Archive for the ‘Democracy’ Category

Agnipath and the dark matter of democracy – The New Indian Express

No, this is not just about the protests over Agnipath and would-not-be Agniveers that are erupting all over the country. Well, not merely or entirely about them at any rate. We do not need experts or experienced India-watchers to tell us that there is more than meets the eye to these protests.

There are political forces, probably leading parties, not to mention the usual foreign hands at play. Though the evidence is not forthcoming yet, we can surmise that it will be released soon enough.

Because, let's face it, the country is at war. Not only with enemies outside or across its borders, but within too. We suffer from a divided and polarised polity. Given the slew of states announcing concessions, preferences and sops for future Agniveers, we also know that Indian democracy is characterised, more and more, by different shades and degrees of populism.

Protest and populism - these seem to have become the predominant markers of the nation. So too would the irony of terms such as "Agniveer" and "Agnipath" not be lost on the ordinary citizens of the country.

Leaving aside the fiery path to valour, our would-be shining heroes - at least a section of them - actually resemble an incendiary mob, torching trains and buses, destroying public and private property, trying to browbeat the state into giving in to their demands for permanent placement.

Where? In the Armed Forces, which are to defend the country and uphold the honour of their regiments, which represent a code of conduct that protects civilians and non-combatants from being targets of violence. Now, do these arsonists and lawbreakers, by virtue of such actions which ought to disqualify them forever from serving in uniform, seek to bully and intimidate their way into those very forces that are meant to protect the state and its citizens from such elements?

No, such ironies will not be lost on us for they are too obvious and painful to be missed. Instead, the rioters know that once their names get into the police records, they will be no good for the Armed Forces or any state employment. So, isn't it obvious that many of them are paid protesters and operatives rather than genuine "Agnipath" aspirants? Even their faces, as shown in the media, indicate that many are over the age of 23. Much more, as I hinted earlier, is going on behind the scenes, especially if one looks at earlier protests such as that of the farmers, which went on for over a year.

Who cares for the facts - or in this case - for the figures? The amount of money spent on pension exceeds the salary bill of the Armed Forces for the year 20202021. Nearly half the enormous defence budget of USD 77 billion or Rs 6 lakh crore - something in the range of Rs 3 lakh crore - is being spent on salaries and non-combat costs each year on serving or retired personnel, many of whom may have lived through their entire career only in peacetime duties.

That a large part of the present budget of the forces is "non-productive" by any standards is a sad truth that we do not like to face. Ours, which is the second-largest standing force in the world, with close to 1.5 million soldiers in uniform, will soon cease to be fighting fit and competitive if we carry on like this. We need to invest in equipment, technology, and upgrade weaponry, infrastructure, and so on. But no, the Armed Forces too must be turned into a gigantic employment agency to satisfy the needs of the agitators who seek permanent government jobs.

The starting salary of Agniveers will be over Rs 30,000 per month, rising to Rs 40,000 per month by the fourth year. Only 25 per cent will continue in the services while the others will get an exit package called Seva Nidhi to the tune of Rs 11.71 lakh each. Additionally, several states have also announced other employment possibilities for them. So what is wrong with the scheme? How is it not in the nation's interests or not beneficial to the youth?

The truth is that every reform in India hits the same roadblocks - a divided polity and the compulsions of populism. That is why I said at the outset that this column is not just about the Agniveer protests. Instead, it is about what I would call democracy's dark matter. Like dark matter, which hypothetically occupies 85 per cent of the universe although it lacks luminosity nor interacts with the electromagnetic field, India's divided polity and culture wars occupy so much space in our democracy.

This means that any opportunity to bring down the Narendra Modi-led BJP sarkar or to show India in poor light, whether domestically or internationally, will not be missed. This, in turn, also makes the members and supporters of the government more vehement, aggressive and unforgiving of the opposition. As with the farm bills, neither Parliament nor the opposition, let alone the young stakeholders, press and the broader thinking public, have been taken into confidence in matters of national importance such as the newly announced Agniveer scheme.

