Mediaboss Marketing

It is sad that many Nigerians today talk glibly about the possibility of a coup or of military intervention in politics. They make it seem as if this democracy is something we can exchange for something else. We need to be reminded, as we celebrate democracy day 2017, how we got to this very moment, and how precious democracy is to us as a sovereign people. From 1966 to 1999 (with the short break of civilian rule from 1979 1983) the military dominated the political landscape in Nigeria. It was eighteen years ago yesterday when our country returned to civilian rule.

The military practically overstayed their welcome. The first military coup in Nigeria was in January 1966, followed by the counter-coup of July 1966, and then the civil war of 1967-70 which turned Nigeria into a military theatre more or less as the Federal forces engaged the Biafran secessionists in a fratricidal war that resulted in the loss of more than a million lives, starvation and the tearing apart of the Nigerian fabric. The military would remain in charge of Nigeria and its affairs for more than 30 years in total, and it is worth remembering that virtually every successful coup was welcome by the people.

It was thought particularly in the 70s that the military had a role to play in many developing countries in Africa to ensure stability and national discipline. The civilians who took over from the colonialists in Nigeria and Ghana, to cite two close examples, proved worse than their predecessors, and hence the usual argument for military intervention was corruption, and the need to keep the country together and check the excesses of the civilian rulers. Military rule was perhaps closer to what the people had known traditionally and also under the colonialists. Kings or feudalists who did not tolerate any form of opposition, or free expression governed the traditional communities and likewise, the colonial masters were dictators. The military continued in that tradition. In-fighting among the emergent military elite and the competition for power eroded discipline and resulted over the years in more coups.

To be fair, military intervention in Nigerian politics yielded some positive dividends and created a leadership cadre, and indeed till date, the influence of the military in Nigerian politics, as seen in the transmutation of many military officers into professional politicians, remains a strong factor in the making and unmaking of Nigeria. But by 1990, with the global wave of democratization, glasnost and perestroika, the collapse of the Berlin wall, and the greater emphasis on human rights, and the rise of civil society, the Nigerian public began to subject the military to greater scrutiny than was hitherto the case.

After a fashion, every military government presented itself as a corrective regime, with the promise to hand over power in a short while to civilians. By 1986, the Babangida administration after a year in office had launched a political transition program, beginning with the establishment of a 17-man Political Bureau. In 1989, the ban on political activities was lifted. The military junta would later ban these existing political parties and create its own parties, the Social Democratic Party and the National Republican Convention.

This seemingly endless transition program and increased civil society activism merely drew more attention to the military and its record in the public sphere. The people began to demand an inevitable return to civilian rule. They complained about the human rights abuses of the military, the apparent domination of power by the Northern elite, the marginalization of other groups in Nigeria, and the spread of injustice and inequities.

When a Presidential election was held on June 12, 1993, and the SDP candidate, Chief MKO Abiola won the election- an election that was adjudged to be free and fair, Nigerians felt that the hour of their liberation from military rule had come. But the Babangida administration refused to announce the final results and subsequently, it annulled the election. It was a disastrous moment for the Nigerian military and the administration. It also marked the beginning of a national crisis that dragged on for six years. The Nigerian people were inconsolable. In the course of the crisis, General Ibrahim Babangida had to step aside, handing over power to an Interim National Government (ING), which was soon shoved aside by General Abacha. Between 1993 and 1999, Nigeria had three different leaders: Chief Ernest Shonekan, General Sani Abacha and General Abdusalami Abubakar.

The ensuing struggle for democracy was long and momentous. Progressive Nigerians and the civil society turned against the military. The South West declared that it had been robbed. MKO Abiola fought for his mandate. The international community ostracized the Abacha government. Nigeria became a pariah nation. The media was in the forefront of the struggle, and many journalists were jailed, hounded into exile, publishing houses were set ablaze. Anyone who criticized the soldiers was framed for one offense or the other and thrown behind bars.

The progressive forces insisted that the military must go. Never Again, the people chorused. There had been no other moment like that in contemporary Nigeria. The martyrs of that peoples revolution were the ones that died, including Chief MKO Abiola who died in Abachas detention camp, the many innocent persons who were shot by the military, and everyone who suffered one major loss or the other. The heroes were the valiant men and women who stood up for democracy and justice and opposed military tyranny. The villains were the soldiers who trampled upon the peoples rights, and their opportunistic agents in civil society. On May 29, 1999, Nigeria returned to civilian rule. It was the day of our countrys second liberation, liberation from the years that the locusts ate.

