Mediaboss Marketing

In a vote that has been described as an assault on democracy by European officials, the Polish Senateis expected to approve a rushed and controversial law on Friday that would retire all Supreme Court judges and allow the presidentto replace themwith more favorable alternatives.

[Polish parliament expected to approve measure stripping Supreme Court of independence]

Proposed by the ruling right-wing Law and Justice (Pis) party, the legislation has been widely condemned as the mostworrying development in a country where democratic institutions are under mounting pressure. If passed, thechanges would constitutean unprecedented attack on judicial independence,according to ajoint statement by leading judges from the neighboring Czech Republic.

It is only the latest of many unprecedented attacks.

Only two years ago, Poland was widely considered a success story that had managed to seemingly leavebehindits communist past, and turned into a robust role model democracy praised by officials across the European Union.

Now, it is becoming a case study for why liberal democracy should not be taken for granted. The Polish government has pursued a number of strategies to weaken its opponents and democratic institutions, including repressions against journalists or judges and the dissemination of conspiracy theories, which preceded Friday's vote.

A populistelection campaign that paved the way

When Polish voters decided it was time for a new, populist administrationtwo years ago,the reasons for the election outcomeappeared hard to understand from the outside. Poland's economy had grown by nearly 50 percent over the previousdecade, benefiting from an integration with the rest of the continent.

But the landslide victory of Poland'sright-wing and anti-E. U. Law and Justice partyrevealeddeeper divisions, which were harder to measure than the country's GDP.Senior party officials took a decidedly anti-immigration stance in the days beforethe election, even warning that migrants might carry dangerous diseases.

The timing was right for the Law and Justice party. Europe faced the peak of its massive refugee influx in the second half of 2015, which provokedfears in more conservative nations, like Poland, and ultimately pavedthe way for Law and Justice's victory. In particular, rural voters there had long felt neglected by their previous government and complainedthat economic prosperity had not been accompanied by improved social services.

Repressions against journalists

With its sweeping mandate, Law and Justice quickly began to consolidate its power. The country's public broadcaster, TVP Info, essentially turned into a mouthpiece of the government months after the election. Through amendments to the country's media law, the government gained control over the public media network's executives, which triggered the resignation of more than 140 employees.

Soon thereafter, the government went after independent newspapers and broadcasters, as well. It attemptedto limitthe number of journalists allowedaccess to parliamentbut had to abandonthe plans after large-scale protests.

As a result, Poland's ranking in the Press Freedom Index dropped to partly free this year due to government intolerance toward independent or critical reporting, excessive political interference in the affairs of public media, and restrictions on speech regarding Polish history and identity, which have collectively contributed to increased self-censorship and polarization, according to Freedom House, a nongovernmental organization based in Washington.

Despite international protests, the government's control over state media outlets has created a parallel reality in parts of Polish society, where protests against the illiberalLaw and Justice party are being portrayed as a coup against the democratically elected government.

Conspiracy theories

State media outlets have alsorepeated some of the conspiracy theories that have further deepened divisions in the country over the last two years. Law and Justice leaderJaroslaw Kaczynski has blamed former Polish prime minister and current president of the European Council, Donald Tusk, for somehow beingcomplicit in the death ofKaczynski's twin brother seven years ago.

Tuskcampaigned for Law and Justice'srival party, the liberal-conservative Civic Platform, and was prime minister in 2010 when President LechKaczynski died in a plane crash in Russia. Kaczynski's Law and Justice party has long believed that the crash was not an accident but an assassination.

Last year, the party pushed for theexhumation of the bodies of the 96 victims to investigate thetheory, but critics have said the move was timed to stoke anti-European Union tensions. There is no evidence to proveKaczynski's suspicions.

The government vs. the justice system

The emergence of investigations that are being criticized as politically motivated by critics hasbeen accompanied by a parallel effort to restrict the independence of judges.

