Mediaboss Marketing

Demise of democracy

As we move rapidly, almost ferociously, towards the general elections, it important to reflect on the values of elections and democracy. Kenya became democratic at Independence. Democracy did not last long. It was killed by conspiracies of Kenyatta and Moi. An essential purpose of suppressing democracy was to establish the absolute rule of the President, which in turn was to capture the state and plunder its resources. The principal beneficiaries of these regimes were relatives and friends of presidents and ministers, mostly members of their own tribes, and over whose thefts and illegalities there were no sanctions.

Fortunes were made through land grabbing, monopolies, senior governmental and parastatal jobs, which not only ensured high salaries but also opportunities of the embezzlement of state resources. In these circumstances there was no need for skills, it sufficed that they had a connection with presidents and ministers. Soon it was possible to distinguish the rich and the poor, and their lifestyles: one group living in great luxury, the other mired in poverty. It was not the case that all ethnic members of the President became rich. Many, in fact, became impoverished by the greed and illegalities of their so-called leaders. Thus began the distinction between ethnicity and class, which the politicians now spend so much time obfuscating.

Jomo Kenyatta provided an excellent example of this style of politics. He built solidarity among the Kikuyu for his own personal gains. Rev John Gatus recent autobiography provides a clear account of Kenyattas exploitation of Kikuyu ethnicity, which led to serious rifts between the Kikuyu and other communities. Kikuyu hegemony has since then become the motto of Kikuyu politicians and business people. And leaders of other communities followed the Kikuyu modelto increase their own status in inter-ethnic politics. Kenyatta also taught us that money could easily buy politicians. It was bribery with money and state office that enabled Kenyatta to demolish the Independence constitution, including the highly entrenched majimbo., within a year, despite the high degree of constitutional protection.

Moi, the leader of majimboism, who had fought hard for it at the London conferences, to protect Kalenjin and other minority groups, not only engineered this huge majority for its abolition but joined the Kenyatta Cabinet and abolished Kadu. If Kenyatta symbolised one strand of politics, Moi did another: money and power are all that count. Crossing the floor for personal expediency became the pre-occupation of politicians.

Restoration of democracy

The objective of the 2010 constitution was to bring about fundamental changes in state and society. These changes are well captured in the preamble and Article 10. A major objective is peace and national unity, based on democratic principles, while recognising our ethnic, cultural and religious identity. The system of government people desperately longed for is to be based on essential values of human rights, equality, freedom, democracy, social justice, good governance and the rule of law. Article 10 adds integrity to this listhugely important given the creed of our politicians and civil servants, and their business friends, that a whole chapter is devoted to it. Much care went into the restructuring of the state to achieve these objectives, starting with vesting sovereignty in the people, exercised in different ways, most fundamentally in electing and removing MPs and county assemblies, and partnership in making laws. Kenyans are encouraged to exercise their rights and freedoms, and seek, if necessary, the assistance of independent commissions and above all, a re-organised and strengthened judiciary. Apart from strengthening the judiciary, an independent director of prosecutions has been established.

Role of political parties

Great care was also taken to ensure a truly democratic political system, for only then could rights and freedoms and social justice prevail. Political parties were perceived, rightly, as central, to provide the basis of both democracy and national unity, respecting human rights, and avoiding ethnicity, race, religion, or region as their basis. From the very beginning, however, it became clear that the conflicts of interests between politicians and the people could not be so easily erased. Political parties in Kenya had not been champions of democracy, rights or justice. And now, while citizens looked forward to a future of equality and equity, the politicians plotted the seizure of the state, as a means of grabbing national resources, fomenting ethnic conflicts, and marginalising civil society. Consequently, great attention was paid by the Constitution of Kenya Review Commission to how parties could be made responsible to the people and to pursue national values set out in the new constitution.

Promoting national unity is defined as a primary responsibility of political parties. To this end, the parties must themselves have a national character meaning, among other factors, have membership reflecting the diversity of Kenyans (including minorities and marginalised groups) and nationwide presence. Parties must not be founded on religious, linguistic, racial, ethnic, gender or regional basis or seek to engage in advocacy of hatred of any such basis. They must observe high standards of integrity; in particular, not engaging in bribery or other forms of corruption. To avoid the violence that had become so endemic among political parties, the constitution prohibits them from engaging in or encouraging violence by intimidation of its members, supporters or opponents, or from establishing paramilitary or similar organisations.

