Mediaboss Marketing

Arab respondents mostly reject the EU brand of formal liberal democracy in which elections are essential, but civil and political rights remain decoupled from unprioritised social and economic rights.

Deputies support ratification of new constitution for Tunisia, January 26, 2014. Demotix/Mohamed Krit. All rights reserved. Findings from the Arab Transformation survey carried out in 2014 in six developing Arab states, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia suggest that the EU assumption of democratisation as a value shared with Arab states is misplaced. Few respondents wanted the EU brand of thin, procedural democracy in which civil and political rights remain decoupled from social and economic rights. Furthermore, few respondents thought the EU had done a good job of facilitating a transition to democracy in their country or had much appetite for EU involvement in the domestic politics of their countries. Few respondents thought the EU had done a good job of facilitating a transition to democracy in their country or had much appetite for EU involvement in the domestic politics of their countries.

The EU, like other western powers, was quick to portray the 2011 uprisings as a popular demand for liberal democracy procedural democracy and political rights. However, while the uprisings were intensely political, a demand for regime change, they were not primarily a demand for democratisation, or at least for the thin definition promoted by the EU.

Protesters were more concerned about social justice, economic security and employment. In response to the uprisings, the EU revised its policies and claimed that it would encourage deep democracy. It also promised to listen to Arab voices. However, analysis of policy documents reveals that the EU model of democracy remained substantively unchanged and did not respond to popular demands for social justice and economic rights.

In particular, it systematically underestimates not only the role of social justice and economic rights in sustaining and deepening democracy but also the importance of inclusive economic development for security. Democracy without inclusive economic growth is not going to prevent conflict in the region. Furthermore, the EU continues to cooperate with authoritarian regimes on democracy and human rights rather than trying to establish the domestic conditions for democratisation.

By 2014, when the Arab Transformations survey took place, out of the six countries covered only Tunisia was on a path to democracy. The economic and social conditions that drove the 2011 uprisings had if anything deteriorated, with high unemployment and worsening social inequalities. While most citizens who were surveyed agreed that democracy as a system may have its problems but is better than other systems, the proportion that strongly agreed with this proposition was much lower as low as 18% in both Tunisia and Iraq.

Meanwhile, a majority disagreed that democracy and Islam were incompatible. There is relatively strong support for the view that there should be a separation between politics and religion, ranging from nearly three quarters in Egypt to 49 per cent in Morocco. However, in Libya, Morocco and Jordan a narrow majority prefer a religious party. And there is considerable variation between the six countries when it comes to the extent that all laws should be based on Sharia, varying from two-thirds of people thinking this should be the case in Libya to just 17 per cent in Tunisia. The surprisingly low support for democracy in Tunisia the one country that has moved from an anocracy to a democracy since 2011 is probably a reflection of both the heightened expectations and fractious reality since the fall of Ben Ali. Democracy without inclusive economic growth is not going to prevent conflict in the region.

However, there is strong support across the region, although somewhat lower in Tunisia, for all family, criminal and property law being based on Sharia. Support is highest in Jordan and Libya, with over 90 per cent of people supporting it for all three types of law. In Iraq over 90 per cent support it for family law and property law and in Egypt and Morocco over 80 per cent ,with between 50 and 60 per cent supporting it for criminal law. Even in Tunisia 78 per cent support Sharia as a basis for inheritance law, 60 per cent for family law and 33 per cent for criminal law. Support for non-Muslims having fewer political rights than Muslims varies across the countries from a high of 50 per cent in Libya to a low of 11 per cent in Egypt; 13 per cent support ths in Iraq, 16 per cent in Tunisia, 20 per cent in Morocco and 42 per cent in Jordan.

The Arab countries do not necessarily want the type of liberal democracy promoted by the EU; people are open to more than one type of government being suitable for their country, and there is relatively strong support for other systems in some countries. This is likely to be at least in part because they have been told for years by authoritarian rulers that they have democracy already because they have the right to vote in elections. Yet few people think that elections are completely free and fair in their country, with the notable exception of Tunisia, and even here only 59 per cent do so.

What, then, do people in the six countries think about when they say that democracy is the best system despite its faults?

