Mediaboss Marketing

In the past two weeks, we witnessed two historic electoral events. On April 16, Turkey voted to grant its president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, near-absolute power, and on April 23, France voted to send the far-right candidate Marine Le Pen to the final runoff for president, with the final election between Le Pen and centrist Emmanuel Macron set for May 7.

These two events continue a disturbing trend of leaders who espouse authoritarian platforms winning in popular elections across the globe.

Pundits are framing these events as indicators of a debate around globalization, with people such as Le Pen who leads the National Front, a party with a deep history of fascist and anti-Semitic positions, and who as recently as two weeks ago seemed to downplay Frances role in the holocaust leading a populist wave against entrenched globalists. Unfortunately, this framing is incomplete and misleading.

There is no question that people across the globe are wrestling with the costs and benefits of globalization; however, the underlying argument that is driving recent events is over whether democracy or authoritarianism is better suited to create economic opportunity and provide security.

Turkeys descent into authoritarianism is illustrative of the global trend.

Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party, or AKP, were first elected into power in 2002 as reformers, intent on continuing Turkeys integration with Europe while cleaning up government and restoring economic growth. Though negotiations with Europe stalled after a few years, Erdogan (as prime minister) successfully managed to drive growth, with the economy growing around 7 percent a year from 2002 to 2007.

In the early years, Erdogan also strengthened civil rights and reduced the role of the military in civilian life (notable in a country where the military habitually overthrew any civilian government that it felt strayed too far from Turkeys secular customs).

Yet by 2010, signs emerged of a shifting landscape. That year, Turkey voted to adopt a referendum put forth by Erdogan and the AKP. The referendum contained many constitutional changes that had widespread support, such as measures to expand protections for women and children; but the referendum also granted the AKP significant power to shape the judiciary branch, weakening a check on the AKPs (and Erdogans) power. The referendum passed with 58 percent of the vote, demonstrating the depth of Erdogans personal support; but the vote pattern previewed splits in the country that would deepen in the ensuing years, with deep pockets of voters in major urban areas rejecting the referendum.

Since 2010, Turkey has been buffeted by the Syrian civil war and broader regional conflict, a slowing economy (annual GDP growth dropped below 5 percent), numerous deadly terrorist attacks and severe internal political division.

As the economy slowed and political opposition intensified with massive street protests against Erdogan and the AKP in 2013 Erdogan intensified his attacks and began arresting anyone who spoke out against him (Turkey currently jails the highest-number of journalists in the world).

This internal strife culminated in an attempted coup in July 2016. After surviving the attempt, Erdogan declared a state of emergency and arrested tens of thousands of people.

It was during this state of emergency, with thousands of citizens still in jail or under surveillance, that Turkey went to the polls to decide whether to grant Erdogan even more expansive powers. The referendum passed on April 16 of this year with 51.4 percent of the vote. As a result, Turkey will officially move from a parliamentary system to a presidential system, with power centralized in President Erdogan (he was elected president in 2014).

Erdogan will also be able to stand for election potentially two more times, extending his reign for another decade.

We could write off Turkeys turn to authoritarianism as a symptom of the regions instability. Similarly, if France chooses Macron over Le Pen on May 7, we could shrug off Le Pens campaign as an anomaly fueled by Europes refugee crisis or stagnant economic growth. But to do so would only allow authoritarianism to continue its spread unabated.

Instead we should see these events for what they are authoritarian forces capitalizing on deep-seated anxiety and uncertainty to seize power.

If we acknowledge what these events signify, then we can act. The authoritarians playbook is simple and clear. Authoritarians blame clearly identifiable others as the cause of a nations problems and call for restoring national glory. They coerce, bribe or co-opt media outlets into spreading propaganda. They use every lever possible to turn anxiety into fear and fear into anger.

It is not a particularly nuanced strategy, but it does not require a sophisticated effort to secure victory when those who champion democracy remain in denial about what is happening.

Our actions can begin at home. The stronger we make our democracy, the more powerfully we will be able to refute authoritarian efforts abroad. To this end, we can look at our own politics and ask if we are advancing efforts that will expand engagement in our democratic process.

