Mediaboss Marketing

Indias prime minister Narendra Modi met President Trump for the first time last week.

Modi and Trump are similar in many ways: both are populist nationalists who draw large crowds, and both are dedicated to putting their countries first, economically and strategically. Yet while Modi is wildly popular among the Hindu-American community in the United States, Trump did not even get a tenth of its vote. Why it is that Hindu-Americans, a group so favorably disposed toward a right-wing Indian leader, voted overwhelmingly against the candidate from the right in the United States?

Hindu-Americans are a high-income, family-values oriented group, yet vote for Democrats in overwhelming numbers. This paradox can be explained by the nature of Hinduism as a religion, Indias historical social, cultural, and agricultural patterns, and Indias experience with British colonialismall factors that influence Hindu-Americans to vote for the Democratic Party.

While Hindu-Americans are one of the largest religious groups in the United States, they do not yet have the clout, influence, or even general public recognition that other large religious groups in the country have, such as Catholics, Jews, and Muslims, though there are advocacy groups such as the non-partisan Hindu American Foundation (HAF).

Perhaps this is because they have been taken for granted as a Democratic Party voting bloc. According to data from the Washington Post, fewer than 7 percent of Hindus are likely to have voted for Trump. Only a slightly larger percentage of Hindus voted for Mitt Romney. Hindus strongly favor the Democratic party over the Republican partymore so than almost any other ethnic or religious group in the United States.

According to data collected by Pew in 2015, there are now 2.23 million Hindus in the United States, making them the fourth largest religious group in the country after Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Hinduism belongs to a family of religions known as Indic or dharmic religions. Hinduism is the largest dharmic tradition in the United States. Two other dharmic religions also have large populations in the United States: Sikhism, with around 500,000 individuals, and Jainism, with around 180,000 adherents. There are also large populations of Muslims and Christians from the Indian subcontinent in the United States. Approximately 16 percent of Muslims in the United States are from South Asia (around 600,000 people). Additionally, there are smaller populations of Buddhists and Zoroastrians (Parsis) from South Asia in the United States.

Hindu-Americans have the highest retention of any religion in the United States, with a full 80 percent of those raised Hindu still identifying with Hinduism as adults. In comparison, the rate among mainline Protestants is only 45 percent. This is not surprising due to the nature of Hinduism, whose philosophical and cultural traditions encompass several religious viewpoints including monism, pantheism, panentheism, henotheism, monotheism, polytheism, and atheism. Most Hindus are either immigrants or the children of immigrants from India, Nepal, Guyana, and Suriname, although there are some from non-desi (South Asian) backgrounds.

Given this diversity, how can we explain the fact that Hindu-Americans political preferences and social norms generally point them in the direction of liberal politics in the United States? After all, as The American Conservatives executive editor Pratik Chougule has pointed out, Indian-American (including Hindu-American) economic interests, merit-based educational aspirations, and family-values are much more aligned with the Republican Party.

There are several factors that explain Hindu-Americans mentality, political patterns and views on economic and social issues.

There is the nature of Hinduism itself. The worldview of Hinduism is different from the Judeo-Christian tradition that often informs the right in the West, though it has many more commonalities with the Greco-Roman pagan tradition. Hinduism advocates a live and let live attitude toward theological viewpoints. Its plethora of customs, philosophical systems, and regional traditions embrace diverse ways of understanding the divine, as well as ordering life in this world. Hinduism is the collective wisdom of sages, seekers, gods, and kings accumulated over several thousands of years. In short, it is not monolithic. Hinduism says that people take multiple spiritual paths and reach the same goal: the paths of knowledge, action, devotional worship, and meditation. The Rig Veda, composed over 4,000 years ago, states:

They call him Indra, Mitra, Varua, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmn.

To what is One, sages call by many names they call it Agni, Yama, Mtarivan.

