Mediaboss Marketing

The people are always right. No? Ah, but then they vote for leaders like Donald Trump and Oh well, we can add to the list, internationally and nationally!

Does this mean that democracy is a mistake? No, quite the contrary! But we have to hack away at some stubborn centuries-old shrubbery in order to see the foundation of this clearly enough.

One of the greatest myths about democracy started largely by the Left in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and continued with a twist by the Right into the 21st relates to the most common rationale behind it. The people are always right, claimed the Left in the past. The market, or the consumer, is always right, claims the capitalist Right today, tweaking the Leftist argument cleverly.

Between them, they justify democracy as a form of political organisation based on human beings being basically always right. Very little in the past from the picnics at public hangings outside London jails to the genocides of colonisation and Nazism justifies such confidence in people being always right. Over centuries, people have been horribly wrong at times.

Way back in 1882, Henrik Ibsen, the great Norwegian playwright, wrote An Enemy of the People (adapted into a film, Ganashatru, by Satyajit Ray in his last years) around one aspect of this perception, arguing that one needs to be morally and intellectually ahead of people in order to be right. Ideas and truths, Ibsen suggests in this play, get dated, habitual and platitudinous, and hence the majority, which lives habitually by grasping on to platitudes, tends to mistrust the truly ethical and intellectual individual. In other words, if you are Jesus, you risk getting crucified.

But even this argument is faulty: a lot of intelligent people can go horribly wrong. Cleverness does not necessarily save you from mistakes, and even ethics can be twisted in painful ways: there are many in the U.S. who claim to be pro-life and hence will criminalise abortions, but they spare little thought (and no money) for the plight of women forced into unhappy pregnancies or the future of poor, abandoned and unwanted children.

History is full of brilliant people great leaders, scientists, thinkers, planners who helped destroy a village, a nation or an age. Sometimes it appears that intelligence, on its own, merely provides a person with an easier ability to make excuses for his or her mistakes, and hoodwink others in the process.

So if people whether as individual or group, entrepreneur or consumer, tribe or republic, nation or political party, king or voter seem to make horrible mistakes much of the time, what hope is there for democracy? Why believe in democracy at all?

Actually, one can argue that the main justification of democracy is exactly this: that anyone ordinary voter or monarch can be wrong about any given matter. The ability to make mistakes is human neither power nor riches nor education can eradicate it, though self-awareness might help. A king or dictator can make a mistake as well as the majority of voters in an election who vote in a party or a leader with bad plans. But in a democracy, after a period, during the next elections, such mistakes can be corrected.

A democracy, in other words, allows us to regularly check the mistakes we make bloodlessly and correct them when their disastrous consequences become finally clear to us. This is far more difficult, and costly, to do in any other kind of (autocratic) regime, whether justified in worldly or divine terms.

Democracies are not necessary because people are always right: if we were certain of being right all the time, we would not need any political organisation at all, let alone a democracy. We would be gods. Democracy is necessary because people groups and individuals can be wrong. Hence, in a democracy one learns to live with ones opponents, not exile or murder them. This is a political version of the fact that in life we always live with others or with the Other, the self who is not and cannot be (by definition) entirely yourself.

Democracy is the only political option that allows us to mitigate the effects of our own mistakes, and the mistakes of others. Democracy is necessary not because the people are always right, but because human beings are often wrong. We forget this only at great peril to ourselves and others.

Here is the original post:
We need democracy because people can be wrong - The Hindu

COMMENTARY:I learned some things on Wednesday when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents conducted a raid in Las Cruces. Their action came on the heels of the first nationwide raids since Donald Trump became president. Agree or disagree with whats happening, its an event that impacts our communities.

Heath Haussamen

Las Cruces was ready.

Journalists sprung into action. KVIA-TV broke the story. Other journalists, including me, were quickly on top of it.

As has been the case elsewhere, learning what happened was difficult.

Whether this is the start of Trumps pledged mass deportations or routine enforcement action, as ICE claims, is a complicated issue.

Regardless, immigrant-rights activists were prepared. Dozens gathered outside the federal courthouse in Las Cruces to protest. We need to stand up for our brothers and sisters, Leonel Briseo told people before they shut down a road and blocked traffic.

