Mediaboss Marketing

Republicans collectively twisted themselves into knots Monday in order to ignore what was really happening in the hearings on Russian election hacking and tried to use it as an opportunity for another attack on the free press.

In case you missed it: FBI Director James Comey confirmed during the House Select Intelligence Committee hearing that the FBI is investigating connections between the Trump campaign and Russia. The FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian governments efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russias efforts, Comey said.

During the hearings Comey repeated the claim that Putin wanted to hurt our democracy, hurt her [Clinton], help him [Trump].

(Given Comeys own role in the electionshifting the momentum to Trump when he announced that Clinton was under investigation less than two weeks before the electionit was hard not to take that sentence at least slightly autobiographically.)

Comey also thoroughly discredited Trumps deceitful tweets claiming that he was wiretapped or otherwise surveilled by Barack Obama.

But the right was having none of that. Fox & Friends tweeted: If you missed yesterday's congressional hearing with FBI Dir. James Comey, you didn't miss much.

Remember, many of these are the same people that argued how bad it would be to have a president under FBI investigationwhen it seemed like that president would be Hillary Clinton.

Devin Nunes, who chaired the House committee, complained that with the investigation Comey put a "big gray cloud over" the Trump administration. He didnt mention that he served on Trumps transition team. Nunes and the rest of the Republican majority of the committee spent the entire day trying to make the hearing about the need to investigate the leaking of classified information to the press.

Among the most fervent of these is South Carolinas Trey Gowdy. Back when Trey Gowdy probably looked even more like the little boy from Deliverance, he had a paper route in Spartanburg, South Carolina. But some four or five decades later, the weird little guy has moved beyond throwing papers into the gutters and wants, instead, to throw reporters in the slammer.

Is there an exception in the law for reporters who want to break a story? Gowdy asked.

Thats a harder question as to whether a reporter incurs criminal liability by publishing classified information and one probably beyond my ken, Comey replied.

Hint, yall: there is an exception. Its called the First Amendment.

Gowdy, if you know him at all, is that weird little ultra-white guy with the weird white hair who ran the Benghazi hearings. He looks a little bit like Truman Capote, if Capote had a child with a salamander. GQ points out how bad Gowdys hair is. But its really his face that is the problemand whatever kind of consciousness lies behind it.

Gowdy was a tea partier who drove out far-right Bob Ingliss because he wanted to work with Democrats on climate change. Gowdys Benghazi hearings were ultimately a long political campaign against Hillary Clintoneven if Trump said he failed miserably.

In a press conference following the hearing, however, the press-hating Trump regime seemed to respond favorably to Gowdys ideas that the Obama administration is behind the leaks and that both they, and potentially the press, should be prosecuted.

We should expect to see, despite Comeys claims, the White House and Republicans push for a rehash of Benghazi when it comes to the leaks, while ignoring the subjects of the leaks altogether.

More:
Democracy in Crisis: Republicans Seek Leaks, Raise Possibility of Prosecuting the Press - The Independent Weekly

With the likes of Pablo Iglesias and Ada Colau coming to power in Spain, we are witnessing the rise of the post-representatives.

This article is part of the Democracy Futures series, a joint global initiative with the Sydney Democracy Network. The project aims to stimulate fresh thinking about the many challenges facing democracies in the 21st century.

On May 15, 2011, Spain was convulsed by one of the most spectacular popular uprisings in its history, and in the history of the modern democratic world. Eight million Spanish citizens took part in the occupation of public squares and buildings in at least 60 towns and cities across the country. The movement of Los Indignados (the outraged) was born.

At the time Spanish citizens had plenty to be disgruntled about: economic recession, high unemployment, endemic corruption, cronyism, wasteful and reckless mega-projects, mounting central and local government debt and much else. With both major political parties complicit in these dynamics, the public themselves began searching for an antidote to the business as usual mantra offered by the cartel parties and mainstream media.

From that 2011 occupation of public space to the creation of new political parties in 2013 and 2014, politics in Spanish social circles remains as lively as ever today.

The country has been transformed into a democratic laboratory, where the participation and use of new communication strategies born in peripheral political contexts are primarily active, open and ready for experimentation and innovation.

Its true that Spanish politics still suffers the same old defects: political corruption, austerity, inequality, inadequate separation of powers (in key sectors such as the judiciary) and limited citizen participation in government. Though reduced to a parliamentary minority, Partido Popular still governs, and it does so without serious modification of its pet policies.

