FiveThirtyEight | Chat: How's Our Democracy Doing? FiveThirtyEight micah (Micah Cohen, politics editor): After Donald Trump won the election, a lot of people journalists, academics, regular folks raised concerns about the future of our democracy. Would Trump upend democratic norms and violate core principles? |
See the rest here:
Chat: How's Our Democracy Doing? - FiveThirtyEight
There is a new incumbent in the White House, a new Congress has been sworn in, and scientists around the country are nervous as hell.
Were nervous because there seems to be a seismic shift going on in Washington, D.C., and its relationship with facts, scientific reality, and objective truth has never been more strained.
Already, in the opening days of his administration, Mr. Trumps Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, willfully ignored clear, empirical evidence about the size of the inauguration crowds, and bristled at the suggestion experts said they were smaller than in years past. He seemed almost paranoid, and insinuated that a media conspiracyrather than simple arithmeticwas trying to embarrass his boss. And the Trump Administration continues to claim, without any evidence, that widespread voter fraud cost Mr. Trump the popular vote, even though this has been thoroughly debunked by numerous, bipartisan sourcesincluding his own lawyers.
Even more bizarrely, Kellyanne Conway, a senior advisor to Mr. Trump, has offered up the notion that alternative facts, rather than actual truth, were in play now. I dont know what alternative facts are, but I think my parents generation would have called them falsehoods or even lies.
But its not just absence of facts thats troubling, it is the apparent effort to derail science and the pursuit of facts themselves.
Already, we have learned that multiple agencies, including the USDA and the EPA, have ordered their scientists to stop speaking to the public about their research. The CDC suddenly cancelled a long-planned, international conference on the health impacts of climate change. And when the Badlands National Park started using its Twitter account to discuss the issue of climate changeas any nature center, park, or science museum might dothe tweets were immediately deleted. Most disturbingly, the EPA has immediately suspended all of their grants and contracts, and ordered the review of all scientific work by political appointees, including efforts to collect data, conduct research, and share information with the broader publica public, we should remember, that paid for the work in the first place.
And its only been five days since Mr. Trump took office.
A disturbing pattern seems to be emerging. Facts, and the pursuit of facts, dont seem to matter to this White House. Or, worse yet, they matter a lot and are being suppressed.
Fact checking the Trump campaign was always a surreal exercise, but we all knew that he came from the world of entertainment, and that shoot-from-the-hip, I-say-what-I-think style was part of his charm, part of his brand. People fed up with regular politicians loved his brash style. It was refreshing to many.
But now that Mr. Trump is in power, this is no longer about ratings and entertaining television. Its about ensuring the fundamental legitimacy and credibility of the worlds most powerful office. If we cant trust the facts being discussed in the White House, what can we trust?
Ultimately, a healthy democracy depends on science. The pursuit of truth, having an informed citizenry, and the free and open exchange of ideas are all cornerstones of our democracy. Thats one thing that always made America truly greatthe fact that, when all is said and done, evidence and the truth would always win the day in America. Without that, we join the league of ordinary nations.
And even if you arent worried about factual evidence, the veracity of our leaders, or the independence of science from political interference, I would urge you to look a little farther down the slippery slope. If facts dont matter to the White House, especially when theyre inconvenient, whats next? Laws?
Let me be clear: This isnt a partisan thing. Scientists arentand shouldnt be!worried about which political party is in power. It rarely mattered: There has always been a long tradition of bipartisan support for science and a fact-based world view. In fact, the Union of Concerned Scientists has ranked both Republican and Democratic presidents as being exceptional supporters of science, ranging from Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush.
Wise leaders, of both parties, have always recognized the value of independent science to our democracy.
But theres something different about this Administration. Something troubling. And scientists need to stand up and call it out. While we generally avoid political conversations, scientists should always stand up for facts, objectivity, and the independence of science itself. Not doing so would be almost unethical.
