Mediaboss Marketing

Wednesday July 26 2017

East Timorese President Francisco Guterres (front left) and first lady Cidalia Mozinho (front right) vote during parliamentary election in Dili, on July 22, 2017. PHOTO | VALENTINO DARRIEL de SOUSA | AFP

As the country gears up for the August 8 General Election, there is an array of political opinions as to the right candidates for the various elective positions.

Everything is up for debate; from a candidates age, qualifications and ethnicity to competence, integrity and experience.

It is the acceptance that we have a working vehicle and merely need a competent driver, that I would like us to question.

While in Singapore, I was engaged in an enlightening debate, where we moved from questioning leaders to the underlying system of leadership.

Democracy, has consistently been perpetuated, especially by the West, as a symbol of freedom and prosperity, while differing ideologies have been attacked by both propaganda and an army carrying a democratic flag in the name of liberation.

This reached its peak during the Cold War era and it has since spilled over into the 21st century, while democracy has been enshrined in constitutions the world over, including Kenyas.

There is undoubted substance to the prodemocratic debate.

However, alternative views are subjected to evil glances and are not offered an effective, fair podium to present their case.

A 2016 research by the Economist Intelligence Unit found there were only 19 true democracies across the globe despite some 100 countries claiming to be democratic.

Libya was found to have made the most significant democratic leap, though social and economic stability have significantly deteriorated; a mirror of Iraq after the second Gulf War.

As citizens, we generally seek social and economic prosperity married to freedom of expression, and this is colourfully advertised on the cover of the democracy can.

Upon slight inspection though, there is an appreciation that inequality generally prevails and the economic gap widens.

Moreover, there is invariably a limit to your freedom of expression despite your constitutional right.

As such, no one can wholly debate that democracy is a full-proof ideology, but the question remains as to what would be an accepted alternative.

There are nations that have adopted a deliberately controlled democratic ideology with some desired success.

China, UAE, Bahrain, South Korea, Singapore, Qatar and Rwanda are some of the selected case studies that come to mind for the alternative pseudodemocracy.

These are all progressive being either a class leader or trending above global average in GDP per capita and quality of livelihood.

These nations indicators all trend positively with the aggressive adoption of progressive investments across various sectors.

These countries are run by a small circle of highly patriotic, selfless, competent and authoritative leaders not dictators but authoritative.

These nations ensure the national interest is placed first beyond the democratic interests, which may sound like an oxymoron at first glance.

Votes may be effectively influenced and policies successfully lobbied for by dominant puppeteers, despite an objective narrative.

Kenya has flirted with the idea of banning plastic bags for over 12 years despite the widely acknowledged impact they have on the environment, while judicial enforcement is mentioned as a bottleneck in the fight against corruption.

India, the largest democracy, sees laws go through multiple steps and years before implementation, while South Africa and the USA carry the same burden of doing what is voted for versus what is right. Effectively, majorities in Parliament, Congress or alternative, are required by the government of the day to have its way during its term until the next government comes in and faces a similar battle.

Rwanda and Singapore, have small circles of decision makers who review a policy and if accepted, its implementation is near immediate while its enforcement is absolute.

You will find both these nations in the lower half of the democracy index.

Rwanda is dubbed Africas Singapore, given its no-nonsense approach to corruption, vibrant economy, investor friendly policies and the unique air of acceptance of controlled liberties.

The nations that adopt selective aspects of democracy unquestionably need competent selfless leaders.

Kenya has 45 per cent of the population living in poverty, a frustrated middle-class segment, rampant corruption and nervous foreign investors.

There perhaps are some who would be willing to listen to a hybrid form of democracy.

There, perhaps, may be an opportunity for a candidate to unapologetically present an alternative leadership concept to fellow Kenyans.

Investors hold on to cash while foreign governments issue travel advisories, fearing violence

Uhuru urges supporters to vote in large numbers to give him another term. #ElectionsKE

See the article here:
Is democracy overrated as a system? - Daily Nation

The German and EU flags fly at half mast outside the Reichstag building in Berlin | Adam Berry/AFP via Getty Images

Christian Democrats have the fewest populist supporters.

By Christian Krug

7/25/17, 3:00 PM CET

A significant number of Germans support populist ideas, according to a new survey, but their views are moderate and most are pro-EU and pro-democracy.

Around 1,600 German voters were asked to answer multiple-choice questions as part of aBertelsmann Foundationstudy.Almost 30 percent were found to havepopulist views and 34 percent partial populist views.

What surprised us is that many of those categorized as populists think the membership of Germany in the EU is a good thing, said Christina Tillmann, director of Bertelsmanns Future of Democracy program.

