Mediaboss Marketing

At the Third Summit for Democracy in Seoul, hosted by the South Korean government, an event was held during the civil society and youth segment on March 19th to discuss the appointment of a UN Special Rapporteur on Democracy (UNRoD).

According to assessments presented by V-Dem and International IDEA, among others, democracy continues to be threatened and authoritarianism is on the rise in many countries. At the side event, participants agreed that the proposed new UN mandate, to be set up by the Human Rights Council in Geneva, is timely and can help protect and strengthen democracy.

The events moderator David Tran, Coordinator of the Alliance for Vietnams Democracy, highlighted that the new proposal for the creation of a UNRoD mandate already enjoys international civil society support. He referred to an international statement, published last November, that by now has been endorsed by more than 150 civil society organizations, networks, think tanks and institutions, as well as over 400 individuals from across the world. The statement was presented on the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 2023 and is still open for signature.

According to the statement, a UNRoD in particular would undertake an institutional and structural analysis of the state of democratic rights, make recommendations for improvements, and identify best practices.

Bringing together supporters of the UNRoD proposal to discuss details and implementation, panelists included Thomas Garrett, Secretary-General of the Community of Democracies; Annika Silva-Leander, UN Representative in New York of International IDEA;Ichal Supriadi, Secretary-General of the Asia Democracy Network; Kourtney Pompi, Senior Director of the Governance Practice Area of Counterpart International;and Hong Yoo-Jung, Coordinator at the International Affairs Department of The May 18 Memorial Foundation.

In the opening remarks, Annika Silva-Leander noted that in light of the challenges faced by democracy the world over, the establishment of a UN Special Rapporteur on Democracy emerges as a pressing necessity, as such a mandate would provide a dedicated mechanism within the UN system to monitor, evaluate, and report on the state of democracy worldwide, thereby bolstering international efforts to safeguard and promote democratic values.

She added, however, that the current geopolitical landscape presents real challenges, as some UN Human Rights Council member states are not aligned with democratic values. She concluded that the necessity for this mandate has never been greater but the likelihood of its realization has probably never been more uncertain.

In response, Thomas Garrett pointed out that while the goal clearly is to get the mandate established, even pushing for it in itself is already worthwhile. He explained that in UN resolutions reaffirming democratic principles, the word democracy often was not used. This was in the belief it was more prudent to employ diplomatic wording in order to gather the needed numbers of supporters, he said. But even diplomatic words of avoidance were opposed by those States working against the fundamentals of democratic order, he added, so a new strategy is necessary.

The panelists concurred that democracy is a human right

A UN Special Rapporteur on Democracy, assisted by an independent advisory board, could prove to be a useful mechanism to direct spotlight into various situations around the world that require attention, Garrett noted.

The session also focused on lessons that can be drawn from the existing 58 Special Rapporteurs, 45 thematic and 13 country specific, as well as how a UNRoD could complement existing mechanisms for promoting democracy and human rights at the national, regional, and international levels.

Ichal Supriadi underscored the importance of the new mandate to potentially synchronize democracy promotion efforts with human rights mechanisms and consolidate related issues such as freedom of speech, association, transparency, and government accountability.

As part of the discussion, the panelists concurred that democracy is a human right and identified a need for it to be better included in the UNs human rights frameworks. The UNRoD could be a mechanism for this, it was said. References were made to Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As a dedicated mechanism, the UNRoD mandate was conceived as a way to address some of the UNs current shortcomings in promoting democracy.

Hong Yoo-Jung suggested that consideration should be given as to how a UNRoD mandate could contribute to making democratic rights more robust, going beyond the possibility of merely making recommendations.

Kourtney Pompi emphasized that Special Rapporteurs offer a unique opportunity to serve as a politically neutral voice, in an organization that is otherwise full of competing political interests. The Special Rapporteur role can aggregate voices, provide access and ask the tough questions that UN actors may otherwise be unable to do due to geopolitical and competing interests.

Panelists discussed how civil society organizations can leverage the establishment of a UNRoD to mobilize support for pro-democracy efforts. It was believed that civil society organizations should contribute to shaping the mandate and priorities of a UNRoD to help advance their advocacy for democracy.

The third Summit for Democracy, building on the momentum of the previous editions, gathered over 800 government officials, representatives from international organizations, academia, and civil society to discuss policy enhancements and strategic pathways under the theme of democracy for future generations. The conference offered a platform for dialogue on collaboration and collective action to safeguard democratic values, strengthen institutions, and empower citizens.

Among the topics addressed during the Summit stand out the imperative to further examine the relationship between democracy and recent technological advancements, combat corruption and disinformation, safeguard the rule of law, uphold election integrity and freedom of expression, and foster youth engagement, civic involvement, gender equality, and partnerships among democratic states.

