Mediaboss Marketing

Republica

I do not see any significant deviation from universally agreed norms of democracy and human rights in Nepals constitution.

The recent local elections after a hiatus of two decades augur well for consolidation of democracy and acceleration of development in Nepal. They bring us full circle back to when democracy and development were beginning to take root at the local level in the mid-1990s. Undoubtedly, some new progressive features have been added to make democracy more inclusive and egalitarian under the new constitutional dispensation than two decades ago. But it is fair to assume that most such progressive measures would have evolved peacefully without the trauma of a fratricidal civil war if the self-corrective mechanisms of genuine democracy through periodic elections had been allowed to mature.

However, Nepals Maoists, who had done poorly in the 1991 general election, had no patience for what they derided as bourgeois democracy. Citing some real and many exaggerated imperfections of liberal democracy, they launched a brutal armed insurgency rudely interrupting both peaceful evolution of democracy and efforts to build the foundations for economic development and social progress, especially at the local level. Euphemistically labeled Peoples War, the Maoist insurgency deceptively co-opted such terminology as inclusion, equity and social justice that are the ideals of a well-functioning democracy. But true to their ideological conviction that power comes from the barrel of the gun, the Maoists prescribed armed violence as the only way to achieve these ideals. Their clever use of revolutionary slogans and utopian promises attracted significant following of innocent people, especially from Nepals many ethnic and regional groups and other communities that were historically marginalized. They also mesmerized some nave donors and diplomats into giving the Maoists and some like-minded ethnic/regional activists undue benefit of doubt and encouragement.

Jandesh vs Matdesh

During the protracted peace process and drafting of the new constitution, some members of the international community insisted on consensus and compromise as the sacred mantra. Many diplomats and scholars of countries whose own constitutions were ratified by much smaller majorities, castigated Nepals constitution adopted by nearly 90 percent of democratically elected peoples representatives as non-inclusive and elitist. Many self-proclaimed progressive commentators, and ethnic and regional activists, considered this as the international communitys endorsement, albeit inadvertently, of what the ex-Maoist ideologue Baburam Bhattarai cleverly articulated as the primacy of jandesh (peoples aspirations) over matdesh (voters verdict).

Granted, Nepals new constitution is not perfect, as is the case with constitutions of all other democracies. As a long-time UN official who strongly believes in universal norms of human rights, I deplore some clauses in Nepals constitution, particularly those containing discriminatory provision with regard to gender equality in acquiring citizenship by birth and naturalization. This must definitely be rectified. However, except for this single and serious flaw, I do not see any significant deviation from universally agreed norms of democracy and human rights in Nepals constitution compared to those of most other established democracies.

On the contrary, though at times clumsily worded, Nepals constitution is remarkably progressive, inclusive and full of affirmative actiontake the mandatory requirement for the President and Vice President, top leaders of the national parliament and local assemblies, as well as of provincial and municipal governments, to be from different gender and identity groups. It is exhilarating to witness, not just in theory but in actual practice, an unprecedented number of women, including from the historically deprived Dalit community and other marginalized groups, recently elected to local governments.

Obsessed with amendment

Most of the current demands for constitutional amendments that are being pressed by those claiming Nepals constitution as non-inclusive are matters relating to political choices and preferences rather than non-compliance of universal norms of democracy and human rights. Some of these demands may well be justified, but these need to be pursued through the normal instruments of democracyelections, referendums and peaceful negotiations and persuasion not through threats of agitation, boycott of elections or obstruction of democratically elected parliament and other institutions. It is time for Nepalis to shun our obsession of seeking solutions to all our problems through constitutional amendments. A constitution can only go so far, and dumping in the constitution a laundry-list of all our aspirations will only make it unwieldy, unimplementable and lead to greater disappointment and cynicism in the future. A constitution is not self-executing and even the most progressive constitution in the world cannot guarantee good governance. The fact that many rights and norms already enshrined in the constitution and laws of Nepal are not fully implemented calls for other remedies including the evolution of democratic culture and respect for the rule of law in our society, rather than endless constitutional amendments.

