Archive for the ‘Democracy’ Category

Finland holds public cabinet meeting to promote democracy – Reuters

PORVOO, Finland Finland's government held its weekly cabinet meeting in front of the glare of a live audience for the first time on Thursday, part of celebrations for the Nordic country's first hundred years of independence.

Ministers said they want to find ways of increasing openness and dialogue with voters after a low turnout -- 58.8 percent -- in April's local government elections.

At the meeting, which lasted about an hour, ministers took decisions on public office nominations and a body to handle compensation payments to forest owners for damages inflicted by wild animals.

Prime Minister Juha Sipila said it was business as usual.

"It seemed like a combination of playacting and actual decision-making", said Aki Saariaho from Open Network Finland which promotes open democracy.

"People should have more opportunities to interact with elected officials. But this is a good start."

Almost 600 people watched the cabinet in action in Porvoo, a town by the Baltic Sea where the first parliament of Grand Duchy of Finland convened in 1809 after becoming an autonomous part of the Russian Empire. It remained a part of the empire until 1917.

Today, Finland is ranked among the world's top ten most democratic countries, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit.

At the meeting, some ministers said they believed online tools could be used to deepen direct democracy at local government level, such as via online referendums, and supported lowering the voting age from 18 to 16.

Finance Minister Petteri Orpo said that cyber security would, however, need to be enhanced before online votes could be introduced. Social media already gave voters a platform to critique government, he said.

"For now, it's good that social media storms keep us awake and offer us kind of referendums that support the decision-making."

(Reporting by Tuomas Forsell and Jussi Rosendahl; editing by Richard Lough)

NEW YORK U.S. President Donald Trump held his first-face-to-face meeting with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on Thursday, and declared that they "get along great," following an acrimonious phone call in January that strained ties between the two allies.

CARACAS Supporters of jailed Venezuelan opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez held a vigil outside his prison demanding to see him on Thursday after rumors about his health rattled the protest-hit country where the death toll from anti-government unrest rose to 36.

WASHINGTON U.S. President Donald Trump said on Thursday he will travel to Saudi Arabia and Israel this month, kicking off his first foreign trip, where he will work to reinvigorate traditional alliances in the region.

Go here to see the original:
Finland holds public cabinet meeting to promote democracy - Reuters

An Essay On Democracy. – Constitution Society

Democracy. By Peter Landry.1

[TOC] Introduction:- Democracy is a tender topic for a writer: like motherhood and apple pie it is not to be criticized. One will risk being roundly condemned if he, or she, points out the serious bottleneck that is presented when a community attempts, through the democratic process, to set plans for positive social action. A man is not permitted to hesitate about its merits, without the suspicion of being a friend to tyranny, that is, of being a foe to mankind?2

The notions of government and of democracy are independent notions and do not, from what I can see, depend on one another. What is likely required for the masses of people, as we see in "modern" world societies, is an established system of government. Where there is a need for an established system of government, it will likely naturally come about; and do so, whether, or not, it has the consent of the people, -- real or imagined. Putting aside, for the moment, the arguments of Hobbes and Locke, I believe, on the basis of plain historical fact, that governments come about naturally and maintain themselves naturally without the general will of the people; indeed, I believe, with many others I suspect, that our long established democratic governments in the world (the United States and Canada being among them) did not come about by the general will of the people, at all; nor is it necessary that it should it be maintained by the will of the people.3 One should not conclude, therefore, that democracy is necessary for good government: It may not be. What is necessary for optimum prosperity is a state of acquiescence, which, as it happens, is the hallmark of western democracies. It may be, that the only thing needed is but the trappings of democracy.

An individual or group of individuals may take and maintain power by the use of coercive force. From history we can see that this is the usual way by which power is gained, and maintained. However, it has long been understood that people might come together and explicitly agree to put someone in power. The best of the thinkers saw a process, -- call it democracy -- by which groups might bloodlessly choose a leader. That each of the governed should have a say, or least an opportunity to have a say, is a high flying ideal; but any system by which the peace is kept is an admirable system and democracy, such as it has evolved, has proven, in many cases, to be just such a system.

