Mediaboss Marketing

In this 2015 file photo, authorities round up activists protesting the 2014 coup. Thailand's politics is dominated by two parties which don't satisfy everyone.(Photo by Patipat Janthong)

With the regime's political reconciliation game plan faltering, Thailand faces the prospect of a seemingly unending cycle of crisis, coup and constitution. Neither military rule nor the next constitution, which both embed non-accountability, offer hope for long-term socio-political stability.

Disunity will hit Thailand hard: PricewaterHouseCoopers sees the country's GDP being overtaken by those of the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia by 2050.

The Project for a Social Democracy (PSD) which groups academics, labour unionists and human rights activists, recently, released a statement of purpose that offers a legitimate way forward.

The key problems with Thai politics are a lack of political philosophies underlying policy platforms, leading to populism; a lack of internal democracy in party elections, exemplified by the feudal nature of political parties; and an inability for major parties to cooperate in unity to reach a consensus on measures that benefit the state.

The emergence of a Thai social democrat party (SDP), where these principles are embedded through transparency, where civil society is invited to observe the development of the party's policies and its elections, would revitalise Thai politics.

Social democracy is both a socio-economic philosophy and the name for approximately 70 political parties in over 60 countries, especially in Europe. Social democracy is supported by a number of think-tanks, such as the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, which in Thailand works with unionists from both sides of the colour spectrum. Social democracy emphasises internal political democracy, ie, that its political leaders should come from competitive elections, as well as consensual democracy in national politics, if necessary via political coalitions.

It also stresses human solidarity. Thus social democracy promotes internationalism and international human rights, including cultural and social rights, as frameworks for prosperity. Internationally, Thailand would contribute more to UN missions, providing a role for Thailand's military and demonstrating leadership ability. This would assist Thailand in its ongoing application for a UN Security Council Seat.

A Thai SDP would insist on greater role for Thailand's National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). The new NHRC would be founded on human rights experience and expanded in size and capacity to reflect all the country's key stakeholders, from workers to employers, as well as civil society, so that it can both offer advice and monitor implementation of human rights.

Social democracy's main difference from socialism is that it relies on the market system. That is, the state works with capitalism, not for its abolition and replacement by a fully planned economy. Social democracy assigns a major role to the main taxpayers as well as what should be the main social actors, a broad middle class, and emphasises a social contract which produce quality goods and services.

Thus, with a Thai SDP as a third force, the wealthy pay higher inheritance, land and property, and personal income taxes. In exchange, the lower middle class has access to enhanced social services, whether education or the health system, and is proud of using them. Finally, the upper middle class and wealthy benefit from socio-political stability and a growing economy.

The Thai middle class is relatively small and underdeveloped. An SDP would emphasise minimum wages and workers' rights as part of a new deal with the workforce in order to lift it out of poverty, still at nearly 9% nationally, and to transform the upper lower class into the lower middle class. The aim would be to increase aggregate domestic demand, especially for higher quality goods and services, such as slavery-free canned fish products, quality engineered products, and environmentally friendly agriculture by ensuring people have enough money to pay for them.

An SDP would also emphasise incremental unionisation, particularly in difficult, dirty, and dangerous conditions, such as the Thai fishing industry. It would therefore work closely with the International Labor Organisation to increase standards and aim to re-brand its products to the international market as quality, labour and environmentally friendly products.

An SDP would emphasise human solidarity and emphasise working with others to negotiate global trade agreements in order to ensure minimum social and environmental industrial standards internationally. The basic logic is to ensure healthier, happier, better paid workers, who are then more productive, for example because turnover is lower and motivation is higher.

A Thai social democrat party would not necessarily endorse an overly planned economy or state-owned enterprises in themselves. For example, the NCPO's 20-year plan does not make sense in a market economy as it locks Thailand into a future where planning is too inflexible to meet emerging market conditions. And, there are strong arguments for deregulating the energy market if Egat's management is not capable of rapidly decentralising the energy grid, for social democracy has strong links to environmentalism and promotes renewables.

Social democrat parties may not be radical enough to appeal to some voters, but they enhance negotiated, consensus-driven politics and can break deadlocks, for example through proposing Royal Commissions, such as on energy or police reform. The agenda is to set up a foundation for a social democracy, link into international social democrat political networks and improve the education system, labour standards and health, by supporting a SDP than can achieve 10% of the vote. It should be lauded.

As Atipong Pathanasethpong, the PSD Working Group's spokesperson puts it, "Thailand's politics is in need of help, as are the political systems of many countries presently plagued by populism and unaccountable government. Instead of accepting a descent into barbarism, Thailand, by reaching out to global social democrats, will get the better future it deserves."

