Mediaboss Marketing

Despite these disagreements, Americans are relatively liberal compared to countries across the world, where the consequences for gay or transgender citizens are far more dire.

In Europe and here in the Americas, only a minority of people believe that homosexuality is never justified. The percentage increases in places like Russia, India and China. In Africa, the Middle East and parts of Southeast Asia, attitudes become even more conservative.

Why are there such big differences in public opinion about homosexuality? My book, Cross-National Public Opinion about Homosexuality, shows that a key part of the answer comes in understanding how national characteristics shape individuals attitudes.

Within countries, a similar set of demographic characteristics tend to influence how people feel about homosexuality. For example, women tend to be more liberal than men. Older people tend to be more conservative than younger ones. Muslims are more likely to disapprove of homosexuality than Catholics, Jews and mainline Protestants.

Just like people, countries too have particular characteristics that can sway residents attitudes about homosexuality. I have analyzed data from over 80 nations from the last three waves of the World Values Survey, the oldest noncommercial, cross-national examination of individuals attitudes, values and beliefs over time. It is the only academic survey to include people from both very rich and poor countries, in all of the worlds major cultural zones. It now has surveys from almost 400,000 respondents.

My analysis shows that differences in attitudes between nations can largely be explained by three factors: economic development, democracy and religion.

Money matters

Sweden, Switzerland and the Netherlands are some of the richest nations in the world. They are also some of the most tolerant. In sharp contrast, countries like Uganda and Nigeria are quite poor and the vast majority of residents disapprove.

How does the amount of money a country has shape attitudes? In very poor countries, people are likely to be more concerned about basic survival. Parents may worry about how to obtain clean water and food for their children. Residents may feel that if they stick together and work closely with friends, family and community members, they will lead a more predictable and stable life. In this way, social scientists have found that a group mentality may develop, encouraging people to think in similar ways and discouraging individual differences.

Because of the focus on group loyalty and tradition, many residents from poorer countries are likely to view homosexuality as highly problematic. It violates traditional sensibilities. Many people may feel that LGBTQ individuals should conform to dominant heterosexual and traditional family norms.

Conversely, residents from richer nations are less dependent on the group and less concerned about basic survival. They have more freedom to choose their partners and lifestyle. Even in relatively rich countries like the United States, some people will still find homosexuality problematic. But, many will also be supportive.

Regardless of how much money they make, most people living in poorer countries are likely to be affected by cultural norms that focus on survival and group loyalty, leading to more disapproval.

Freedom of speech

The type of government also matters. People living in more democratic countries tend to be more supportive of homosexuality.

Democracy increases tolerance by exposing residents to new perspectives. Democracy also encourages people to respect individuals rights, regardless of whether they personally like the people being protected.

Freedom of speech also allows residents to protest and not be arrested. When residents feel that they can freely express their ideas, they become even more inclined to speak up for themselves and others. This leads to more tolerance.

Dominant religious views

The final factor shaping individuals attitudes is religion. Countries dominated by Islam, Eastern Orthodoxy and those that have a mixture of conservative and mainline Protestant faiths are more likely to disapprove.

In contrast, nations dominated by mainline Protestant religions and Catholicism such as Sweden, Spain and the United Kingdom are much more liberal.

Why are people from Muslim majority nations so opposed to homosexuality? Both Islam and conservative Protestant faiths generate high levels of religious belief. Most religious texts say that homosexuality is problematic. More religious people are more likely to take these religious precepts seriously. When a large proportion of people are highly dedicated to their religion, everyone within the country tends to develop more conservative views.

In these countries, the media are likely to reflect dominant religious views. Schools and businesses are more likely to support religious perspectives that disapprove of homosexuality. The government may censor the media so that they do not violate religious sensibilities. They may also restrict nonprofit organizations and human rights groups that promote views inconsistent with conservative religious values. Religious friends and family members are likely to reinforce anti-homosexual views.

Finally, there may not be any gay bars or other places to meet people with friendlier attitudes in these countries. Likewise, there may be limited internet access where residents could get more information about gay men and lesbians. In these countries most people are likely to disapprove, regardless of whether or not they are personally religious.

