Mediaboss Marketing

Saturday March 25 2017

Former Mungiki leader Maina Njenga shakes hands with one of his supporters in a Nairobi court on March 9, 2017 before the hearing of a case in which he has sued Jubilee Party for refusing to accept his nomination papers for the Laikipia senate seat. Some ex-gangsters are campaigning for office. PHOTO | PAUL WAWERU | NATION MEDIA GROUP

India holds the title of the worlds largest democracy. When it gets into rhythm during its elections cycle, its sheer magnitude is a wonder to behold.

In the last count there were 814 million eligible voters and 8,251 aspiring parliamentary candidates in an election that had to be staggered for weeks.

However, it is a deeply flawed democracy. In the last national election of 2014, a shocking 34 per cent of the 543 MPs elected to the powerful Lower House (Lok Sabha) faced criminal charges, up from 30 per cent in the previous 2009 election and 24 per cent in 2004.

The actual charges facing 20 per cent of the MPs were serious ones such as murder, attempted murder, assault and theft.

All political parties were tainted, including the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. Eight members of Prime Minister Narendra Modis cabinet face serious criminal cases themselves.

Indian political scientist Milan Vaishnav, in his book titled When Crime Pays, has detailed this astounding link between criminality and Indian politics.

A key factor in motivating parties to select candidates with criminal records, he says, comes down to cold, hard cash.

The crooks are self-financing, so they are not a drain to their parties coffers. Many parties are also essentially personal fiefdoms, which welcome links with well-heeled thugs.

ELECTING CRIMINALS Indian politics could be unique in this aspect. Whereas the Mafia in Italy and their cousins in North America are content to buy protection by financing politicians, their Indian counterparts go outright for elective office.

In one startling revelation by Dr Vaishnav, Indian government Whips once sprung six MPs out of prison to help in a crucial parliamentary vote.

It didnt seem to matter that between them, the felons faced 100-odd cases of kidnapping, murder, arson and the like.

There are a number of reasons Indian democracy sustains these sleazy types.

They have no qualms in intimidating voters and rivals in critical constituency races.

Voters also prefer them because when it comes to delivering government goodies, they can circumvent the normal bureaucratic process by simply knocking heads.

If we dont watch out, our young Kenyan democracy could be heading in this alarming direction.

A growing number of ex-gangsters, conmen, hoodlums, goons, hooligans, outlaws, charlatans and thieves are either in elective office or campaigning to be elected.

In recent weeks we have seen a glimpse of what is in store. A former leader of a savage tribal gang who has been moving from party to party seeking a ticket for senatorial office.

A clown with a popular following who has been engaging everybody in loud theatrics while seeking gubernatorial office.

Alleged drug dealers who hold high county offices. And suspected warlords who sit in Parliament and have been on the spotlight in the recent wave of banditry in pastoral counties.

ROLE OF COURTS Under Kenyan law, a person convicted of an offence who has served a prison term of at least six months is ineligible to run for office.

That is the legal theory. Many of the rogues like to split hairs by insinuating they have never been convicted, or were released by higher courts once imprisoned. The courts, for one, remain a problem.

When last did you hear them jail a crooked politician? Even in open-and-shut cases?

Political parties should also sidestepthe loose vetting procedures of the IEBC, the EACC and the Registrar of Political Parties so as to impose their own clear integrity rules.

If the courts insist dubious candidates must be allowed to run, let them do so as independents.

In particular, the narrowly legalistic way the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal sometimes handles individual complaints can be a hindrance.

Ultimately the buck stops with the voter. Still, political parties have a duty to play their rightful gate-keeping role.

Chapter Six of the constitution, which sets out a code for leadership and integrity, has remained dead in the water due to deliberate intent.

The statute law that was meant to give bite to Chapter Six was weakened during passage. I doubt many current elected leaders would be left standing if the Chapters guidelines were faithfully enforced.

The excessive focus on academic qualifications is rather misplaced.

It is actually a scandal that no financial disclosures are required of elected officials in a country where corruption has become a real menace.

Appointed state officers are subjected to some stricter vetting, which is not the case with their elected colleagues.

If the courts insist dubious candidates must be allowed to run, let them do so as independents.

Kalonzo restates commitment to alliance and draws pledge from principals to focus on ousting

They pretend to rush their victims child to hospital after a bad road accident

See original here:
Our democracy could be headed in the wrong direction, unless we act - Daily Nation

This article originally appeared on AlterNet.

Theres no question this is ahard-power budget, budget director Mick Mulvaney said of President Trumps proposal to slash spending on diplomacy while increasing military spending. It is not a soft-power budget. . . The president very clearly wants to send a message to our allies and our potential adversaries that this is a strong-power administration. So youve seen money move from soft-power programs, such as foreign aid, into hard-power programs.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson defended the proposed 29 percent cut in his budget with the argument that as time goes by, there will be fewermilitary conflictsthat the U.S. will be directly engaged in.