(Rig Veda 1.164.46)

This can be reworked for the modern world and would still be valid under the Hindu perspective: They call him Bhagavan, Allah, Jesus, Buddha, and he is heavenly, shining Krishna. To what is One, sages give many a title Ohrmazd, Ishtar, Zeus, Osiris, Amaterasu. This means:

In the Indian belief, no one religion can have a monopoly on truth. A common Indian metaphor, about blind men and an elephant, tells of how some blind men touch different parts of an elephant, and then compare notes to find that they are in complete disagreement about the shape of the elephant. The analogy, which is with religion, argues that only by putting together the experiences of all the blind men (individual religions) will gain us an approximate understanding of the whole (truth).

In the realm of earthly action, the duty of humans is defined by dharma, a word that is difficult to translate but whose shades of meaning include righteousness, duty, calling, and order. The Mahabharata tells us that dharma is subtle, and as such, doing the right thing in a certain situation is often circumstantial. However, the concept is usually linked to duty. To do ones dharma is to do ones duty to the utmost, which is why suggestions by some Republicans that Hinduism doesnt align with the constitutional foundation of the U.S. government, or that Hinduism is a false faith with false gods, are deeply problematic to the Hindu community. Observant Hindus dont necessarily agree with the secular, materialistic worldview that characterizes many on the left, but they see the Democratic Party as less hostile to the Hindu tradition than the Republican Party.

Two prominent Indian-Americans, Bobby Jindal, former governor of Louisiana, and Nikki Haley, former governor of South Carolina, are both converts from their respective religions (Hinduism and Sikhism) to Christianity and are thus not really strong advocates for Indian religions. Bobby Jindal in particular has acquired a reputation for trying to disassociate himself from his roots. Because of the nature of Hinduism, it is difficult for many Hindus to understand why someone would want to leave the religion. Most Hindus do not appreciate Christian evangelization because Indian identity is strongly linked to religion (relative to say, Chinese identity, which is more ethnic and linguistic).

On the other hand, there are four Hindus in Congress, all of whom are Democrats. Hindu-Americans have an especially strong advocate in U.S. Rep.Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii). She was the first Hindu-American elected to Congress, and has since been a staunch champion and advocate of Hindu causes. She was instrumental in bringing Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the United States.

Hinduism is already an eclectic tradition; American Hinduism is even more so. Many young second or third generation Hindus also identify primarily as Hindu, although in a different way than first generation immigrants. Older Hindus are more ritualistic and temple-oriented. Younger Hindus, particularly those born in the United States, either see their Hinduism as more of a tribal badge and are cultural Hindus or are more interested in Hinduism as a philosophy, or a collection of metaphorical lessonsan interest they often discover through their own study of ancient Hindu texts with universal application, including the Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, Ramayana, and Mahabharata. This newer Hinduism is in contrast to a more traditional and conservative Hinduism, which is often a reflection of factors specific to pre-modern Indian culture and history, and more influenced by later Hindu literature, the shastras (codebooks relating to rules and conduct) and puranas (traditional lore and myths). This individualistic, non-institutional approach resembles the spiritual but not religious approach toward religion often adopted by individuals less in tune with their religious traditions; in other words, people who are non-conservative in their attitude toward religion.

If religious issues are taken out of the picture, it would seem that Hindu-Americans potentially have a lot in common with a more conservative worldview. Affirmative action and higher taxes both hurt Hindu-American communities. Most Hindu-Americans are well-educated, legal immigrants who have waited their turn to enter the United States. Additionally, some Hindu-Americans are not favorably disposed toward Muslim immigration due to centuries-old tensions between Hindus and Muslims in South Asia. Yet Hindu-Americans lean toward Democrats on many non-religious issues as well.

On the topics of immigration and civil rights, because most Hindu-Americans are Indian-Americansa minority in the United States whose descendants were once subject to British colonialismcombating racism (real or perceived) is particularly important to Hindu-Americans. Hindus and Muslims are, so to say, on the same side in the United States, as they might not be distinguishable to the European-American population. This predisposition for racial grievance among Indians can be taken to absurd lengths by second-generation Hindus (and Indians), many of whom drinkup the more extreme kool-aid of identity politics on college campuses. Because of the perception that the Democratic Party is more friendly toward immigrants, civil rights, and non-Western cultures, many Hindus support the party en masse in a tribalistic manner. On a related note, Hindu-Americans also want more legal, educated immigration for their kinfolk back in India; any scheme to curb H-1B visas is met with hostility on the part of the Hindu-American community, particularly because they contend that allowing more Indians into the country would be to the advantage of the United States.