Friday's vote on the Supreme Court law is only the latest governmental interferencewith Polish courts.After the 2015 election victory, for example, Law and Justice initiated the replacement ofa number of judges of the country's Constitutional Tribunal and then essentially paralyzed the tribunal by requiring two-third majorities for rulings and a mandatory participation ratio.

Threats to jail opponents

The more recent legislation would give parliament large sway over the appointment of judges, stoking fears among government critics who believethe changes would make the prosecution of political opponents more likely. Human rights advocates say such fears may be warranted, given that Law and Justice published photos of anti-government protesters and threatened to prosecute them earlier this year, despite warnings by NGOsthat the move would have a chilling effect on the opposition. There has been little resistance to such measures inside the civil service, which has largely been replaced by loyalists over the last two years.

With the next parliamentary elections expected to take place in 2019, Law and Justice is unlikely to run out of time in its effort to weaken its opponents and to politicize previously independentinstitutions.

Read more:

Thousands in Poland protest government judicial reform plans

Polands senators to vote on contentious court overhaul

Continue reading here:
It only took two years for a 'robust' European democracy to fall apart - Washington Post

Self-admiration isn't the answer.

In her new book, Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America, Nancy MacLean writes that my Bloomberg View colleague Tyler Cowen, by questioning American political institutions, was creating a handbookfor how to conduct a fifth-column assault on democracy. As the Hoover Institutions Russ Roberts pointed out, Cowens quote was taken out of context. This is worth noting because Cowen has long been a staunch defender of democracy.

But its no secret that Cowen is willing to think critically about the potential weaknesses of the U.S. system. He does this not to attack democratic ideals, but to defend them. If we want to see democracy endure, we must think realistically and pragmatically about its weak points, so that we can focus resources on shoring them up.

Its very dangerous to indulge in triumphalism about ones own form of government. Yes, democracies appear to have a modest statistical advantage when it comes to economic growth. But thats just a statistical trend, not an ironclad proof of economic superiority. Plenty of autocratic countries have experienced rapid growth, from Germany in the 19th century to South Korea and Taiwan in the early 1980s. Whats more, theres a chance that the modest correlation between democracy and growth is driven by one massive outlier -- the U.S., whose alliance and patronage was undoubtedly a big economic advantage for many democratic countries during the 20th century.

Right now, democracy is being questioned more from both within and without. Its worth asking if this is because democratic systems have some unique economic challenges that were systematically ignored in previous decades.

Economists have long known that democracy doesnt always lead to the most economically efficient outcome. The Nobel prize-winning economist Kenneth Arrow famously proved that no democratic political system can give all its citizens what they want in in all situations. Of course, real political systems dont even come close to optimality, so this finding is a bit academic.

But economic theory also points to a more concrete problem -- the difficulty democracies have in providing public goods. One of governments essential roles is to provide things that benefit people other than those who directly pay for them. Examples include national defense, infrastructure and basic research. Education and health care also have some aspects of public goods, since a healthy and educated populace creates broad benefits for everyone. Because free markets generally wont provide enough of these things, government needs to pick up the slack.

When building infrastructure, authoritarian countries dont have to worry about hurting the few to help the many. China forcibly relocated 1.2 million people to build a dam in the 2000s. Fortunately, that wouldnt be possible in the U.S., but it does mean that American companies are often forced to compete against authoritarian rivals that have access to cheaply built world-class infrastructure.

Paying for public goods can also be difficult. People differ both in their ability to pay and in the amount of benefit they derive from the public goods. Typically, countries use different types of taxes to take these two things into account -- gas taxes to fund highways, and income taxes that fall more heavily on the rich. But economic theorists have figured out that under a fairly general set of conditions, no tax regime can possibly provide a good deal for all citizens. Either government ends up not providing enough public goods, or it runs a budget deficit.

Clear thinking from leading voices in business, economics, politics, foreign affairs, culture, and more.

Share the View

There is an alternative. Its possible to balance the budget and provide the optimal amount of public goods, but only if some rich people are forced to pay very high taxes. But the amount of top-level taxation required is so steep that many rich people would rather just quit the system entirely -- move to another country, or abolish the government. This fairly general mathematical result probably explains many rich peoples affinity for libertarian ideas.