A precise definition of democracy might be had by consulting the OED. Democracy is government by the people; a form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them. In modern use it vaguely denotes a social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege. Walter Bagehot gave it a more uncelestial definition: "Each man is to have one twelve-millionth share in electing a Parliament; the rich and the wise are not to have, by explicit law, more votes than the poor and stupid; nor are any latent contrivances to give them an influence equivalent to more votes."4

It is from the suffix, "-ocracy" by which we might determine the operative meaning of the larger word, "democracy"; it is the indicator of the dominant, superior, or aspiring class who would rule; it is derived from the Greek word kratos, meaning strength or power. Any word might be added to this suffix, which will then indicate the type of rule, such as: plutocracy (rule by the wealthy), ochlocracy (mob-rule), angelocracy (government by angels), etc. Democracy is the rule by, or the dominion of, the people; it comes from the Greek word, demos. It is often referred to as popular government. Democracy, historically speaking, is to be compared with monarchy, rule of one; or with aristocracy, rule of the "best-born," or rule of the nobles.

Whatever its origins (and we will consider its origins) democracy has come to mean a principle or system to which most all political parties of the western world, no matter their political beliefs, would subscribe. It is politics. It goes beyond the periodic act of voting; it is characterized by participation in government, viz., involving members of the community in governmental decisions, allowing them to take part in anything at all which amounts to a public demonstration of popular opinion.

[TOC] 1 - Grecian Democracy:- The first democracy, of which we have record, is that which was practiced in ancient Athens. In his capacity as a history writer, Aristotle, in his work, The Athenian Constitution (350 BC), writes that the Athenians practiced democracy only to the extent of putting and keeping in power members of a very exclusive group, a group which formed but a minority in the universal group we stylize as society. The Athenian constitution was oligarchical, in every respect. The poorer classes were the serfs of the rich. They cultivated the lands of the rich and paid rent. The whole country was in the hands of nine magistrates, called archons, who were elected according to qualifications of birth and wealth. These ruling magistrates held their positions for life, except for that latter period when they served for a term of ten years. In time, this Greek notion of democracy was set aside in favour of the draw.

Grecian democracy, however, such as it was, was soon covered over with the murk of the middle ages. Democracy's re-flowering in the world, in respect to the rights of the people, first appeared in England with the Glorious Revolution of 1688. A study of an era known as The Enlightenment, is the study of the beginnings of of modern democracy5.

[TOC] 2 - The Enlightenment:- Out of the Dark Ages, in gradual awaking stirs, came the Age of Reason. The enlightenment was fully established and growing vigorously by the eighteenth century. As the shackles of oppression, so firmly clamped on during the middle ages, became loose, men sought to apply reason to religion, politics, morality, and social life. With the coming of the enlightenment men began to express their minds; no longer were most all men cowed by the great mystery of the universe, and, their minds, through ignorance, ruled by fears: The Enlightenment was a time when human beings pulled themselves out of the medieval pits of mysticism. It was a spontaneous and defused movement which fed on itself and led to the great scientific discoveries from which we all benefit today. Beliefs in natural law and universal order sprung up, which not only promoted scientific findings and advancements of a material nature; but, which, also drove the great political thinkers of the time, such as: Francis Bacon (1561-1626), Bernard Mandeville (1670-1733), Charles Louis de Secondat Montesquieu (1689-1755), Voltaire (1694-1766), Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-88), David Hume (1711-76) and, of course the brightest political light of all, John Locke (1632-1704).

[TOC] 3 - Representative Government:- In England, Edward the First, in 1295, with a view to dealing with his impecuniosity, issued a writ to the sheriff of Northhampton. The people, of all things, were refusing to pay taxes and they were becoming belligerent. Edward was getting advise to the effect that it might be better to sit down with the people, or rather their representatives, than to let loose the royal troops. Letting the troops loose would be an act which would destroy the country's riches, a share of which the king wanted for himself. Thus, we would have seen the royal messenger riding out from the king's castle to deliver this royal writ to the sheriff of Northhampton. This royal writ of Edward's had the Latin words, elegi facis, meaning that the persons who were to sit on the people's Council (the beginnings of parliament) were to be elected headmen such as the burgesses and knights, and they were to have "full and sufficient power for themselves and the communities" which they represent; they were to come to Council -- ready, to conduct and to conclude the important business of the land.