In the month of June, there would be another historic date for Nigerians, that is June 12, a definite milestone in Nigerian democracy even if the Federal Government has been largely in denial since 1999. MKO Abiola deserves to be honoured post-humously not just selectively by states in the South-West but by the Nigerian Government as a kind of restitution, and by this, I mean a formal declaration, for record purposes, that he was indeed the winner of that June 12, 1993 election.

This brief excursion to the recent past is important because it is so easy to forget. I have met young Nigerians who have never heard of Chief MKO Abiola. In a country where history is no longer taught in schools, that should not be surprising. The Nigerians who were born in 1993 are today out of university, and many of them may never have experienced military rule. They were still children when their parents fought for this democracy. Whoever makes the mistake of even remotely suggesting any form of return to military rule is an enemy of the Nigerian people. Such persons would be taking this country back to 18 years ago and beyond.

Whatever may be the shortcomings of our democracy, this system of government has served the Nigerian people well. We may worry about the form or the shape, or the character of our democracy, the opportunism and imperfections of the professional political class, or the weakness of certain institutions but all told, this is a much better country. The best place for the military is to function under a constitutional order and to discharge its duties as the protector of national sovereignty. Any soldier who is interested in politics should resign his commission, and join a political party, politics being an open field for all categories of persons, including ex-convicts, prostitutes and armed robbers. I find the auto-suggestion of military intervention gross and odious. It is regrettable that those whose duty should never in any shape include scare-mongering were the ones who started that nonsensical discussion in the first place.

For the benefit of those who do not know or who may have forgotten, we once lived in a certain country called Nigeria, ruled by the military, where the rights of citizens meant nothing. The soldiers were our rulers. They were above the laws of the land. The people were their subordinates. They called us bloody civilians. The media was not free. Your insistence on free speech could land you in jail. Under the guise of enforcing discipline, the military treated the people as if they were slaves. Everything was done with immediate effect!, including the suspension of human rights.

Today, democracy has given the Nigerian people, voice. There is a greater consciousness of the power of the people, as well as the need to hold persons in power accountable. The electoral process is still imperfect, but the people are now supremely confident of their right to choose. But not all our problems have been solved. For example, exactly 50 years ago today, the late Emeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, hero of the Biafran Revolution, led the people of the Bight of Biafra on a secession move out of Nigeria.

He said: you, the people of Eastern Nigeria, Conscious of the Supreme Authority of Almighty God over all mankind, of your duty to yourselves and prosperity; Aware that you can no longer be protected in your lives and in your property by any Government based outside Eastern Nigeria/Believing that you are born free and have certain inalienable rights which can best be protected by yourselves. Unwilling to be unfree partners in any association of a political or economic nature Now, therefore, I, Lieutenant-Colonel Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, by virtue of the authority and pursuant to the principles recited above, do hereby solemnly proclaim that the territory and region known as and called Eastern Nigeria together with her Continental Shelf and territorial waters shall henceforth be an independent sovereign state of the name and title of The Republic of Biafra

In other words, the people of Eastern Nigeria no longer felt free or protected or respected inside Nigeria. They opted out. In the Ahiara Declaration of 1969, Ojukwu summed it all up as follows: When the Nigerians violated our basic human rights and liberties, we decided reluctantly but bravely to found our own state, to exercise our inalienable right to self-determination as our only remaining hope for survival as a people.

The civil war ended on January 12, 1970 but 50 years since the declaration of secession by the people of Eastern Nigeria, Igbos are still protesting about their relationship with the rest of Nigeria. But significantly, they are not the only ones complaining. Farmers are complaining about pastoralists, indigenes about settlers, Christians about Muslims and vice versa, women about men, men about women, youths about the older generation, the people of Southern Kaduna are unhappy, other Northern minorities too, the people of the Niger Delta have been unhappy since the Willink Commission of 1957/58, the other over 400 ethnic nationalities that are not recognized in Section 55 of the 1999 Constitution are also wondering whether they are truly part of this unionBasic human rights and liberties are still being violated.

