Mediaboss Marketing

Indian Democracy at 70, Success and Failure 50:50

This 15 August India will be celebrating the 71st Independence Day. Ask eminent historian Ramachandra Guha to describe the journey since 1947 and he says, Indian democracy today stands at 50:50 success and failure ratio. He is happy that India has defied the western doomsayers, who had predicted its breakup in several pieces because of its diverse cultures, religious multiplicity and multi-ethnicities. But bureaucracy has become a hostage to the political masters.

Recently, Guha was in Jammu to read out The Report Card of India at 70 while delivering the Balraj Puri lecture. He focused on the progress through four determining factorspolitical, cultural, religious and economic democracies.

Appreciating the progress made on the political front, from universal franchise to self-assertion by the weaker sections like the Dalits and women, Guha regretted that the legislative institutions have developed dysfunctional and the bureaucracy has allowed itself to become a hostage to the political masters. India has progressed in the linguistic multiplicity and has rightly discarded one-language disaster, points out Guha. In his opinion, the imposition of Urdu in Pakistan had resulted in Islamabad losing East Pakistan, where Bengalis wanted to speak their own language. If a similar thing would have been done in India, he says, the nation would have broken into 22 pieces. Guha also says that nationalism and patriotism have been made indistinguishable. Minorities are at the receiving end during riots and now aggressive and violent cow protectors have increased their fears.

Good Morning Squad will check open defecation

It can happen only in India, especially in Punjab. A Good Morning Squad has been formed to greet and check people found defecating in the open. Members of the squad will impose a fine on them. An exercise is being started by the Muktsar district administration from 5 to 7 am. It is not yet clearthe officials do not want to disclose the strategyas to how they would like to go about it.

Asked whether the squad would approach the person face-to-face while he or she was busy in the natures call and say, Good Morning or whether they would wait at a respectable distance for the person to finish the job, a senior official said, Let us see. We will go by the ground reality.

Asked whether the squad would approach the person face-to-face while he or she was busy in the natures call and say, Good Morning or whether they would wait at a respectable distance for the person to finish the job, a senior official said, Let us see. We will go by the ground reality.

About 175 toilets have been built in the village to make it open defecation-free under the Prime Ministers Swachh Bharat Abhiyan. In the beginning, an official says, we will not impose any penalty on those found defecating in the open.

But he was not clear as to how the persons found guilty would be fined. Asked whether the persons caught doing open defecation would be issued a challan on the spot, as no one carries a purse along for such an exercise, a district administration official said, We will work out the nitty-gritty of all such things. Punjabs nine districts have been officially declared open defecation-free. The deadline is 31 December to make the remaining 13 districts free.

Work needed to attract FDI

It was year 2013, exactly one year before the arrival of the Modi Raj. This writer happened to find himself sitting on a lunch table in a five-star hotel with Amit Shah, now the most powerful man, after NaMo, in the BJP as its head as well as in the government unofficially. The occasion was the celebrations of a Hindi daily, Naya India. Almost all guests had gone when Shah arrived.

When asked whether the BJP would be vindictive in troubling the Congress leaders, if they came to power, he said, Not at all. But if someone would move a PIL in the court for investigation into a leaders role in a scam, and the judges ask our government, we would be duty bound to assist the judiciary.

Asked what would be their business vision, Shah had said, We will not discriminate with any business house, whether they are Ambanis, Adanis, Tatas or Birlas. We would assure them of all help on one condition that they would start a defence factory. India is procuring its nearly 80% defence products from abroad. Excellent vision, especially in the light of the Chinese dragon building pressure points on the long Indian border and Pakistans proxy war in Kashmir. But Amit Shah needs to work with his usual high efficacy to ensure his wish comes true. In the past three years, the country received a mere Rs 1.13 crore FDI in defence under its Make in India programme. The Ministry of Defence had touted the FDI in defence as a major shift in policy and okayed up to 49% stake for foreign companies to come and partner private and public Indian companies. The figures are startling. In the current financial year, no FDI came till May. In 2014-15, the total FDI was $78,000; mostly from France. In 2016-17, the investment was a mere $1,000. The biggest FDI inflow was in 2015-16: $95,000.

