Mediaboss Marketing

Democracy is a core value of the United Nations. The UN supports democracy by promoting human rights, development, and peace and security. In the 75 years since the UN Charter was signed, the UN has done more to support democracy around the world than any other global organization. The UN promotes good governance, monitors elections, supports the civil society to strengthen democratic institutions and accountability, ensures self-determination in decolonized countries, and assists in the drafting of new constitutions in post-conflict nations.

United Nations activities in support of democracy are carried out through the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Democracy Fund (UNDEF), the Department of Peace Operations (DPO), the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (DPPA), the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR),and the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women), among others.

When the founders of the United Nations drafted theUnited Nations Charter, they did not mention the word democracy. In 1945, many of the UN Member States did not endorse democracy as a system, or didnt practice it. Yet, the opening words of the Charter, We the Peoples, reflect the fundamental principle of democracy - that the will of the people is the source of legitimacy of sovereign states and, therefore, of the United Nations as a whole.

The UN does not advocate for a specific model of government but promotes democratic governance as a set of values and principles that should be followed for greater participation, equality, security and human development. Democracy provides an environment that respects human rights and fundamental freedoms, and in which the freely expressed will of people is exercised. People have a say in decisions and can hold decision-makers to account. Women and men have equal rights and all people are free from discrimination.

These values are embodied in theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights. It projects the concept of democracy by stating the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rightsdevelops them even further and lays down the legal basis for the principles of democracy in international law. It covers, for instance, freedom of expression, the right of peaceful assembly, and the right to freedom of association with others. TheConvention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Womenstipulates that its 189 contracting parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that women can vote and stand for elections, and participate in public life and decision-making, including at the international level.

Since 1988, theGeneral Assemblyhas adopted at least one resolution annually dealing with some aspect of democracy. In 2015, world leaders committed in the2030 Agenda for Sustainable Developmentto a world in which democracy, good governance and the rule of law as well as an enabling environment at national and international levels, are essential for sustainable development. The Agenda reaffirmed commitments that were made earlier at theWorld Summitin 2005 and in theMillennium Declaration.

The values of freedom, respect for human rights and the principle of holding periodic and genuine elections by universal suffrage are essential elements of democracy. In turn, democracy provides an environment for the protection and effective realization of human rights.

For several years, the UN General Assembly and the former Commission on Human Rights endeavoured to draw on international human rights instruments to promote a common understanding of the principles and values of democracy. As a result, in 2000, the Commission recommended a series of legislative, institutional and practical measures to consolidate democracy. Moreover, in 2002, the Commission declared the following as essential elements of democracy:

Since its establishment in 2006, theHuman Rights Council(successor to the Commission) has adopted several resolutions highlighting the interdependent and mutually reinforcing relationship between democracy and human rights. Recent examples include resolutions19/36and28/14on Human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

Democracy deficits, weak institutions and poor governance impose persistent challenges. The OHCHR and UNDP address these challenges through their advisory services and programmes. In transitional democracies and countries emerging from conflict, OHCHR assists to build strong and independent judiciary systems, parliaments, human rights institutions, and vibrant civil societies. UNDP assists governments in strengthening their public institutions, to help countries fight corruption and support inclusive participation to ensure that no one is left behind. Every year, UNDP invests, on average, US$565 million to support inclusive governance and development at the local level.

OHCHR collaborates with national governments and other actors to rebuild public confidence and restore peace and the rule of law in post-conflict nations and transitional democracies. OHCHR has actively supported transitional justice programmes in more than 20 countries around the world over the past 15 years. OHCHR tries to ensure that human rights and transitional justice considerations are reflected in peace agreements and it supports the establishment of truth-seeking processes, judicial accountability mechanisms, and reparations programmes.

OHCHR works to guide national and regional efforts and to facilitate the discussion on democracy and human rights. In 2012, the Human Rights Council adopted aresolutiontitled Human rights, democracy and the rule of law, which reaffirmed that democracy, development and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms were interdependent and mutually reinforcing. Further, OHCHR published astudyon challenges, lessons learned and best practices in securing democracy and the rule of law from a human rights perspective, and also organized a panel discussion on these issues.