It also may explain why most democracies carry large amounts of government debt:

Gross central government debt as a share of GDP in 2014

Source: World Bank

This is also a recent phenomenon. Until about 1980, the U.S. did a good job of balancing its budget. But after 1980, structural deficits began to appear:

U.S. federal debt as a share of GDP

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Did this happen because globalization gave rich people the option to move their capital -- or even themselves -- overseas if their taxes got too high? Thats what the simplified economic theory would predict.

If so, this presents a problem for democracies. Authoritarian countries such as China or Russia can implement capital controls to prevent money from flowing out. But democracies -- or any liberal system that allows freedom of personal and financial movement -- may struggle to balance their budgets in a globalized world.

Its precisely because we want democracy to survive that we must not ignore its special challenges. Making it taboo to even discuss these issues would be a big mistake. The free world needs fewer over-optimistic cheerleaders, and more thinkers like Tyler Cowen, who love democracy but are willing to think about its flaws.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story: Noah Smith at nsmith150@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: James Greiff at jgreiff@bloomberg.net

Read this article:
Be Clear-Eyed About Democracy's Weaknesses - Bloomberg

The Hindu

India's democracy has completely been funded by invisible money, says Arun Jaitley The Hindu For 70 years, India's democracy has completely been funded by invisible money elected representatives, governments, political parties, Parliaments and I must say that the Election Commission completely failed in checking it, Mr Jaitley said ... Arun Jaitley says for 70 years invisible money funded Indian democracy, slams politicians for taking benami routeFinancial Express For 70 years, Indian democracy was funded by 'invisible money': Arun JaitleyOneindia all 41 news articles »

Read the original:
India's democracy has completely been funded by invisible money, says Arun Jaitley - The Hindu

COMMENTARY:The bright spot in the U.S. Supreme Courts 2010 Citizens United decision was the upholding of transparency. The ruling opened the floodgates for the uber-wealthy to grab greater control of our local, state and national elections but it also made clear that you have a right to know theyre doing it.

Heath Haussamen

Bringing political spending into the light enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages, the Citizens United decision states. In a ruling on another case that year, the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.

And yet, New Mexico has struggled for years to come up with laws or regulations to combat dark money. Parts of our Campaign Reporting Act were ruled unconstitutional years ago, and policymakers have failed to fix it.

The Legislature finally sent a bill to Gov. Susana Martinez this year that would have required independent groups that spend more than $1,000 during a campaign to disclose their funding. She vetoed it.

Now Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver is trying to enact a new rule to supplement the states reporting law. Groups that spend more than $1,000 in an election cycle would have to report all donors who gave more than $200.

Several right-leaning groups are fighting the proposal. Some left-leaning groups that have fought against or been lukewarm about increased disclosure in the past have been largely silent about the proposal from Toulouse Oliver, a Democrat.

Common Cause New Mexico, which voluntary discloses donor and spending information, has been lobbying hard for the secretary of states new rule.

Given that parts of the states reporting law are unconstitutional, the secretary of state is likely to rely on case law and enforce her proposal regardless of whether its enacted as a rule, an assistant attorney general said during a public hearing this week.

Toulouse Olivers proposal is an important step. Id rather disclosure be protected in state law so it cant be easily undone by a future secretary of state who doesnt favor transparency. But a rule is better than nothing.

And it wont solve the problem of dark money. It would require disclosure when spending is expressly related to a race or issue on the ballot. But it wouldnt touch the massive spending by nonprofits on issue advocacy and criticism of government officials that shapes public opinion outside of an election season.

You should get to know, for example, whos funding billboards and other mediacriticizingU.S. Rep. Steve Pearce, a Republican, that a coalition of left-leaning groups has spread across southern New Mexico. You should get to know when a wealthy individual from the left or right funds an attack on your public officials.

