Mediaboss Marketing

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

NBCNews.com

100 Days and Counting: The Battle for Democracy in Venezuela ... NBCNews.com Anti-government protests in Venezuela have reached the 100 day mark. So how did the unrest start? and more »

Continued here:
100 Days and Counting: The Battle for Democracy in Venezuela ... - NBCNews.com

Protestors gather outside the hotel where Republican Representative John Faso was scheduled to speak in Schoharie, New York. Credit: YES! Magazine/Reggie Harris.

Im leafing through a stack of protest signs in the corner of the mudroom, reading the markered letters, looking to see what can be recycled for tonight. The subjects weve collected thus far are about human rights and the environment. It looks like well need to draft something fresh and new for tonight, because the topic is health care.

Our Republican congressman, John Faso, has an 89.7 percent track record for voting Yes on Trump initiatives. He hasnt been holding town meetings with constituents, he and his staff have stopped responding to letters, Ive never had a phone call even answered, and his recent vote to repeal ObamaCare in the House has sparked this last minute protest down in the village of Schoharie, New York, where hes the keynote speaker at a countywide Republican fundraiser.

Im not a big fan of crowds. I dont even like meetings. But the elections last November showed me that even introverts need to emerge from their shells and make their voices heard.

As much as I dislike and distrust our current national administration, I also deeply value community harmony. Where national politics and economics fail, I have a deep belief that local community can survive. But Trump won Schoharie County by a margin of 3-1. And the past few months, for me, have been tough.

I dont like to disagree with my neighbors. Im one of those people who waves at every person driving down our rural roads. I like to talk about the weather, about local issues, about whos having surgery, about whose daughter is coming for a visit, about whos cleaning out their garage, whos having a baby. I can remember those things and carry on intelligent conversations. When it comes to national politics, however, Im completely rattled. In the face of someone who disagrees with me, Im so flustered by the lack of harmony, so worried that our friendship could be fractured, I lose my ability to be articulate about issues.

But national politics, in my estimation, are now dire. Too much is at stake for me to spend all my time in my comfort zone. Saoirse and Ula are following the issues now, too, and it would be irresponsible for Bob and me to encourage political discussion at home, but then fail to empower them with the democratic tools available to them to influence change.

So Ive chosen among my discomforts: rather than talking one-on-one with my neighbors about my feelings and opinions, Ive been pushing through my anxiety about being around lots of people. Part of me wonders whether my choice to stand among like-minded souls is more cowardly than talking one-on-one, but I cut myself some slack. Its better than doing nothing.

On this spring evening, Bob, the girls and I write catchy phrases on the backs of some of the other protest signs weve amassed, load into the car, stop at the bank, stop at the grocery store, then make our way to the protest.

One hundred eighty-five of us have gathered outside the hotel where Congressman Faso is scheduled to speak. Thats a big crowd for a rural Republican county, especially since this all came together at the last minute. Bob, the girls and I walk toward them, and were greeted with hugs. We stand among friends, comforted by each others presence. The sky is blue, and the sun is warm on our backs.

Attendees for the fundraising dinner begin to drive by. We hold up our signs. The drivers dont make eye contact. A few flip us the bird. Bob Neid, our organizer and local agitator extraordinaire, holds a megaphone to his lips.

Tell me what democracy looks like! He shouts.

And we all know how to respond, no coaching necessary.

This is what democracy looks like!

For a little while, no one drives past headed for the dinner. Being a great lover of the written word, Ive found in the past few months that protest signs are their own literary form, and Ive come to enjoy reading them. While its quiet, Saoirse and I take off down the line to appreciate the creativity of our fellow protesters.

As we walk, I meet up with farm customers, former teachers, and a lot people Ive not seen in years. We laugh, we share design tips for reusable posters. Some people turn their signs around and show on the back the list of every protest theyve attended this year, the way others might collect spoons from tourist destinations.

A flush of cars arrive. We turn our attention to them and hold up our signs. We sing out different chants:

Hey HeyHo Ho, John Faso has to go!

Healthcare for all, big and small!

And then some fellow farmers drive by, their big pick-ups shiny and clean for the evening.

Tell me what democracy looks like, Bob Neid chants.

I know a lot of them. In one truck, I see a couple Ive known my whole life. They helped me do my master's research. They helped me do my dissertation research. They recognize me. We lock eyes.

Is this confrontation? Is this the very thing Ive been trying to avoid?

He gets a little twinkle in his eye and gives me a nod. She smiles widely and waves at me.

Then I begin to laugh. I forgot! Hes a Republican. Shes a Democrat.

Now theyre both laughing, too.

This is what democracy looks like! The crowd cheers back.

And then I hear it up and down the line. Hey! Thats my neighbor! Another protester lifts his arm and waves to someone else driving down the line. Looks like hes feeling better after his surgery! Another little wave back from the car.

Hey! Those are my neighbors! I didnt know theyd be coming out to something like this! Another nod. Another wave of greeting between protester and Republican driver.

Tell me what democracy looks like!

This is what democracy looks like!

I discover a new comfort zone. I am who I am. I believe what I believe. And all of us in that line are facing the same thing: public dissent, when harmony is a matter of rural culture, survival, and quality of life. But with the support of fellow citizens who share our opinions, we find the courage to speak up about these issues that we find appalling.

And then, on the other side, we see our neighbors. And all those nods, all those little waves on the road, all those pleasantries at the grocery store, become hugely valuable. For the sake of preserving relationships, direct words may not be exchanged. But the communication is happening nonetheless.

Tell me what democracy looks like

Maybe its imperfect. Maybe its provincial. But Ill own it. In Schoharie County, this is what democracy looks like.

This article has been re-posted from YES! Magazine. It was originally published in The Radical Homemaker.

Read more:
What democracy looks like when you have to disagree with your neighbours - Open Democracy