Mediaboss Marketing

By Michael Bratton and Boniface Dulani By Michael Bratton and Boniface Dulani July 20 at 8:00 AM

For 25 years, Zambia helped set the pace toward democratic consolidation in Africa. The country was quick to transition to a multiparty system, held six competitive elections and saw peaceful shifts of ruling parties. Based on past surveys, Zambians express among the longest and strongest attachments to the principles of democracy of people anywhere in Africa.

The past year, however, has seen authoritarian backsliding, marked by a government crackdown on free speech and the press. Since August 2016 elections marred by violent demonstrations, the opposition leader has been jailed, opposition members of Parliament have been banished, and a state of emergency has suspended civil liberties and granted the police increased powers of arrest and detention. Zambias church leaders recently warned that the country is, except in designation, a dictatorship.

What do ordinary Zambians think?

A recent national Afrobarometer survey shows that ordinary Zambians also see their democracy as beginning to erode (see detailed analysis here).

In face-to-face interviews in April 2017, two out of three Zambians say their country is headed in the wrong direction a stark reversal from 2012, when only 29 percent felt that way (see Figure 1). This mirrors what Zambians think about economic conditions in the country: Large majorities say that their national economy is underperforming (60 percent) and that the government is doing poorly at creating jobs (77 percent), narrowing income gaps (80 percent) and keeping prices stable (81 percent).

And two out of three Zambians believe official corruption increased (somewhat or a lot) over the past year, while 70 percent consider that the government is handling the fight against official corruption fairly badly or very badly. A similar proportion say they fear retaliation or other negative consequences if they report incidents of corruption.

Despite the economic challenges, Zambians remain strongly committed to the ideals of democracy, according to the April survey. They overwhelmingly prefer democracy to any other form of government (81 percent) and reject authoritarian systems such as one-party rule (82 percent), military rule (92 percent) and rule by a big-man dictator (92 percent, up from 87 percent in 2012) (see Figure 2). Most Zambians favor checks on the presidents executive powers: 64 percent think Parliament should monitor the president and 71 percent think he should always obey the courts. And 84 percent favor a limit of two five-year terms for the presidency.

Fewer Zambians are confident of their democracy

But further survey responses suggest Zambians arent seeing these principles in practice, and confidence in the quality of the countrys democracy is declining (see Figure 3):

Figure 3: Satisfaction with democracy | Zambia | 2012-2017 Survey respondents shared their thoughts on the quality of Zambias democracy, including to what extent the last national election was free and fair, as well as their personal fears of political intimidation or violence. Data: Afrobarometer.

Afrobarometer has used trends in public opinion to appraise political risk in Africa. In countries such as Kenya, Mali and Zimbabwe, rapid drops in popular political satisfaction have correlated to risk to democratic regimes. In Kenya and Zimbabwe, such risk was manifest in violent elections; in Mali, an ill-prepared military coup overthrew the civilian government.

What happens next in Zambia remains unclear, but early warning signals are present that the countrys hard-won democracy may well be in danger.

Michael Bratton is University Distinguished Professor of Political Science and African Studies at Michigan State University and senior adviser to Afrobarometer.

Boniface Dulani is a senior lecturer in the Department of Political and Administrative Studies at the University of Malawi and Afrobarometers operations manager for fieldwork in southern and francophone Africa.

Continue reading here:
Half of Zambians aren't happy with their democracy and that's a ... - Washington Post

When President Trump visited Poland earlier this month, he praised the country as a defender of Western values and democracy. But now, the countrys democratic institutions are quickly unraveling as the government pushes legislation that would essentially make its Supreme Court irrelevant.

On Thursday, lawmakers in the lower house of the Polish parliament voted in favor of a controversial bill that would give the government complete control over the Supreme Court.

The bill would essentially grant the ruling party the power to appoint new Supreme Court judges and calls for the immediate dismissal of the courts current judges, except those who had been chosen by President Andrzej Duda.

Specifically, the bill states that the National Judicial Council will select new judges. A law passed earlier this month made it so that the councils membership predominantly consists of people appointed by the president.

In a hard-hitting column, the Washington Posts Anne Applebaum argued that having a supreme court packed with pro-Duda judges could enable the government to falsify elections, evade corruption investigations, and prosecute opponents.

This is a blatant attack by Polands government on the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law, said Lydia Gall, a Balkans and Eastern Europe researcher at Human Rights Watch, in a statement.