So, to Mr. Trump, I would say this:
If this is all just a series of missteps, caused by over-zealous mid-level managers during a confusing presidential transition, so be it. Say so. Fix it. Get out on the public stage and affirm your commitment to facts, to truth, and to the independent pursuit of science without political interference. The vast majority of your fellow Americans would applaud you for this. It would be brave. It would be wise. And it would show some class.
But if this is actually part of your governing philosophy, I would give you a warning on behalf of my fellow scientists: Do not mess with us. Do not try to bury the truth. Do not interfere with the free and open pursuit of science. You do so at your peril.
Americans dont look kindly on bullies, people who try to suppress the truth, or people who try to intimidate scientists and the press. In the long run, this always backfires. The dustbin of history is full of people who have tried, and failed. You will too.
The next time you visit the CIA headquarters, I hope you will take a moment to notice their unofficial motto, etched in the walls of the lobby. It says, And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." (John VIII-XXXII.)
It does. And scientists like me, and Americans of all backgrounds, will always fight for it.
The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.
Original post:
The War on Facts is a War on Democracy - Scientific American (blog)
analysis By Brian Klaas
Critics have long argued that the African Union (AU) supports the authoritarian rule of many of the leaders of its member countries. They say it is little more than an old boys' club for dictators - Paul Biya of Cameroon, Yahya Jammeh of Gambia and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, among others - who have been in power for decades.
And that it offers these autocrats an apparently legitimate role on the international stage. Others add that the AU has allowed despots and counterfeit democrats to undermine genuine democratic reform in Africa whenever their grip on power is threatened.
At first glance, this may not be immediately apparent. Like many of the leaders of its member states, the AU is masterful at using the language and appearance of democracy, even as it helps to perpetuate authoritarian rule. Consider, for example, the AU's most significant attempt - the Lom Declaration, signed in July 2000 - to establish itself as a continent-wide force for democratisation and good governance:
The Lom Declaration codified opposition to unconstitutional transfers of power as a binding principle of the AU. Specifically, any government that came to power though an unconstitutional transfer of power, such as a coup d'tat, would be suspended from membership in the AU. For a region that has had more oustings than any other on the planet, this looked like a major step forward. Takeovers would not only be condemned rhetorically, they would also have tangible and predictable diplomatic consequences.
Moreover, the Lom Declaration claimed that the AU would henceforth condemn, isolate, and suspend member state leaders who failed to relinquish power after losing a free and fair election. At the dawn of the new millennium, it seemed like a new dawn for democracy within the AU.
Yet, some unavoidable irony attended the signing of the declaration. Many of the signatory states had leaders who had come to power through coups. Faure Gnassingb, the president of Togo, overthrew his father, who had had also come to power in a coup. Many of the other member states were led by men who had rigged elections or had refused to hold them regularly. So the example set by those who signed the document was completely at odds with this new AU principle.
Unfortunately, the Lom Declaration helped create an AU that is pragmatic with regards to policy -- except for one overriding principle: a member country may only meddle in the affairs of another member state if it would accept the same intervention. If you're a despot like Teodoro Obiang of Equatorial Guinea or Jos Eduardo Dos Santos of Angola, very few AU interventions seem acceptable. This helps explain not only the language of the AU's faux commitment to genuine democracy but also its chequered implementation of its policies.
In 2001, when the AU was formalised, replacing the older Organisation of African Unity, some parts of the Lom Declaration survived. Crucially, the provision barring unconstitutional transfers of power became Article 30 of the Constitutive Act, the founding document of the AU.
The AU's experience with coups since adopting Article 30 is instructive. Military coups are uniformly anti-democratic in nature. Even when coups do prompt genuinely democratic elections, the damage done to the integrity of democratic institutions is substantial. Once a military has removed an elected leader from power, subsequent rulers must govern with an eye to avoiding the same fate as their predecessors.
The AU's commitment to ending illegitimate transfers of power is admirable and an important signal that democratic legitimacy matters. It reminds us of the progress that the continent has made from its days of purely authoritarian one-party rule. Yet the organisation's anti-coup norm is also a tool that allows entrenched despots to avoid the biggest risk to their power: being deposed by their own militaries. For most African despots, this is a far graver existential threat than rebellion, loss at the ballot box or Western intervention.