Providing for the welfare of citizens - inclusive development, the provision of basic services and full employment - is seen as important by a majority of citizens, varying from nearly two thirds in Morocco to half in Libya. Inclusive growth and the provision of basic services are both seen as important by a sizable minority and full employment is also nominated by a noticeable minority of respondents. In Iraq and Jordan over 40 per cent of citizens think that a democracy fights corruption, as do a noticeable minority in the other countries.

Fig.1. is a useful illustration of similarities and differences between countries when it comes to the question of what is meant by democracy. In none of the six countries do all respondents consider electoral process as something essential to the concept. In the two countries that have been most torn apart by internal and external conflict Iraq and Libya we find a (bare) majority of the population list elections as essential , and the same can be said for political rights. However, in all countries a significant proportion of people include welfare rights as essential characteristics of democracy.

However, in all countries a significant proportion of people include welfare rights as essential characteristics of democracy and they are mentioned more frequently than elections or political rights in all countries with the exception of Libya and very noticeably so in Egypt, Jordan and Motocco. What does emerge quite clearly is that there is no strong demand for procedural democracy as promoted by the EU. In general, Arab citizens are much more concerned about the economic situation, corruption and inequalities, and in the case of Iraq and Libya also security, than they are about authoritarianism. When people in MENA say that democracy is the best system despite its faults or that it is suitable for their country, it is not a political system they have in mind but a way of life. MENA citizens would like to live decent lives in decent societies, with good economic and welfare support and freedom to engage in politics, if they wish to do so, without fear of arrest, assault or social exclusion. The two sides of their image of the decent society are related to each other insofar as lack of resource and access to necessary goods, services and support excludes people from the society of their fellow citizens.

To the extent that European countries, which are democracies of various kinds, are able to offer their citizens decent life-opportunities, they are role models to be copied, but the precise way in which they select their governments is not the most important thing about them.

This has two consequences. The first, already recognised in European policy, is the need to work with non-state civil society organisations as well as with governments. This may entail training the populace in advocacy for their own positions and their critique of government policy, which will not endear Europe to governments, but it is the only way to change values sustainably. The EU can establish common ground with MENA partners by focusing on the main concerns of citizens an economic order that is more just and less corrupt and guarantees socio-economic rights.

When it becomes an issue of EU aid and support, all countries prefer financial aid to create jobs, to train people for them or more generally to support education, health etc. There is little appetite for explicit or direct interference in national policy, and they are not impressed so far by the EUs influence on democratisation.

See the full briefing in The Arab Transformations Policy Briefs. No.1 from the University of Aberdeen.

Read more:
What do people in the Arab countries want? Conceptions of democracy - Open Democracy

On the political journey and legacy of Syed Jamaluddin Naqvi, a pivotal leader of Pakistans leftist politics, who passed away last week

Syed Jamaluddin Naqvi remained a nonconformist till his death last week. Till the 1990s, he was not only raising some basic questions regarding Marxism but had also advised his comrades to strive for civil space in Pakistan.

He must have read the saying If you are not a communist in your 20s, you have no heart but if you remain a communist in your 30s then you have no brain; only in his case, he stayed a communist till the age of 58 in 1990.

In 2007, Jamal Naqvi was in Lahore where he explained his thoughts and change of heart to comrades openly. It was a time when the Lawyers Movement was at its peak and some left-wing intellectuals had declared it a 1968-like situation. Jamal did not agree with this analysis and told us that we had to concentrate on seeking democratic options as well as strengthening of civil space in Pakistan.

It reminded me of the famous Hala Conference (1970) in which many revolutionaries including Mairaj Muhammad Khan had pressurised Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to boycott the elections but the smart ZAB did not listen. Had leftists and nationalists, in and outside the PPP, supported the ZAB government with the goal of strengthening civil space in the 1970s, things would be much different. This was the first democratically-elected government and should have been analysed and interpreted as the first experience in democracy rather than a perfect government.

Since 2008, Pakistan has been confronted with various questions associated with civil space and supremacy of the civilian government among other things. More recently, during the Panama Case, some of our senior leftist friends found some love even for the Joint Investigation Team (JIT). We can check the money trail of politicians only but no one dares talk about the money trail of non-elected elite.

