Mediaboss Marketing

Fair and honest elections are always important in a democracy. In a period of political polarization such as we are currently experiencing, conducting elections in a manner considered fair and honest by all participants is even more important. John Gale, Nebraska secretary of state, was in Grand Island March 6 and gave members of the Noon Rotary an assessment on how well Nebraska is protecting and promoting the election process.

The sanctity of the ballot box in Nebraska seems very secure under the care of Gale and his staff, and for that we are grateful. Following the very close and contested presidential election of 2000, the federal government provided $3.6 billion to the states to improve voting procedures. In Nebraska that money was used to update and standardize voting equipment across the state.

Online voter registration has been used to increase the number of Nebraskans registered to vote. The number of people casting ballots is up. Voter fraud, while investigated where merited, is essentially nonexistent in Nebraska and where identified is almost never prosecuted. He stated no instance where fraud may have influenced an election on a local or national level.

He did identify areas of concern and where improvements could be made. The monies used to update voting mechanics in Nebraska is gone and the equipment is now at least 12 years old. Voting machines are expensive and many counties, particularly those with small populations, will be unable to replace and/or update those machines without new funding sources. He predicted that up to 68 counties may have to resume hand counting ballots, a system considered much less reliable.

Given that three counties have 50 percent of Nebraskas population, the state Legislature should address the cost of elections in small counties.

Gale also identified the problem of keeping voting rolls updated as people move from address to address both within the state and out of state. This is another area where the state Legislature may want to assist the Nebraska secretary of state with appropriate legislation.

Perhaps most importantly, Gale addressed the need to educate citizens so that they will be capable and willing voters. This responsibility falls especially on our K-12 schools and colleges. The education of young people must include a study of the structure of government, the role and limits of government in a democracy, as well as the history which has shaped our modern democracy.

It is in school that people should learn that effective democracies guarantee human rights, protect and honor separation of powers and protect freedom of speech and press. Democracies must protect religious liberty and the right to vote. Our schools public and private need to develop well informed independent thinkers.

Much of the emphasis in education in recent years has been in the areas of science, mathematics and technology to the exclusion of the social sciences. In Nebraska the social sciences have never been a tested subject area. The subject area that teaches us how to preserve and build democracy surely merits equal emphasis with any other subject area.

We live in an unusual time when those who govern us identify the free press, which keeps us informed, as an enemy. Democracy can be fragile. We must protect it!

Go here to see the original:
Election process, civic education vital in democracy - Grand Island Independent

Arab News

Why India should scrap parliamentary democracy Arab News In short, India's freewheeling multi-party democracy has become one of perennial plebiscite. India's latest round of elections included five state assemblies. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) prevailed in Uttar Pradesh ... BJP's Hegemonic Power Poses a Challenge to Indian DemocracyThe Wire all 3,400 news articles »

View post:
Why India should scrap parliamentary democracy - Arab News

As the Dutch election campaign, swayed by far-right leader Geert Wilders, draws to a close, parties set to gain a near-majority in parliament have made proposals threatening the rule of law: bills on denaturalization and digital privacy that pose threats to individual rights have been approved by parliament.

The Rule of Law Under Threat

A report published by the Dutch Bar Association last month shows that 40 percent of the programs of Dutch parties contain proposals in conflict with the rule of law, fundamental human rights and the right to due process.

Though election polls have been rather volatile over the last couple of weeks, three parties on the right of the political spectrum appear set to win a near-majority in parliament ahead of the election. Prime Minister Mark Rutte's liberal People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), the Party for Freedom (PVV), and the Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA), are set to win a total of between 60 and 72 seats. 76 seats are required to gain a majority in the 150-seat parliament.

The association identified all three parties' election programs as making pledges at odds with the rule of law. Most of those pledges, if put into practice, would discriminate against Muslims.

The PVV's anti-Islam manifesto includes proposals to close all mosques and Islamic schools, ban the Quran, Islamic 'expressions' deemed at odds with 'public order' and headscarves in public functions, and calls for the preventive detention of 'radical' Muslims. The bar association deems the proposals a breach of the right of Muslims to freedom of belief, speech and education. On the other hand, the CDA seek to halt the financing of mosques and Islamic organizations from abroad. Again, the proposal has been regarded as discriminatory to Muslims as the same measures are not proposed for organizations of other religions.