Nigeria remains a yet unanswered question. Democratic rule may have opened up the space, but our country still suffers from a kind of hang-over. The people are free, but they are today everywhere in chains: politically, economically and ethnically. This is the sad part of our democracy, but the best part are the many lessons that the people are learning about the meaning, the nature and the cost of the choices that they make or that they have made.

Visit link:
Democracy, Biafra And A Sense Of History By Reuben Abati - SaharaReporters.com

The political leader of the Movement for Economic Empowerment (MOVEE), Dr. J. Mills Jones has said that democracy as a form of government does not have meaning when those who are governed are hungry.

As a result he said Liberians must not choose their leaders out of fear in October elections because they now have the capacity to select new leaders with track record to be able to build a new nation for the betterment of the country and the people.

Speaking at the Christian Literature Crusader Church Leaders Summit at the Trumpet Baptist Central Church in Ganta, Nimba County recently, he said Liberians should not be complacent with the decisions they will make to ensure that the capacity to build a new nation is not undermined.

Dr. Jones, defending his partys theme of hope, said Liberia is still a land of possibilities that can only be realized if the people vote into office the right leadership to break away from the past.

He made reference to the theme of the summit, Leading in a time of transition, and said for the church, transition is a constant challenge, growing out of humanitys continuous march on the highway of modernity.

One could argue that the day the church settles down in the sea of stability will be the beginning of an existential stretch to the church as an institution and more importantly as a place of hope to sound the gospel of Jesus Christ to all peoples, Dr. Jones said.

He said the same is true for the state because the leadership of a nation must not only be prepared to deal with the challenges of change but must also be agents of change.

Dr. Jones quoted the late reggae king Bob Marley and challenged Liberians to emancipate their minds from mental slavery, because no one would do it for us. He said it is about time Liberians break with the past and do things that would reflect how long Liberia has been an independent country.

By July this year, he said, Liberia will be 170 years old as a sovereign nation, adding that he regrets that Liberias age does not positively reflect on the countrys development, because it is a historical fact that the country lacks visionary leaders, which has held it back.

This is one of the enduring lessons of history and it is a lesson that the people of Liberia must accept and acknowledge because it is the scarcity of visionary leadership over the long period of our history that has led to the sorry state of our country today, he said.

Speaking to the Christian community, Dr. Jones took consolation in the Bible, and though he did not give the specific quotation, he said a nation without vision is a recipe for the destruction of that nation.

Probing the conscience of his listeners on why Liberians have become so immune to development as compared to neighboring countries, Dr. Jones said: it is good leadership that gives vision to a nation and this is why I continue to say and to make the argument that leadership matters.

He explained MOVEEs determination to make a difference and to ensure social cohesion, economic development and the enjoyment of peace and stability, if elected.

Dr. Jones returned to the subject of tribal politics and admitted to his audience that he came from a humble background, and said MOVEE understands that our people in the towns, cities, and villages are interested in a countryman but want to get out of poverty, and poverty has no tribe. Therefore, we offer not divisive politics but vibrant and visionary leadership with a track record.

I hear people say that this is a time for the so-called countryman to become president, but only a dull man can come up with such for a change. This is a talk that will lead us down the road to nowhere, he said.

Meanwhile, Dr. Jones warned Liberians about those politicians who show up at every election not because they want to change the conditions of Liberians but to change their own conditions. They are the politicians who have started to sell the future of Liberia to outsiders. MOVEE has been constantly empowering the businesspeople, farmers and others, because democracy doesnt mean much when the people are hungry.

Follow this link:
'Democracy Meaningless When The People Are Hungry' - Liberian Daily Observer

Since its first conception, the idea of a liberal democracy has never been a settled one. Debate has raged. Churchill was cynical, the best argument against democracy is a 5-minute conversation with the average voter, while Plato was wary, dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy. And yet, in broad terms even democracys most dismissive critics who live behind her shield do not want to go back to the bad old days of kingdoms and dictatorships.

In recent times we have seen how fragile this shield of freedom can be, with the rise of populist leaders such as Trump and Le Pen in the West, and the attempt by Park Geun-Hye to seemingly take South Korea back to the 1970s. This fragility is something we must constantly be aware of and exercise vigilance to protect the freedoms we cherish. To do this we must remember democracy has no finish line, it is a constant journey, and one that we walk with the aim of bringing the North Koreas of this world alongside us somewhere in the distance.