The idea seems to be that U.S. hard poweras articulated by Trump and bolstered by a $54 billion increase in military spendingwill deter Americas enemies and result in fewer wars. So the United States will need less international involvement and fewer diplomats.

Its a far-fetched argument, if not entirely bogus.

After all, Trump and Tillerson are not talking about withdrawing or winding down U.S. involvement in any of our five ongoing military conflicts (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia). In fact, early reports indicate that Defense Secretary James Mattis wants to put U.S. troops on the ground in Syria, which President Obama refused to do.

Nor is Trump talking about cutting back on the U.S Special Operations Command, which in 2015 was operating in arecord 135 countriesaround the world, according to military analyst Nick Turse.

The deeper agenda

Trumps budget cuts are not a harbinger of pacification, but an attack on the profession of diplomacy and the practice of international cooperation. They reflect White House adviser Steve Bannons agenda ofdismantling Americas alliancesbuilt since the end of the Cold War.

The goal is to replace the United Nations, the European Union, NATO and other multinational organizations with a more transactional diplomacy. Trump and Bannon prefer bilateral deals with partners that are willing to take on the civilizational struggle against radical Islamic terrorism. The template is gendered: abandon the soft, feminized European Union and embrace the hard, manly Putin.

But before Trump and Bannon can wage that war they need to disarm the forces that might impede them. BannonsStrategic Initiatives Grouphas targeted European governments that support the European Union. The State Department and United Nations are targeted for the same reason.

The U.N. will bear the brunt of the cuts, reports Colum Lynch inForeign Policy:

State Department staffers have been instructed to seek cuts in excess of 50 percent in U.S. funding for U.N. programs, signaling an unprecedented retreat by President Donald Trumps administration from international operations that keep the peace, provide vaccines for children, monitor rogue nuclear weapons programs, and promote peace talks from Syria to Yemen, according to three sources.

U.N. officials expect the United States to seek to eliminate funding for the U.N. Population Fund, which receives about $35 million a year from the U.S. for family planning programs, and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, according to Lynch.

Sub-Saharan Africa is also likely to suffer.

We have U.N. warnings of famine in four countries, said Bathsheba Crocker, who served in the State Department as assistant secretary of state for International Organization Affairs, referring to food crises in Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen. It is only the U.N. agencies that have the scale and ability to get in and address these challenges.

Enemies of expertise

Another target:well-informed U.S. diplomats.

The Secretary of State typically has two deputies; Tillerson hasnt filled either position. There are six open undersecretary slots and 22 unfilled assistant secretary positions. These jobs are typically filled by Foreign Service officers with regional experience, language skills and foreign connections.

These posts will probably remain unfilled. So when theres an Ebola outbreak in Africa, or a tsunami in South Asia, or a climate change crisis in the Arctic, or a Zika epidemic in Latin America, or famine in Sudan, the U.S. government will be less able to provide medical expertise, disaster relief, scientific insight, medical supplies, or food. Thats the point: to prevent the exercise of so-called soft-power.

Thomas Countryman, a former senior State Department official who played a leading role in the Iran nuclear deal, toldPublic Radio International, Theres a deliberate policy on the part of the White House to let the State Department and other agencies atrophy to ensure that there remains a vacuum in the analytical and leadership capabilities of State and other agencies.

Those jobs are held by reality-based diplomats. Whatever their politics, they might insist that U.S. policymakers consider whether another land war in the Middle East is a good idea; whether demonizing Muslims makes Americans safer; whether hostility to Cuba makes sense; and whether climate change is real.

Trump and Bannon know the best waythe only waythey can win such debates is not to have them. They want a vacuum in which Trump will be free to escalate the struggle against radical Islamic terrorism. The State Department budget cuts are not intended as a prelude to peace as Tillerson suggested, but as preparation for the clash of civilizationsBannon yearns for.

The rest is here:
Donald Trump's biggest war is on democracy itself - Salon

Thomas Maresca, Special for USA TODAY Published 2:59 p.m. ET March 22, 2017 | Updated 12 hours ago

Joshua Wong, who became the face of Hong Kong's pro-democracy protests in 2014, discusses the city's upcoming election.(Photo: Thomas Maresca)

HONG KONG Days before a controversial election, a student who becamethe face of thecity's pro-democracy protests in 2014 said Chinese communist leaders are squelchingpolitical freedom in this former British colony.

Autonomy is at a low point in Hong Kong, said Joshua Wong, 20, who led the "umbrella" movement against Beijing's crackdown on the drive for open elections to choose Hong Kong's chief executive. The protest got its name from the umbrellas students used to repel tear gas fired by police.