The support of most Hindu-Americans for the Democratic Party in the United States is not necessarily tied to support for left-wing or right-wing politics in the American sense. Many Hindu Democratic voters in the United States are also strong supporters of the right-wing, Hindu-nationalist party currently in power in India, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The partys name means the Indian Peoples Party. Yet conservatism in the Indian sense is not particularly related to the American classical liberal tradition of individualism and small-government, although the right in India is generally more business-friendly than the left. The guiding philosophy of the BJP is Integral Humanism, an ideology that sees humans as both spiritual and material beings and seeks a compromise between capitalism and socialism. This philosophy resembles theories of Catholic economics and the One-Nation conservatism found in Britain that views society as organic and values paternalism and pragmatism; in the United States, some Republicans such as Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower had similar views. Very few Hindu-Americans, including business-friendly and socially conservative ones, identity with the Republican orthodoxy that emphasizes cutting taxes and services and reducing the size of government. It is an alien ideology to the Indian tradition, despite Indians being the single wealthiest Asian-American group in the United States in terms of median income.

In the Indian tradition, it has long been assumed that the well-off must assist with uplifting the poor, who would otherwise be incapable of doing so on their own. Perhaps this is because Indian society was inherently biased against individuals working their way up. According to the Hindu epic, the Mahabharata, one of the prime duties of kings is government-sanctioned charity. More communitarian views of society (reflected by governance) are common in Asian cultures relative to Western societies. India has traditionally functioned as an interconnected society of villagers and peasants. Rice agriculture is an intensely cooperative activity. According to research in Science magazine, rice-growing societies are less likely be individualistic. As Thomas Talhelm, who led the study, explained: Families have to flood and drain their field at the same timeSo there are punishments for being too individualistic. He also noted that rice paddies require irrigation systems: That cost falls on the village, not just one familyso villages have to figure out a way to coordinate and pay for and maintain this system. It makes people cooperate. As such, an individuals or a familys self-interest has limited relevance in understanding Hindu-American political leanings.

Just as in the United Kingdom, the Conservatives recently beat Labour among Hindu and Sikh voters, Hindu-Americans current leanings toward the Democratic Party could change in the coming decades. The Republican party is becoming more economically populist and may become more influenced by Catholic notions of distributism. These trends could make the Republican Party more like the British Tories. In this scenario, more minorities might embrace the Republican Party.

Akhilesh Pillalamarri is an editorial assistant at The American Conservative. He also writes for The National Interest and The Diplomat. He is part of the Hindu-American community.

View original post here:
Hindu-Americans Don't Vote Republican - The American Conservative

Democratic governance and human rights are critical components of sustainable development and lasting peace. Countries that have ineffective government institutions, rampant corruption and weak rule of law have a 30-to-45 percent higher risk of civil war and higher risk of extreme criminal violence than other developing countries.

To help change this narrative, we are integrating democracy programming throughout our core development work, focusing on strengthening and promoting human rights, accountable and transparent governance, and an independent and politically active civil society across all our work. At the same time, we remain committed to fundamental democratic empowerment activities, including supporting free and fair elections, up-to-date technology for new and traditional media, as well as the rule of law.

By helping societies protect the basic rights of citizens, we prevent conflict, spur economic growth and advance human dignity. Countries with democratic freedoms are more just, peaceful and stable-and their citizens can fulfill their potential. Through its democracy, human rights and governance programs, the United States remains committed to protecting and advancing our most cherished values.

To advance these goals, we launched the new Center of Excellence on Democracy, Human Rights and Governance in 2012. The Center provides technical advice and support to USAID missions implementing programs in democracy, human rights and governance; generates and disseminates knowledge to build the evidence base for global advancement in the area; and elevates the role of DRG in key USAID, U.S. Government, and multilateral strategies.

Since the Elections and Political Processes (EPP) Fund was established in 2006, we have provided critical support to 80 countries or sub-regions, 26 of which were for unanticipated electoral and political processes needs, including snap elections in Molvoda, Serbia, and Yemen.