Since Parks removal from office and Moon Jae-ins victory in the election, the Western press has been quick to praise South Korea, the Washington Post leading with the headline South Korea just showed the world how to do democracy, and there has been much talk of the spirit showed by this young democracy. This praise is deserved but I also find it slightly patronizing.

As mentioned above these, if you like, old democracies are at risk of being hijacked by nationalistic and isolationist agendas and cannot rest on their laurels any more than South Korea can afford to in the coming years.

Indeed in my country, the UK, one of the oldest democracies, we are just starting to feel the early effects of our rash decision to leave the EU, again brought on by nationalistic fervor and false promises from conceited leaders. Next month the UK will hold another general election (the second in two years) in which the much-criticized Conservative Party who delivered Brexit is expected to win a huge majority and consolidate their position, mainly due to a spineless opposition.

Three major votes in the space of 25 months which will have changed the face of my country forever, and probably not for the better. Perhaps too much democracy is indeed unhealthy for a nation? The squabbles over how to manage it persist.

Perhaps Korea does indeed have things it can learn about its democracy from the problems suffered by these so-called advanced economies. However it is not so straightforward, cultures, language, people, differ. We cannot easily choose a strategy for developing a democracy for country A simply because it worked for country B. But despite this, the debate on democracy has over the centuries been a productive if not necessarily a conclusive one. And so it was pleasing to observe two fundamental principles for maintaining a healthy democracy being put into practice in the first few days of Moons presidency.

The first of these is the importance of education. As US President F.D. Roosevelt acknowledged, education is the key safeguard of democracy, democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely.

One of Moon Jae-ins first acts as president was to abolish the widely despised state history textbooks whitewashing the Park Chung-hee dictatorship and reducing the efforts of pro-democracy activists to mere footnotes. It is widely accepted that the younger generations in Korea have a much more liberal outlook than the older generations and this cynical attempt to reverse this trend has rightly been stopped in its tracks. Education, especially unbiased state education is key. This is especially so in Korea where it can act as a counterbalance to the education received from a largely conservative-dominated media, which brings me to the second principle, freedom of the press.

The differences between the two pictures were stark. In the first image, reporters sat sedately, subdued even, expressions sullen, their hands in their laps, perhaps they were attending a lecture. In the second picture, hands were raised, reporters sat forward in their chairs, eager to be called.

The first picture was of one of Parks rare press conferences at Cheong Wa Dae. Questions prearranged, answers scripted, no surprises, follow the script please. The second scene was at one of Moon Jae-ins early press conferences since becoming president. Watching the second press conference one could almost feel the wave of elation amongst the journalists in the room. We can ask questions! We can ask our own questions!

Without a free and open press, it is difficult for people to form informed opinions and contribute to the debate, contribute to the democracy. From debate come solutions. I have faith that President Moon will do a lot of good for Korea, but will he make mistakes? Of course he will, no one is perfect, (already I implore him to rethink his attitude toward LGBT people). But those mistakes must be held up in the light so the country can learn from them, get over them, and improve. They should not be hidden, buried or simply never be spoken about, as was the modus operandi of the Park government. Its lack of accountability proved a fertile breeding ground for abuse and corruption.

Like the pictures described above, the change to a feeling of optimism in Seoul over the past weeks from the dark stupor of the last few years has this writer filled with hope for the future of Korea. But caution, vigilance, this is no time to relax. The candles may have been put away, but you must keep the fire burning.

By James Copeland James Copeland is an assistant professor of Hongik University. -- Ed.

Read the original:
[James Copeland] Democracy, the unending battle - The Korea Herald

External Affairs When it comes to elections there are at least two Africas: one that has not become much more democratic since the early 1990s and another in which elections have become entrenched and the quality of the process has improved.

Elections in Africa are of two types : one that has not become much more democratic since the early 1990s, and another in which elections have become entrenched and the quality of the process has improved though not always consistently over time. Credit : Wikimedia

The questions that I get asked most often by students, policy makers and political leaders are: can democracy work in Africa? and is Africa becoming more democratic?.

As we celebrate Africa Day and reflect on how far the continent has come since the Organisation of African Unity was founded in 1963, it seems like a good time to share my response.

Some people who ask these questions assume that the answer will be no, because they are thinking of the rise of authoritarian abuses in places like Burundi and Zambia. Others assume that the answer is yes because they remember recent transfers of power in Gambia, Ghana and Nigeria.

