration with human rights and gender equality. The election commission now requires each party to field equal numbers of women on their candidate lists.

How successful were they? The new constitution was ratified by 200 out of 217 electoral representatives! Tunisia now has over 200 political parties, 85 newspapers and more than 40 TV and radio stations, one of which (Mosaique) is a well-respected regional news service. Citizens now have multiple internet platforms and engage in spirited conversations at cafes over espressos, mint tea, beer or Turkish ice cream.

Despite factionalization, the best analogy is a rugby scrum where the players push and pull as the scrum moves around the field. Their fate is truly intertwined with each other.

The path to democracy is paved with pitfalls. Youth unemployment, especially among college graduates is high (an estimated 240,000 are out of work). Endemic corruption (estimated 40 percent of GDP) and low foreign direct investment (only 88 large companies in Tunisia) means low funds for infrastructure or business development.

Thanks to the internet and social media, demonstrations are frequent. Plus, the establishment of the final check and balance a federal judiciary is past its one year due date.

However, several times, Tunisians have turned away from physical carnage. Just before former President Ben Ali left the country, the Army refused to fire on thousands of demonstrators. Even after two assassinations and the most recent killing of two demonstrators in the oil town of Tataouine, the fervent demonstrations have not degraded into the violence of Egypt or lawlessness of neighboring Libya.

We stayed in a vibrant capital city, Tunis, visited Roman ruins and Dougga, a World Heritage site that is waiting for you. Police presence was high in the Tunis City Centre but moderate along the highways and I saw no baksheesh (bribes) changing hands. A meeting with current President Beji Caid Essebsi and a tour of the presidential palace included viewing priceless archeological artifacts and a stunning reception room overlooking the Mediterranean Sea. He met Donald Trump ceremonially in Saudi Arabia but said he would withhold judgment until the Group of 7 summit. Then he smiled.

The strength of the post-revolutionary period is a deep passion for true democracy, a secular state with religious freedom. Despite this preference for a secular democracy, the religious Ennhadha party surprisingly won the most parliamentary seats and the first freely elected presidency. But the party is conflicted over how much Islamization they will tolerate and how money from Saudi Arabia and Qatar will be used for non-secular purposes, especially in education.

Late in the Second Continental Congress, Ben Franklin addressed the contentious assembly, Gentlemen, if we dont hang together, we will surely hang separately. Tunisians now recognize the opportunity of a lifetime to become the envy of the Arab world. If they hang together, this could be a bright spot in a region not known for stability and democracy.

Now doesnt that just brighten your day?

Ed Kellerman is a master lecturer and Fulbright Scholar in the Dial Center for Written and Oral Communication in the University of Floridas College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. His full-length video on the trip is available on YouTube at http://bit.ly/tunisiatrip.

Read the rest here:
Ed Kellerman: A path to democracy paved with pitfalls - Gainesville Sun

But cheap participation reflects a troubling infirmity in how partisans of both parties engage in politics. In fact, it is not because of gerrymandering, Citizens United, cable news or any of the other common scapegoats that our system is broken, but because of us: ordinary people who are doing politics the wrong way.

For years, political scientists have studied how people vote, petition, donate, protest, align with parties and take in the news, and have asked what motivates these actions. The typical answers are civic duty and self-interest.

But civic duty and self-interest do not capture the ways that middle- and upper-class Americans are engaging in politics. Now it is the Facebooker who argues with friends of friends he does not know; the news consumer who spends hours watching cable; the repeat online petitioner who demands actions like impeaching the president; the news sharer willing to spread misinformation and rumor because it feels good; the data junkie who frantically toggles between horse races in suburban Georgia and horse races in Britain and France and horse races in sports (even literal horse races).

What is really motivating this behavior is hobbyism the regular use of free time to engage in politics as a leisure activity. Political hobbyism is everywhere.

