Archive for the ‘Democracy’ Category

Russian Troll Farm Review: A Stream of Memes, Eroding Trust in Democracy – The New York Times

No one misses the early days and dark theaters of the Covid pandemic, but the emergency workaround of streaming content was good for a few things anyway. People who formerly could not afford admission suddenly could, since much of it was free, and artists from anywhere could now be seen everywhere, with just a Wi-Fi connection.

Thats how I first encountered Russian Troll Farm, a play by Sarah Gancher intended for the stage but that had its debut, in 2020, as an online co-production of three far-flung institutions: TheaterWorks Hartford, TheaterSquared in Fayetteville, Ark., and the Brooklyn-based Civilians. At the time, I found its subject and form beautifully realized and ideally matched the subject being online interference in the 2016 presidential election by a Russian internet agency.

This is digitally native theater, I wrote, not just a play plopped into a Zoom box.

Now the box has been ripped open, and a fully staged live work coaxed out of it. But the production of Russian Troll Farm that opened on Thursday at the Vineyard Theater is an entirely different, and in some ways disappointing, experience. Though still informative and trenchant, and given a swifter staging by the director Darko Tresnjak, it has lost the thrill of the originals accommodation to the extreme constraints of its time.

Not that it is any less relevant in ours; fake news will surely be as prominent in the 2024 election cycle (is Taylor Swift a pro-Biden psy-op?) as it was in 2016. Thats when, as Gancher recounts using many real texts, posts and tweets of the time, trolls at the Internet Research Agency a real place in St. Petersburg, Russia devised sticky memes and other content meant to undermine confidence in the electoral process, sow general discord, legitimize Trumpism and vaporize Hillary Clinton.

But the play is less interested in classics of the conspiracy genre like #PizzaGate and Frazzledrip than in the kinds of people who would dream them up. In the manner of sitcoms like The Mary Tyler Moore Show and The Office, Russian Troll Farm focuses on four such (fictional) trolls, neatly differentiated from one another and from their dragonish supervisor, Ljuba (Christine Lahti).

Read the original:
Russian Troll Farm Review: A Stream of Memes, Eroding Trust in Democracy - The New York Times

Democracy on Trial, Part One: A Blueprint For the Case Against Trump – PBS

With the 2024 presidential race underway, FRONTLINE investigates the roots of the federal criminal case against former President Donald Trump stemming from his 2020 election loss. In this special audio version of Democracy on Trial, veteran political filmmaker Michael Kirk and his team examine the House Jan. 6 committees evidence, the historic charges against Trump and the threat to democracy.

In this first installment, former President Donald Trump is charged with crimes in office an unprecedented event in American history. The Jan. 6 Select Committee report starts to build a case against former President Donald Trump, which will go on to become a blueprint for special counsel Jack Smith. And a central question emerges for the committee: What did former President Trump know about the 2020 election results, and when did he know it?

Tune in next week for the second installment of the audio-only version of the documentary here on The FRONTLINE Dispatch. Watch Democracy on Trial in full on FRONTLINEs website, YouTube or the PBS App.

See original here:
Democracy on Trial, Part One: A Blueprint For the Case Against Trump - PBS

El Salvador: unconstitutional re-election of Bukele Democracy and society – IPS Journal

In El Salvador, an overwhelming majority voted in favour of the unconstitutional re-election of President Nayib Bukele on Sunday. At least if the winner is to be believed, as official results were still not available 24 hours after the end of polling day. An impatient Bukele announced on X on Sunday evening that 85 per cent had voted for him. However, his pompous victory celebration was overshadowed by the fact that the electoral court did not provide any results. Eventually, the officials excused themselves with cyberattacks and power cuts. Now, votes are to be recounted by hand in the country that wants to become a tech hub and has legalised Bitcoin. A symptom of the desolate state behind the official glittering faade.

In an interview with the New York Times, Vice President Flix Ulloa announced that El Salvador would eliminate democracy and replace it with something better. Bukele, on the other hand, spoke of a true democracy that would now begin, and it was possible to get an idea of what this will look like on election day: when the writer Carlos Bucio stood in a square in the capital and quoted the articles of the constitution that prohibit re-election, he was booed by passers-by and arrested by the police.

El Salvador is thus setting the stage for the 2024 super election year, in which hundreds of thousands of voters around the world will face a similar dilemma: to either give democracy a chance despite its tediously slow decision-making processes and complicated checks and balances, or to believe self-proclaimed saviours who claim that in a world full of violence, crises and conflicts human rights, the separation of powers, the rule of law, environmental protection and a free press are merely disruptive factors that stand in the way of the well-being of their subjects.

