Mediaboss Marketing

Its been said that winning entities -- whether sports teams, warring countries or business rivals -- share one overriding characteristic: they minimize their serious errors. An occasional misstep along the way perhaps, but they rarely beat themselves with a critical unforced error.

Certainly, Bostons two highest-profile sports teams have displayed opposite sides of that trait: for decades the hapless Red Sox would find a way to snatch defeat from the virtually-certain jaws of victory, from Johnny Pesky inexplicably holding the ball allowing the Cards to win the World Series in 1946, to no defensive replacement for Bill Buckner against the Mets in 1986, to leaving Pedro in against the Yankees too long in 2003 when it was obvious to everyone that he was out of gas. The Patriots, on the other hand, always seem to find a way to win, defying the odds time after time and making all the clutch plays. They hardly ever commit grievous mistakes that doom their effort. Talk to the great golfers and theyll tell you the same thing: Its not scoring eagles and holes-in-one that count, its the avoidance of the disastrous double and triple bogeys that makes for a winning round. Not so much getting the 2 on a Par 4 as it is avoiding the 7. In boxing, they say, Dont fight the other guys fight. Dont hook with a hooker.

Minimize the errors. Avoid the mistakes. Play or fight smart. War is no different --the winning side is usually the one that commits fewer major blunders.

This is instructive as we look at Germany and Britain in the early stages of World War II. War in Europe erupted on September 1, 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. Poland fell within weeks and after a quiet winter period known as the Phony War, Germany resumed large-scale hostilities in the spring of 1940. German forces smashed through the Low Countries of Holland and Belgium and swung around to invade France from a point behind its main defensive eastern border with Germany.

With German forces slicing through the French countryside, France found itself in grave danger of quick defeat. The British sent military aid to France (The British Expeditionary Force or BEF), but it was a lost cause. The French -- despite their world-leading military efforts against Germany in World War 1 (1914-1918) -- showed no real interest in fighting for their homelands survival this time, and French resistance quickly collapsed. By the end of May 1940, the Germans had pushed French, British, and other Allied forces to the French coastal town of Dunkirk. There, virtually the entirety of the European Allied armed forces were cornered and defenseless, awaiting destruction at the hands of German Panzer divisions.

However, using sports analogies again, Germany 3-putted. They dropped the game-ending pop-up. They missed the gimmie 20-yard winning field goal. They let the Allied armies escape largely intact, as Britain organized an unlikely, heroic boatlift and carried nearly 400,000 soldiers off the beaches and safely back to England. Confusion and political infighting on the Germans side over what forces to use and how best to attack led to one of historys greatest military unforced errors. With a decisive victory easily within their grasp, the Germans let it get away. And almost a half-million Allied soldiers lived to fight another day.

Still, the big-picture war situation for Britain was dire. They stood alone against Germany and a very substantial portion of their equipment had been abandoned on the beaches of Dunkirk. A final, conquering German invasion of England was sure to come, probably by fall 1940.

But before a sea-launched invasion could take place, Germany would need to establish air superiority over southern England, destroy their major logistical and defensive targets and reduce the effective fighting strength of the Royal Air Force (RAF) to the point where it didnt pose a major threat to German invasion forces.

The German air offensive against Britain that began in the summer of 1940 is known as The Battle of Britain. All of Western society and culture as we have come to know it depended on the outcome of this battle. Had Britain lost, the world would be in a completely different condition today. Very, very few large-scale armed events from the last 50-75 years -- not Stalingrad in 1943, Korea 1950-53, Vietnam 1964-75 or Iraq in 1991 -- carried anywhere near the same everything in Western culture will change instantly potential as did a British loss to the Germans in 1940.

Unlike the Pacific, where it could be convincingly argued that Americas inherent structural advantages over Japan in raw materials, industrial capability, and matriel would eventually prevail, no such absolute guarantee could be made for the West vs. Germany, especially absent the logistical staging/launching point that the actual physical island of England represented. Germany had immense industrial capability, very advanced technology and unfettered access to crude oil reserves, crucial to sustaining long-term military operations.

Therefore, without Britain, a continued European war against Germany mighthave provenimpossible -- hence the significance of the immediacy of Britains survival.

