Mediaboss Marketing

Dominique de Villepin says democracy cannot be imposed on a country Photo: AFP

Democracy is most likely to be achieved through diplomacy not by force or by war, saysthe former French prime minister Dominique de Villepin.

Mr de Villepin, speaking at the 14th Doha Forum last week, said that history had proved there was a link between democracy being imposed on a country and the deterioration and destruction of that country.

Mr de Villepin cited Iraq in 2003 as an example in which the western world thought through force they can create democracy that not only builds democratic and stable institutions but also leads to peace, he said.

But he said history had shown military intervention had been a failure. For politicians, it is easier to go to war than implement peace because the military people follow orders but democracy is more complex than politics, he said.

Advertisement

...I would like to see more Western democracies send more professors, doctors and lawmakers rather than their armies to all the countries of the world and this is the only way to further democracy.

The forum is organised annually by the Qatari government to discuss issues regarding democracy, development and free trade in the Middle-East and the world.

More than 600 delegates from 80 countries were flown into Qatar at the expense of Qatar's Ministry of Foreign Affairs to take part in the three-day talks this year which discussed the crisis in Syria, human rights, building democracies and extremist religious and sectarian conflicts.

Mr de Villepin told the forum that Second Age Democracy was something that was not imposed but shared through procedures that allow countries to evolve through a historical phase.

See the rest here:
Diplomacy, nor war, the way to democracy, says former French PM Dominique de Villepin

OnMay 20 2014, the Malawi democracy clocks twenty (20) years of age since the transition from one party state to multiparty democracy. On 14 June 1994, Malawians overwhelmingly chose a multiparty democracy under which restrictions over some human freedoms and rights were removed. A new democratic constitution was drafted guaranteeing more freedoms and human rights. It also established a governance structure consisting of three separate arms (Executive, Legislature and Judiciary) to ensure that there are checks and balance to avoid abuse of power by individuals.

To ensure that the Malawi democracy meant government of the people, by the people and for the people, the fundamental principles underlying the new Republican Constitution clearly stipulates that All legal and political authority of the State derives from the people of Malawi and shall be exercised in accordance with this Constitution solely to serve and protect their interests and that All persons responsible for the exercise of powers of State do so on trust.. (Chapter lll).

That is why the constitution provides for elections of political leaders for every five years so that citizens should always give power to a selected few to govern on their behalf as in representative democracy. Citizens are allowed to choose leaders who best represent their aspirations.May 20tripartite elections are such an opportunity for citizens, eligible to vote, to exercise their right to choose leaders.

Malawi goes to the polls Tuesday

The Referendum and the 1994 General elections have been dubbed as the most democratic and transparent elections held so far . Through the secret ballot, Malawians chose their preferred system of government of democracy and proceeded to usher in a new government led by Dr Bakili Muluzi of the United Democratic Front (UDF). In both the 1993 Referendum and 1994 General Elections, the MCP government led by late Dr Hastings Kamuzu Banda respected the will and choice of the people and accepted the elections results. In both elections, Kamuzu accepted defeat even before official results were announced by an independent electoral commission. Things had change for good.

However, since the 1994 general elections, concerns and fears over electoral malpractices in form of biasness, cheating or rigging and intimidation, have been rife and refuse to die out. While most of the claims of vote rigging have not been substantiated, some cases of rigging have been backed up by evidence in the courts of law. Electoral results have been manipulated in favor of some candidates the majority of whom belong to the ruling party.

Nevertheless, some opposition candidates have also been implicated is such malpractices. This is because politicians approach elections as business which they should win at all costs. As a result, some people have lost trust in elections as they feel these are staged whose results are predetermined. Others have shouted BOMA sililuza (the governing party cannot lose elections). Where does such confidence come from? Surely it could not only emanate from the incumbency factor, but also possibilities of manipulating the results using the government machinery.

As we head towards theMay 20poll, concerns and fears over possible vote rigging have resurfaced again. The opposition is quite vocal on this. The government and electoral bodies are parrying these fears away. But Vote RIGGING is real and culprits work hard to execute plans undercover as agents. Vote rigging is the greatest enemy of democracy and must not tolerate by all means. Every vote must count and their views respected. The constitution provides for that.

In fact, there is no need for any player in the tripartite elections to plan vote rigging. Everyone who decided to contest must have understood the rules of the game as set by the Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC) and that any attempts to rig the elections must face peoples resistance and the long arm of the law. The Voters are the major stakeholder in the elections to freely choose the new crop of leaders. It is quite simple. Leave the game to voters to decide. As any form of cheating and corruption, any proved cases of vote rigging must be dealt legally or other lawful means. It is a serious crime against peoples will and democracy to rig an election

Original post:
Electoral fraud is a crime against democracy: Citizens must deal with this once for All

Communism VS Evil Part 2 001
Description.