Are most nations becoming more liberal?

In 1996, there were only six nations that allowed for civil union or marriage. Seventeen years later, 43 nations allowed for it.

However, there has also been an increase in the number of nations that have a constitution or legal ban on homosexuality, indicating that there seems to have been a small backlash. These actions could be a reaction against the liberal legislation put in place in other countries.

As people across the world develop more liberal attitudes, many still disagree. Countries that are highly opposed to homosexuality tend to put in place policies and laws that reflect this disapproval.

While religion, economic development and democracy have a major role in shaping attitudes, the march toward greater liberalization is less straightforward than these factors alone would suggest.

Nations are embedded in a global context. Many countries located in Europe and North America were the first to become wealthy and democratic. Because they were the leaders, they were not subject to the pressure that currently up-and-coming countries now face from more powerful countries that led the way for gay rights.

Additionally, religion remains relevant, even in many rich societies, like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and up-and-coming countries, like Egypt and South Africa.

Future changes in attitudes are likely to be complicated by international forces and the continuing significance of religion.

Eighty percent of the countries I examined are becoming more liberal. However, we cant assume that these changes will always be linear or simple. While weve seen a general trend toward more liberal views regarding homosexuality, there are likely to be hiccups along the way that affect how these different socioeconomic and cultural influences take shape nationally and across the world.

Amy Adamczyk, Professor of Sociology and Criminal Justice, City University of New York

Read more:
Money, democracy and religion: Why some countries disapprove of homosexuality - Salon

Random thoughts

There is a saying that if the rulers ignore the problems, pains and needs of their people, they are doomed sooner rather than later. The situation in Pakistan seems to have almost reached this point. The rulers and those in authority seem least bothered about the welfare of the poor people. Even those who are very vocal about their demands for the rights and facilities for the poor often only indulge in hypocrisy: a lot of words but no practical help or support.

Thousands of people are challenging the decisions made by parliament a body which is responsible to the people because it has been elected by them. Mischief mongers incite people to block roads, prevent transport from plying and even to attack the law-enforcers. We have seen more than enough of this by various political leaders through their dharnas and protests.

The Supreme Court has started working according to the constitution and democratic principles. Unfortunately, when one remembers the role of the judiciary in the cases against Musharraf, Hussain Haqqani, Ayaan Ali, Zardari ($60 million in Swiss accounts), one realises it has been far from satisfactory. During the tenure of the former chief justice, suo motu notices were issued in large numbers. But that does not mean that, where there was an urgent need to react, it was right for the judiciary to just sit as an onlooker and not bring cases to their natural conclusion.

Law-breakers and some other mischief-makers create real law and order situations that create a lot of inconvenience for the public. However, we see the government succumbing to appease these trouble-makers. Is that democracy? Blocking roads, causing public damage, breaking the windows of offices and shops is not democratic and should not be rewarded. Giving in to such hooliganism is more like defeatism. The majority suffers at the hands of a few: such rowdiness continues for days with the government remaining inactive and then giving in to many, if not all, of their demands. In some protests by medical personnel, ambulance services are blocked and emergency services closed, increasing the suffering of patients.

Parliament is rendered inactive by a few mischief-makers. Even if their demands are genuine, the possibilities provided by the law should be followed and exploited. Our rulers should learn from the administration of Hazrat Umar (RA) and Hazrat Umar bin Abdul Aziz to see how they ruled and kept the public under control. This was done with simplicity, honesty and following the law in letter and in spirit. They did not let a small minority take the majority hostage and did not sit back doing nothing when action was needed.

Parliament is the representative organisation of the country (public) and is supposed to provide safety, security and comfort to people. The problem arises when, due to the failure of the government, a powerful and ambitious general usurps power and casts democracy of the country aside. We have seen this happen in our country too often in the past. Since the army has been engaged in fighting a proxy war with outsiders, it has left our country at the mercy of our enemies.