Unilateralism, rather than consultation or consensus, is the chosen methodology, with the instruments of state power commissioned to bludgeon through policy or manage the narrative afterwards. This is not how a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" ought to operate. But as the protests mount, more and more concessions and dilutions are likely to be announced, weakening the scheme. What, then, is a brute majority good for if it does not demonstrate moral strength and electoral resilience, but impose "reforms" followed by populist roll-backs and concessions?

What is the way forward? Reduce divisive issues and policies that alienate sections of the populace. Reach out to all sections of the citizenry. Rather than only blowing the trumpet of government schemes, apply the healing touch. Invite all sections of the political spectrum for discussions and consultation. Ensure a peaceful daily life for most Indians rather than simmering discord and constant conflict.

This government has achieved much for which it should be proud. Most importantly, it managed the economy in a way that kept the country afloat unlike other countries in the neighbourhood that have been reduced to a sorry state almost of disgraceful beggary. The Agniveer scheme, too, is meant to make our Armed Forces much more economically viable and globally competitive.

But with all these accomplishments, the legacy of Modi@8 is also a disturbing sense of a divided society and country at war with itself. It is this that must change before 2024. It is time to pay attention to, and even mitigate, democracy's dark matter. Especially if India@75 is really supposed to be an Amrit Mahotsav - the grand celebration of the elixir of liberty, instead of the dark age of a fractured polity and divided society.

(The writer is a professor of English at JNU and tweets @MakrandParanspe)

Read this article:
Agnipath and the dark matter of democracy - The New Indian Express

Sold votes and a dead-duck democracy – Tribune Online

From a lack of horses, we always saddle dogs, or cows, or even the ugly, scaly-backed alligator (aglnt abara hh). We do it every four years in the name of democratic elections. We choose bile as leaders then lament soon after that we are orphaned by the government.

The Arabs tell us that to understand a people, we should acquaint ourselves with their proverbs. As we lament the woes of being Nigerian and try to figure out who to vote for next year between crippling identical candidates, some snakes are providing guides across the north. They come in the form of Hausa proverbs. A friend who speaks the language forwarded them to me last week. One isKoman lalachewan akuya, ya fi kare daraja(no matter how useless the goat is, it has more value than a dog). Another ismushin rago yafi alade da an yanka(a dead ram is better than a slaughtered pig).

The Bible says that with Jesus at the Golgotha were two gentlemen: one to his right; the other to his left. Between the two, I have heard the question being asked: who was the better thief? You may have to find an answer to that question now if you intend to vote next year to elect a president for Nigeria. Up north, the above Hausa proverbs of goat and dog; of ram and pig have come handy. I am a Muslim, so I have no problem knowing that goat meat is a delicacy in Muslim homes while dog meat is haram. Again, I know that a ram not properly slaughtered may be unclean for consumption but then, it is better than a pig properly slaughtered. That is the graffiti on the political skies of the north. Some candidates attract metaphors of pig and dog; some are goat and ram. Proverbs provide hidden contexts and kicks for actions, positive and negative. In politics, they are the horses on which guns are mounted. Everyone should listen to what the proverbs are saying and to what they will say going forward to the elections.

Another cycle is here. While dark imageries of region and religion rule electoral choices in the far north, dirty naira notes thumbprint for the electorate in the south. The Ekiti election has come and gone. For me, the most interesting spectacle there was the man in a viral video who said, with all innocence, that he took N5,000 bribe from a candidate before voting. He insisted he did it for posterity(ntor oj iwj ni) and that the N5,000 was even small. They were supposed to give us N10,000. He would use the money to farm, he told his interviewer. He said so with a straight face before a rolling camera. He was not alone but he was the only one stupid enough to speak the truth. And payment for votes in that election was not about any particular party. They all did it according to the strength of their muscles. Vote buying poisons our democracy and it is reprehensible. For the voters, what I have for them is not straight condemnation; it is pity. With a very heavy heart, I understand their problem and the harlotry in their decision. Prostitutes sell what they have to have what they lack. Whatever happened in Ekiti on Saturday will happen in Osun State next month (July 16). When people heard that a vote went for as much as ten thousand naira in Ekiti, I could hear expectant palms itching in other states. This house has fallen; it collapsed a while ago. People will collect money and choose their leader; if there are reasons to lament government negligence six months later, let that time come, the reasons will take care of themselves. It is a cycle, vicious and sad.

