Mediaboss Marketing

'); //-->

From his hateful tweets and provocative rhetoric to his new (and now failed) executive order banning Muslims and refugees all over again, President Donald Trump is driven by the idea that Islam is a threat to what makes us American.

Trump has declared that Islam hates us. There is, he says, an unbelievable hatred. Stephen K. Bannon, one of his chief advisers, claims that we are in an outright war against ... Islam and doubts whether Muslims that are shariah-adherent can actually be part of a society where you have the rule of law and ... are a democratic republic. He believes Islam is much darker than Nazism and seems to agree with HUD Secretary Ben Carson that Islam is a religion of domination.

But Trump and his administration could learn a thing or two about American values such as freedom and equality from the religion and people they so hate.

In Islams founding story, after Muhammads death, it was unclear who would lead the nascent Muslim community. Typically, succession disputes make for great drama. This one, however, was more C-SPAN than Game of Thrones.

Rather than intrigue or bloodshed, believers pursued democracy. Only by the peoples consent, they reckoned, could a ruler justly be named and a community freely governed. They chose Abu Bakr, one of Muhammads companions. His inauguration speech, according to one of Muhammads earliest biographers Ibn Ishaq, was brief (though were not sure how big the crowd was). It went something like this: Im no better than any of you. Only obey me if I do right. Otherwise, resist me. Loyalty means speaking truth. Flattery is treason. No human, but God alone is your lord.

Abu Bakr sought to guard the people against domination by making himself accountable to them. The people obliged, securing their liberty. They could call him out at any time, and he had to listen. He even had to ask permission for new clothes.

His successor, Umar, carried the legacy forward. Publicly rebuked by a woman for overstepping the law, Umar responded: That woman is right, and I am wrong! It seems that all people have deeper wisdom and insight than me.

This spirit of accountability and liberty would become enshrined as a religious duty in Islam, though as with any tradition, these values are not always upheld. Nonetheless, every Muslim has the obligation to command right and forbid wrong, correcting and resisting any who betray justice, rulers included. That Abu Bakr and Umar are paradigms of good Islamic rule for well over 1 billion Sunni Muslims tells us something about this traditions love for freedom, whether or not its followers always live up to their ideals.

So does the 12th-century theologian al-Ghazali, one of Islams most beloved figures. In his most famous political work, an open letter to a young sultan, Ghazali famously defends a golden rule of liberty: The fundamental principle is ... treat people in a way in which, if you were subject and another were Sultan, you would deem right that you yourself be treated. Nothing a ruler would not himself endure has any place in politics. While sin against God can be forgiven, violation of this rule cannot: Anything involving injustice to mankind will not in any circumstance be overlooked at the resurrection.

Ghazali tells rulers that on judgment day, not God but the people will determine their fate: The harshest torment will be for those who rule arbitrarily. He sounds striking similar to James Madison writing in Federalist 57, for whom rulers will be compelled to anticipate the moment when their exercise of power is reviewed, and they must descend to the level from which they were raised. Only in Ghazalis vision, the tyrant descends to hell.

Of course, like their Western counterparts, many Muslim regimes fail to honor this vision of liberty. But it is women and men like Malala Yousafzai, Humayun Khan and the hopeful youths who filled Tahrir Square who are faithful to the best of Islam, not the likes of the Islamic State, al-Qaeda and Saudi princes.

For Islam and the American founders alike, freedom is about protection from arbitrary power and rule by law, not the caprices of men. Theirs is a vision where citizens stand not in slavish deference to masters but on equal terms with all. This vision animates our whole system of governance. It was this vision Lincoln endorsed when he wrote, in words that echo Ghazali: As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. And it was this vision Sojourner Truth, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Harvey Milk invoked when they each demanded that equality before the law be still further expanded so that it would eventually include not just straight white men but everyone.

This vision is under threat in a way it rarely has been in our history. But it is under threat not by Islam, but by Trump and his administration.

Trumps first Muslim ban was an act of brazen, unconstrained power and barely concealed animus. The second ban is more of the same. The blessing of the first was just how blatantly it betrayed our deepest values. The danger of the second is its attempt to conceal its dominating and bigoted aims. No serious observer thinks these bans make us any safer. Instead, they seek to circumvent rule of law, roll back libertys benefit and wage Bannons war with Islam. They give Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Department of Homeland Security and other agents discretionary power to decide on a whim whether to sever families, deport refugees and detain Muslims. And they make Trump and his cronies unaccountable arbiters of who really loves the very American values the administration is busy betraying.