Since 2011, the Human Rights Grants Program has addressed the most urgent Human Rights challenges in 89 different countries. This includes C-TIP programming in Peru, programming for Indigenous Peoples in Paraguay, Genocide education in Cambodia, migrant rights programming in Macedonia, and womens empowerment programming in Sudan.

Launched in 2016, the five-year Global Labor Program promotes labor rights and access to justice for workers. The program supports country programs in Cambodia, Bangladesh, Burma, Ukraine, Morocco, South Africa, Colombia, Mexico and regional programs in Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Southern Africa and Latin America that cover activities in 31 countries. Through its union partners the program directly reaches tens of thousands of workers annually, inclusive of vulnerable populations, including women.

The Disability Rights and Inclusive Development program, which provides financial and technical assistance across the Agency, promotes the inclusion of persons with disabilities in USAID programs and builds the capacity of local disabled peoples organizations. In FY 2015 alone, the DRG Center strengthened the capacity of over 2,000 local organizations that work to support vulnerable populations.

Continue reading here:
Democracy, Human Rights and Governance | U.S. Agency for ...

Today, we hear increasingly about a crisis of confidence in governments. While the pace of history accelerates, democratic governments often find themselves in a deadlock. Scholars now consider a growing percentage of countries to be failed democracies.

The progress of democracy in our world is fundamentally linked to improving the quality of human life. The promise of democracy is that the citizens themselves know how to achieve such progress in the best possible way. If that promise is met with disappointment, then democracy is in danger. But what can we say about why democratic systems often fall short in their efforts to improve the quality of the lives of their people?

There are four elements that could help strengthen democracys effectiveness in meeting this central challenge: improved constitutional understanding, an independent and pluralistic media, the potential of civil society and a genuine democratic ethic.

The current challenges to governance should be seen less as problems of democracy and more as problems of constitutionality. But constitutional revision especially in developing countries is not an easy undertaking. One problem involves the poor understanding of comparative government systems. This subject is not part of most curricula. In developing and developed countries alike, the media rarely explains the logic or the options of constitutional change. Even when a referendum is held to validate such change, most people are neither prepared nor willing to express a considered judgement. The result is that the governments in power often have an open field. As a result, the first step to improve democratic governance is a better public understanding of constitutional principles.

It is easy to say that we want a government of, by and for the people and governments should be servants of the people and ultimately responsible to them. But this does not mean that most governmental decisions must be made by an enormous range of far-flung participants: by vast plebiscites, popular referenda, public opinion polling or the number of hits on a blog. Such misapplied versions of democracy can produce irrational leadership choices and poorly informed policies.

Sometimes efforts to impose simplistic popular democracy can create voids of governance, which can be exploited to dangerous ends and one can see this in various countries in the developing world. But then, who should make various governmental decisions? A simple response would emphasise the idea of balanced authority, including the concept of healthy federalism. For increasingly diverse societies, a constitution that divides and balances power is essential.

In discussing constitutional challenges, it is impossible to ignore the recent revival or creation of new theocratic political parties in the Muslim world. The question involves how theocratic principles of governance can operate constitutionally in increasingly secular political environments. It seems essential that such principles should be regularly tested by the electoral process if only so that the Muslim world can have a better understanding of the secularisation processes, which are inherent to democracy. And democratic principles, in turn, must respect the broad diversity of faiths and cultures.

Finding the right constitutional balance is no easy matter and we can make a grave mistake if we think that one size can somehow fit all. Effective constitutions must be adapted to a variety of cultural and demographic realities. But it can be done. One recent example is that of Tunisia, where after intense and arduous negotiation, a promising new constitution received broad public support. The central point is that we cannot build better democratic performance over time without a better understanding of constitutional values.

A second key variable for enhancing democratic effectiveness is the critical role of competent and independent media voices. We often forget that democracy in Ancient Greece required a highly compact community living within the sound of a criers voice, as Aristotle said. Under such conditions, face-to-face dialogue could foster a sense of trust and political accommodation. But these ideal conditions are now only rarely obtained. Populations are much larger, more widely scattered and far more diverse. They can most easily be mobilised around vivid but superficial symbols and negative propositions. Often what counts most in our extended societies is not what one is for, but whom one is against. In such circumstances, polarisation and an impasse are constant risks.

