Mediaboss Marketing

As Prime Minister Narendra Modi completes his seventh year in office, Indias perceived democratic backsliding has invariably formed the underlying context of political assessments of his tenure. The governments handling of Covid-19s second wave has added to anxieties related to the suppression of democratic norms.

These concerns were validated by a host of annual democracy rankings earlier this year, which downgraded Indias status to a flawed democracy or electoral autocracy. Irrespective of ones view on the conclusions, these reports have thrown up a set of larger questions over methods to assess democratic robustness, the internal and external variables that shape democratic health, and the roots of the crisis of liberal democracy.

Is Indias democratic backsliding an outlier or part of a historical pattern? In the early 1990s, political scientist Samuel Huntington described the pattern of global democratisation as a series of three waves and reverse waves. The first long wave lasted for almost a century until the end of World War I; the second short wave was in the aftermath of World War II; and the third medium wave began in the late 1970s, lasting till the dawn of the new century.

Since then, the world has been under the grip of a democratic recession. The rising concern among scholars and commentators on how democracies die to borrow the title of a book on this trend is neither surprising nor unwarranted.

Also Read | Pakistans balancing act between the US and the Taliban will affect India

At the outset, the sharp disagreement over democracy ratings, as witnessed in India, is inevitable, since democracy itself, in academic literature, is an essentially contested concept. There are endless debates among scholars on how best to measure democracy. In fact, dissatisfaction among academics with Freedom House and Polity scores led to the establishment of V-Dem that employs more comprehensive indicators and statistically robust techniques. Much like any complex social phenomenon, a snapshot picture of democracy (in terms of headline numbers) will have inherent limitations of subjectivity.

As each of these reports privileges some components of the definition of democracy and relies heavily on expert-based judgments, they capture certain parts of reality and filter some parts out.

This lack of a singular framework of measurement of democracy does not, however, mean that we must not take them seriously. Notwithstanding political rhetoric, these institutes follow a very methodologically rigorous protocol on how to define democracy, best practices to measure the concept, and aggregation of various components into single indices. Further, all these reports share a very high degree of correlation and their datasets (along with methodological details) are publicly available. Their data is regularly employed in the statistical analysis of economic, political, and social policy.

At the heart of criticism are the ideological biases of the experts. We cant be sure about the ideological preferences of these experts as the institutes refrain from sharing the identity of individual country experts, for understandable reasons. Even as these reports document rising populism, they are subject to the same populism-driven distrust of experts. These institutes must therefore assuage these rising concerns by greater transparency.

But we must recognise that there is a certain consensus democracy in every region of the world is under attack by populist leaders and their supporters who are exploiting nationalistic appeals to concentrate power. As a result, dissenting voices (including all sorts of minorities) are facing the heat of this anti-pluralist backlash.

The big decline in Indias ratings hinges on a decline in civil liberties and deterioration in political tolerance. And not surprisingly, the actions and inactions of the Modi government have been highlighted as the driving factor in Indias democratic backsliding.

While India must focus on the home front to regain its political legitimacy, global trends cannot be discounted in this decade of democratic recession. For example, in the previous two reversal waves, shocks to geopolitical order (such as wars), new States with weak institutions (which could not keep up with increasing pressures on the system), and neighbourhood effects were important drivers.

We must also not discount the shifting geopolitical order with the rise of China and increasing economic inequalities across the globe in understanding democratic recession. States in the developing world are unable to keep up with governance demands in face of an economic slowdown. And, most countries are facing renewed challenges with new types of non-State actors (including Big Tech) trying to influence domestic politics.

In many parts, where the rate of backsliding has been steep, especially in consolidated democracies such as India, there is also a simultaneous collapse of the ancien regimes under the weight of their inefficiencies. The liberal model of democracy is struggling as its promise of fostering equality and giving a voice to all citizens in politics has remained, to a great extent, unfulfilled. As BR Ambedkar warned, political democracy can only be sustained with the foundation of social and economic democracy.

The global surge of nationalist-populist leaders did not happen in a vacuum. Nor can their continued popularity be easily wished away. Many of these leaders have cemented a solid support base, and the political opposition in many of these countries still remains largely discredited. While these leaders remake politics in their country that is more amenable to their ideological worldview, the line between disagreements and dissent will continue to remain thin. This means that the expansive notions of democracy that were envisioned during the rapid march of global democratisation of the 1980s and 90s will continue to remain under stress in the near future.

