Archive for the ‘Democracy’ Category

Project MUSE – Journal of Democracy

Vol. 1 (1990) through current issue

Cited in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, Journal of Democracy is an influential international forum for scholarly analysis and competing democratic viewpoints. Its articles have been widely reprinted in many languages. Focusing exclusively on democracy, the Journal monitors and analyzes democratic regimes and movements around the world. Each issue features a unique blend of scholarly analysis, reports from democratic activists, updates on news and elections, and reviews of important recent books.

Published by: Johns Hopkins University Press

E-ISSN: 1086-3214Print ISSN: 1045-5736

Marc F. Plattner

Larry Diamond

Steven R. Levitsky

Lucan A. Way

Anne Applebaum

Sheri Berman

Nancy Bermeo

Ladan Boroumand

Michael Bratton

Daniel Brumberg

Thomas Carothers

Yun-han Chu

Michele Dunne

Donald K. Emmerson

Joo Carlos Espada

Charles H. Fairbanks, Jr.

Abdou Filali-Ansary

Francis Fukuyama

Sumit Ganguly

Bruce Gilley

E. Gyimah-Boadi

Donald L. Horowitz

Richard Joseph

Robert Kagan

Terry Lynn Karl

Ivan Krastev

Peter Lewis

Tarek Masoud

Cynthia McClintock

Michael McFaul

Pratap Bhanu Mehta

Leonardo Morlino

Alina Mungiu-Pippidi

Andrew J. Nathan

Ghia Nodia

Minxin Pei

Benjamin Reilly

Olivier Roy

Andreas Schedler

Lilia Shevtsova

Dan Slater

Alfred Stepan (1936-2017)

Vladimir Tismaneanu

Laurence Whitehead

Philip J. Costopoulos

Brent Kallmer

Elizabeth Kerley

Rachel Bercovitz

Christopher Walker

Shaul Bakhash

Hernando de Soto

Saad Eddin Ibrahim

Byung-Kook Kim

Martin C.M. Lee

Arend Lijphart

Adam Michnik

Ergun zbudun

Condoleezza Rice

Julio Mara Sanguinetti

Philippe C. Schmitter

Natan Sharansky

Lourdes Sola

Hung-mao Tien

1025 F Street, N.W., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20004Tel.: 202-378-9900 Email:jod@ned.org

Marc F. Plattner

Larry Diamond

Steven R. Levitsky

Lucan A. Way

Anne Applebaum

Sheri Berman

Nancy Bermeo

Ladan Boroumand

Michael Bratton

Daniel Brumberg

Thomas Carothers

Yun-han Chu

Michele Dunne

Donald K. Emmerson

Joo Carlos Espada

Charles H. Fairbanks, Jr.

Abdou Filali-Ansary

Francis Fukuyama

Sumit Ganguly

Bruce Gilley

E. Gyimah-Boadi

Donald L. Horowitz

Richard Joseph

Robert Kagan

Terry Lynn Karl

Ivan Krastev

Peter Lewis

Tarek Masoud

Cynthia McClintock

Michael McFaul

Pratap Bhanu Mehta

Leonardo Morlino

Continued here:
Project MUSE - Journal of Democracy

Capitalism v. Democracy: Money in Politics and the Free …

As of the latest national elections, it costs approximately $1 billion to become president, $10 million to become a Senator, and $1 million to become a Member of the House. High-priced campaigns, an elite class of donors and spenders, superPACs, and increasing corporate political power have become the new normal in American politics. In Capitalism v. Democracy, Timothy Kuhner explains how these conditions have corrupted American democracy, turning it into a system of rule that favors the wealthy and marginalizes ordinary citizens. Kuhner maintains that these conditions have corrupted capitalism as well, routing economic competition through political channels and allowing politically powerful companies to evade market forces. The Supreme Court has brought about both forms of corruption by striking down campaign finance reforms that limited the role of money in politics. Exposing the extreme economic worldview that pollutes constitutional interpretation, Kuhner shows how the Court became the architect of American plutocracy.

Capitalism v. Democracy offers the key to understanding why corporations are now citizens, money is political speech, limits on corporate spending are a form of censorship, democracy is a free market, and political equality and democratic integrity are unconstitutional constraints on money in politics. Supreme Court opinions have dictated these conditions in the name of the Constitution, as though the Constitution itself required the privatization of democracy. Kuhner explores the reasons behind these opinions, reveals that they form a blueprint for free market democracy, and demonstrates that this design corrupts both politics and markets. He argues that nothing short of a constitutional amendment can set the necessary boundaries between capitalism and democracy.

About the author

Timothy K. Kuhner is Associate Professor at Georgia State University College of Law. He teaches mainly in the areas of international and comparative law. Before moving to Atlanta, Tim spent three years as Associate Professor of Anglo-American Law at the University of Navarra in Spain. During this time, he researched the role of money in politics in Western European democracies. Educated at Bowdoin College and Duke Law School, but inspired by foreign viewpoints, Tim brings a wide-ranging, critical perspective to the study of democratic integrity.