We have not stopped infiltrators from entering the country; and they have freely indulged in acts of sabotage and the use of explosives, resulting in not just many casualties and deaths in the country but also in giving the state a bad reputation. If the PML-N fails to block undemocratic actions by mischief-makers, parliament must exert itself to fill the gap. It should make laws and bring in appropriate action to block the possibilities of taking the country and its people hostage.

Why do people say democracy is in danger if you block the anti-state activities of a few thousand people? Is democracy for the majority or for a few thousand people? By not acting, great harm is done to the country and great inconvenience and loss caused to the public. Compromise doesnt pay. On the contrary, it encourages troublemakers to indulge in even more mischief, jeopardising the law and order situation.

When the constitution was framed, Pakistans situation was totally different: the atrocities being committed today did not occur back then and so laws appropriate for dealing with these situations were not framed. This makes it possible for any political party to gather a few thousand people, agitate and bring main cities to a standstill, causing major financial loss and inconvenience to the public.

In our country, one political party will oppose everything another party will do or say simply for the sake of opposition. There is no such thing as positive criticism in our system. Any problems that the parties feel exist should be taken to the courts and dealt with according to the law, not by agitation. We recently witnessed how strikes in Karachi failed miserably simply because the Rangers took strict action. The MQM sat like a lame duck and lost face.

To put an end to this vicious circle, the government must act against all anti-state activities and elements in the manner in which the Supreme Court has advised it. It is fortunate that the Rangers and defence intelligence agencies have been active in trying to control the situation and lately, a large number of terrorists have been captured or killed in encounters. They are bringing the situation under control. Without their involvement, the situation would have been much worse and our preachers of democracy would still have been comfortable and safe in their palaces.

A country does not obtain democracy on a platter. It requires diligence, struggle and stringent actions.

Email: [emailprotected]

Link:
Is this democracy? - The News International

People of different ethnicities and religions came together Saturday to learn how to be involved in their government at the Lee County Spirit of Democracys Civic Saturday event at the Southside Center for the Arts in Opelika.

The organization is a non-partisan grassroots initiative that aims to seek solutions to "the problems of an unhealthy democracy" and to develop actions to educate the citizenry and encourage responsible civic involvement, according to its website. Civic Saturday was the organizations first public event.

We have a high responsibility to be informative and engaged in civil life, said Tom Penton, one of the co-founders of the non-profit organization.

The event featured a presentation from Penton about the organization, which was formed two years ago by a group of Lee County citizens who wanted to change the political landscape in Alabama.

Were planting seeds and growing a healthy democracy in Lee County, Penton said.

A divided nation, the demonization of government and anger are all symptoms of an unhealthy democracy, according to Penton.

We need to change perspectives and change attitudes, Penton said.

Penton gave the example of a bird to describe how republicans and democrats need to work together.

It takes both the left wing and the right wing to fly, Penton said.

During the event, some participants read quotes about liberty, education, involvement and democracy.

One of the participants was Jamie Lowe, a junior at Opelika High School and founder of the Young Spirit of Democracy (SOD) group.

Lowe, who is also a member of the Lee County Spirit of Democracys Informal Advisory Council, was motivated by the organization to start a group at his high school.

I want to energize my peers, Lowe said. I believe that we are the future.

Penton emphasized that citizen involvement is necessary for a healthy democracy.

It is time for us to get ourselves back in the forefront of the democratic process, Penton said.

The organization strives to help put citizens back in the forefront of the democratic process through civic education and action groups.

Dr. Gerald Johnson, one of the co-founders of the organization, said there will be more events in the future.

For more information, visit the organizations website at http://www.sodalabama.org.

See the article here:
Group celebrates democracy at Civic Saturday event - Opelika Auburn News

In this 2015 file photo, authorities round up activists protesting the 2014 coup. Thailand's politics is dominated by two parties which don't satisfy everyone.(Photo by Patipat Janthong)

With the regime's political reconciliation game plan faltering, Thailand faces the prospect of a seemingly unending cycle of crisis, coup and constitution. Neither military rule nor the next constitution, which both embed non-accountability, offer hope for long-term socio-political stability.

Disunity will hit Thailand hard: PricewaterHouseCoopers sees the country's GDP being overtaken by those of the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia by 2050.

