Mediaboss Marketing

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

Democracy formally retired hurt in the land of Kolaveri on Saturday. The entire Opposition of the DMK, Congress and the IUML were evicted to allow Edappadi K Palaniswami to seek a trust vote, which he won 122-11. In the process, farce earned a synonym.

The Kollywoodish drama started early at 11 am with both MK Stalin and O Panneerselvam demanding secret ballot voting. But once Speaker Dhanapal rejected the demand, the decibel levels inside the Tamil Nadu Assembly rose, with DMK MLAs climbing on to their chairs, tearing up documents. Visuals were leaked selectively by the AIADMK-backed Jaya TV to highlight DMK's belligerent behaviour, it established that Dhanapal was manhandled, his shirt torn, his microphone broken and his table overturned. Stalin, however, claimed the Speaker tore his shirt himself and accused the DMK of misdemeanour to build a case against them.

Not that the past two weeks have not dented the Tamil Nadu political ecosystem. The manner in which one person in the quest for becoming chief minister confined all her MLAs to a resort outside Chennai, was a vulgar low. While a majority of the legislators were indeed followers of VK Sasikala, having earned their entry into politics with her blessings, there were some who were allegedly arm-twisted to stay on. Some of them managed to escape to tell the tale of coercion inside the Golden Bay resort. One of them, Madurai MLA Saravanan, fled clad in bermuda shorts.

DMK leader MK Stalin arrives along with his party MLAs at State Secretariat on Saturday. PTI

Then there was the sight of Stalin, the leader of the Opposition, walking out of the Assembly with his shirt buttons open, claiming it was torn by political rivals. It was the DMK leader's political 56-inch chest moment, signifying his party was ready for the political battle.

Daag acchhe hain?No, certainly not. All that has happened in the last two weeks in Tamil Nadu have been a blot on democracy in the battle of the veshtis. Contrary to Panneerselvam's desperate hope that at least half a dozen MLAs will vote according to their conscience to make the Palaniswami government lose the trust vote, the 122 lawmakers decided that power in hand is better than a re-election victory in the bush. Winning the trust vote means no immediate election and gives the resort sun-tanned legislators hope that they will have time to woo their voters once again.

That will be an audacious hope given that people in Tamil Nadu are saliva-ready to spit onthe MLAs, the moment they set sight on them. The anti-Sasikala sentiment runs so deep that the Palaniswami regime that will look to Bengaluru for instructions from convict number 9234, will start its innings without any honeymoon period.

And if people needed a spark to light up their anger, that came from actor Kamal Haasan who tweeted taunting India's "de-mockcrazy'' soon after the trust vote saying : "People of Tamizhnadu, Welcome your respective MLAs with the respect they deserve back home.''

Not that the Sasikala camp spared any effort to downplay its enthusiasm to get into positions of power. Sources reveal that the name of Sasikala's nephew, TTV Dinakaran figured in the initial list of ministers to be sworn-in. But Governor Vidyasagar Rao put his foot down in light of the economic offences cases against Dinakaran. Rao told Palaniswami that he will have to seek legal opinion on Dinakaran and if Palaniswami insisted on him, he will have to put off the swearing-in ceremony to another day. A desperate Palaniswami fell in line, agreeing to strike out Dinakaran's name. If not for Rao, Tamil Nadu would have seen an economic offender who coughed up a fine of Rs 25 crore in a money laundering related FERA case last month, sworn-in most likely as the finance minister.

Palaniswami may have won the battle of Fort St George, where the Assembly is located but the war of Madras is far from over. 'Thalapathi' Stalin, with his torn shirt as his first weapon, wanted to sit on a hunger strike at the Marina. The DMK calculated that even if it indulged in what would be deemed to be unparliamentary behaviour, the public mood is so anti-Sasikala that it would forgive Saturday's misdemeanour. Stalin would hope to build on this to start a public movement against the Palaniswami's freshly minted government.

However, Palaniswami who is clearly a man of numbers, after having bagged 122, has imposed Section 144 at the Marina which empowers the Chennai police to evict Stalin and company from the Gandhi statue area.

Giving Stalin's competition to grab the anti-Sasikala space, will be Panneerselvam. His dramatic revolt got him no more than 11 legislators but made him into a hero in the public eye. He will now have to show the spine to cultivate the AIADMK cadre to tap into the gulf between the Sasikala-led AIADMK leadership and its cadre.

Across the Cauvery, Sasikala will be pleased. Both the party and the government are in her grip. Little does she realise that in all probability, she has lost Tamil Nadu.

See the original post here:
E Palaniswami wins trust vote in Tamil Nadu Assembly, but democracy takes a beating - Firstpost

The Demon in Democracy Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies, by Ryszard Legutko, translated by Teresa Adelson, New York:

Encounter Books, 2016, 182 pages, hardcover.

The aftermath of last years presidential election in the United States has been marked by violent protests by individuals who are unwilling to accept the results of the constitutional election process. For the protestors, the election results have disrupted their belief in the irreversibility of that which they deem to be "Progress"; that is, the march toward a post-modern West, where socialism, collectivism, and political correctness rule without challenge. For many conservatives, the shock is seeing the widespread sentiment among so-called Millennials (and others) in favor of anything that attacks the foundations of our civilization, including the intellectual incoherence of trumpeting LGBTQ rights in the same breath that one advocates for unrestricted immigration by Muslims coming from countries that punish homosexuality with the death penalty.