Jamaluddin Naqvi was born in 1932. In his early 20s, he joined communist groups, and formed his own faction (Communist Party of Pakistan) in the first half of 1960s along with Imam Ali Nazish remaining with it till 1990. According to his fellow comrades, he was the sole dictator in the party till late 1970s after which he was imprisoned by General Zia. Along with Nazeer Abbasi, he was arrested on July30, 1980 from Karachi. Only ten days after the arrest, Abbasi was killed in custody on August10. Jamal, however, was released in the mid-1980s.

But the nonconformist Jamal did not limit his options. I too, have many reservations regarding his ideas and politics. I met him many times and talked about my reservations but one thing that I can credit Jamal with is his ability not to remain silent when it came to his politics.

In the late 1970s, Jamal started losing the grip over his party, partly due to young Turks and also due to the influence of Afghan politics. This revolt within his party may have compelled Jamal to revisit his politics and ideology. So after spending 38 years with communist politics, in 1990 in a party congress, along with comrade Ramzan, he proposed open politics and rejected underground politics. He was defeated not only by his comrades but also by his time-tested friend Imam Ali Nazish. But he did not falter from this position at all.

From 1990 onwards till his death, he developed alternative thoughts and solutions, recorded interviews and wrote books. Like senior comrade C.R. Aslam, he openly supported globalisation. His book Leaving the Left Behind that was published in 2014 was discussed a lot among the progressive circles.

According to him, both Russia and China had changed their old ideological positions: the USSR accepted this openly but the Chinese did it without announcing it. They even called it socialist capitalism. In fact, both Russians and Chinese used state capitalism and successfully transformed their societies.

After the end of the Cold War, separatist movements had no scope at all. Classes are there and so is class struggle; yet in the last 100 years many new classes have emerged and we have to acknowledge it. In the past, due to our overemphasis on labourers and peasants we had ignored lowest classes like dalits, musalihs etc, it was a big mistake.

Imperialism and colonialism were a part and parcel of world politics but due to the Cold War, we failed to understand it. In the post-Cold War era, we cannot rely on an old definition of imperialism.

Labour is among the various factors in value-addition so it is essential to reconsider the theory of surplus value.

Democracy is the only solution we have. There is no alternative to it. It does not mean that I am rejecting class struggle. We have to raise the issues of lower classes, but without strengthening the civil space in Pakistan we cannot help lower classes at all. Participation of citizens in decision-making processes will strengthen the lower classes role and leftists can play their role as a catalyst.

Strengthening of the prime ministers office will increase civil space in Pakistan.

Big and small provinces and nationalities is a hard fact. We can neither expand Balochistan population nor reduce that of the Punjab. Artificial solutions like parity proved fatal in the past so federating units should resolve the disparities with consensus. But if we have a strong civil space than we can resolve it too.

Civil space will increase in Pakistan gradually and every new PM will demand more. It is the prime contradiction in Pakistan.

We should not oppose US and the West in a way to strengthen religious fundamentalists.

Jamal recorded these thoughts in 2007 and remained loyal to these ideas. Unlike his comrades, he raised some fundamental questions regarding Marxism that turned many of his friends against him. A baseless campaign was launched against him by his fellow comrades. But having spent 38 years with the movement, he had every right to follow his intellectual pursuits.

As part of the campaign, books were written just to accuse him of betraying the party during the Zia era. His commitment was challenged by those who were his blind followers in the past and had never questioned his authoritarianism in party for once. Had he kept himself from challenging the basic principles of Marxism like many of his contemporaries and remained silent on the past politics, he would not have faced such a reaction. I can give many examples of many progressive people who did group politics for many years and left due to various political and personal reasons but neither did they register their grievances nor they put these in writing. Some of them joined NGOs, others went into journalism; yet they did not pen what they had experienced in the leftist politics.

But the nonconformist Jamal did not limit his options. I too, have many reservations regarding his ideas and politics. I met him many times and talked about my reservations but one thing that I can credit Jamal with is his ability not to remain silent when it came to his politics.

In a meeting in Lahore a few years back, he advised his comrades either to join the PPP or PML-N. All remained silent except his daughter who said, Baba, aap satheyaa gaye hain kya? (Father, have you lost your mind?). He smiled his trademark smile and said, I said what I think is right.