By: YusefAlTahir

See more here:
Communism VS Evil Part 2 001 - Video

Does this year's Budget represent 'communism by stealth' as some on the political right would have it, or is it a 'Cabinet Club' Budget for the rich as some on the left allege? Neither actually. Although Bill English and John Key have taken National on a slight detour to the left, it's far from radical or socialist. And allegations from Labour and the Greens that this is a 'Cabinet Club Budget' are woefully out of sync with how it will be received. In the end, National has smartly managed to cleave a middle line that suggests they are both fiscally responsible and socially concerned.

Bizarre 'Cabinet Club' claims Labour and the Greens seem determined to stay on message and portray this Budget as a step to the right by the Government, regardless of the reality. They are attempting to connect it with recent National Party controversies about fundraising from wealthy donors and the corporate sector - see TV3'sOpposition slams 'Cabinet Club Budget'. Bizarrely, Green Co-leader Russel Norman referred to it as the 'Cabinet Club' Budget 29 times in his Budget speech, as if he hadn't taken any notice of what was actually in the Budget. Similarly, Winston Peters' main line was that the Budget amounted to 'cake for cronies, crumbs for New Zealanders'.

Claire Trevett reflects on Labour's difficulty in responding to the Budget: 'Mr Cunliffe then sought to have his cake and eat it too. He first of all claimed credit for much of the Budget, saying policies such as paid parental leave, bowel cancer screening and tackling kauri dieback disease were stolen in a blatant raid on Labour.

Having done so, he proceeded to give the Budget a big thumbs-down' - see:No lollies but lots of 'fudge'.

As Barry Soper says, 'Labour's bitterly complaining though. The complaint that The Tories are looking after their rich mates is a little difficult to fathom and so is their chant that it's a 'Cabinet Club annual report'. It's doubtful the donors to the Tories will be popping the champagne corks over this one' - see:Cunliffe fudged his Budget reaction.

The best leftwing critique of the Budget has come, not from Opposition politicians, but from political journalist Gordon Campbell. He accuses National of political cynicism and cheap vote-buying - see:On yesterday's 'let them eat crumbs' Budget. While Campbell agrees National have gone for a Labour-lite approach, he notes they've done so on a tight budget: 'For this performance, National is receiving a round of applause for its tactical brilliance, and its skill in triangulating Labour's social policy programme, for a relative pittance. National seems to have perfected the art of lowering the ceiling of expectations, and then painting a few pretty pictures on it to divert the paying customer'.

Predictable responses from the right The criticisms from the right have mostly been muted. But it's certainly possible to detect some unhappiness on National's right. In the Twittersphere, for example, Cameron Slater (@Whaleoil) responded to the Budget with: 'So Bill English delivers yet another breeders budget'. Matthew Hooton (@MatthewHootonNZ) questioned why the 'govt is promoting a more left-wing PPL policy than @lailaharre in 2002'. And National Party activist Jordan McCluskey (@JordanMcCluskey) tweeted, 'Congratulations to the Muldoon government on their 15th budget'.

One of the strongest critiques has come from the 'radical right' Cathy Odgers who bemoans that Bill 'English has morphed into a less witty Michael Cullen'. She thinks National's budget was the result of market research by the likes of David Farrar: 'This offering is the "Pollsters Budget", smelling as if National pollster Curia conned a committee of confirmed Labour voters to meet for pizza and $50, then appointed a moderator and banged together Billy's Budget. Election budgets should lob lollies to potential voters, not Opposition true believers. Again Bill English acted like the quintessential smug Kiwi farmer content with increasing wealth on unrealised tax-free capital gains. He bottled it' - see:If this Budget is centre-right, what would the left hatch?.

Mike Hosking generally approves of the Budget, although disagrees strongly with the universal extension of free doctor visits to children under 13: 'Why on earth that's not means tested is beyond me, unless it's too complex to do so.

Subsidising families that don't need it so they can take their kid to the doctor every time they get a sniffle is a waste of money' - see:Budget a document built on confidence. Hosking takes aim at those criticising the Government for not doing more for first home buyers: 'just what was it they were wanting? Did they want the Government to buy them a house?'

Read more from the original source:
NZ POLITICS DAILY: Neither 'communism by stealth' or a 'Cabinet Club' Budget

Socialism Spuing from the Beast as Pope Francis addresses the UN on Agenda 21
This story presented here scratches the surface of what is a socialistic agenda to create total dependency on another. With this dependency, eventually will ...

By: jessevassil

More:
Socialism Spuing from the Beast as Pope Francis addresses the UN on Agenda 21 - Video