This is a crucial point. Article 30 apparently establishes a new norm demonstrating a laudable commitment to democratic reform. In reality, however, it represents an old-style power politics that allows authoritarian leaders to hide behind a veneer of legitimacy. In the long term, it will certainly be good to see fewer coups throughout Africa. But in the short term, Article 30 also serves the status quo. And in Africa, the status quo is despotism.
The anti-coup norm - like many of the AU's rhetorical commitments - is flimsy. Madagascar was laudably suspended from the AU after a 2009 coup unseated Marc Ravalomanana, a democratically elected leader. But the AU's subsequent engagement with Madagascar was never about reinstating him. Instead, the AU worked with the post-coup government in an awkward agreement that left Madagascar with a transitional government for nearly five years.
The main problem with the AU's written commitment to democracy is that it is selective. Madagascar is no paragon of democracy, but should it have been suspended from the AU while the likes of Robert Mugabe or Teodoro Obiang were allowed seats at the table? This "democracy hypocrisy" is glaring. It undermines claims that the organisation is a force for genuine democratic change on the continent.
Today, Africa faces another critical challenge to democracy as presidents ignore restrictions - which they often penned - to their terms in office. The AU has been far too silent about this, and for a simple reason: many of the leaders of the AU's most powerful states have long overstayed their welcome. If the AU is to be a force for genuine democratic change rather than a body that pays lip service to it, it needs to condemn such blatant violations of democratic principle. At present, however, it is a reluctant and half-hearted voice spouting platitudes and calls for restraint on all sides. The AU should change tack immediately, and institute strict penalties for leaders who do not abide by existing term limits.
Fourteen African heads of state have been in power for at least 15 years, and eight of them have been in power for more than a quarter century. All 14 of the longest-serving heads of state were in power when the Lom Declaration was signed. Fifteen years later, they are the living embodiment of its failure.
The true test for the AU in the coming years will be whether it responds to the threat of coups in the same way it does to other equally damaging threats - rigged elections, violations of the rule of law and routine disregard for term limits - to democracy.
For now, the AU's claim to be a force for democracy rings hollow, as all too often it uses the language of democracy as a shield for despots.
See more here:
Africa: Democracy Hypocrisy - AllAfrica.com
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. Im Amy Goodman. In addition to issuing presidential memos to revive the Keystone XL and Dakota Access oil pipelines, President Trump and his team have taken several other actions that have alarmed environmentalists. All references to climate change have been removed from the White House website. Reuters is reporting the Environmental Protection Agency has also been ordered to remove its climate change page, which contains links to scientific global warming research as well as detailed data on emissions. The EPA has also been prohibited from issuing press releases, publishing blog updates or even posting information on social media. In addition, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has abruptly canceled a major conference on climate change and public health.
Joining us now from Berkeley, California, is Annie Leonard, executive director of Greenpeace USA.
Annie, as we wrap up this show, can you talk about the executive actions on Dakota Access pipeline, Keystone XL, and all of what were seeing right now in the new Trump administration?
ANNIE LEONARD: Absolutely. You know, Im actually very worried. Ive been an environment activist for about a quarter of a century, and there have been many uphill battles. But in the past, we were operating within a framework where there was some respect for democracy, some respect for science, a stronger grasp on reality than President Trump is indicating. His actions yesterday, both on the pipelines as well as trying to muzzle the Environmental Protection Agency, demonstrate a complete disregard for indigenous treaty rights, a complete disregard for environmental lawsthat executive orders and memoranda dont change; those pipelines still have to go through NEPA, through the Clean Water Acta complete disregard for democracy. Millions and millions of people have voiced opposition to these pipelines. But perhaps most troubling is a complete disconnect from reality. The vast majority of the worlds scientists say that 80 percent of remaining oils needs to stay underground. The last thing we should be doing is investing in more pipeline. Its terrifying that he thinks this is an appropriate direction to move our country in.
AMY GOODMAN: And the argument he makes that this means more jobs?