Indeed, our struggle now should focus on securing good governance and rule of law through legislation, education, and holding elected officials and other decision-makers accountable to the word as well as the spirit of the progressive features of the constitution. Border blockades, forceful closure of schools, health centers, public transport and other basic services that hinder ordinary citizens from exercising their civic rights have no justification in the name of inclusion, consensus, compromise or any other pretext.

Celebrating diversity

The largely peaceful conduct of the first two rounds of local (village and municipal) elections in May and June 2017 has given Nepal a rainbow of highly inclusive local governmentswith 40 percent of elected officials being women, many of them in leadership positions. A significant number of the elected women are from the historically most marginalized Dalit community. The high voter turn-out, exceeding 70 percent, and election of candidates from Nepals diverse mosaic of ethnic communities, including religious and linguistic minorities roughly in proportion to their population in the country, is a tribute to the inclusive nature of Nepals new constitution.

Future elections will undoubtedly further empower those elected from the historically marginalized communities to attain higher leadership roles as they gain more experience and can challenge their peers and rivals from the traditional elite with greater confidence. The fact that the newly elected local governments will have significant power of the purse and authority over decision-making on matters concerning peoples well beingfor example over basic education, health services, local infrastructure and management of natural resourceswill give these entities real teeth, thus bringing government services closer to the peoples door-steps. These achievements are worth celebrating, but we should be prepared for new challenges that are likely to emerge.

This is first of a three-part article on emerging national politics following the two phases of local elections

The author is a former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, Deputy Executive Director of UNICEF and author of Lost In Transition: Rebuilding Nepal from the Maoist mayhem and mega earthquake (2015)

kulgautam@hotmail.com

Visit link:
Democracy, revitalized - Republica

Trump has spoken with far greater affection for Putin, Saudi princes and the right-wing nationalists now in power in Poland than for democratic pluralists such as Germany's Angela Merkel and France's Emmanuel Macron. At the G-20 summit, in fact, both Merkel and Macron sounded more like post-World War II American presidents than Trump did.

And the ambiguity about what Trump said during his two-hour meeting with Putin about Russian meddling in the 2016 election (the administration denied that Trump had accepted Putin's denials, as Russia claimed, but its own account of what Trump actually did tell him was hardly reassuring) only underscored the president's reluctance to confront the Russian leader on anything. Trump gave Putin exactly what he wanted was the headline on a commentary in the New York Times by Russian writer and dissident Masha Gessen. It was hard to deny its truth.

In his speech in Polandon Thursday, Trump did commit himself to the Western alliance, but in an otherwise gloomy, backward-looking and Manichaean address.

The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive, Trump said. Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it? If we fail to defend what our ancestors" passed down to us, Trump warned, it will never, ever exist again.

To which one might respond: Yikes! Trump's words were remarkably similar to Bannon's pronouncements in a speech to a traditionalist Catholic group in Rome in 2014. Bannon spoke of a Judeo-Christian West that finds itself in a crisis and confronts a new barbarity" that will completely eradicate everything that we've been bequeathed over the last 2,000, 2,500 years."

This dire view should remind the democratic left and the democratic right that while they have disagreed on many aspects of American foreign policy over the last two decades, they share some deep allegiances. These include a largely positive assessment of what the modern world has achieved; a hopeful vision of what could lie before us; a commitment to democratic norms as the basis of our thinking about the kind of world we seek; and a belief that ethnic and religious pluralism are to be celebrated, not feared.

They also see alliances with fellow democracies as serving us better than pacts with autocratic regimes that cynically tout their devotion to traditional values as cover for old-fashioned repression and expansionism.

Democrats have many incentives for opposing Trump. But it's Republicans who have the power that comes from controlling Congress. Their willingness to stand up to a president of their own party could determine the future of democracy and pluralism. He is, alas, a man whose commitment to these values we have reason to doubt, and his European jaunt did nothing to calm those fears.

E.J. Dionne's email address isejdionne@washpost.com. Twitter: @EJDionne. (c) 2017, Washington Post Writers Group

Read more here:
Allies for Democracy? - Commonweal

Getty Images

Ivanka Trump attends a panel discussion on the second day of the G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany.

The United States is a democracy, where formal power is conferred by the people, not by ones family. Qualifications and experience, and not bloodlines, are the qualities that supposedly matter in White House appointments.