Are we seeking out those who feel left out and finding ways to connect? Are we asking each other to serve a greater good through meaningful civic participation? As we strengthen our democracy, we will inoculate ourselves against authoritarianisms subterfuge. We will also exemplify for the world why democracy, however complicated, slow-moving and contentious, remains the surest way to lift up all people and secure lasting peace.

(Dan Vallone is a West Point graduate who served six years on active duty as an infantry officer. He lives in Concord.)

More:
My Turn: As the light of one democracy goes out, another begins to flicker - Concord Monitor

This week, Sen. Peter Harder, embarked on a herculean political mission aimed at helping get Canada's Senate working the way the government wants it to. Which is to say, passing Liberal legislation.

The government's representative in the Senate had been telling Albertans how the new-look Red Chamber, most of whose inhabitants are independent, could return to its "traditional role as a voice for Canada's regions" rather than act like a partisan sandbox.

Perhaps it could if (a) everyone were buying the premise and (b) this new independence did not have the effect of making the Senate even less accountable than it was prior to 2014.

That was the year Trudeau, then leader of the third party, dumped all Liberal senators from the Liberal caucus. He also pledged to appoint only independents in future. In 2017, he is reaping the political fallout.

There is only one organized party caucus in the Senate: the Tories. With 39 senators, they aren't a majority, but it doesn't matter. As members of the Conservative caucus, working with their MP counterparts, they've stalled or stymied some Liberal legislation, such as Bill C-4, which amended the rules around unionization. They've also used what Harder terms "obstruction" to slow the progress of Bill C-16 on transgender rights. Other agenda items have been delayed, such as a bill on the final wording of the lyrics to O Canada.

In contrast to the Tory senators, the 42 independents and 18 "independent Liberals" (there are also six vacancies) answer to no one. "It's a delicate, diplomatic, political dance (Harder) has to waltz every time there is a bill before us," says independent Liberal Sen. Jim Munson. "The price of independence is there are no guarantees."

Facing a Sisyphean future, Harder recently produced a discussion paper proposing ways to prod senators into moving government business along.

"The Opposition in the Senate has taken advantage of the power vacuum left by the elimination of a government caucus," his paper lamented. "Rather than occupy the vacuum with substance and policy, it has too often filled it with time-wasting. Without a government caucus to counter the Opposition's obstruction, the Conservative Party of Canada practically has free rein to delay, delay, and delay further."

Yup. That's right.

"The evolving Senate must reconcile its practices and procedures with its increasing independence," he continued.

Must it? Says who? Well, tradition. By convention, "government legislation, mandated by Canadians who cast ballots, must be studied and dealt with in a timely fashion," former Tory senator Hugh Segal wrote in the Ottawa Citizen.

This isn't the first time a government holding elected power has faced a Senate whose majority was not of that party. What's different today is that every senator except the Tories is beholden to no one.

Conservative senators are at least minimally accountable, because the party they believe in must win seats in the other chamber. Misbehaviour can damage the party's chances. It's why Ambrose removed Sen. Lynn Beyak from the Senate Aboriginal People's committee.

Conservative Sen. Bob Runciman believes success in the newly anarchic Senate will depend on Harder's ability to build relationships in all camps. "At the end of the day, they have a majority government," he notes. "Government legislation will ultimately carry the day." If Harder can persuade everyone to play nice, that is. No pressure.

"The Senate is independent," Trudeau recently told a reporter who asked his views on Beyak. You bet it is. And democratic too.

cspencer@postmedia.com

Follow this link:
Democracy loses when senators independent - Shoreline Beacon

A controversial tweet by the director general of ISPR, Army's media wing, on Saturday sparked a heated reaction from civil society and sections of media. The infamous tweet had come minutes after the Prime Minister's Office issued an executive order seeking necessary action based on findings of the Dawn Leaks inquiry.

Political sources have claimed that the order covered the inquiry reports paragraph 18, which reportedly carries everything agreed upon between the two sides, but it was still not up to the Armys satisfaction. Since the order was made public, or leaked to media, before the relevant authorities including the Army could set eyes on it, the reactions were also given publicly. This is how some defence analysts euphemism for media proxies of security establishment have explained the situation.