Against the background of historical experience, it seems obvious to the average European which is the better political alternative. But Bukules victory shows that people in other parts of the world do not think the same way, not even in Latin America, the continent closest to Europe in cultural terms and which has already had enough desolate experiences with authoritarian rulers. Indeed, according to a survey by the Latinobarmetro Institute, 54 per cent of people there do not care whether their government is authoritarian or democratic as long as it solves their problems.

Bukele is therefore regarded by many in Latin America not as a dictator but as a hero, and his counterparts in neighbouring countries look up to him with admiration. These include the left-wing government of Xiomara Castro in Honduras, the World Bank official Rodrigo Chaves in Costa Rica and the entrepreneurial scion Daniel Noboa, who rules in Ecuador. They see the 42-year-old as a model for political success to solve one of the continents biggest structural problems and thus secure their hold on power. Consequently, they have copied some of his measures, such as the state of emergency or the construction of high-security prisons.

Bukele has indeed achieved something extraordinary: during his five years in office, the murder rate fell from 36 to 2.4 per 100 000 inhabitants. El Salvador, which was still considered the most murderous country on the continent in 2015, has thus become one of the safest countries in the region. However, the methods used are questionable: these include the state of emergency, which has been repeatedly extended for two years and is now completely unfounded, suspending all basic rights, as well as the establishment of a police state in which the most people in the world are behind bars in proportion to the population and the legal persecution (lawfare) of political rivals, critical journalists and environmentalists. The co-optation of all institutions has also fuelled nepotism, corruption and a lack of transparency.

Over half of the Salvadoran population is under 30 years old. Most of them do not consume traditional media but inform themselves via social media instead.

The publicity expert Bukele thwarts all these criticisms with the help of his powerful PR team, compliant influencers on social media and troll factories. They focus the spotlight on his successes his security policy or on superficial diversionary manoeuvres such as the Miss Universe event, the launch of Bitcoin, the opening of a modern animal hospital or the inauguration of a state library built with Chinese loans. The discourse of fear was also effective: if he did not remain in power, Bukele said, his successors would release the criminals he had imprisoned during his first term of office.

Over half of the Salvadoran population is under 30 years old. Most of them do not consume traditional media but inform themselves via social media instead. However, these are dominated by Bukules PR machine, fuelled by bots, trolls and algorithms. Opposing views find little echo there: the fact that extreme poverty rose from 5.6 to 8.7 per cent since 2019, that Bukele dissolved the structural fund for the provinces, and since then, health and education as well as infrastructure have been in ruins, that he gambled away taxpayers money with Bitcoin speculations, that suddenly heaps of officials and confidants of Bukele won the state lottery and others built themselves luxury villas, that the state owes millions to private contractors, that his re-election is a clear breach of the constitution, that his supporters illegally handed out food parcels on election day and that his party manipulated the outcome of the election by redistributing the constituencies.

The list of violations is long some of which are likely to appear in the election report of the observers from the EU and the Organization of American States (OAS). Such criticism is important, but it does not get through. Bukele is a master at manipulating the hopes and pride of a population that he has propelled from the shadows of world affairs into the limelight. That is what makes him so attractive in the eyes of some heads of state. He has succeeded in pushing through a narrative that has little to do with reality.

El Salvador is not the first country in the region to succumb to the totalitarian temptation of a caudillo, a strongman. Latin America has had a long tradition of authoritarian rulers since independence from Spain. But since the democratisation of the region in the 1990s, no one has enjoyed as much support. Even in his heyday, Hugo Chvez in Venezuela received just 62 per cent of the vote; Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua even had to make a pact with his arch-enemy, the corrupt liberal Arnoldo Alemn, for an electoral reform so that 38 per cent of the vote was enough for his victory in 2006. And the conservative Juan Orlando Hernndez in Honduras was re-elected in 2017 with just 42 per cent of the vote, despite numerous manipulations and a suspicious computer crash.

In contrast to Bukele, Chvez, Hernndez and, for a long time, Ortega at least endeavoured to create the appearance of democratic legitimacy even if they discreetly undermined its foundations. To this end, they used the classic populist recipes: plebiscites, populist social programmes that only brought dependence instead of structural improvements, agitation against critics, rivals and intellectuals, harassment of non-governmental organisations and the media, bringing the state apparatus into line, especially the judiciary, and weakening transparency and control mechanisms.