ANNIE LEONARD: Well, this is one of the few things I do agree with President Trump on, is that we need more jobs. But we need sustainable, healthy and safe jobs. And the real way to get long-term meaningful jobs is through the transition to clean energy, whether its retrofitting buildings to be more energy efficient, whether its building actual infrastructure for clean energy. There is an almost infinite number of healthy, sustainable, good jobs available, and thats where we need to be investing in for this much-needed jobs delivery.
AMY GOODMAN: You said in your statement, the Greenpeace statement, "A powerful alliance of Indigenous communities, ranchers, farmers, and climate activists stopped the Keystone and the Dakota Access pipelines the first time around." Protests have broken out all over the country right now around resumption of this. What do you feel the protest movement needs to do? And what does President Trump need to actually push these pipelines through?
ANNIE LEONARD: You know, Im not sure theres anything that President Trump could do to actually push these pipelines through, because in addition to actual laws and environmental impact statements, theres all of us. There are people. The word that Im hearing more than any other these days is "resistance." Actually, the second one would be "unity." All across the country, indigenous groups, climate groups, farmers groups, labor groupsall these different people are coming together and saying, "We will resist. We are not going to go away quietly. Were actually not going to go away. Were going to fight with everything we have, because whats at stake really is everything that we love. Its our democracy. Its water. Its our multicultural communities. Were not giving up. Were not going away. Were going to resist."
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, it seems very likely that Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil, will be the next secretary of state, already approved by the committee, now the full Senate vote. Your response?
ANNIE LEONARD: You know, for a long time, we have fought against or been very concerned about the influence of fossil fuel money in our democracy. This appointment is just stunning in terms of an absolute, complete merger with our government and the biggest fossil fuel industries in the country. It just shows that the onus on making sure that things are handled appropriately is now on the people. More than ever before, we need to be awake, we need to be alert, and we need to be involved.
AMY GOODMAN: Annie Leonard, I want to thank you very much for being with us, executive director of Greenpeace USA.
Original post:
A Complete Disregard for Democracy: Greenpeace Condemns Trump's Move on Pipelines & Silencing of EPA - Democracy Now!
Debased and de-based: thats the condition of our political systems. Corrupted, they no longer fulfil their democratic potential. They have also lost their base: the politically engaged population from which democracy is supposed to grow. The sense of ownership has been eroded to such an extent that, for millions of Americans, Donald Trump appeared to be the best the system had to offer.
I dont blame people for voting for him, or for Brexit: these are responses to a twisted, distrusted system. Elections captured by money, lobbyists and the media; policy convergence among the major parties, crushing real choice; the hollowing out of parliaments and other political institutions and the transfer of their powers to unaccountable bodies: these are a perfect formula for disenfranchisement and disillusion. The global rise of demagogues and outright liars suggests that a system nominally built on consent and participation is imploding.
So could we do better? Could a straighter system be fashioned from the crooked timber of humanity? This is the second of my occasional series on possible solutions to the multiple crises we confront. It explores some of the means by which democracy may be improved. Over the past few months, Ive read dozens of proposals, some transparently awful, others pretty good. The overall result so far is this: there is no magic formula, no single plan that could solve our democratic problems without creating worse ones. But there are plenty of ideas, just a few of which I will mention, that could enhance our politics.
The first necessary shift is a radical reform of campaign finance (political funding). The power of money in politics poisons everything literally in some cases. In my column last week, I mentioned the pollution paradox: the dirtiest companies must spend the most on politics if they are not to be regulated out of existence, so politics comes to be dominated by the dirtiest companies. It applies across the board. Banks designing dodgy financial instruments; pharmaceutical companies selling outdated drugs; gambling companies seeking to stifle controls; food companies selling obesogenic junk; retail companies exploiting their workers; accountants designing tax-avoidance packages: all have an enhanced incentive to buy political space, as all, in a fair system, would find themselves under pressure. The system buckles to accommodate their demands.