Yet believing that nothing has changed in either Spanish politics or social life is unwarranted.

Several weeks ago, Rodrigo Rato, the former International Monetary Fund director and former Spanish minister of economy under Jose Maria Aznar, was handed a 4.5-year prison sentence.

He was not alone. Thanks to the monitoring work of Xnet, a small activist group from Barcelona, 65 employees of the Spanish banks Caja Madrid and Bankia were found guilty of misappropriating funds.

Since the 2014 local elections, compositions of political parties and city councils in many towns has also radically changed. Some cities are now led by well-known activist figures, including Ada Colau, who in 2015 became the first female mayor of Barcelona.

Madrid, Zaragoza and Cdiz were also among the cities to be governed by new political parties linked to the indignados M15 movement.

In Barcelona and Madrid, experiments are under way with early-warning corruption detectors and bold new forms of citizen participation.

So why has the M15 movement been so powerful? What was it all about? In its initial phase, expressions of anger took the form of general criticisms of the decadence and disintegration of Spains dysfunctional political order. The renowned claim no nos representan (they do not represent us), together with a demand for democracia real (real democracy), brought together two ideas: the crisis of representation and a craving for more citizen participation.

Then, under the real democracy slogan, and to highlight the gap between the promise and reality of Spains democratic system, citizens began to create parallel intuitions and processes. They wanted to shame politicians into acknowledging their lack of democratic legitimacy.

What was most innovative in the organisation of this outbreak of public protest was that no traditional political actors were involved. In the place of trade unions and political parties, digital networks played a vital role in organising, mobilising and publicising M15.

Even without mass media coverage (which came only after demonstrations proliferated), outrage spread quickly through many Spanish cities. Faith in the democratic credentials of the Spanish political system crumbled. Citizens were asking: how can the search for an improved democracy be sustained, and what might that mean in practice?

In the era of monitory democracy, new forms of representative politics involving people not elected at the polls are flourishing. Citizen efforts to draw attention to institutionalised corruption, secrecy, violence and social injustice become essential demonstrations of the limits of political parties and parliaments.

Indeed, monitory democracy has given new weapons to the weak and in some ways turned power relations upside down. Today, citizens and their representatives have a considerable advantage against the secretive and petulant elites who could previously do as they liked in splendid isolation, out of public sight and mind.

This is not to say that we are witnessing the emphatic end of representative politics, only that the ecology of representation is becoming more complex and more dispersed. In Spain and beyond, the aura previously surrounding the political class is clearly being replaced by public disdain.

The very fact that there is an attitude of hostility towards parliaments and other forms of representation, however, has cast a shadow over current initiatives in Spain. New contenders cannot escape considerations of transparency and must be the first to modify aspects of political parties to prevent new elites from springing up within them.

Several parties have already introduced defence mechanisms to ensure that leaders do not become arrogant. However, measures like revocation, rotating official positions and reducing salaries for elected positions have their limits.

Much of Podemos success is due to the easily identifiable figure of Pablo Iglesias; Ahora Madrid would not be where it is now without Manuela Carmena; and Barcelona en Coms election campaign would not have had the same success without the formidable presence of Ada Colau.

How is it possible to avoid what seems to be an inherent oxymoron of the new politics an anti-representative style of representative politics? In a media-saturated environment, where political actions are carried out on a scale involving millions of citizens, there will always be charismatic personalities and visible figureheads who adopt and embody a particular stance on the major questions of the moment; they provide a focus for the ordinary persons attention.

At the same time, we are witnessing the evolution of political figures whose raison detre is to reject the legacy of the politician as representative.

These are the post-representatives, representatives who are simultaneously monitory and monitored, even though they have their roots in criticism of the very legacy of politics and politicians.

Ada Colau, who largely came to fame for drawing attention to the shortcomings of the established political elite and of the very democratic process itself, can no longer be regarded as a street activist. Following her election as Barcelonas mayor, she is now at the forefront of action within the political process.

But it is on this point that numerous observers have questioned just how this more direct political alternative can be put into practice.

Does it imply a desire to keep up the overwhelming impetus of the public forums and assemblies, the memory of which is still very much alive among many activists in the Spanish democratic laboratory?