Trump wants to return America to its former greatness. But when it comes to freedom, Ghazali and Abu Bakr have far more in common with Madison and Lincoln than with terrorists and tyrants who claim Islams mantle. For that matter, they have far more in common with this countrys great lovers of liberty than does the current president.

So, instead of banning Muslims, Trump should listen to them: He might learn something about liberty and equality, two values he seems not to have learned to love from our own nations history or the Constitution he swore to uphold.

Decosimo teaches religion, ethics and politics at Boston University and is writing a book on freedom and domination in Christianity and Islam.

Here is the original post:
Islam's lessons on freedom and democracy - WatertownDailyTimes.com

Newser

This 'Latest Academic Craze' Is Threat to US Democracy Newser Sullivan argues that this is why protesters shouting down campus speakers they don't agree with seem to be performing a ritualistic exorcism. He concludes that this raising of ideology above facts is dangerous to democracy no matter your politics. Read ... and more »

Go here to read the rest:
This 'Latest Academic Craze' Is Threat to US Democracy - Newser

This year marks the 20th anniversary of Lokniti, one of the most admirable intellectual initiatives in the history of independent India. Headquartered at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies in New Delhi, Lokniti is a network of political scientists, teaching at colleges and universities across the country. It conducts surveys and opinion polls on each assembly and general election in India, which pay careful attention to voter attitudes and voter behaviour, and to cleavages of caste, class, and religion. Journalists across India, and scholars from across the world, rely massively on the vast storehouse of empirical data that Lokniti has assembled on the Indian elections.

Lokniti is remarkable for its depth of scholarship; and for the collegiality of its scholars. Most Indian academic institutions, like most Indian political parties, are dominated by a single charismatic individual. But Lokniti is run neither by an alpha male nor a high command. It is a genuinely decentralised network, which practises democracy within, even while studying democracy without.

Read more

In the recent round of assembly elections, the pollsters of Lokniti collected field-level data from different parts of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Goa, Manipur and Punjab. However, for Lokniti the conduct and result of elections in India is only one element of their mandate. A second, as defined by their charter, is the development of a comparative understanding of democratic polities in different historical and cultural settings.

In the first week of March, when polling was still on in Uttar Pradesh, in distant Bengaluru a group of scholars were discussing a report that Lokniti, working with collaborators in four other countries, had just produced on the State of Democracy in South Asia.

Multi-party democracy based on universal adult franchise was long considered a Western monopoly. However, the data in this new report demonstrates that electoral democracy was now strongly rooted in South Asia. Once, only Sri Lanka and India held regular elections; now, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and even Bhutan have abandoned autocracy or monarchy for democracy.

Reading the report closely, one found that while, in a formal sense, democracy is fairly well established in South Asia, in a substantive sense there are real worries. For one thing, while a decade ago 64% of respondents were happy with democratic functioning, the figure now is closer to 55%. For another, respondents seemed to trust unelected (and unrepresentative) public bodies such as the army and the judiciary more than elected bodies such as Parliament.

Read more

Reading this well-researched report on democracy in South Asia, I was struck by how many respondents did not seem to believe that public institutions could function on the basis of impersonal or impartial rules and procedures. 47% of those surveyed across the region believed that bribes were required to access government services. 19% believed that influence or sifarish was crucial. 9% believed that knowing a politician would help them, while 6% thought they needed a middleman instead. A mere 19% of respondents believed that they could access government services without any intervention or influence whatsoever.

Nurturing democracy in the poor, multi-ethnic, multi-religious nations of South Asia was always going to be far harder than in the richer and more homogeneous nations of Western Europe. Among the major challenges the South Asian nations face is overcoming the dangers of linguistic and religious majoritarianism. The record here is decidedly mixed, with this latest Lokniti report demonstrating that minorities across the region continue to feel insecure. At the same time, the study found that, except in Nepal, religious minorities endorsed the idea of democracy more actively than did religious majorities. An earlier Lokniti study had found that, after the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992, Muslims in north India began to vote in larger numbers. Harassed by the police, suspected by many members of the majority community, minorities across South Asia largely trust the impartiality of the ballot box, where each voter is equal regardless of the language she or he speaks or the religion she or he practises.

Read more

This latest State of Democracy Report will consolidate Loknitis already high and well deserved scholarly reputation. Yet I was disappointed to see so little attention paid to questions of gender. In all the countries of South Asia, women are discriminated against in multiple ways. They remain under-represented in the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. Working women are often paid less and offered worse service conditions than their male counterparts in identical jobs. When it comes to making personal or professional choices, boys and men are far freer than girls or women. And within the home and the village, as well as in the office and the city, the harassment of women is ubiquitous, and violence against them widespread as well. So far as the treatment of women is concerned, South Asia must surely be one of the most undemocratic parts of the world.