There are several reasons for this. For one, technology allows those interested in politics to gain specialized knowledge and engage in pleasing activities, such as reinforcing their views with like-minded friends on Facebook. For another, our present era of relative security (nearly a half-century without a conscripted military) has diminished the solemnity that accompanied political talk in the past. Even in the serious moments since the 2016 election, political engagement for many people is characterized by forwarding the latest clip that embarrasses the other side, like videos of John McCain asking incomprehensible questions or Elizabeth Warren destroying Betsy DeVos.

Then there are the well-intentioned policy innovations over the years that were meant to make politics more open but in doing so exposed politics to hobbyists: participatory primaries, ballot initiatives, open-data policies, even campaign contribution limits. The contribution rules that are now in place favor the independent vanity projects of wealthy egomaniacs instead of allowing parties to raise money and build durable local support.

The result of all this is political engagement that takes the form of partisan fandom, the seeking of cheap thrills, and amateurs trying their hand at a game. This can be seen in the billionaire funding super PACs all the way down to the everyday armchair quarterback who professes that the path to political victory is through ideological purity. (In the face of a diverse and moderate country, the demand for ideological purity itself can be a symptom of hobbyism: If politics is a sport and the stakes are no higher, why not demand ideological purity if it feels good?)

Not all activism is political hobbyism. A Black Lives Matter protest meant to call attention to police misconduct and demand change on an issue with life-or-death consequences is not hobbyism. Neither is a spontaneous airport protest over the presidents travel ban, which also had clear goals and urgent demands.

What about attendance at town hall meetings hosted by members of Congress? These events could be places for serious discourse and reveal crucial citizen perspectives on matters of public policy, but they are more often hijacked by fair-weather activists looking to see action. It is certainly peculiar that Democrats who are motivated by the health care debate now couldnt be bothered to show up at town hall meetings back in 2009 (or to vote in 2010), and the Tea Party activists of 2009 cant be bothered now, since it wouldnt be any fun for them.

What, exactly, is wrong with political hobbyism? We live in a democracy, after all. Arent we supposed to participate? Political hobbyism might not be so bad if it complemented mundane but important forms of participation. The problem is that hobbyism is replacing other forms of participation, like local organizing, supporting party organizations, neighbor-to-neighbor persuasion, even voting in midterm elections the most recent midterms had the lowest level of voter participation in over 70 years.

The Democratic Party, the party that embraces engagement, is in atrophy in state legislatures across the country. Perhaps this is because state-level political participation needs to be motivated by civic duty; it is not entertaining enough to pique the interest of hobbyists. The party of Hollywood celebrities also struggles to energize its supporters to vote. Maybe it is because when politics is something one does for fun rather than out of a profound moral obligation, the citizen who does not find it fun has no reason to engage. The important parts of politics for the average citizen simply may not be enjoyable.

Political hobbyism is a problem not just for Democrats. The hobbyist now occupying the Oval Office is evidence enough of the Republican version of this story. Donald Trumps election was possible because both political parties mistakenly decided several decades ago to have binding primary elections determine presidential nominations. Rather than having party leaders vet candidates for competency and sanity, as most democracies do, our parties turned the nomination process into a reality show in which the closest things to vetting are a clap-o-meter and a tracking poll.

Nevertheless, the problem of hobbyism holds more severe consequences for Democrats than for Republicans because of their commitment to mass engagement as a core value. An unqualified embrace of engagement, without leaders channeling activists toward clear goals, yields the spinning of wheels of hobbyism.

Democrats should know that an unending string of activities intended for instant gratification does not amount to much in political power. What they should ask is whether their emotions and energy are contributing to a behind-the-scenes effort to build local support across the country or whether they are merely a hollow, self-gratifying manifestation of the new political hobbyism.

See the original post:
The Problem With Participatory Democracy Is the Participants - New York Times

Thousands of people take part in the Justice March in Turkey. Photograph: Depo Photos/via REX/Shutterstock

Hdr Aydur rested his blistered feet under the shade of a tree on the side of the highway that runs between Ankara and Istanbul. The 57-year-old, from Erzincan in Turkeys north-east, who has diabetes, had been marching for 15 days. He is one of thousands journeying by foot from Turkeys capital to its largest city, many carrying banners that say adalet or justice.