And if so, is this not a formula for what has been termed the tyranny of structurelessness that is, the transfer of burden to ordinary citizens, who are forced to find the time, energy and click power to spend hours in public debates, both on and offline?

Is it not simply making a fetish of presence over voice, regardless of how weak or mediated it is by other processes? Why should those with responsibilities for looking after children or older relatives, people who work, or those without access to online participatory digital media become hostages of people who are crazy about politics and perfectly happy to spend all their free time in group debates?

Is there no argument to suggest that the practices of direct, monitory democracy look less to the future than to the past, based perhaps on the nostalgic desire for face-to-face, neighbourhood interactions; a slower, community-based way of life; and other tropes that go back to the assembly democracy of classical Greece? The question arises of whether the danger of this nostalgic ambition is that it starts to move away from the reality of many citizens lives.

Still, the lingering ambivalence about parliamentary representation among millions of Spanish citizens is understandable. Simply going back to the mass political parties with their memberships of millions seems highly improbable.

Whatever happens to representative politics, we are observing an extraordinary desire to rethink the basic coordinates of democratic life in Spain. It is not easy to think of another modern political system where this sense of contingency runs so deep, and where the alternatives seem so real.

The main arguments of this article were abridged from the authors forthcoming book Reconfiguring Democracy, published by Routledge. It will be the first in the Crick Centres new Anti-Politics and Democratic Crisis book series co-edited by Matt Wood.

Continue reading here:
How the Spanish political laboratory is reconfiguring democracy - The Conversation AU

Updated March 23, 2017 10:03:35

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has condemned the deadly terrorist attack outside London's Houses of Parliament, declaring it an "attack on parliaments, freedom and democracy everywhere".

Extra police will patrol Parliament House in Canberra today after the attack, which left at least five people including the attacker dead, and another 40 injured.

The suspected terrorist used a car to mow down pedestrians on Westminster Bridge before fatally stabbing a police officer outside the Houses of Parliament.

"Almost every element of our parliamentary tradition here in Australia is modelled on that of the Houses of Parliament in London the birthplace of our great, free, parliamentary democracy," Mr Turnbull said.

"This is an assault on every democracy, every parliament, every free nation."

Security chiefs including Australian Federal Police Commissioner Andrew Colvin have briefed Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

"The AFP Commissioner has confirmed there will be an increase in the police present at Parliament House here in Canberra today," Mr Turnbull said.

"That is an appropriate response.

"It indicates the care and the caution that is taken by our security agencies in keeping us safe.

"We will continue to monitor the situation very closely."

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said his thoughts were with "Australia's oldest friend, the United Kingdom".

"Our sympathy goes out to the victims, in particular the policeman who died in the line of duty and those others who were slain.

"The terrorists should know, whenever they are, they will never divide this country."

Mr Turnbull has also spoken with head of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Duncan Lewis, and Australia's High Commissioner to the UK, Alexander Downer.

Chinese Premier Li Keqiang is visiting Parliament today as he begins a five-day visit to Australia.

Heavily armed AFP officers already guard Parliament House 24 hours a day.

A fence is also being constructed on Capital Hill to restrict public access to Parliament's roof.

Australia's terrorism threat remains at "probable".

Topics: government-and-politics, federal-government, terrorism, law-crime-and-justice, australia, united-kingdom

First posted March 23, 2017 09:54:38

Continue reading here:
London attack: Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull condemns assault on 'freedom and democracy everywhere' - ABC Online

By Alicia Wallace

As the general election of 2017 - date still unknown - draws near, conversations about democracy are being ignited, but largely limited to one of its functions.

The low rate of voter registration has led the Bahamian people to frame the act of voting as the only form of participation in democracy available to citizens.

While it is a direct action and right afforded to us through democracy, voting is not the only benefit of democracy. Additionally, the creation and maintenance of the political system is not the only function of democracy.

Democracy is a concept, system, and practice that we, as citizens of The Bahamas, need to understand. Many believe it to be limited to elections and voting, but it reaches far beyond such events.

Democracy has four main functions, three of which are often ignored while it is reduced to the first. While it is important to understand the theory of democracy, it is at least as critical to recognise all of its functions and put it into practice more fully and intentionally.

A democratic political system allows people to choose their leaders in regular, free elections.

Free, fair elections require a neutral administrating body to ensure fair treatment of all parties and candidates, allowance for individuals to monitor voting and the counting of votes and independent tribunals to hear disputes.