The Ashanti of the Republic of Ghana say a good farmer will not cook the seed yam. The Yoruba of Nigeria counsel their farmer not to eat his yam seeds because next season is just one night away(mdn k jnn kni m h b sun je). But that remonstration is for the farmer who will be alive to see the next harvest. Everyone in Nigeria is sure only of the present. How do we convince very down people without hope not to sell anything within their powers to sell, including their votes? People are hungry and abandoned; they are very unsafe at the same time; none of the poor millions with PVCs is sure of being alive to enjoy whatever the new government may bring. Some will be killed by hunger; some others by herdsmen without cows; many more by princely bandits who are beyond the short arms of our law. Those who manage to be alive will become displaced, abandoned citizens. The people are convinced by their circumstances to eat the food of tomorrow in the womb of today. They will sell their votes while they wait for Nigeria to bring whatever affliction it has. If we want democracy to work, we should first take hunger and fear off the menu of the Nigerian voter. Only the living sing the praise of the Lord.

The factors of money, region and religion did their thing in 2015 and 2019 and the result is todays government of dead ducks and sinking floaters. Governments are like ducks; they exist to protect their flocks from kites and hawks. A duck that is mortally absent and exposes its children to predators is called a lame duck. Can we check what users of the English language mean when they describe a government as lame duck? Could that be what our president has become so soon? Not even the media remembered to ask why President Muhammadu Buhari was not part of the grand finale of his partys campaign in Ekiti. He was not there; in his stead was Senator Bola Tinubu, the man positioned by APC and its governors to replace Buhari in 345 days time. And were we not told that presidential democracy has no space for two presidents at a time? Nigerian politicians are foisting that on us. But that really is not my bother here. My thoughts are on how our conditions are affecting our choices and how our choices are affecting our conditions. My thoughts are also on how helpless Nigerians struggle to live through these very bad times. It is like being boxed in a troubled plane with a pilot that is not there.

On 28 December, 2008, Joe Klein, a columnist with theTime Magazine,published a review of the fading tenure of President George W. Bush whose Republican Party had just lost the presidency to Barack Obama of the opposition Democratic Party. The piece is a full definition of what a duck is supposed to be and what it is when it is lame. I quote Klein verbatim here: At the end of a presidency of stupefying ineptitude, he (Bush) has become the lamest of all possible ducks This is a presidency that has wobbled between two poles overweening arrogance and paralytic incompetence. The latter has held sway these past few months as the economy has crumbled. It is too early to rate the performance of Bushs economic team, but we have more than enough evidence to say, definitively, that at a moment when there was a vast national need for reassurance, the president himself was a cipher. Yes, hes a lame duck. Klein described his presidents disappearing act in the very middle of an economic crisis as a fitting coda to a failed presidency. His focus and his judgement sound very Nigerian. But I cannot use those words for my president and his government. I do not have the courage to do so. But day and night, I look with anger and sorrow at what we have. I see Nigerians dying for hope. I imagine a mother duck too hobbled and absent that its ducklings become targets for predators. A certain Ken Greenwald would describe this duck as not just lame but worse a dead duck a thing done up, played out, not worth a straw

Nigeria is like pepper; you pound it, you grind it, its smarting character remains its defining feature. It devalues people and their prized possessions. It is easy for the elite to condemn voters who sell their votes. English writer and Queen of Romance, Barbara Cartland, said when we judge other people, it is always by our own standards and that often prevents us from understanding them or giving them the compassion they deservethat we may denounce a thief, but how can we understand his action if we have never felt the compulsion to steal? And if we have never seen anyone we love hungry, ill and deprived. How many Nigerians will survive or are surviving these very hard times without cutting corners? Businesses are fainting and dying as diesel goes for N850 per litre and this at a time when electricity competes with the absence of government in peoples lives. Elected politicians promised to light up lives; they also pledged to power the country as had never been done before. Now, where are they? NEPA may have changed its name a million times, the name-change adds no value to it. Cost of cooking gas is setting fire to homes. Kerosene has long moved away from its friendship with the poor. Every item of survival is beyond the reach of everyone without access to the public till. Yet, there is no route for an escape. Injured hope is wheeled into the temple of the coming polls. The people are doing a count-down for the Buhari regime 345 days to go. They think the coming election will remark the script of existence for the poor. But they see that 2023 road being narrowed when they hear politicians promise to continue the legacy of this president. You know what that means for the unsafe, the hungry and the jobless? Even if the coming change will bring some progress, the election that will birth it is February next year; this plane has till May 29, 2023 to land. You and I have eleven months, ten days more of grueling turbulence without any reassuring action in the cockpit.