Dark money has spread like a cancer throughout our system. Those of us who engage in the public debate politicians, candidates, nonprofit and other activist groups, journalists should be transparent about how our work is funded. We should, in Scalias words, have the civic courage to stand up in public.

Courts have largely upheld donor privacy for spending that isnt explicitly election-related, and thats unfortunate. The degree of transparency Im seeking may not ever happen.

But its needed to combat the United States oligarchical trajectory, to preserve our ability to participate in and influence the direction of our society.

Heath Haussamenis NMPolitics.nets editor and publisher. Agree with his opinion? Disagree? We welcome your views. Learn about submitting your own commentaryhere.

Original post:
Dark money threatens democracy - NMPolitics.net

By Michael Bratton and Boniface Dulani By Michael Bratton and Boniface Dulani July 20 at 8:00 AM

For 25 years, Zambia helped set the pace toward democratic consolidation in Africa. The country was quick to transition to a multiparty system, held six competitive elections and saw peaceful shifts of ruling parties. Based on past surveys, Zambians express among the longest and strongest attachments to the principles of democracy of people anywhere in Africa.

The past year, however, has seen authoritarian backsliding, marked by a government crackdown on free speech and the press. Since August 2016 elections marred by violent demonstrations, the opposition leader has been jailed, opposition members of Parliament have been banished, and a state of emergency has suspended civil liberties and granted the police increased powers of arrest and detention. Zambias church leaders recently warned that the country is, except in designation, a dictatorship.

What do ordinary Zambians think?

A recent national Afrobarometer survey shows that ordinary Zambians also see their democracy as beginning to erode (see detailed analysis here).

In face-to-face interviews in April 2017, two out of three Zambians say their country is headed in the wrong direction a stark reversal from 2012, when only 29 percent felt that way (see Figure 1). This mirrors what Zambians think about economic conditions in the country: Large majorities say that their national economy is underperforming (60 percent) and that the government is doing poorly at creating jobs (77 percent), narrowing income gaps (80 percent) and keeping prices stable (81 percent).

And two out of three Zambians believe official corruption increased (somewhat or a lot) over the past year, while 70 percent consider that the government is handling the fight against official corruption fairly badly or very badly. A similar proportion say they fear retaliation or other negative consequences if they report incidents of corruption.

Despite the economic challenges, Zambians remain strongly committed to the ideals of democracy, according to the April survey. They overwhelmingly prefer democracy to any other form of government (81 percent) and reject authoritarian systems such as one-party rule (82 percent), military rule (92 percent) and rule by a big-man dictator (92 percent, up from 87 percent in 2012) (see Figure 2). Most Zambians favor checks on the presidents executive powers: 64 percent think Parliament should monitor the president and 71 percent think he should always obey the courts. And 84 percent favor a limit of two five-year terms for the presidency.

Fewer Zambians are confident of their democracy

But further survey responses suggest Zambians arent seeing these principles in practice, and confidence in the quality of the countrys democracy is declining (see Figure 3):

Figure 3: Satisfaction with democracy | Zambia | 2012-2017 Survey respondents shared their thoughts on the quality of Zambias democracy, including to what extent the last national election was free and fair, as well as their personal fears of political intimidation or violence. Data: Afrobarometer.

Afrobarometer has used trends in public opinion to appraise political risk in Africa. In countries such as Kenya, Mali and Zimbabwe, rapid drops in popular political satisfaction have correlated to risk to democratic regimes. In Kenya and Zimbabwe, such risk was manifest in violent elections; in Mali, an ill-prepared military coup overthrew the civilian government.

What happens next in Zambia remains unclear, but early warning signals are present that the countrys hard-won democracy may well be in danger.

Michael Bratton is University Distinguished Professor of Political Science and African Studies at Michigan State University and senior adviser to Afrobarometer.

Boniface Dulani is a senior lecturer in the Department of Political and Administrative Studies at the University of Malawi and Afrobarometers operations manager for fieldwork in southern and francophone Africa.

Continue reading here:
Half of Zambians aren't happy with their democracy and that's a ... - Washington Post