Its definition of populism was being anti-establishment and believing that the political establishment should directly reflect the will of the people.A slight majority of Germans were found to be frustrated with the way democracy works, but there was overwhelming support for democracy as a political system.

According to the research, Christian Democrat voters were the least likely to hold populist views (40 percent), while half of Social Democrat and the Left party voters were dubbed populists. Sixty percent of supporters of the right-wingAlternative for Germany fell into the populist category, according to Bertelsmann.

More here:
German populists support democracy and the EU: study POLITICO - POLITICO.eu

In all developed countries today there is some form of indirect democracy and a democratic process for electing the representatives who actually govern. However, is it really democracy?

The word "democracy" according to Merriam-Webster means: "government by the people; especially rule of the majority... a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections."

In Canada, the Constitution Act 1982 ("Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms") in Section 3 states the Democratic Rights of Citizens: "Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein."

So far so good. There is a strong history of democracy in Canada and its provinces, and there is a transparent democratic process for elections; where democracy in Canada breaks down is in the execution.

Based on the results of the federal election in October 2015, the winning Liberals were elected by just 26 per cent of the eligible voters. That means that 74 per cent of Canadian voters either voted for another party or didn't vote at all. In fact, about 9 million (or about 34 per cent) of Canadians did not vote and exercise their democratic right. And this was the highest voter turnout in 20 years!

In Ontario, the story is even worse. In the 2014 election, the Liberals won a majority of the seats to form the government in which less than 19 per cent of eligible voters actually voted for them (and only 51 per cent of eligible voters actually voted). That means a staggering 82 per cent of Ontarians either voted for another party or didn't vote at all!

This is clearly not democracy as defined by Merriam-Webster, and there is lots of blame to go around.

First and foremost, many of the citizens of Ontario are to blame for not bothering to inform themselves of political issues, and then once informed, exercising their democratic right to vote. But some of the blame falls elsewhere.

The education system does not adequately prepare students for a life of civic engagement and their responsibilities of citizenship. In fact, in 2016 the Liberal government was thinking about scrapping civics as a secondary school subject all together. Fortunately, that idea was killed, but the current civics course is woefully inadequate at preparing our future citizens.

And, finally, some of the blame goes directly to governments and politicians who actually like the current cozy system. Low voter turnout coupled with first-past-the-post electoral systems is a significant advantage to incumbents and to those who are able to mobilize a small minority of voters to actually show up on election day.

So, while we have democracy in theory and a democratic process, we do not have democracy in practice. In fact, we are a long way from it. One can argue that the current Ontario government, while it has the legal authority to govern, is a long way from having the moral authority to do so. It is approving and implementing significant changes that affect all Ontarians including our current social structure and it is doing so with over 80 per cent of Ontarians either opposed or indifferent.

In today's age of choice, widespread access to information and more direct control over our lives, why have we allowed government to remain as the sole intermediary on important social questions? In many aspects of our lives, we have been steadily eliminating intermediaries and taking more control ourselves, so why not government?

Now, it would be impractical to have no government to regulate society, but is it not reasonable to require government to seek more direct and binding input on major questions of social policy. How can we as citizens allow these important questions to be left in the hands of a government that has less than 20 per cent support?

Switzerland has long maintained a system of semi-direct democracy. Representatives are elected to the country's parliament, but major policy questions are often referred to the people directly and voted on by way of a referendum. In order for a policy question referred to a referendum to become law, it must be supported by at least a two thirds majority of votes cast.

With the significant changes in the world and in our lives, democracy must change to keep pace. Democracy is fragile and must be protected at all costs, and each one of us must do our part if it is to survive and prosper. In 2018, in Ontario, you will all have a chance to do just that.

Also on HuffPost:

Trudeau Government's Broken Promises (So Far)

Originally posted here:
Is Democracy An Endangered Species In Canada? - Huffington Post Canada

The White House set the terms: Mr. Trump was to be met by cheering crowds, giving the world the impression of a strong American leader adored by foreign masses and their leaders. Conveniently, because the Three Seas Initiative summit meeting was taking place in Warsaw, Mr. Trump could meet with leaders from 11 other countries in the region in one fell swoop.

The visit worked for Mr. Kaczynski, too embattled in Europe, his government needed to show that Poland enjoys the respect of one of the worlds most powerful politicians.

And so Mr. Trump came to Warsaw, confirmed his commitment to NATOs Article 5 on collective defense, and promised contracts for the sale of Patriot missiles and natural gas to Poland. Mr. Kaczynskis party bused in cheering crowds, and both sides concluded with good reason that the visit was a success.

