Mediaboss Marketing

Soldiers from the Gambia greet Ecowas troops in Farafenni. Photograph: Seyllou/AFP/Getty Images

West African troops entered the Gambias capital, Banjul, on Sunday, to cheers from the citys residents, a Reuters witness said, as part of efforts to allow the new president, Adama Barrow, to take office after the countrys former ruler fled overnight.

Yahya Jammeh, who led the Gambia for 22 years but refused to accept defeat in a December election, flew out of Banjul late on Saturday en route to Equatorial Guinea as the regional force was poised to remove him. A convoy of around 15 vehicles, including armoured personnel carriers mounted with heavy machine guns and pick-up trucks full of soldiers, rolled down one Banjul street in the late afternoon, according to a Reuters journalist who saw them.

City residents lined the road, applauding and shouting thank you as the soldiers smiled and waved back. Troops were later seen entering the presidential compound, State House.

The regional operation began late on Thursday after Barrow was sworn in as president at the Gambias embassy in neighbouring Senegal, but it was halted hours later to give Jammeh one last chance to leave peacefully. His departure followed two days of negotiations led by Guineas president, Alpha Cond, and Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz of Mauritania, prompting speculation over what, if any, terms were agreed to convince him to step down.

Speaking on a Senegalese radio station, RFM, Barrow denied that Jammeh had been offered immunity from prosecution in exchange for leaving the country. He wanted to stay in the Gambia. We said we couldnt guarantee his security and said that he should leave, Barrow said.

Earlier in the day, the African Union and United Nations published a document on behalf of these two organisations and the regional organisation, the Economic Community of West African States. In it, they pledged, among other things, to protect Jammehs rights as a citizen, a party leader and a former head of state to prevent the seizure of property belonging to him and his allies, and to ensure he can eventually return to the Gambia.

Barrow, speaking on RFM, said the document did not constitute a binding agreement and said that upon initial inspection it appeared Jammeh had looted state resources. According to information we received, there is no money in the coffers. Its what we have been told, but the day we actually take office we will clarify all of it.

Jammehs loss in the 1 December poll and his initial acceptance of the result were celebrated across the tiny nation by Gambians who had grown weary of his increasingly authoritarian rule. But he reversed his position a week later, creating a standoff with regional neighbours who demanded he step down.

West African troops from Senegal, Nigeria, Ghana and Mali were deploying throughout the Gambia on Sunday. Barrow did not say when he would return to the Gambia but said it would be soon. At a press conference in Banjul, his spokesman, Halifa Sallah, said a military aide would be sent on Monday to determine if security conditions permit the presidents return.

Two Senegalese military officers said the multi-national force had met no resistance from the Gambian army as they advanced on Sunday. Rights groups accuse Jammeh of jailing, torturing and killing his political opponents while acquiring a vast fortune including luxury cars and an estate in the United States as most of his people remained impoverished.

The repression has forced thousands of Gambians to seek asylum abroad over the years. An additional 45,000 people fled to Senegal amid growing fears of unrest in the wake of last months election, according to the UN. Hundreds of Gambians carrying sacks, suitcases and cooking pots began returning by ferry from Senegals Casamance region on Sunday.

Hawa Jagne, 22, a cloth trader, hugged her sister Fama as she stepped off the boat. Im so relieved to see her, Jagne said. Everyone is free. You can do whatever you want, because this is a democratic country. You can express yourself. No one can kill you.

Continued here:
The Gambia awaits new era of democracy under Adama Barrow - The Guardian

President Donald TrumpDonald TrumpTrump team won't move embassy to Jerusalem quickly: report GOP senators to introduce ObamaCare replacement plan Top Dem comes out against Tillerson ahead of key vote MORE's aide, Kellyanne Conway, said in an interview broadcast Sunday that the poor coverage the president received before assuming office has had a negative effect on the country's democracy.

"He has just absorbed an unprecedented qualitatively and quantitatively unprecedented deluge of negative criticism and coverage that's frankly unfair and a little bit dangerous to our democracy," Conway said on "Sunday Today."

"You know, the question for everyone who covers him and who thinks about him is: What is the line between thoughtful criticism and skepticism and, you know, flat out denial and delegitimization of what just happened?"

Conway said she's concerned about "how the poll numbers got there."

"If this man got a much higher percent of that as a vote than the number of people say they approve, I'm concerned that we're just not we all love our country, and we all love our democracy," she said.

She drew a distinction between the coverage of former President Obama before he assumed office eight years ago and the coverage of Trump.

"It's embarrassing. And it's disproportionate," she said.