Parties themselves must respect democratic principles by electing their governing body, observing principles of good governance, holding regular elections for offices within the party, and respecting the rights of all persons to participate in the political process. They must respect and promote human rights and freedoms, including gender equality and equity and more broadly, they must promote constitutional objects and principles, including the rule of law. To ensure these rules are respected by the parties, the independent office of Registrar of Political Parties is established with authority to refuse to register parties or de-register parties that do not fulfil these terms. An independent Political Parties Disputes Tribunal to deal with party disputes has been set up.

Functions of political parties

Most Kenyans think that the function of a political party is to win elections, regardless of its tactics: intimidation, bribery, corruption, breaking up meetings of opposing parties, mobilising ethnic hatred, or cheating at the polls or vote counting. This is not surprising because that is exactly how the major parties behave. In a democracy, these tactics are unlawful, as they are in Kenya.

A key function of parties, totally ignored in Kenya, is formation of policies offered to voters. The Political Parties Act makes this clear, saying that parties (a) shall promote policy alternatives responding to the interests, concerns and needs of citizens; (b) respect and uphold the democratic processes as they compete for political power to implement their policies; and (c) promote consensus-building in policy decision making on issues of national importance.

The Act makes clear also that the role of parties is not mindless attacks on other parties. It says that: A political party shall promote inter-party relations by: (a) ensuring free competition among political parties in respect of different political views and principles; (b) fostering trust and confidence through mechanisms for co-operation; (c) managing and mitigating political differences through constructive dialogue, enhancing harmony among the parties; and (d) promoting national reconciliation and building national unity.

Largess for political parties

To prevent the illicit collection of money, the law provides for grants of funds to political parties that satisfy certain criteria. The amount must not be less than 3 per cent of national revenue. The distribution of this fund favours the already well-established political parties, being based on the percentage of votes obtained by the party. However, the fund must be used to promote democracy, encourage peoples participation in political matters, provision of civic education, influencing of public on policies of the parties, and promoting the membership of women, disabled and disadvantaged in legislative bodies. Political parties can raise money from other sources, but they must be lawful sources, and there are limits on the amounts that may be raised in this way.

It is obvious that the parties have not been deterred from raising or extorting money from other sources. It is well known that huge sums of money are collected by politicians, from sources which then depend on favours from the recipient, once in office. No individual or even party can envisage standing in elections unless they have huge sums of money to buy votes with.

The system of illicit funding has had a most negative effect on integrity among politicians and civil servants and in the private sector as well a violation of one of the most important constitutional values. So pervasive is corruption, largely for electoral purposes, that our well endowed president admitted that he (and presumably his government) could not control it. This is a great indictment of the prevalence of the violation of the fundamental principles of the constitution.

Electoral system

The constitution provides for a fundamental reform of the electoral system, aimed at free and , fair elections, free from violence, intimidation, improper influence or corruption. The elections must be conducted by an independent body to ensure they are transparent and administered in an impartial, neutral, efficient, accurate and accountable manner. A great deal of detail to achieve these goals has been set out, including that the voting system should be simple, accurate, verifiable, secure, accountable and transparent. However, there have been few elections in Kenyas history that have not been criticised for unfairness, corruption, and most of all, violence. Even the first elections under the new system did not escape a measure of violence.

Final thoughts

Despite the optimism about the new constitution, politics has changed little. As we approach the general election, it has become clear that the parties have no respect for constitutional values. The old system of violence, corruption, party-funded and organised political rallies (geared more to attacks on opposing parties than discussion of their own policies), and exchanges of insults with their rivals have marked the start to the election seasons. Kenya has the irritating habit of starting election campaigns almost a year before the elections, neglecting their duties as president, governors, and members of legislatures, instead of what sensible countries do about three weeks.

We have already seen massive use of violence. The government has ensured that the police and army have become enemies of the people, instead of friends, as the constitution prescribes. Civil society has been chastised for its betrayal of the national interests, and the rights and freedoms of citizens and foreigners alike are under threat from a nervous president. The quarrels among politicians on the basis of purely personal issues have debased us as a nation. We Kenyans are ashamed of our political leaders.

The author was the chair of the CKRC and the Kenya National Constitutional Conference.

See original here:
What is democracy and what is it for? - The Star, Kenya

By Dr. Demir Murat Seyrek, senior policy advisor at the European Foundation for Democracy

The political system governing Turkey is on the verge of a profound change. In the case of a yes vote on 16 April, Turkey will be transformed from a parliamentary system to an executive presidency, in which the President will have an unprecedented role. Even Mustafa Kemal Atatrk, the founding father of the Republic, did not have such power.

