Mediaboss Marketing

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

NEW DELHI: In his 32nd edition of 'Mann ki Baat', Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Sunday welcomed the analyses being done in various media fora about the performance of his three-year-old government+ , saying "constructive criticism" strengthens the democracy.

He said some opinion polls and surveys have appreciated his government's work+ , some have supported it while some others have highlighted the drawbacks.

Appreciating this exercise being conducted over the last one month in the run-up to completion of his government's three years on May 26, he said he believes that in a democracy, the government should be answerable.

"Constructive criticism strengthens the democracy. For a lively democracy, such exercises are immensely important," the prime minister said in his monthly radio programme 'Mann Ki Baat'.

He noted that the surveys have assessed in detail his government's performance+ on all fronts and said it was a "great exercise".

The prime minister said he believes that in a democracy, a government must present its report card to the people.

"Three years back, you (people) had given me the responsibility of the 'pradhan sevak' (prime servant). There have been several surveys and opinion polls. I consider this entire exercise healthy," Modi said.

"I thank those who have given critical and important feedback.... I greatly value such exercises... It provides an opportunity to correct the weaknesses and the drawbacks that may be there," Modi said.

From the result of these surveys, the government can take lessons and move ahead, he added.

He also conveyed his greeting on the start of Ramzan to people across the world.

He also said that people give importance to prayer, spirituality and charity during Ramazan.

"India's cultural diversity is her strength. 125 crore Indians can take pride that people belonging from all communities of the world are present in India who reverberate the message of shanti (peace), ekta (unity) and sadbhavna (goodwill)," PM Modi said in his monthly radio show.

He said that in India, people practicing idol worship, people who did not follow idol worship, atheists and people believing in god are all living in peace and harmony.

"People from all over India were imprisoned in the cellular jail. Veer Savarkar's role in India's freedom movement cannot be forgotten. His book 'Mazi Janmathep' gives insights about his struggle for freedom when he was imprisoned in the cellular jail," he said while paying tribute to Veer Savarkar.

"Our ancestors conserved nature, we must show the same compassion towards future generations," he said.

"We shouldn't see this garbage as waste but wealth. And once we start doing that we would be able to find out several innovative ways of waste management," he said.

Lauding the "clean India" campaign, he said, "Swachhata has become a mass movement today. It has generated a spirit of competitiveness between the cities. Media too has played a vital role in furthering the message of cleanliness."

He also praised environmentalist Afroz Shah and his efforts towards cleaning Mumbai's dirtiest Versova's beach.

"I heartily congratulate Afroz Shah and his entire team for their efforts in cleaning Mumbai's Versova beach," Modi said in his 'Mann ki Baat' radio address.

He lauded the effort of Shah, saying that he started cleaning Versova in October 2015 and later it turned into a people's movement.

Versova beach has now been transformed into a clean and beautiful beach, he said.

See the rest here:
Mann Ki Baat: PM Modi talks about India's Independence struggle, clean India and waste management - Times of India

New York Times

Checking Democracy's Pulse New York Times American democracy remains healthy, but its health has worsened for the first time in recent history, according to a new survey of 1,126 political scientists. Three-quarters of respondents said the quality of United States democracy had declined in the ...

Follow this link:
Checking Democracy's Pulse - New York Times