We have had seven years of a hideous game of blames and of overweening arrogance and paralytic incompetence. We will have one more year of both, and even more years of the same, if the successor is as wobbled as what we have. And it looks like it. The child of a duck is a floater; snakes always give birth to snakes. I heard Tinubu, the man who wants to lead Nigerias two hundred million for the next eight years after Buhari, say something suggestive of business as usual. In his acceptance speech after his nomination, and in a letter to the president this past weekend, he spoke about erecting his structure on Buharis foundation and that the country is in trouble today because the PDP, in its 16 years, depleted our resources and left us with hunger. Playing the blame game. They all do it. If the PDP wins in February, there is no guarantee that it also wont mint blame as dividend of peoples investment in its election. It is the system we run the fault always lies in others. You know what the toad did when it missed its way to the stream? It hopped into the valley of mirage to fetch illusions for its thirsty community. Robert Kiyosaki, author ofRich Dad, Poor Dadsaid when people are lame, they love to blame.

Those are very true words. We will continue to be ruled by excuses and the country ruined by blames. It is the logical harvest from a field of diseased seeds. This democracy is dying and will die unless we move fast to give the people back their lives. We cannot win the 21st century race of progress with a team of cross-party cripples. Sadly, that is what our democracy offers and we can all feel it.

Read more here:
Sold votes and a dead-duck democracy - Tribune Online

Bill Mahers Real Time Blasts Washington Post Twitter Wars: Democracy Dies In Dumbness – Deadline

Bill Maher has a beef with Millennials, specifically those who inhabit the newsroom of the Washington Post.

Reviewing the recent Twitter war between WaPo reporter Felicia Sonmez and the other members of that newsroom a flame battle that eventually saw Sonmez fired and another reporter put on a months leave without pay Maher said the joke tweet that instigated it was something that has been going on for eons. Yet the unlicensed daycare center that is the newsroom didnt find the humor in it.

Can you imagine a world that allows jokes you dont like? Of course, the leadership folded like a Miami condo, he said, falling back on the tired trope that the tweet did not reflect the institutions values, free speech not being one of them.

Maher thenbroadened the WaPo conflict into a larger takedown of the generation that now is coming into its own in the workplace as Baby Boomers retire.

You think my generation is an eyeroll, Maher said. Let me tell you about the younger generation. Your sense of entitlement is legendary, he said, also attacking your attention span and work ethic, specifically the unqualified little shit who doesnt understand why hes not a producer yet. He added that the WaPo story had such resonance because we all know the stereotypical players in it.

Millennials complain that they havent taken over yet, Maher said. But thats because the Boomers are reluctant to turn the world over to them for incidents like the WaPo wars.

The crybabies are still winning, Maher said. They complain they havent taken over yet. The fact that the Posts response was to punish one of their best reporters shows the kindergarten is still in charge.

In 1972, the Watergate break-in happened, a story basically scooped by the WaPo. I have to wonder how the Posts newsroom of today would handle that. All this time blubber-tweeting. Dont you have anything better to do? Arent you supposed to be reporters digging up stuff? This is why youre not in charge. If someone named Deep Throat called today and wanted to meet, this crew of emotional hemophiliacs would have an anxiety attack and report to HR they didnt feel safe.

Maher did take hope in the fact that the WaPo eventually did fire Sonmez. Maybe theres a line. That generation has to find that line and move it closer to sanity. Because democracy dies in dumbness.

Earlier, Mahers guest was Emmy winning writer Danny Strong, producer of the Hulu limited seies Dopesick, about the opioid epidemic. His strongest moment was when he insisted that members of the Sackler family absolutely should face prison time for their manufacturing role and lies in the opioid crisis.