But proposals endangering the rule of law have also been made in areas unrelated to religion. The PVV calls for the denaturalization and deportation of criminals with dual nationality. Similarly, the VVD wants to confiscate the Dutch nationality of citizens participating in terrorist organizations abroad, regardless of whether the person in question has received a criminal sentence. The party also wants to restrict the application of international agreements in the Netherlands.

Already in Practice?

Ahead of the election, last month, the Dutch senate passed a version of the VVD's law giving the justice and security ministry authority to strip those posing a risk to national security and joining terror organizations abroad of their Dutch nationality, without the need for a court order. A prior criminal conviction is not required either. Courts will only be informed after the person in question is denaturalised, but would then be able to overturn the decision.

In practice, the law will only be applicable to dual nationals, as leaving citizens stateless through the confiscation of nationality is against international law. Thus, like Wilders' proposal on dual national criminals, the law equates to an unequal status for dual nationals. This is a violation of the first article of the Dutch constitution, which requires that all citizens be 'treated equally in equal circumstances'.

In a letter to the Dutch government, Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner Niels Muinieks has said that Moroccan and Turkish nationals are more 'likely to be, de facto, primarily affected by the bill than others,' warning that the principle of non-discrimination should apply to those who acquired Dutch nationality by birth and those who acquired it later on.

Though discussion of the law, by politicians and media alike, has focused on citizens who leave to fight in Syria -- referred to as Syrigangers in Dutch -- hostility towards dual nationals is a deep-seated issue which has lain at the heart of xenophobic politics for over a decade. Figures from the Central Statistics Bureau show that of the 1.3 million Dutch citizens who are dual nationals, 50 percent hold the Moroccan or Turkish nationality. As such, targeting dual nationals has been a key issue of interest to Wilders and his anti-Islam stance. In 2007, he accused two junior ministers of Turkish and Moroccan descent, of 'double loyalty' due to their dual nationalities and tabled a motion of no confidence in them. Last year, he called the Dutch parliament 'fake' for electing a speaker of Moroccan descent instead of the PVV candidate.

Despite criticisms, the bill was voted into law by a coalition of the ruling VVD, the PVV, the CDA and two other fringe parties, while the Labour Party, part of the current coalition, had supported it in the lower chamber of parliament, but not in the senate. Wilders has praised the new law, but argued that the PVV proposal on criminality would take it a necessary step further.

Intelligence-Gathering

A second bill regulating intelligence-gathering, approved by parliament last month but pending senate approval, paves the way for further potential rights violations. The bill gives the AIVD intelligence agency the power to tap all forms of communication on the orders of or with the permission of the interior minister, subject to approval by an independent commission. The bill requires 'serious suspicion' that a person or an organization poses a threat to the democratic order, security, or other state agencies. It was mostly adopted by the same parties voting in favor of the revocation of nationality, as well as the Labour Party.

Unlike the current law, which only permits the tapping of a specific suspect's online communications, the new law makes way for bulk data collection. There are serious concerns regarding the scale of data that could fall into the hands of the AIVD and could breach rights to privacy. Despite assurances that irrelevant data will be deleted, this has not been enough to convince digital privacy organizations as well as the opposition parties that voted against the bill.

Both the law on the revocation of Dutch nationality and intelligence-gathering were drawn up with specific concerns about terrorism and Dutch citizens leaving the Netherlands to join militant groups in Syria, one of the key issues, alongside the European migration crisis, that has kept Wilders up in the polls for over two years. In this sense, they are the policy consequences of the rightwards shift of Dutch politics in recent times. With the volatility of its election campaign and Dutch political system based on coalitions, it is difficult to predict which parties will form a government after the election. But, looking at the polls, these issues are likely to remain very much alive.

Read more here:
The Erosion of Dutch Democracy - Truth-Out

Demise of democracy

As we move rapidly, almost ferociously, towards the general elections, it important to reflect on the values of elections and democracy. Kenya became democratic at Independence. Democracy did not last long. It was killed by conspiracies of Kenyatta and Moi. An essential purpose of suppressing democracy was to establish the absolute rule of the President, which in turn was to capture the state and plunder its resources. The principal beneficiaries of these regimes were relatives and friends of presidents and ministers, mostly members of their own tribes, and over whose thefts and illegalities there were no sanctions.