Nor can we rely on advancements in communication technologies to overcome the obstacles of distance and diversity. In fact, new media technologies have often made matters worse. From the development of written language and the invention of printing to the development of electronic and digital media, quantitative advancements in communication technologies have not necessarily produced qualitative progress through mutual understanding.

To be sure, each improvement in communication technology has triggered new waves of political optimism. But, sadly, if information can be shared more easily as technology advances, so can misinformation and disinformation. If truth can spread more quickly and more widely, then so can error and falsehood. Throughout history, the same tools the printing press, the telegraph, the microphone, the television camera, the cell phone, the internet that promised to bring us together have also been used to drive us apart.

The age-old promise of democracy is that social cohesion and public progress could be achieved through consensus rather than coercion. But genuine democratic consent depends on dependable public information. The danger in the age of the mass media is that information also can be misused to manipulate people. All around the world, authoritarian rulers increasingly use the media to coerce the consent of the governed. Having said that, our technologies alone will not save us. But they should not ruin us as well. It is not the power of our tools, but how we use them that will determine our future. Among other things, this means prioritising the role of the independent media and, indeed, of a multiplicity of independent voices. Demographic pluralism must be reflected in healthy media pluralism.

At a time of democratic disappointment, we must re-emphasise the immense potential of those non-governmental institutions that we refer to as the civil society. Too often, our thinking is trapped in a false dichotomy. We talk about the public sector and the private sector. But we often undervalue the third sector: civil society.

The civil society is powered by private energies that are committed to the public good. It draws on the ancient, classical link between democracy and the publicly-committed citizen. It includes institutions of education, health, science and research, embracing professional, commercial, labour, ethnic and arts organisations. However, the civil society, if not self-conscious, can also be a source of establishing the hegemony of a dominant ideology, regardless of its democratic value. A self-conscious civil society seeks consensus through genuine consent. It can experiment, adapt and accommodate diversity. It can, in the fullest sense, be of, by and for the people. It can, in the fullest sense, only be a remarkable source of support on the condition that is it sustained, accepted and encouraged by the government.

At the heart of a democratic ethic is a commitment to genuine dialogue to achieve a better quality of life, even across new barriers of distance and diversity. This involves the willingness to give and take, listen and bridge the empathy as well as the ignorance gaps that have so often impeded human progress. It implies a pluralistic readiness to welcome diversity and to see our differences not as difficult burdens but as potential blessings.

The ultimate requirement for any effective democracy is the capacity to compromise. Social order rests either on oppression or accommodation. But we can never find that balancing point where the interests of all parties are recognised unless competing leaders and their diverse followers alike, are committed to finding a common ground. That common ground is the global aspiration for a better quality of life built upon opportunities that will provide genuine hope for the future. Democracy can only survive if it demonstrates across years and across the globe that it is the best way to achieve that goal.

The writer is a freelance columnist based in Islamabad.

Email: [emailprotected]

Go here to see the original:
Making democracy work - The News International

WASHINGTON President Trump has performed a service of sorts to our debate over how the United States views itself and its role in the world.

He has reminded the democratic left and the democratic right note the small d that they share more common ground than they often realize about the importance of democracy, the gifts of modernity and the value of pluralism.

Trump has done this by articulating, fitfully and inconsistently, a dark worldview rooted in nationalism, authoritarianism, discomfort with ethnic and religious differences, and a skepticism about the modern project.

His lack of constancy makes it difficult to judge exactly what he believes. We commonly describe his contradictions as the product of administration power struggles between Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, the populist nationalists, and James Mattis and H.R. McMaster, the representatives of a more conventional approach to foreign policy.

On the days when Trump pledges allegiance to NATO and our allies, we see Defense Secretary Mattis and national security adviser McMaster winning. When he veers off this course, disses our allies and goes in for apocalyptic pronouncements about the state of the world, we declare senior White House aides Bannon and Miller triumphant.