The civil society and youth segment of the Summit featured dozens of side events facilitated by the Global Democracy Coalition. The event on the UN Special Rapporteur, hosted by Democracy Without Borders, concluded with closing remarks from moderator David Tran, whose organization Alliance for Vietnams Democracy backs the UNRoD proposal as well. He extended thanks to the attendees and called for collective effort to propel the initiative forward.

Read more from the original source:
Appointment of UN Rapporteur discussed at Democracy Summit in Seoul - Democracy Without Borders

Danielle Allen delivers her BYU forum address on Tuesday, March 26. She spoke to BYU students and faculty about becoming confident pluralists. (Megan Sibley)

Harvard professor and democracy advocate Danielle Allen taught students at the BYU forum on Tuesday, March 26 how to become confident pluralists in a world full of contentious beliefs.

Allen credited fellow academic John D. Inazu with coining the term confident pluralism, which he defined as the idea that our shared existence is not only possible, but necessary.

Allen shared her intimate exposure to a prevalence of discordant political opinions, recalling a time in her life when both her dad and her aunt were running for public office in 1992. Her dad was a Reagan Republican running for U.S. Senate in Southern California and her aunt was on the ballot as a member of the far left Peace and Freedom Party in the Bay Area. Allen said she remembers many heated discussions between the two over their familys dinner table, but she also never saw them attack each other during this intellectual sparring.

They never broke the bonds of love, Allen said.

She also realized that, despite their varied proposals for how to achieve it, they both shared a common goal: human flourishing. Allen presented her audience with a five step program which outlines how anyone can overcome differences of opinion and become a confident pluralist.

The first of the five steps is reflection. Allen asked the audience to hearken back to Socrates fundamental question: how should we live? Its through this bottom-up moral inventory that we assess the motivations for our convictions, she said.

Following that is commitment to negotiations and institutions as opposed to resorting to violence. Allen lamented violence breaking out across the country.

Theyre forgetting that the project of free self-government requires seeing that institutions are the instruments that we use for negotiating our conflicts and our differences, she said.

The third step is the commitment to compromise, which Allen emphasized doesnt mean the abandonment of core principles.

She pointed to the Declaration of Independences second sentence as a profound example of compromise, highlighting John Adams advocacy for using the pursuit of happiness instead of life, liberty, and property to address contemporary concerns about the word property and its association with slavery. This strategic language choice contributed to ending slavery in Massachusetts.

Allen then distinguished between good and bad compromises. Good compromises involve hearing the voices of those affected, as seen in Adams example, while bad compromises neglect those voices, as illustrated in a passage criticizing King George written around the same time which was edited by Congress to cut out a statement that positively affirmed the rights of people in Africa.

She underscored the importance of inclusive decision-making for confident pluralism, ensuring all affected parties have a say.

The penultimate step in her process is the commitment to listening and mirroring your counterparts message back to them before responding. Allen joked this advice could be doled out by any given marriage therapist, but reiterated the importance of understanding the opposing argument completely before you engage in debate about it, saving everyone unnecessary squabbling over misinterpretations of one another.

Allens final prescription is to never allow yourself or anyone else to hold human dignity hostage. To illustrate her point, she told of one of many instances where she received an angry, hateful email from someone, shaming her for being associated with an institution that supports antisemitism and terrorism and calling her a despicable human being.

She responded to the email with a kind direction to some writings she had published on the subject in question and suggested the sender of the harsh email read it in order to better understand her position. The hate-mailers response carried an entirely different tune, apologizing to her for lashing out and praising Allens kind response, saying, If only everyone could do the same thing, wed live in a better world.

Read more:
How to become a confident pluralist: Harvard professor and democracy advocate spills - The Daily Universe - Universe.byu.edu

The official death toll in Gaza is nearing 32,500 as Israel continues its assault in defiance of a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for a Ramadan ceasefire. On Monday, an Israeli airstrike killed Saher Akram Rayan, a longtime correspondent for the Palestinian news agency Wafa. His son was also killed in the attack. By one count, 136 journalists have been killed so far in Gaza.

On the humanitarian front, UNICEFs James Elder says the hunger crisis in Gaza is worsening as Palestinian families struggle to find food to eat.

James Elder: A week ago, I was in Kamal Adwan Hospital, where weve had those reports of 20-plus children dying of malnutrition and dehydration. When I was there, I saw a room full of mothers and carers not always mothers, some mothers have been killed carers shuddering over children who are paper thin, absolutely paper thin, incubators full of babies who are born prematurely because of the stress on mothers, also malnourished.