Beyond that, it allows the people to hold representatives accountable for their actions and inaction while in office. Democracy recognises the sovereignty of the people as government authority is subject to the peoples consent. Political power is only temporary while the power of the people is lasting and flows to their representatives at their will.

For this reason, those elected are to consult with their constituents to ascertain their needs and opinions to enable accurate representation. Through the democratic system, voters have the right to observe the conduct of government business, criticise elected representatives, launch and support campaigns, vote secretly and be free of intimidation as they participate.

Like its benefits, the democratic burden does not fall solely on governments and political leaders to maintain, strengthen, and exercise it.

The onus is on citizens to be informed of national issues, observe the behaviour of elected and appointed officials, voice their concerns and challenge decisions imposed upon and ideas put to them.

While voting is an important exercise and a right afforded to citizens by the democratic political system, citizens are called to participate in public discussions. The voice of the people must be heard, and serve as a guide for political representatives who are to act in the interest of their constituents.

Participation is not synonymous with spectatorship. To fully participate in public life, citizens must be informed - and this often requires personal effort. Politically-driven narratives seldom give a full picture, and the media is not always capable, for many reasons, of delivering balanced reports. It is necessary to look at multiple news sources, ask questions and engage in conversations with people of varied persuasions. Democracy enables the people to actively participate through:

Questions. Accept nothing as fact without evidence. Investigate claims and try to find multiple sources.

Discussion. Share your thoughts and ideas with other people. Engage with people who do not look like you, have the same background as you, or think the same way as you. The purpose is not to win, or be on the side of popular opinion. Enter conversations with gaining new perspective as your goal.

Challenges. Do not settle for less than you deserve. Make demands of your representatives. Hold them accountable for their actions, demand transparency and insist upon regular reporting to and consultation with the people.

Mobilisation. Be prepared to work together, as citizens, to find common ground, make a plan and take action. Your power is strengthened with activated along with that of your fellow Bahamians.

Participation includes joining political campaigns, protesting, petitioning, organising within communities and running for political office. Involvement in civil society organisations is another way to be an active citizen, and can allow for informal education and mobilisation around specific interests and causes.

Human rights are inherent to all people, regardless of gender, race, sex, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, language or any other identity marker.

They are interdependent, indivisible and interrelated. Human rights are promoted and protected by international law, and the standard has been set by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, the UDHR protects against discrimination, slavery, torture, and unfair detainment, and affirms the right to life, freedom of movement, equality before the law, right to trial, right to privacy and right to nationality.

International law grants every citizen human rights that cannot be denied. Citizens are free to speak, practice their religions, associate with people and organisations, assemble, travel and engage in a number of other acts. In a democracy, citizens have these basic rights that cannot be denied.

Democracy is subject to a set of laws. These laws exist for the protection of citizens rights, to maintain order in the country and to limit the power of the peoples representatives.

This function exists to ensure that rule is not subject to the whims of an individual or group of individuals. Because of the rule of law, all citizens are equal, none being above the law, regardless of position. It allows for fair and impartial decision-making by independent courts, separate from the government, which is meant to limit the power of representatives.

The people of The Bahamas can only benefit when democracy functions properly, being exercised by the citizens to whom it extends specific rights.

One right afforded to us through democracy is the casting of a ballot in the next general election. To exercise that right, we must take proof of Bahamian citizenship to register to vote. This is an important exercise that enables us to choose our constituency representatives and, by extension, the leadership of the country. It is not, however, the only way to participate in our democracy, and to suggest such is both dishonest and disempowering to the Bahamian people.

Let us encourage one another to exercise the right to vote, but include the other functions of democracy and methods of participation in our conversations for balance, comprehensiveness and strengthening of people power.

Alicia Wallace is a womens rights activist and public educator. She produces The Culture RUSH - a monthly newsletter fusing pop culture, social justice and personal reflection - and tweets as @_AliciaAudrey. Contact her at culturerush@aliciaawallace.com. She will be writing fortnightly in The Tribune on Wednesdays.

Read the original:
Culture Clash: People Power And The True Functions Of Democracy - Bahamas Tribune

By Timothy M. Gill By Timothy M. Gill March 20 at 5:00 AM

How will the Trump administration relate to Russia? Many inquiring minds want to know. Much of the news media has focused on whether President Trump will eliminate U.S.economic sanctionson Russia. But heres something else that could have a big effect on U.S.-Russia relations: Will Trump modify U.S. democracy programs?

