Mediaboss Marketing

In politics, as in life, there are few things more distasteful than a bully.

Weve see quite a few political bullies lately. Situations where political parties with majority mandates use their unfettered power to not only pursue their policy and legislative agendas, but also change the very nature of democracy itself.

In Washington, D.C., last week, we watched as the Republican majority in the Senate used its majority to change the rules for the confirmation of nominees to the Supreme Court.

Given the importance of the matter, the Senate formerly allowed minority parties to filibuster the presidents nominees for the high court as a way of moderating the power of both majority parties and the office of the president. Ending a filibuster required a 60-vote "super majority," rather than a simple majority. The super-majority requirement typically triggered bipartisan negotiations to bring a filibuster to an end.

All that changed last week when Republicans, tired of Democratic delay tactics, unleashed the "nuclear option." Simply put, Senate Republicans voted to change the rules that required a super majority to end a filibuster on a Supreme Court nomination. In an ironic twist, you do not need a super majority to change the rules about when a super majority is required.

Without going into a lot of history on the so-called nuclear option, it should be noted Democrats have themselves used nuclear options to limit the need for super majorities in other scenarios. More worrisome is the fact there are rumours circulating around Capitol Hill that Republicans may continue to change the very rules governing the operation of Congress to end the practice of filibustering legislation.

This is no small change to the foundations of American democracy. Filibusters, and other procedural tactics used by minority parties, are essential to ensure majority bullies must negotiate with their political opponents to achieve legislative progress. Take away the filibuster and other delay tactics, and you really amplify the power of the majority. And thats not really democracy.

However, Americans are hardly alone in this trend toward political bullying.

In Manitoba, the Progressive Conservative government introduced a bill recently that contains a series of changes to the way we conduct elections, including new, higher political donation limits, new voter identification rules and restrictions on third-party advertising. Opposition critics and democracy advocates believe the changes a mere formality given the Tory majority in the Manitoba Legislature are inherently skewed to aiding the current government.

In Ottawa, the federal Liberal government is also demonstrating an appetite for bully tactics. Last month, the Liberal government released a discussion paper that outlined possible changes to the way parliament works, including reforms for question period, debate scheduling and rules for committee business.

Opposition parties believe the changes could severely limit their ability to hold the government accountable. They are filibustering the proposals at committee until the Liberals agree to seek all-party support for any changes to the rules of parliament. The opposition filibuster prompted Grit House Leader Bardish Chagger to complain last week the government would never allow the opposition to have a "veto" over "our campaign commitments."

Its hard to overstate the absurdity and arrogance of that comment. At least Republicans in Washington had the decency to call their bully tactics the "nuclear option," a term that seems to acknowledge the gravity of the violence being done to a democratic institution. Liberals seem to think the whole notion of seeking the support of opposition parties to change the rules of parliament is, in and of itself, somehow unfair. Back in government less than two years and the Liberals have already forgotten what it was like to be in opposition.

Empathy is certainly in short supply in the scenarios described above. Even now, Conservative party critics howling at Liberal indifference should remember the absurdly named "Fair Elections Act," a law that was anything but. Its changes to voter identification rules are thought to have discouraged tens of thousands of Canadians from voting in the last election. The current Liberal government is in the process of undoing those changes.

Lamentably, rather than moving closer to a world of bipartisan collaboration or public consultation on changes to democratic institutions, we are surrounded by examples of mischievous, malicious tinkering by majority governments that seem to have no shame about making changes that, for the most part, seem to have less to do about improving democracy, and more to do with creating strategic political advantages.

Along with empathy, we seem to be suffering from a deficit of principle. The rules that safeguard the integrity of democratic institutions legislatures, courts, elections should not be changed often, or at the whim of a majority. And when changes are necessary, there should be a requirement to seek the support of both majority and minority political parties.