Germany began its air operations in July 1940. Even though its Heinkel 111, Dornier 17, and Junkers 88 bomber aircraft were better-suited for tactical close-support missions than the longer-range strategic responsibilities they were being tasked with here, the Germans could have accomplished the goals set before them had they followed a sound strategy.

Broadly stated, those responsibilities were:

This was all well within Germanys equipment and technical capabilities at the time. Initially, they followed the anti-fighter base strategy and it was effective. British commanders privately worried amongst themselves that Fighter Command would not remain an effective fighting force much past late summer of 1940 if German attacks continued apace. But the Law of Unforced Military Errors intervened and Britains fighter force -- the Wests lifeline -- was spared virtually certain destruction.

Rivals: British Supermarine Spitfire I and German Messerschmitt BF109 E-4

For reasons still not entirely clear to historians, Germany abruptly switched its tactics from attacking British fighter airfields and instead began bombing British cities. Some people have put forth the theory that the Germans mistakenly bombed London in late August, causing the British to retaliate by bombing Berlin on August 25th. The Germans, not realizing their navigational error that led to them bombing London, thought that Britain was initiating a war on their cities, so they responded in kind.

Others posit that Hitler, accustomed to very fast victories early in the war and growing increasingly impatient with the slow progress of the air campaign that was dragging on for months, wanted to switch tactics. They say he felt that bombing British cities would break the will and spirit of the British public and cause them to pressure their government into surrender in order to stop the destruction and civilian casualties.

Regardless of the actual reason, the Germans did change their tactics from a game-winning strategy to a game-losing one. With the pressure off their airfields, British fighter strength recovered. Technical and performance shortcomings of German bombers (such as short range/limited time-over-target and inadequate, small bomb loads) were exacerbated, since the large cities were farther away (forcing the Germans to trade bombs for added fuel) and the small bomb loads limited the amount of truly serious damage that could be inflicted.

British fighter strength increased. German losses mounted. The amount of strategic damage inflicted by the Germans that curtailed the Brtis ability to actually wage an effective defensive war was markedly reduced. Although tragic, the air attacks on London increased the British publics resolve to keep fighting.

By the late fall of 1940, far from having established air superiority in preparation for an invasion of Britain, the Germans had been fought into a bloody stalemate. Numerical fighter losses on each side were roughly equal. German tactics and bomber aircraft had been exposed as woefully inadequate for the task. A likely winning starting strategy to the battle was switched for no militarily sound reason partway through the conflict, and Britain survived.

And so too, arguably, did Western culture and democracy as we know it today.

Its been said that winning entities -- whether sports teams, warring countries or business rivals -- share one overriding characteristic: they minimize their serious errors. An occasional misstep along the way perhaps, but they rarely beat themselves with a critical unforced error.

Certainly, Bostons two highest-profile sports teams have displayed opposite sides of that trait: for decades the hapless Red Sox would find a way to snatch defeat from the virtually-certain jaws of victory, from Johnny Pesky inexplicably holding the ball allowing the Cards to win the World Series in 1946, to no defensive replacement for Bill Buckner against the Mets in 1986, to leaving Pedro in against the Yankees too long in 2003 when it was obvious to everyone that he was out of gas. The Patriots, on the other hand, always seem to find a way to win, defying the odds time after time and making all the clutch plays. They hardly ever commit grievous mistakes that doom their effort. Talk to the great golfers and theyll tell you the same thing: Its not scoring eagles and holes-in-one that count, its the avoidance of the disastrous double and triple bogeys that makes for a winning round. Not so much getting the 2 on a Par 4 as it is avoiding the 7. In boxing, they say, Dont fight the other guys fight. Dont hook with a hooker.

Minimize the errors. Avoid the mistakes. Play or fight smart. War is no different --the winning side is usually the one that commits fewer major blunders.

This is instructive as we look at Germany and Britain in the early stages of World War II. War in Europe erupted on September 1, 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. Poland fell within weeks and after a quiet winter period known as the Phony War, Germany resumed large-scale hostilities in the spring of 1940. German forces smashed through the Low Countries of Holland and Belgium and swung around to invade France from a point behind its main defensive eastern border with Germany.