"In Capitalism v. Democracy, Professor Timothy Kuhner convincingly shows that by blurring the line between economic and democratic values and rationalities, the legal regime governing money in politics has made this corrosion manifest. Professor Kuhner's impressive book brings economic and political theory to bear on the evolution of the constitutional law of democracy, which he argues not only permits but "amplifie[s]" the substitution of democratic values for free-market notions of economic competition in the political sphere . . . Professor Kuhner's timely book will interest scholars and reformers alike."

Harvard Law Review

"This book made me realize just how dangerous supreme courts can be for matters of inequality and democracy."

Thomas Piketty, Author of Capitalism in the Twenty-First Century

"Law professor Timothy Kuhner has written an exhaustive, learned analysis of the Supreme Court's campaign finance jurisprudence, drawing on legal, political science, and economics perspectives. It is at the same time a sustained, passionate polemic against the contributions of the Roberts Court to that jurisprudence . . . The book is essential for those interested in election law or campaign finance reform, and makes useful contributions in the fields of political economy and democratic theory."

Daniel Hoffman, Law and Politics Book Review

"As informed and informative as it is thoughtful and thought-provoking, Capitalism v. Democracy: Money in Politics and the Free Market Constitution is a minor masterpiece of political science and judicial scholarship. A seminal contribution to academic library collections, Capitalism v. Democracy is exceptionally well-written, organized, and presented, making it ideal for the non-specialist general reader seeking a better and non-partisan understanding of the impact money has on democracy and the American political system."

Jack Mason, Midwest Book Review

"Timothy Kuhner is one of today's most important young legal thinkers. Bringing a highly sophisticated understanding of both law and economics to bear on the critical relationship between democracy and the 21st century marketplace, Capitalism v. Democracy avoids easy answers and empty slogans. A must-read for anyone concerned with the health of American constitutional democracy, regardless of political inclinations."

Jefferson Powell, Duke University School of Law

"After Citizens United and McCutcheon, it is essential to think about the relationship of money to politics and the rights of corporations in our constitutional democracy. Timothy Kuhner has written a brilliant examination of these issues. All concerned with American democracy (which should be all of us) need to read this insightful book about political power at a time when money, and the corporations that possess it, have increasing influence."

Erwin Chemerinsky, University of California, Irvine School of Law

"This powerfully written work teaches us a fundamental lesson about American politics today: that the demand for reform is not partisan. From the Right and Left, Kuhner shows why the rules that corrupt both democracy and capitalism must change."

Lawrence Lessig, Harvard Law School

Original post:
Capitalism v. Democracy: Money in Politics and the Free ...

Advantages and Disadvantages of Democracy | APECSEC.org

Democracy is a term given to political systems that require a popular vote, or representative election, to take place in order to choose officials and leaders of a country. This means that the leaders are chosen by the people. Many of the worlds most successful countries operate underneath a democratic system, including the United States of America. While it is renowned as one of the most efficient government systems ever, it is not without flaws. Lets take a look at the advantages and disadvantages of democracy.

Protects the Interest of CitizensThe citizens of a democratic government have the right to vote on political, social, and economical issues as well as the representatives that they want to be in charge of major decisions, like the President. This greatly protects the citizens from anything they disagree with occurring.

Promotes EqualityDemocracy is generally based on the rule of equality. This means that all members of a country or a state are equal in the eyes of law. Every individual has the right to enjoy and experience equal economic, political and social rights and the state is not allowed to discriminate citizens on the standard of sex, caste, property and religion.

Responsibility and Stability in Administration Democracy is recognized for its efficiency, firmness and stability. When there is fixed and elected representatives, a more stable and responsible government is formed. The administration is also conducted and ruled with sense of dedication and responsibility. Individuals under a democratic system discuss matters and issues thoroughly in order to come up with reasonable decisions.

Helps Make Good Citizens Democracy aids in creating the ideal environment for the improvement of personality and cultivation of character and good habits. According to experts, democracy seems to be the very first schools for good citizenship. This is where individuals learn about their duties and rights starting from their birth until the time of their death.

Promotes Change Democracy paved the way for changes in the government without having the use any form of violence. This makes people feel great and provide them with ideal sense of involvement and participation.

Misuse of Time and Public FundsDemocracy can also lead to wasted resources and time. This also takes huge time in law formulations. Also, lots of money is being spent during election. There is also the possibility of being ruled by irresponsible and incompetent leaders who just waste public funds for their recreations and tours.

Wrong Choice Not all individuals under a democratic country are aware of political and social circumstances in their country. Some of them are not even acquainted with political issues. This may lead to erroneous decisions and selection in the event of elections.