Visit link:
UNICEF: Paper Thin Children Dying in Gaza of Malnutrition and Dehydration - Democracy Now!

President Joe Biden argues that democracy is on the ballot in the 2024 election.

We believe there are potential threats to U.S. democracy posed by the choices voters make in this election. But the benefits of American democracy have for centuries been unequally available, and any discussion of the current threats needs to happen against that background.

One of us is a political scientist who focuses on civic engagement; the other is a former voting rights lawyer. At Tufts Universitys Tisch College of Civic Life, we both lead nonpartisan efforts to educate college students and other people about their roles in democracy.

For us, Bidens talk of democracy is a useful starting point for a broader conversation about U.S. democracy and the 2024 election.

On Jan. 5, 2024, the president delivered a speech in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, titled Defending the Sacred Cause of American Democracy.

As a candidate for reelection at the early stages of a political campaign, the president argued that he and his fellow Democratic candidates are in favor of democracy. Former President Donald Trump and his supporters in the U.S. Congress, said Biden, are against it.

In this speech and other statements, Biden makes the following case: Trump supported or even incited the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, and he refuses to denounce political violence. Trump floats ideas for his second presidential term that include invoking the Insurrection Act, which authorizes the president to deploy the military inside the United States.

In contrast, Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris argue that they respect the Constitution, recognize their limited power and limited importance as leaders within a constitutional order and support freedom of speech. They maintain, in Bidens words, that political violence is never, ever acceptable in the United States.

The basic facts in Bidens speech appear accurate: Trumps own statements support some of Bidens claims.

If elected again, Trump is reportedly considering deploying the Insurrection Act against civilian protests. He has expressed open admiration for foreign authoritarian leaders, most recently Hungarys Viktor Orban. He encouraged his supporters to guard the vote and to watch those votes in certain cities, which some interpret as threatening and potentially intimidating to election workers.

Trump has threatened to prosecute his political opponents, claiming in October 2023 that since he was being prosecuted during the Biden administration, that provided justification for him to do the same.

This is third-world-country stuff, arrest your opponent, Trump said during a New Hampshire campaign visit. And that means I can do that, too.

Bidens own record, however, undermines some of his claims to be fully committed to democracy.

The Biden-Harris administration has been accused by human rights advocates and even Democratic senators of a double standard: championing democracy while maintaining close ties with authoritarian leaders, including the Saudis.

At the very least, Biden has continued a historic pattern of U.S. engagement across the globe that prioritizes security over human rights and liberal democracy. His administration is widely criticized for its support of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahus conduct of the war in Gaza and its disastrous humanitarian consequences.

At home, despite a major expansion of the governments role in the economy, the Biden administration has not done anything significant to make federal policymaking more democratic or participatory.

Its helpful to step back from the daily campaign and its heightened rhetoric and consider how Bidens assertion holds up in light of general research and evidence about democracy in the U.S. That analysis reveals a more complex picture of threats to democracy, some of which are specific to the upcoming election. Others have existed for some time.

In their 2020 book Four Threats: The Recurring Crises of American Democracy, political scientists Suzanne Mettler and Robert C. Lieberman argue that democracies in general suffer when any of four trends occur: intense partisan polarization, efforts to exclude some people from the electorate, economic inequality and unilateral exercises of power by the executive branch.

Mettler and Lieberman show that each of these trends has been rising in the U.S. for several decades. Applying their framework, wed note that both Biden and Trump used a comparable number of executive orders 127 and 137, respectively in their first three years to bypass a reluctant Congress and enact policies unilaterally. The Biden administration has been credibly accused of stretching executive power in areas such as student loan forgiveness.

These long-term trends mean that neither Trump nor Biden is mainly responsible for causing them. Biden criticized all four of these threats in his Jan. 5 speech, however, whereas Trump often endorses political polarization and limitless executive power and has challenged the validity of votes cast in urban and suburban areas with significant minority populations. This difference lends support to Bidens argument.

Notable in Bidens campaign rhetoric about democracy is his alarm about political violence. In any democracy, violence is a threat because, among other things, it intimidates people and makes participation dangerous. In the U.S., political violence has always been associated with attempts to deny democratic rights. It is often racialized and targeted at the most vulnerable communities.

By its very nature, the system of slavery required extreme violence, political repression and the denial of democratic rights to enslaved black people. Though rarely recognized as such in history books, it could be characterized as a racially targeted police state coexisting within a liberal democracy for whites only.

Governance under slavery included organized vigilante violence, repression of dissent, violent clashes and rebellions, harsh suppression, broad prosecution of dissidents, and systematic passage of restrictive laws or renewed enforcement of existing measures when resistance emerged.