In Thailand, one party leans towards South-American-style populism, and another is so conservative that it experiences difficulty appealing to the middle ground. The politically viable remainder have no clear policies.

A Thai SDP as honest broker is the only patriotic option for evolving politics to a more mature stage.

Originally posted here:
Social democracy offers a third force - Bangkok Post

DenverWe are only in the second month of Donald Trumps presidency, but many Americans have tired of the drama and are wondering what the next 46 months have in store.

Beyond producing constant anxiety, Trumps bizarre presidency poses a more fundamental question: Having already come under siege in many of its outposts worldwide, is liberal democracy now at risk of losing its citadel, too? If so, the implications for US foreign policy, and the world, could be far-reaching.

The United States has elected a president whose understanding of American democracy is apparently limited to the fact that he won the Electoral College. To be sure, this requires some passing acquaintance with the US Constitution, where the Electoral College is defined. But beyond that, Trump seems to have little respect for the Constitutions system of checks and balances, and the separation of powers among the branches of government. Nor does he respect Americas fourth estate, the press, which he has begun describing as the enemy of the American people.

Elections, while necessary, are hardly sufficient for upholding liberal democracys central tenets. After all, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and many other despots have come to power by winning a popular vote.

As any schoolchild should know, elections require all citizens to tolerate views that differ from their own. Elections are not meant to transcend or overturn democratic institutions or the separation of powers. Regardless of how the Trump administration ultimately performs, its first month of presidential decreesor, in American political parlance, executive orderscan hardly be viewed as a triumph for liberal democracy.

Trump would do well to study the Constitution; and while he is at it, he should find time to read some of the republics other founding documents. He could start with the 1620 Mayflower Compact, which implicitly recognized the rights of political and social minorities in one of Americas earliest religious colonies.

But Trump is not the only American who should use this moment to reflect on his countrys history and its role in the world. Although the administrations America first sloganeering may sound frightening to some foreign ears, it might come as a relief to others.

Since the end of the Cold War more than 25 years ago, the primary goal of US foreign policy has been to spread democracy in the world. But in pursuit of this lofty ambition, America has sometimes overreached. Although its support for democracy would seem to put it on the side of the angels, its policies have often been implemented with a measure of arrogance, even anger.

America has sometimes force-fed democracy to countries, or even delivered it at the tip of a bayonet. There are many reasons liberal democracy seems to be in retreat worldwide. But among them is surely the growing resentment of other countries and their leaders, who have tired of listening to American accusations, lectures, and admonitions.

Consider Iraq. Many Western observers were inspired by the sight of Iraqis ink-stained fingers after they cast their ballots in that countrys first election. But while free elections are often a first step on the road to democracy, the aftermath was not so smooth in Iraq. Political identities became increasingly defined by sectarianism, rather than substantive issues; and it soon became clear that democratic institutions and the culture of tolerance on which they rely are not so easily introduced to societies that have not known them before.

Some years ago, I spoke to a Balkan leader who had just spent the day listening to an American philanthropist lecture him on his troubled young countrys democratic shortcomings. As he contemplated the political pain of following the philanthropists free advice, he asked me, What am I supposed to do with that? He had identified a fundamental shortfall in the movement to promote democracy: Telling someone how to implement democratic reforms is not the same as taking on the risks and responsibilities of actually doing it.

Notwithstanding its currently toxic political scene, America still has one of the most successful democracies in history. It provides a great model for others to emulate, but its example cannot be forced on the world. Telling people that their countries have to be like America is not a sound strategy.

Liberal democracy was off-balance even before Trumps victory; now it has lost its center of gravity. The next four years could be remembered as a dark period for this precious form of government. But liberal democracy has outlasted its rivals in the past, and it will likely do so again. Those who have fought so hard and sacrificed so much for it will be ready to ensure that it does. Project Syndicate

* * *

Christopher R. Hill, former US assistant secretary of state for East Asia, is dean of the Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver, and the author of Outpost.

Continued here:
Liberal democracy at risk - Inquirer.net

An anti-EU demonstration outside the Houses of Parliament in November 2016. Photograph: Ben Stansall/AFP/Getty Images

The law is clear. Its everything else in this dark and murky business that is not. Three months on from the first appearance by Cambridge Analytica in the Observer, the questions show no sign of going away. Instead, they have become more urgent, more serious, with ever more far-reaching consequences.