This is not to say that the supporters of democracy must learn to live with truncated notions for the foreseeable future. It is to suggest that they must participate in a more clear-eyed appraisal of the backsliding and chart out the path of recovery. Democracy is strengthened through dialogue on divergent issues. On the home front, this would require both resolve to engage with the current churning, and more inclusive intention to re-envision the idea of India.

Rahul Verma is a fellow, Centre for Policy Research (CPR), New Delhi

The views expressed are personal

Read the original here:
Assessing the quality of Indian democracy - Hindustan Times

With changes to voting and campaign finance rules, Maryland sets the pace for nation

BALTIMORE Several voting and campaign finance reform bills that the Maryland General Assembly passed this session became law in Maryland after Gov. Larry Hogan chose not to sign them. The new laws increase access to early voting, improve on the state's vote-by-mail system, and reduce the role of large and corporate donors in races for governor. While none of the bills got Gov. Hogans endorsement, many of the bills earned bipartisan support in the state legislature.

We are disappointed that Gov. Hogan did not sign these common sense reforms, especially the update to the Fair Elections Act, which he used to win office, Said Maryland PIRG Director Emily Scarr, With these new laws Maryland has firmly positioned itself as a leader on democracy reforms."

The events of 2020 made a clear case for why American democracy desperately needs reform. Butwhile an important federal election reform bill called the For The People Act has stalled in the U.S. Senate, a handful of states, notably Maryland, are pushing forward with building a better democracy.

The Maryland bills passed recently include:

States have often been described as laboratories of democracy and, in recent years, Maryland has been one of the most productive laboratories. In fact, many of the reforms in the stalled federal For the People Act are already in use in Maryland. Over the last decade, Maryland has passed automatic voter registration, has expanded access to mail-in balloting and, after the state legislature passed enabling legislation in 2013,five Maryland cities and counties established successful public campaign financing programs to empower small donors.

Groups including Maryland PIRG, Common Cause Maryland, the League of Women Voters of Maryland, the Maryland State Conference of the NAACP, Disability Rights Maryland, and the Maryland ACLU have worked with legislators and activists to advocate for these reforms.

So, while partisan gridlock stymies reform just across the state line in Washington, DC, Maryland is showing that there is a path forward for building a democracy that works for everyone.

Our democracy works best when we all participate and everyones voice is heard, in Maryland, the 49 other states and DC, said Scarr. Instituting these electoral reforms is a powerful way to ensure we have a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

View post:
Maryland democracy reforms go into effect without signature from Gov. Hogan - State PIRGs

Voters stand in line before casting their ballots under Sheikhs 42C heat. (Photo: Greg Mills)

The authors were members of the international election monitoring team convened by the Brenthurst Foundation, and were based in the Sahel region in eastern Somaliland.

A dirty white, bullet-pocked house, without electricity and running water, does not merit a second glance in the town of Burao high in the east of Somaliland. Yet this former colonial governors residence shaded by a giant acacia was the site of the Grand Conference of the Northern Peoples in Burao, held over six weeks, concluding with the declaration of Somalilands independence from Somalia on 18 May 1991.

Since then, the Somalilanders have stuck with a winning formula, despite the absence of international recognition and the tepid democratic enthusiasm of much of the Horn of Africa.

Only Somaliland is not ranked as unfree (with a score of 42/100) on Freedom Houses political rights and civil liberty rankings. Ethiopia (22), Djibouti (24) and Somalia (7) all rank as unfree, the same as Uganda (34), Rwanda (21), Burundi (14), Egypt (18), Sudan (17), South Sudan (2), and Eritrea (2) in the next regional ring. Only Kenya (48) to the south enjoys partly free status.

Somaliland uses democracy to keep its people together. Its steady democratic performance and progress is a breath of fresh air in a continent where right now its an uphill struggle for democrats.

Only seven countries of 49 in sub-Saharan Africa are now in the free category. This is the lowest figure since 1991, with less than 10% of the population of the continent now living in countries classified by Freedom House as free.

The reasons are simple. Incumbents have little interest in changing things, even though a vast majority of Africans regularly polled prefer democracy to other forms of government, despite the popularity among elites of the Big Man thesis.