In 2015, the Human Rights Council adopted resolution 28/14, which established aforum on human rights, democracy and the rule of law, to provide a platform for promoting dialogue and cooperation on issues pertaining to these areas. OHCHR also works to underline the close relationship between human rights and democracy within the United Nations system and partners with democracy-promoting organizations such as lOrganisation Internationale de la Francophonie, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

The UN is a trusted impartial actor providing electoral assistance to approximately 60 countries each year, either at the request of Member States or based on a Security Council or General Assembly mandate. The assistance includes advisory services, logistics, training, civic education, computer applications and short-term observation. The UN also strives to build capacity regarding the overall political environment. This involves working with voters, the media, political parties, civil society, as well as the parliament and the judiciary.

The electoral assistance helps Member States to hold periodic, inclusive, transparent and credible elections and to establish nationally sustainable electoral processes. UN electoral assistance has been a crucial and successful component in peacekeeping, peacebuilding, and in establishing and deepening democratic governance.

The electoral assistance involves several programmes, funds, agencies and departments. TheUnder-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairsis the UN Focal Point for Electoral Assistance. TheElectoral Assistance Divisionwithin the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (DPPA) assesses electoral needs, develops electoral policy, and maintains institutional memory. TheUnited Nations Development Programme(UNDP) provides technical assistance, and fosters the participation of women, the youth and other underrepresented groups in elections. It also coordinates donor support. In peacekeeping or post-conflict environments, military and police components of peacekeeping missions support national law enforcement agencies in securing elections. The UN also partners with other regional, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations involved in electoral assistance.

TheUnited Nations Democracy Fund(UNDEF) funds projects that empower civil society, promote human rights, and encourage the participation of all groups in democratic processes. Currently, for example, UNDEF finances projects to mobilize the youth for elections in Cte d'Ivoire, to engage men in promoting gender equality in Palestine, and to build a platform for citizen advocacy in elections in Brazil. Most of UNDEF funds go to local civil society organizations in countries in both the transition and consolidation phases of democratisation.

Since its creation in 2005, UNDEF has supported more than 800 projects in more than 130 countries, with a total amount of almost 210 million dollars. Applicants can request a grant between 100,000 US dollars and 300,000 US dollars. The Fund depends entirely on voluntary contributions from Member States. So far, it has been supported by over 40 Governments. Thebiggest donorsare the United States and India. External evaluations of completed projects are available on theUNDEF website.

Democracy needs women to be truly democratic, and women need democracy if they are to change the systems and laws that exclude them. The role of women in democratic processes is emphasized in theConvention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Womenand in the2011 General Assembly resolution on Womens Political Participation.

Despite these normative advances, and as universal as these goals are, they nevertheless remain elusive for many women. Progress has been too slow in increasing numbers of women in representative. In 2021, just 25 per cent of national parliamentarians were women, a slow increase from 14 per cent in 2000. Women are also poorly represented in local decision-making bodies, whether as mayors or local council members. Political parties and electoral commissions often lack the capacity to ensure that womens interests are articulated and addressed.

The UN supports women's political participation. In July 2010, the UN General Assembly createdUN Women, mandated to coordinate the gender mainstreaming work of the UN System. In doing so, UN Member States took a historic step in accelerating the Organizations goals on gender equality and the empowerment of women. The UNs approach to support womens effective political participation is to make local and national elections free and fair for women, to support womens civil society organizations, to build accountability for womens rights in public institutions, and to support women political leaders.

More than forty percent of the global population is younger than 25. The youth faces huge challenges, such as climate change, unemployment, inequalities and exclusion. Many migrate in response. Meanwhile, young people connect and give voice to issues that matter. They use new media to fight injustice, discrimination, and human rights abuses; and take action for what they believe in. Young people also have an eloquent voice that resonates deeply with their own generation from Malala Yousafzai on the universal right to education, to Greta Thunberg on leading the fight against climate change.

The Secretary-General made working with and for young people one of his top priorities. He appointed the first Secretary-General's Envoy on Youth, mandated with the task of developing a UN Youth Strategy. The UN General Assembly in March 2015 adopted Education for Democracy, a resolution encouraging all UN entities to use education to promote peace, human rights, and democracy. The resolution encourages Member States to integrate education for democracy into their education standards.

DESAsWorld Youth Reportaddresses key areas of youth development around the world. Another platform for the youth is theECOSOC Youth Forum, where young people can voice their needs and concerns through informal dialogue with other stakeholders. The Forum represents the most institutionalized venue for youth participation in UN deliberations and is an important vehicle to mobilize young people for implementing the 2030 Agenda.

The General Assembly proclaimed 15 September as theInternational Day of Democracy. The observance provides an opportunity to review the state of democracy in the world. Only with the full support of the international community, national governing bodies, civil society and individuals, can the ideal of democracy be realised to the benefit of all and everywhere.