Overall trends on the continent can be read in a way that supports both conclusions. On the one hand, the average quality of civil liberties has declined every year for the last decade. On the other, the number of African states in which the government has been defeated at the ballot box has increased from a handful in the mid 1990s to 19.

To explain this discrepancy, I suggest that we need to approach the issue a little differently. Instead of focusing on the last two or three elections, or Africa-wide averages, we need to look at whether democratic institutions such as term-limits and elections are starting to work as intended. This tells us much more about whether democratic procedures are starting to become entrenched, and hence how contemporary struggles for power are likely to play out.

When we approach the issue in this way it becomes clear that democracy can work in Africa but that this does not mean that it always will.

The rules of the game

Democracies are governed by many different sets of regulations, but two of the most important are presidential term-limits and the need to hold free and fair elections. Because these rules have the capacity to remove presidents and governments from power, they represent a litmus test of the strength of democratic institutions and the commitment of political leaders to democratic principles.

So how are these institutions faring? Let us start with elections. Back in the late 1980s only Botswana, Gambia and Mauritius held relatively open multiparty elections. Today, almost every state bar Eritrea holds elections of some form. However, while this represents a remarkable turn of events, the average quality of these elections is low. According to the National Elections Across Democracy and Autocracy data set, on a one to tenscale in which ten is the best score possible, African elections average just over 5.

As a result, opposition parties have to compete for power with one hand tied behind their backs. This helps to explain why African presidents win 88% of the elections that they contest. On this basis, it doesnt look like democracy is working very well at all.

If we move away from averages, though, it becomes clear that this finding masks two very different trends. In some countries, such as Rwanda and Sudan, elections are being held to legitimise the government but offer little real choice to voters.

Things look very different if we instead look at Benin and Ghana, which have experienced a number of transfers of power. In countries like these, governments allow voters to have their say and by and large respect their decision.

This suggests that when it comes to elections there are at least two Africas: one that has not become much more democratic since the early 1990s, and another in which elections have become entrenched and the quality of the process has improved though not always consistently over time.

Constraints on presidential power

When it comes to upholding the presidential term-limits that most African states feature in their constitutions, the picture is also mixed. In many countries, leaders who were never committed to respecting a two- (or in some cases three-term) limit have been able to change or reinterpret the law in a way that allows them to remain in office indefinitely. As a result, term limits have been overturned in Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Congo-Brazzaville, Djibouti, Gabon, Guinea, Namibia, Rwanda, Sudan, Togo and Uganda.

But, as we saw with elections, the picture is not as bleak as it may at first appear. To date, African presidents have come up against term-limits 38 times. In only 18 cases have presidents sought to ignore and amend the constitution, and in only 12 cases were they successful. Put another way, of the 42 countries that feature term-limits, so far they have only been overturned in 13.

This is remarkable. On a continent known for Big Man rule and which has often been described as being institution less, one of the most important democratic institutions of them all is starting to take root in a surprising number of states. So far presidents have accepted or been forced to accept the ultimate check on their authority in Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Sao Tome & Principe, Sierra Leone, Tanzania and Zambia.

Thus, while it is important not to overlook the ability of leaders to subvert the rules of the game in the continents more authoritarian states, it is also important to recognise that the constraints on presidential power are greater than at any time in the last 50 years. In contemporary Africa, term limits are more likely to be respected than broken.

Can democracy work in Africa?

This evidence demonstrates that democracy can work in Africa. In those countries in which high quality elections go hand in hand with entrenched term-limits, we are witnessing processes of democratic consolidation. Some of these processes are just starting, and all are vulnerable to reversal, but there is no longer any reason to doubt that democracy can function in a number of African countries.

So what separates the success stories from the rest? What we know is that there are a number of factors that serve to insulate governments from domestic and international pressure to reform, and so undermine the prospects for democratisation.

One is the presence of strong security forces that can be used to put down opposition and civil society protests. Another is the presence of significant oil reserves. With the exception of Ghana and possibly Nigeria, Africas petro-states are all authoritarian.

A third is support from foreign governments, which is often given to regimes that are geo-strategically important and willing to support the foreign policy goals of other states, whether they are democratic or not.