The panel discussion was dominated by podcaster Krystal Ball, a far leftist who would hardly let Maher or guest author and James Kirchick talk.

The most interesting moment of the talk was when Maher was asked whether he thought Florida Governor Ron DeSantis would be better than ex-President Donald Trump. Yes, I do, he said. He wont be poop-tweeting and having feuds with Bette Midler.

See original here:
Bill Mahers Real Time Blasts Washington Post Twitter Wars: Democracy Dies In Dumbness - Deadline

The Constitution rigs the game against democracy and against Black equality – Vox.com

Part of the Juneteenth issue of The Highlight, our home for ambitious stories that explain our world.

For six years, at the height of Southern leaders massive resistance to desegregation, Derrick Bell held one of the most harrowing jobs in the legal profession.

From 1960 to 1966, as an attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Bell oversaw desegregation lawsuits in the South, trying to make real the integration promised by Brown v. Board of Education.

In the first decade after Brown, integration made little headway by 1964, only 1 in 85 African American students in the South attended integrated schools. Often, Bell and his colleagues couldnt even find a plaintiff willing to sue a segregated district, because Black families justifiably feared theyd be targeted by the Ku Klux Klan if their names appeared on a lawsuit.

Black civil rights lawyers also risked their lives litigating cases. Once, while he was defending two criminal suspects in Tennessee, future Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall was arrested on false charges and nearly lynched by a white mob.

Bell, who died in 2011, eventually left behind his career as a full-time civil rights lawyer. But the experience of watching the promise of equality beat down by violent white supremacists informed his work as a critical race scholar.

Racial equality is, in fact, not a realistic goal, he wrote in 1992, warning that by constantly aiming for a status that is unobtainable in a perilously racist America, black Americans face frustration and despair.

To be clear, Bell did not counsel passive despair. We must maintain the struggle against racism else the erosion of black rights will become even worse than it is now, Bell warned in his essay, and he viewed this constant striving as worthy in its own right. The struggle for freedom is, at bottom, a manifestation of our humanity that survives and grows stronger through resistance to oppression, he wrote, even if that oppression is never overcome.

Bell understood something profound about the United States: The American political system is a rigged game. It was originally meant to advantage enslavers and today benefits anti-egalitarian actors with little interest in true racial equality.

That fact has led to the constant erosion of black rights that Bell chronicled something clearly on display one year ago, not long after President Joe Biden had signed legislation marking Juneteenth as a federal holiday. In the presidents words, the holiday marks both the long, hard night of slavery and subjugation, and a promise of a brighter morning to come.

Two weeks later, the Supreme Court defiled that promise, imposing new limits on the Voting Rights Act, which has, since 1965, forbidden race discrimination in elections. The Courts new restrictions on the Voting Rights Act are unlikely to be the last.

Even as the United States celebrates freedom for African Americans, the political equality that sustains that freedom is slipping away.

The pattern in American civil rights history has been brief periods of rapid pro-egalitarian progress think the post-Civil War period or the civil rights era followed by much longer periods of retrenchment, when dominant groups claw back many of those gains.

If the United States is to break its cycle of brief periods of egalitarian triumphs, and longer periods of resentment and retreat, we must have a Constitution that, unlike our current one, fully honors the principle that all people are created equal.

The original Constitution that is, the document drafted at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was a truly monstrous document. It was, in the words of abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, a covenant with death, and an agreement with hell.

The framers, who included both enslavers and staunch opponents of slavery, produced a document that contains at least four provisions added for the very purpose of protecting slavery. Several other features of the Constitution, like the Electoral College, for example, may not have been inserted for the purpose of promoting slavery, but they certainly had that effect.

Though modern-day scholars disagree about whether the Electoral College was, in the words of Harvard historian Jill Lepore, a compromise over slavery, it nevertheless gave tremendous political power to the states that enslaved the most people. Thats because the Constitution gives each state a number of electoral votes matching the number of seats it controls in Congress, and the Constitutions infamous three-fifths clause permitted slave-holding states to count 60 percent of their enslaved population when US House seats were apportioned.

Even after the Northern population outstripped the Souths to such a degree that slave states could not dominate the House, another anti-democratic feature of our Constitution ensured that enslavers would wield outsize power.

