Mediaboss Marketing

By Anna Lhrmann, Valeriya Mechkova and Matthew Wilson By Anna Lhrmann, Valeriya Mechkova and Matthew Wilson June 26 at 6:00 AM

Recent events such as the election of Donald Trump as president and the rise of right-wing extremists in Europe have led to gloomy commentary about the state of democracy. For example, people have argued that liberal democracies are at risk of decline, that support for democracy is being eroded by the conflict between values and expertise, and that democratic backsliding has already occurred in a number of countries.

Is this pessimism warranted? Not quite. Although the average level of democracy in the world has declined to where it was 10 to 15 years ago, the decline is moderate. The world remains more democratic today than it was before the end of the Cold War. A nuanced look at the data suggests that the declines are limited to certain countries and even to certain domains within those countries.

[Worried about a decline in democracy? Worry about politicians, not the public.]

There are still reasons to be worried, though: The quality of democracy has declined in more countries than it has improved in over the past five years.

Heres how we did our research

These conclusions are based on new data released by the Varieties of Democracy Project. The V-Dem Project surveys about 2,800 experts and asks them to assess the nature and development of democracy in more than 177 countries from 1900 to 2016. The value of experts is that they can distinguish between real and fake democracies. For example, most countries today hold elections, but some of these elections are free and fair while others merely legitimize dictators.

Of course, expert assessments are necessarily subjective. Therefore, V-Dem normally asks five experts to evaluate each country on each of many characteristics that characterize democracy. V-Dem then aggregates the expert assessments using a statistical model. V-Dem also provides an estimate of uncertainty that reflects how much the experts disagree. When we speak of significant changes in democracy, we refer to changes that are visible even after taking this uncertainty into account.

[No, people really arent turning away from democracy]

In its first report, V-Dem dissected and evaluated global trends based on several indices created from these data. Here, we focus on the Liberal Democracy Index, which captures whether there are free and fair elections, leaders are constrained by the rule of law, parliamentary and judicial oversight and civil liberties are protected.

The global trends in democracy

The trends in the Liberal Democracy Index are presented in the graph below:

As the graph shows, the average level of democracy grew considerably between 1970 and 2010, especially after the end of the Cold War. There has been only a slight decrease in recent years.

The overall trends conceal some important developments in specific countries. Since 2013, there have been more countries whose scores on this index were declining than countries whose scores were increasing. In 2016, 21 countries declined relative to 2011, while only 13 countries improved.

One example of a country whose score declined is Thailand, in which the military staged a coup in 2014 and suspended the constitution. Another is Poland, where the Law and Justice Party is blatantly undermining the constitution. A third is Turkey, which has seen President Recep Tayyip Erdoan purging the ranks of opposition members and establishing a stronghold over the country.

Among the countries whose scores have increased is Tunisia, in which a popular revolution led to elections and a peaceful transfer of power. It is arguably a success story of the Arab Spring. There were also increases to above the world average in Georgia, which implemented economic reforms aimed at tackling corruption, and in Sri Lanka, where a new government reportedly is committed to transitional justice and restoring rule of law.

Worrying trends among established democracies

A concern of commentators is that democracy is declining even where it was thought to be firmly established: in Western Europe, the United States and Canada. Below is the trend in the Liberal Democracy Index in these 22 countries.

After a steep decline during World War II, democracy recovered quickly and surged above 80 points with the expansion of civil liberties and the fall of Southern European dictatorships in the 1970s. But since 2012, there has been a significant decline, from 84 to 80 points.

This decrease is present in every country except Canada, although in most countries it is not significant either because the decline is small or because experts disagree.

The United States, however, is the only advanced democracy that has experienced a significant decline in five years a drop of nine points.

This appears to support claims that U.S. elections are the worst among other Western democracies or that the United States is a flawed democracy. But we think these claims go too far. The level of liberal democracy in the United States remains high, with a score of 78 points, which puts the United States 17th in the world.