A presidential system is not a bad thing per se; there are certainly good examples. Moreover, the presidential system discussion is not new in Turkish political history either. The issue was previously raised by the late President Turgut zal, a key political figure in the transition of Turkey to a western-style liberal economy in the 1980s. However, the focus of these past discussions has always been the American system with a strong emphasis on the separation of power. The newly proposed system, literally described as a la Turca presidency by the Turkish government, has little in common with presidential systems in the Western world. Many elements in the constitutional package increase concerns regarding democracy, separation of powers and checks and balances.

Out of 18 proposed changes, there are 6 that have raised widespread concern:

Article 7: While the current constitution does not allow the president to be affiliated with a political party in order to maintain the presidents impartial status following the election, this article will allow the president to be a member and even a chairperson of a political party. As a result, the president may run the party as well as the country. A party state may emerge out of this, especially considering the powers of political party leaders under current Political Parties Law. As candidates for parliamentary elections are chosen to a large extent by party leaders, the president may also select and control the majority of parliamentarians in case the presidents party has the majority in the parliament. In this way, the president may control both the executive and legislative bodies.

Article 8: This article will abolish the prime ministers office and transfer all executive power currently belonging to the prime minister and ministers to the president. The president will also gain some legislative power through the right of issuing decrees. However, it should be noted that the scope of this right is narrow and laws will still have precedence over decrees.

Article 9: New impeachment procedures introduced by this article will make the process almost impossible. This is very important in terms of the accountability of a president whom enjoys unprecedented powers. Signatures of a simple majority of parliamentarians will be required to start proceedings. A three-fifths majority will be needed to set up an Inquiry Commission. If the commission decides to send the president to the Supreme Court then this decision will at least need to be backed by a two-thirds majority.

Article 10: The president will be able to appoint one or more vice-presidents without any restrictions. The vice-presidents, as non-elected officials, will replace the president and rule the country by using all of the presidents powers if the president is absent, seriously ill or in the event of his/her death.

Article 11: This article will give extra power to the president on the legislative body. The president will have the right to dissolve the Parliament without any reason. Although, as presidential and parliamentary elections will always be renewed simultaneously, the president will be directly affected by this decision. Furthermore, the parliament will also be able to call for early elections with a three-fifths majority.

Article 14: This will increase the power of the president over the Council of Judges and Prosecutors, a key actor for the independence of the judiciary. With this article, the president may directly and indirectly, through the parliament if the presidents party has a sufficient majority, play an important role in the selection of the Councils members. However, it is not possible to claim that the president will have full control on the judiciary.

In the case of a yes vote, the main concern is the emergence of one-man rule. While this concern is mainly raised by the opposition, this is indeed a major risk for everyone. Debating the issue by simply taking into account the current president is not very healthy. This is a fundamental change about the future of the country. President Erdogan will not be ruling the country forever. AKP supporters may even be the victims of this system in the future if an anti-AKP person were to be elected as the president with these powers.

While the result of the referendum is highly unpredictable with different polling companies estimating significantly different results, the government does not seem to be very confident about the success, considering that the no campaign consists of many political actors from diverse backgrounds including the main opposition CHP, the pro-Kurdish HDP, opposition groups within nationalist MHP and surprisingly the Islamist-leaning Saadet Party.

The European Union is also closely following this historical referendum. In Europe, there are major concerns about the future of Turkish democracy. However, a yes vote would not be the end of Turkeys strained relations with the EU, considering de facto frozen accession negotiations and the EUs short term priorities. While the issue-based cooperation, which started with the refugee deal, will most likely continue in any case, Turkey will certainly be a more difficult partner in the case of a yes vote.

Dr. Demir Murat Seyrek, Senior Policy Advisor at the European Foundation for Democracy

The views expressed in opinion articles published on euronews do not represent our editorial position

Go here to read the rest:
Turkish constitutional referendum: TRexit from parliamentary democracy? - euronews

A theocracy is a government ruled by religious authority -- like, say, Iran, or the Taliban. America is a democracy. Yet our president and those advisers with whom he has chosen to surround himself seek systematically and surreptitiously to impose their restrictive and intolerant religious agenda upon the rest of us, at the expense of our freedoms: including freedom of religion and freedom from religion. They are quietly but relentlessly attempting to replace our democracy with their theocracy. They seek to implement any pseudo-legal means necessary, no matter how dubious or questionable, to achieve their ends. We must be firm in our stand against such inroads to our basic liberty. There is no church in state.