Ironically, the Liberals understood this need when it came to the idea of changing our electoral system from first-past-the-post to proportional representation. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had pledged during the 2015 federal election that recommendations for electoral reform would be made by an all-party committee of Parliament. Later, the Liberal government decided that any proposals from that committee should be put to the nation in a referendum.

The Liberals abandoned electoral reform as a policy priority, concerned that proportional representation would open the door to extremist political elements. Still, Trudeau seemed to understand that no government with a majority mandate should use that power to change something as fundamental as how we elect our politicians.

It would be welcomed if the Liberals in Ottawa and the Tories in Manitoba were to take a similar approach when it comes to any changes to democratic institutions. Or, perhaps, these changes could be undertaken by a non-partisan, arms-length commission that could sort through ideas that make the system fairer and more accountable, and discard those that seek only to stack the deck.

One thing is for certain: until we all agree that changes to the pillars of democracy are not the prerogative of a majority government, bullies will carry the day.

dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca

Excerpt from:
Bully governments degrade democracy - Winnipeg Free Press

President Donald Trumps proposed budget would slash State Department spending by 28 percent, drastically reducing U.S. foreign aid flows.

Will he prevail? Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, has said bluntly Its not going to happen. But the White Houses proposal is emblematic of an ongoing, broader foreign policy shift.

Specifically, Trumps actions and comments suggest a deep skepticism regarding support for democracy abroad. Consequently, democracy assistance a relatively small but often pivotal type of foreign aid on which the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department plan to spend US$2.72 billion in 2017 seems likely to be hit hard.

If it is, U.S. foreign policy under Trump will look fundamentally different than it has under previous presidents dating back at least to Ronald Reagan. Whats more, my research suggests that the shift spells trouble for democracy around the world.

Although U.S. democracy assistance is not perfect, drastic budget cuts would sever a lifeline to pro-democracy activists around the world.

Democracy assistance is a type of foreign aid the U.S. government funds in nearly 100 countries with the explicit goal of supporting democracy. Whether it consists of encouraging women to run for office in Kyrgyzstan or building the capacity of local civil society organizations in Tunisia, this form of assistance always aims to enhance some aspect of democracy. It supports transitions to democracy and shores up existing democratic institutions.

Democracy assistance began in the 1980s. Until that point, the U.S. government supported overseas political parties and dissidents covertly and on an ad hoc basis. In 1983, the United States established the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a quasi-private foundation dedicated to supporting democracy abroad. As the Cold War ended, USAID and the State Department also began funding democracy assistance consistently.

These institutions, which I examine in The Taming of Democracy Assistance, my book on the topic, often dont deliver money or services directly. Instead, they fund a variety of American and international nonprofits (and a few for-profit organizations). Ideally, funding democracy assistance via nonprofits and other nongovernmental entities helps insulate it from U.S. government influence. Of course, that is not always so simple in practice.

Democracy assistance rarely grabs headlines. Some of its critics argue that it involves meddling in other countries elections (allegedly with both a right-wing and left-wing bias), implying an equivalence to Russias actions during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. My research suggests otherwise.

Democracy assistance efforts are indeed sometimes partisan, but have grown markedly less so since the Cold War ended. Indeed, as I explained on the Washington Posts Monkey Cage blog, it has become rare for these programs to promote radical political change today. In some cases, democracy assistance has even reinforced authoritarian regimes, as was the case when international aid offered support for a parliament in Azerbaijan that was not freely elected.

Despite these flaws, eliminating democracy assistance projects could wreak damage to democracy three ways.

First, scholarly evidence on U.S. democracy assistance finds that it is, on average, associated with increases in countries overall levels of freedom. Second, research also suggests that democracy assistance can help countries maintain peace after civil conflict. Third, specific types of democracy assistance such as support for international and domestic election observers have proven successful at deterring electoral fraud.

A good example of how U.S. democracy assistance has successfully helped advance democratic transitions comes from Serbias nonviolent student movement in 2000. There, the brutal dictator Slobodan Miloevi guilty of war crimes associated with the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia was brought down by a popular movement supported with training from U.S. nonprofits.