With German forces slicing through the French countryside, France found itself in grave danger of quick defeat. The British sent military aid to France (The British Expeditionary Force or BEF), but it was a lost cause. The French -- despite their world-leading military efforts against Germany in World War 1 (1914-1918) -- showed no real interest in fighting for their homelands survival this time, and French resistance quickly collapsed. By the end of May 1940, the Germans had pushed French, British, and other Allied forces to the French coastal town of Dunkirk. There, virtually the entirety of the European Allied armed forces were cornered and defenseless, awaiting destruction at the hands of German Panzer divisions.

However, using sports analogies again, Germany 3-putted. They dropped the game-ending pop-up. They missed the gimmie 20-yard winning field goal. They let the Allied armies escape largely intact, as Britain organized an unlikely, heroic boatlift and carried nearly 400,000 soldiers off the beaches and safely back to England. Confusion and political infighting on the Germans side over what forces to use and how best to attack led to one of historys greatest military unforced errors. With a decisive victory easily within their grasp, the Germans let it get away. And almost a half-million Allied soldiers lived to fight another day.

Still, the big-picture war situation for Britain was dire. They stood alone against Germany and a very substantial portion of their equipment had been abandoned on the beaches of Dunkirk. A final, conquering German invasion of England was sure to come, probably by fall 1940.

But before a sea-launched invasion could take place, Germany would need to establish air superiority over southern England, destroy their major logistical and defensive targets and reduce the effective fighting strength of the Royal Air Force (RAF) to the point where it didnt pose a major threat to German invasion forces.

The German air offensive against Britain that began in the summer of 1940 is known as The Battle of Britain. All of Western society and culture as we have come to know it depended on the outcome of this battle. Had Britain lost, the world would be in a completely different condition today. Very, very few large-scale armed events from the last 50-75 years -- not Stalingrad in 1943, Korea 1950-53, Vietnam 1964-75 or Iraq in 1991 -- carried anywhere near the same everything in Western culture will change instantly potential as did a British loss to the Germans in 1940.

Unlike the Pacific, where it could be convincingly argued that Americas inherent structural advantages over Japan in raw materials, industrial capability, and matriel would eventually prevail, no such absolute guarantee could be made for the West vs. Germany, especially absent the logistical staging/launching point that the actual physical island of England represented. Germany had immense industrial capability, very advanced technology and unfettered access to crude oil reserves, crucial to sustaining long-term military operations.

Therefore, without Britain, a continued European war against Germany mighthave provenimpossible -- hence the significance of the immediacy of Britains survival.

Germany began its air operations in July 1940. Even though its Heinkel 111, Dornier 17, and Junkers 88 bomber aircraft were better-suited for tactical close-support missions than the longer-range strategic responsibilities they were being tasked with here, the Germans could have accomplished the goals set before them had they followed a sound strategy.

Broadly stated, those responsibilities were:

This was all well within Germanys equipment and technical capabilities at the time. Initially, they followed the anti-fighter base strategy and it was effective. British commanders privately worried amongst themselves that Fighter Command would not remain an effective fighting force much past late summer of 1940 if German attacks continued apace. But the Law of Unforced Military Errors intervened and Britains fighter force -- the Wests lifeline -- was spared virtually certain destruction.

Rivals: British Supermarine Spitfire I and German Messerschmitt BF109 E-4

For reasons still not entirely clear to historians, Germany abruptly switched its tactics from attacking British fighter airfields and instead began bombing British cities. Some people have put forth the theory that the Germans mistakenly bombed London in late August, causing the British to retaliate by bombing Berlin on August 25th. The Germans, not realizing their navigational error that led to them bombing London, thought that Britain was initiating a war on their cities, so they responded in kind.

Others posit that Hitler, accustomed to very fast victories early in the war and growing increasingly impatient with the slow progress of the air campaign that was dragging on for months, wanted to switch tactics. They say he felt that bombing British cities would break the will and spirit of the British public and cause them to pressure their government into surrender in order to stop the destruction and civilian casualties.

Regardless of the actual reason, the Germans did change their tactics from a game-winning strategy to a game-losing one. With the pressure off their airfields, British fighter strength recovered. Technical and performance shortcomings of German bombers (such as short range/limited time-over-target and inadequate, small bomb loads) were exacerbated, since the large cities were farther away (forcing the Germans to trade bombs for added fuel) and the small bomb loads limited the amount of truly serious damage that could be inflicted.