China, however, didnt give in to the student demands. Instead of a popular vote, Sunday's election ofchief executive is a three-person race of candidates approved by Beijing. The winner will be chosen by a 1,200-member election committee.

From the archive:Meet the 17-year-old face of Hong Kong's protests

Former chief secretary Carrie Lam, the No. 2 under unpopular outgoing Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, is favored by Beijing and expected to win. The other candidates are John Tsang, who leads public polls, and retired judge Woo Kwok-hing.

It is a selection rather than an election, Wong said in an interview near the Central Government Offices, where the protests kicked off three years ago. Who becomes chief executive is still under control of the Beijing government.

China's growing control of Hong Kong affairs alarms Wong and other activists.

They see Beijings influence in an upcoming trial of four democratically elected members of the Hong Kong Legislative Council. The four legislators, including Nathan Law, Wongs fellow student leader, face removal by Hong Kong's Justice Department over charges that their swearing-in oaths were invalid because they did not repeat word-for-word astrictpledgeof allegiance to mainland China.

When Britain handed Hong Kong to China in 1997 after more than a century of rule, China agreed to a policyof one country, two systems: The communist regime would regain sovereignty, but the bustling Asian financial hub would maintain its openeconomic and political systems.

What we worry about is one country, two systems turning into one country, 1.5 systems, or finally one country, one system, Wong said. China has its own definition of democracy, but in fact it's totally against rule of law and judicial independence. So that will be a nightmare for us.

Chinas increasing economic, political and military influence is being felt around the region.

This file photo taken Aug. 26, 2015, shows student protesters Joshua Wong, left, and Nathan Law, right, standing outside the Wanchai police station in Hong Kong.(Photo: Philippe Lopez, AFP/Getty Images)

In October, Wong was denied entry into Thailand to speak at a student activist event. He was held in solitary confinement for 12 hours in Bangkoks Suvarnabhumi Airport before being sent back to Hong Kong and blacklisted from Thailand. In January, on a visit to Taiwan, Wong and his traveling group were accosted by hundreds of pro-China demonstrators at the airport in the capital Taipai.

Taiwan, which China considers to be a breakaway province, is governed autonomously.

On returning from Taiwan, fellow activist leader Law was assaulted by pro-China protesters at Hong Kong international airport, sending him to the hospital with minor injuries.

I think my experience can prove the threat of China in Asia, Wong said. Allowing a total anti-democracy (country), with no human rights and rule of law, to be a leader of Asia is a threat, and it should not be ignored by the international community.

Wong hopes to enlist the support of democratic countries to restore freedom to Hong Kong.

Images from 2014 protest

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

It's time to renew the foreign policy of different countries towardHong Kong, said Wong, who traveled to the United Kingdom this month to press his case with members of Parliament.

Wong also plans to visit the United States to lobby for passage of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, which proposes measures against officials in Hong Kong or mainland China responsible for suppressing freedoms in the city.

The billwas reintroduced in February by Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and Ben Cardin, D-Md.

"Joshua is an impressive and thoughtful young man who, along with his fellow activists, represents the future of Hong Kong a future that must not go the way of Beijings failed authoritarianism and one-party rule, Rubio said in a statement.

Wongs democracy crusade will be featured in a Netflix documentary later this year calledJoshua: Teenager vs. Superpower,which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival.

Cheung Chor-yung, assistant head of the department of public policy at City University of Hong Kong, said that most people in Hong Kong want greater democracy, but Wong's movement has become splintered and ineffective in the face of Beijing's overwhelming might.

We don't have any leaders or any effective political organizations that can really consolidate the opposition. It's very fragmented after the "umbrella" movement.

Wong countered that he and other activists aren't giving up.We know it will be a hard time for us, and that's the reason we hope to seek the international community's support," he said.On Election Day, it will be the time for civil disobedience on the street.

We are facing the largest authoritarian regime in the world, Wong added. So the fight for democracy is not a short-term thing.

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2nD0nob

Excerpt from:
Joshua Wong, 20-year-old 'Umbrella' rebellion leader, decries rigged Hong Kong election - USA TODAY

Common Dreams

Stubborn Facts and the Lies That Kill Democracy Common Dreams The verity of our second president's words should serve as a call to action against the alternative facts, lies and myths, which have already come to define the current Trump administration and pose so grave a threat to our weakened democratic ... and more »

Original post:
Stubborn Facts and the Lies That Kill Democracy - Common Dreams

Mark Rowley of the Metropolitan police makes a statement outside of New Scotland Yard on 22 March. The terrorist is helpless without the assistance of the media and those who feed it with words and deeds. Photograph: Jack Taylor/Getty Images

The current bout of global terrorism came to the heart of London today in a fatal attack outside the Palace of Westminster. The symbolism is impossible to escape. An assault on the home of democracy induces a peculiar sense of outrage. That people, including a policeman, should die in such an assault is tragic.