Give More Emphasis on Quantity instead of QualityAnother disadvantage of democracy is that this gives more emphasis on quantity instead of quality in terms of services. There is also the possibility of being governed by incompetent and irresponsible leaders. Some says that under this political system, there is no equality for only the rich and famous are prioritized and not the poor.

More:
Advantages and Disadvantages of Democracy | APECSEC.org

Democracy – Learn English

Develop your reading skills. Read the following text about Democracy and do the comprehension questions

The term Democracy comes from the Greek words dmos (people) and Kratos (power). In its literal meaning, democracy means the "rule of the people". In fact it is a form of government in which all eligible people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy as a political systems existed in some Greek city-states, notably Athens following a popular uprising in 508 BC.

Equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times.These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution.

There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedom for their citizens than others. However, if any democracy is not structured so as to prohibit the government from excluding the people from the legislative process, or any branch of government from altering the separation of powers in its own favor, then a branch of the system can accumulate too much power and destroy the democracy. Separation of powers is a model of governance under which the state is divided into branches, each with separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility so that no one branch has more power than the other branches. The normal division of branches is into an executive, a legislature, and a judiciary.

Source: Wikipedia

Related material:

Read the rest here:
Democracy - Learn English

Jeremy Scahill: Gina Haspel Should Be Answering for Her …

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to former CIA Clandestine Service chief Jose Rodriguez speaking to CBS News in 2014. Rodriguez defended the CIAs so-called enhanced interrogation techniques.

JOSE RODRIGUEZ: It was necessary. And let me give you a little history lesson on this. At the time of 9/11, we had general information that an attack was coming. But we didnt know when, where, how. And the reason was, was because the informants, the agents that we had, were on the periphery of the leadership. So we really did not have any inside information. Once we captured Abu Zubaydah and realized that he was the key to letting us know about the incomingthe upcoming second wave of attacks, we decided to go with the enhanced interrogation program. And once that happened, we started to learn about theabout the organization. We got information that added to our base information. We were able to capture and kill the entire al-Qaeda leadership that attacked us on 9/11. We were able to protect the homeland. We were able to save lives.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Jose Rodriguez from 2014 on CBS. I wanted to get Jeremy Scahill to respond, co-founder of The Intercept, host of the weekly podcast Intercepted, author of the books Blackwater: The Rise of the Worlds Most Powerful Mercenary Army and Dirty Wars: The World Is a Battlefield, as well as the Oscar-nominated film Dirty Wars, and a former Democracy Now! producer. Jeremy, your response to both what Rodriguez said and also the possible appointment of Gina Haspel to head the CIA.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Well, first of all, I mean, Jose Rodriguez is the guy who wrote in his memoir, which was called Hard Measuressounded like it was like a porn movie or somethingthat when they decided to start torturing people around the world, that it was the CIA and the Washington establishment putting on their, quote, big boy pants, is how he referred to it, just to give you a sense of the kind of infantile mentality that some of the people that John Kiriakou was describing had.

And I think that there is substantial evidence to suggest that some of the people involved with this programI dont know directly about Gina Haspel, but othersseemed to really enjoy torturing people, placing them in boxes, exploiting their fears by using psychologists and other mental health professionals to come in and say, What are they actually really afraid of? Whats their deepest, darkest fears? and then exploiting those. So, if someone was afraid of spiders, they would put them inside of a box, that they referred to as a coffin, and then they would put a caterpillar inside of the box and tell the person that it was a tarantula that was in the box with them. They did something called walling, where they would have a rope that was on the other side of a wall, and they would, out of nowhere, just slam a prisoner and yank him on a kind of jerk chain, or like he was a dog on a leash, against the wall. And then you had the kinds of extreme torture that Gina Haspel was involved with. And both Jose Rodriguez and Gina Haspel, in addition to being involved with the outright torture of people, both of them were involved with the destruction of videotapes that were filmed at these black sites that showed, we understand, torture.

And what I think is also important for people to realize right now, Gina Haspel is not considered some extremist in the CIA community. In fact, President Obamas director of central intelligence, John Brennan, was on MSNBC all throughout the day yesterday singing her praises. In fact, at one point, an MSNBC anchor asked John Brennanor said to John Brennan, Now, you demoted her when you were at the CIA. And he goes, No, no, no, no, no. I didnt demote her. In fact, shes wonderful and has all this integrity. And she was tasked with very difficult operations, you know, and persevered and did it with gusto. And, you know, then you have James Clapper, same thing. It was a lovefest on the so-called like opposition media yesterday throughout the day. And MSNBC actually created athey had a graphic up that was describing Gina Haspels track record. And they said that she was involved with sending terror suspects to put them in the hands of foreign governments to be tortured, but they described what she did in Thailand as, quote-unquote, rough interrogation. Now, already its an abomination that anyone refers to this as enhanced interrogation, but, out of nowhere, MSNBC starts referring to torture by the CIA as rough interrogation.