British fighter strength increased. German losses mounted. The amount of strategic damage inflicted by the Germans that curtailed the Brtis ability to actually wage an effective defensive war was markedly reduced. Although tragic, the air attacks on London increased the British publics resolve to keep fighting.

By the late fall of 1940, far from having established air superiority in preparation for an invasion of Britain, the Germans had been fought into a bloody stalemate. Numerical fighter losses on each side were roughly equal. German tactics and bomber aircraft had been exposed as woefully inadequate for the task. A likely winning starting strategy to the battle was switched for no militarily sound reason partway through the conflict, and Britain survived.

And so too, arguably, did Western culture and democracy as we know it today.

The rest is here:
The Battle of Britain Saved Western Democracy - American Thinker

GERMAN PRESIDENT-ELECT Frank-Walter Steinmeier gives a speech after the first round of voting in the German presidential election at the Reichstag in Berlin last month. But are dark, undemocratic clouds gathering?. (photo credit:REUTERS)

It is now undeniable that Britains decision to leave the European Union and Donald Trumps election as president of the United States are part of a much broader global change. The coming to power of conservative right-wing governments in Hungary, Poland and the Philippines; the increased strength and influence of Russian President Vladimir Putin; the draconian steps taken by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey, and the iron fist of President Abdel Fattah Sisi in Egypt are all part of this phenomenon. Israel can also be added to this ignominious list.

Eyes are now set on the upcoming elections in the Netherlands, France and Germany, in which rightwing candidates are set to gain strength or even control of the government.

The global rise of the Right poses a grave threat to liberal values, and in some cases could even lead to the collapse of democratic regimes. The process can be traced to the early 2000s, when, according to political scientist Larry Diamond, 27 democratic governments collapsed. Freedom House shows that in 2000, 63% of the worlds population lived under democratic regimes, but by 2013, this percentage dropped to 40%.

Scholars and journalists quickly labeled this the end of liberalism or the collapse of the global liberal order.

The reasons for this phenomenon are diverse: globalization, which made it possible for corporations to accumulate tremendous wealth at the expense of ordinary citizens and led to the loss of jobs due to factory relocations to cheap labor countries; the influx of millions of refugees to first-world countries, as a result of civil wars, unemployment and famine, has threatened traditional demographic divisions; and widespread terrorism has re-awakened deep-rooted fears and prompted isolationism.

These changes have had two main outcomes: first, hopes for strong regimes and charismatic leaders who can bring order and counter such threats. Second, a strengthening of local identities, whether through narrow-minded intolerant nationalism bordering on fascism in countries that enjoy territorial legitimacy (in the West), or through religious fundamentalism in others (in parts of Africa and the Middle East).

In retrospect, the outcome is not entirely unexpected.

Samuel Huntington, who analyzed the third wave of democracy in global history which began in the mid-1970s in Portugal and peaked with the collapse of the Soviet Union argued that each of the two previous waves of democratization was followed by a counter- wave: Between 1820 and 1922, 29 democracies were established. The counter-wave was initiated in 1922 with the rise to power of Benito Mussolini in Italy and continued in 1933 with the Nazi regime in Germany.

Democracys second wave began after World War II, and reached its peak in 1962. During that period, the number of democracies increased to 36. This, too, was followed by a counter-wave, between 1962 and 1975, reducing the number of democracies to 30 (while not a significant decline in absolute terms, this still was a 20% decline).

In democracys third wave, which began in Portugal in 1974 and ended in 1990, 30 more countries became democracies. According to Huntingtons analysis, the counter-wave to each wave of democracy was the result of anti-liberal and anti-democratic political, cultural and societal forces.

On the one hand, this approach offers some optimism, as the waves are related and a positive wave is expected to follow every negative wave. This approach is, however, beleaguered by two problems: first, based on the past, the transition from one wave to another occurs only after a devastating war (World War II) or revolution (the collapse of the Soviet Union). Should democracys fourth wave actually take place, it may likely begin only after a major catastrophe of as yet unforeseeable proportions. Second, there is no way to predict the duration of the current wave. In the past, counter-waves never lasted longer than two decades, but we are not even sure if the current anti-democratic wave, if it indeed commenced in the early 2000s, has even reached its peak. In any case, this counter-wave seems to be here to stay for the coming years.