The origins of U.S. democracy programs

Since the 1980s, several U.S. government agencies have been dedicated to helping build democracy around the world, by delivering financial and technical support for government institutions, political parties and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The U.S. agencies in question include the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID); the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) within the State Department; and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its associated groups, including the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI). Before these groups came on the scene, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) ran these kinds of efforts.

These programs are highly controversial.

[Why Russia is far less threatening than it seems]

Supporters contend that these groups often keep democratic hope alive in states with authoritarian governments. But some academic critics and foreign government leaders argue that these agencies back political parties and NGOs that champion neoliberal economic policies and U.S. national security interests. Other critics assert that sometimes agencies like USAID and the NED support organizations and actors that have sought to overthrow sometimes violently existing governments, such as in Bolivia, Georgia, Ukraine and Venezuela.

Thats certainly what many foreign governments fear. Since the success of some of the color revolutions in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, several governments have tried to stop U.S. democracy assistance programs in their countries. In 2003, the Belarusan government prohibited foreign funding for political organizations in the country; it continues to pass legislation in that vein, such as prohibiting NGOs from holding funds in foreign banks. In 2010, Venezuela after accusing several NGOs of taking U.S. funding to overthrow the Chvez government also passed legislation criminalizing foreign funding for political parties and politically oriented NGOs. And in 2013, Bolivia expelled USAID from the country.

Putin doesnt like U.S. democracy programs, either

You can count Russian President Vladimir Putin as an opponent of U.S. democracy programs that fund civil society groups, especially within Russia.

[Like Trump, Putin issued lots of executive orders early on. They mostly didnt work.]

And the Duma has taken action. In 2006, it passed laws criminalizing NGOs that threaten Russian national sovereignty and its unique character. In 2012, it passed laws declaring that NGOs that receive foreign funding are foreign agents, a term that was last used during the days of the Soviet Union.

Amnesty International has reported that 148 groups have received this designation over the past four years. As a result, these groups have faced heightened intimidation from the Russian government, as well as tarnished reputations. They alsoremain subject to stricter registration requirements and have found the acquisition of foreign funding much more difficult. Some groups have even shut down.

[Trumps news conferences look a lot like Putins. Should you worry?]

Not long after the passage of this legislation, the government also expelled USAID from the country. And in 2015, Putin banned the NED from the country and prohibited NGOs from receiving any funding from the group.

The United States has continued democracy programs despite local prohibitions.

Nevertheless, USAID and the NED have continued to fund organizations, even where thats against the local countrys laws. In Venezuela, for example, the United Stateshas openly continued funding civil society organizations, even listing that in its annual budgets, albeit without naming recipients.

USAID and the NED are undoubtedly keeping their plans in the country secret. However, the NED and its leaders continue to openly counter Russian ideological efforts throughout Eurasia. For instance, when NED President Carl Gershmantestified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in June 2016, he said that one of the NEDs five main focuses includes pushing back against an information offensive by Russia and other authoritarian regimes.

Through various actions, Putin has made it clear how much he despises these programs and sees them as interfering with Russian sovereignty. Russia Today, for instance, regularly runs critiques of these efforts. So will he raise this issue with the Trump administration?

Trump could scale back U.S. democracy programs in Russia.

But how will Trump respond?

Trumps budget plans to cut funding for the State Department and USAID. He has said that he will strengthen U.S. ties with Russia. As part of his America First agenda, will he eliminate U.S. democracy programs?

Thats very difficult to predict. Both Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson have a history of praise and involvement with Russia. Tillerson, for instance, tried to start several oil ventures in Russia, which were eventually blocked by U.S. economic sanctions. But the democracy and development community within the U.S. government will certainly push to continue its efforts in Russia and the broader Eurasia region.

The most important decision in U.S.-Russia relations remains, of course, whether to continue sanctions. But watch this as well: Will U.S. democracy-promoting organizations be allowed to continue working with civil society groups in Russia and its neighbors? If not, that will be a clear signal of changed relations between the two powers.

Timothy M. Gill is a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for Inter-American Policy and Research at Tulane University, and his research examines U.S. democracy promotion efforts in Venezuela.

Continue reading here:
Putin is waiting to see whether Trump will fund pro-democracy programs - Washington Post