JSP Israel at the Crossroads of Democracy, Nationalism, and Religion
By: Center for Israel Studies
The rest is here:
JSP Israel at the Crossroads of Democracy, Nationalism, and Religion - Video
The Ancient Worlds - Athens The Truth About Democracy
By: Cla Ssic
Excerpt from:
The Ancient Worlds - Athens The Truth About Democracy - Video
Lee Kuan Yew ... words said in the heat of an argument, perhaps at the time warranted. Photo: Reuters
Lee Kuan Yew's life always posed difficult questions for democrats. So too now does his death.
As the president of Singapore for over three decades, Lee Kuan Yew oversaw a country that developed with superhuman speed, while rejecting important pillars of liberal democracy institutions like a free press, unmolested opposition parties, and an open civil society. His government was sceptical about individual liberties, famously banning chewing gum, public spitting and, for a few decades following the rise of hippiedom, long hair on men.
As his memoir (From Third World to First) claimed, this strict approach to government did work in important ways. The country's economy expanded and expanded, transforming a small island nation into a commercial powerhouse. For Lee Kuan Yew, this economic success was only possible because of his politics Singapore needed "discipline more than democracy".
This fear that democracies are undisciplined or unfocused is a constant source of worry, wherever the system exists. The Singapore story functions as a kind of adult fairy tale, told to democrats before bed to scare them into asking tough questions.
Advertisement
Are democracies obsessed with trivialities, like a Prime Minister's love of raw onions? Do they pander to our weaker, selfish selves, never placing obligation before freedom? And are they ultimately incapable of long-term planning, always preferring short-term gratification?
These are very old debates. Plato thought that democracy was the most alluring form of regime, a "coat of many colours". The problem with democracy, though, was that it shamelessly appealed to people's desires it told people what they wanted to believe, rather than what they needed to hear.
Where a liberal democracy exists, these concerns inevitably linger. In contemporary Australia, with a budget loitering in the Senate, growth sluggish and unemployment rising, fears about democracy are again being voiced. People seem to be losing their nerves.
In a recent article in The Weekend Australian, economics writer Adam Creighton argued that Australia's budget deficit could be traced back to compulsory voting. Because mandatory voting pushes certain people to vote that otherwise wouldn't (a group that Creighton described as the 'median voter') he claimed that politicians must pander to people that receive benefits, but don't contribute much in tax.
Continue reading here:
Democracy's critics miss the point
Health News of Wednesday, 18 March 2015
Source: theguardian.com
Can democracy lead to development, or is it the other way around? The question remains far from settled, and the stakes have never been higher. Most countries today are formal democracies; two out of every three people live in such countries. Yet, there is growing disillusionment about the way democracy works, and concerns about whether it can deliver in terms of social and economic wellbeing. The phenomenal success of countries like China and other Asian tigers in lifting people out of poverty has also increased the appeal of authoritarian models of development.
This is what makes the case of Ghana so compelling. Over the past two decades, it has experienced one of the worlds most successful transitions to multiparty democracy, and it is one of the few democracies emerging from the third wave of democratisation that has taken root. This is no small achievement, especially in a multi-ethnic setting.
Since 1992, the country has held six elections, and power has been transferred from government to the opposition on two occasions. It has also experienced what several observers call an explosion of political voice, with the growth of an active and engaged civil society that includes professional associations, NGOs, unions, thinktanks and the media.
At the same time, the provision of basic services, especially health and education, has improved dramatically. In 2003, Ghana became one of only a handful of countries not part of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to provide free and universal health coverage (under the National Health Insurance Scheme); and between 1998 and 2008 child immunisation rates soared from 19% to 70%. In 2007, it became the first country in sub-Saharan Africa to make pre-primary education compulsory, and the number of kindergartens doubled from 6,321 to 13,263 between 2001-02 and 2010-11.
According to research from Afrobarometer, three out of four Ghanaians are satisfied with the quality of their countrys democracy and what it can deliver an approval rating that would be the envy of many other countries.
What has driven this progress in political voice, health and education in Ghana?
Ghanas progress is rooted, in part, in its history, and in particular in the way that state-society relations have evolved over time and the nature of political competition, as well as in the kind of socioeconomic transformation that the country has experienced since independence.
Ghana has a long history of tolerance and accommodation. State formation processes and state-society relations based on the promotion of social cohesion and a unified Ghanaian identity emerged early on, and the notion of a social contract linking state and citizens has been an integral part of its state-and-nation-building project from the start. Leaders and both formal and informal institutions have fostered inclusion and incorporation in ways that transcend narrower ties based on kinship or ethnicity. And an expanding, more urban, and increasingly educated middle class has been actively engaged in political processes and is deeply committed to the countrys democratic values.
Continued here:
Ghana's democracy is driving great progress in health and education
Leader of the House Minister Lakshman Kiriella, following the Supreme Court determination on the 19th Amendment to the constitution, said the government viewed the court's decision positively and it was a step that strengthened Parliamentary democracy.
He also added that the national unity government, which came to power after presidential polls in January, was ready to transfer enormous powers, wielded by one man, to the 225 MPs in Parliament.
Following are excerpts from his interview.
Q: How will the Supreme Court determination affect the implementation of the constitutional amendment?
A: We welcome the Supreme Court's determination and consider it as a positive development. This determination will not make any impact on the core of the constitutional reforms which we envisaged. The most important aspect of the determination is the provision saying the President must act on the Prime Minister's advice. It is something that strengthens Parliamentary democracy. That is what we have been fighting for over the past two decades.
Q: But, according to the Supreme Court determination, the Prime Minister has lost his say in the appointment of a minister. Don't you consider that as a setback where Parliamentary democracy is concerned?
A: No. Although the President will appoint the Cabinet of ministers he will act in the advice of the Prime Minister. That will ensure checks and balances and the Parliamentary democracy will be strengthened. The setting up of independent commissions, which were introduced under the 17th Amendment, is a major victory for anyone who respects democracy. The most important characteristic in this whole process is the spirit with which the constitutional amendment was introduced. Previously, so many rulers who led this country introduced amendments to the constitution to acquire more power. Such attempts were aimed at consolidating their power. This is the first time, a leader has introduced a constitutional amendment to relinquish power. That is something every political party should appreciate. Especially with the setting up of independent commissions, the powers which were previously vested in the Executive President, has been transferred to independent bodies. This is the sort of change 62.5 million people in this country voted for at the last presidential election.
Q: You stated a few days ago that the Sri Lanka Freedom Party was facing a split. Will that possible "split" prevent the government from securing a two thirds majority for the constitutional amendment?
A: The SLFP is facing a split and that was quite evident when the treasury bills regulation was taken for vote. Earlier, the Opposition Leader said they would not go for a vote on the resolution and a few hours later, a group of opposition MPs went for a vote. Even the Opposition Leader asked his members not to stab in the back. So clearly there is a division. But, I think when the President convenes his Parliamentary group, he will be in a position to address the matter and draw their support.
Link:
'Supreme Court determination on 19A strengthened democracy'