These developments should rally all liberal forces from all parts of the political spectrum into action.

It would first be wise to recognize the enormity of the threat to liberal values, which until recently were considered universal values. Actions to confront these threats should be taken at the national level, but transnational coalitions are also necessary to defend a joint liberal, democratic vision. Liberal and democratic voices are everywhere, including Israel, and its high time that they start acting in concert. After all, even in the US, more than half of the votes in the recent election were cast for a candidate who represented an alternative worldview and not the worldview that won the elections. This, if you will, is an alternative fact, although in this case it is true. Being aware of these global trends is the first step toward mobilizing all the liberal forces in Israel, and the world at large, in order to ensure that the third counter-wave will become a transitional phenomenon.

The author teaches at the Department of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and is a board member of Mitvim the Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies.

Relevant to your professional network? Please share on Linkedin

Prev Article

The Shaked-Levin initiative

LETTERS:Pledge of allegiance

Next Article

See more here:
The third counter-wave to democracy and liberalism - Jerusalem Post Israel News

Despite these disagreements, Americans are relatively liberal compared to countries across the world, where the consequences for gay or transgender citizens are far more dire.

In Europe and here in the Americas, only a minority of people believe that homosexuality is never justified. The percentage increases in places like Russia, India and China. In Africa, the Middle East and parts of Southeast Asia, attitudes become even more conservative.

Why are there such big differences in public opinion about homosexuality? My book, Cross-National Public Opinion about Homosexuality, shows that a key part of the answer comes in understanding how national characteristics shape individuals attitudes.

Within countries, a similar set of demographic characteristics tend to influence how people feel about homosexuality. For example, women tend to be more liberal than men. Older people tend to be more conservative than younger ones. Muslims are more likely to disapprove of homosexuality than Catholics, Jews and mainline Protestants.

Just like people, countries too have particular characteristics that can sway residents attitudes about homosexuality. I have analyzed data from over 80 nations from the last three waves of the World Values Survey, the oldest noncommercial, cross-national examination of individuals attitudes, values and beliefs over time. It is the only academic survey to include people from both very rich and poor countries, in all of the worlds major cultural zones. It now has surveys from almost 400,000 respondents.

My analysis shows that differences in attitudes between nations can largely be explained by three factors: economic development, democracy and religion.

Money matters

Sweden, Switzerland and the Netherlands are some of the richest nations in the world. They are also some of the most tolerant. In sharp contrast, countries like Uganda and Nigeria are quite poor and the vast majority of residents disapprove.

How does the amount of money a country has shape attitudes? In very poor countries, people are likely to be more concerned about basic survival. Parents may worry about how to obtain clean water and food for their children. Residents may feel that if they stick together and work closely with friends, family and community members, they will lead a more predictable and stable life. In this way, social scientists have found that a group mentality may develop, encouraging people to think in similar ways and discouraging individual differences.

Because of the focus on group loyalty and tradition, many residents from poorer countries are likely to view homosexuality as highly problematic. It violates traditional sensibilities. Many people may feel that LGBTQ individuals should conform to dominant heterosexual and traditional family norms.

Conversely, residents from richer nations are less dependent on the group and less concerned about basic survival. They have more freedom to choose their partners and lifestyle. Even in relatively rich countries like the United States, some people will still find homosexuality problematic. But, many will also be supportive.

Regardless of how much money they make, most people living in poorer countries are likely to be affected by cultural norms that focus on survival and group loyalty, leading to more disapproval.

Freedom of speech

The type of government also matters. People living in more democratic countries tend to be more supportive of homosexuality.

Democracy increases tolerance by exposing residents to new perspectives. Democracy also encourages people to respect individuals rights, regardless of whether they personally like the people being protected.

Freedom of speech also allows residents to protest and not be arrested. When residents feel that they can freely express their ideas, they become even more inclined to speak up for themselves and others. This leads to more tolerance.

Dominant religious views

The final factor shaping individuals attitudes is religion. Countries dominated by Islam, Eastern Orthodoxy and those that have a mixture of conservative and mainline Protestant faiths are more likely to disapprove.

In contrast, nations dominated by mainline Protestant religions and Catholicism such as Sweden, Spain and the United Kingdom are much more liberal.