So, we now have someone who is nominated to be the CIA director. It will be interesting to see what happens at that confirmation hearing. One possibility heremy colleague Matthew Cole and I were discussing this yesterdayis that Trump knows that shes going to have a very difficult time being confirmed as CIA director. Now, maybe thats not true. It will take a lot of Democrats. You know, Dianne Feinstein has already come out and sung the praises of Gina Haspel. But Trump is sort of portraying this as shes going to break the glass ceiling and become the first female CIA directorof course, they choose a woman who, as The Onion put it, you know, had to torture many more people than her male colleagues to prove herselfbut that part of the idea might be to force the Democrats to try to stop the appointment of the first female CIA director in an effort to get Senator Tom Cotton, who has been dying to be CIA directorand I think that a lot of neocons want him there, very hawkish on Iran, etc.to sort of pave the way for Tom Cotton to take control of the CIA.

And the final point that Ill make on this micro part of the discussion is that, you know, with the exception of people like John Kiriakou and others who were whistleblowers and who found themselves in the crosshairs of the national security establishment in this country, there really is no such thing as former CIA. And I think its very telling that, across the board, when you hear all these pundits, who were former senior CIA, DNI, FBI, naval intelligence analysts, theyre all on the same pageNed Price, who was the spokesperson for the CIA under Obama, just heaping praise on Gina Haspel all throughout the day. Nothing will fundamentally change in this country with torture, with war crimes, unless we hold those who did the torture accountable.

Gina Haspel does not belong as head of the CIA. She belongs in front of a judge, answering to what she was doing, running a torture operation at a black site in Thailand and destroying evidence. And then, John Brennan, Obamas CIA directorwhile the Senate was investigating the torture that Gina Haspel was a key player in, John Brennans CIA starts spying on the United States Senate. This is the investigators who were investigating the very torture that Gina Haspel was directly involved with. It was Obamas CIA director who was spying on the Senate.

AMY GOODMAN: How?

JEREMY SCAHILL: The Senate investigators were given access to close net computers so that they could review documents. And, of course, the CIA wanted no pages released. What ended up happening is the Senate released a several hundred-page executive summary of a report that wasthat is still not public, that was thousands and thousands of pages. So, Brennan and others at the CIA were concerned about this investigation, and they began monitoring what the Senate investigators were looking into.

So, you know, this isnt just like, Oh, we have Mr. out-of-control Putin asset Donald Trump putting this horrid torturer in power. No, no, no, no, no. The hashtag #resistance, in terms of former intelligence people that are on the liberal networks, they love Gina Haspel. They absolutely love her. And no ones saying word boo about the fact that John Brennan was the one who was heading the CIA when the CIA was spying on the United States Senate committee thats tasked with overseeing the Central Intelligence Agency.

AMY GOODMAN: So, I want to go to something Dexter Filkins wrote in The New Yorker. Actually, it was Raymond Bonner, in [ProPublica], about questions beginning to swirl about the Bush administrations use of black sites and the program of enhancedso-called enhanced interrogation.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Its rough interrogation now, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: [Haspel] began pushing to have the tapes destroyed. She accomplished her mission years later when she rose to a senior position at CIA headquarters and drafted an order to destroy the evidence, which was still locked in a CIA safe at the American embassy in Thailand. Her boss, the head of the agencys counterterrorism center, signed the order to feed the 92 tapes into a giant shredder.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Right. I mean, you know, and another way of putting that: If you and I were involved with a crime and we did that, its destruction of evidence. And clearly, there was a systematic effort toat first, to defend the torture tactics, and then, later, to say, Well, lets remove any evidence that we did this to terror suspects. And lets remember Guantnamo is still open. Donald Trump has intimated that he wants to put more people there. The vast majority of people that were taken to Guantnamo were cleared for release.

And part of the reason that maybe even some people that were involved with terrorism are not ultimately going to be held accountable is because of people like Gina Haspel. So, if youre an American and you were horrified, shocked, angered by what happened on 9/11, and you want people that were involved with terrorism plots against the United States, including successful ones, to be held accountable, Gina Haspel is one of the people that you should be furious with, because it was the torture that she and her colleagues were running at these black sites that has resulted in some people being able to walk away, and the fact that they were held in this lawless gulag in Guantnamo rather than treated as criminals and given due process and a trial.

AMY GOODMAN: Were going to break and then come back to this discussion with The Intercept's Jeremy Scahill, who will be joined by his colleague Lee Fang, and also longtime CIA officer John Kiriakou, who worked at the time in the CIA with Gina Haspel, who's now being considered to be director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Stay with us.

Go here to see the original:
Jeremy Scahill: Gina Haspel Should Be Answering for Her ...