Fortunes were made through land grabbing, monopolies, senior governmental and parastatal jobs, which not only ensured high salaries but also opportunities of the embezzlement of state resources. In these circumstances there was no need for skills, it sufficed that they had a connection with presidents and ministers. Soon it was possible to distinguish the rich and the poor, and their lifestyles: one group living in great luxury, the other mired in poverty. It was not the case that all ethnic members of the President became rich. Many, in fact, became impoverished by the greed and illegalities of their so-called leaders. Thus began the distinction between ethnicity and class, which the politicians now spend so much time obfuscating.

Jomo Kenyatta provided an excellent example of this style of politics. He built solidarity among the Kikuyu for his own personal gains. Rev John Gatus recent autobiography provides a clear account of Kenyattas exploitation of Kikuyu ethnicity, which led to serious rifts between the Kikuyu and other communities. Kikuyu hegemony has since then become the motto of Kikuyu politicians and business people. And leaders of other communities followed the Kikuyu modelto increase their own status in inter-ethnic politics. Kenyatta also taught us that money could easily buy politicians. It was bribery with money and state office that enabled Kenyatta to demolish the Independence constitution, including the highly entrenched majimbo., within a year, despite the high degree of constitutional protection.

Moi, the leader of majimboism, who had fought hard for it at the London conferences, to protect Kalenjin and other minority groups, not only engineered this huge majority for its abolition but joined the Kenyatta Cabinet and abolished Kadu. If Kenyatta symbolised one strand of politics, Moi did another: money and power are all that count. Crossing the floor for personal expediency became the pre-occupation of politicians.

Restoration of democracy

The objective of the 2010 constitution was to bring about fundamental changes in state and society. These changes are well captured in the preamble and Article 10. A major objective is peace and national unity, based on democratic principles, while recognising our ethnic, cultural and religious identity. The system of government people desperately longed for is to be based on essential values of human rights, equality, freedom, democracy, social justice, good governance and the rule of law. Article 10 adds integrity to this listhugely important given the creed of our politicians and civil servants, and their business friends, that a whole chapter is devoted to it. Much care went into the restructuring of the state to achieve these objectives, starting with vesting sovereignty in the people, exercised in different ways, most fundamentally in electing and removing MPs and county assemblies, and partnership in making laws. Kenyans are encouraged to exercise their rights and freedoms, and seek, if necessary, the assistance of independent commissions and above all, a re-organised and strengthened judiciary. Apart from strengthening the judiciary, an independent director of prosecutions has been established.

Role of political parties

Great care was also taken to ensure a truly democratic political system, for only then could rights and freedoms and social justice prevail. Political parties were perceived, rightly, as central, to provide the basis of both democracy and national unity, respecting human rights, and avoiding ethnicity, race, religion, or region as their basis. From the very beginning, however, it became clear that the conflicts of interests between politicians and the people could not be so easily erased. Political parties in Kenya had not been champions of democracy, rights or justice. And now, while citizens looked forward to a future of equality and equity, the politicians plotted the seizure of the state, as a means of grabbing national resources, fomenting ethnic conflicts, and marginalising civil society. Consequently, great attention was paid by the Constitution of Kenya Review Commission to how parties could be made responsible to the people and to pursue national values set out in the new constitution.

Promoting national unity is defined as a primary responsibility of political parties. To this end, the parties must themselves have a national character meaning, among other factors, have membership reflecting the diversity of Kenyans (including minorities and marginalised groups) and nationwide presence. Parties must not be founded on religious, linguistic, racial, ethnic, gender or regional basis or seek to engage in advocacy of hatred of any such basis. They must observe high standards of integrity; in particular, not engaging in bribery or other forms of corruption. To avoid the violence that had become so endemic among political parties, the constitution prohibits them from engaging in or encouraging violence by intimidation of its members, supporters or opponents, or from establishing paramilitary or similar organisations.