Civilian supremacy or civil-military balance is not an easy thing to maintain anywhere in the world. It is a doubly difficult process in post-colonial states with struggling democracies.

The task of creating a workable balance that doesn't encumber the democratic dispensation gets compounded amid competing positions over national security issues. The challenge is tougher in Pakistan where the military establishment has enjoyed unbridled power over national security discourse - which has been extended to cover everything that challenges Army's worldview.

To our relief, since 2008 civilian governments have not been deposed in the dead of the night and electoral exercise has been allowed to continue every five years. Though, what happens between elections remains a function of how 'well-behaved' a government proves to be.

Military establishment's paranoia with controlling national security discourse makes it highly sceptical of even the meekest of attempts by civilians to seek ownership of policy formulation process. In 1990s, late Benazir Bhutto was declared a security threat to the country for trying to do so. Almost 20 years later, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, once trusted ally of the establishment, finds himself in the same position. Sections of media have declared him an agent of the enemy state more than once. The recent instance was just a day before the Army chose to publicly defy the authority of the federal government when an Indian business tycoon Sajjan Jindal visited to see the PM.

The issue of outrageous accusations levelled against a democratically elected prime minister wasn't, surprisingly, seen as that concerning national security. But, the debate over former army chief's high-profile job to lead a sectarian military alliance immediately after his retirement was suppressed, labelling it not only as an attempt to jeopardise Pakistan's relations with a 'generous friendly state' but also as a deliberate attempt to malign the armed forces. The impression one gets is that the perceived maligning of one side is propagated as a threat to national interest, but outrageous accusations against the sitting PM are considered absolutely kosher.

These double standards with which both sides are treated clearly reeks of the rottenness of arguments over national security concerns. But if maligning symbols of Pakistan's sovereignty is akin to breach of national security, it was breached when the PM was called a traitor in the media or when the PMO was humiliated through the ISPR tweet. As things stand, national security argument is applied selectively and it serves narrow and selfish interests of those wielding real power. And real power rests with those who cannot be criticised publicly. Those who dare do so run the risk of going missing.

Against this backdrop, seeking a civil-military balance in Pakistan remains an onerous art few can dabble with finesse. Both sides have repeatedly demonstrated sheer lack of their knack to try out the path.

The foremost challenge in establishing civilian supremacy is to make the military establishment politically neutral. For this to happen, military has to accept that it has to work with the political forces, instead of trying to engineer the democratic system.

In modern democracies, civilian efforts to gain absolute supremacy over military affairs often end up provoking military defiance, especially in the absence of supportive public opinion. In such an event, the military is lionised rather than cowed down, shrinking the space for civilians.

Thus, the PM's hosting of Sajjan Jindal without properly communicating details about his visit to the gun wielders and making public an executive order without first internally sharing it among parties concerned has landed Pakistan into a situation where it has become a laughing stock for the world. Expecting the military to automatically and dutifully yield to absolute civilian supremacy maybe a rightful position but it is not sagacious.

That the genie is out of the bottle, what next? Admittedly, the PM is in a tight spot. He is facing a defiant and unforgiving Army that won't be appeased through cosmetics of the kind attempted by the recent executive order.

If he doesnt take punitive action, he will be perceived as a weak Prime Minister. Whatever the course of action the PM chooses, he should remember that survival will shape the future course of democracy. Waving a red cloth would not only be suicidal but would push Pakistans democracy at least a decade behind. History, as they say, is always written by survivors.

The writer is a staff member and can be emailed at marvisirmed@gmail.com, accessed on Twitter @marvisirmed

Read the original post:
ISPR's tweet and Pakistani democracy - Daily Times

All politics may be local, but you cant get much more local than the elections that will be taking place this week.

Municipalities across the state will hold party primaries on Tuesday as they begin the process of selecting mayors, city council members/aldermen and perhaps other elected city positions, such as police chiefs.

It is an important time for citizens to give their input on one of the most basic levels of democracy. This is where candidates have much more personal contact with constituents, and the issues being debated are more intimate paving of your street, providing more recreational activities or promoting locally owned businesses.

In general, Tuesdays elections will feature Republican and Democratic primaries for the various seats. If no candidate secures more than 50 percent of the vote, the top two will advance to a May 16 runoff.