The Project for a Social Democracy (PSD) which groups academics, labour unionists and human rights activists, recently, released a statement of purpose that offers a legitimate way forward.

The key problems with Thai politics are a lack of political philosophies underlying policy platforms, leading to populism; a lack of internal democracy in party elections, exemplified by the feudal nature of political parties; and an inability for major parties to cooperate in unity to reach a consensus on measures that benefit the state.

The emergence of a Thai social democrat party (SDP), where these principles are embedded through transparency, where civil society is invited to observe the development of the party's policies and its elections, would revitalise Thai politics.

Social democracy is both a socio-economic philosophy and the name for approximately 70 political parties in over 60 countries, especially in Europe. Social democracy is supported by a number of think-tanks, such as the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, which in Thailand works with unionists from both sides of the colour spectrum. Social democracy emphasises internal political democracy, ie, that its political leaders should come from competitive elections, as well as consensual democracy in national politics, if necessary via political coalitions.

It also stresses human solidarity. Thus social democracy promotes internationalism and international human rights, including cultural and social rights, as frameworks for prosperity. Internationally, Thailand would contribute more to UN missions, providing a role for Thailand's military and demonstrating leadership ability. This would assist Thailand in its ongoing application for a UN Security Council Seat.

A Thai SDP would insist on greater role for Thailand's National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). The new NHRC would be founded on human rights experience and expanded in size and capacity to reflect all the country's key stakeholders, from workers to employers, as well as civil society, so that it can both offer advice and monitor implementation of human rights.

Social democracy's main difference from socialism is that it relies on the market system. That is, the state works with capitalism, not for its abolition and replacement by a fully planned economy. Social democracy assigns a major role to the main taxpayers as well as what should be the main social actors, a broad middle class, and emphasises a social contract which produce quality goods and services.

Thus, with a Thai SDP as a third force, the wealthy pay higher inheritance, land and property, and personal income taxes. In exchange, the lower middle class has access to enhanced social services, whether education or the health system, and is proud of using them. Finally, the upper middle class and wealthy benefit from socio-political stability and a growing economy.

The Thai middle class is relatively small and underdeveloped. An SDP would emphasise minimum wages and workers' rights as part of a new deal with the workforce in order to lift it out of poverty, still at nearly 9% nationally, and to transform the upper lower class into the lower middle class. The aim would be to increase aggregate domestic demand, especially for higher quality goods and services, such as slavery-free canned fish products, quality engineered products, and environmentally friendly agriculture by ensuring people have enough money to pay for them.

An SDP would also emphasise incremental unionisation, particularly in difficult, dirty, and dangerous conditions, such as the Thai fishing industry. It would therefore work closely with the International Labor Organisation to increase standards and aim to re-brand its products to the international market as quality, labour and environmentally friendly products.

An SDP would emphasise human solidarity and emphasise working with others to negotiate global trade agreements in order to ensure minimum social and environmental industrial standards internationally. The basic logic is to ensure healthier, happier, better paid workers, who are then more productive, for example because turnover is lower and motivation is higher.

A Thai social democrat party would not necessarily endorse an overly planned economy or state-owned enterprises in themselves. For example, the NCPO's 20-year plan does not make sense in a market economy as it locks Thailand into a future where planning is too inflexible to meet emerging market conditions. And, there are strong arguments for deregulating the energy market if Egat's management is not capable of rapidly decentralising the energy grid, for social democracy has strong links to environmentalism and promotes renewables.

Social democrat parties may not be radical enough to appeal to some voters, but they enhance negotiated, consensus-driven politics and can break deadlocks, for example through proposing Royal Commissions, such as on energy or police reform. The agenda is to set up a foundation for a social democracy, link into international social democrat political networks and improve the education system, labour standards and health, by supporting a SDP than can achieve 10% of the vote. It should be lauded.

As Atipong Pathanasethpong, the PSD Working Group's spokesperson puts it, "Thailand's politics is in need of help, as are the political systems of many countries presently plagued by populism and unaccountable government. Instead of accepting a descent into barbarism, Thailand, by reaching out to global social democrats, will get the better future it deserves."