Those core notions have been trespassed against before in one famous instance of nepotism, John F. Kennedy made his brother Robert attorney general but seldom to the degree the country is witnessing under President Donald Trump. His inclination to give close relatives instrumental roles reflects a notion of a family, rather than an individual, in power. In that regard, its reminiscent of the way that third-world strongmen run their governments.

Advertisement

That came into particular focus this past weekend, when first daughter Ivanka Trump on several occasions sat in for her father at a meeting of G-20 leaders. Thus the 35-year-old fashion businesswoman and socialite was at the table representing the United States in a confab that included Germanys Angela Merkel, Britains Theresa May, Chinas Xi Jinping, Russias Vladimir Putin, and Turkeys Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Visually jarring as that was, Ivanka and husband Jared Kushner also joined the president during his personal meeting with Merkel. Kushner, of course, is another family member Trump has installed in his inner circle and imbued with considerable power.

Get This Week in Opinion in your inbox:

Globe Opinion's must-reads, delivered to you every Sunday.

Among Kushners many charges is bringing peace to the Middle East, acting as a point of contact with China, and leading efforts to make the US government operate more like a business. Any of those tasks would be an oversized portfolio for a young fellow whose principal qualification for White House service has been successfully courting Ivanka.

Ivanka Trump found herself thrust into a diplomatic scandal over the weekend after filling in for her father at the Group of 20 summit.

The danger of turning ones political quest into a family enterprise also came into focus with the news that, during the campaign, Donald Trump Jr. enlisted then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort as well as Kushner as fellow attendees at a meeting with well-connected Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. Trump Jr. agreed to that meeting in the hope of obtaining damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

But Team Trump has responded to the news exactly as youd expect. Although it contradicts the administrations past claims that there was no contact between Trump associates and Russians, Donald Jr. has scornfully dismissed it all as much ado about nothing. Kellyanne Conway of course attacked the media for focusing on it.

Advertisement

Regarding Ivanka, President Trump played the double-standard card, tweeting that if Chelsea Clinton had similarly sat in for her mother, the Fake News would say CHELSEA FOR PRES!

Here, Trumps motives may be twofold. First, to water perennial GOP grievances over a perceived media double standard. Second, to subtly put in play the idea that Ivanka, like Chelsea, should be viewed as a first child with a promising political future.

In fact, neither Ivanka nor Chelsea should be seen as future political stars until they have accomplished something substantial on their own, outside their parents sphere of influence.

More to the point, Trump should staff his government with qualified, knowledgeable, experienced people. Turning important White House roles over to bumbling naifs whose only reason for being there is familial ties is a recipe for mediocrity.

Its not the way the country that once led the world should be run.

View post:
The US is a democracy, not a family affair - The Boston Globe

Several hundred thousand protesters gathered yesterday in Istanbul, Turkey, joining thousands completing a 280-mile, 25-day march from Ankara in what is being called the largest protest gathering against Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoan since 2013. Erdoan, who has been warmly embraced by President Donald Trump, is widely seen as an authoritarian strongman who has radically diminished the pillars of democracy in his own country.

Led by opposition leader Kemal Kldarolu, the head of the Republican Peoples Party, the march and rally drew supporters from across Turkey. Undaunted by the 104-degree heat and the very real possibility of a violent response from the government, protesters gathered in the Maltepe parade ground holding signs that read adalet (justice in Turkish).

They were protesting the Erdoan governments brutal crackdown on free press, the independent judiciary, and freedom of expression since the attempted anti-government coup that took place almost exactly one year ago. The immediate impetus for the march was the recent arrest and sentencing of Enis Berberolu, an opposition parliamentarian who was convicted on spy charges after he allegedly shared a video with the press showing official Turkish vehicles purportedly transporting weapons to Syria.

We will bring down the wall of fear, Kldarolu told those gathered. This last day of our walk for justice is a new beginning, a new first step.

It was a dramatic show of bravery. Only two weeks ago, Turkish police fired tear gas and rubber bullets at protesters who attempted to stage an LGBTQ Pride parade in defiance of a government-issued ruling banning the march. Activists said 41 people were detained in the aftermath of the rally.

Calling yesterdays rally a beginning rather than an end, Kldarolu vowed that July 9 would henceforth be seen as a turning point in Turkish history. This is a rebirth for us, for our country and our children, he said. We will revolt against injustice.