Somaliland also shows that you dont have to be rich to be democratic. Despite a tiny national budget of just $250-million for its 3.5 million people, tough geography and a hostile climate, Somaliland is to the contrary showing the way for much richer African countries how to do it.

A place that has made something out of virtually nothing is how former Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo describes the progress made by Somaliland. His trip there in May 2019 was the first by an African president since the territory re-declared its independence in May 1991.

In June 1960, Somaliland gained its initial independence from Britain before making an ill-fated decision to join former Italian Somaliland five days later in a union that was envisaged ultimately to include French Somalia (now Djibouti), the Somali-dominated Ogaden region of Ethiopia (now Region 5) and a chunk of northern Kenya.

In the centre of the capital, Hargeisa, is the independence memorial, comprising a MIG-17 fighter-bomber erected on a plinth. This commemorates the event when, having lost control of the province, Siad Barre ordered his air force, operating from the local airport, to bomb the city which had been briefly captured by local Somali National Movement (SNM) liberation fighters in May 1988. Flown by Zimbabwean mercenaries, among others, this resulted in many thousands of civilian casualties.

By the time of Siad Barres fall three years later, the main cities of Hargeisa and Burao had been razed to the ground. Not for nothing was Hargeisa known as the roofless city after systemic looting by Mogadishu had stripped it of roof sheeting and even doors and their frames.

Somalilanders have since sought stability on the principle of maximum ownership and the reality of minimum resources.

Peace did not require vast external financing. There was none available anyway at the time. In fact, the absence of outsiders may be precisely the reason for its success, at least compared with its southern neighbour, Somalia, which has lurched violently from peace conference to initiative, peacekeeping mission to external military intervention, and failing government to fragile coalition seemingly with little discernible progress. In Somalia, conflict entrepreneurs have fed off both the fighting and the talking in a top-down process financed by donors mostly taking place outside the country.

Somalilands peace conferences were by contrast managed and financed by locals, bringing their own food and shelter. The last conference in 1993 was held over five months under the trees in the western city of Boroma.

Such dialogue, long a feature of Somaliland society, was organic, bottom-up rather than top-down. Somalilanders concentrated on achieving peace, not on acquiring comforts and financial rents for delegates from a peace process. Despite its obvious dysfunctionality, Somalia somehow refuses to countenance Somalilands right to a divorce, clinging chauvinistically to the notion that the marriage can be repaired. And Africa blindly stumbles on with hopes for reunion and fears of the impact of accepting the current two-state reality.

The recovery since has similarly demanded persistence and the principle of inclusion.

The former British protectorate has developed a stable, democratic system of politics, merging modern and traditional elements. In 2002, Somaliland made the transition from a clan-based system to multiparty democracy after a 2001 referendum, formalising the Guurti as an Upper House of Elders, which secures the support of traditional clan-based power structures. There have since been regular elections and a frequent turnover of power between the main political parties. The 2003 presidential election was won by Dahir Riyale Kahin by just 80 votes in nearly half a million from Ahmed Mahamoud Silanyo.

The tables were turned in 2010, with Silanyo winning 49% of the vote to his opponents 33%. Muse Bihi Abdi, a former SNM fighter, who had earlier served as a Soviet-trained fighter pilot in the Somali Air Force, was elected in November 2017, receiving 55% of the vote, becoming the countrys fifth president, and cementing a tradition of peaceful handovers of power rare to the region.

On 31 May 2021, around the 30th anniversary of Somalilands independence and the 20th anniversary of its multiparty democracy, despite Covid-19, the parliamentary and local district elections went off smoothly, with 1.1 million voters registered by the National Electoral Commission (NEC), and the establishment of 2,709 polling stations countrywide.

Unlike Somalilands previous six elections, which were mostly funded by outsiders, 70% of the $8-million budget was financed internally. And despite delays in the election, caused by a standoff between the presidency and opposition parties over the nomination of members of the NEC, and challenges with the iris biometric voter registration system, these were the most competitive yet, with 246 candidates for 82 parliamentary seats and 966 for 249 district municipality posts across the six regions.

Critics say that Somalilands democracy has been facilitated by the dominance of a single clan, the Isaaq, unlike Somalia, which has to balance the competing interests and ambitions of four major clans and several smaller ones. But this argument understates the differences between the Isaaqs sub-clans and sub-sub clans, ignores the internal violence that accompanied the birth process, which had to be resolved, and overlooks the tremendous hard work that went into it.