Guns Against Patel Are Not Silent Yet

The nail-biting victory of the master strategist of the Congress, Ahmed Patel, in the Rajya Sabha election from his home state Gujarat has not silenced the BJP guns. They are still not able to digest their defeat in stopping him from coming to the House of Elders for the fifth time. Though Amit Shah has walked into the House after comfortably win along with Smriti Irani, he is aware that Ahmed Patel would be taking oath along with him. For Patel, Congress president Sonia Gandhis political secretary, it was a touch and go affair. Shankersinh Vaghela had made an elaborate chakervihu, but Patel was too familiar with such games. The Sunday Guardian has learnt that the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate got active within 24 hours of his election. The EDs Wednesday searches at four locations in Mumbai are seen by Congress sources in this context. Meanwhile, as the Congress, on Patels morale boosting victory, sings, Jo Jita Wohi Sikander, a BJP controlled WhatsApp Group says: Patel was known as 50% PM in the corridors of power during the Manmohan Singh government. We lost a big opportunity. We failed to cut the Congress lifeline. But we will get him sooner or later.

Light shed on Hasan AliKhans contacts

Remember Pune-businessman Hasan Ali Khan, popularly known as Ghode Wala, as he owned a horse farm? Khan (62) has been facing charges under the stringent Prevention of Money Laundering Act since 2007 but so far agencies claim that nothing concrete has been found against him. Last month, the CBI had asked Khan to come to Delhi on 4 and 5 July for interrogation in a fresh case filed against him for alleged criminal conspiracy and corruption. Khan did not come, citing poor health. The ED sources say that while the first complaint did not name any government official or politician associated with Khan a new probe has now thrown some light on these contacts.

The Hasan Ali case dates back to 5 May 2007, when in raids a laptop was recovered. It contained only scanned copies of documents stating that Ali had accounts in UBS Zurich and Singapore, with deposits in excess of $8 billion. In March 2011, Khan was arrested on charges of money laundering and tax evasion. It was alleged that he was handling the hawala money of some top businessmen and politicians. The Swiss and Singapore banks have denied the existence of these accounts.

Dadu Kovind celebrates first Raksha Bandhan

Last Monday, it was the new President Ram Nath Kovinds first Raksha Bandhan ceremony at the Rashtrapati Bhavan. A group of schoolchildren, mostly girls, was there to tie a rakhi to him. This writer was visiting his sisters home in Dwarka. The next-door neighbour, Akshay Anand, an urban development expert, and his wife Dolly Singh were also there. Just after lunch, their nursery going daughter, Aashi, walked in, bubbling with excitement. A student of Sri Ram Global School, Dwarka, the three-years and nine-months-old Aashi had come from the Rashtrapati Bhavan.Impressed by the grandeur of the Rashtrapati Bhavan, Aashi said: Papa, do you know that I, Manvi Maam (coordinator) and Geetika Maam (class teacher) went to a big house of a Dadu after you dropped me in the school this morning?

The big house had huge gates, prattled Aashi. There were a lot of policemen who kept looking at us. Some were smiling. We walked through a small gate. It made a loud beep-beep sound as we crossed it, just as in the Metro stations and the airport. Then we reached a big hall, where a lot of girls and boys from other schools were there. Papa, lots of people were there in different dresses, like the police. There were some men who were wearing huge turban caps; they looked like the waiters of the restaurant we go to. The ceiling was very high.

Manavi Maam and Geetika Maam took me to two chairs on which Dadu and Dadi were sitting next to each other. Dadu was wearing a blue dress and Dadi a yellow sari. Dadu and Dadi were wearing glasses. Dadu had less hair and they were white. Dadis hair was black. I said good morning to Dadu. He said good morning. I asked him to give me his hand to tie the rakhi. Smiling, he extended his hand. I tied a rakhi on his wrist. Papa, there was a big tray full of chocolates near his chair. I tried to pick up one, but Dadu picked up one and gave it to me. Then Dadi put her hand on my head. I was happy. But one thing I did not like. Whatever gifts we gave to Dadu, a tall man in a green dress (must be the Presidents bodyguard) snatched it from Dadus hands and kept it on a table. I said bye to Dadu who also said bye to me. I like this Dadu.We were given a food packet. They also gave us a pencil box on which a picture of Dadus house was printed, Aashi concluded.