"And I just believe if people can take a deep breath and watch him progress, I actually think those poll numbers will change when he starts making amazing progress for people."

Trump and his team often rail on the media, accusing reporters of biased and dishonest coverage against him.

On Saturday, a day after the president was sworn into office, he again took a shot at the media, claiming the press was lying about the crowd size at his inauguration.

Read more:
Conway: 'Unprecedented' negative coverage of Trump 'unfair to our democracy' - The Hill

THE NEXT CHAPTER in American history is playing out before our eyes. It began Friday on the Capitol steps with the inauguration of President Trump, and it continued yesterday on the streets of Washington and other cities around the country and the world. Rita Braver reports on one part of our Cover Story:

Madonnas mini-concert may have been a surprise. But so was the turnout for this event.

And they seemed to come from everywhere: Louisville, Hartford, Conn., Detroit, Northern California, Lake George, Colo. One man said, Im from Ohio, and Im here because I have a lot of women in my life that I love.

Demonstrators protest on the National Mall for the Womens March on Washington, January 21, 2017. Hundreds of thousands of protesters spearheaded by womens rights groups demonstrated across the U.S. and the world to send a defiant message to President Donald Trump.

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/Getty Images

And their reasons for being here had a common theme:

One woman said, Im here for womens rights and because I have a daughter and Im looking out for her future.

Another said, I want to show America that love still trumps hate.

Its time to speak out on why we are all so, so alarmed by our new president, said another.

And though this was not called an anti-Trump march, there was a point to the sea of pink hats.

Theyre called pussy hats, said one woman.

What do you think is the reason for them? she was asked.

Its because of what Donald Trump said about grabbing women without their consent. Which is not OK.

And up on the stage, were speakers like veteran womens rights activist Gloria Steinem, an honorary March Co-Chair (You look great! I wish you could see yourselves. Its like an ocean).

Steinem got right to the political point: Trump and his handlers have found a fox for every chicken coup, and a Twitter finger must not become a trigger finger.

The event was called in part because of concern among women about the possible erosion of rights they have spent generations working to achieve.

Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, told the crowd, One of us can be dismissed. Two of us can be ignored. But together, were a movement.

The speeches went on for more than three hours, featuring everyone from Californias first minority woman Senator Kamal Harris (Theres nothing more powerful and we cannot be dismissed. Its going to get harder before it gets easier, and we will keep fighting no matter what because we have the power), to wounded veteran, now U.S. Senator from Illinois, Tammy Duckworth (I did not give up literally parts of my body so that we can give up our rights), to event co-chair Linda Mansour (I am unapologetically Muslim American. I am unapologetically Palestinian-American), to six-year-old Sophie Cruz, the daughter of undocumented immigrants (Let us fight with love, faith and courage so our families will not be destroyed).

But it was not just in Washington. There were sister marches in scores of cities around the world, with speakers calling for mass movement that will protect womens rights, and elect officials who will help.

But can one day of marches make a major difference?

The marches of the sixties on civil rights led to the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, said University of Connecticut political science professor Paul Herrnson, who studies mass movements. The marches and protests on Vietnam also had an impact. Lyndon Johnson decided not to seek his partys presidential nomination for another term as a result of those marches.

But Herrnson says there is another key ingredient: The follow-up.

You know, American politics is really about sustained interest and sustained pressure. Its about organizing. Its about making sure that, over time, policymakers hear what you have to say and get the sense that you are determined.

I am woman -- hear me roar!

Speakers today vowed that this was only the beginning, and though it was the stars that stole much of the spotlight, like Alicia Keys (This girl is on fire!), it will be the rank-and-file who determine whether this is a one-day flash-in-the-pan a day that included a chance for marchers to jeer at President Trumps motorcade as it sped into the White House.

At the very least, for those who put their shoe leather and their hearts into the event, it will be a day that made history.

Protesters gather near the White House during the Womens March on Washington, January 21, 2017.

Aaron P. Bernstein/Getty Images

For more info:

Link:
What democracy looks like: Women's March on Washington - CBS News

With all eyes on the U.S. as it inaugurates a new leader, Turkey is preparing to amend its constitution to make its president even more powerful than the American executive.

Theres nothing inherently wrong with replacing parliamentary government with a presidential system. The problem is timing and context: Turkeys proposed changes, which will go to a national referendum after being approved by parliament, follow the unsuccessful coup against increasingly autocratic President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

QuickTake Turkey's Divide

In practice, a revised constitution would make it much easier for Erdogan to consolidate power entirely, taking Turkey out of the democratic column and making it into a dictatorship, pure and simple.

