Mediaboss Marketing

Diplomats from the Western Hemisphere began meeting in Mexico on Monday, attempting to pressure Venezuela to restore democracy and ease the political chaos and repression tearing apart the oil-rich country whose citizens are on starvation diets.

Venezuelas descent into authoritarian rule and violence is the main focus of a three-day meeting of the Organization of American States, the leading defender of democracy and human rights in the Western Hemisphere. But Venezuela is testing the OAS democratic founding principles, after almost three months of anti-government protests that have left more than 70 people dead and led to thousands being imprisoned.

[Venezuela is sliding into anarchy]

So far, the socialist government of President Nicols Maduro has resisted every entreaty by the OAS to adhere to the countrys constitution. Venezuela in response decided to withdraw from the OAS, a procedure that takes two years. The OAS meeting in Cancun is a last-ditch attempt to get Maduro to reverse course before an assembly in chosen in late July to draft a new version of the constitution.

The governments goal now is clear to remove the remaining authorities of the freely elected national assembly and replace it with a puppet, said Michael Fitzpatrick, the assistant secretary for the Western Hemisphere.

[Five ways in which this wave of demonstrations in Venezuela is different]

However, it is not clear whether the OAS has the votes to pass even a relatively toothless resolution of condemnation that has no mention of sanctions or other repercussions. The United States, Mexico and Canada, plus Peru and Costa Rica, have proposed a resolution demanding the release of political prisoners and talks leading to free elections overseen by international observers. A group of 14 Caribbean countries many of which have received oil subsidies from Venezuela want an even milder version, asking simply for dialogue and help in mediation.

The problem is that the resolutions are watered down, said Christopher Sabatini, a Latin America expert at Columbia University. Theyre more admonitions, or exhortations, than actual concrete resolutions with teeth. Theyre just more strongly worded memos than the ones in the past. Nothings going to happen without some threat of force not military but sanctions.

David Smilde, a Tulane University professor who blogs on Venezuela for the Washington Office on Latin America, said that nothing the OAS is likely to suggest will be palatable to the Maduro government. But he said a strongly worded resolution on Venezuelas retreat from democracy could have symbolic impact and embolden Maduros domestic opponents.

The Trump administrations recent decision to roll back engagement with Cuba, an Obama era policy that was popular in Latin America, makes it more difficult for the United States to take a leadership role on Venezuela. Maduro has tried to paint the OAS as a tool of U.S. imperialism.

Smilde said it helps that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson decided against attending, opting to stay in Washington and instead hold talks on the crisis involving Qatar. The United States will be represented by newly confirmed Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan.

Tillerson would have come with a much stronger, Trump-like line, a more aggressive tone, that would have impeded any agreement, Smilde said. The lower the U.S. profile is, the better the solution is going to be.

See more here:
Western Hemisphere group tries to press Venezuela to restore democracy - Washington Post

Note: The opinions and comments stated in the following article, and views expressed by any contributor to In Homeland Security, do not represent the views of American Military University, American Public University System, its management or employees.

By Dr. Stephen SchwalbeFaculty Member, Public Administration at American Public University

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God.

We have all recited this oath numerous times. But why does the Pledge of Allegiance characterize the United States as a republic and not as a democracy?

When it comes to government systems (such as a monarchy, a parliamentary democracy or a theocracy), democracy refers to the direct participation of all eligible citizens in making policy decisions throughout the country.

There have been only a few true democracies in history. There was a form of direct democracy in the ancient city-state of Athens, where all wealthy men were eligible to vote. In a republic, on the other hand, eligible voters elect officials to represent them at various levels of government, from local to national.

Direct democracies can quickly become unwieldy when the population of communities, cities or countries grows too large. Conversely, republics are a much more efficient and effective form of government because there are significantly fewer people eligible to vote on policies.

For example, in the U.S. today, each of the 435 members of the House of Representatives represents approximately 743,000 citizens. In the 100-member upper chamber, each Senator represents approximately 3.23 million citizens.

The notion that the United States of America is a democracy stems from how some parents explain the country to their children. This concept is then often reinforced in elementary and middle schools.

What most people have in mind when they speak of democracy is the freedom to vote in private for our elected officials. Secret balloting has been around since the ancient Greeks and was practiced during the Roman Empire.

Also, when speaking of democracy, most people have in mind the liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. These rights include freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press and the freedom to peacefully assemble and protest. In essence, democracy means to live freely as opposed to living under a dictatorship with limited or no freedoms.

Does direct democracy exist anywhere in the United States today? Yes, it exists at the local levels of governance, such as at town meetings, at parent-teacher conferences and in homeowner associations.

Homeowner associations, for example, might meet quarterly, semi-annually or even annually with every homeowner invited to participate. During these meetings, issues of importance to the community are discussed and voted on as required. Members who cannot attend the meeting can still participate in the decisions by using proxy votes.