The Senate remained a bastion of power for enslavers for generations. Because the Constitution gives each state two senators regardless of its population, enslavers could still block anti-slavery legislation so long as they did not permit the total number of free states to exceed the number of slave states, something they did successfully for decades.

Two hundred and thirty-five years after the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution remains a profoundly inegalitarian document. The Senate and the Electoral College remain stains on the soul of the nation.

Similarly, while three constitutional amendments ratified after the Civil War abolish slavery, pledge equal citizenship rights to all Americans, and promise equal voting rights, these promises were only as valuable as the public officials entrusted with keeping them. As anyone familiar with the history of the Jim Crow South knows, most of these officials didnt even begin to keep these promises for nearly a century.

The times when those promises were kept at all can be attributed to interest convergence, a phenomenon Bell first wrote about more than four decades ago: The interest of blacks in achieving racial equality is accommodated only when that interest converges with the interests of whites in policy-making positions.

Bell did not argue that white people concerned about the immorality of racial inequality are nonexistent, but he believed that this cohort of white people is insufficient to form a victorious political coalition when it links arms with Black people.

To some extent, Bells principle is implicit in the fact that racial minorities are, well, in the minority. And Black people have historically carried a particular burden because white supremacists have often tried to separate them from the social and political mainstream, in many cases through explicitly segregationist policies.

The Constitutions pathologies exaggerate this problem. Because of the Electoral College, Senate malapportionment, and quasi-constitutional barriers to legislation such as the filibuster, Black Americans and the broader Democratic coalition that most Black voters belong to need to win supermajorities in multiple elections to pass legislation protecting their rights, like a law restoring the Voting Rights Act.

Even if they were to successfully do that, Republicans need only to file a lawsuit and convince five of their fellow partisans on the Supreme Court to strike down that legislation.

This is not a new dilemma the structural barriers facing Democrats today pale in comparison to the ones facing enslaved Black people in 1860, or the ones facing civil rights activists in 1960. But one of the frustrating things about this particular moment in American history is that our Constitution now prevents Black Americans from achieving crucial civil rights victories even when a coalition aligned with their interests controls the Congress and the White House and when their interests align with a majority of the nation.

That is a potent reminder that, in those rare moments when an egalitarian coalition does wield power, it should emphasize structural reforms that will allow it to achieve future victories and sustain past ones.

Because the best way to win a rigged game is to change the rules.

In 2022, the interests of Black people have converged with the nations majority political party, at least on the crucial topic of voting rights.

The president of the United States supports legislation to restore the sort of voting rights protections that the Supreme Court stripped away in Shelby County and similar cases. So does the vice president. So do 219 members of the House of Representatives. So does every Democrat in the Senate although Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) backs a weaker version of this legislation than the Democratic leadership initially proposed.

Yet, because of structural barriers such as Senate malapportionment and the filibuster, this convergence of interests is not enough to pass a bill through Congress.

In the current Senate, Democrats and Republicans control an equal number of seats, but the Democratic half represents 43 million more people than the Republican half. Black people, and racial minorities generally, bear the brunt of this uneven representation. According to a 2019 memo by the progressive think tank Data for Progress, Black voters have nearly 20 percent less influence over Senate elections than they would if Senate seats were distributed fairly so that every Americans vote counted the same.

In effect, while the Constitution once treated Black Americans as three-fifths of a person, todays Senate treats Black Americans as four-fifths of a person.

Absent structural reform, its going to get worse. By 2040, according to a University of Virginia analysis of census projections, half of the United States will live in eight states. About 70 percent will live in 16 states which means that just over 30 percent of the population will control 68 percent of the Senate.

This sorting of most Americans into just a few states has profound implications for Black voters, who are overwhelmingly Democratic. In the last three presidential elections, the Democratic candidate received 90 percent or more of the Black vote and it may soon be impossible for Democrats to win a majority in the United States Senate.

One of the best predictors of partisan voting patterns in the United States is population density densely populated areas tend to be Democratic bastions, while sparsely populated areas are typically Republican strongholds. If this pattern holds, Republicans may soon gain a permanent supermajority in the Senate.