Parties themselves must respect democratic principles by electing their governing body, observing principles of good governance, holding regular elections for offices within the party, and respecting the rights of all persons to participate in the political process. They must respect and promote human rights and freedoms, including gender equality and equity and more broadly, they must promote constitutional objects and principles, including the rule of law. To ensure these rules are respected by the parties, the independent office of Registrar of Political Parties is established with authority to refuse to register parties or de-register parties that do not fulfil these terms. An independent Political Parties Disputes Tribunal to deal with party disputes has been set up.

Functions of political parties

Most Kenyans think that the function of a political party is to win elections, regardless of its tactics: intimidation, bribery, corruption, breaking up meetings of opposing parties, mobilising ethnic hatred, or cheating at the polls or vote counting. This is not surprising because that is exactly how the major parties behave. In a democracy, these tactics are unlawful, as they are in Kenya.

A key function of parties, totally ignored in Kenya, is formation of policies offered to voters. The Political Parties Act makes this clear, saying that parties (a) shall promote policy alternatives responding to the interests, concerns and needs of citizens; (b) respect and uphold the democratic processes as they compete for political power to implement their policies; and (c) promote consensus-building in policy decision making on issues of national importance.

The Act makes clear also that the role of parties is not mindless attacks on other parties. It says that: A political party shall promote inter-party relations by: (a) ensuring free competition among political parties in respect of different political views and principles; (b) fostering trust and confidence through mechanisms for co-operation; (c) managing and mitigating political differences through constructive dialogue, enhancing harmony among the parties; and (d) promoting national reconciliation and building national unity.

Largess for political parties

To prevent the illicit collection of money, the law provides for grants of funds to political parties that satisfy certain criteria. The amount must not be less than 3 per cent of national revenue. The distribution of this fund favours the already well-established political parties, being based on the percentage of votes obtained by the party. However, the fund must be used to promote democracy, encourage peoples participation in political matters, provision of civic education, influencing of public on policies of the parties, and promoting the membership of women, disabled and disadvantaged in legislative bodies. Political parties can raise money from other sources, but they must be lawful sources, and there are limits on the amounts that may be raised in this way.

It is obvious that the parties have not been deterred from raising or extorting money from other sources. It is well known that huge sums of money are collected by politicians, from sources which then depend on favours from the recipient, once in office. No individual or even party can envisage standing in elections unless they have huge sums of money to buy votes with.

The system of illicit funding has had a most negative effect on integrity among politicians and civil servants and in the private sector as well a violation of one of the most important constitutional values. So pervasive is corruption, largely for electoral purposes, that our well endowed president admitted that he (and presumably his government) could not control it. This is a great indictment of the prevalence of the violation of the fundamental principles of the constitution.

Electoral system

The constitution provides for a fundamental reform of the electoral system, aimed at free and , fair elections, free from violence, intimidation, improper influence or corruption. The elections must be conducted by an independent body to ensure they are transparent and administered in an impartial, neutral, efficient, accurate and accountable manner. A great deal of detail to achieve these goals has been set out, including that the voting system should be simple, accurate, verifiable, secure, accountable and transparent. However, there have been few elections in Kenyas history that have not been criticised for unfairness, corruption, and most of all, violence. Even the first elections under the new system did not escape a measure of violence.

Final thoughts

Despite the optimism about the new constitution, politics has changed little. As we approach the general election, it has become clear that the parties have no respect for constitutional values. The old system of violence, corruption, party-funded and organised political rallies (geared more to attacks on opposing parties than discussion of their own policies), and exchanges of insults with their rivals have marked the start to the election seasons. Kenya has the irritating habit of starting election campaigns almost a year before the elections, neglecting their duties as president, governors, and members of legislatures, instead of what sensible countries do about three weeks.

We have already seen massive use of violence. The government has ensured that the police and army have become enemies of the people, instead of friends, as the constitution prescribes. Civil society has been chastised for its betrayal of the national interests, and the rights and freedoms of citizens and foreigners alike are under threat from a nervous president. The quarrels among politicians on the basis of purely personal issues have debased us as a nation. We Kenyans are ashamed of our political leaders.

The author was the chair of the CKRC and the Kenya National Constitutional Conference.