Her parents asked, What is Dadus name and what does he do? The little girl said, Our Maam had told us, but I dont remember. Her father told her that Dadu is the President of the country and his name is Ram Nath Kovind. When he added that this Dadu was earlier the Governor of Bihar, where her real dadu lives, Aashi clapped her hands and said, That is why Dadu was smilingwe must go again to meet him with our own dadu.

Man Mohan can be contacted at rovingeditor@gmail.com

Go here to see the original:
On my Radar: Indian Democracy at 70, Success and Failure 50:50 - The Sunday Guardian

Arab respondents mostly reject the EU brand of formal liberal democracy in which elections are essential, but civil and political rights remain decoupled from unprioritised social and economic rights.

Deputies support ratification of new constitution for Tunisia, January 26, 2014. Demotix/Mohamed Krit. All rights reserved. Findings from the Arab Transformation survey carried out in 2014 in six developing Arab states, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia suggest that the EU assumption of democratisation as a value shared with Arab states is misplaced. Few respondents wanted the EU brand of thin, procedural democracy in which civil and political rights remain decoupled from social and economic rights. Furthermore, few respondents thought the EU had done a good job of facilitating a transition to democracy in their country or had much appetite for EU involvement in the domestic politics of their countries. Few respondents thought the EU had done a good job of facilitating a transition to democracy in their country or had much appetite for EU involvement in the domestic politics of their countries.

The EU, like other western powers, was quick to portray the 2011 uprisings as a popular demand for liberal democracy procedural democracy and political rights. However, while the uprisings were intensely political, a demand for regime change, they were not primarily a demand for democratisation, or at least for the thin definition promoted by the EU.

Protesters were more concerned about social justice, economic security and employment. In response to the uprisings, the EU revised its policies and claimed that it would encourage deep democracy. It also promised to listen to Arab voices. However, analysis of policy documents reveals that the EU model of democracy remained substantively unchanged and did not respond to popular demands for social justice and economic rights.

In particular, it systematically underestimates not only the role of social justice and economic rights in sustaining and deepening democracy but also the importance of inclusive economic development for security. Democracy without inclusive economic growth is not going to prevent conflict in the region. Furthermore, the EU continues to cooperate with authoritarian regimes on democracy and human rights rather than trying to establish the domestic conditions for democratisation.

By 2014, when the Arab Transformations survey took place, out of the six countries covered only Tunisia was on a path to democracy. The economic and social conditions that drove the 2011 uprisings had if anything deteriorated, with high unemployment and worsening social inequalities. While most citizens who were surveyed agreed that democracy as a system may have its problems but is better than other systems, the proportion that strongly agreed with this proposition was much lower as low as 18% in both Tunisia and Iraq.

Meanwhile, a majority disagreed that democracy and Islam were incompatible. There is relatively strong support for the view that there should be a separation between politics and religion, ranging from nearly three quarters in Egypt to 49 per cent in Morocco. However, in Libya, Morocco and Jordan a narrow majority prefer a religious party. And there is considerable variation between the six countries when it comes to the extent that all laws should be based on Sharia, varying from two-thirds of people thinking this should be the case in Libya to just 17 per cent in Tunisia. The surprisingly low support for democracy in Tunisia the one country that has moved from an anocracy to a democracy since 2011 is probably a reflection of both the heightened expectations and fractious reality since the fall of Ben Ali. Democracy without inclusive economic growth is not going to prevent conflict in the region.

However, there is strong support across the region, although somewhat lower in Tunisia, for all family, criminal and property law being based on Sharia. Support is highest in Jordan and Libya, with over 90 per cent of people supporting it for all three types of law. In Iraq over 90 per cent support it for family law and property law and in Egypt and Morocco over 80 per cent ,with between 50 and 60 per cent supporting it for criminal law. Even in Tunisia 78 per cent support Sharia as a basis for inheritance law, 60 per cent for family law and 33 per cent for criminal law. Support for non-Muslims having fewer political rights than Muslims varies across the countries from a high of 50 per cent in Libya to a low of 11 per cent in Egypt; 13 per cent support ths in Iraq, 16 per cent in Tunisia, 20 per cent in Morocco and 42 per cent in Jordan.

