Mediaboss Marketing

TERMING the current system as a sham democracy, Dr Tahirul Qadri has promised genuine democracy in Pakistan through a revolution. Given his impressive religious credentials, one is thankful to him for championing democracy vociferously, for some religious leaders out-rightly reject democracy. One also agrees with his critiques of current Pakistani democracy and his desire for a better democracy. However, one disagrees with his preferred method, ie, revolution.

Before jumping into the discussion, it is appropriate to follow French philosopher Voltaires advice, who famously said, If you wish to converse with me, define your terms [concepts]. Blending popular desires with academic definitions, one can say that genuine democracy is when elections are regular and credible; corruption is low; government services are high-quality; people feel secure and rights are respected.

If one reviews all events generally branded as revolutions, three features emerge. Firstly, revolutions refer to fundamental changes in political and/or economic systems, ie, from monarchy to democracy or capitalism to communism.

Secondly, they are led by people outside current power structures. Thus, palace and military coups are excluded.

Thirdly, these outsiders use extra-legal measures, eg, war or demonstrations, to achieve change since current legal structures disallow peaceful change efforts.

It is debatable whether one should call it a revolution if outsiders topple the elected Sharif government through demonstrations and instal another elected government since there would be no structural change in the political system; at most a more competent elected government would replace a less competent one.

More fundamental is the issue of what revolutions have achieved globally, for there is not one revolution which delivered enormously improved governance immediately. Take the highly celebrated 18th-century American and French revolutions. All they achieved was to replace monarchies by highly imperfect democracies no better or even worse than Pakistans today. It was decades later by the middle of the 20th century that governance reached the high levels prevalent today.

Consider next the Arab Spring revolutions. Governance quality has either deteriorated or stayed unchanged. Ethiopias 1970s revolution which toppled Emperor Selassie actually produced massively worse governance.

The 1948 Chinese revolution created mixed results, with land reforms combined with starvation, death and repression. It was only after Deng Xiaopings 1978 peaceful ascension that China started its development spree.

Iran certainly has independent foreign policies since its 1979 revolution but its actual governance is no better than Pakistans. It lags behind Pakistan on the Transparency corruption index and on many sub-dimensions of the World Bank Governance index. Moreover, there is more openness and freedom in Pakistan.

The rest is here:
Genuine democracy - Newspaper - DAWN.COM

FILIPINO HUMOR overwhelms Facebook and other social networking sites as netizens parody the new tourism slogan. But its good news for Philippine tourism, says DOT. itsmorefuninthephils.com

Its more fun in the Philippines observers of Philippine democracy could very well apply our tourism slogan to our political landscape. Hard-won after centuries of colonization, years of occupation and decades of dictatorship, Philippine-style democracy is colourful, occasionally chaotic and arguably inspiring.

Take elections, for example, the cornerstone of democratic institutions. Voters see their power to choose their leaders as their strongest check on the behaviour of the government, their one chance to exact accountability.

Analysts and commentators have branded political campaigns in the Philippines as highly entertaining. The mix of old political clans, showbiz personalities and the ubiquitous song and dance that pepper the campaign trail provide plenty of amusement. But be not deceived; the power to choose is a right and responsibility that Filipinos hold dear.

Indeed, ballots are almost sacred in the Philippines. Voters have risked their personal safety to exercise the right. In many cases, the public has seen it as their one weapon against those who abuse their position.

Beyond balloting, democracy is a government by discussion (to quote the Indian economist Amartya Sen), characterized by public dialogue and interaction. The vibrancy of democracy in the Philippines hinges largely on the quality of this dialogue and interaction. A government that engages its citizens, is inclusive in its decision-making and, most importantly, enjoys the trust of its electorate, can almost certainly count on public support when making tough decisions. The reverse has also been seen, as in the case of a leadership facing a crisis of legitimacy that was seen to make decisions out of political expediency rather than the public good; in this case the peoples mandate, won squarely in an electoral contest, has proven itself to be a potent force for positive change.

The authors of a working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research argue that democracy is good for economic growth for various reasons, including the ability of democracies to implement economic reforms. They present evidence from a panel of countries between 1960 and 2010 showing that the robust and sizeable effect of democracy on economic growth suggests that a country that switches from non-democracy to democracy achieves about 20% higher GDP per capita in the long run (or roughly in the next 30 years).

We can see this in the case of the Philippines, which has enjoyed 60 straight quarters of economic growth since the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Average GDP growth from 2010 to 2013 was recorded at 6.3%, significantly higher than the 4.5% average GDP growth registered from 2001 to 2009. That this relatively higher rate of growth has happened alongside a series of economic reforms backed up by a strong electoral mandate should not be taken as pure coincidence. Closing loopholes in tax collection, an overhaul in customs administration, and passing key legislation on excise taxes these would not have taken place in an environment which was not supportive of or indeed, craving for reform.

Outside of economic reforms, this strong mandate has also enabled the passage of social sector reforms among them legislation allowing women access to vital information and facilities pertaining to their reproductive health, and a measure extending the education cycle to meet the global standard. These measures had passionate advocates on both sides, and a less committed leadership could have wavered at any point.