Now, one of the most fundamental questions of politics - whether of 1295, or of modern day - is this: Should the representative, sent to the legislature -- assuming, in the first place, that he or she has canvassed the subject to be voted upon and all the far flung consequences of it -- vote the way the majority of his constituents would have him vote; or, should he vote on the basis of what he thinks is right, no matter that it may run against the majority of what his constituents would like. Edmund Burke, a most brilliant political thinker, thought that the representative should vote his conscience.6

It should be remembered, too, that any decision made and action taken in an assembly of "our" representatives can be done on the barest majority of a group; which might have been elected on the barest majority of a popular vote; which majority of a popular vote, might well, and usually does, represent a minority of the population. How can it ever be stated that any particular government measure will accord with the wishes of the majority?8

[TOC] 5 - Democracy In Action:- In a monarchy, or, for that matter, any state where rule is carried out by a privileged class without consulting with the masses in any direct way, it was recognized, at least in the 18th and 19th centuries, that what was needed was a submissive, a confident and a stupid people. Such people in these earlier centuries existed in predominate numbers. Sadly, yet today, even as the 21st century dawns, it is rare, even in the western democracies, to find many people who are independently working through for themselves and taking fixed positions on important political concepts such as democracy, freedom and government. For democracy to work there must, as a prerequisite, be a people educated and be a people ready to inform themselves of the great issues which face them. Unfortunately, a politically educated public, this important ingredient to the proper working of democracy, is missing.

First off, it must be recognized, that the country is not run, at least not in between elections, with the executive checking with the people by way of referenda (as the Swiss do). However, the people who possess government power and who would like to keep it, are bound to proceed on the basis of popular opinion; the difficulty is that public opinion arises as a result of an agenda which is set by minority groups to which vote chasing politicians cow, a process which is generally aided and abetted by an ignorant press.

[TOC] 6 Democracy, Government, and Freedom:- Democracy, in my view, is only compatible with a free economy; it can only exist, in substance, in an economy of ideas. Like a fish to water, democracy can only exists in a total atmosphere of freedom of action; it is completely incompatible with a system that provides for a governing authority with coercive power. If one accepts (anarchists, for example, do not) that a government, to some extent or other, is necessary for a civilized society, then it is to be recognized that the business of governing (as apart from the business of electing representatives) cannot be conducted in democratic matter. Lippmann deals with this problem:

[TOC] 7 - The Press and Democracy:- To begin with: those charged with informing the public, such as our journalists, should very carefully examine the "expert evidence" that is thrown their way. Our government experts must be cross-examined and asked if they have any interest in the outcome? The answer is that most of them do -- if, for no other reason, than they are in the pay of the government, as either; bureaucrats, lodged in the upper end of the government echelon; or those resting in publicly funded universities; or those who are in the social welfare business.

The result of the syndrome is predictable, for, as the public conflict grows, people come to doubt expert pronouncements. Normally people primarily judge the propositions before them in a most obvious way, by their source. For example, "Of course she claims oil spills are harmless - she works for Exxon." "Of course he says Exxon lies - he works for Nader." When established experts lose credibility, the demagogues take over and we are left in our mass democracy with groups trying to outshout one another.

[TOC] 8 - The People:- I now deal with the concept, "the people": and, in particular Burke's notion that it consists of not just the aggregate of living persons, but; "those that are dead and those who are to be born."

In the days prior to 1832, great large populated areas, for example, Manchester in England, were not represented by a seat in parliament; while little villages, particularly in the south of England, had a seat, sometimes more than one. While some of the larger county seats were somewhat democratic, the little southern village seats were totally in the pockets of the local lords.10 The Great Reform Bill of 1832 fundamentally redefined the electoral districts, thus came the end of the pocket boroughs.11 Since 1832, Britain (and, thus, in modern day Canada) there exists a permanent commission on electoral boundaries.

All that I can see of democracy's role is to put into place those people; who, in a very general way, represent the views of the majority, or rather the views of the party to whom they owe their advancement. This of course is a recipe for the oppression of the minorities (no matter from which strata of society they come; and, no matter whether any particular individual from within society likes the party policies, or not).