The Arab countries do not necessarily want the type of liberal democracy promoted by the EU; people are open to more than one type of government being suitable for their country, and there is relatively strong support for other systems in some countries. This is likely to be at least in part because they have been told for years by authoritarian rulers that they have democracy already because they have the right to vote in elections. Yet few people think that elections are completely free and fair in their country, with the notable exception of Tunisia, and even here only 59 per cent do so.

What, then, do people in the six countries think about when they say that democracy is the best system despite its faults?

Providing for the welfare of citizens - inclusive development, the provision of basic services and full employment - is seen as important by a majority of citizens, varying from nearly two thirds in Morocco to half in Libya. Inclusive growth and the provision of basic services are both seen as important by a sizable minority and full employment is also nominated by a noticeable minority of respondents. In Iraq and Jordan over 40 per cent of citizens think that a democracy fights corruption, as do a noticeable minority in the other countries.

Fig.1. is a useful illustration of similarities and differences between countries when it comes to the question of what is meant by democracy. In none of the six countries do all respondents consider electoral process as something essential to the concept. In the two countries that have been most torn apart by internal and external conflict Iraq and Libya we find a (bare) majority of the population list elections as essential , and the same can be said for political rights. However, in all countries a significant proportion of people include welfare rights as essential characteristics of democracy.

However, in all countries a significant proportion of people include welfare rights as essential characteristics of democracy and they are mentioned more frequently than elections or political rights in all countries with the exception of Libya and very noticeably so in Egypt, Jordan and Motocco. What does emerge quite clearly is that there is no strong demand for procedural democracy as promoted by the EU. In general, Arab citizens are much more concerned about the economic situation, corruption and inequalities, and in the case of Iraq and Libya also security, than they are about authoritarianism. When people in MENA say that democracy is the best system despite its faults or that it is suitable for their country, it is not a political system they have in mind but a way of life. MENA citizens would like to live decent lives in decent societies, with good economic and welfare support and freedom to engage in politics, if they wish to do so, without fear of arrest, assault or social exclusion. The two sides of their image of the decent society are related to each other insofar as lack of resource and access to necessary goods, services and support excludes people from the society of their fellow citizens.

To the extent that European countries, which are democracies of various kinds, are able to offer their citizens decent life-opportunities, they are role models to be copied, but the precise way in which they select their governments is not the most important thing about them.

This has two consequences. The first, already recognised in European policy, is the need to work with non-state civil society organisations as well as with governments. This may entail training the populace in advocacy for their own positions and their critique of government policy, which will not endear Europe to governments, but it is the only way to change values sustainably. The EU can establish common ground with MENA partners by focusing on the main concerns of citizens an economic order that is more just and less corrupt and guarantees socio-economic rights.

When it becomes an issue of EU aid and support, all countries prefer financial aid to create jobs, to train people for them or more generally to support education, health etc. There is little appetite for explicit or direct interference in national policy, and they are not impressed so far by the EUs influence on democratisation.

See the full briefing in The Arab Transformations Policy Briefs. No.1 from the University of Aberdeen.

Read more:
What do people in the Arab countries want? Conceptions of democracy - Open Democracy

The sky is not falling and no lights are flashing red, but Americans have nonetheless embraced a highly charged, counterproductive way of thinking about politics as a new Cold War between democracy and totalitarianism. The works of Hannah Arendt and George Orwell have risen on the best-seller charts. Every news story produces fear and trembling.

History raises serious doubts about how helpful this tyrannophobic focus on catastrophe, fake news and totalitarianism really is in dealing with the rise of the populist right, of which this bumbling hothead of a president is a symptom. Excessive focus on liberal fundamentals, like basic freedoms or the rule of law, could prove self-defeating. By postponing serious efforts to give greater priority to social justice, tyrannophobia treats warning signs as a death sentence, while allowing the real disease to fester.