The proposed constitutional revision has lots of moving parts. But the most important is to transform Turkeys modified parliamentary system into a presidential one. The presidents powers now are, in principle, much more limited. He governs alongside a prime minister chosen by the parliamentary majority, who in turn appoints a cabinet thats responsible to parliament. An important practical and symbolic mechanism of parliamentary oversight of the government is the right of parliament to demand that cabinet ministers appear before it to answer inquiries -- a right known as interpellation.

The new draft would shift the basic structure of the system by abolishing the office of prime minister and giving the president the authority to appoint the members of the cabinet. As part of this change, the parliaments right to interpellate cabinet ministers would be removed.

Americans would find that aspect of the change unremarkable. The U.S. president appoints his own cabinet, albeit with the advice and consent of the Senate. Cabinet secretaries appear before Congress by courtesy, not by an inherent congressional right to question them.

But the proposed Turkish Constitution goes further still in allowing the president to be the head of a political party. That means the president could exercise direct control over what candidates his party runs for office. Erdogan could handpick parliamentarians from his own party, who would be extremely unlikely to exercise a check over him, because he could also kick them out of the party.

In practice, of course, the U.S. president is also the head of the party to which he belongs. But in the U.S. system, that doesnt give him the authority to pick congressional candidates. That power lies with primary voters, donors and party leaders.

Under the changed system, Turkish presidential elections would take place at the same time as parliamentary elections, every five years. That would make it difficult for voters to express dissension at the national level during the presidents term, because there would be no midterm elections.

A further proposed change sought by Erdogans AK Party is to give the president power over the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors. Erdogan has already effectively taken control by purging that body in the aftermath of the coup. The proposed amendments would make that control permanent.

In the U.S. presidential system, of course, the executive appoints federal judges and senior federal prosecutors. As long as they subsequently serve their terms on good behavior, they can function relatively independently. The trouble is that, as Erdogans purge shows, theres no similar long-term guarantee of de facto independence in the Turkish system. Erdogans judges and prosecutors would be seen as political functionaries, and might well actually be subordinate to the executive. A proposed nominal guarantee of judicial and prosecutorial impartiality is only as good as political reality makes it.

Perhaps the most clever and pernicious element of the proposed change is that it limits the president to two terms -- but only starting with ratification and new elections. That would allow Erdogan to remain in power until 2029, when hell be 75. By then he would have been running Turkey as prime minister or president for a whopping 26 years. Thats not a recipe for democracy, to put it mildly.

The entire reform package must pass the parliament with 330 votes out of 550. The ruling AK Party doesnt have enough votes on its own, but it can reach the threshold by getting the votes of the nationalist, far-right MH Party. Then the package would go to a referendum.

In 2010, Turkish voters approved constitutional reforms pushed by the AK Party, by 58 percent to 42 percent. The vote is unlikely to be so lopsided this time. In practice, the vote will be a referendum on Erdogan himself.

Absent the failed coup, it seems conceivable that Erdogan could have lost a bid to make Turkey into a presidential system designed to maximize his power. But the coup unfortunately provides ammunition for the argument that he needs greater authority to run the country.

If the presidential change prevails in Turkey, and is used to subvert democracy still further, it will contribute to the perception in many places that the presidential form of government is simply a prelude to autocracy. Traditionally, the U.S. system has stood as a bulwark against those arguments. Whether it remains so is the most significant question of Donald Trumps presidency that has just begun.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story: Noah Feldman at nfeldman7@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Stacey Shick at sshick@bloomberg.net

More here:
Turkey's New Constitution Would End Its Democracy - Bloomberg

From left to right: Edelman, Lane, Rodgers, and Schappele are seated at a University Center for Human Valuespanel to discuss democracy and global liberalism.

By Ruby Shao

Democracy around the world is being distorted by external forces and corroded from within by officials who fail to conform to its processes and values, according to politics professor and University Center for Human Values director Melissa Lane, who presented the argument at a panel on Friday, Jan. 20.

The challenges we face, from nativism, to the role of money, and ethics and public policy, and the fate of democratic rhetorics and the state of our public sphere, are now being played out literally as we speak, moderator and history professor Jeremy Adelman explained.

He emphasized some downsides of globalization in the form of civic discord, rising inequality, the rise of populism, and slow and exclusive economic growth, as manifested in events like Brexit, the United States presidential election, and the destruction of Aleppo.

Kim Lane Scheppele, a professor of sociology and international affairs in the Wilson School and the University Center for Human Values, noted that the number of electoral liberal democracies in good standing peaked about ten years ago, and has been declining since then. In this case, liberalism is a political doctrine that requires the government to protect the liberty of the individual.