Improved government via more efficient tax collection and customs administration, access to vital information and services and a better standard of education: how could one argue that this is not what voters want when they take to the polls?

See the original post here:
More fun in the Philippines?

Communism Church, Part 2. Why NOT to mention Stalin in anti-atheist debates
Why religious people should NOT mention Stalin and communism to prove their point. The first video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfowGNMPzRg Follow-up video: https://www.youtube.com/w...

By: Nick Dolgy

Original post:
Communism & Church, Part 2. Why NOT to mention Stalin in anti-atheist debates - Video

Abstract: "The fall of the [Soviet] empire," former Czech president Vaclav Havel wrote, "is an event on the same scale of historical importance as the fall of the Roman Empire." It is true that Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev repudiated the Brezhnev Doctrine--that the Soviet Union will use force if necessary to ensure that a socialist state remains socialist--and in so doing undercut the Communist leaders and regimes of Eastern and Central Europe in the critical year of 1989. But why did Gorbachev abandon the Brezhnev Doctrine? One Western leader above all others forced the Soviets to give up the Brezhnev Doctrine and abandon the arms race, brought down the Berlin Wall, and ended the Cold War at the bargaining table and not on the battlefield: President Ronald Reagan.

Soviet Communism, the dark tyranny that controlled nearly 40 nations and was responsible for the deaths of an estimated 100 million victims during the 20th century, suddenly collapsed 20 years ago without a shot being fired.

In just two years--from 1989 to 1901--the Berlin Wall fell, the Soviet Union disintegrated, and Marxism- Leninism was dumped unceremoniously on the ash heap of history. There was dancing in the street and champagne toasts on top of the Brandenburg Gate. And then most of the world got on with living without asking:

A decade ago, I edited a collection of essays by some of the world's leading authorities on Communism who suggested that a wide range of forces-- political, economic, strategic, and religious--along with the leadership of principled statesmen and brave dissidents brought about the collapse of Soviet Communism.

In my essay, I suggested that when Communist leaders in Eastern and Central Europe admitted they no longer believed in Communism, they dissolved the glue of ideology that had maintained their faade of power and authority.

I pointed out that the Communists failed, literally, to deliver the goods to the people. They promised bread but produced food shortages and rationing-- except for Party members and the nomenklatura. They promised the people land but delivered them into collectives. They promised peace but sent young men off to die in foreign wars in distant lands.

In this information age, I wrote, the Communists could not stop the mass media from sustaining and spreading the desire for freedom among the captive peoples. Far from being an impregnable fortress, Eastern and Central Europe was a Potemkin village easily penetrated by electronic messages of democracy and capitalism from the West.

Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national security adviser to President Carter, argued that Marxism-Leninism was an alien doctrine imposed by an imperial power culturally repugnant to the dominated peoples of Eastern and Central Europe. Disaffection was strongest in the cluster of states with the deepest cultural ties with Western Europe--East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Hungary.

Harvard Professor of History Richard Pipes said there were incidental causes of the Soviet Union's dissolution like the invasion of Afghanistan, the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, and the vacillating personality of Mikhail Gorbachev. And there were more profound levels of causation like economic stagnation, the aspiration of national identities, and intellectual dissent. But the decisive catalyst, Pipes said, was the very nature of Communism, which was at one and the same time utopian and coercive.

The political philosopher Michael Novak discussed the long-term effect of atheism--a sine qua non of Communism--on the morale of people and their economic performance. Communism, he said, set out to destroy the "human capital" on which a free economy and a polity are based and in so doing sowed the seeds of its own destruction.

The rest is here:
Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism

Its been more than four years since Elizabeth Warren first appeared on The Colbert Report and in the intervening time, her profile has risen remarkably. On Monday night, Warren and Stephen Colbert faced off over the ideas on inequality she puts forward in her new book, A Fighting Chance.

You are welcome for the Colbert Bump, the host said at the top of the interview, taking credit for Warrens ascension to the Senate. In explaining her own story, Warren told Colbert about how she was able from humble beginnings, but that American dream became much more difficult sometime after Ronald Reagan became president.

When Warren accused the big Wall Street banks of cheating people on credit cards and mortgages, Colbert shot back, What do mean cheating people? You sign up for a credit card, you use the credit card, then you have to pay your bills. Is that too complicated for Harvard? Later, he accused Warren of supporting freeloaders who dont pay their bills. Its just more socialism! he said.

Youre right that theres been a lot of freeloading, but the freeloading has been by the biggest financial institutions who got bailed out by the American taxpayers, Warren said to cheers from Colberts crowd.

Later, when Warren lamented the fact that no one on Wall Street has gone to prison for deceiving the American people, Colbert explained to her that you cant put handcuffs on the invisible hand of the market, adding, What you call breaking the law, I call pushing the envelope.

Grabbing Colberts hand, Warren said, You can put handcuffs on people who push the envelope. When they break the law, they deserve to have handcuffs.

Watch video below, via Comedy Central:

[Photo via screengrab]

Continue reading here:
Colbert Spars with Elizabeth Warren: Its Just More Socialism!