The general election will then be held on June 6, featuring Republican and Democratic primary winners, as well as independent candidates.

Various cities and towns have their own quirks. For instance, in some of them, all candidates run as one party or as independent candidates in order to cut down on the costs of holding multiple elections.

According to Mississippi law, voters can choose to vote in either the Republican or Democratic party primary on Tuesday. It doesnt matter which party someone may generally favor. The catch is voters can not vote in both primaries. That means you can not vote in a Democratic primary for mayor and a Republican primary for city council.

Tupelo will have three contested races on Tuesday, including an election that will determine the citys mayor for the next four years.

Incumbent Jason Shelton faces a challenge from political newcomer Candice Knowles in Tuesdays Democratic primary. Since there is no Republican in the race, the primary winner will assume the office.

Voters in Ward 2 also choose their city council member on Tuesday, as that race only features two Republicans incumbent Lynn Bryan and challenger Phillip Thomason and no Democratic candidates.

Tuesdays other contested race is in Ward 4, where incumbent Nettie Davis and challengers Tommy Jake Ruff and Gregory Humphrey will meet in the Democratic primary. The winner will be opposed by Republican Henry Daniels in June.

In that general election, races in Wards 3, 5 and 6 also will be contested.

Once again, Journal Inc. is your best source for election coverage. Check the Daily Journal, DJournal.com and our sister publications throughout the region for election previews, results and in-depth articles. Right now, DJournal.com features video forums for each of the three contested Tupelo primary races.

So remember to vote and make your voice heard. And let us keep you informed.

See original here:
OUR OPINION: Municipal elections at core of democracy - Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal

WARSAW, Poland Frances Catholic primate has condemned the current presidential campaign as his countrys worst ever and urged Christians to help prevent democracy from losing its sense.

Left and right rivaled each other and had their radical wings, but there was also a center. Now, left and right have stepped back, and the main candidates are divided by other unclear criteria. I have the impression our voters are totally lost, said Cardinal Philippe Barbarin of Lyon.

In an interview with Polands Catholic Information Agency (KAI), published April 26, Barbarin said France was witnessing the twilight of its existing political system as citizens sought out leaders closer to the people in their economic and social realities.

Democracy seems to be losing its sense and being cast adrift by media shabbiness, Barbarin added. This has been our worst-ever election campaign, characterized by the unforgivable accusations, total critiques, violence, chaos and the misleading of voters.

In the first round of French elections April 23, Emmanuel Macron, founder of En Marche!, a center-left political movement, and Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right National Front, emerged as the two top vote-getters. They will face off May 7, when voters will choose who will be president for the next five years. Candidates from the mainstream Socialist and Republican parties will not be in the final round.

Barbarin said the success of Le Pen, who has vowed to take France out of the European Union and give French nationals priority over foreigners in jobs, welfare, housing and education, reflected a destabilizing trend also visible in other parts of Europe and the United States.

He spoke of a form of democratic terrorism, which stripped candidates of their dignity by establishing a right to know everything, whether proved or unproved about them.

It seems were dealing with a democracy gone mad, the cardinal said. Although statesmen still exist, theyre unable to get through todays campaign mechanisms, where everything is decided by the art of winning. Those who win are just electoral animals, not competent, rational politicians.

Catholics traditionally make up two-thirds of Frances 67 million inhabitants, although only a small proportion attend Mass.

In a book-length message last October, Recovering the sense of politics, the bishops conference said weariness, frustration, fear and anger in the country had fueled profound hopes and expectations of change, but also cautioned against a search for facile, emotive options.

Barbarin told KAI that the Catholic Church should appeal to citizens not to vote for people with pretty eyes, who can make stars of themselves with media support.

This is a time of decadence, and decadence means certain forms and structures are nearing their end, he said.

As Christians, we yearn for social order, peace and harmony a state based on principles of welfare and participation, where all can make contributions and citizens are subjects of the political community, he said.

But the problem in todays France is the rising disappointment and anger of those who feel ill-treated, rejected and forgotten.

Excerpt from:
Between election rounds, French cardinal deplores 'democracy gone mad' - Crux: Covering all things Catholic