The focus on the relative integrity of the clan system, president Abdi contends, also underestimates the impact of the democratic culture of the SNM. For 10 years, he says from his offices in Hargeisa, the SNM was struggling for democracy, refusing the dictatorship of Siad Barre. The democracy we now have was also based on the constitution of the SNM, which was very democratic, in which there were regular elections every two years, and in which the central committee operated like a parliament.

He cites the example of former president Silanyo who was removed in the 1989 SNM elections and yet accepted the change. We have a tradition of accepting results and changing power, and accepting leadership even outside of the SNM, which is very unusual, he points out, among African liberation movements.

Donors have helped in sponsoring the local civil society group that provides election oversight: in 2021, the European Union was the principal contributor to the $2-million budget of the Somaliland Non-State Actors Forum (Sonsaf), which deployed nearly 900 monitors countrywide and ran an Election Situation Room in Hargeisa staffed by 16 operators collecting and collating countrywide incident reports between April and July 2021.

This is how donors can spend money well and wisely in supporting local governance initiatives and the cause of peace and stability.

Of course, as with any democracy, there are challenges of consolidation. Delays to the election process have resulted in officials serving well beyond their original mandates, while journalists face problems of access and pressure from authorities. There are instances of minor clans being subject to political and economic marginalisation, and violence against women remains a serious problem in a highly patriarchal society.

We observed the 31 May election in Sahel region, including Burao, the former colonial capital of Sheikh and the villages of Ina Dhakool and Qoyta, the latter the site of a casualty clearing station during the civil war. For all of its diplomatic isolation, Somaliland is strongly globalised. The link with the diaspora is in the names of Buraos suburbs, including Xaafada London, Abu Dhabi and Jarmalka (Germany).

Yet Somaliland is synonymous with grinding poverty and dirt-scrabble hardship. A high percentage, too, of the population is illiterate, requiring assistance at the polls, many of which were run by university students. The slow pace of voting is accompanied by constant grumbling on a high Somali volume setting. Regardless, the enthusiasm was palpable, not least among the very old and young. Preference is patiently given to disabled and woman voters. A voting age of 15 might seem low, and a cynical way of vote-stealing, but it serves as a deradicalising mechanism for the largest demographic: 70% of Somalilands 3.5 million population is under the age of 30. The younger generation sees democracy as a means of diluting the impact of the clan system.

Democracy demands and creates a high-trust and transparent environment. Assisted voters, about one-fifth of those in our area of observation in 46 polling stations, would be asked their preference to be filled in by the presiding officer, and showed immediately to the agents representing the three parties in the station. These practices help to ensure votes are respected. The crowds were not voting just for political parties; they voted for nationhood and the pride for self-determination.

Somalilands commitments to improving democratic norms and standards and its regular change of leaders at the polls have made it a regional democratic superpower. Its progress should shame those much richer African countries where incumbents are rolling back democratic progress, since this threatens their power and financial privilege.

Those African leaders government and oppositions alike committed to democracy should recognise Somalilands undoubted progress from war to peace. The opposite also holds true. DM

Continue reading here:
Somaliland: The power of democracy - Daily Maverick

Andrew Yang thinks community boards are a bastion of democracy even if they end up obstructing his agenda as mayor.

At a Battery Park press conference on Tuesday announcing his plans for democracy reform which include lowering the municipal voting age to 16 and granting non-citizens the right to vote Streetsblog asked Yang how community boards fit into his vision. Are these groups of citizens who are appointed by borough presidents and local council members more likely to be conduits of popular democracy or do they have too much influence over city governance?

What an interesting question. I feel like community boards are tremendous because its people stepping up in their neighborhoods trying to address and resolve issues that matter to them and their neighbors, the candidate replied. I have a very hard time imagining how you could see community boards as anything but positive for democracy, because its a very high level of civic engagement.

Reminded that community boards often impede life-saving bike lanes and traffic calming infrastructure, Yang insisted he had no issue with them.

Its interesting. Again, I appreciate the people that want to give a voice to interests in their communities. I just see that as something to be admired, Yang said.