Why are people from Muslim majority nations so opposed to homosexuality? Both Islam and conservative Protestant faiths generate high levels of religious belief. Most religious texts say that homosexuality is problematic. More religious people are more likely to take these religious precepts seriously. When a large proportion of people are highly dedicated to their religion, everyone within the country tends to develop more conservative views.

In these countries, the media are likely to reflect dominant religious views. Schools and businesses are more likely to support religious perspectives that disapprove of homosexuality. The government may censor the media so that they do not violate religious sensibilities. They may also restrict nonprofit organizations and human rights groups that promote views inconsistent with conservative religious values. Religious friends and family members are likely to reinforce anti-homosexual views.

Finally, there may not be any gay bars or other places to meet people with friendlier attitudes in these countries. Likewise, there may be limited internet access where residents could get more information about gay men and lesbians. In these countries most people are likely to disapprove, regardless of whether or not they are personally religious.

Are most nations becoming more liberal?

In 1996, there were only six nations that allowed for civil union or marriage. Seventeen years later, 43 nations allowed for it.

However, there has also been an increase in the number of nations that have a constitution or legal ban on homosexuality, indicating that there seems to have been a small backlash. These actions could be a reaction against the liberal legislation put in place in other countries.

As people across the world develop more liberal attitudes, many still disagree. Countries that are highly opposed to homosexuality tend to put in place policies and laws that reflect this disapproval.

While religion, economic development and democracy have a major role in shaping attitudes, the march toward greater liberalization is less straightforward than these factors alone would suggest.

Nations are embedded in a global context. Many countries located in Europe and North America were the first to become wealthy and democratic. Because they were the leaders, they were not subject to the pressure that currently up-and-coming countries now face from more powerful countries that led the way for gay rights.

Additionally, religion remains relevant, even in many rich societies, like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and up-and-coming countries, like Egypt and South Africa.

Future changes in attitudes are likely to be complicated by international forces and the continuing significance of religion.

Eighty percent of the countries I examined are becoming more liberal. However, we cant assume that these changes will always be linear or simple. While weve seen a general trend toward more liberal views regarding homosexuality, there are likely to be hiccups along the way that affect how these different socioeconomic and cultural influences take shape nationally and across the world.

Amy Adamczyk, Professor of Sociology and Criminal Justice, City University of New York

Read more:
Money, democracy and religion: Why some countries disapprove of homosexuality - Salon

Random thoughts

There is a saying that if the rulers ignore the problems, pains and needs of their people, they are doomed sooner rather than later. The situation in Pakistan seems to have almost reached this point. The rulers and those in authority seem least bothered about the welfare of the poor people. Even those who are very vocal about their demands for the rights and facilities for the poor often only indulge in hypocrisy: a lot of words but no practical help or support.

Thousands of people are challenging the decisions made by parliament a body which is responsible to the people because it has been elected by them. Mischief mongers incite people to block roads, prevent transport from plying and even to attack the law-enforcers. We have seen more than enough of this by various political leaders through their dharnas and protests.

The Supreme Court has started working according to the constitution and democratic principles. Unfortunately, when one remembers the role of the judiciary in the cases against Musharraf, Hussain Haqqani, Ayaan Ali, Zardari ($60 million in Swiss accounts), one realises it has been far from satisfactory. During the tenure of the former chief justice, suo motu notices were issued in large numbers. But that does not mean that, where there was an urgent need to react, it was right for the judiciary to just sit as an onlooker and not bring cases to their natural conclusion.

Law-breakers and some other mischief-makers create real law and order situations that create a lot of inconvenience for the public. However, we see the government succumbing to appease these trouble-makers. Is that democracy? Blocking roads, causing public damage, breaking the windows of offices and shops is not democratic and should not be rewarded. Giving in to such hooliganism is more like defeatism. The majority suffers at the hands of a few: such rowdiness continues for days with the government remaining inactive and then giving in to many, if not all, of their demands. In some protests by medical personnel, ambulance services are blocked and emergency services closed, increasing the suffering of patients.

Parliament is rendered inactive by a few mischief-makers. Even if their demands are genuine, the possibilities provided by the law should be followed and exploited. Our rulers should learn from the administration of Hazrat Umar (RA) and Hazrat Umar bin Abdul Aziz to see how they ruled and kept the public under control. This was done with simplicity, honesty and following the law in letter and in spirit. They did not let a small minority take the majority hostage and did not sit back doing nothing when action was needed.