Optimists about Trump insist that the grown-ups, as Mattis and McMaster are often (somewhat obnoxiously) described by the old foreign policy establishment, will eventually limit the damage Trump can cause us. Pessimists point to the occasions when Bannon and Miller prevail.

Trumps European trip, including his meeting with Vladimir Putin, was a high-wire act precisely because of the presidents unpredictability and his allergy to briefing books. For Trump, everything is personal, which means hes subject to being easily played. Foreign leaders know that flattering him is the way to his heart and that his deepest commitments appear to be to his business interests. This approach to Trump has worked rather well so far for the Chinese and the Saudis.

But to the extent that Trump does have a gut instinct about the world, it seems closer to Bannons. The presidents spontaneous outbursts, his Twitter revelations and his reactions to individual foreign leaders point Bannons way.

Trump has spoken with far greater affection about Putin, Saudi princes and the right-wing nationalists now in power in Poland than of democratic pluralists such as Germanys Angela Merkel and Frances Emmanuel Macron. In fact, both Merkel and Macron sound more like post-World War II American presidents than Trump does.

Trumps speech in Poland on Thursday might, in a very limited sense, can be seen as a compromise between the administration factions. The president committed himself to the Western alliance (a win for Mattis and McMaster) but was otherwise gloomy, backward-looking and Manichaean.

The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive, Trump said. Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it? If we fail to defend what our ancestors passed down to us, Trump warned, it will never, ever exist again.

To which one might respond: Yikes! On the whole, Trumps words sounded remarkably similar to Bannons pronouncements in a speech to a traditionalist Catholic group in Rome in 2014. Bannon spoke of a Judeo-Christian West that finds itself in a crisis and confronts a new barbarity that will completely eradicate everything that weve been bequeathed over the last 2,000, 2,500 years.

This dire view should remind the democratic left and the democratic right that while they have disagreed on many things and many aspects of American foreign policy over the last two decades, they share some very deep allegiances. These include a largely positive assessment of what the Enlightenment and the modern world have achieved; a hopeful vision of what could lie before us; a commitment to democratic norms as the basis of our thinking about the kind of world we seek; and a belief that ethnic and religious pluralism are to be celebrated, not feared.

This, in turn, leads to a judgment that alliances with fellow democracies serve us better than pacts with autocratic regimes that cynically tout their devotion to traditional values as a cover for old-fashioned repression and expansionism.

Democrats have many reasons for opposing Trump. But its Republicans who have the power that comes from controlling Congress. Their willingness to stand up to a president of their own party could determine the future of democracy and pluralism. He is, alas, a man whose commitment to these values we have reason to doubt.

More:
EJ Dionne Jr.: Both sides know the power of democracy - La Crosse Tribune

New Zealand is not immune from international trends and cannot afford to be complacent about its democracy, writes Sir Geoffrey Palmer

New Zealand is one of the worlds oldest and most stable democracies, and Kiwis are justifiably proud to live in the first country in the world to adopt universal suffrage.

But we cannot rest on past deeds. In modern times, New Zealands democracy is neither as healthy nor as safe as it could be.

At the last election, more than 700,000 enrolled electors didnt vote. This included more than one-third of under-35s.

A recent survey by Massey University found widespread discontent among voters even those who support the current Government.

About half of those summed up the countrys mood as 'discontented. About half agreed that political leaders are out of touch with the people. About half wanted a complete change of government even though Labour supporters were under-represented in the sample. More than two-thirds thought the system of government was either completely broken or working but needs to change.

These results were mirrored in a recently published Ipsos poll, which found that more than half of those surveyed thought that political parties and politicians didnt care about them.

The Massey research also gave some insights into why voters are discontented and mistrust politicians.

Most were concerned about rising inequality, and in particular about a housing crisis that is locking many young New Zealanders out of home ownership and leaving some with no shelter at all. Health and the environment were also big concerns.

The prominence of the environment is unsurprising at a time when New Zealands waterways are being managed in ways that scarcely reflect Kiwi values and sometimes dont even reflect the law.

In earlier times, these levels of discontentment might have been reflected in lower popular support for the Government. But times have changed, and the political system isnt working as it used to.