I learned that even in these polarized times people can make a point peacefully. Blocking traffic is disruptive and controversial, and I also appreciate the point of view of Las Cruces Police Chief Jaime Montoya, who asked that protesters stay on the sidewalk next time.

I learned that Montoya is good at his job. Protesters were upset. Some motorists were angry. Montoya had an unenviable task. Instead of further escalating, the chief expressed empathy and helped calm the situation. I think its commendable, what theyre doing, he told journalists. Theyre speaking up for the rights of people who cant speak for themselves.

I already had a high opinion of many activists in this community. Im dating one of them, Sarah Silva, who led the protest. I observed a key moment when Sarah and others were sitting in the street blocking traffic. Montoya got down on his knees, at her level, and they talked. When Montoya asked Sarah to clear the street, she did.

I disagreed last year with people who called ranchers occupying a national wildlife refuge in Oregon terrorists. When people disrupt our lives to protest, theyre risking arrest or worse with a bold, loud cry from their hearts. We should listen, as Montoya did on Wednesday.

I also learned something about myself on Wednesday. I have to juggle quite a conflict when my girlfriend makes the news. Ideally, I pay a freelancer to cover such an event for NMPolitics.net and step away. Wednesday moved too quickly for that. When Sarah led people onto the street in front of the federal building, I knew the protest was turning into a larger event one that could end with her arrest.

And I did my job.

I observed. I documented. I watched as Sarah led people down streets with honking motorists behind them. I tweeted. Sure, I wondered if Sarah would end up in handcuffs. When police approached her, I stood back and documented.

That was my role: the journalist. After the protest I grabbed some food and wrote an 1,800-word article with photos and videos.

Las Cruces was ground zero on Wednesday for the heated disagreement that will shape our nation for years to come. Our people showed they can debate, protest, shine light, do their jobs, and work toward what they believe will be a better future for our nation and our children and go home at the end of the day and get ready for another. Some Trump supporters are preparing their own rallies, and I expect the same then.

This is democracy in action.

Heath Haussamen is NMPolitics.nets editor and publisher.

See the article here:
This is democracy in action - NMPolitics.net

It is true that the immediate cause that forced Marcos to flee the country was thefour-day People Power Revolution. But this historic event was the climax of a longseries of other revolutionary struggles which I call the Road to EDSA.

On the night of Jan. 22, 1986, when Cardinal Sin asked the people to go to EDSA, Iwas one of those who immediately went there. While there were just a few thousands of us inEDSA, the response was quick, as most of those who came first were part of organized groups.

There was no social media at that time. However, these organized groups had their ownnetworks and means of quickly reaching each other. But because there was no media support and communication networks were limited, it was not surprising that the groups were smallin numbers. However, there were so many of these groups and they were so widespread thattogether, they could rally thousands on very short notice.

Religious orders, priests, nuns, and brothers were ideal because they lived together andthey had the numbers. Furthermore, their networks went beyond their members and includedstudents in Catholic schools, parishioners, and members of Catholic lay organizations. Theywere used to organizing and were very disciplined. It is no wonder they were at the forefrontof the EDSA Revolution.

For example, my own journey to EDSA started in 1978 during the Batasang Pambansaelections. I was then an active member of the Manila Jaycees and we had volunteered tojoin the Operation Quick Count of the Philippine Jaycees. That was when I first met Butz Aquino who was a Capitol Jaycee. The night before the election, we were at the Quezon Cityheadquarters attending a meeting. A small typewritten note was being circulated that saidNinoy Aquino, who was then in jail, was asking the people to organize a 30-minute noisebarrage as a sign of protest.

Around nine in the evening, people started quietly leaving the room. My friend, NinoyGutierrez, told me to come with him and find a group we could join. We did not invite anyoneelse because we were not sure whom to trust. These were the days of martial law. When wewent out, it seemed as if the entire metropolis was taking part in the protest. Cars weregoing around blowing their horns and we joined one caravan. We were confident then that the opposition would win in the next election.

Opinion ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1

But it was a rude awakening. In one school which was a polling place, the opposition watchers were told to leave. In another school, army soldiers closed the gates during the counting. Only in one school I went to St. Scholasticas College did the counting proceed publicly. The nuns there stood their ground and refused to be intimidated.

