Mediaboss Marketing

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has written a new book in which she argues that America "must continue to support the cause of human freedom."

In "Democracy: Stories from the Long Road to Freedom," Rice, who served under President George W. Bush, takes a "sweeping look at the global struggle for democracy," according to publisher Twelve Books.

"From the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union to the ongoing struggle for human rights in the Middle East, Condoleezza Rice has served on the front lines of history," the publisher says.

"As a child, she was an eyewitness to a third awakening of freedom, when her hometown of Birmingham, Alabama, became the epicenter of the civil rights movement for black Americans."

In "Democracy," Rice, a professor in Global Business and the Economy at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, puts "democracy's challenges into perspective," according to Twelve.

"Using America's long struggle as a template, Rice draws lessons for democracy around the world from Russia, Poland, and Ukraine, to Kenya, Colombia, and the Middle East.

"She finds that no transitions to democracy are the same because every country starts in a different place. Pathways diverge and sometimes circle backward. Time frames for success vary dramatically, and countries often suffer false starts before getting it right."

2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read more from the original source:
Condoleezza Rice Writes the Book on 'Democracy' - Newsmax

THE HORIZON BY KAYODE KOMOLAFE kayode.komolafe@thisdaylive.com

Here comes, again, May, the month in which political publicists are wont to stage a festival of what they call dividends of democracy. In 1999 President Olusegun Obasanjo declared May 29 the Democracy Day to mark his inauguration as an elected President at the take-of this dispensation. Since then the month has become a period of stock- taking for those observing the anniversaries of their coming to power. By the way, there was hardly anything symbolic about May 29 other than the fact that General Abdulsalami Abubakar wanted his transition programme to terminate by all means within a year of his coming to power.

Consequently, May 29 is being erroneously given a greater historical weight than October 1, which is the actual day to celebrate freedom. This is a subject that should interest those who seek to promote national orientation. The teaching of the lessons of the National Day should be a component of national orientation.

It is a pity that the significance of October 1 as a day to reflect on freedom for which the nationalists fought gallantly is being down graded in favour of May 29. Generations are being nurtured with this gross distortion. In another dimension, this conceptual confusion about the real import of May 29 is further reflected in the catalogue of dividends of democracy often put on display at this period. Federal and state governments advertise the roads, bridges, boreholes, classrooms, healthcare centres built in the period under review.

Some advertise newly constructed offices and governors lodges as part of the achievements. Even some others now advertise payment of salaries. Yet the development history of Nigeria has shown, warts and all, that some of the undeniable landmark projects were not built by democratic governments. The military regimes also constructed major highways, bridges, airports, seaports, refineries, power plants, dams, housing estates, water projects, etc. Yet no one would dare classify these projects as dividends of democracy.

Doubtless, many of the projects and programmes that the reputation managers of governments flaunt at this season are not the real dividends of democracy. Celebrated mathematician, Professor Chike Obi, once advocated benevolent dictatorship by a committee to accelerate the process of Nigerias development. Implicit in Obis spectacular proposition in his lifetime was the fact that it did not really require liberal democracy to build good roads, bridges, schools and hospitals. The theory still remains valid.

The real dividend of democracy is freedom. For the people, the most enduring democratic gain is liberty. Democracy can bear real dividends only when it is deepened and the institutions fostering it are actually working. The dividends can also take the form of democratic values. A proper audit of this dispensation would hardly return a verdict of bounteous harvest of the real dividends of democracy in terms of strong institutions and blossoming of the flowers of democratic values. For instance, the political parties are yet to congeal into organic institutions of democracy. In most cases, they remain inchoate organisations. Their growth is pitiably stunted. Politicians are not attracted to parties because of programmes or ideologies. The parties are treated virtually as electoral vehicles to board to power.

Similar verdicts could be returned on departments and agencies of the three arms of government. Arms of governments cannot bring forth dividends of democracy when they are not strengthened to be instruments of freedom, equity and social justice. True dividends of democracy are impaired when the institutions are corrupt and are rendered to be instruments to promote personal, greedy and selfish ends. The arms of government can only engender dividends of democracy when they work for the values of common good.

For a judicious assessment of the real democratic dividends issuing from the system, a political economy approach could be useful. It could be helpful in getting round the mounting socio-economic challenges in the land if a political economy approach is considered for development. A big picture of development is necessary to produce real dividends of democracy at this historical conjuncture. The government has put together a plan to confront socio-economic problems. Similarly, there should be conscious political efforts to ensure the real dividends of democracy in terms of human freedom. A political plan to deepen democracy is also important.