We lost democracy in our country, and we want it back, Aydur said, his shirt bearing the images of Nuriye Glmen and Semih zaka, two teachers who were jailed last month after more than 70 days on hunger strike over their arbitrarily dismissal in a government decree.

Tens of thousands of people have been dismissed or detained in a broad government crackdown in the aftermath of a coup attempt last July that left more than 250 people dead and 1,400 wounded. After declaring a state of emergency, the governments purge went beyond the direct perpetrators of the coup to encompass a large swathe of civil society, the political opposition, academics, journalists and civil servants, squandering a rare moment of unity to solidify its hold on power.

In April, President Recep Tayyip Erdoan narrowly won a referendum that vastly expanded his powers, while the countrys judiciary has been reshaped in his image, with a quarter of the nations judges and prosecutors dismissed or jailed over alleged connections to Fethullah Glen, an exiled preacher whose grassroots movement is widely believed in Turkey to have orchestrated the putsch.

Senior opposition politicians have also been imprisoned. Earlier this month Enis Berberolu, a lawmaker with the Peoples Republican party (CHP), was jailed for 25 years after leaking information to the press on Turkish intelligences transfer of weapons across the border to Syrian rebels.

That arrest sparked the Adalet march, a 280-mile (450-km) walk led by the CHPs chairman, Kemal Kldarolu, which set off from Ankara on 15 June. Organisers hope it will culminate in a large rally in Istanbuls Maltepe neighbourhood on 9 July. It has drawn supporters along the way from across Turkish society despite the scorching summer heat, as it covers nine miles a day.

The protesters, dismissed as Glen supporters by the government, have given a variety of reasons for their involvement: the countrys slide to authoritarianism, the authorities abuse of the state of emergency, the arrest of journalists and politicians, the crackdown on dissent, and even opposition to retirement laws.

Academics and teachers are being wrongfully dismissed, losing their jobs and food and theyre being deprived of their constitutional rights, say Aydur. The only thing left for them is to resist, and I wanted to give a voice to their resistance. We want independent courts, not one-man rule, and we want this justice for everyone including those on the opposite side.

The atmosphere on Thursday was relaxed, belying the deep fissures and polarisation that run through a nation yet to come to terms with the coup attempt.

A year ago hundreds of thousands of Turks gathered in Yenikap square in Istanbul to celebrate victory over the coup plotters. But the euphoria quickly turned to alarm and then despair in the weeks and months that followed.

There is a reign of fear, Kldarolu said in an interview conducted during the march. Journalists and citizens, the people, cannot speak. This is what we want to get rid of.

When the 15 July coup happened every party was against it, but on 20 July there was a civil coup and its main plotter was Erdoan, he said. The state of emergency gave him all the power, and with all the dismissals and investigations against thousands of academics and journalists and civil servants, there are ordinary citizens who cannot even talk to their lawyers. There is oppression against the opposition, and lawmakers are being arrested. This justice march is against this civil coup.

Many of Erdoans religiously conservative supporters look upon the countrys secular opposition as elitist White Turks who used to dominate the upper echelons of the state and oppress the poor. In their eyes Erdoans rise can be interpreted as a rebuke to the excesses of the elite.

Namik Akbas, a 32-year-old from Amasya who joined the march, said the Erdoan government was using religion to divide people.

Turkey has been ruled for a long time by this mentality of manipulating the public, he said. Adalet to me means unifying the country under secular, enlightened values. Secularism is not against religion.

For Borga Budak, a 36-year-old CHP member from Ankara sporting a Che Guevara cap, the march is an attempt to give succour to the Turkish oppositions cowed base.

The idea of this protest isnt geographical, Budak said. It doesnt stop in Istanbul. People need hope, and this walk gives them hope.

Read more from the original source:
'We've lost democracy': on the road with Turkey's justice marchers - The Guardian