Cambridge Analytica, its parent company SCL, and its relationship to the Leave campaign raise questions that cannot be ignored questions that are vital to the integrity of our democracy and what it means to be a citizen in the digital age. Was the referendum free, fair and legally fought? Were voters covertly manipulated without their consent? And, crucially, what role exactly does Robert Mercer Donald Trumps biggest donor and close associate of Steve Bannon have in all this?

Did a US billionaire play a covert but vital role in the biggest political decision Britain has made in its postwar history?

In December, Cambridge Analytica wrote to the Observer to deny it had worked for the Leave campaign. It said: It is a US company based in the US. It hasnt worked in British politics. This is the starting point for everything that followed. Because evidence upon evidence has mounted suggesting this is simply not true. We know this from words spoken by Cambridge Analyticas chief executive, filings to the Electoral Commission, statements on Leave.EUs website, appearances by Cambridge Analytica employees at Leave.EU events. Even as Cambridge Analytica continues to deny it, Arron Banks the co-founder of Leave.EU tweeted last week: We made no secret of working with Cambridge.

Hes right. It is no secret. But to not report a donation of a service that is made at any point in the campaign and relied upon later is against the law. To accept a donation from a non-UK citizen or company is against the law though a donation from a UK subsidiary would be legal. If illegal, the issue would go beyond the Electoral Commission. If proven, this is a criminal offence that carries a fine or up to six months in prison, Gavin Millar QC, an expert in electoral law, told the Observer.

Will the police investigate?

The law is also clear on how political parties can use your data, Millar says. Its just like somebody knocking on your door and canvassing you the old-fashioned way, he says. They have to explain who are they are, and if you dont want to speak to them, you can shut the door. This is how it works online too. The Information Commissioners Office has launched a major investigation, but questions remain about what data Cambridge Analytica and Leave.EU have, as well as the bigger question of whether Facebook should be selling your data to political parties without your explicit consent.

Last week, the plot thickened still further. Until now, the attention has been on Leave.EU, but in November, it was reported that Vote Leave the official campaign group for Leave, led by Michael Gove and Boris Johnson had made payments to two groups of campaigners totalling 725,000. By law, campaigns can do this if there is no collaboration between them. However, both groups spent the money on social media advertising. Both used AggregateIQ, a small Canadian data analytics company.

AggregateIQ had already done 3.6m of work for Vote Leave. On Thursday last week, Cambridge Analyticas parent company, SCL, removed a listing for SCL Canada from its site. The phone number belongs to Zack Massingham, the director of AggregateIQ. A spokesman for SCL said it was an outdated listing of a former contractor who had done no work for Vote Leave.

What is Robert Mercers interest in all this?

The Observer revealed that the billionaire hedge-fund owner, and a money man behind Donald Trump, was a key figure operating behind the scenes in Brexit. Andy Wigmore of Leave.EU told us that Mercer is a personal friend of Nigel Farage and that it was he who made the introduction between Leave.EU and Cambridge Analytica. He said: They were happy to help. Because Nigel is a good friend of the Mercers. And Mercer introduced them to us.

Increasingly, it seems Brexit may have been the warm-up for the Trump campaign. And if we were the laboratory rats in an experiment run by a foreign billionaire, what role did we play? How was our data used? And what exactly does Robert Mercer and his close associate, Steve Bannon want from us?

Is this our future?

Is it the case that our elections will increasingly be decided by the whims of billionaires, operating in the shadows, behind the scenes, using their fortunes to decide our fate?

Visit link:
Cambridge Analytica affair raises questions vital to our democracy - The Guardian

The American people support more federal spending on infrastructure such as roads, buildings and waterways 75 percent are in favor, according to a year-old Gallup poll. And so President Donald Trumps call for a 10-year, $1 trillion national rebuilding plan was one of the few parts of his address to Congress on Tuesday that might have been the same if Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders had won.

Depending on the details, many Democrats will support a Trump-backed infrastructure bill, in the name of boosting short-term job creation and long-term economic productivity.

Theres just one catch: Many of the same people who tell pollsters they want to unleash the bulldozers will sing a different tune when those machines approach their communities. And Americas responsive, democratic political system, with its decentralized institutions and multiple veto points, will heed the cry of NIMBY not in my back yard.

Two consecutive California governors dreamed of a high-speed rail system like Japans. Nearly a decade after voters approved the California bond issue, the project has barely started. Residents of Silicon Valley in the north and the San Joaquin Valley in Californias central agricultural region filed lawsuits. Property owners along the route have refused to sell land. San Fernando, a small city in Los Angeles County, balks at being sliced in two by the tracks.