Ramachandra Guhas books include Gandhi Before India

Twitter: @Ram_Guha

The views expressed are personal

Visit link:
The state of democracy between elections - Hindustan Times

Despite the reluctance of many establishment Republicans, such as Paul Ryan, to support Donald Trumps candidacy for President, for the most part Republicans, like Ryan, have now rallied behind Trump, largely because they see an opportunity to push through the legislation and policies for which they have long salivated but had been unable to approve during the Obama presidency.

The distaste for Trump largely seems to be a response to his political Tourettes syndrome: he gives voice in an uncensored language to the brutally racist, sexist, anti-poor, and anti-working-class values of the GOP.

Despite the fact that Trump claims to have the best words, Republicans tended to distance themselves from his rhetoric while quietly champing at the bit to have a puppet in the White House to smooth a path of no resistance for their objective of funneling taxpayer money away from serving the millions of average citizens who pay taxes to the wealthiest one percent who seem fiscally insatiable.

Most particularly, Republicans have long looked forward to repealing and, supposedly, replacing Obamacare, having voted some 62 times or more (estimates vary) in Congress to repeal it during the Obama administration.

So what is happening now that Republicans control both chambers of Congress and effectively own a White House enthusiastically poised to obliterate the Affordable Care Act, one of the most sweeping and transformative pieces of legislation in American history?

Democracy is happening, in both participatory and representational terms, making clear that the political hopes of the nations working-class majority, including those who voted for Trump, reside, as President Obama reminded us in his farewell speech, in the people in us.

Recently, in the pages of PoliticusUSA, I wrote that Trumps Presidency has been in large part an assault on dissent itself and the process of deliberative democracy as imagined by our founders and which James Madison articulated most sharply and profoundly.

The recent uprisings at Republican town halls, however, are demonstrating the power of the people to withstand and turn back that assault and to encourage a more reasoned and deliberate approach to addressing the healthcare needs of the American majority.

Take Joni Ernst, for example, elected as part of the GOP 2014 Senatorial class. She ran on a vociferous pledge to repeal Obamacare immediately, as portrayed in a notorious political ad featuring her wielding a firearm and literally shooting down the act. But, as Burgess Everett has reported in Politico, she now is using the word deliberative when describing her state of mind about replacing Obamacare.

Ernst and others among her Republican colleagues are more than just getting cold feet about their weddedness to repealing the ACA; they are feeling the intense heat of the voting public, putting the proverbial feet of their elected representatives to the fire.

Veteran Senator Chuck Grassley, who infamously misrepresented the ACA in inflammatory terms, charging the act would result in death panels making decisions about your grandmas life, is just one example of someone feeling the pressures of democracy in action.

Jennifer Haberkorn reports in Politico, for example, about Grassleys recent appearance at a town hall. She tells the story of a 62-year-old pig farmer, Chris Petersen, who is worried about losing health coverage. As a message for Grassley about the power of the electorate in a representational democracy, he brought him a pack of Extra Strength Tums. According to Haberkorn, Petersen elaborated to Grassley on the meaning of his offering:

Youre going to need them in the next few years. People are disappointed. If it wasnt for Obamacare, we wouldnt be able to afford insurance. Over 20 million will lose coverage and with all due respect, sir, youre the man who talked about the death panels. Youre going to create one great big death panel in this country for people cant afford to get insurance.

Petersen demonstrates that voters have long memories, and he also demonstrates the power of participatory democracy to move our those who are supposed to represent the real needs and interests of their constituencies and not just push their own ideological agendas or the ideological agendas of the moneyed interests who sponsor their campaigns.

Republicans all over the nation are facing this kind of pressure in town halls and are now admitting that those showing up are not the professional protesters many Republicans have charged in efforts to dismiss dissent but in fact genuinely concerned constituents fulfilling their roles as citizens in the democratic process.

Some, though, like Illinois Republican Representative Peter Roskam, are refusing to hold town halls, effectively rejecting democracy in both representational and participatory terms. Can one really represent the constituents one refuses to hear?

The Republican Senator from Arkansas Tom Cotton has been clear about the realities of American democracy, warning Congress that it is moving too quickly and cautioning Republicans that they will be judged in future elections by the legislation they pass now.

People want healthcare, and they are clearly not just paying close attention but asserting their power as voters. Republicans this time will not be allowed to get away with false claims that their plan will lower costs and broaden coverage. They will actually have to produce legislation that does so. As of now, the Congressional Budget Office indicates millions will lose coverage and not be able to afford it.