Democracy will not bear dividends when voices of dissent are muzzled and government cannot be held accountable. Transparency in governance, freedom of expression, freedom of choice, respect for the rights of the minorities, and the legitimacy of opposition are among significant dividends of democracy. The May 29 cataloguing of dividends of democracy becomes hollow when the orders of the court to set free those in custody are routinely ignored by executive authorities. The celebration of dividends of democracy would be more meaningful when the democratic culture blooms when the opposition take responsible actions within the law and the government duly respects the legitimacy of the opposition. As governments at all levels showcase again roads, bridges, classrooms and hospital beds as dividends of democracy this season, let there be a greater awareness about an unyielding defence of human freedom as the genuine dividend of democracy.

RIGHT OF REPLY

By Opeyemi Ojo

For Increase in Social Spending I write in response to Kayode Komolafes column in the THISDAY edition of April 26, 2017. For some time now, I have held the opinion that our social crusaders have not helped matters in our national development. I have also viewed it as a crisis of knowledge.

May be they do not know. We have witnessed a lot of organized criticism where there is money. Attacks are mostly aimed at what government is doing wrong, with little suggestion of what government should be doing right. There is hardly a pool of voices showing the way forward- what should be done. Most of the time we have the loudest of voices are thriving on criticism. Just a few folks are showing the way forward in patriotism, a few showing the path of service delivery, nobody is showing the burden of a sound value system. We usually have peoples position skewed towards one interest or the other.

So it was refreshing for me to read Komolafes article re-echoing UNDPs Selim Jahan that every human being counts and every human life is equally valuable. I feel strongly that this is the basis in which a government can be said to be serving the people- a government should be a representative of the Supreme God.

For me we are here today, not because of President Goodluck Jonathan or President Ibrahim Babangida; but because we as a people have not learnt to take a pro-people path to development. Now I would like to make an appeal that there should be a greater focus on how to increase social spending. Maybe the honest liberal among us will be encouraged to get to the next level of radical probing of our problems and we will begin to see solutions flowing. *Mr. Ojo sent in this piece from Abuja.

Go here to read the rest:
Dividends of Democracy as Misnomer - THISDAY Newspapers

The aspects of the ASEAN Charter dealing with rights and democracy have been largely ignored.

By Khoo Ying Hooi for The Diplomat

May 03, 2017

The 30thASEAN Summitjust successfully concluded in Manila. Hosted by the Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, the summits themewas Partnering for Change, Engaging the World. Yet while ASEAN has made some remarkable achievements over the last five decades, there remain some doubts on the future prospect of this regional organization and the region as a whole.

The Southeast Asia region is diversified in many ways. For one thing, itis marked by a fragmented state of democratic development, which could probably be explained by looking at the regions different political values in regards to governance systems.

Since the 2007 ASEAN Charter, ASEAN has been pursuing political and democratic reforms, albeit at a slow pace, under the umbrella of the ASEAN Community. Some principles of the Charter, however, have not been adequately implemented and to some extent, are almost neglected by some ASEAN member states. Thats particularly true when it comes to issues concerning human rights, democracy, fundamental freedoms, good governance, and the rule of law.

Now, as the regional organization celebrates its 50thanniversary and its promise tobring about a rules-based, people-oriented, and people-centered ASEAN, there is increasing concern over the stagnant and, at times, regressive process of democratization in the region.

In the Philippines for example, thehost country of the recent summit, Dutertes controversial war on illegal drugs is a major part of a worrying assault on democracy values across the region. Doubts are growing over democracy in the Philippines due to Dutertes approach. Human rights groups particularly have spoken out loudly about his crimes against humanity.

At the same time, Indonesia, the worlds third largest democracy, is currentlybeing tested bythe growing role of religion as a political tool. The Ahok incident, where the popular Chinese Christian governor of Jakarta lost hisre-election bid due to blasphemy accusations, was taken by many as an indication of the uncertain future of the countrys secular democracy. In 2014, Jokowis presidential election victory was seen as a healthy sign for Indonesias democratic institutions;however, the growing influence of the Islamist groups could be a potentially destabilizing factor in Indonesias democracy.

In Malaysia, the growing suppression of dissent has reachedan alarming rate in the midst of the countrys massive 1MDB corruption scandal, allegedly involving high-level politicians. With rumors that elections might be held this year, the sense of political uncertainty spells a gloomy outlook forMalaysias flawed democracy.

Meanwhile, the frequent military coups in Thailand have continued to destroy the democratic process in the country. The countrys newly promulgated constitution is expectedto possibly lead to more political imbalance. And Myanmar started along a positive trajectory with amajor victory bydemocracy leader Aung San Suu Kyis party markingthe end of half-a-century of dominance by the military. But the celebration of democracyis tarnished when Suu Kyiis heavily criticized for not speaking out against discrimination and violencetargeting Rohingya Muslims.