Desmond S. King and Rogers M. Smith in Still a House Divided catalog some of these patterns. Even after slavery and the post-Civil War period known as Reconstruction, political violence frequently in response to Black political mobilization or the exercise of basic rights helped maintain what was known as Jim Crow rule.

Two major instances among many stand out: the 1898 Wilmington coup, when white supremacists overthrew the democratically elected biracial city government, and the destruction of a citys vibrant Black business district and community in the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921.

Violence as a threat to democracy is by no means new, but the U.S. may be entering a new violent chapter.

While we do not have extensive historical data, the rate of political violence seems high now, and there are indications of dangerous trends. For example, in 2023, the U.S. Capitol Police investigated more than 8,000 threats against members of Congress, a substantial increase over 2022. The number of serious threats against federal judges has increased each year since 2019 and is 2.5 times higher now than five years ago.

Citing data collected by Nathan P. Kalmoe, Lilliana Mason and Bright Line Watch, democracy scholar Rachel Kleinfeld shows that the percentage of both Democrats and Republicans who believe that violence is sometimes justified to achieve their political goals has more than doubled since 2017, although this remains a minority view in both parties.

From 2020 to 2023, the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project cataloged 1,080 demonstrations in the United States that the organization labels violent along with more than 50 times as many nonviolent demonstrations plus 157 cases of excessive force against demonstrators and 22 armed clashes. This data establishes a baseline for tracking the phenomenon in the near future.

From our perspective, nonviolent protests are expressions of a vibrant democracy that deserve protection. There may be room to debate some of the protests labeled violent. However, the sheer number of demonstrations that the project labels violent more than 1,000 in four years is concerning to us.

The Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol may prove to be an example of a period of political unrest. Trump is deeply implicated in the violence. Biden is decrying it but not necessarily proposing any response other than to vote against Trump.

Here is the original post:
US democracy's unaddressed flaws undermine Biden's stand as democracy's defender but Trump keeps favoring ... - The Conversation United States

These days, we often hear that democracy is on the ballot. And theres a truth to that: Winning elections is critical, especially as liberal and progressive forces try to fend off radical right-wing movements. But the democratic crisis that our society faces will not be solved by voting alone. We need to do more than defeat Donald Trump and his allies we need to make cultivating solidarity a national priority.

For years, solidaritys strongest associations have been with the left and the labor movement a term invoked at protests and on picket lines. But its roots are much deeper, and its potential implications far more profound, than we typically assume. Though we rarely speak about it as such, solidarity is a concept as fundamental to democracy as its better-known cousins: equality, freedom and justice. Solidarity is simultaneously a bond that holds society together and a force that propels it forward. After all, when people feel connected, they are more willing to work together, to share resources and to have one anothers backs. Solidarity weaves us into a larger and more resilient we through the precious and powerful sense that even though we are different, our lives and our fates are connected.

We have both spent years working as organizers and activists. If our experience has taught us anything, it is that a sense of connection and mutualism is rarely spontaneous. It must be nurtured and sustained. Without robust and effective organizations and institutions to cultivate and maintain solidarity, it weakens and democracy falters. We become more atomized and isolated, suspicious and susceptible to misinformation, more disengaged and cynical, and easily pitted against one another.

Democracys opponents know this. Thats why they invest huge amounts of energy and resources to sabotage transformative, democratic solidarity and to nurture exclusionary and reactionary forms of group identity. Enraged at a decade of social movements and the long-overdue revival of organized labor, right-wing strategists and their corporate backers have redoubled their efforts to divide and conquer the American public, inflaming group resentments in order to restore traditional social hierarchies and ensure that plutocrats maintain their hold on wealth and power. In white papers, stump speeches and podcasts, conservative ideologues have laid out their vision for capturing the state and using it as a tool to remake our country in their image.

If we do not prioritize solidarity, this dangerous and anti-democratic project will succeed. Far more than just a slogan or hashtag, solidarity can orient us toward a future worth fighting for, providing the basis of a credible and galvanizing plan for democratic renewal. Instead of the 20th-century ideal of a welfare state, we should try to imagine a solidarity state.

We urgently need a countervision of what government can and should be, and how public resources and infrastructure can be deployed to foster social connection and repair the social fabric so that democracy can have a chance not just to limp along, but to flourish. Solidarity, here, is both a goal worth reaching toward and the method of building the power to achieve it. It is both means and ends, the forging of social bonds so that we can become strong enough to shift policy together.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit andlog intoyour Times account, orsubscribefor all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?Log in.

Want all of The Times?Subscribe.

Read the original:
Opinion | The One Idea That Could Save American Democracy - The New York Times