Cutting democracy assistance would also represent a major break in U.S. foreign policy.

The origins of American democracy promotion date back at least a century. On April 2, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson made his famous speech telling Congress, The world must be made safe for democracy. Leaders from both major U.S. political parties have sought ever since to promote democracy overseas with the logic that it is the right thing to do as well as the smart thing to do.

Among other things this credo stems from the belief that democracy fosters peaceful relations between nations.

Of course, the United States counts among its allies many authoritarian states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. In such cases, past U.S. presidents have mixed pro-democracy rhetoric with anti-democracy policies. Yet President Trump is abandoning even the pro-democracy rhetoric, and activists are worried.

As one Egyptian journalist recently said about this situation, Its not a big space, but the rhetoric gives us some space.

If the U.S. democracy assistance project survives the Trump administration but spending declines sharply, a recent study suggests two lessons about how it could spend the remaining funds most effectively.

First, this kind of aid works best in countries that are already partly free. In such settings, domestic actors are likely to be seeking international support and aid is less likely to be co-opted by authoritarian governments.

Second, democracy assistance programs tend to be the most successful in countries where the U.S. government can back them up with diplomacy. By this logic, it makes more sense to support democracy assistance in Tunisia, where democratically elected leaders cooperate with the United States on counterterrorism, than it does in Egypt, where the United States maintains a close relationship with the military dictatorship of Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.

Research on U.S. democracy assistance suggests that continuing to aid democracy abroad is consistent with a century-long tradition in U.S. foreign policy and that it can advance democracy worldwide. However, even with continued support, American democracy promoters face clear challenges. These challenges include problems with the state of democracy in the United States that have been building for several years as well as growing restrictions on civil society activity and foreign aid around the world.

Even barring steep spending cuts, democracy assistance is likely to have a difficult next four years.

Here is the original post:
What Trump's foreign aid cuts would mean for global democracy - The Conversation US

The Election Commissions move to cancel the RK Nagar bypoll following evidence of large-scale bribery in the constituency has not gone down well with some contenders, with AIADMKs Sasikala faction candidate TTV Dinakaran terming it a murder of democracy.

Cancelling the April 12 bypoll to RK Nagar is a major mistake. It is a murder of democracy, Dinakaran said on Twitter late on Sunday night.

This is a wrong decision. Even the Election Commission does not want me to win. They can delay but cant deny, Dinakaran, whose faction is alleged to have distributed Rs 89.5 crore to entice voters in late chief minister J Jayalalithaas seat, said.

Read more

The poll panel cancelled the bye-election, stating that the steps they had taken to curb malpractice had failed, and the voting had to be postponed after I-T raids at Tamil Nadu health minister Vijaya Bhaskars house procured evidence of large-scale bribery.

The top leaderships of the parties cannot feign ignorance about such illegal activities indulged in by the candidates and the managers appointed by their parties to oversee the election campaign of their candidates.

It asked the parties to exert moral influence in the matter, but did not give a new date for holding the election.

Though Vijaya Bhaskar was named as an aide to bribery, it remains unclear whether the EC will attempt to arrest or charge the minister, who enjoys his current position thanks to his loyalty to jailed AIADMK leader VK Sasikala.

DMK working president MK Stalin called for a CBI probe against the ministers and politicians whose premises were raided on Friday by the I-T department, and demanded their removal.

Here is the original post:
Sasikala camp terms RK Nagar bypoll cancellation 'murder of democracy' - Hindustan Times

Christophe Bouton, a philosophy professor at Montaigne University in Bordeaux, who wrote The Time of Urgency, says that democracy is threatened by a contemporary preoccupation with speed.

Here he answers AFPs questions about his theory:

Time as succession Q: What is time? Would a scientist, a philosopher, a pupil or a pensioner have the same definition?

A: The many philosophical and scientific approaches to the concept of time all agree on at least one point: he who speaks of time, speaks of succession.