Community boards have no actual authority to make laws or veto city projects their volunteer roles are purely advisory. Yet over the years, city government, especially the Department of Transportation, has given community boards an outsized amount of influence that is mostly used to discourage the administration from carrying out road redesigns that can make the city safer.

Members of community boards have delayed street calming measures and crucial bike infrastructure across the city in many cases for years, costing lives. Their members have stoked a racist police crackdown on delivery cyclists, advocated for tow pounds over affordable housing, suggested that some pedestrians deserve to die, and that low-income workers dont have a right to relieve themselves with dignity. They have opposed popular programs like open streets and the installation of Citi Bike racks, and demand the right to break traffic laws when the laws dont suit them.

One community board even used city money to buy itself a fancy car.

Mostly, their objections to changing the lived environment boils down to complaints overa loss of parking spaces, a position that is out of step with a city that largely does not own cars, and would prefer to see valuable curbside real estate used for something else. Sometimes, members of community boards complain about a lack of engagement by the DOT.

In 2018, New Yorkers voted to amend the city charter to limit the service of community board members to four consecutive two-year terms. The amendment also stated that borough presidents must turn over demographic information on the citys 59 community boards to ensure that they actually represent their neighborhoods, but so far that data has been spotty.

Yang clearly hasnt acquainted himself with the lengthy, paint-peeling community board process (sometimes there are fisticuffs and Epstein allegations!) since he was asked about community opposition to bike infrastructure at the Bike NY forum in March.

Other candidates werent much better. The New York Times-endorsed Kathryn Garcia said she would keep the boards advisory role, but wouldnt let them stop the DOTs bike network. Shaun Donovan said something about introducing improvements as part of a comprehensive set of options. Ray McGuire had his bicycle in the frame behind him.

Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, who is virtually running neck-and-neck with Yang in the recent polls that still show undecided dominating, said he would use credible messengers to dispel the notion that bike lanes are akin to gentrification. But he also said this: Ive communicated with community board members around the borough, and Im telling you that at the heart of their concerns, they feel, Eric, no one is talking to us; theyre talking at us.

Scott Stringer had a somewhat valiant, if unrealistic plan for addressing community boards: I will commit to this: As mayor, Ill go to community boards. Ill build consensus around the table.

While Yang was in front of the Statue of Liberty to ostensibly talk about his democracy reforms, he also took the opportunity to hypea recent New York Times story that detailed how Adams reaped campaign donations from firms with business before the city, and then multiplied those donations under the citys matching funds program.

Seeing another candidate violate these rules and then dismiss it as a paperwork issue is extraordinarily upsetting, Yang told reporters, adding that he had filed a complaint with the citys Campaign Finance Board. New York: Eric Adams took your tax dollars and used them to amplify special interests here in New York City that did not need it.

Streetsblog asked Yang if he too could be accused of amplifying special interests since his top campaign adviser was a longtime lobbyist in New York for clients like the Police Benevolent Association and Uber. The lobbyist, Bradley Tusk, literally referred to Yang as an empty vessel, which we pointed out to the candidate.

I think theres a major, major distinction between people who work on your campaign who may have lobbied at some point, which I think is true with just about every campaign, and violating campaign finance rules in front of all of us, Yang replied.

Adamss campaign responded to Yangs critique with its own letter to the CFB, alleging self-dealing between Yangs mayoral campaign, his nonprofit, and his presidential campaign.

Andrew Yang literally paid himself from his own campaign to run for office and had his campaign buy more than $225,000 worth of copies of his book, Adamss campaign spokesperson Evan Thies said in a statement. Hes funneled more than $1 million from his dark money nonprofit to his two campaigns, loaned his bankrupt presidential campaign hundreds of thousands of dollars, and left a trail of highly questionable activity between multiple entities that promote him. If anyone deserves to be investigated, its Andrew Yang.

Go here to see the original:
Andrew Yang Says Community Boards are 'Positive For Democracy' Even When Reminded That They're Not - Streetsblog New York

In the last few years, many elected leaders have attacked voting rights, cast doubt on free and fair elections, and served private interests over the public good. To pull American democracy back from the brink, we must use the full force of the lawand four laws will, if passed, set us on the right track.

Lets pretend, for a moment, that its November 2022election season. Youre a proud Georgian, born and raised, and youre ready to cast your ballot. What do you do?