If there is one lesson from the 20th century worth learning, it is that an exclusive focus on the defense of liberal fundamentals against a supposed totalitarian peril often exacerbates the social and international conflicts it seeks to resolve. This approach to politics threatens to widen the already yawning gulf between liberal groups and their opponents, while distracting from the deeply rooted forces that have been fueling right-wing populist politics, notably economic inequalities and status resentments.

The anti-communist politics in the United States of the early 1950s were rooted in assumptions that had much in common with those of anti-Trumpism today. There was, it was claimed, a serious risk to liberal democracy from American subversion within, in alliance with the Russians without, peddling seductive untruths. Other goals like the creation of a more just and equal society had to take second place to the countrys military posture.

Ironically, many who rallied to the anti-tyranny banner were liberals of a vital center who did so out of sincere belief in the need to create an American welfare state. Yet focusing on exaggerated threats to freedom and stigmatizing the communist enemy undermined their progressive goals. National Security Council Report 68 of 1950, for example, argued that the Cold War justified the reduction of nonmilitary expenditure by the deferment of certain desirable programs, including welfare. And while the New Deal was not dismantled, efforts to extend it which still seemed a real possibility in Harry Trumans early years in office were denounced as pink tyranny, boosting state power at the expense of democracy. Casualties included attempts to create a national health care program. The consequences for American politics have been momentous.

The absolute priority given to liberal fundamentals also promoted serious misunderstandings of the rest of the world. Capitalism (though not democracy) had to be defended at all costs, while foreigners were commonly viewed as subject to brainwashing, manipulation and mass irrationality just what we fear today in the United States itself. And while those assumptions led to terrible mistakes and cost millions of lives in American military interventions, the end of the Cold War only reinforced the tyrannophobic worldview in an even purer form now including liberal democracy and even freer markets.

The ease with which the Soviet-bloc regimes collapsed seemed to prove that communism had no foundations other than manipulation and repression. Now that the tyrants had been brought down, equality was unimportant and markets could be left to work their magic. Communism in the Eastern bloc was certainly moribund, but the liberals who urged its replacement with market fundamentalism have lessons to learn, not to teach.

The rude awakening has been a long time coming, and even now has not fully occurred. The 2008 financial crisis failed to dent the political establishments complacency, even though it had become very clear that market-friendly policies were helping to destroy the social mobility and economic opportunity that underpins a well-functioning democracy.

And while the shock of the 2016 election caused unprecedented soul-searching, tyrannophobia is blinding many to the real warnings of the election: A dysfunctional economy, not lurking tyranny, is what needs attention if recent electoral choices are to be explained and voting patterns are to be changed in the future. Yet there is too little recognition of the need for new direction in either party. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York recently declared that the Democrats have merely failed to get their message across. Many Republicans are convinced that the party can correct its Trumpian aberration by reasserting the status quo ante of free markets and social conservatism. Neither side, it would seem, is ready to depart from its prior consensus.

The threat of tyranny can be real enough. But those who act as though democracy is constantly on the precipice are likely to miss the path that leads not simply to fuller justice but to true safety.

Samuel Moyn is a professor of law and history at Yale University. David Priestland is a professor of modern history at Oxford University.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on August 13, 2017, on Page SR2 of the New York edition with the headline: A Problem Worse Than Tyranny.

Go here to see the original:
Trump Isn't a Threat to Our Democracy. Hysteria Is. - New York Times

President Trump will not speak with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro until "democracy is restored" in that country, the White House said in a statement Friday night hours after Trump floated the idea of "military option" against the Maduro regime.

"Since the start of this administration, President Trump has asked that Maduro respect Venezuela's constitution, hold free and fair elections, release political prisoners, cease all human rights violations, and stop oppressing Venezuela's great people," the White House statement said. "The Maduro regime has refused to heed this call, which has been echoed around the region and the world. Instead, Maduro has chosen the path of dictatorship. The United States stands with the people of Venezuela in the face of their continued oppression by the Maduro regime. President Trump will gladly speak with the leader of Venezuela as soon as democracy is restored in that country."

Maduro had requested to talk on the phone with Trump.