Well-played, Jamaluddin Naqvi!

(He passed away on August 3, 2017)

Read the original post:
From communism to democracy and civil space - The News on Sunday

Bernie Sanders stands at the podium on stage during a walk through before the start of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on July 25, 2016. (Photo: SS)

Back in June, Iwrote about the bizarre allure of socialismand said that advocates (who generally dont even know what socialism really means) were some of the most anti-empirical people in the world.

even though the real-world evidence against big government is so strong, its rather baffling thatmany young peopleare drawn to thatcoercive ideologyand disturbing thata non-trivial number of votersfavor this failed form of statism.Socialism hasa technical definitioninvolving government ownership of the means of production and central planning of the economy. But most people today think socialism is big government, with business still privately owned but with lots of redistribution and intervention (Ive argued, for instance, that evenBernie Sanders isnt a real socialist, and that there arebig differencesbetween countries like Sweden, China, and North Korea). For what its worth, thats actually closer to thetechnical definition of fascism.

Now lets update that column.

It seems that the cancer of socialism is spreading, at least ifthis storyinThe Weekis any indication.

Things are looking up for the Democratic Socialists of America. With a membership of 25,000, it is now the largest socialist group in America since the Second World War. And last weekend in Chicago, it held its largest convention, by a considerable margin, in its history. Membership has more than tripled in a year, gaining a large boost from the candidacy of Bernie Sanders That sharp surge in new recruits most of whom are fairly young has created a fairly stark age bifurcation among members. Somewhat akin to Sanders campaign, there is an old guard of people who have been carrying the left-wing torch for years, and a recent surge of new membersmost of the major proposals were adopted with large majorities. Among other things, delegates voted toendorse the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (directed at ending the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza), and to endorse Medicare for all as a major priority.

Im guessing that the bifurcated conference meant a handful of old people who are genuine socialists and a bunch of young people who think socialism is just a bunch of government-coerced redistribution and intervention.

Both groups, however, deserve scorn for favoring a system that elevates the state over individuals. That approach is grossly immoral.

Not to mention that its never worked. Nobody has ever provided a good answer tomy two-part challenge.

There is no example of a successful socialist nation anywhere in the world. Cuba?No. North Korea?No. The Soviet Empire?Dont make me laugh. Venezuela?You must be joking.

Denmark or Sweden? Umm, theyrenot socialist, though their economies have beenhurt by excessive redistribution. Greece?Give me a break.

I could continue, but no sense beating a dead horse.

See the original post:
The Bizarre Allure of Socialism, Part II | People's Pundit Daily - People's Pundit Daily

Venezuelas self-destruction has embarrassed more celebrities than hasNational Enquirer. Our glitteratis favorite socialist paradise has, like so many similar experiments, become a murderous den of oppression and privation, and none will speak on its behalf. However, Venezuelas collapse has dashed fantasies far older and more sincere than Sean Penns.

Hugo Chvezs election in Venezuela realized a dream that festered in left-wing hearts for decades: a revolutionary socialist regime, with the sovereignty and resources to fulfill decades worth of pledges from left-wing populist leaders in Latin America. During the Cold War, dictators who gained and maintained power through coup dtat and state terror, often abetted by the U.S. government, frequently thwarted such movements. The depth of evil these dictators reached and the misery they created are not to be understated. They undermined the case for capitalism and American power as positive forces in the world, giving defenders of socialism the world over something to point at and say, But what about?

Men like Chvez were cast as the antidote. His triumph was a rebuke not only of Venezuelas own ancien rgime, but also of Pinochet, Rios Montt, and the rest of the Latin American tinpot rogues gallery. He was to avenge the sufferings of Oscar Romero and Rigoberta Mench, fulfill the stolen potential of Jacobo rbenz and Salvador Allende, and improve on the flawed, illiberal experiments of Fidel Castro and the Sandinistas. The constraints on civil liberties that undergirded his power were necessary evils to ward off the authoritarian specter.