On the other hand,Timor-Lestes application to ASEAN membership has been delayed for another round, despite being geographically located in Southeast Asia.According to Dutertes full chairmans statement, issued after the summit, Timor-Lestes application to become an ASEAN Member is still under study by the relevant senior officials. He added, To prepare Timor-Leste for membership in ASEAN, we reiterated our commitment to provide assistance to Timor-Leste for its capacity-building, in accordance with the elements and procedures agreed to by the ASEAN Coordinating Council Working Group (ACCWF) on Timor-Lestes ASEAN Membership Application.

As Southeast Asias youngest country, Timor-Lestes bid for ASEAN membership remains a complicated case, particularly when the countryscored the highest of any Southeast Asian state in the latest democracy index released by theEconomist Intelligence Unit (EIU). There are constant questions abouthow would Timor-Lestes democratic values would fit with the ASEAN framework, which is based on consensus and non-interference.

2017 is a particularly critical year for ASEAN and Southeast Asia to prove itself as a region that emphasizes putting ASEANs people first. At this juncture, the path to democracy is rocky for the Southeast Asia region. It is especially dangerouswhen the newgenerations emerging to take power in the region might not be instilled with democratic values, which could pose a challenge for their ability to accept or initiate democratic reforms.

Khoo Ying Hooi (PhD) is Senior Lecturer at the Department of International and Strategic Studies, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Malaya.

Read the original:
ASEAN at 50: A New Test for Democracy in Southeast Asia - The Diplomat

This week, Sen. Peter Harder, embarked on a herculean political mission aimed at helping get Canada's Senate working the way the government wants it to. Which is to say, passing Liberal legislation.

The government's representative in the Senate had been telling Albertans how the new-look Red Chamber, most of whose inhabitants are independent, could return to its "traditional role as a voice for Canada's regions" rather than act like a partisan sandbox.

Perhaps it could if (a) everyone were buying the premise and (b) this new independence did not have the effect of making the Senate even less accountable than it was prior to 2014.

That was the year Trudeau, then leader of the third party, dumped all Liberal senators from the Liberal caucus. He also pledged to appoint only independents in future. In 2017, he is reaping the political fallout.

There is only one organized party caucus in the Senate: the Tories. With 39 senators, they aren't a majority, but it doesn't matter. As members of the Conservative caucus, working with their MP counterparts, they've stalled or stymied some Liberal legislation, such as Bill C-4, which amended the rules around unionization. They've also used what Harder terms "obstruction" to slow the progress of Bill C-16 on transgender rights. Other agenda items have been delayed, such as a bill on the final wording of the lyrics to O Canada.

In contrast to the Tory senators, the 42 independents and 18 "independent Liberals" (there are also six vacancies) answer to no one. "It's a delicate, diplomatic, political dance (Harder) has to waltz every time there is a bill before us," says independent Liberal Sen. Jim Munson. "The price of independence is there are no guarantees."

Facing a Sisyphean future, Harder recently produced a discussion paper proposing ways to prod senators into moving government business along.

"The Opposition in the Senate has taken advantage of the power vacuum left by the elimination of a government caucus," his paper lamented. "Rather than occupy the vacuum with substance and policy, it has too often filled it with time-wasting. Without a government caucus to counter the Opposition's obstruction, the Conservative Party of Canada practically has free rein to delay, delay, and delay further."

Yup. That's right.

"The evolving Senate must reconcile its practices and procedures with its increasing independence," he continued.

Must it? Says who? Well, tradition. By convention, "government legislation, mandated by Canadians who cast ballots, must be studied and dealt with in a timely fashion," former Tory senator Hugh Segal wrote in the Ottawa Citizen.

This isn't the first time a government holding elected power has faced a Senate whose majority was not of that party. What's different today is that every senator except the Tories is beholden to no one.

Conservative senators are at least minimally accountable, because the party they believe in must win seats in the other chamber. Misbehaviour can damage the party's chances. It's why Ambrose removed Sen. Lynn Beyak from the Senate Aboriginal People's committee.

Conservative Sen. Bob Runciman believes success in the newly anarchic Senate will depend on Harder's ability to build relationships in all camps. "At the end of the day, they have a majority government," he notes. "Government legislation will ultimately carry the day." If Harder can persuade everyone to play nice, that is. No pressure.