What we appear to be seeing particularly from younger people is disconnection from and mistrust of all political parties, and from the entire system of government. Those who feel economically disenfranchised also feel abandoned by politicians and politics.

Voters have little understanding of how New Zealands system of law-making government works, and therefore little understanding of how their input might bring about change.

We have already seen in Brexit, and remarkable election results in the United States, France, and Britain how this discontentment can play out in novel and unexpected ways.

Rather than wait and do nothing, wouldnt it be better to tackle voter discontentment head on?

There are four main reasons for voters switching off from politics.

First, there is a lack of information. Voters have little understanding of how New Zealands system of law-making government works, and therefore little understanding of how their input might bring about change.

This is not surprising: there is no single document a New Zealander can read to find out how New Zealands system of government works, and despite the recommendations of the 2013 Constitutional Advisory Panel very little effort is made to explain how things work. Civics education is limited, and public education almost non-existent.

Second, New Zealanders have largely turned away from political parties. Parties used to have large numbers of members, who had opportunities to debate and discuss the partys policies. This created a very direct link between voters and Parliament.

Now, only a tiny fraction of New Zealanders belong to political parties. Citizen participations has reduced markedly, making the political system less connected to the people.

New Zealand now has cadre parties, and tiny numbers of people in the professional political elites exert the power. This is not the type of representative democracywe once had.

Third, there has been a long and sustained decline in the political media. Newspapers used to carry detailed accounts of parliamentary debates and political issues, and broadcast media used to focus on lengthy current affairs interviews. Media understood their responsibilities to inform the public and hold government to account.

As competition has increased, news media have become more entertainment- and celebrity-focused, and media staffing and resources have become more stretched. Long-form journalism about current affairs has largely disappeared, and parliamentary and political coverage have been reduced to sound-bites, often focusing on the sensational or bizarre. Information and accountability have been sacrificed.

Its true that a vast amount of information is available online, including records of parliamentary debates and select committee hearings. But people do not know what to make of it and cannot devote the time and effort to find out what it all means.

In this transformed media environment, politicians go to great lengths to secure media attention and to control the ways in which they are perceived. Significant taxpayer resources are devoted to managing politicians images and to manipulating media coverage and public opinion. Public disenchantment with political processes might be reduced if less effort was spent on persuasion and more on involving voters in policy decisions.

Long-form journalism about current affairs has largely disappeared, and parliamentary and political coverage have been reduced to sound-bites, often focusing on the sensational or bizarre.

A fourth reason for public disenchantment is the rising influence of money and professional lobby groups. In the absence of mass membership, political parties now rely for funding on donations from trade unions, corporations, and wealthy individuals. In such a situation there are risks that the voice of ordinary people will be drowned out by the interests of those with money.

New Zealand has some safeguards in place to limit third party spending on election campaigns and to promote transparency about political donations. But it is difficult to escape the conclusion that election outcomes depend at least partly on which party has the most money. There is a case for tightening political donationand election spending regulations, and for increasing regulatory oversight of political parties. But how likely are existing parliamentarians to support such measures?

New Zealand needs democratic renewal. This means encouraging civic literacy, so people understand how government works, and how they can have influence. And it means rebuilding trust in the institutions of government, by reconnecting the governors with the governed.

Democracy means more than having a vote every three years. It means having genuine opportunities for informed participation in the business of government, so that laws and policies reflect the wishes of the people.

Internationally, some democratic countries are finding new ways for government to engage with citizens, and involve them in decision-making. In Ireland and Iceland, for example, randomly selected panels of citizens have been involved in drawing up constitutional reforms.

These are efforts at deliberative democracy a democracy that informs its citizens and involves them in decision-making, instead of reserving all power for an elected elite.

One of the principal aims of the codified constitution that Dr Andrew Butler and I have proposed (which we have called A Constitution for Aotearoa New Zealand) is to strengthen understanding of New Zealands system of government, by gathering all of the main laws in one document which people can easily find.

A second aim is to promote discussion and debate. Do you agree that New Zealands democracy could be made stronger? If so, how? What should change?

Tell us your views at http://www.constitutionaotearoa.org.nz/.

Follow this link:
Democracy is in decline, so what can we do? - Newsroom