That was when I realized that it would take more than one noise barrage or rally to topple the dictatorship. But I learned, from the nuns example, that an organized group with the courage to stand its ground could be more effective than any speech. This was, to my mind, the forerunner of NAMFREL, maintaining its position in subsequent elections under the dictatorship.

For the revolution to succeed, there has to be a cause for which the overwhelming majority of the people would be willing to go to jail or even sacrifice their lives for, if necessary. The restoration of democracy and overthrowing of the Marcos dictatorship were such causes.

There also had to be an emotional event and a charismatic leader that would bringtogether the different revolutionary forces and inspire groups to organize themselves.The assassination of Ninoy Aquino was such an event, and groups were unified under the leadership of his widow, Corazon Aquino.

There also has to be organizations on the ground to serve as a nucleus in any confrontation with the ruling powers, like in a rally. It was, therefore, critical that existing institutions likethe Catholic Church and Protestant denominations joined the cause. These institutions have a following that could reach all social classes, including the poor.

The Makati confetti rallies were successful because of the support of the businessgroups. Business and civic groups were also the primary organizers of NAMFREL. Theelectoral campaign during the snap election took off because political opposition parties like PDP-LABAN and UNIDO were organized. Cause-oriented groups and nongovernmentorganizations (NGOs) became active mobilizers of rally participants.

The participation of youth groups was essential because they have built-in organizations like student councils and other campus organizations. And in organizing the masses, I discovered that there were organizations in the urban poor areas that could also be tapped.

The EDSA People Power Movement was not just civil disobedience. It was a revolution amovement for radical change. It achieved its primary goal, which was the restoration of thedemocratic system to this country.

Now we hear people questioning whether democracy really works. I even heard a nun sayon television that she preferred the country to be run by professionals rather than by elected officials. But who will choose the professionals who will run this country?

For those who tell me that they prefer a dictatorship, I always ask them to give me thename of the person that they propose to be the dictator.

Democracy will work. It just requires collective will, leaders who believe in democraticideals, and the active support of the very same groups that toppled the Marcos dictatorship and made the EDSA People Power Revolution a reality.

Time has a tendency to wash over horrible moments in history. This is why we must never forget. We must constantly reinforce the legacy of EDSA, and keep reminding ourselves that when push comes to shove, we are a people who will fight for freedom and democracy at allcosts.

From The Aquino Legacy: An Enduring Narrative by Elfren Sicangco Cruz and Neni Sta. Romana Cruz (Imprint Publishing, 2015).

Creative writing classes for kids and teens: March 4 (1:30pm-3pm).Creative nonfiction writing for adults:March 11 (1:30pm-4:30pm).Classes at Fully Booked Bonifacio High Street. For registration and fee details text 0917-6240196 or emailwritethingsph@gmail.com.

Email: elfrencruz@gmail.com

See the original post:
Making democracy work - Philippine Star

In the 2016 elections for the House of Representatives, the average electoral margin of victory was 37.1 percent. That's a figure you'd expect from North Korea, Russia or Zimbabwe - not the United States. But the shocking reality is that the typical race ended with a Democrat or a Republican winning nearly 70 percent of the vote, while their challenger won just 30 percent.

Last year, only 17 seats out of 435 races were decided by a margin of 5 percent or less. Just 33 seats in total were decided by a margin of 10 percent or less. In other words, more than 9 out of 10 House races were landslides where the campaign was a foregone conclusion before ballots were even cast. In 2016, there were no truly competitive Congressional races in 42 of the 50 states. That is not healthy for a system of government that, at its core, is defined by political competition.

Gerrymandering, in a word, is why American democracy is broken.

The word "gerrymander" comes from an 1812 political cartoon drawn to parody Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry's re-drawn senate districts. The cartoon depicts one of the bizarrely shaped districts in the contorted form of a fork-tongued salamander. Since 1812, gerrymandering has been increasingly used as a tool to divide and distort the electorate. More often than not, state legislatures are tasked with drawing district maps, allowing the electoral foxes to draw and defend their henhouse districts.

While no party is innocent when it comes to gerrymandering, a Washington Post analysis in 2014 found that eight of the 10 most gerrymandered districts in the United States were drawn by Republicans.