The bill was submitted by the right-wing, EU-skeptic, and nationalist Law and Justice party (PiS), which controls both the upper and lower houses of parliament and picked President Duda. Since winning October 2015s democratic elections, the party has been determined to dismantle Polands checks and balances.

Now that the bill has been approved by the lower house, it moves on for a vote in the upper house. If it passes, it would then go to the president to be signed and passed as law.

In his July 6 speech in Warsaw, Trump questioned whether the West has the will to survive in its fight against radical Islamic terrorism.

Repeatedly throughout the speech, Trump praised Poland as a defender of the West.

Just as Poland could not be broken, I declare today for the world to hear that the West will never, ever be broken, Trump said. Our values will prevail, our people will thrive, and our civilization will triumph.

His nationalistic message was clear: The United States has Polands back even as the government is undermining its democracy. His speech may have even emboldened Polish legislators to consolidate the governments power by making it clear that the US was perfectly content with the countrys rightward drift.

I am here today not just to visit an old ally, but to hold it up as an example for others who seek freedom and who wish to summon the courage and the will to defend our civilization, said Trump.

Over the weekend, thousands of government opponents protested the bill and the governments attempts to consolidate power in Warsaw and several other cities.

The Krakow Post interviewed a number of protestors who said they were afraid for their countrys future. One protestor said it was his first time demonstrating since communism ended in Poland 27 years ago.

Now it is more dangerous. Very, very dangerous, Robert, a local 51-year-old engineer, told the Krakow Post. Communism was part of external control by Russia. But [the Law and Justice Party] is an internal thief of law.

The European Union, which Poland joined in 2004, has warned that the Polish government could be sanctioned and have its voting rights suspended if it passes the supreme court law.

Frans Timmermans, the European commissions first vice president, said on Wednesday that the EU is very close to triggering Article 7, a never-before-used rule that allows the EU to suspend member countries voting rights. It was established to ensure that all EU countries respect the common values of the EU, according to Politico.

Trump, in other words, should have probably held off in holding Poland up as an example of a smoothly-functioning democratic nation.

See more here:
Trump praised Poland as a defender of the West. But their democracy is unraveling. - Vox

The dearth of foreign leaders willing to publicly criticize Mr. Xi has added to a sense of despair and isolation among activists. Many say they feel abandoned by the United States in particular, and they worry that President Trump will prioritize trade with China at the expense of human rights.

People are full of sorrow, anger and desperation, said Zhao Hui, 48, a dissident writer who goes by the pen name Mo Zhixu. We hope the democratic activists who still remain can keep the flame alive. But bringing about change to the bigger picture might be too much to ask.

The passing of Mr. Liu, who preached peace and patience, has provoked debate about the best path toward democracy. Many activists argue that more forceful tactics are necessary to counter what they see as unrelenting government hostility. Some have pushed for mass protests, while a small number believe that violence is the only option, even if they do not endorse it outright.

Some have turned to believe in violent revolution, said Hu Jia, a prominent dissident who served more than three years in prison for his activism and still faces routine surveillance. It makes people feel the door to a peaceful transition has closed.

Mr. Lius allies remain incensed by the Chinese governments handling of his case. Officials disclosed that Mr. Liu, 61, had advanced liver cancer only when it was too late to treat it, prompting accusations that his medical care was inadequate. The authorities have also prevented his wife, Liu Xia, an artist and activist, from speaking or traveling freely.

The scrutiny facing government critics is likely to grow even more suffocating in the months ahead.

The Communist Party will hold a leadership reshuffle this fall, at which Mr. Xi is expected to win another five-year term and appoint allies to key positions. In the run-up to the meeting, the party is tightening its grip on online communications and escalating pressure on critics.

Human rights advocates say that the party appears increasingly hostile toward dissent and intent on quashing even small-scale movements. Over the past two years, dozens of human rights lawyers have been jailed and accused of conspiring with foreign forces to carry out subversive plots. Mr. Xis government, wary of grass-roots activism, has also increased oversight of domestic and foreign nonprofit organizations.

Yaxue Cao, an activist who grew up in China but is now based in the United States, said Mr. Lius death was the climax of a long and continuous stretch of ruthless elimination. She recited a long list of critics who had been sidelined since Mr. Xi rose to power in 2012, which she said had led to a culture of fear and intimidation.