We walked for the non-existent justice, he told the crowd. We walked for the rights of the oppressed, for the imprisoned lawmakers, the jailed journalists. ... We walked for the academics who were thrown out of universities.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was also in Istanbul on Sunday receiving an honor at an oil industry conference. While there, he praised the bravery of Turkish men and women, honoring their courage. But Tillerson was referring not to the protesters whod made the long walk between Turkish cities, but instead to those who stood up to last years attempted coup.

We're all here in Istanbul at a momentous time, Tillerson said yesterday. Nearly a year ago, the Turkish people brave men and women stood up against coup plotters and defended their democracy.

Tillerson apparently made no public mention of the days protests, or of the increasingly authoritarian environment that has arisen in Turkey since the coup was thwarted.

Symbols of the opposition party were notably absent from the demonstration. Protest organizers were extremely careful not to be overtly political, fearing a misstep could lead to the rallys immediate shutdown or to violence by Turkish security forces under the rules of the state of emergency imposed on the country since last summer.

Under the state of emergency, Erdoans government has dismissed some 100,000 civil servants, shut down more than 170 news organizations, shuttered some 1,500 NGOs, and arrested some 50,000 purported to have some connection to the coup. Eighty-one journalists have been jailed.

This is not an anti-government protest, said Samet Akten, a spokesperson for the march, in a statement reprinted by the New York Times. It is important to recognize the exceptionally peaceful nature of this process as well as its very specific goal. We will be expressing a collective, nonpartisan desire for an independent and fair judicial system, which has lately been lacking in Turkey.

In April of this year, Erdoan organized a referendum to give himself even greater control over the state and judiciary. It represents a remarkable aggrandizement of Erdoans personal power and quite possibly a death blow to vital checks and balances in the country, Howard Eissenstat, an expert at the Project on Middle East Democracy, told the New York Times upon the referendums passage. Judicial independence was already shockingly weak before the referendum; the new system makes that worse.

Turkish police and security forces did not stop w yesterdays protests. But that doesnt mean Erdoan has gotten softer. In just the past two weeks, two leaders of Amnesty International have been detained, including Idil Eser, the director of Amnesty in Turkey. She stands accused of having a connection to last years July 15 coup, and of being a member of an armed terrorist organization.

[T]he accusations would be laughable were the situation in Turkey not so extremely grave for anyone who dares to criticize the government, Amnesty International said in a statement on July 8. The group demanded Esers immediate release, as well as that of Taner Kl, chair of Amnesty in Turkey, who was arrested a month ago.

Attendees of Sundays march told journalists they feared repercussions for those who led the protest. I am one of their targets, Mahmut Tanal, an opposition leader in parliament, told the New York Times.

But he struck a resolute position. If they try and arrest me, he said, I will welcome them.

Read the original:
Turkey's leader is trying to undermine the country's democracy. Its people are fighting back. - Vox

Questions about the health of U.S. democracy, and especially its electoral system, have been front and center in the wake of a presidential contest influenced by Russian hacking and fake newsand which was won by the candidate who received fewer votes. Most recently, the Trump administration's new commission on election integrity, set up after repeated claims by the president of widespread voter fraud,has generated controversy by requesting voting data from the states. Many critics believe the group's real aim is to suppress voter turnout among minority and low-income Americans.

There's a long history of philanthropy's involvement in democracy issues and to veteran funders in this space,such grantmaking feels more urgent than ever.Beyond all the issues that surround voting, other matters that funders care about include campaign financing, redistricting, civic education, immigration and naturalization, and deliberative democracy. Two years ago, the Foundation Center rolled out a new database that documented the extraordinary scope and diversity of grantmaking on U.S. democracy.

One place where democracy funders come together is the Funders Committee for Civic Participation (FCCP). Founded in 1983 by a cadre of grantmakers interested in boosting voter registration (including activist funder Richard Boone), FCCP embraces a big-tent network oriented toward equity and the enfranchisement of underrepresented communities. Over the years, its chairs and co-chairs have included some of the most well-known grantmakers in the democracy space, such as Geri Mannion, of the Carnegie Corporation, and Michele Lord of NEO Philanthropy. It's currently co-chaired by Connie Malloy of the Irvine Foundation and Steve Cole-Schwartz of the Partnership Funds.