The symbolic capture of Congress paved the way for the militarisation of the country, which culminated in the imposition of a state of emergency and the arrest of thousands of innocent people in 2022.

Bukele, on the other hand, makes no secret of his contempt for democracy, for which the country once paid a high price in blood: more than 75 000 people died in the civil war between 1980 and 1992. Driven by historical revisionism, Bukele described the peace treaty as a farce, destroyed the monument to reconciliation and labelled the traditional parties as corrupt war profiteers who divided up the spoils in the shadow of foreign powers. Bukele pushed the boundaries of what can be said and done with well-considered stagings and thus reinterpreted history.

Back in 2020, when parliament failed to approve a loan he had requested for security projects quickly enough, he marched into parliament with the military. At the time, the traditional parties still had a majority there and were speechless in the face of this taboo-breaking. However, Bukele justified the transgression to his cheering supporters with the true interests of the people, which were supposedly being disregarded by Congress. This time, he said, the military had sided with the people, not the oppressors. The symbolic capture of Congress paved the way for the militarisation of the country, which culminated in the imposition of a state of emergency and the arrest of thousands of innocent people in 2022. Only a few human rights activists protested. Bukele thus provided the script for authoritarian imitators.

The heavy-handed policy has long been regarded as the elites traditional response to the problem of violence in Latin America. It produces short-term results and enables social control. But it has always fallen short even in El Salvador. This is because it does not address the root of the problem: on the one hand, the lack of the rule of law, which is sabotaged by elites out of self-interest. On the other hand, the structural poverty and inequality of opportunity in countries that are still trapped in neo-colonial schemes due to both rigid hierarchical social structures and unjust economic globalisation.

Bukeles model is a so-far successful new edition of the heavy-handed policy. However, his model is not so easily transferable at least not if you shy away from taking the step towards an authoritarian police state as initial examples show. Honduras may have declared a state of emergency, but violent crime has hardly decreased. The country has far fewer security forces than El Salvador, which are also more corrupted by organised crime. President Noboa has also declared a state of emergency in Ecuador and sent the military onto the streets. However, it is still a Bukele light model: civil society is much more critical and better organised, and the USA and the EU have also pledged emergency aid in order to secure their influence on the course of events.

What may deter some from total Bukelisation is the fact that most authoritarian presidents of the modern era Chvez in Venezuela, Hernndez in Honduras or Alberto Fujimori in Peru did not end well. Moreover, cracks in Bukules model are already visible. According to initial projections, only two of the six million eligible voters went to the polls on Sunday which puts his success into perspective. In his victory speech, Bukele revealed a complete lack of ideas on how to proceed in El Salvador. He now faces challenges that cannot be so easily dismissed: despite the improved security situation, there is a lack of foreign investment. The economy grew by just 2.3 per cent in 2023 less than in its Central American neighbours. The Salvadoran state is in arrears with private service providers, with public debt amounting to 85 per cent of gross domestic product. The International Monetary Fund links new loans to the abolition of Bitcoin. A third of the population continues to live in poverty. El Salvador, a country the size of the German state of Hesse with a population of 10 million, that exports T-shirts, sugar and plastic packaging, is now embarking on a path into the unknown.

The rest is here:
El Salvador: unconstitutional re-election of Bukele Democracy and society - IPS Journal

‘Democracy on Trial’ Director on the Roots of Federal Charges Against Trump – PBS

Democracy on Trial is a 2.5-hour documentary special from FRONTLINE that examines the roots and implications of the unprecedented charges against former President Donald Trump in connection with the efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Drawing on interviews with elected officials, former government lawyers, House Select Committee witnesses and former committee staffers, authors and journalists, the documentary which is being released in audio form via The FRONTLINE Dispatch podcast in the coming weeks shows how the work of the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack forms a blueprint for the federal indictment brought by special counsel Jack Smith.

Director Michael Kirk, a longtime FRONTLINE filmmaker, joins host Raney Aronson-Rath, editor-in-chief and executive producer of FRONTLINE, to talk about the case against Trump; the defense strategy of the former president, who has pleaded not guilty; and reporting this story in a deeply divided country.

As this unusual election year unfolds, watch Democracy on Trial in full on FRONTLINEs website, YouTube or the PBS App, and listen to the multi-part audio version of the documentary starting today on The FRONTLINE Dispatch.

Want to be notified every time a new podcast episode drops? Sign up for The FRONTLINE Dispatch newsletter.

See the original post here:
'Democracy on Trial' Director on the Roots of Federal Charges Against Trump - PBS

Dj Vu, the Big Lie, and the Future of Democracy – WhoWhatWhy

Some of the political rhetoric in use today bears an uncanny resemblance to the kind of incitement that ultimately led to World War II.