The subjective experience of time which varies from one person to another, according to their mood, their age, their generation, the society and the era in which they live, etc does not challenge this idea of succession.

As the science fiction writer Ray Cummings said: Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.

Age-old problem, speeding up Q: Did the tyranny of speed, such as we see today, also affect the ancient world ?

A: Even if we find descriptions of urgent lifestyles in antiquity, by (Roman philosopher) Seneca for example, relating to certain members of the elite overwhelmed by responsibility (merchants, lawyers), this phenomenon took on a hitherto unseen scope in the western world starting in the late 18th century and above all in the industrial revolution in the 19th century, where the notion that history itself is speeding up emerges.

This feeling is due in part to quicker modes of transport, following improved means of communication.

Economic problem Q: At what point can we criticise speed ?

A: The problem in my view is not so much speed, as it is unbridled capitalism, which adopts ever more efficient methods of production and job organisation.

(This) has led to a prevailing ideology today of the advantages of speed, acceleration, and hyperactivity, which has resulted in the phenomena of hyperconnection and burn-out.

Another consequence is that the lack of time can result in citizens becoming less able physically and psychologically to deal with politics, which demands more and more time to be understood.

In this way, democracy, which requires spare time or what the ancients called skhole, is threatened by urgency.

Finding lost time Q: Who can escape this danger?

A: I do not believe much in individual solutions of withdrawal, which are a luxury that not everyone can afford.

The problem is systemic, so the solution must be collective and political. It is especially a matter of restoring political control over the economy.

To take just just one concrete case, recent, timid advances of the right to deconnection in France (the right not to answer work-related texts, emails, or phone calls outside working hours) show it is possible to pass laws that limit urgency at work.

Read more from the original source:
Philosopher says speed threatens democracy - Vanguard

One of the gravest structural problems in American democracy is gerrymandering, the practice of drawing voting districts in a way that creates unfair advantages to whoever happens to be drawing the line, says John Oliver.

The British comedian was referring specifically to partisan gerrymandering, which, unlike racial gerrymandering, is not illegal according to US laws. It is partly responsible for giving Republicans such an edge in the House of Representatives, says Oliver in yesterdays (April 9) episode of Last Week Tonight.

He notes, for example, that the number of Republicans elected in the states of Pennsylvania and Ohio are way out of proportion to popular-vote percentages. You wouldnt expect Neapolitan ice cream thats 70% strawberry. Thats not okay, he says.

In most US states, the drawing of congressional districts is essentially controlled by the legislators themselves. It means, as Oliver explains, a majority party can either cram as many as opposition voters as possible into just few districts, or spread them out thinly over a bunch of districts to dilute their impact. The so-called cracking and packing technique is more or less the same as table assignments at a wedding, Oliver says.

You can either break up your eight awful relatives and spread them out over different tables, or you can pack them all together in one insuperable table of the damned.

Congressional gerrymandering is a not-so-secret weapon for both Republicans and Democrats. As Oliver notes, when Republicans won the majority of state houses in 2010, they redrew the map in those states to ensure they could send more members to the House in 2012; in 2001 Democrats did the same after taking control of the states of Maryland and Illinois.

In a democracy, the question of who gets to draw the map should not have as much significance as it currently does, Oliver says. He notes that the US Supreme Court may limit for the first time (paywall) partisan gerrymandering in an upcoming ruling this year, and that there are calls for the establishment of independent commissions to draw legislative maps.

The foundation of democracy is built on the idea that everybodys vote should count equally whoever we are, however poor our decisions, says Oliver in an inspiring speech toward the end of his show, while inviting people including a Quidditch player, a Scientologist, a unicyclist, a baker of erotic pastries, and everyones racist grandma onto the stage.

Election results should not be the results of politicians crazy lines, he says. They should be the result of our own crazy decisions.

Continue reading here:
John Oliver explains how gerrymandering, or politicians' crazy lines, hurts democracy - Quartz