We were told Central and South American nations would never choose to adopt free markets to the same extent as their individualistic northern counterpart. With communitarian traditions rooted in its Catholicism and indigenous heritage, Latin America would embrace democratic socialism. I remember sitting in college classes and learning about how Chvez and similar, though less violent populists such as Ecuadors Rafael Correa, Bolivias Evo Morales, and Brazils Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff were forging hope by harnessing popular energy into governments that would direct economies toward social justice.

Fissures are forming for each of these regimes. Morales, in defiance of the constitution and a popular referendum, is moving to abrogate term limits for his office; Correas successors are locked in a battle over corruption that has left the government in chaos; da Silva is entering his sixth corruption trial; and Rousseff has been impeached. But it is Venezuela, the nation Chvez and his successor Nicols Maduro have led into fire and ruin, which fully captures just how fatal are the conceits of democratic socialism in Latin America.

The terror and repression Chavismo swore to deposit in the dustbin of history have reemerged in its defense, with hit squads intimidating and massacring dissidents while Maduro swats down checks on his power. The equality it promised exists only in the cruelest of terms: equality of want, equality of desperation, equality of misery. A country endowed with bountiful resources has spent and collectivized its way into such abject poverty that it cannot provide its people with food and toilet paper.

Chvezs personal legacy retains some of its man-of-the-people sheen in some circles, since his Bolivarian regime reached its tipping point under his less inspiring successor and his erstwhile defenders are still ready to make idiots of themselves for him. Nevertheless, his countrys collapse is the fruit of the state-led development path he set out on.

Endowed with massive oil reserves, Venezuela had periodically suffered from Dutch disease since it nationalized petroleum production in the 1970s, with its state-run enterprises engaging in corruption on a massive scale and becoming symbols of injustice as other sectors crumbled around them. Chvez promised to direct these companies profits toward social and political revolution, funding public works and alleviating poverty. He would be the anti-Pinochet, ending Venezuelas existence as a fount of resources for the West and directing its economy toward the common good.

Hugo Chvez, however, proved himself far less interested in the collective than in Hugo Chvez. His management of the oil industry quickly became geared toward preserving his power, as he dismissed vital and experienced workers for political reasons and diverted resources away from innovation to fund image-burnishing social programs. At the height of oil price spikes in the mid-to-late 2000s, this worked for Chvez, and even as his governing style became more and more oppressive his sympathizers saw him as a hero. The curtain started pulling back when oil prices fell, and now bureaucratic mismanagement has run the Venezuelan oil industry into the ground, and the dependence they fostered has brought the entire economy down with it.

Today, the government that swore to empower its people tortures artists and activists. Quality of life evaporates as mortality rates rise, jobs disappear, and basic utilities like power and water become unavailable. Initiatives to provide everyday necessities for poor neighbors get people jailed for hoarding. Basic governance becomes impossible as a carousel of suspected rivalsmost recently attorney general Luisa Ortega, who was removed last weekendare purged, leaving Maduro a gaggle of sycophants for him to fiddle with as the country burns.

For advocates of freer markets and smaller governments, this failure was predictable: even an economic culture with communitarian impulses is more likely to flourish within a framework of liberty, and there is no man or group of men smart enough to build a healthy economy on the management of a single resource. Despite this, Venezuelas death spiral has blindsided the Left and, tragically, its own people, who were sold one of the oldest lies in history: hand awesome power to one man and he will in turn empower all.

A funny thing about that man Pinochet: while his terroristic rule earned him a much-deserved reputation as a monster, the free-market policies he implemented became the undoing of his tyranny. Chile became wealthy enough for its people to organize a political opposition that ousted him, and it has since become a stable, functioning democracy.

Capitalism helped Chile go from a poor dictatorship to a prosperous democracy; socialism has turned Venezuela from a prosperous democracy to a poor dictatorship. Democratic socialism in Venezuela, and throughout Latin America, promised to bring an end to oppression and poverty, but now the falseness of that promise has been laid bare for the world to see.

Matt Boomer is a technology and business analytics consultant living in Dallas, Texas. He studied political science, history, and business economics at the University of Notre Dame.