To be sure, Californias high-speed rail is new infrastructure and, as such, inherently more disruptive. Maybe Americans will be less wary of merely upgrading existing installations.

Well, a $120 billion federal plan to improve the ancient but vital Northeast Corridor rail line, thus slicing Amtrak travel times between New York and Boston, faces resistance from the 7,500 denizens of Old Lyme, Connecticut. It would mean tunneling under their downtown.

Its fashionable and, to some extent, merited to denounce NIMBYism. We dont want a few selfish holdouts to block manifestly urgent and beneficial projects. On the other hand, its hard to prove the necessity and utility of any given bridge or highway. A just-completed $1.6 billion expansion of Los Angeles 405 freeway accomplished next to nothing in terms of its stated goal reducing traffic congestion according to the New York Times. Anybody else notice that Trump hasnt identified a specific new road or hospital that the nation absolutely, undeniably must have?

Yes, the jewel of American infrastructure the interstate highway system knit this great land together. In the process, it tore through many an old downtown or established neighborhood (often inhabited by relatively powerless minority groups). In fact, backlash against the interstates is one reason that we have environmental-impact statements today, and the pesky delays that come with them.

Few recall that history now, but it puts into perspective a lot of todays simplistic thinking about infrastructure. The United States failure to enact a massive program to repair our crumbling infrastructure reflects not stupidity, or weak national will, but a genuine, inescapable collective-action problem. Infrastructures benefits are diffuse, long term and, to some degree, speculative; its costs are focused, immediate and palpable.

Approaches to this conundrum vary around the world. In China, a one-party state shoves whole villages aside to make way for dams and airports. As that extreme example demonstrates, there is always a tension between grand schemes of national rebuilding and, well, democracy.

By all means, the United States should try to mitigate NIMBYism. But we should also reflect on the real reasons its so difficult to take billions in infrastructure money, and throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks, as Trump adviser Stephen Bannon has recommended.

Under our system, the government has to consult with the people before irreversibly damming our rivers or excavating our towns. This can be maddening as heck, but also, when you think about it, one of the things that makes America great.

Charles Lane is an editorial writer for the Washington Post.

Published March 5, 2017, midnight in: bridges, California, infrastructure, NIMBYism, rail, roads

See original here:
Charles Lane: Democracy a roadblock to rebuilding - The Spokesman-Review

Terrorism has succeeded in feeding fear and anger into Americans, not only harming the Arab worlds transition into democracy, but also shaking the core principles of the American democracy, which was once a leading model of freedom and inclusivity to the rest of the world.

The uprising of multiple countries in the Arab world against dictatorship in 2011 has awed the world. These Muslim majority countries, as they are usually referred to by the U.S. government and foreign affairs agencies, have struck people with their passion for freedom, their will for survival and their thirst for democracy. Following an era of dictatorship and misportrayal, these Muslims have proved to the world that they are as equally human and wanting of democracy as Americans.

Syria is the fourth country to have been inspired by the rebellions success in Tunisia, the first Arab country to stand against dictatorship, and to start its own demonstrations. Fearless of oppression and unwilling to give in to violence and hatred, Syrians marched to the streets with their voices, signs and their countrys flowers. While trying to welcome a new era of democracy, they were instead welcomed by their governments most hideous forms of brutality and coercion. In efforts to stop the uprisings, women were raped, men were tortured and children were killed. According to Amnesty International, nearly 4 million Syrians are now displaced as refugees and thousands are nowhere to be found. Refusing to give up on reaching democracy, the people of Syria watched members of their families and friends disappear one after the other while their homes were being torn apart. Yet, they did not give up and continued to march down the streets demanding freedom, equality and prosperity: the traits with which they saw that their Muslim and Arab identities could flourish.

Following their usual mission for spreading peace and democracy across the world, the government of the United States of America has come to the rescue of Syria as conflicts escalated. The destructively resistant violence used by dictators to suppress the movements of their people alarmed international forces to interfere and stop the conflict. However, the massacre of Libyas president in 2012 by NATO and the inability to reach a compromise in Syria among the rebels and the government have led to nothing but the increase of instability. Institutions were destroyed, anarchy reigned and the war between dictators and civilians remained. Peoples hopes for democracy shattered as did their hopes for the prosperity of their country, which went in flames as conflicts arose. This war, however, is not the first barrier to democracy that Syrians have faced as Arab Muslims.