Thus, democracy, as past experience will demonstrate, works only where the population shares, fundamentally, the same goals and aspirations. Historically, God and country have been the two banners under which the great masses could proudly stand; but, in a modern society, God and country mean less and less, while, at the same time, the goals and aspirations of various groups increase and diverge. It maybe that democracy is, and, indeed, has always been, unworkable; but we must continue to hold the ideal high and see to it that its trappings are securely fixed in place as, well -- as a bulwark, such as it is, against tyrannical rule.13

The reality is that we are forever fixed with a oligarchy (government of the few) masquerading as a democracy. The purpose of the ruling few is to execute its constitutional functions, which, because democracy is unworkable, should be tightly circumscribed. The ideal of democracy is to be promoted, as it has been, to the rulers and the ruled, as a sacred icon; never mind that it cannot be used to put a society into action, to pass laws, and never mind that it rarely will cast up honest and wise leaders; it is, in the final analysis, a system that will routinely and expensively rotate those in charge; a manner of bloodlessly changing the guard.

[TOC] QUOTES:-

1 Peter Landry is a lawyer and has been, for 20 years, in private practice in the City of Dartmouth. He invites correspondence on the topic and may be contacted at P.O. Box 1200, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, B2Y 4B8, or at peteblu@blupete.com.

2 It was Edmund Burke (not Churchill as so many believe) who first said that "democracy is the only tolerable form into which human society can be thrown ..."

3 The British settlers, on coming to colonize the eastern seaboard of the North American continent, arrived with but a few physical possessions; what they did have, in full measure, was their love of freedom, a condition which very much defined them. The roots of democracy and freedom for all "western" democracies are planted in the rich history of Britain beginning with the Magna Carta. Enough to point out that when Captain Christopher Jones and his officers, together with their crew and their passengers disembarked from the Mayflower, in December of 1620, the pilgrims drew up a compact that provided for the government of the colony by the will of the majority.

5 In fact there is no specific date to which we can point. Human rights, a subject I deal with elsewhere, came about only through deep and long struggles culminating in historical declarations such as the Magna Carta (1215) and the Petition of Right (1628, "A man cannot be compelled to give evidence against himself"); but it is only with English Bill of Rights in 1689 that we see any real progress in the evolution of law designed to protect the "rights" of the normal citizen. With the defeat of James at the Battle of the Boyne, the claim of divine right or hereditary right independent of law was formally brought to an end. Ever since, an English monarch is "as much the creature of an act of parliament as the pettiest tax-gatherer in his realm." (Green, vol. IX, p. 58.)

6 We do not want our medical doctor doing what we want; but, rather, in the final analysis, what the doctor thinks is best for our health and our life.

8 There is nothing new about this line of thinking, see John Stuart Mill. John Buchanan (The Nobel Laureate in Economic Science in 1986) and Gordon Tullock in their work, The Calculus of Consent, have shown in an "irrefutable way that whenever a minority is well organized and determined to bribe as many voters as necessary in order to have a majority ready to pass a desired decision, the majority rule works much more in favour of such minorities than is commonly supposed." (Leoni, Op. cit., p. 242.)

9 See Burke's speech, On the Reform of the Representation of the Commons in Parliament (1784).

10 "Devonshire was a great maritime county when the foundations of our representation were fixed; Somersetshire and Wiltshire great manufacturing counties. The harsher climate of the northern counties was associated with a ruder, a sterner, and a sparser people." [Bagehot, Op. cit., at p. 146.]

11 In 1830 the British Commons represented an electorate of about 220,000 out of a total population of approximately 14 million, or about 3 percent of the adult population. (See Leoni, Op. cit., p. 115.)

13 It was Sir William Temple (1628-99), one of the architects of the Glorious Revolution, who was of the view that states often fell "under Tyrannies, which spring naturally out of Popular Governments." Since, this observation has proved to be true, time and time again.