These factors do indeed make it harder to break free of old authoritarian logics. But its also important to keep in mind that they dont make it impossible. Nigeria, for example, ticks most of these boxes and yet witnessed a peaceful transfer of power in 2015.

Given this, and the many other positive stories that have come out of the continent, it is seems apt to end by repeating the final line of my 2015 book. Despite all of the negative stories that dominate the headlines

It is far too early to give up on democracy in Africa.

This is of great importance because there is already evidence that on average more democratic states spend more on education and achieve higher levels of economic growth.

We therefore have good reasons to believe that in the long-run living under a democracy will improve the lives of African citizens.

Nic Cheeseman is a Professor of Democracy atUniversity of Birmingham

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Go here to see the original:
Democracy Is Taking Root in Africa. But That Doesn't Mean It Works All the Time - The Wire

One of the programs slotted for elimination in the proposed federal budget released May 23 is the Legal Services Corporation (LSC). Sounds ominous . what is the Legal Services Corporation and why should it receive funding from the federal government? LSC was created by President Nixon as an integral part of our judicial system. LSC provides grant funding to more than 130 legal services organizations throughout the country. In Colorado, LSC provides annual grants to Colorado Legal Services (CLS) which in turn assists thousands of needy Coloradans with critical legal issues. Every year, CLS serves more than 10,000 Coloradans and receives 40 percent of its funding from LSC. CLS provides free, vital representation to indigent Coloradans, including:

- Civil legal assistance. In criminal cases that could result in jail time there is a constitutional right to a lawyer.

However, there is no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases which results in many unrepresented people in the courtrooms. Americans at risk of losing their children or homes and victims of unscrupulous companies or civil rights violations by the government require access to attorneys. CLS helps veterans, the disabled, the elderly and domestic violence victims. CLS is also uniquely qualified to provide highly specialized legal help in times of emergency, such as aiding Coloradans displaced during the 2013 floods in northern Colorado.

- CLS also acts as a hub for pro bono volunteer lawyers to donate their services to the needy. "Pro bono" does not mean free - someone must organize and train the many volunteer lawyers that help low and middle-income people. CLS provides support for attorneys that volunteer their time.

- CLS has been actively involved in a movement called "Access to Justice." Many states, including Colorado, have an Access to Justice Commission, a public/private partnership that works with the courts, businesses and the bar association to make the civil justice system more accessible to all. Results of this effort include the creation of self-help centers, plain language legal forms, incentives for attorneys to perform more pro bono and more. CLS also has a statewide website to provide necessary information, both for self-help and for attorneys willing to donate their time.

Some people mistakenly believe that LSC funds organizations that employ lawyers to carry out a subversive, liberal agenda. Nothing could be further from the truth. Restrictions implemented in 1996 prohibit LSC's attorneys from any political activity. Staff from LSC-funded organizations cannot engage in grassroots organizing, lobbying or class action litigation. LSC aggressively monitors all grantees to ensure that these restrictions are honored. LSC is a well-run nonprofit that recently received the best possible rating for FOIA compliance.

Guaranteeing access to justice for everyone is essential to a well-ordered democracy. If low and middle-income people are barred from our court system, they will no longer trust it and the foundation of our democracy is threatened. While LSC is not the only funding source for civil legal aid, it is the largest and defunding it will wreak chaos in the legal system. Courts are already overwhelmed by the abundance of litigation. If the indigent go unrepresented, court cases are delayed. Businesses and the government will suffer greater inefficiencies and pay higher costs as a result of a bogged-down judicial system.

In light of the potential harm that would befall our court system if LSC cannot continue with its vital work, the American Bar Association, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, 161 law school deans, 25 deans from Catholic law schools, leaders of more than 150 large law firms, general counsel from 185 companies, and many others have signed letters objecting to the proposed elimination of LSC.

Access to justice is not a Democratic or Republican issue; it is an American value. As the Honorable Learned Hand cautioned, "If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: Thou shalt not ration justice."

-

Julie Reiskin is the executive director of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition and a Democrat who lives in Denver. She serves on the Legal Services Corporation board of directors as a client (nonattorney) representative. John Zakhem is a partner with Jackson Kelly law firm in Denver, chair of the Colorado Access to Justice Resources Committee and a Jefferson County Republican.

Originally posted here:
Loss of legal services would threaten foundations of democracy - Colorado Springs Gazette