What has changed in the United States

A deeper look at the status of liberal democracy in the United States suggests that three things have suffered in recent years: the quality of elections, media reporting and government oversight. We can break down the Liberal Democracy Index into its two components: (1) the Electoral Democracy Index, which captures clean elections, freedom of association and expression, and whether there are alternative sources of information; and (2) the Liberal Component Index, which captures equality before the law, individual liberties, and legislative and judicial constraints on the executive.

[A new expert survey finds warning signs for the state of American democracy]

From 2011 to 2016, most of the significant declines involved electoral democracy. Experts rated the United States less favorably in the freedom and fairness of its elections, the intimidation of opposition parties by government officials, media bias in coverage of political candidates, the range of perspectives in the media and media self-censorship. Anecdotal evidence that supports these declines concerns voter ID laws, media censorship and gerrymandering practices.

In terms of the liberal principles of democracy, experts rated the U.S. less favorably in freedom of religion, compliance with high court decisions, and the extent to which the executive is held accountable by oversight agencies. Note that these assessments predate the Trump administration, but the drop in freedom of religion in 2016 probably reflects his electoral campaign. The results, however, suggest that any challenges with U.S. democracy are not simply a function of Trump himself.

But all this warrants caution, not alarmism

Clearly liberal democracy is facing challenges in some countries in particular in the United States. Therefore, U.S. political scientists are right to be on alert and continuously monitor the weak points of their democracy. In some places, it is even worse: Countries such as Turkey or Venezuela have experienced serious breakdowns.

But the V-Dem data suggests that alarmist reports about a global demise of democracy are not yet warranted. For one, the average level of democracy in the world is still close to the highest recorded level, even if a slight decline is detectable over the last few years. And there are real success stories, like in Tunisia, even if those do not make as many headlines.

[The wave of right-wing populist sentiment is a myth]

Although the declines in democracy in places such as Europe and the United States deserve our attention, the V-Dem data suggest that political institutions in these countries are relatively resilient. Recent examples include the electoral victory of Emmanuel Macron against Marine Le Pen in France and judicial challenges to the immigration ban proposed by President Trump.

Ultimately, citizens in advanced democracies should remain vigilant against democratic backsliding but we should also celebrate major gains in the quality of democracy among less democratic countries.

Anna Lhrmann is a postdoctoral research fellow at the V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg. From 2002 to 2009, she was a member of the German National Parliament.

Valeriya Mechkova is a PhD candidate at the V-Dem Institute/University of Gothenburg.

Matthew Wilson is an assistant professor at West Virginia University and will be a visiting researcher at the V-Dem Institute in 2018.

Originally posted here:
Is democracy on the decline? Not as much as some pundits want you to believe. - Washington Post

BANGKOK (AP) A Thai court on Monday heard year-old charges against a pro-democracy activist arrested over the weekend, as the military government sought to discourage commemorations of the anniversary of the countrys 1932 transition from an absolute to constitutional monarchy.

Bangkoks military court released Rangsiman Rome on bail on the conditions that he not incite unrest or leave the country without the courts permission.

He was arrested Sunday to prevent him from attending a pro-democracy forum critical of the military government, said his lawyer, Poonsuk Poonsukcharoen of the legal aid group Thai Lawyers for Human Rights. She said he also planned to petition the government on Monday to disclose details of a 179 billion baht ($5.27 billion) Thai-Chinese rail project for which the prime minister used special powers to override normal regulations.

Other activists reported being harassed on Saturday, the anniversary of the end of absolute monarchy and the birth of Thai democracy.

This government pledges to lead Thailand toward a democratic transition. It is the juntas main theme that they would eventually return power, said Sunai Phasuk, a senior researcher for Human Rights Watch. It is ironic that on the day that marks the 85th anniversary of the first democratic transition, that very same junta was harassing and intimidating activists and academics from publicly commemorating the June 24th event.

Rangsiman was arrested last year for violating a ban on political gatherings of more than five people and for handing out leaflets urging people to vote against a junta-imposed draft constitution. Critics said the constitution, which passed a referendum, limits the power of elected politicians and gives the military continued influence over the government after elections are held. The army took power in 2014 after staging a coup against an elected government and has delayed plans several times to hold new polls.

