Mediaboss Marketing

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

Bernie Sanders has launched a scathing attack on Donald Trump, who he described as a "pathological liar" with authoritarian ambitions.

Speaking to The Guardian, Mr Sanders, who challenged Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination last year, said he believed Mr Trump's lies were an attempt on the President's part to "undermine the foundations of American democracy."

The Vermont senator pointed to Mr Trump's unsubstantiated claims about mass voter fraud in US elections and his dismissal of District Judge James LRobart as a "so-called judge", after he temporarily blocked the President's ban on travellers from Muslim-majority nations from entering the United States.

The President has also recently accused Barack Obama of wire-tapping Trump Tower, without producing any evidence to substantiate this claim.

Mr Sanders has been a vocal critic of the President since he took office in January. He recently described the revised version of Mr Trump's travel ban as "racist and anti-Islamic", and accused him of "stirring up fear and hatred against immigrants" after it emerged the President plans to regularly publish a list of crimes committed by non-US citizens.

Bernie Sanders: Trump is a pathological liar

Mr Sanders said that these statements were intended to discredit the media, politicians, and the judiciary, in order to give the public the impression that "the only person in America who is telling the truth is the President, Donald Trump."

He also used the interview to call on Republican politicians to join him in opposing Donald Trump in the interests of defending American democracy.

"It is incumbent upon [Republicans], in this moment in history, to stand up and say that what Trump is doing is not what the United States is about", Mr Sanders said.

Mr Sanders also said that "despair is not an option", and calledfor a grassroots movement, bringing together progressive groups from across the political spectrum, to oppose the President.

However, the senator, who is the longest-serving Independent in the history of Congress, also said the Democratic Party must accept some responsibility for Trump's rise to power.

"What we have seen over the last 30 or 40 years is a Democratic party that has transformed itself from a party of the working class to a party significantly controlled by a liberal elite which has moved very far away from the needs of the middle class and working families of this country."

Continued here:
Donald Trump is a pathological liar working to undermine US ... - The Independent