My proposal for reforming campaign finance is brutally simple. Every party would be entitled to charge the same small fee for membership (perhaps 50 or $50), which would then be matched by the state, with a fixed multiple. Any other political funding, direct or indirect, would be illegal. This would also force parties to re-engage with voters. Too expensive? Not in the least. The corruption of our politics by private money costs us hundreds of times more than a funding system for which we would pay directly. That corruption has led to financial crises caused by politicians failure to regulate the banks, environmental crises caused by the political power of the dirtiest companies, and lucrative contracts for political funders; and overcharging by well-connected drugs companies.
The next crucial reform is to help voters make informed choices. Germany provides a brilliant example of how this could be done: its federal agency for civic education publishes authoritative but accessible guides to the key political issues, organises film and theatre festivals, study tours and competitions, and tries to engage with groups that turn their backs on democratic politics. It is trusted and consulted by millions.
Switzerland offers the best example of the next step: its Smartvote system presents a list of policy choices with which you can agree or disagree, then compares your answers with the policies of the parties and candidates contesting the election. It produces a graphic showing whose position most closely matches your interests. There is some excellent civic technology produced by voluntary groups elsewhere (such as Democracy Club, Crowdpac and mySociety in the UK). But without the funding and capacity of the state, it struggles to reach people who are not already well informed.
Once these reforms are in place, the next step is to change the architecture. As both US presidential elections (distorted by the electoral college system) and UK general elections (allowing a minority of the electorate to dictate to the majority) suggest, this should start with a switch to proportional representation. Ideally, in parliamentary elections this would mix the national with the local by retaining constituency links, such as the single transferable vote or the additional member system.
There may even be some virtue in the idea of a second parliamentary chamber being chosen by lot
There are plenty of proposals to replace representative democracy with either sortition (randomly selecting delegates) or direct democracy (referendums and citizens initiatives). Such systems might have worked well in small city states with a limited franchise (sortition was used in ancient Athens and medieval Venice and Florence). But in populations as large and complex as ours, these proposals are a formula for disaster. Its hard to see how we can escape the need for professional, full-time politicians. (Perhaps, in a fair and accountable system, we could learn to love them.)
But I believe that both approaches could be used to temper representative democracy. Sortition can be seen as political jury service, in which citizens chosen by lot are presented with expert testimony then asked to make a decision. As an advisory tool, it could keep representative politics grounded in the real world. It could be used to create constitutional conventions, at which proposals for better political systems are thrashed out. There might even be some virtue in the idea of a second parliamentary chamber (such as the House of Lords or the US Senate) being chosen by lot.
But we should be aware of the dangers. The Westminster governments first experiment with citizens juries (Gordon Browns attempt to determine whether doctors surgeries should be replaced with giant clinics) was corrupted from birth. Jurors were hand-picked and presented with one-sided evidence, then the results were buried when they came out wrong. No system is immune to fraud.
Once political funding has been reformed, ballot initiatives of the kind widely used in US states if you gather enough signatures you can demand a vote become a powerful political instrument, enabling people to propose legislation without waiting for their representatives (without reform they are another means by which billionaires rig the system). Referendums on huge questions, such as our membership of the EU, suffer from an imbalance between the complexity of the issue and the simplicity of the tool: they demand impossible levels of political knowledge. But for certain simple, especially local, issues should a new road be built?, should a tower block be demolished? they can, if carefully designed, enhance political transparency.
Also at the local level, a method called sociocracy could enhance democracy. This is a system designed to produce inclusive but unanimous decisions, by encouraging members of a group to keep objecting to a proposal until, between them, they produce an answer all of them can live with. A version designed by the Endenburg Electronics firm in the Netherlands is widely used in companies and cooperatives. Its not hard to see it producing better decisions than the average local authority meeting. But it is difficult to imagine how it could be scaled up without losing intelligibility.
Making any of this happen well, theres the challenge. Ill pick it up in future columns. But change happens when we decide what we want, rather than what we think we might get. Is a functioning democracy an outrageous demand?
Link:
Our democracy is broken, debased and distrusted but there are ways to fix it - The Guardian