Read the original here:
An Essay On Democracy. - Constitution Society

What does democracy mean? – Definitions.net

democracy

A form of government with a fair voting system that ensures a form of proportional representation that reflects and represents the collective and inclusive interest and will of the eligible electorate, citizens and people of the country and their jurisdiction, that empowers the will of the eligible electorate, citizens and people and provides them with the vital processes, procedures, structures, systems and technology to ensure they are consulted directly on the proposal, development and creation of governmental constitution, policies, procedures, structures, systems, law and legislation to ensure the collective and inclusive choices, interest, opinion, will and voices of the eligible electorate, citizens and people of the country are heard.

Democracy is vital to the creation of sustainable peace between ALL nations on planet Earth and to ensure the citizens, people and the eligible electorate are consulted in the proposal, development and creation of laws and legislation to ensure a fair, just, equal and inclusive society that works for the benefit of ALL.

Excerpt from:
What does democracy mean? - Definitions.net

Democracy : Programs | Carnegie Corporation of New York

To foster a pluralistic, vibrant democracy through the civic integration of immigrants, support for nonpartisan voter registration and education, and voting rights.

Carnegie Corporation of New York salutes the legacy of Andrew Carnegie and other immigrants every July 4th. Join us by exploring an inspiring group of well known naturalized citizens from all walks of life the Pride of America who have made notable contributions to the progress of our society.

A committee of experts appointed by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine examined the available research to assess how immigrants are integrating into American society.The final report came out in the fall of 2015, and can be viewedin the following interactive entitledIntegration.

READ ON

Donald Trump has defied the political establishment on his way to the 2016 Republican Party Convention.But for Robert P. Jones, the CEO of the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), understanding Trumps base is a matter of understandinghow white, Christian values voters have become nostalgia voters.

Read On

An author's eulogy for "White Christian America"The demographic makeup of America is undergoing a visible change, and with it, Americas culturelongdominated by white Christian cultureand American power structures are also shifting. Thats the premise of Carnegie Corporation grantee Robert Joness new book, The End of White Christian America. Carnegie Corporation trusteeJudy Woodruff speaks with Jones to learnmore. Read on

On the Voter Experience The Corporations Geri Mannion on her recent voting experience and the challenges facing voting technology. Read On

Read more here:
Democracy : Programs | Carnegie Corporation of New York

South Korea’s likely next president asks the US to respect its democracy – Washington Post

SEONGNAM, South Korea South Korea is on the brink of electing a liberal president with distinctlydifferent ideas than the Trump administration on how to deal with North Korea potentially complicating efforts to punish Kim Jong Uns regime.

He is also a candidate who fears that the U.S. government has been acting to box him in on a controversial American missile defense system and circumvent South Koreas democratic process.

I dont believe the U.S. has the intention [to influence our election], but I do have some reservations, Moon Jae-in told The Washington Post in an interview.

Barring a major upset, Moon will become South Koreas president Tuesday, replacing Park Geun-hye, who was impeached in March and is on trial on bribery charges. Because Park was dismissed from office, Moon will immediately become president if elected, without the usual transition period.

[ Transcript of the Post interview with South Korean presidential candidate Moon Jae-in ]

(Jason Aldag/The Washington Post)

With Moon pledging to review the Park governments decision to deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) antimissile system, the U.S. military has acted swiftly to get it up and running. This has sparked widespread criticism here that the United States is trying to make it difficult, if not impossible, for Moon to reverse it.

The final components for THAAD were taken to the site in the middle of the night last week, triggering protests, and the system became operational Monday. It is designed to shoot down North Korean missiles, but many in South Korea fear it will make them more of a target.

[ Controversial missile defense shield operational in South Korea ]

It is not desirable for the [caretaker] South Korean government to deploy THAAD hastily at this politically sensitive time, with the presidential election approaching, and without going through the democratic process, an environmental assessment or a public hearing, said Moon, sitting on the floor in a Korean restaurant after an evening rally in Seongnam, south of Seoul.

Would it happen this way in the United States? Could the administration make a unilateral decision without following democratic procedures, without ratification or agreement by Congress?

Privately, Moon aides say they are furious about what they see as the expedited installation of THAAD. U.S. Forces Korea said the deployment is in line with plans to have the system operational as soon as possible.

But Moon warned that the U.S. actions could undermine south Koreans faith in Washington and complicate the countries security alliance.