Listen To This Story

Its an old maxim that ignorance of history condemns you to repeat the disastrous errors of the past. This year will mark the 80th anniversary of the Normandy landings on D-Day, when some 73,000 American GIs were part of a combined Allied force of 160,000 men landing in Normandy, France, in a desperate gamble to liberate Europe and put an end to World War II. Anyone who was there and is still alive most likely is approaching his hundredth birthday around now.

The Greatest Generation deserves our gratitude, but the history we really need to remember concerns the decades that preceded 1944 and made World War II an inevitability. It was a period that Irish poet William Butler Yeats described in his poem The Second Coming as sliding into chaos: the centre cannot hold.

Today, much of the world is again asking itself whether democracy is really the system of government they want. The notion articulated by Abraham Lincoln that there should be a government by the people and for the people is under attack, even in the United States. A significant number of people would prefer government for some of the people, to be decided by the right people.

Americas traditional role as a de facto experiment in the ideas of the Enlightenment is under attack. These days, America is beginning to look pretty much like everywhere else, if not measurably worse.

Before we slide down this slippery slope, it might be worth taking a second look at how similar disputes in the 1920s and 1930s took the entire planet to the brink of total destruction.

Adolf Hitler is generally blamed for the madness of World War II, but the Fuehrer (the Leader), as he liked to call himself, merely nudged German society in a direction it was already predisposed to follow. In the process, Hitler perfected two rhetorical tricks. The first came to be known as the Big Lie, a massive falsehood repeated so often that the public came to believe it.

The second, more banal tactic consisted of using incendiary rhetoric to incite prejudices that were already lurking below the surface in the public unconscious. Hitler inflamed these underlying prejudices to create an alien presence in the public mind. The aliens, Hitler suggested, wanted nothing less than to rape your women, corrupt your children, and spread general mayhem throughout society.

Hitler crafted his Big Lie in Mein Kampf (My Struggle), his litany of complaints against established German society. His argument in the book is that Germany could not have been militarily defeated in World War I. Its surrender had to have been a betrayal by a conspiracy of Marxist Jewish traitors and liberal intellectuals.

Hitler called his imagined conspiracy the Big Lie. Today most historians agree that the real Big Lie was Hitlers false interpretation of what had happened. Germanys defeat in fact resulted from miscalculations, disastrous risk-taking, and general indecision on the part of the last German emperor and king of Prussia, Kaiser Wilhelm II. Germany found itself stalemated in endless trench warfare, running out of both men and ammunition and facing exhaustion. The end came after America finally tipped the balance in favor of the Allies. There had never been a conspiracy; Germany simply lacked the manpower and resources to overcome the combined Allied Powers.

Hitlers denial of Germanys defeat looks absurd to anyone with even the slightest notion of what really happened; but, instead of facing reality, Hitler doubled down on his interpretation. It didnt matter whether it made sense; it was what he wanted to believe. In the end, he came to realize that if the lie is big enough and repeated often enough, the truth doesnt really matter: A public that, in any case, is only half paying attention will believe almost anything as long as you keep repeating it over and over from the right kind of pulpit.

Given the choice between admitting the shame of defeat or blaming that defeat on someone else, most Germans preferred Hitlers version. There was no longer any need to express shame over Germanys decline; the real responsibility belonged to someone else

As Hitlers Nazi movement progressed, his inner clique perfected its communication tactics. Hitlers public relations adviser, Joseph Goebbels, is often credited with observing that all that is needed to kill a democracy is a lie that is big enough.

Its an established principle in psychology that the easiest way to unify and mobilize a group is to threaten them with an outside enemy. The tactic works almost every time, even when, as in most cases, the threat is only imagined.

For Hitler, if you were Jewish you were the ideal target for a bout of public cathartic vengeance fueled by jealousy and anger. Although Germany had some of the brightest minds in Europe, the average German, the common man in the street, was not that well educated and he was most likely under constant stress from a dismal and volatile economy that promised an even more dismal future. Most were only too ready to buy into the fantasy.

To mobilize the public behind his vision, Hitler needed to find a minority that was visibly different from the masses. In the end, Hitler felt as ill-disposed to the Roma and Germanys gay population as he did to Jews the problem was that neither the Roma nor Germanys out-of-the-closet gay men were a big or influential enough minority to attract public attention.