One could say that a rallying cry for this extreme conservative movement is reminiscent of a rallying cry often heard at football games. The new education secretary would gut funding for public schools in favor of largely unregulated charter schools run by businesses whose primary goal is profit. This hurts disadvantaged children in the inner cities ("Push 'em back!") further limiting their chances to escape poverty through education ("Shove 'em back!").

The nominee for the Supreme Court sided with Hobby Lobby, allowing their religious beliefs to override any moral imperative to allow women access to contraception in the health care ("Way back!"). Our president is urging the Senate to invoke a "nuclear option" to force through his confirmation. We have a president and a Republican legislature that seek to eliminate affordable health care, but conveniently neglect to provide a viable alternative ("Push 'em back!"). We have a Supreme Court nominee who these extreme religious conservatives hope will provide the crucial vote to eliminate legal access to abortion ("On your back!") all because it doesn't fit with their intolerant, judgmental, misogynist religious credo.

This is an extremist religious group who will cheerfully slam and nail shut the public bathroom door that had ever so briefly been set ajar for the transgender person ("Push 'em back!"). Our president has already signed away any obligation on the part of the Federal Housing Administration to lower insurance premiums on FHA mortgages ("Way back!").

There is no church in state, yet our president would end political limits on churches, disingenuously insisting that these limits are a restriction of religious freedom when in reality he is opening the door wide to the conservative religious zealots to exert more influence. It is a step closer to a conservative theocracy. These religious extremists are anti-education, anti-poor, anti-children, anti-women. All in the name of their religious beliefs ("Push 'em back!").

How can such intolerant and restrictive views get a free pass when cloaked in spurious religious clothing? Why must religious extremists of all ilks (Christian and Muslim alike) seek to outlaw, constrain, suppress and silence those who do not agree with them? Why must they force their unwanted canonical knowledge on the rest of us, depriving us of our freedom to live our lives as we choose?

The United States is a motley crew, a multitude of social mores, but this conservative religious movement is a movement of less. Less freedom, less liberty, less opportunity, less tolerance. This is movement against all of us who have different views and different hues, yet who love our country as much as the next person; we are all America's cheerleaders.

As a democracy, we must rejoice, celebrate and learn from our differences, not fear, vilify or eliminate them. We must remain respectful, tolerant and understanding of all: conservative and liberal alike, no matter the income, lifestyle, race, religion or creed. There is no church in state. We must stand firm in this, or we risk losing much of what truly makes this country great.

Deborah DiMicco lives and works in Newtown.

Originally posted here:
No church in state: A democracy, not a theocracy - Bucks County Courier Times

Julie Bishops comments come ahead of a visit to Australia this month by Chinese Premier Li Keqiang.

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has sent an unusually pointed message to China about the importance of democratic institutions, in a speech also declaring that the US needs to play an even greater regional strategic role as Chinas strength increases.

Bishop said that while it is appropriate for different states to discover their own pathway leading toward political reform, history shows that embrace of liberal democratic institutions is the most successful foundation for nations seeking economic prosperity and social stability.

While non-democracies such as China can thrive when participating in the present system, an essential pillar of our preferred order is democratic community, she said, delivering an address in Singapore titled Change and Uncertainty in the Indo-Pacific.

Domestic democratic habits of negotiating and compromise are essential to powerful countries resolving their disagreements according to international law and rules. History also shows democracy and democratic institutions are essential for nations if they are to reach their economic potential, she said.

Her comments come ahead of a visit to Australia this month by Chinese Premier Li Keqiang.

With uncertainty hanging over future US policy under the Trump administration, Bishop highlighted the expanding military spending in the region, and the inevitability of increasing tensions.

China was rising as an economic partner and geopolitical and geostrategic competitor with the US and other countries, she said.

This brings with it its own challenges, not least because China is disputing maritime boundaries in the East and South China Seas as do a number of Southeast Asian countries with respect to the South China Sea.

Bishop said she had recently discussed regional challenges and constructive ways for the US to become even more engaged in the Indo-Pacific in her talks with US Vice-President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster.

Many regional nations are in a strategic holding pattern and waiting to see whether the United States and its security allies and partners can continue to play the robust and constructive role that they have for many decades in preserving the peace.