In the era of Trump, a forum like FCCP seems particularly timely. But according to FCCPs executive director Eric Marshall, who leads a small staff,a longer view is necessary. [FCCP seeks to provide] space and context to understand the landscape were currently in. Its not just about Trump, but also about how we got here. In some sectors, actors have looked to erode confidence in the ability of our democracy to function. That has led to apathy, low turnout.

Through gerrymandering, negative politicking, and the weakening of democratic normsas well as outright voter suppressionMarshall argues that the cracks in Americas democratic foundation may be widening. But the news here is not all bad, or about apathy amid an authoritarian drift. On the flip side, theres a lot of energy in the country. People who havent engaged in the past are making their voices heard.

Over its long history, FCCP has embraced varied priorities, including expanding voter registration and participation,campaign finance reform, experimenting with new approaches to civic engagement, and ensuring accurate census data. Those priorities remain, but FCCPs current work goes beyond specific issues.Similar to other affinity groups weve covered, its been thinking more holistically about harnessing a network of talent, knowledge and resources to empower communities and nonprofits from the ground up.

Related:

Says Marshall, Civic engagement is local. People are best reached by nonprofit organizations that are rooted in that community year-round. National organizations do good work, but if youre not based in that community, theres only so much you can do.

The local level is also where the intersectionality of different funding priorities, often discussed in airy terms in philanthropy circles, plays out in concrete ways.Engaged citizens and activists rarely think about only a single issue at a time. They tend to be concerned by a range of issues that affect their community. And right now, more funder affinity groups want to encourage this broader perspective by helping their members connect with one another and funders in the other spaces to advance change.Breaking down silos might be a nonprofit sector cliche, but its becoming de rigueur for funder affinity groups.

FCCP is somewhat unique among funder networks in that its core issue, civic engagement, underpins the landscape of almost every other issue.According to Marshall, money in politics is a good example of a democracy challenge that affects a wide array of issuesand creates the possibility for new kinds of alliances, including ones that cross ideological boundaries.Theres opportunity for alignment around shared values and fairness, as well as the dangers of lobbying and special interests. Marshall cites a fair judiciary as another issue that can draw a range of people together. I would add that redistricting is a third area that can animate players who have a range of concerns and viewsand yet are united in a desire to reform a system that contributes to polarization and legislative gridlock. Indeed, this issue has lately drawn in some new funders who defy easy ideological labels, such as the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. (LJAF is not a member of the FCCP.)

So whos in the Funders Committee for Civic Participation? FCCP counts 70+ member organizations, and a list is available here. Theres a liberal bent, its true, but given the groups focus on marginalized communities that's hardly surprising.

Looking ahead, the U.S. census is an important focus for FCCP, with much work to be done between now and 2020. Historically, census counts have tended to miss people from poor and marginalized communities, with negative results in political representation and the apportionment of government assistance.And with the Trump administration in charge of things this time around, there are fears that the census could go worse than usual. FCCP has a Funder's Census Initiative that's working to get ahead of the curve, here, and "achieve a democracy where everyone is counted so everybody counts." In the lead-up to the 2010 census, FCI says it helped mobilize $34 million in philanthropic support for work in this area. It wouldn't be surprising to see funders step forward with larger sums for the 2020 census, given today's political climate.

Another long-term effort by FCCP is to ensure more steady support for voter participation work, an area that Marshall says is plagued by big gyrations of funding linked to the electoral cycle. As presidential contests approach, there's usually a surge in grantmaking to increase civic participation or engage disenfranchised communities. But those resources tend to dry up after the polls close, and according to Marshall, funding gaps can impair community organizations as they undertake the ongoing work of engaging people in democratic life and building power.Downswings in funding can also mean losing good leaders and staff.

One way FCCP is addressing this challenge is through its State Infrastructure Funders Table (SIFT), which was launched in 2010 to get funders to better collaborate and align their efforts to "build the democratic infrastructure that can strengthen civic participation and win real change in peoples lives."

Related:

View original post here:
Amid Civic Fears, a Democracy Funders Network Is Going Strong - Inside Philanthropy