The party has been working systematically to block the path forward, she said. A few hundred or a few thousand activists are nothing for the party.

Advocates say they were startled that foreign leaders did not speak out more forcefully about the treatment of Mr. Liu. While American diplomats called on China to allow Mr. Liu to travel abroad for cancer treatment, Mr. Trump did not speak publicly about the case.

Western countries have adopted a policy of appeasement, Mr. Hu said. The Communist Party has the resources to whip whomever they want.

The Chinese government has defended its treatment of Mr. Liu and accused foreign critics of meddling in its affairs.

While China has seemed less responsive to foreign pressure on human rights issues in recent years, several activists said they thought it was still important for world leaders to speak out.

We hope the West can maintain its moral position, Mr. Zhao said. Even though the pressure is not as effective as it should be, it needs to be expressed.

Despite the governments efforts to limit dissent, some of Mr. Lius supporters say they have emerged more energized in the days since his death. They see hope in a middle class that is increasingly outspoken; grass-roots activists who are taking on issues as varied as pollution and forced demolitions of homes; and a generation of young advocates who have taken on causes like feminism and rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender citizens.

How long can such an approach last before discontent boils over? said Maya Wang, a researcher at Human Rights Watch in Hong Kong. One only needs to look at the protests, particularly in the countryside, to see the enormous grievances there are out there.

In the aftermath of Mr. Lius passing, his admirers have found ways around the governments controls on speech to honor him. Several supporters uploaded photos of the ocean this week as a tribute to Mr. Liu, whose ashes were spread at sea.

Wu Qiang, a dissident intellectual, drove about 400 miles last week from Beijing to the northeastern city of Shenyang, where Mr. Liu was being treated, to be near him in his final days. Mr. Wu, 46, said Mr. Lius death had left many of his admirers with a desire to turn sorrow into strength.

On one side is darkness; on the other side is hope, he said. We need to find a new way forward.

Iris Zhao contributed research.

Read the original post:
In China, Despair for Cause of Democracy After Nobel Laureate's Death - New York Times

In her July 13 op-ed in Foreign Affairs, How U.S. Officials Can Craft Innovative Human Rights Policy, former Ambassador Sarah Mendelson recalls her work as a senior, politically-appointed foreign policy official in the Obama administration. Her personal mission, as she recalls, was to elevate human rightsfirst within USAID, and later when she worked for the US Mission to the United Nations.

Her initiatives to promote civil society and human rights within small powers such as post-Ben Ali Tunisia are admirable. However, her implicit suggestion that we ought to elevate human rights in our relations with great powers such as China and Russia is strategically incorrect. Our countrys policies vis-a-vis great powers (and to some extent medium powers, such as Turkey) must be guided, first and foremost, by a grand strategy rooted in our strategic interests, not one that aims to reflect our values.

In January 2010, Ambassador Mendelson was asked by the Obama administration to join USAID. Right away she embarked on a proactive agenda to push human rights to the top of the priority chain. Yet nearly three years later, as she was about to travel to Russia to assess the impact of Americas civil society promotion efforts there, Putin decided to quickly shut down USAIDs presence in Russia.

Ambassador Sarah Mendelson. Credit: Center for Strategic and International Studies/Flickr/Creative Commons

Astoundingly, she writes, she felt upset that there was no consequence (from the U.S. government) for Russias actions. This is a worrying sentiment from a senior official whose work impacts U.S. national security. Why should there have been a consequence for Putins crack-down on a political opposition promoted by USAID? Shouldnt she have expected that to be the reaction of an authoritarian leader?

Both the U.S. and Russia have nuclear arsenals that could bring about the worlds destruction. The situation is is tense, in Syria and in Eastern Europe, where American forces are in close proximity to an increasingly bellicose Russia. There can be no room for error. There can and should be real consequences for Russian strategic misbehavior: for example, a Russian attack on one of Americas NATO allies, or meddling in the U.S. elections. But Putins reaction to the Obama administrations democracy promotion in Russia (which the Kremlin viewed, probably correctly, as efforts to undermine his regime), does not rise to the level of injury Mendelson seemed to suggest.

If anything, Putins increasingly repressive measures should have had the opposite impact on Ambassador Mendelson: They should have caused her to reconsider attempts to elevate civil society promotion in powerful nations like Russia, an on-again/off-again adversary, especially since the results were so blatantly contrary to her intentions. And she should have considered, when reflecting on her time in government, whether her enthusiastic efforts to increase support to political opposition inside Russia inadvertently contributed to Putins decision to try to undermine Hillary Clinton during the 2016 elections.