"If stability and prosperity are to continue, the United States must play an even greater role as the indispensable strategic power in the Indo-Pacific.

Bishop said that ensuring peace and stability in a time of intensifying strategic competition was at least as great a challenge as managing economic competition.

Strategic competition is occurring largely due to the dramatic increase in wealth occurring throughout our region, she said.

Rising prosperity means that countries naturally seek to expand their sphere of influence and to protect their growing interests.

Military outlays in 2015-16 in Asia had grown by more than 5.5%, compared with a 1% overall increase in global military spending. By 2020 combined military spending in the Indo-Pacific would probably be more than $US600 billion for the first time matching military spending in North America.

Rising powers may exert newfound strength to challenge existing territorial or strategic boundaries or to impose their political will on others. This inevitably leads to rising tensions. If these tensions led to conflict, this would disrupt the great momentum towards greater prosperity.

Bishop said that for our region the US is a geographically distant power dependent on the acquiescence of Indo-Pacific states to host military assets and is obliged to use its power and influence to provide public security goods to the region and not simply pursue its narrow national interests.

"This provides reassurance to many countries closely observing how larger countries will seek to wield their power and influence in the region.

The domestic political system and values of the US reflected the liberal rules-based order that we seek to preserve and defend, and the importance of these values and institutions should not be underestimated, she said.

Liberal-democratic institutions such as rule of law rather than rule by executive privilege, civilian control of the military, independent and competent courts, protection of property and intellectual property rights from state appropriation or theft, and limitations on the role of the state in commercial and social affairs remain the prerequisites for stable and prosperous societies, as they are for the creation of a vibrant and innovative private sector.

Here is the original post:
Julie Bishop sends sharp message to China about democracy - The Conversation AU

Recent concerns over the current state of American democracy are warranted,but the loss of confidence in the system began long before the controversial 2016 presidential election, according David Moss, a professor at the Harvard School of Business.

We may have lost track of what most powerfully binds us together, and that is this common faith in democratic self-governance and commitment to the nations democracy, said Moss, who was the guest speaker at a March 6 discussion at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, 5807 S. Woodlawn Ave.

Moss, whose book, "Democracy: A Case Study," was published by the Harvard University Press Feb. 1, considered the history of American democracy andwhetherit is in danger.

Every major democratic decision going back to the creation of the U.S. Constitution was riddled with conflict and tension, but that is crucial to a healthy democracy, according to Moss.

Debates over gun rights, health care and abortion arent an exception to the rule; they are the rule, Moss said. The exception is when people agree, and when there is consensus about policy.

Moss said Americans' distrust and lack of faith in the federal government is related to its increasing power without adding more democratic procedures. However, confidence in state and local government has remained steady because of opportunities for civic input and engagement, he added.

Carlton McGee, a social entrepreneur who attended the discussion, said the media has a duty to educate the public on current affairs but has fallen short of doing that in the past.

"[The media's] job is to be the full-time guardians of what these decisionmakers and policymakers are doing, McGee said.

According to Moss, other factors such as the absence of civic education and lawmakers unwillingness to explain policy decisions have also contributed to the diminished trust in democracy.

Moss referenceda Gallup poll conducted each year between 1974 and 2015, which asked Americans how much confidence they had in their fellow Americans to make judgments under the democratic system. Fifteen percent said "not very much" or "none at all" when the poll started. However, in 2015, that number had dramatically escalated to 43 percent.

Moss said Americans' distrust in its democratic system opened the door for populism, nationalism and the rise of PresidentDonald Trump.

Reintroducing civic education in schools and engaging the public through juries could supply some solutions to the civilian and federal government division, Moss said.

It would have a lot of moral authority, and people would pay attention to the actual citizens, Moss said.

John Mulholland, who recently retired from the University of Chicago D'Angelo Law Library and attended the discussion, said he wanted answers on the individuals role in this discussionon democracy.

What is [Moss] calling upon the individual to do? Mulholland asked. "Is he calling on the individual to be more contentious?

Moss said democracy relies completely on the individual, and beyond protesting Trump and writing to a senator, Americans need to work to rebuild democracy and be open to other points of view.

You should do all of those things, but you also need to simultaneously think about how you build bridges between the people who dont agree with you, Moss said.

Go here to see the original:
Expert says democracy is in trouble, has been for decades - Columbia Chronicle