See original here:
What is democracy and what is it for? - The Star, Kenya

By Dr. Demir Murat Seyrek, senior policy advisor at the European Foundation for Democracy

The political system governing Turkey is on the verge of a profound change. In the case of a yes vote on 16 April, Turkey will be transformed from a parliamentary system to an executive presidency, in which the President will have an unprecedented role. Even Mustafa Kemal Atatrk, the founding father of the Republic, did not have such power.

A presidential system is not a bad thing per se; there are certainly good examples. Moreover, the presidential system discussion is not new in Turkish political history either. The issue was previously raised by the late President Turgut zal, a key political figure in the transition of Turkey to a western-style liberal economy in the 1980s. However, the focus of these past discussions has always been the American system with a strong emphasis on the separation of power. The newly proposed system, literally described as a la Turca presidency by the Turkish government, has little in common with presidential systems in the Western world. Many elements in the constitutional package increase concerns regarding democracy, separation of powers and checks and balances.

Out of 18 proposed changes, there are 6 that have raised widespread concern:

Article 7: While the current constitution does not allow the president to be affiliated with a political party in order to maintain the presidents impartial status following the election, this article will allow the president to be a member and even a chairperson of a political party. As a result, the president may run the party as well as the country. A party state may emerge out of this, especially considering the powers of political party leaders under current Political Parties Law. As candidates for parliamentary elections are chosen to a large extent by party leaders, the president may also select and control the majority of parliamentarians in case the presidents party has the majority in the parliament. In this way, the president may control both the executive and legislative bodies.

Article 8: This article will abolish the prime ministers office and transfer all executive power currently belonging to the prime minister and ministers to the president. The president will also gain some legislative power through the right of issuing decrees. However, it should be noted that the scope of this right is narrow and laws will still have precedence over decrees.

Article 9: New impeachment procedures introduced by this article will make the process almost impossible. This is very important in terms of the accountability of a president whom enjoys unprecedented powers. Signatures of a simple majority of parliamentarians will be required to start proceedings. A three-fifths majority will be needed to set up an Inquiry Commission. If the commission decides to send the president to the Supreme Court then this decision will at least need to be backed by a two-thirds majority.

Article 10: The president will be able to appoint one or more vice-presidents without any restrictions. The vice-presidents, as non-elected officials, will replace the president and rule the country by using all of the presidents powers if the president is absent, seriously ill or in the event of his/her death.

Article 11: This article will give extra power to the president on the legislative body. The president will have the right to dissolve the Parliament without any reason. Although, as presidential and parliamentary elections will always be renewed simultaneously, the president will be directly affected by this decision. Furthermore, the parliament will also be able to call for early elections with a three-fifths majority.

Article 14: This will increase the power of the president over the Council of Judges and Prosecutors, a key actor for the independence of the judiciary. With this article, the president may directly and indirectly, through the parliament if the presidents party has a sufficient majority, play an important role in the selection of the Councils members. However, it is not possible to claim that the president will have full control on the judiciary.

In the case of a yes vote, the main concern is the emergence of one-man rule. While this concern is mainly raised by the opposition, this is indeed a major risk for everyone. Debating the issue by simply taking into account the current president is not very healthy. This is a fundamental change about the future of the country. President Erdogan will not be ruling the country forever. AKP supporters may even be the victims of this system in the future if an anti-AKP person were to be elected as the president with these powers.

While the result of the referendum is highly unpredictable with different polling companies estimating significantly different results, the government does not seem to be very confident about the success, considering that the no campaign consists of many political actors from diverse backgrounds including the main opposition CHP, the pro-Kurdish HDP, opposition groups within nationalist MHP and surprisingly the Islamist-leaning Saadet Party.

The European Union is also closely following this historical referendum. In Europe, there are major concerns about the future of Turkish democracy. However, a yes vote would not be the end of Turkeys strained relations with the EU, considering de facto frozen accession negotiations and the EUs short term priorities. While the issue-based cooperation, which started with the refugee deal, will most likely continue in any case, Turkey will certainly be a more difficult partner in the case of a yes vote.

Dr. Demir Murat Seyrek, Senior Policy Advisor at the European Foundation for Democracy

The views expressed in opinion articles published on euronews do not represent our editorial position

Go here to read the rest:
Turkish constitutional referendum: TRexit from parliamentary democracy? - euronews