The military has actively suppressed critics and political opponents.

Sirawith Seitiwat, a student activist who is facing prosecution on charges of lese majeste defaming the monarchy said on his Facebook page on Saturday that police officers appeared at his house and volunteered to drive him around the city for the day. Sirawith said he rejected the offer and instead took a public bus, but spotted a police car following him.

Seri Kasetsart, a student democracy advocacy group, said last week that police had made pointed inquiries about its plans for Saturdays anniversary.

We want to condemn the actions of the government that is destroying and overthrowing democracy, which belongs to the people, the group said in a statement posted Saturday on its Facebook page. To express political opinions is something that all Thais should be able to do. The government should protect such actions, not destroy them.

___

This story has been corrected to show that Sunday forum was a discussion of democracy not railway project.

Go here to see the original:
Thai democracy activist indicted on year-old charges - The Seattle Times

For David Moss, author of Democracy: A Case Study, history provides a guide for coping with disagreement in a nation as vast as the United States. Robust faith in the democracy itself has the power to transform our differences from a potentially grave weakness into a precious source of strength, he writes, drawing on an insight that great American statesmen have expressed from the beginning:

In 1776, not long after the Continental Congress approved the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Franklin plucked the Latin words E Pluribus Unum from the cover of a literary magazine and recommended them as a motto for the nation. E Pluribus Unum out of many, one.

It was a remarkable aspiration for a collection of colonies perhaps more notable for their differences than for what they had in common. But Franklin was, as usual, extraordinarily insightful and foresightful. He saw from the republics first breath that the unique promise of America lay in harnessing difference toward a common purpose through self-governance.

Fraught eras are not new.

Across the nations history, the practice of democracy has always been rooted in conflict, including plenty of bare knuckle politics stemming from intense partisan, ideological, and sectional differences, Moss observes. The critical question is what makes this conflict productive rather than destructive. How can we distinguish the political conflict of the late 1850s that ultimately deteriorated into the violence of the Civil War from the political conflict of so many other periods that allowed for the peaceful resolution of differences and fostered immense progress over time?

As he ponders the present moment, he urges a renewed faith in what he calls democratic values:

In the past, political conflict has often proved productive when citizens shared a strong common faith in the democracy, along with a deep commitment to sustaining and strengthening their democracy. This common faith and commitmentwhat might be called a vibrant culture of democracyhas long been the glue that held Americans together, despite their many differences. Sadly, common faith in national democratic governance had largely broken down by 1860, ripped apart by the evils of slavery, as intense political conflict quickly descended into rancor and violence. This was a rare moment of political collapse in America, but also a potent warning of how dangerous our differences can become when they overwhelm our common commitment to democratic principles.

Today, there is mounting evidence that our culture of democracy has atrophied over recent decades. Although the problem is sharply different from that of 1860, there is still reason to be concerned. Whats needed is not less political conflict, but rather more productive conflict; and that means strengthening our culture of democracy, even as we continue to do battlepeacefullyin the political arena. Fortunately, Americans have revitalized their culture of democracy many times before, and we can do it again.

But we cant lose sight of the fact that a strong culture of democracya profound and unwavering commitment to republican values and processesis the foundation of productive political conflict and, in turn, the essence of a healthy republic. Ultimately, it is whats most needed to ensure that Franklins noble vision of E Pluribus Unum remains alive and well in America.

David Moss is the Paul Whiton Cherington professor at Harvard Business School. He is speaking about James Madison this week at the Aspen Ideas Festival, which is co-hosted by the Aspen Institute and The Atlantic. Email conor@theatlantic.com with your own answer to the question of how Americans can live together in peace and prosperity despite our many differences in values, political beliefs, ideologies, and temperaments.

Continue reading here:
Finding Faith in Democracy at Moments of National Conflict - The Atlantic

Like the character he played in All in the Family way back when, moviemaker Rob Reiner has long been known for his liberal leanings. And he is no fan of Republican President Donald Trump.