As a result, districts from the Illinois 4th to the North Carolina 12th often look like spilled inkblots rather than coherent voting blocs. They are anything but accidental. The Illinois 4th, for example, is nicknamed "the Latin Earmuffs," because it connects two predominantly Latino areas by a thin line that is effectively just one road. In so doing, it packs Democrats into a contorted district, ensuring that those voters cast ballots in a safely Democratic preserve. The net result is a weakening of the power of Latino votes and more Republican districts than the electoral math should reasonably yield. Because Democrats are packed together as tightly as possible in one district, Republicans have a chance to win surrounding districts even though they are vastly outnumbered geographically.

These uncompetitive districts have a seriously corrosive effect on the integrity of democracy. If you're elected to represent a district that is 80 percent Republican or 80 percent Democratic, there is absolutely no incentive to compromise. Ever. In fact, there is a strong disincentive to collaboration, because working across the aisle almost certainly means the risk of a primary challenge from the far right or far left of the party. For the overwhelming majority of Congressional representatives, there is no real risk to losing a general election - but there is a very real threat of losing a fiercely contested primary election. Over time, this causes sane people to pursue insane pandering and extreme positions. It is a key, but often overlooked, source of contemporary gridlock and endless bickering.

Moreover, gerrymandering also disempowers and distorts citizen votes - which leads to decreased turnout and a sense of powerlessness. In 2010, droves of tea party activists eager to have their voices heard quickly realized that their own representative was either a solidly liberal Democrat in an overwhelmingly blue district or a solidly conservative Republican in an overwhelmingly red district. Those representatives would not listen because the electoral map meant that they didn't need to.

Those who now oppose President Trump are quickly learning the same lesson about the electoral calculations made by their representatives as they make calls or write letters to congressional representatives who seem about as likely to be swayed as granite. This helps to explain why 2014 turnout sagged to just 36.4 percent, the lowest turnout rate since World War II. Why bother showing up when the result already seems preordained?

There are two pieces of good news. First, several court rulings in state and federal courts have dealt a blow to gerrymandered districts. Several court rulings objected to districts that clearly were drawn along racial lines. Perhaps the most important is a Wisconsin case (Whitford v. Gill) that ruled that districts could not be drawn for deliberate partisan gain. The Supreme Court will rule on partisan gerrymandering in 2017, and it's a case that could transform - and reinvigorate - American democracy at a time when a positive shock is sorely needed. (This may hold true even if Neil Gorsuch is confirmed to the Supreme Court, as Justices Kennedy and Roberts could side with the liberal minority).

Second, fixing gerrymandering is getting easier. Given the right parameters, computer models can fairly apportion citizens into districts that are diverse, competitive and geographically sensible - ensuring that minorities are not used as pawns in a national political game. These efforts can be bolstered by stripping district drawing powers from partisan legislators and putting them into the hands of citizen-led commissions that are comprised by an equal number of Democrat- and Republican-leaning voters. Partisan politics is to be exercised within the districts, not during their formation. But gerrymandering intensifies every decade regardless, because it's not a politically "sexy" issue. When's the last time you saw a march against skewed districting?

Even if the marches do come someday, the last stubborn barrier to getting reform right is human nature. Many people prefer to be surrounded by like-minded citizens, rather than feeling like a lonely red oasis in a sea of blue or vice versa. Rooting out gerrymandering won't make San Francisco or rural Texas districts more competitive no matter the computer model used. And, as the urban/rural divide in American politics intensifies, competitive districts will be harder and harder to draw. The more we cluster, the less we find common ground and compromise.

Ultimately, though, we must remember that what truly differentiates democracy from despotism is political competition. The longer we allow our districts to be hijacked by partisans, blue or red, the further we gravitate away from the founding ideals of our republic and the closer we inch toward the death of American democracy.

---

Klaas is a Fellow in Comparative Politics at the London School of Economics and author of "The Despot's Accomplice: How the West is Aiding & Abetting the Decline of Democracy."

Read more:
Washington Post Op-ed: Gerrymandering is the biggest obstacle to genuine democracy in the US So why is no one ... - Salt Lake Tribune

Forbes

Veritamo: Lessons in Exclusive Democracy Forbes We are witnessing the age of quiet business revolutions. Entire industries are upended and transformed with a few decisive clicks. Social media is no longer the biggest digital success story. It's the way we provide and experience hospitality ...

More here:
Veritamo: Lessons in Exclusive Democracy - Forbes