In contrast, Germanys Jews were an important presence in German society. For the most part, they were highly educated, intellectually gifted, and in some cases lucky enough to be wealthy. These were all qualities that could be used to inspire jealousy in the heart of almost any dissatisfied German who felt abandoned by the state and society as a whole. The fact that many wealthy Jews considered themselves German aristocrats and held important roles in the German establishment was even better. Hitler was determined to destroy the German establishment. They represented his Deep State.

It soon became apparent that quite a few ordinary Germans in the limping Weimar Republic were more than ready to go along with Hitlers fiction, as evidenced by the impressive size of the massive crowds at Hitlers infamous 1934 Nuremberg rally. The German public had clearly drunk Hitlers Kool-Aid.

As Hitlers Nazi movement progressed, his inner clique perfected its communication tactics. Hitlers public relations adviser, Joseph Goebbels, is often credited with observing that all that is needed to kill a democracy is a lie that is big enough. There is no proof that Goebbels ever actually said that, but it certainly captures the strategy that he put into practice.

A psychological profile of Hitler commissioned by the US Armys OSS (Office of Strategic Services), the predecessor of todays CIA, notes that the success of the Big Lie depended on the perpetrator constantly doubling down on the original falsehood, even if at times to do so seemed absurd. An equally important tactic was to tell so many lies in rapid succession that the public had no hope of keeping anything straight.

The OSS study also quotes Hitlers confidant Kurt Ludecke on the approach. As Ludecke explained it:

[Hitlers] primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off. Never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

Other Hitler observers noted in the OSS study that Hitlers greatest gift may have been his ability to sense the mood of the crowd and to play to their emotions.

All of that is a lot to take in. Still, looking at the world situation today, and even at some of the recent thinking in the United States, its hard not to have a sensation of dj vu.

Its even harder to think of Hitlers Big Lie and not think of Donald Trumps doubling down on his insistence that he did not really lose the 2020 election, even though Joe Biden beat him by at least 7 million popular votes and no fewer than 74 electoral votes.

The one thing Trump doesnt do is to engage in Hitlers antisemitism. He doesnt have to. He has undocumented immigrants, Central American refugees, liberal intellectuals, and (ironically) coastal elites, not to mention just about anyone with dark skin, to get worked up about.

Just listen to Trumps speech last Veterans Day:

We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country that lie and steal and cheat on elections.

Or in Cedar Rapids, IA, last October:

These people are very aggressive: They drink, they have drugs, a lot of things happening.

And in Waco, TX:

With you at my side, we will totally obliterate the deep state, we will banish the warmongers from our government, we will drive out the globalists, and we will cast out the communists and Marxists, we will throw off the corrupt political class, we will beat the Democrats, we will rout the fake news media, we will stand up to the RINOs, and we will defeat Joe Biden and every single Democrat.

The target has changed. The rhetoric hasnt. Nor has the strategy.

Trumps language often sounds coarse and uneducated, but he does have a gift that was often attributed to Hitler. That is an uncanny ability to sense the temper of and resonate with a crowd, essentially to be on the same wavelength. Trump may not be able to speak English correctly, but he can sway an enthusiastic mob and convince it to follow his direction. For that, correct English and any hint of nuance would only get it in the way.

We often forget that Hitler was democratically elected to the Reichstag, Germanys parliament, in 1932. He was appointed chancellor of the Weimar Republic in 1933. On February 27, 1933, the Reichstag was burned to the ground. Hitler blamed Communists for what was very likely an act of arson by the Nazis themselves.

It didnt really matter who had set the fire. After it, both the Weimar Republic and any pretense at democracy ended in Germany. Politics, the press, and meetings in general were forbidden, and Germany was set on the path to a war that would eventually reduce it and much of Europe to ashes. It took Hitler just 10 years to transform Germany from one of the leading countries in Europe into a pariah.

The situation in the United States today is obviously very different from the one that Weimar Germany faced in the early 1920s and 1930s. The US is economically much more powerful. The population is better educated, and American institutions are much stronger than their German equivalents were in a country still suffering from reparations imposed after World War I.

Nevertheless, Trump managed to incite the January 6 attack against the US Capitol, which was clearly an attempt to use violence to overthrow a legitimate election by fomenting insurrection. Unlike the Reichstag fire and Hitlers seizure of power, the attack on the Capitol and the attempt to nullify the 2020 election failed.

That said, history is a warning. The world has been here before. Then, Hitlers hate-filled Nazi followers were defeated. The next time, we might not be so lucky.

Read this article:
Dj Vu, the Big Lie, and the Future of Democracy - WhoWhatWhy