Well, voting is about to get harder. If you want an absentee ballot, youll need a state ID. If you dont have one, too badand if you do, youd better hurry: You have half the time you had before to request an absentee ballot. Did you use a ballot drop-box in 2020? Good luck finding one now. And if you do everything rightif you show up at the right polling place at the right time (easier said than done) and wait in line for hours in the sweltering Georgian heat, nobodynot your friend, neighbor, or pastorcan give you water to drink.

These are real requirements of a real law, rammed through by state legislators in March. And Georgia isnt unique. Across the country, legislators are cracking down on voting accessslashing early voting, purging voter rolls, and closing polling sites. They do so in the name of election security, but these reforms are new clothes for the old Jim Crow. Rather than make elections safer and fairer, they aim to make voters whiter and wealthier.

Consider photo-ID requirements. On the surface, they might seem benigndoesnt everybody have a photo ID? In fact, millions dont, and Black, Latino, and Indigenous people are less likely than white people to have them. Black voters are also more likely to take advantage of early voting, and in the 2020 elections in Georgia, more Black voters relied on mail-in voting than white voters.

These legislators may feign innocence, but they know who these insidious bills will hurt: Black people, young people, urbanites, and other voters of color. In fact, thats the point. For these officials, its hard to appeal to diverse constituents, and easier to keep them from voting at all.

So how do officials justify these measures? Often, with lies. By peddling falsehoodsthat voter fraud is rampant (its not), noncitizens vote in droves (they dont), and the 2020 election was stolen (it wasnt)unethical leaders can rationalize their assaults on free and fair elections. These lies have consequences, not only for those robbed of their rights, but for democracy as a whole: On January 6th, Trump supporters, wrongly convinced that Trump had won re-election, stormed the US Capitol in what many deemed an attempted coup.

But all is not lost. To restore American democracy, we must start with four laws.

If enacted, the law would:

In the US today, elections arent competitivein 2016, only 4% of House races were considered toss-ups. Because only one party can represent people in single-seat districts, millions of Americans are represented by leaders they oppose. Worse, this system makes it possible for a single party to control leadership in the House even if another party wins more votes.

The Fair Representation Act (FRA) would change this. If enacted, the law would:

That law, the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965, remains one of the nations greatest legislative achievements, a triumph of integrity and equity over racism and oppression. Among many things, the VRA required some states, those with histories of discriminatory voting practices, to get federal permission to make changes to their voting laws. This preclearance requirement kept jurisdictions from installing new barriers to voting, barriers that usually hobble the rights of Black and Brown voters. But in 2013, the Supreme Court struck down the VRAs preclearance requirement, a devastating assault on voting protections.

The JLVRAA, named after the late civil rights activist and House Representative John Lewis, would restore preclearance, expand the types of voting changes that would require it, and let federal courts scrutinize a broader array of potentially discriminatory voting laws. For decades, the VRA worked to protect people of color from voting discrimination. It is vital that the JLVRAA pick up the mantle.

More than 700,000 people call DC homemore people than live in Vermont or Wyoming. Per capita, DC residents pay more in federal taxes than any state, and men in DC must, like all US men, register for the draft. But while DC residents have the same responsibilities as residents of states, they dont have the same rights: They have neither senators nor voting representatives. In other words, the residents of DC endure taxation without representation.

This is not only undemocratic, but racist. Washington, DC is a historically Black city, and nearly half of DC residents are Black. The US government has long overrepresented white people and underrepresented everyone else. Nowhere is this more apparent than in DC, a diverse city with no voice in federal government.

The Washington, DC Admission Act would right this wrong, making DC the 51st state and giving it the same rights enjoyed by other states, including two senators in Congress and a voting representative in the House. After more than 200 years of systemic inequality faced by DC residents, its time for change.

Most Americans support these election reforms, but the path to passing these bills is long and difficult. Our congressional leaders are cleaved by bitter partisan divide, and the filibuster rule has left the minority party with outsized control and very little interest in representing the public.

But failure is not an option. Without a functioning democracy, none of our other hopesfor health, safety, clean air and water, good jobs, education, a stable climateare possible. What can we do?

Posted in: Science Advocacy, Science and Democracy Tags: Democracy Reform, election reform, Voting rights

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

Go here to read the rest:
How to Stop the Dismantling of Democracy - Union of Concerned Scientists