"The Senate is independent," Trudeau recently told a reporter who asked his views on Beyak. You bet it is. And democratic too.

cspencer@postmedia.com

Follow this link:
Democracy loses when senators independent - Shoreline Beacon

In the past two weeks, we witnessed two historic electoral events. On April 16, Turkey voted to grant its president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, near-absolute power, and on April 23, France voted to send the far-right candidate Marine Le Pen to the final runoff for president, with the final election between Le Pen and centrist Emmanuel Macron set for May 7.

These two events continue a disturbing trend of leaders who espouse authoritarian platforms winning in popular elections across the globe.

Pundits are framing these events as indicators of a debate around globalization, with people such as Le Pen who leads the National Front, a party with a deep history of fascist and anti-Semitic positions, and who as recently as two weeks ago seemed to downplay Frances role in the holocaust leading a populist wave against entrenched globalists. Unfortunately, this framing is incomplete and misleading.

There is no question that people across the globe are wrestling with the costs and benefits of globalization; however, the underlying argument that is driving recent events is over whether democracy or authoritarianism is better suited to create economic opportunity and provide security.

Turkeys descent into authoritarianism is illustrative of the global trend.

Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party, or AKP, were first elected into power in 2002 as reformers, intent on continuing Turkeys integration with Europe while cleaning up government and restoring economic growth. Though negotiations with Europe stalled after a few years, Erdogan (as prime minister) successfully managed to drive growth, with the economy growing around 7 percent a year from 2002 to 2007.

In the early years, Erdogan also strengthened civil rights and reduced the role of the military in civilian life (notable in a country where the military habitually overthrew any civilian government that it felt strayed too far from Turkeys secular customs).

Yet by 2010, signs emerged of a shifting landscape. That year, Turkey voted to adopt a referendum put forth by Erdogan and the AKP. The referendum contained many constitutional changes that had widespread support, such as measures to expand protections for women and children; but the referendum also granted the AKP significant power to shape the judiciary branch, weakening a check on the AKPs (and Erdogans) power. The referendum passed with 58 percent of the vote, demonstrating the depth of Erdogans personal support; but the vote pattern previewed splits in the country that would deepen in the ensuing years, with deep pockets of voters in major urban areas rejecting the referendum.

Since 2010, Turkey has been buffeted by the Syrian civil war and broader regional conflict, a slowing economy (annual GDP growth dropped below 5 percent), numerous deadly terrorist attacks and severe internal political division.

As the economy slowed and political opposition intensified with massive street protests against Erdogan and the AKP in 2013 Erdogan intensified his attacks and began arresting anyone who spoke out against him (Turkey currently jails the highest-number of journalists in the world).

This internal strife culminated in an attempted coup in July 2016. After surviving the attempt, Erdogan declared a state of emergency and arrested tens of thousands of people.

It was during this state of emergency, with thousands of citizens still in jail or under surveillance, that Turkey went to the polls to decide whether to grant Erdogan even more expansive powers. The referendum passed on April 16 of this year with 51.4 percent of the vote. As a result, Turkey will officially move from a parliamentary system to a presidential system, with power centralized in President Erdogan (he was elected president in 2014).

Erdogan will also be able to stand for election potentially two more times, extending his reign for another decade.

We could write off Turkeys turn to authoritarianism as a symptom of the regions instability. Similarly, if France chooses Macron over Le Pen on May 7, we could shrug off Le Pens campaign as an anomaly fueled by Europes refugee crisis or stagnant economic growth. But to do so would only allow authoritarianism to continue its spread unabated.

Instead we should see these events for what they are authoritarian forces capitalizing on deep-seated anxiety and uncertainty to seize power.

If we acknowledge what these events signify, then we can act. The authoritarians playbook is simple and clear. Authoritarians blame clearly identifiable others as the cause of a nations problems and call for restoring national glory. They coerce, bribe or co-opt media outlets into spreading propaganda. They use every lever possible to turn anxiety into fear and fear into anger.

It is not a particularly nuanced strategy, but it does not require a sophisticated effort to secure victory when those who champion democracy remain in denial about what is happening.

Our actions can begin at home. The stronger we make our democracy, the more powerfully we will be able to refute authoritarian efforts abroad. To this end, we can look at our own politics and ask if we are advancing efforts that will expand engagement in our democratic process.

Are we seeking out those who feel left out and finding ways to connect? Are we asking each other to serve a greater good through meaningful civic participation? As we strengthen our democracy, we will inoculate ourselves against authoritarianisms subterfuge. We will also exemplify for the world why democracy, however complicated, slow-moving and contentious, remains the surest way to lift up all people and secure lasting peace.

(Dan Vallone is a West Point graduate who served six years on active duty as an infantry officer. He lives in Concord.)

More:
My Turn: As the light of one democracy goes out, another begins to flicker - Concord Monitor