Less than two weeks after Republican U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) was seriously wounded by a left-wing gunman during a GOP baseball practice, Reiner went on the attack Sunday with militaristic fervor:

When Fox says that DT colluding with the enemy is not a crime, the fight to save Democracy is now an all out war, Reiner tweeted. US-Stay strong. He added a treason hashtag.

It wasnt the first time Reiner used such rhetoric in reaction to Trump.

Just after the election, Reiner called Trump a moron and said the United States was now fighting the last big major battle since the Civil War.

Reiner later claimed that Russian involvement in the election was the greatest attack on this democracy since 1941 meaning Japans surprise bombing of Pearl Harbor.

He also told MSNBCs Morning Joe months prior to the election that Trumps campaign success was partly due to a lot of people who are racists which prompted co-host Joe Scarborough to reply,Oh, my God. Did you just say that?

Incidentally, reactions to Reiners all out war Tweet werent terribly kind to the famed director:

Original post:
Liberal moviemaker Rob Reiner: 'Fight to save Democracy' from Trump 'now an all out war' - TheBlaze.com

This is not how the process is supposed to work. What you sort of realize in watching how Trump has conducted himself [and] in how Mitch McConnell has conducted himself is that [the] functioning democratic process as we know it is not embodied in law or in the Constitution. It depends on both parties ... believing in a set of democratic norms about the value of public input, about the value of transparency, about allowing the public to have a say in whats happening. And if one of those parties ... decides to disavow all those norms, we get to a place where ... this is not American democracy. We basically have an election and live in a quasi-authoritarian state until the next election.

Trumps authoritarianism and McConnells are two very different strains. The president is a narcissist who gathers power for personal gain self-gratification. He cares little for the specifics of policy outcomes, and merely wants victories that he can boast about. For instance, on Friday morning he tweeted

and then appeared on Fox and Friends to make the patently false claim, Ive done in five months what other people havent done in years. Constant displays of alpha-male dominance is also central to Trumps brand of authoritarianism. He taunted his GOP rivals during the Republican primary, and since then has mocked his Democratic foesfirst Hillary Clinton, and now Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. This week, he tweeted that the House and Senate minority leaders, respectively, were doing the Republicans a favor by remaining in charge, the implication being that theyre ineffective if not incompetent.

This is the authoritarianism of pure spectacle. McConnell, by contrast, is withdrawn and diffident in his public. (Hes jokingly likened to a turtle because of his appearance, but behaves like one, too.) While the majority leader doesnt crave attention, he does care deeply about a specific policy agenda: advancing the plutocratic preferences of the Republican partys donor class. Infinitely more knowledgeable than Trump about how government functions, McConnell subverts norms with a laser-like focus on advancing that agenda. His authoritarianism, in other words, is one of procedure.

As different as they are, these two forms of authoritarianism depend on each other. Its unlikely that the Republican Party would have won a unified government last fall without Trumps theatrical flair. To judge not only by last years election, but also this weeks special congressional election in Georgia, Trumps tribalist politics have far more appeal with the Republican base than a forthright agenda of tax cuts for the rich and entitlement cuts to the poor. And when it comes to that agenda, all that really matters is that the policies be sold through the lens of negative partisanship. After all, Trump campaigned on a promise not to cut Medicaid, whereas McConnells version of the AHCA would slash the program by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade. But Trump easily resolves such dissonance by reminding his supporters of the real enemy here: Obamacare.

If the Republican Party needs Trump, the president is equally dependent on the GOP. Given his manifest disinterest in policy and the details of governance, he would be unable to pass anything without crafty leaders like McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan. But there is a more sinister dimension to Trumps alliance with these Republican leaders: Congress has the power to check the president, including impeachment and removal if necessary. Ryan and McConnell are the bulwarks protecting Trump from a wide range of areas where he should be held accountable. If they wanted to, they could push for laws requiring him to reveal his taxes, force him to place his assets in a blind trust, and use nepotism rules to limit the power of family members, among a range of other checks.

See the original post:
The Twin Authoritarians Who Are Endangering American Democracy - New Republic