Despite or because of USAIDs closing in Russia, Ambassador Mendelson continues, she doubled-down on her efforts to promote civil society in Russia. Following Putins closure of USAID, her team worked to establish centers in various parts of the world as places where members of civil society could learn to be more resilient and develop skills that made them better connected to the people they were meant to represent than to their foreign donors. This is both disappointing and illogical. Disappointing because it exudes undiplomatic arrogance: Does she really think that individuals who are courageous enough to risk their lives being part of the opposition in politically repressive countries like Russia or China need foreign officials (many born and bred in an elite, upper-class bubble), to teach them on how to be more resilient? And how does resilience training for activists in repressive countries look like? Solitary confinement in the morning, starvation in the afternoon, sleep deprivation at night, and torture at dawn?

In addition, such centers require the U.S. government to finance, lead, support, and sustain them. So the U.S. will (and in some instances already) becomes a foreign donor to centers that teach activists to pay less attention to foreign donors. This does not make sense.

The Ambassador is critical of President Donald Trumps and Secretary of State Rex Tillersons omissions regarding human rights and civil society. Yet this is precisely what is needed at this point in history. Putting aside Iraq for a second (since she is not suggesting promoting human rights through military force), think of the regionswhere the U.S. has tried promoting civil society over the last two decadesEastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle East. Today the sovereignty of Georgia and Ukraine has been torn to shreds by Russias counter-reaction (from sending in little green men, to increasing cyber attacks on those countries critical infrastructures). Meanwhile political factionalism and corruption in both countries has made future progress impossible.

Promoting human rights, democratic institutions, or civil society can remain the aspiration of individual diplomats, but American foreign policy must first be guided by strategic interests. Today, the U.S. should seek to find ways to cooperate with China and Russia on Syria, Iran, North Korea, and other pressing challenges, rather than to promote civil society in Beijing or Moscow, and thereby inadvertently trigger an unnecessary and dangerous escalation in hostilities.

Dr. Oleg Svet is a defense analyst. The views expressed here are his own.

Read more from the original source:
When Pushing Democracy on Others Backfires - The American Conservative

Dennis Gronquist

Stillwater

To the editor:

Mark Krzmarzick seems like a fairly well informed writer and reader of the News Press. Good for him. I hope its not liberal brainwashing. In his Letter to the Editor, Writers arguments filled with holes on July 6, it is evident that he is still somewhat confused, as are many other people, over the difference between a democracy and a republic.

Yes, Mark, I agree with Merriam-Webster, even though it is a poor source for explaining this difference. Wikipedia or Blacks Law Dictionary are somewhat better, but it is still somewhat confusing as they are similar. Both democracies and republics may have laws written by representative governments. Thats a no brainer. But your attempt to clarify the terminology is not helping. What we just agreed upon does not change the fact that we do not have a democracy or a democratic republic. Yes, there are similarities.

To quote Steve King, Our Founding Fathers crafted a constitutional republic for the first time in the history of the world because they were shaping a form of government that would not have the failures of a democracy in it, but had the representation of democracy in it.

A better definition is to quote Benjamin Franklin, We have a constitutional republic, if we can keep it.

The Founders established limits on what government can do without public approval. When these constitutional limits are routinely violated by government, and we do nothing about it, our government is openly evolving into something other than what was originally intended and what has served us and the world so well. A prime example is the Democratic Party with a socialist candidate and platform. Then, there are the bogus Oklahoma public trusts used by the City Council to justify double utility rates and other excessive fees, simply because the state allows it.

They do not serve the common man, but their governmental entities at public expense. In doing so, they violate not only the Oklahoma state constitution, but the U.S. Constitution; the supreme law of the land.

The best example of a true democratic republic is still the Democratic Peoples Republic of (North) Korea, the proud DPRK, with its million man army. To suggest our government is a democratic republic is not only in error, its ludicrous.

If the majority ruled, Hillary Clinton would be carrying on the socialist practices of her predecessor. Thankfully, the Constitution defines an electoral college that temporarily saved us from paying the welfare state in Mexifornia; who, like our city employees, will always want more.

Read more from the original source:
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: We're no democracy, thank goodness - Stillwater News Press