Now, a new book by Polish author Ryszard Legutko sheds light on such phenomena. The Demon in Democracy Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies is written by a man who brings a wealth of practical experience and intellectual reflection to the examination of the troubles that haunt the West. Legutko is a professor of philosophy at Jagellonian University and has served in several high offices in the post-communist Polish government, as well as currently serving as a member of the European Parliament. His experiences under communist rule and during the decades that have followed have given him the opportunity to weigh the differences and similarities between communism and "liberal democracy." As the author notes at the beginning of his book,

This book is about the similarities between communism and liberal democracy. The idea that such similarities exist started germinating timidly in my mind back in the Seventies of the last century, when for the first time I managed to get out of communist Poland to travel to the so-called West. To my unpleasant surprise, I discovered that many of my friends who consciously classified themselves as devoted supporters of liberal democracy of a multiparty system, human rights, pluralism, and everything that every liberal democrat proudly listed as his acts of faith displayed extraordinary meekness and empathy toward communism. I was unpleasantly surprised because it seemed to me that every liberal democrat's natural and almost visceral response to communism should be that of forthright condemnation.

In this regard, one might think of the experiences of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and many other dissidents and defectors, which parallel those of Legutko, that gave rise to the term "anti-anti-communism" to describe liberal democrats. As those who lived through the 1970s and 1980s might well remember, the European and American political elite quickly rejected those who escaped from the Communist bloc if such dissidents had the "audacity" to argue that the failures and horrors which were commonplace under communism pointed to a fundamental problem with socialism and communism as a whole.

For Legutko, a significant contributor to the commonality of mindset between Communists and liberal democrats is a shared understanding of "historical process":

Three common threads occurring in Marxs works have their counterparts in the liberal and democratic tradition. There is a belief in the unilateralism of history, leading inevitably and triumphantly to the era of perpetual peace, or, in other terms, to the refinement of commerce and cooperation that humanity will reach due to the victory of freedom over tyranny. Another is the equivalent of deliberate human action, albeit not run by the party, but by active entrepreneurs and all types of freedom fighters, as well as the distinguished minority groups, elite and enlightened rulers who will prepare humanity until now apathetic, enslaved, and ignorant for the new reality. The third topic mankinds achieving maturity and intellectual independence is usually described in simpler language than the German-Romantic used by the young Karl Marx and amounts to a promise of a modern society liberated from ignorance and superstition.

Like the Communist, the liberal democrat believes in the inevitability of history, meaning any and all means are justified to accomplish that inevitable future end. From such a perspective, as Legutko notes, Both communism and liberal democracy are therefore perceived from an inside perspective as having no alternatives. The only change that one could imagine happening was one for the worse, which in the eyes of supporters meant not a slight deterioration, but a disaster.Thus one can readily see the reason for the unhinged hysteria on the American Left: Any notion that a new president will not continue the march toward the triumph of democratic socialism is not a slight deterioration, but a disaster.

Legutko recognizes that the current liberal democratic mentality is a perversion of the earlier ideal it is an abstraction no longer rooted in the earlier virtues of the Christian West. Thus, for example, Legutko declares:

The portrayal of liberal democracy as a realization of the eternal desire for freedom is very popular, almost verging on a platitude, especially in recent decades. This picture is false. First, liberalism was certainly not the only orientation expressing the desire for freedom, nor was it particularly consistent in this devotion. The supporters of republicanism, conservatism, romanticism, Christianity, and many other movements also demanded freedom, and did a lot to advance its cause. If freedom as we understand it in Western civilization is not only an abstract value, but has a concrete shape well-grounded in institutions, social practices, and mental habits, then the contribution of liberalism is one of many, far from decisive. It is hard to imagine freedom without classical philosophy and the heritage of antiquity, without Christianity and scholasticism, without different traditions in the philosophy of law and political and social practices, without ancient and modern republicanism, without strong anthropology and ethics of virtues and duties, without Anglo-Saxon and continental conservatism or many other components of the entire Western civilization.

Legutko recognizes that by rejecting Christianity after having marginalized the classical heritage Europe, and indeed, the entire West not only slides into cultural aridity, a process noticeable for some time, but also falls under the smothering monopoly of one ideology whose uniformity is being cleverly concealed by the deafening rhetoric of diversity that has been pouring into peoples minds at all occasions and contexts. Christianity, he declares, is the last great force that offers a viable alternative to the tediousness of liberal-democratic anthropology. As the idolatry of liberal democracy proves itself to be as much an act of vanity as all other forms of idolatry, the Christian verity remains to offer the same hope and promise that it has proclaimed across the ages, precisely because it recognizes the fundamental limitations of human beings. As Legutko concludes:

Whether the future of human history will add some new chapters, we cannot say, but such a scenario seems upon the authority of common sense likely. But the issue is not that new impulses, fashions, mood swings, major events, and other unpredictable factors will always emerge to affect the course of history and peoples perception of it. The real change will come only when the current view of man spends itself and is considered inadequate. Only then will other stories develop or be revived the former as a result of new experiences, the latter as a result of reactivating the long-dormant areas of collective memory allowing a different look at human fate and the dream through which individuals and communities express their aspirations.

Perhaps the long story reaching denouement in its last chapter that modernity divulged to us is not just one of many stories that can be replaced by another, but a basic truth about modern man who, after many adventures, downfalls and ascents, exultations and tribulations, after following many chimeras and surrendering to many temptations, finally arrived at the accurate recognition of who he is. If this indeed were the case, then further fundamental changes in human history would no longer be possible, except for the worse. Such an eventuality would be, for some, a comforting testimony that man finally learned how to live in a sustainable harmony with his nature. For others it will be a final confirmation that his mediocrity is inveterate.

The Demon in Democracy is worthy of thoughtful consideration by all those who wonder at the cause of the current troubles of the West, and seek the way back to civilizational sanity.

View original post here:
A Review of "The Demon in Democracy" - The New American