In Thailand, one party leans towards South-American-style populism, and another is so conservative that it experiences difficulty appealing to the middle ground. The politically viable remainder have no clear policies.

A Thai SDP as honest broker is the only patriotic option for evolving politics to a more mature stage.

Originally posted here:
Social democracy offers a third force - Bangkok Post

DenverWe are only in the second month of Donald Trumps presidency, but many Americans have tired of the drama and are wondering what the next 46 months have in store.

Beyond producing constant anxiety, Trumps bizarre presidency poses a more fundamental question: Having already come under siege in many of its outposts worldwide, is liberal democracy now at risk of losing its citadel, too? If so, the implications for US foreign policy, and the world, could be far-reaching.

The United States has elected a president whose understanding of American democracy is apparently limited to the fact that he won the Electoral College. To be sure, this requires some passing acquaintance with the US Constitution, where the Electoral College is defined. But beyond that, Trump seems to have little respect for the Constitutions system of checks and balances, and the separation of powers among the branches of government. Nor does he respect Americas fourth estate, the press, which he has begun describing as the enemy of the American people.

Elections, while necessary, are hardly sufficient for upholding liberal democracys central tenets. After all, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and many other despots have come to power by winning a popular vote.

As any schoolchild should know, elections require all citizens to tolerate views that differ from their own. Elections are not meant to transcend or overturn democratic institutions or the separation of powers. Regardless of how the Trump administration ultimately performs, its first month of presidential decreesor, in American political parlance, executive orderscan hardly be viewed as a triumph for liberal democracy.

Trump would do well to study the Constitution; and while he is at it, he should find time to read some of the republics other founding documents. He could start with the 1620 Mayflower Compact, which implicitly recognized the rights of political and social minorities in one of Americas earliest religious colonies.

But Trump is not the only American who should use this moment to reflect on his countrys history and its role in the world. Although the administrations America first sloganeering may sound frightening to some foreign ears, it might come as a relief to others.

Since the end of the Cold War more than 25 years ago, the primary goal of US foreign policy has been to spread democracy in the world. But in pursuit of this lofty ambition, America has sometimes overreached. Although its support for democracy would seem to put it on the side of the angels, its policies have often been implemented with a measure of arrogance, even anger.

America has sometimes force-fed democracy to countries, or even delivered it at the tip of a bayonet. There are many reasons liberal democracy seems to be in retreat worldwide. But among them is surely the growing resentment of other countries and their leaders, who have tired of listening to American accusations, lectures, and admonitions.

Consider Iraq. Many Western observers were inspired by the sight of Iraqis ink-stained fingers after they cast their ballots in that countrys first election. But while free elections are often a first step on the road to democracy, the aftermath was not so smooth in Iraq. Political identities became increasingly defined by sectarianism, rather than substantive issues; and it soon became clear that democratic institutions and the culture of tolerance on which they rely are not so easily introduced to societies that have not known them before.

Some years ago, I spoke to a Balkan leader who had just spent the day listening to an American philanthropist lecture him on his troubled young countrys democratic shortcomings. As he contemplated the political pain of following the philanthropists free advice, he asked me, What am I supposed to do with that? He had identified a fundamental shortfall in the movement to promote democracy: Telling someone how to implement democratic reforms is not the same as taking on the risks and responsibilities of actually doing it.

Notwithstanding its currently toxic political scene, America still has one of the most successful democracies in history. It provides a great model for others to emulate, but its example cannot be forced on the world. Telling people that their countries have to be like America is not a sound strategy.

Liberal democracy was off-balance even before Trumps victory; now it has lost its center of gravity. The next four years could be remembered as a dark period for this precious form of government. But liberal democracy has outlasted its rivals in the past, and it will likely do so again. Those who have fought so hard and sacrificed so much for it will be ready to ensure that it does. Project Syndicate

* * *

Christopher R. Hill, former US assistant secretary of state for East Asia, is dean of the Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver, and the author of Outpost.

Continued here:
Liberal democracy at risk - Inquirer.net