Read the rest here:
Democracy | United Nations

Since 2020 Republicans across the U.S. have been undermining democracy by fabricating claims of voter fraud and passing laws to make it harder to vote. But a disturbing new report by Robert Draper in The New York Times Magazine shows how Arizona Republicans are increasingly committed to waging a war on the idea of democracy itself, in part through a bid to call the U.S. only a republic and not a democracy. These Republicans think theyre defending American traditions of governance, but theyre not in touch with the history they believe theyre championing, and theyre catalyzing more virulent anti-democratic extremism on the right.

Even though Arizona is only a light red state in terms of voting behavior, the states Republican Party has been notably radicalized by Trump and his 2020 disinformation agenda. State legislators have fixated on challenging the election system, and Trump-backed candidates have dominated the states recent Republican primaries. But something idiosyncratically toxic seems to be emerging in the state's conservative scene. Draper says hes observed among Arizona Republican politicians and activists in the past year a hostility not just to democratic principles, but, increasingly, to the word democracy itself, which is distinct from anything I have encountered in over two decades of covering conservative politics.

One striking way the anti-democracy rhetoric is showing up is through the claim among activists that the U.S. is a republic, not a democracy. This is a reactionary Republican narrative that has surfaced from time to time in the past but it seems that something more consistent is congealing in Arizona. Draper quotes Selina Bliss, a precinct committeewoman who made an unsuccessful bid for a state House seat, saying at a meeting: We are a constitutional republic. We are not a democracy. Nowhere in the Constitution does it use the word democracy. When I hear the word democracy, I think of the democracy of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Thats not us.

And in rallies and meetings across Arizona during this campaign season, Draper found proactive denigration of democracy on the right through the "the U.S. is a republic" discourse:

By the way, Charlie Kirk [founder of Phoenix-based conservative outfit Turning Point USA] made a point of saying at the fund-raiser in Goodyear, we dont have a democracy. OK? Just to fact check. Were a republic. At a gathering in Mesa that I attended in July, held by the conservative group United Patriots AZ, the evenings host, Jeffrey Crane, asked the audience, Are we a democracy? They responded loudly: Nooooo! Republic!

In other words, in the heart of one of the more energetic hotbeds of Trumpist Republican activity in the country, the claim that the U.S. is a republic instead of a democracy is becoming a common mantra. But the narrative involves a rhetorical sleight of hand to cloak an extremist agenda of minority rule in the guise of fulfilling what the founders wanted.

As scholar George Thomas of Claremont McKenna College has pointed out, the founding generation did describe the American experiment as a republic a form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives of the citizen body but didnt see it at odds with or mutually exclusive from democracy.

The founders were opposed to direct democracy people representing themselves instead of through elected representatives at least in part because they believed it couldnt scale. And they were suspicious of unchecked democracy because they feared, among other things, that a majority could be tyrannical and do away with individual rights. They accounted for that through a system of checks and balances. But overall they still believed in popular rule and saw democratic principles as coexisting with republican ones.

"Theres really no difference, in the present, between a 'republic' and a 'democracy': Both connote systems of representation in which sovereignty and authority derive from the public at large," wrote New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie in 2019 when dismantling a previous instance of the republic-not-a-democracy narrative.

As Thomas argued in an essay in The Atlantic, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton used the word democracy to refer to just governance under their republican vision, and in the 19th century Abraham Lincoln used the terms democracy and constitutional republic interchangeably.

Of course, none of this to say that the founders idea of who constituted the people mainly white men didnt undermine actual popular rule. But the idea of popular rule was alive at the time and baked into the design of the government, and ultimately its promise has been a key premise for the expansion of the franchise and civil rights over time.

The agenda of the Arizona Republicans is to create a mutually exclusive dichotomy between democracy and republic, and that use that dichotomy to serve the right's political goals. The republic distinction isnt meant to spark a scholarly debate, but rather to disparage the very idea of democracy as desirable. And its a springboard for the GOPs multi-pronged agenda to undermine democratic rule and possibility in the U.S., which includes assaulting voting rights, questioning the trustworthiness of the election system, pouring immense resources into and strategic emphasis on the counter-majoritarian aspects of the U.S. government, like the Senate, and using radical and unelected judges to play an increasingly powerful role in American political life.