Town meetings have been common in the six New England states since colonial times. The people of a small town (usually fewer than 6,000 residents) gather once a year as a legislative body to decide local policy issues, such as the towns annual budget. For example, the communities of Freetown and Lakeville, Massachusetts, conduct town meetings every year to vote on the budget for their combined school districts.

Direct democracy will not threaten our republican form of government. However, as the country continues to grow in population, we can expect to see more direct democracy in action at the local levels of society.

About the Author

Dr. Stephen Schwalbe is an associate professor at American Public University. He is also an adjunct professor at Columbia College and Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. Stephen received a Ph.D. in Public Administration and Public Policy from Auburn University in 2006. His book about military base closures was published in 2009.

comments

Sign up now to receive the InHomelandSecurity eNewsletter.

Read the rest here:
Do We Really Have A Democracy in America? - In Homeland Security

Middle East Eye

Democracy and the Arab axis of tyranny Middle East Eye The UAE has been actively involved in seeking to destabilise and discredit the country's nascent democracy, which is the only functional Arab spring nation that remains. Again, all this is calculated. For the Gulf-led counter-revolution, the message to ... and more »

See more here:
Democracy and the Arab axis of tyranny - Middle East Eye

In a time of historically low voter turnout and a seemingly unbreachable partisan divide, civic engagement recently got a boost from the unlikeliest of sources: the Texas Republican Party. Eliminating straight-ticket voting has received unequivocal support from Republican leadership in the Texas Legislature at a time when they find themselves disagreeing more often than not.

Straight-ticket voting is an option that allows a voter to click a button and choose all candidates of a specific party. Its elimination is brought on by Texas House Bill 25, signed by Gov. Abbott on June 1. The Republican leadership supported this issue due to shifting partisanship in Texas largest cities. Harris County, which contains Houston, shifted majorly Democratic in the 2016 election. This concerned Republican politicians who were afraid they were losing their grasp on one of the last big city GOP strongholds in the state.

What makes this move particularly surprising is how much Republicans have gained from straight-ticket voting over the last 20 years. Without straight-ticket voting, it would have been "extremely unlikely" that Republicans would have won 121 consecutive statewide elections dating back to 1996, said Mark P. Jones, a Rice University political scientist. Seemingly confirming this, straight-ticket ballots made up more than half of the Republican vote in four of Texas five biggest counties in 2014.

There is no better example of rank partisanship taken to its natural end than the current composition of the Texas Legislature. One of the highlights of the 85th Legislature was the Mothers Day Massacre, which was essentially a temper tantrum designed to kill other peoples bills by far-right Freedom Caucus members. On the Senate side, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a former radio host, kept supposedly vital issues like the bathroom bill which discriminates against transgender schoolkids front and center.

The unfortunate caveat to this argument is that Texas Republicans have shown little interest in addressing the underlying problem. Given their recent track record a number of lawsuits and efforts to suppress minority votes at every turn its hard to take the argument that theyre just trying to show that every race matters seriously at all.

What Texas needs is less partisanship and more nuance. Texas already has an example of the type of downballot moderates that could be crafted by this bill, State Rep. Sarah Davis. As the legislatures only pro-choice Republican, Rep. Davis is a unicorn among Texas politicians. She is so removed from her party that when ideological scores were assigned to each representative from the 85th Legislative Session, her score didnt overlap with a single other legislators. This may be why she continues to get re-elected in her Houston-area seat, a district that voted for Hillary Clinton by 15 points.

Though not every elected official can (or should) emulate Rep. Davis. Shes a fascinating case study of what can happen if voters place qualifications over party. Ending straight-ticket voting wont suddenly convince every voter to completely abandon party loyalty, but it provides an opportunity to educate voters about important down ballot races that most directly affect their day-to-day lives. If they know there isnt an easy way out, perhaps they might just listen.

Price is a government sophomore from Austin. Follow him on Twitter @price_zach.

Originally posted here:
A boon to democracy in eliminating straight-ticket voting | The Daily ... - UT The Daily Texan

The electoral systems in four out of five states were hacked during the 2016 election ("Breach of 39 state systems seen as threat," Bloomberg News article, Wednesday's Dispatch). The former FBI director has "no doubt" those attacks came from the highest levels of Russian government. And today, the hottest topic in Congress and the media seems to be whether Donald Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice.

The election process is the foundation of our democracy; an attack to manipulate our elections is an attack on our nation. Russia is employing 21st century warfare to destroy this and other nations from within. Yet, our president shows outrage only at the Paul Reveres shouting out the alarm.

Would Franklin D. Roosevelt have claimed that Pearl Harbor was "fake news"? Would George W. Bush have discounted 9/11 as "fake news"? But our commander-in-chief sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States is disregarding hundreds of attacks on American democracy. President Donald Trump vainly cares more for his sense of legitimacy than he does for the security of America. This isn't just obstruction of justice. This is obstruction of democracy.

Will Kopp

Westerville

Continued here:
Letter: Hacked elections threaten democracy - The Columbus Dispatch