Read more:
Venezuela's Descent Into Chaos Buries The Left's Hopes Of 'Good Socialism' - The Federalist

Robert Robb, The Arizona Republic Opinion Published 6:00 a.m. ET Aug. 11, 2017 | Updated 7:55 a.m. ET Aug. 11, 2017

In Caracas, Venezuela(Photo: Ronaldo Schemidt)

Venezuela offers an excellent illustration of how the U.S. compulsion tointervene in all the worlds trouble spotsoften strategically backfires.

The country is providing a timely lesson about how socialism wrecks an economy and how true socialism has a tendency to suffocate democracy as well.

These truths were masked during Hugo Chvezs time by sky-high oil prices. The state-owned oil company Petrleos de Venezuela or PDVSA spun off sufficient revenue to pay for his domestic infrastructure and welfare programs.

More: Sen. Jeff Flake's new book draws the line between Trumpism and conservatism

More: We're lucky Trump is clueless about foreign policy: Robert Robb

But politicization of PDVSAs management has resulted in a sharp reduction in oil production. And the deep drop in oil prices has robbed his successor, Nicols Maduro, of the lucre to maintain the mask.

Under Maduro, the state has taken over increasing portions of the economy. Today, the army has become the nations grocer.

The country has suffered hyperinflation, currently estimated at 700%annually, for several years now.

The government has racked up sovereign debt it cannot repay. A default is imminent.

The people of Venezuela have clearly had enough. An opposition Congress was elected. But a regime-controlled court emasculated it. Maduroorchestrated a facade of an electionfor a Constituent Assembly to usurp it. The Constituent Assembly is looking like the worst of the French Revolution, without the beheadings.

But there are jailings and shootings of political opponents. The Constituent Assembly dutifully voted to sack the countrys attorney general, a devoutchavistawho couldnt stomach Maduros debauching of the countrys democratic processes. She escaped a hostile cordon on the back of a motorbike.

More: Shaky Trump team isn't ready for North Korea nuclear crisis

POLICING THE USA: A look atrace, justice, media

The claim by Maduro and the security forces of thechavistaregime is that all the countrys woes are the result of sabotage by the United States.

That, of course, is preposterous. Yet the United States keeps doing things that give the claim some semblance of credibility.

In 2014, Congress passed a bill permitting sanctions to be imposed, supposedly in defense of Venezuelan human rights and civil society. In 2015, the Obama administration imposed sanctions on a handful of government officials. Their U.S. assets, to the extent they had any, were frozen. They were forbidden from traveling to the United States, and U.S. persons were forbidden to do business with them.

The Trump administrationextended the sanctionsto another handful, including Maduro himself.Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has muttered about the desirability of regime change, which plays directly into Maduros domestic playbook.

And, in the usual neoconservative circles, there are calls for the U.S. to do even more to put pressure on the Maduro government. The big gun supposedly would be banning PDVSAs oil imports into the United States. The Trump administration is reportedly mulling the big gun.

Roughly 40%of PDVSAs exports are to the United States. While other buyers could probably be found, the disruption would be, it is claimed, a staggering blow that might topple the Maduro government and neuter thechavistasecurity forces that prop it up.

Now, Venezuela isof little direct security interestto the United States. Other than having to endure bombastic speeches by Chvez at the United Nations, the turmoil in Venezuela hasnt significantly affected us. Nor will it.

What happens next in Venezuela is impossible to project. But the notion that the United States can steer events in a productive direction by high-minded pronouncements or carefully calibrated sanctions is hubris.

All we can do for sure is get in the way and blur the lessons for the people of Venezuela and around the world. If the United States tries to punish or topple the Maduro government, then it cannot cleanly be proclaimed that it failed of its own accord. The inability of true socialism to produce economic wellbeing, and the threat it poses to democratic governance, will not be as transparently illustrated.

The United States does have a general strategic interest in the establishment and maintenance of democratic capitalism in Latin America. And the American people have a heart for the suffering of the people of Venezuela.

Individuals can act on that heart bycontributing to relief efforts. The United States government, however, serves best by trying to stay out of the story.

Robert Robb is a columnist for The Arizona Republic, where this piece wasfirst published.

You can read diverse opinions from ourBoard of Contributorsand other writers on theOpinion front page, on Twitter@USATOpinionand in our dailyOpinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com.

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2wOjyMt

View post:
What the US government should do about Venezuela: Nothing - USA TODAY