Depending on how the Republican Party evolves and how effective it is at implementing its agenda, these programs may push the U.S. toward entrenched minoritarian rule. But of course if the GOPs most popular politician were to achieve his dream of autocratic rule, it would be safe to say that the U.S. would be neither a republic nor a democracy.

Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for MSNBC Daily. Previously, he worked at Vox, HuffPost and Politico, and he has also been published in The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Nation and elsewhere.

Read more:
Arizona Republicans are making a case against the idea of democracy itself - MSNBC

In what seems like an expected slide, in 2022's global press index ranking, India has found itself eight places lower than last year, in the company ofconflict-torn countries like Somalia and Libya. Reporters Without Borders (RSF), which releases the annual ranking, specifically mentioned violence against journalists as one of the reasons that "demonstrate that press freedom is in crisis in the world's largest democracy."

The primary reason for such a nosedive of journalistic environment in the country appears to be the government's intolerance towards criticism. Numerous journalists have been arrested or booked under criminal charges across the various states of the country. Press freedom activists and international rights groups say the current ruling dispensation has been consistently intimidating journalists who do not purport the narrative of the ruling Hindu-nationalist regime. Intimidation has come in the form of arrests, charges of sedition and stretched accusations under vague laws, like those related to terrorism and national security threats. In a new trend, the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) an anti-terror law that endows the authorities with the power to detain a person without any incriminating evidence is being used against dissident journalists.

According to the Committee to Protect Journalists 2021 jail census, there were seven Indian journalists imprisoned as of 31 December - the largest number of arrested journalists in the country since 1992. Reporters Without Borders, however, reported that there are 16 journalists in Indian prisons in 2022.

If experts are to be believed under current circumstances, the basic task of reporting the truth has become a daunting and dangerous job in India, especially if the truth has the potential to expose the government or embarrass it in some way. RSF ranked India among the most dangerous countries for journalists in December 2021; the cases of harassment of journalists by authorities do not prove otherwise. A journalist from the southern part of India, for instance, was detained in October 2020 while on his way to report the rape of a 19-year-old girl from a marginalised section of society. He has been in prison ever since.

Such cases make it apparent that the government's only concern regarding the country's press is to eliminate any criticism, whether of its ideology or its work. In many cases, a journalist's arrest stems from a simple social media post. For example, in the case of Muhammad Zubair, a prominent fact-checker in the country who is often at odds with the government for busting their fake claims, was arrested for tweeting a still from a decade-old Bollywood film that allegedly offended sentiments of the Hindu community. Zubair was lucky to be granted bail by the Supreme Court of India, however the majority of the journalists detained in the country have not been fortunate enough to receive a respite from the judiciary branch.

Similarly, in the disputed region of Kashmir, which has already seen attacks on journalism and journalists, particularly since the region's special status was revoked by the ruling Hindu-nationalist regime in 2019, a journalist was arrested and charged with criminal conspiracy after merely posting a video of a protest. He is still imprisoned, along with many other prominent journalists in the country, including Fahad Shah and Siddique Kapan.

It is not astonishing, then, that in the latest issue of the Press Freedom Index, India slipped from a ranking of 142 in 2021 to its current position of 150, placing this democratic country at par with authoritarian countries like Afghanistan.

Photo by Pop & Zebra

Excerpt from:
Press freedom is in crisis in the worlds largest democracy - Fairplanet

There is growing interest in the state of academic freedom worldwide. A 1997 Unesco document defines it as the right of scholars to teach, discuss, research, publish, express opinions about systems and participate in academic bodies. Academic freedom is a cornerstone of education and knowledge.

Yet there is surprisingly little empirical research on the actual impact of academic freedom. Comparable measurements have also been scarce. It was only in 2020 that a worldwide index of academic freedom was launched by the Varieties of Democracy database, V-Dem, in collaboration with the Scholars at Risk Network.

Following Unescos definition, the new index provides a comprehensive measurement of academic freedom. It covers research, teaching and expression as well as university autonomy and campus safety. It reveals that while the average level of academic freedom today is higher than before the end of the Cold War, the decline over the past 10 years is remarkable. Academic freedom has declined from 0.6 in 2009 to 0.43 in 2021 in a range of 0.00 to 1.00.

Advocacy groups have noted scholars deteriorating freedom of expression and working conditions in Turkey, for instance. This reflects global trends in civil liberties and human rights. Declines have been observed in the regions where academic freedom is greatest Europe and North America and in the least free regions: the Middle East and North Africa. In Africa overall, the level has been relatively stable: 0.58 in 2009 and 0.57 in 2021.