Al Qaeda represented the first struggle for Muslims in reaching democracy. After the terrifying events in 2001 in the U.S., Muslims across the globe were discriminated. The identification of this terrorist group with Islam fed into peoples fears and made them unleash their stereotypes and misconceptions, associating all Muslims with terrorism. This categorization has been the first cultural and ideological division of the U.S. and countries with Muslim majority populations. Therefore, ideals like democracy, freedom and equality, being culturally tied to the U.S. (as it has long exported them to the Arab world), became regarded as evil. Holding such values meant, in the Arab world, pertaining to a discriminatory culture where Muslims are feared and treated as inferior. Therefore, movements for democracy in the beginning of the 21st century in the Arab world were mainly led by an elite driven by postcolonial ideals and incapable of attracting ordinary civilians who, at that time, boycotted the values of a nation that dehumanized them.

After such separation, it took the Arab world almost 10 years to digest this cultural animosity and dissociate democracy from imperialism and islamophobia. Tunisia, the first country to rebel against dictatorship, set the example for the rest of the Arab world, starting what became known in the U.S. as The Arab Spring. However, this spring, followed by the instability that the U.S. and other nations interference in the Arab world contributed to increasing gave rise to ISIS: the second biggest obstacle to democracy.

ISIS not only brought back the American rhetoric of islamophobia as it has also associated itself with Islam, but has hindered the dreams of Arab Muslims of reaching democracy. What many people tend to forget when talking about ISIS is that Muslims were the number one victims of this terrorist group. The people who join ISIS are mostly Arab radicalized youth and most people who died because of ISIS attacks are Syrian, Iraqi and Libyan Arab Muslims. Therefore, the fight of Muslims to reach democracy was transformed by ISIS into a fight for mere survival. Once again, the path for Muslims to freedom was blocked. However, when it comes to democracy, ISIS was able to affect Arabs and Americans alike (with the exception of Tunisia which continues to appear as the only free country in the Arab world).

In 2016, the U.S. electoral college elected president Donald Trump to office. Trumps election rhetoric, filled with racism, sexism, islamophobia and xenophobia enabled him to successfully reach office. His appeal to Americans fear of terrorism and Muslims was a good enough reason for Trump supporters to choose him over Hillary Clinton.

In his first week of holding office, Trump indeed proved his attachment to his election decisions as he issued an executive order banning nationals of Libya, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Iraq, Iran and Somalia from entering the U.S. Instantly, hundreds of people with legal visas were detained at airports, thousands of refugees were derived from reuniting with their families and over 160 million people were stripped away from their rights to free travel. Among these people are university students unable to continue their education, wives unable to see their husbands, mothers unable to reunite with their kids and most importantly refugees unable to escape a war that the U.S. contributed to escalating.

The day of the order, thousands of Americans rose to protest, responding to this inhumane and undemocratic decision. However, besides this orders contribution to decaying the American democracy, not a lot has changed so far. The U.S., once looking down at the Arab worlds political climate by showing off its democracy and its protection of freedoms, suddenly lost its glory. The unconsciously fearful drive of certain Americans has oriented the country towards a path where it lost the values it was founded upon. In one day, millions of Muslims were labeled and treated as terrorists because of their nationality and religion: a discriminatory process no different from the one that labeled black people as inferior because of the color of their skin. Decades after the civil war, the American democratic institutions, the founding fathers constitution and the free people of America stood helpless in front of practices thought to have long been abandoned. The fear and anger of many Americans was capable of bringing back oppression. And, when oppression appears, democracy disappears.

Fear is the enemy of democracy. If Tunisians, Syrians, Libyans feared the future, they would not have made it this far in their journeys of emancipation, despite the hurdles that come in the way. Anger is the enemy of democracy. If Tunisians focused on their anger towards dictatorship, they would not have been able to reach freedom. Instead, they protested peacefully, using their love for emancipation, not their hate for oppression.

The anger and fear of Americans has, for so long, harmed the American democracy as well as the Arab Muslims transitions into democracy. What is interesting about the recent election in the U.S. is not the rise of a racist to power as much as it is the impact that this event had in waking people up. Sadly, not even the Syrian war was capable of attracting this much world attention to the issue of protecting world democracy and human rights as Trumps executive orders.

Finally, the current comparison of the American and Tunisian democracies proves that democracy is neither culturally inherent as many Americans think it is, nor is it incompatible with the Arab Muslim world. Democracy can be applied through a variety of models and not a single one of them needs to be idealized or exported. Democracy is a process that should not be taken for granted and needs to be sustained, protected and, most importantly, continually sought.

See more here:
No hate, no fear: This is what democracy looks like - DU Clarion