When James Madison penned Federalist Paper No. 10, he underscored the importance of representatives who would act at some distance from the passions of the people and thus be capable of enacting a deliberative democracy. For Madison, the representatives should be able to withstand the temporary delusion to give time and opportunity for more cool and sedate reflection.

What we see today is that it is peoples participation that is forcing their representatives into a deliberative stance to control their temporary delusion that repealing the ACA will be good policy for the majority of Americans.

Let us be cognizant of what we are witnessing: Participatory democracy is our last and best hope. The chants at town halls of DO YOUR JOB! are in fact making Republican lawmakers afraid that they will lose theirs and hopefully encourage accountability to their constituents genuine needs and interests.

affordable care act, Burgess Everett, Chris Petersen, Chuck Grassley, Deliberative Democracy, democracy, Donald Trump, James Madison, Jennifer Haberkorn, Joni Ernst, Obamacare, Participatory Democracy, paul ryan, Tom Cotton

Read the original post:
Town Halls Show Participatory Democracy Best Hope of Saving Obamacare and Country - PoliticusUSA

Posted March 17, 2017 15:44:37

Many people think that democracy is the right system in terms of being fairer and delivering the best outcomes for people, but does it actually make us happier?

Dr Matthew Beard, an ethicist and moral philosopher from the Ethics Centre, has looked closely at the issue by correlating three indexes on happiness, wellbeing and democracy.

Dr Beard used the Economists Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index report, published in 2016, which ranked different nations based on how democratic they were.

The index scored each country based on their electoral process, how well the government functioned, the level of political participation, political culture, and people's civil liberties.

Dr Beard said that nine of the countries in the Economists report which scored in the top 10 on level of democratic values, also scored well on levels of wellbeing (as defined by the OECD) and levels of happiness (as defined by the World Happiness report).

"So you've got these nine countries sitting really, really high up across three fairly influential studies," he said.

And yes, Australia was one of those nine countries.

"But we bounce up and down depending on which one," Dr Beard said.

Australia came in tenth in terms of democracy, second in quality of life, ninth in terms of happiness.

"So overall if you were comparing places where you could have been born, Australia would be right up there," he said.

Dr Beard said while more research was needed, it seemed that society played a large role in a person's ability to achieve happiness in life.

And he said there was an aggregation of particular nations who scored high in all of the different measures, which suggested that a person's ability to live a happy life was beyond their own control, and was largely influenced by where they were born.

"And that's something a lot of people have been calling attention to for a while, but just looking at the numbers here suggests that it's something that we can't put to the back of our minds."

Dr Beard said while on an individual level he would lean towards the saying "money makes it easier to be happy", when applied more widely it did not quite match up.

"When I looked at the relationship between wellbeing, happiness and democracy, I thought, well, the obvious thing to look at here is, it actually any of these things or is it just that all these nations are really wealthy?"

Dr Beard examined the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the top-scoring countries, in terms of both raw GDP and GDP per capita.

"Some of the countries feature. So Canada features in democracy, happiness, quality of life and is in the top 10 for GDP," he said.

"Norway, Denmark and Iceland are all quite high in GDP per capita. But a lot of the other countries don't feature."

Australia appears in the top 10 list of democracy, happiness and quality of life is Australia but it is nowhere to be seen in the top 10 GDP list.

And then there is China, which scores high in terms of GDP, but does not feature in the top 10 of democracy, happiness or quality of life.

"So there is less correlation between wellbeing and GDP, between happiness and GDP, between democracy and GDP," Dr Beard said.

"So it might not be the case that money makes us happy."

Dr Beard said last year, for the first time, the Economist demoted the United States from a full democracy to what it called a "flawed democracy".

That meant it fell from 8.05 in 2015 to 7.98 in 2016, not a huge drop but enough to slip just below the 8.00 threshold ascribed to a "full democracy".

He said this was due to the Economist finding enough evidence to question the way the election transpired.

"Not just in terms of Trump or Trump voters or Clinton or Clinton voters but also in terms of some of the allegations about foreign governments involved in that election," Dr Beard said.

"That meant that they weren't as confident to the extent the US were holding on to some of those democratic ideals."

He said in terms of the rise of populism as seen in Europe and the United States the world could not look to any political system as the "silver bullet", and assume that as long as a country was democratic everything would be better.

"Historically we've seen a lot of times when we've tried to introduce democracy into a nation and think that that will fix the problem, and it hasn't," he said.

"Because political societies are complicated and the way you structure them is really important, but it's never going to be a single-factor solution to some of these problems around happiness, ethics and wellbeing."

Topics: happiness, emotions, community-and-society, government-and-politics, globalisation---economy, business-economics-and-finance, australia

Read more here:
Democracy: How important is it to our happiness? - ABC Online