Read more: Morocco's war on free speech is costing its universities dearly

The positive effects of universities on local economies have been researched extensively. Recent approaches have also looked at wider societal impacts. Most notable is the Times Higher Education Impact Rankings assessing universities against the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This shows a great variety of rankings in different goals. Universities high in SDG 4 quality education are not necessarily high in SDG 16 peace, justice and strong institutions, which includes academic freedom.

My research has been on the political science discipline in African universities and its role in political developments on the continent. As part of this project, I have investigated the impact of academic freedom in the post-Cold War democratic transitions in Africa.

A study I published with the Tunisian economist Hajer Kratou showed that academic freedom has a significant positive effect on democracy, when democracy is measured by indicators such as the quality of elections and executive accountability.

However, the time factor is significant. Countries with high levels of academic freedom before and at the time of their democratic transition showed high levels of democracy even 5, 10 and 15 years later. In contrast, the political situation was more likely to deteriorate in countries where academic freedom was restricted at the time of transition. The impact of academic freedom was greatest in low-income countries.

Around the world, theres a strong correlation between academic freedom and other elements of democracy based on the V-Dem data. But cause and effect are not so clear. The African experience makes the relationship clearer because simultaneously, and in a relatively short time, the whole continent moved from one-party to multiparty systems. Before 1990, only five African countries with universal suffrage had multiparty systems. By 1995, constitutional one-party or non-party systems were exceptions.

Multiparty electoral competition alone, of course, doesnt make a democracy. The sole purpose of elections can be to legitimise authoritarian rule and they can be rigged. Its thus the quality of elections that matters.

The V-Dem clean elections index measures absence of registration fraud, systematic irregularities, government intimidation of the opposition, vote buying, and election violence. It is a useful indication of the level of democracy in Africa.

To look at the role of preceding levels of academic freedom for the quality of current elections, we built an econometric model. We then tested it through the V-Dem academic freedom and clean elections indices data.

To the best of our knowledge, this was the first attempt to investigate empirically the impact of academic freedom on democracy.

We found that time lags of 5, 10 and 15 years of academic freedom statistically had a positive effect on the quality of elections. For Sierra Leone, for instance, the academic freedom index for 1980-2009 was 0.48 and the clean election index in 1990-2019 was 0.55. For Rwanda the same figures were 0.20 and 0.40, and for Benin 0.72 and 0.65.

Academic freedom allows education to produce a democratising effect. Our results highlight two things:

it takes time to consolidate democracy

to make politics inclusive, a country needs to produce its own knowledge and have its own intellectual capacity.

That is why attacks on scholars in Africa are troubling for the continents prospects of sustainable democracy and political stability.

Mobility and international cooperation is a strength for independent African academia. But the less attractive it is for African academics to return to or circulate within the continent, the more likely they are to leave. This will lower the competence and competitiveness of African countries. Conversely, countries supporting academic freedom, and investing in education today, can expect to have a bright future.

See the rest here:
Academic freedom and democracy in African countries: the first study to track the connection - The Conversation

Do you know that India is a democratic republic? But what does this mean? Are democracy and republic synonymous with each other? Today we will give you the answers to all these questions. Let us know through this article what is the difference between democracy and republic. First of all we know that what is democracy and republic after all?What is democracy? (What Is Democracy)Democracy is a government where the people choose their representatives to make laws. Democracy means that it is government by the people, for the people, of the people. It is a form of government where people have rights. In a democracy, the head of government is elected by the people and the head of government is elected.

What is republic? (What Is Republic)Republic means that type of government where the country is considered a public matter. The term is derived from Res Publica. The President is elected in a republic.

Understand the basic difference between democracy and republic from these points1- In a democracy the power is in the hands of the people whereas in a republic the power is in the hands of the individual citizens.

2- Where laws are made by the majority in a democratic system, whereas in a republican system the laws or laws are made by the elected representatives of the people.

3- In a democracy, the majority has the right to override existing rights. Whereas in a republican system, the will of the majority cannot be overridden because the constitution protects those rights.

4- A country can have more than 1 type of democracy and a country can also have more than 1 type of republic.

5- There is no restriction on the government in a democracy whereas there is a restriction on the government in a republic.

6- The main focus in a democratic country is the general will of the people. Whereas in a republican country the main focus is on the constitution.

Hope these points help you understand the difference between a democratic country and a republican country.

The rest is here:
Democracy And Republic: Understand in simple language what is the difference between democratic and republican governance.. - News Day Express