Parliament is the representative organisation of the country (public) and is supposed to provide safety, security and comfort to people. The problem arises when, due to the failure of the government, a powerful and ambitious general usurps power and casts democracy of the country aside. We have seen this happen in our country too often in the past. Since the army has been engaged in fighting a proxy war with outsiders, it has left our country at the mercy of our enemies.

We have not stopped infiltrators from entering the country; and they have freely indulged in acts of sabotage and the use of explosives, resulting in not just many casualties and deaths in the country but also in giving the state a bad reputation. If the PML-N fails to block undemocratic actions by mischief-makers, parliament must exert itself to fill the gap. It should make laws and bring in appropriate action to block the possibilities of taking the country and its people hostage.

Why do people say democracy is in danger if you block the anti-state activities of a few thousand people? Is democracy for the majority or for a few thousand people? By not acting, great harm is done to the country and great inconvenience and loss caused to the public. Compromise doesnt pay. On the contrary, it encourages troublemakers to indulge in even more mischief, jeopardising the law and order situation.

When the constitution was framed, Pakistans situation was totally different: the atrocities being committed today did not occur back then and so laws appropriate for dealing with these situations were not framed. This makes it possible for any political party to gather a few thousand people, agitate and bring main cities to a standstill, causing major financial loss and inconvenience to the public.

In our country, one political party will oppose everything another party will do or say simply for the sake of opposition. There is no such thing as positive criticism in our system. Any problems that the parties feel exist should be taken to the courts and dealt with according to the law, not by agitation. We recently witnessed how strikes in Karachi failed miserably simply because the Rangers took strict action. The MQM sat like a lame duck and lost face.

To put an end to this vicious circle, the government must act against all anti-state activities and elements in the manner in which the Supreme Court has advised it. It is fortunate that the Rangers and defence intelligence agencies have been active in trying to control the situation and lately, a large number of terrorists have been captured or killed in encounters. They are bringing the situation under control. Without their involvement, the situation would have been much worse and our preachers of democracy would still have been comfortable and safe in their palaces.

A country does not obtain democracy on a platter. It requires diligence, struggle and stringent actions.

Email: [emailprotected]

Link:
Is this democracy? - The News International

People of different ethnicities and religions came together Saturday to learn how to be involved in their government at the Lee County Spirit of Democracys Civic Saturday event at the Southside Center for the Arts in Opelika.

The organization is a non-partisan grassroots initiative that aims to seek solutions to "the problems of an unhealthy democracy" and to develop actions to educate the citizenry and encourage responsible civic involvement, according to its website. Civic Saturday was the organizations first public event.

We have a high responsibility to be informative and engaged in civil life, said Tom Penton, one of the co-founders of the non-profit organization.

The event featured a presentation from Penton about the organization, which was formed two years ago by a group of Lee County citizens who wanted to change the political landscape in Alabama.

Were planting seeds and growing a healthy democracy in Lee County, Penton said.

A divided nation, the demonization of government and anger are all symptoms of an unhealthy democracy, according to Penton.

We need to change perspectives and change attitudes, Penton said.

Penton gave the example of a bird to describe how republicans and democrats need to work together.

It takes both the left wing and the right wing to fly, Penton said.

During the event, some participants read quotes about liberty, education, involvement and democracy.

One of the participants was Jamie Lowe, a junior at Opelika High School and founder of the Young Spirit of Democracy (SOD) group.

Lowe, who is also a member of the Lee County Spirit of Democracys Informal Advisory Council, was motivated by the organization to start a group at his high school.

I want to energize my peers, Lowe said. I believe that we are the future.

Penton emphasized that citizen involvement is necessary for a healthy democracy.

It is time for us to get ourselves back in the forefront of the democratic process, Penton said.

The organization strives to help put citizens back in the forefront of the democratic process through civic education and action groups.

Dr. Gerald Johnson, one of the co-founders of the organization, said there will be more events in the future.

For more information, visit the organizations website at http://www.sodalabama.org.

See the article here:
Group celebrates democracy at Civic Saturday event - Opelika Auburn News