Law and Justices standing in the polls improved; the latest, carried out before the vote on judicial reform, showed 38 percent support for the party and only 19 percent for Civic Platform, the largest opposition party.

Mr. Trumps visit coincided with the judicial legislation, which was already awaiting a vote in the Sejm, the lower house. But shortly before his arrival, the bills were abruptly withdrawn.

Once the poll numbers and press accolades began to pour in, though, the party put the bills back in action, and added a third, to recall the judges of the Supreme Court so that their successors could be chosen by the Sejm. Because the Supreme Court confirms the results of parliamentary and presidential elections, the bill would have given Law and Justice control not only over the courts, but also over electoral results (this was one of the bills that Mr. Duda vetoed).

In short, for the price of some applause, Mr. Trump gave Mr. Kaczynski the cover to carry out a coup. And what has the United States done since? The State Department issued a dry statement formulated not to offend the Polish authorities (We urge all sides to ensure that any judicial reform does not violate Polands Constitution).

Its unlikely that Mr. Trump meant to condone Mr. Kaczynskis power grab. But by not using his visit to press the Law and Justice leader to respect democracy, Mr. Trump gave his implicit imprimatur to a renewed campaign to get the bills into law. And while Mr. Duda showed political independence in vetoing two of the bills, he has otherwise been a faithful ally of Mr. Kaczynski. Well see if his new drafts will really run counter to Mr. Kaczynskis, or only extend Mr. Dudas own influence over the courts at the expense of Law and Justice.

The ultimate responsibility lies with Poles, and it is they who will have to respond as they have done admirably over the last few weeks, staging big protests that most likely pressured Mr. Duda into his vetoes. But until very recently, they wouldnt have had to go it alone: This is precisely the sort of situation in which previous American presidents could and would have used their countrys prestige to push for freedom and democracy. Instead, beyond the cheers of manufactured masses, all the Polish people hear from the White House is silence.

Slawomir Sierakowski is a sociologist, a founder of the Krytyka Polityczna movement and the director of the Institute for Advanced Study in Warsaw.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on July 25, 2017, on Page A23 of the New York edition with the headline: Why Is Trump Silent on Poland?.

Here is the original post:
Poland Turns Away From Democracy, Thanks to the US - New York Times

With Republicans dominating the White House, Congress and state governments, its no surprise that dominating the judiciary is the next goal. Efforts to control that independent branch of government have prompted debate on an obscure Senate rule called the blue-slip process.

Billionaire industrialist brothers David and Charles Koch, among leaders of the effort, urged supporters at a recent private retreat to work against the rule. The 100-year-old rule keeps judicial nominees from moving forward in Senate confirmation if a home-state senator objects.

The slim Republican margin in the U.S. Senate 52-48 has party bigwigs concerned that if the practice isnt eliminated, Democrats will retain too much power to delay or derail President Donald Trumps federal court nominees.

The Kochs one-page document on the rule urged attendees, who included many important Republicans, to press the issue with the Senates GOP leadership and other Republican senators they know. Tell them not to allow needless delay tactics and obstruction of the process, the document read.

The stakes are high. Trump arrived in office with more than 100 vacancies to fill on the federal bench, partly because Senate Republicans blocked many of President Barack Obamas nominees.

Nine of the countrys 13 federal appeals courts currently have a majority of Democratic presidents nominees. Among the 179 appeals court seats there are 21 vacancies. Trump has announced nine nominees for those courts and 22 for 107 lower court openings.

Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is pushing back. She says ending the practice would allow nominees to be hand-picked by right-wing groups, and accused the White House, the Koch brothers, and the conservative Judicial Crisis Network of falsely suggesting Democrats are trying to obstruct presidential nominees.

Democratic senators are considering nominees fairly, and many have long judicial records home-state senators must review carefully, Feinstein says. Scrutiny is most important when home-state senators were not consulted before nominees were chosen, she says, adding, and that goes for Democrats and Republicans.

Congressional rules that aim to keep the branches of government operating within the two-party system must be carefully preserved. If they work for both Democrats and Republicans, the party in the majority shouldnt opt to exercise their authority because it will come back to bite them.

Witness Democratic senators response to the Republican blockade of Obamas nominees in 2013. They changed the rules to allow simple-majority approval of judicial or executive branch nominations, enabling them to win swift victories for the presidents picks. That backfired when Democrats lost the majority and Republicans could approve Trumps Cabinet nominees with the lower, 51-vote threshold.

Americas federal court system is not perfect, but its not rigged, as Trump asserted. Efforts by billionaires to undermine judicial independence threaten our democracy.

Continue reading here:
Maintaining an independent judiciary is critical for democracy - Manhattan Mercury (subscription)