Hours earlier, Trump said he is not ruling out military action against the government in Venezuela for its recent moves to weaken the country's democratic institutions.

The Pentagon says it hasn't received any instructions on the matter.

This week, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on eight of Maduro's allies, accusing them of violating human rights and democratic norms.

The Trump administration had previously imposed sanctions on Maduro himself, condemning the socialist leader as a "dictator."

The actions against Venezuela come after Maduro created a political body called a constituent assembly to consolidate power. The assembly contains only Maduro supporters and has the power to rewrite the constitution to grant total authority to the country's leftists.

Venezuela has been wracked with hunger and poverty, which has sparked protests against the government.

View post:
Trump won't talk with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro until 'democracy is restored' - Washington Examiner

Simon Wren-Lewis

A constant refrain from politicians and others is that we have to leave the EU because we have to respect democracy, where by democracy they mean that 52% voted to do so. Arguments that the vote was based on lies by the Leave side are met with dismissive remarks like both sides were the same, or what do you expect from politicians and so forth. The important thing, we are told, is to respect democracy.

In Poland the government recently passed a law which will dismiss all existing judges and allow the state to directly appoint their successors. This government was democratically elected, and the plan was in their manifesto. So why did the Polish President veto the plan, and why was the EU deeply concerned about it? Surely there was a clear mandate for this policy? Shouldnt the President and the EU respect democracy?

The reason why the President and the EU were right is that democracy is much more than having elections or referendums every so often. Checks and balances, and the rule of law, are crucial ingredients of a well functioning democracy. But having an independent judiciary is not the only essential characteristic of democracy besides voting.

I personally think an important part of democracy is that politicians do not base campaigns on complete lies, and that knowledge, evidence, facts and expertise are respected and are easily accessible to all voters. Otherwise elections can be won by those who tell the biggest lies. If this happens and is not remedied democracy is a sham. As I noted here, lies were central to the Leave campaign (more money for the NHS, Turkey about to join the EU) and have already been shown to be untrue, while the central plank of the Remain campaign (dubbed Project Fear by Leave) has already come to pass. Polls suggest the Leave lies gained them votes. Only one side in the campaign spent a large amount of time dismissing or denigrating academic expertise (be it economists or lawyers).

In the US the Republicans control Congress and the White House, all won by democratic elections, where a key part of the Republican platform was repealing Obamacare. The Republicans therefore appear to have an overwhelming democratic mandate for this repeal. So why are so many people protesting against this repeal? Isnt it important for democracy that repeal goes ahead?

You may say that the Republicans did not say how they would repeal Obamacare, but neither did the Leave campaign say how they were going to leave the EU (or rather they said whatever people wanted to hear). You may say that Leave voters will lose their faith in the democratic system if Brexit doesnt happen, but the same is surely true for Republican voters if Obamacare is not repealed. That is hardly a reason to do it.

But referendums are not like elections, we are told. Mandates from elections can be challenged but referendum results must be respected. But where is it written that referendum results (particularly those that are so close) can never be challenged? Where is it written that we must be bound by the words of politicians during the referendum (we could add whether we should be bound by an electorate chosen to keep Brexiteers happy). If it turns out that the claims of one side in the referendum have been shown to be false, where is it written that the referendum result should nevertheless be cast in stone for a generation. The answer is nowhere, and for the good reasons that David Allen Green explains. All that is written is that parliament is sovereign.

People overseas, in the EU or outside, are mystified at what the UK is currently doing. The main supporter of Brexit overseas is an authoritarian regime, which should give you a clue about what is going on. There are two overwhelming reasons for challenging the referendum result: it was arrived at after a deeply flawed campaign, and we now have information that clearly shows the extent of the Leave campaigns lies. The Leave campaign abused democracy before the vote with lies, and then abused the word subsequently to stifle any dissent. When a vote is won narrowly in an election based on lies that have now been exposed, it seems to me that a hallmark of a functioning democracy is that the original vote is challenged and voters have a chance to vote again.

First posted on Mainly Macro

Simon Wren-Lewis is Professor of Economics at Oxford University.

Visit link:
Brexit And Democracy - Social Europe