As yet, nothing is known of the motive. All that can be said is that the attacker failed to enter parliament itself. Bystanders were killed and injured, but the massive security inevitable for such an institution was effective in protecting its occupants. In a busy modern city there is no way absolute security can be assured, but the police can say that the system was tested and worked. Short of holding parliament in a bunker, there are limits to what more can or should sensibly be done.

Parliament will have been subjected to this test because of its high profile. The initial purpose of such incidents is to kill and wreak havoc. But the culprit cannot have sought simply to damage a wall or cause death and injury. We can assume he anticipated massive publicity for his deed and thus for his message. His purpose may well have been to spread fear, to test the robustness of democracy and, if possible, make it change its behaviour.

Our response to these incidents must not be to overreact. This week is the anniversary of the Islamic State outrage at Brussels airport, when 32 people lost their lives in a coordinated assault on Belgiums transport system. It followed earlier attacks in Paris.

The reaction then was extraordinary. Europes media and politicians were close to hysterical. For days, BBC reporters on the spot repeated the words panic, threat and menace by the hour. Frances President Franois Hollande declared that all of Europe has been attacked. Prime minister David Cameron announced that the UK faces a very real terror threat. Donald Trump declared to cheering supporters that Belgium and France are literally disintegrating. Isis could not have asked for a greater megaphone.

The terrorist is helpless without the assistance of the media and those who feed it with words and deeds. In his thoughtful manual, Terrorism: How to Respond, academic Richard English points out that the so-called threat to democracy, about which politicians like to talk at such times, lies not in any bloodshed and damage. It is the more real danger of provoking ill-judged, extravagant and counterproductive state responses. But this puts those who choose to be provoked in a peculiar and compromising position. Only if the media respond in a certain way can the terrorists achieve whatever spurious ends they may have.

The paucity of incidents in countries that censor news shows the crucial role of publicity to terrors methodology

We should recall that Theresa May as home secretary used the Paris and Belgium attacks to champion her snoopers charter, the most severe intrusion on personal privacy anywhere in the western world and described as such by Bill Binney, formerly of Americas National Security Agency. May added that the terrorist threat was why we should stay in the EU, as otherwise they would roam free. She warned that it took 143 days to process terrorist DNA outside the EU, against 15 minutes inside. Does she still say that? We have to respect those who defend us, but terrorism induces a strange madness.

At the time, the British government also rushed ahead with its Prevent strategy, commanding every educational institution to show it had programmes in place to counter nonviolent extremism, which can create an atmosphere conducive to terrorism. The attendant bureaucracy is now massive. Hardly a week passes without the Metropolitan police demanding vigilance inducing fear, caution and nervousness towards strangers. A recent BBC drama documentary titled Attack was ill-concealed publicity for more money for the police.

In struggling to put these incidents into proportion, we need to remember that there are now huge amounts of money in counterterrorism. Now is not the time to say this money is disproportionate, but it is open to the charge of serving terrors purposes. Everyone involved has, in truth, a sort of interest in it, from journalists and politicians to police and security lobbyists. The paucity of terror incidents in totalitarian countries that censor news shows the crucial role of publicity to terrors methodology. That said, suppressing such news cannot be justified in a free society. There is even a reluctance to admit self-censorship. When last year the French newspaper Le Monde decided not to publish the names of those responsible for terrorist killings as it clearly aided their martyrdom, it was criticised for denying coverage.

But every decision to publish an item of news involves a choice, a judgment. That is not censorship. For those seeking publicity for their misdeeds, there is a world of difference between the top spot on the news and the bottom. If the intention is not just to kill a few but thereby to terrify a multitude, the media is an essential accomplice. It is not the act that spreads terror, it is the report, the broadcast, the edited presentation, the decision on prominence.

All analysts of terrorism reiterate that it is not an ideology. Guns and bombs pose no existential threat to a country or society. Politicians who exploit it to engender fear are cynics with vested interests. Terrorism is a methodology of conflict. There is no real defence against madmen who kill, though its worth restating that Londons streets have probably never been safer places.

The use of vehicles to convey death is as old as the motor car or at least since Mario Buda exploded his car bomb in Wall Street in 1920. Recent advances in electronics have clearly taken this a step further, hence the new horror of laptops on board aeroplanes. But planes are safer vehicles than ever.

That is why the response of British governments to IRA incidents in the 1970s and 80s to regard them as random crimes not quasi-political gestures was surely correct. IRA terrorism was a much worse threat than anything experienced at present. Some freedoms were curtailed, as in detention without trial and the censoring of IRA spokespeople. They were minor victories for terror. But for the most part, British freedoms were not infringed, life went on and the threat eventually passed. Let us hope the same applies today.

Read more:
The Westminster attack is a tragedy, but it's not a threat to democracy - The Guardian