If South Korea can have more time to process this matter democratically, the U.S. will gain a higher level of trust from South Koreans and, therefore, the alliance between the two nations will become even stronger, Moon said.

But in a move that shocked South Koreans, President Trump said last week that he would make Seoul pay $1 billion for THAAD, despite an agreement that South Korea provides the land and the United States supplies and operates the battery.

Far from hurting Moon, Trumps insistence could actually boost Moons chances of becoming president, as it has angered people who were on the fence about THAAD and further enraged the systems opponents.

Is South Korea a colony that has to cough up cash whenever the U.S. wants it to? Park Hee-ju, an anti-THAAD activist, told the left-leaning Hankyoreh newspaper, which Moon helped found.

Even conservative papers have been taken aback. Trumps mouth rocking South Korean-U.S. alliance, declared a headline in the right-wing Chosun Ilbo.

[ In South Korea, mystification over Trumps defense and trade comments ]

Moon, 64, a former human rights lawyer who was chief of staff to former progressive president Roh Moo-hyun, has a commanding lead in opinion polls. He regularly attracts twice the support his closest rival, centrist Ahn Cheol-soo, does.

Thanks to THAAD, and to North Koreas recent provocations and Trumps tough talk, foreign policy is at the top of the election agenda.

Moon, who is closely associated with the sunshine policy of engagement with North Korea, could hardly be more different from Park or from Trump.

He wants to reopen an inter- Korean industrial park and in TV debateshas talked about South Korea taking the initiative on North Korea. He wants South Korea, not the United States, to have operational control of the military alliance if a war breaks out.

American analysts say that some of Moons campaign pledges such as his promise to reopen the industrial park are fantastical, and the candidate struck a markedly more measured, more diplomatic tone in the interview.

The answer is no, Moon said when asked whether he would seek to rebalance the security alliance with the United States.

I believe the alliance between the two nations is the most important foundation for our diplomacy and national security. South Korea was able to build its national security, thanks to the U.S., and the two nations will work together on the North Korean nuclear issue.

But Moondid say he wants South Korea to be able to take the lead on matters on the Korean Peninsula.

I do not see it as desirable for South Korea to take the back seat and watch discussions between the U.S. and China, he said, although he would not approach or open talks with North Korea without fully consulting the United States.

[ President Trump says he would be honored to meet with North Korean dictator ]

Moon has said he would be willing to go to anywhere, including Pyongyang, to make progress on denuclearizing North Korea.

I could sit down with Kim Jong Un, but I will not meet him for the sake of meeting him, he said. I will meet Kim Jong Un when preconditions of resolving the nuclear issue are assured.

There is some overlap here. Trump said this week that he would be honored to meet Kim under the right circumstances. This comment struck a markedly different tone from Trumps recent talk about the potential for military action, the deployment of warships to the region and the possibility of a major, major conflict.

Indeed, Moon stressed the factors that he and Trump have in common such as their belief that the Obama administration policy of strategic patience toward North Korea was a failure. Moon agreed with Trumps method of applying sanctions and pressure to bring North Korea back to negotiations although this is essentially what strategic patience was.

I believe President Trump is more reasonable than he is generally perceived, Moon said. President Trump uses strong rhetoric toward North Korea, but, during the election campaign, he also said he could talk over a burger with Kim Jong Un. I am for that kind of pragmatic approach to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue.

Even if there is a large divide between Moon and Trump on most issues related to North Korea, analysts doubt this will put much strain on the alliance.

For the last decades, through two conservative presidents, South Korea had a more friendly relationship with the United States, said Kang Won-taek, a professor of political science at Seoul National University.

Moon Jae-ins position is clearly different from those conservative presidents, but, generally speaking, I dont think relations between the two countries will change that much, Kang said. After all, we have a common enemy.

Yoonjung Seo contributed to this report.

Read more

North Korea fires another ballistic missile, the 75th of Kim Jong Uns tenure

Worried about North Korea? Spare a thought for Otto Warmbiers family.

Trump is not ruling out military action against North Korea

Todays coverage from Post correspondents around the world

Like Washington Post World on Facebook and stay updated on foreign news

See the rest here:
South Korea's likely next president asks the US to respect its democracy - Washington Post