She cited political sociologist Larry Diamond's finding that, from 2000 through 2015, liberal democracies collapsed in 27 countries. Liberal values have declined in far more countries than they have improved in during the past decade, according to Freedom House, Scheppele added.

Opponents of liberalism decry it using three main tropes, Lane said. Undecidability refers to the charge that scientific evidence never decides the fundamental questions, so that ordinary people can reject expert opinions. Indecision depicts liberals as too cowardly to act. Impotence accuses liberals of lacking the ability to fix today's problems.

Liberalism is threatening to devour its own parents while potentially being devoured by its own children, Lane added.

She explained that bureaucracy, which served as the scaffolding with which liberals extended rights and liberties to more and more groups, is buckling under disrespect for expertise, conventions, and institutions. Meanwhile, liberalism has helped produce the environmental crisis, largely by failing to regulate businesses enough. She called for remedying both these issues as steps toward preserving liberalism.

Focusing on the American case, history professor emeritus Dan Rodgers noted that recent months marked the most unpredictable start to the beginning of a presidency since at least the 18th century, when some wondered whether George Washington might try to revive a democratic monarchy. Nobody knows whether Trump will usher in an era of effective negotiations, quasi-organized chaos, or scandal, he said.

Rather than optimistically believing the United States Constitution will withstand contemporary pressures, Americans should consider all the constitutions across the globe that have fallen victim to leaders she calls constitutional autocrats, Scheppele warned.

Constitutional autocrats win elections, Scheppele said. But upon taking office, they undercut liberalism. First, they attack the constitution to remove checks on executive power, under the guise of increasing efficiency. They then try to control key institutions. These include the judiciary, because it can label their actions unconstitutional or illegal, and the media, because it can publish alternatives to the narratives created by the autocrats. They also discredit the non-governmental organization sector, which covers human rights and transparency groups, as partisan or elitist and therefore untrustworthy.

Next, the constitutional autocrats insert loyalists into the prosecutor's office, tax authority, police and security services. They delegitimize the political opposition as outdated, corrupt, or otherwise unworthy of attention. Rewriting the election laws skews the following election in their favor. They bypass middlemen by moving to direct democracy; hence the proliferation of referenda as well as social media rather than traditional news outlets to communicate with the public. Conventions that have bound all their predecessors, like the rules of fair play and civility, stop applying to them.

Finally, constitutional autocrats attack the constitution by arguing that it should be replaced, or that it must be rescued from enemy hands, Scheppele said. The goal of the game becomes to change the game's rules, a development that makes the system unsustainable.

Lane suggested the trend was starting to affect the United States.

Not releasing taxes, not appointing to the Supreme Court, not even holding a hearing to appoint to the Supreme Court, not requiring the nominees for the Cabinet positions to all complete the ethics checks before being confirmed these are actually really fundamental norms that have already just fallen by the wayside, and once they're gone, it's very difficult to get them back, she said.

Scheppele noted that checks and balances in the Constitution depend on every institution defending its institutional prerogatives against those of other institutions. For that reason, she worried about the unprecedented alignment of all American institutions in a single direction at a critical moment. The Republicans control the presidency and both houses of Congress, and will probably dominate the Supreme Court. Most crucially, they direct 33 out of 50 state governments. Wielding more power than any party has had since the 1930s, the Republicans are introducing one-party rule, she said.

However, Rodgers countered that the divisions within the party may well produce effective checks and balances, as the party represents small government whereas Trump embodies autocracy. Characterizing liberalism as a movement of the national and international, Rodgers called for it to survive by returning to the local, the arena occupied by dissatisfied Americans. Local and state politics will continue to hold the most importance for people's daily lives, he added, giving examples like property taxation, school policies, police procedures, criminal justice, and gun control.

It's also where democratic deliberation is more possible, where one can find oneself to some extent insulated from the highly polarized media system in which we live, in which the powers of organized money don't intrude quite so heavily. It's where people might actually listen to each other, pay attention to each other, do what we think of in democracy as the act of participation in politics, deliberative reasoning. It's where some of the anger that's turned this election upside down might be redirected in more constructive ways, Rodgers said.

Titled Global Liberalism in Crisis? the roundtable discussion was sponsored by the Department of History, the Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies, the Department of Politics, and the University Center for Human Values. It took place at 12:00 p.m. on Friday, Jan. 20, in Robertson Bowl 16.

Continued here:
Panel discusses how external forces distort democracy - The Daily Princetonian