Without a Senate majority, Democrats not only wont be able to pass federal legislation, they also wont be able to confirm justices to replace the ones who voted to gut the Voting Rights Act. In effect, Black Americans as well as non-Black Democrats, urban residents, and liberals generally will only be able to achieve policy victories when their interests converge with an overwhelmingly white Republican Party.

Perhaps that will happen occasionally, especially on symbolic matters; the vote to make Juneteenth a federal holiday was bipartisan. Its also possible that, especially as the United States slides closer to one-party rule, an increasing number of conservative Black Americans will join the GOP in the hopes of gaining some modicum of political power.

But on issues like voting rights, its hard to imagine Black interests converging with Republican interests anytime soon. Why would the GOP protect the voting rights of a cohort that overwhelmingly prefers Democrats?

Its not that there isnt hope for Black Americans. Its easy to design a more just and egalitarian system than the US Constitution. But it is also very hard to make an ideal constitution into a reality.

The obvious first step is to abolish the Senate or to, as University of Connecticut historian Manisha Sinha suggested to me, make our Senate a bit like the House of Lords a largely advisory body that does not have the power to block legislation outright.

Assuming that the United States retains a system where the chief executive is elected separately from the legislature, the Electoral College also must go. In 2020, President Joe Biden defeated Republican Donald Trump by more than 7 million votes. Yet he would have lost the presidency if only 43,000 Biden voters in Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin had not cast a ballot. Thats not acceptable in a nation that purports to be a democratic republic.

Then theres the problem of gerrymandering.

Racial gerrymandering remains a prominent feature of American elections, and the Supreme Court appears determined to keep it that way. Last February, for example, the Court voted 5-4 to reinstate an Alabama congressional map that gave Black voters 14 percent of the states US House seats even though African Americans make up about 27 percent of the states population.

The best solution to the problem of gerrymandering is proportional representation. In a proportional system, the nation would be divided into large electoral districts that would each receive several seats in Congress.

These seats would then be allocated according to the total percentage of votes each party receives so if the Democratic Party receives 35 percent of the votes in a particular district, it would receive about 35 percent of that districts seats. Under our current system, a district composed of 55 percent white Republicans and 45 percent Black Democrats will send zero Democrats to Congress. Under a proportional system, the Black minority in such a district would receive nearly as much representation as the white majority.

Realistically, a constitutional amendment is not a viable solution to implement any of these reforms. Amendments require three-quarters of the state legislatures to agree. And its unlikely that states that benefit from the Constitutions anti-democratic pathologies would agree to cure them.

There may be feasible ways to enact some of these reforms without an amendment. The National Popular Vote Compact, for example, calls for a bloc of states adding up to a majority of the Electoral Colleges electoral votes to agree to give those votes to whichever candidate wins the popular vote. Its an ingenious way to nominally leave the Electoral College in place, while simultaneously ensuring that the candidate who wins the popular vote becomes president.

Other ways around the effectively unamendable Constitution are lawful, but difficult to imagine happening. A 2020 proposal in the Harvard Law Review, for example, suggested dividing the (heavily Democratic) District of Columbia into more than 100 states and admitting them all into the Union and then immediately having these new states approve a raft of pro-democracy amendments to the Constitution.

The thing these solutions have in common is that theyre the sort of fixes that pit the Constitutions formalistic rules against its spirit, and theyd likely trigger a significant backlash or be struck down by a Supreme Court that is still controlled by Republicans unless they had a truly overwhelming political coalition behind them.

Yet, if the reforms suggested above are ambitious and difficult to implement, they are also equal in magnitude to the crisis facing American democracy. If nothing changes, an overwhelmingly white, increasingly authoritarian political coalition could soon gain the enduring power to veto any federal law, along with perpetual control of the Supreme Court.

That is not a democracy, and it is unworthy of a nation that claims to be founded on the principle that all people are created equal.

Transforming the United States into an egalitarian democracy will not be easy. But, as Niko Bowie, a professor at Harvard Law School, reminded me when I asked him how to overcome the many structural disadvantages plaguing American egalitarian movements, the United States has faced such a crisis before ... nevertheless, democracy has emerged.

It has emerged thanks to the work of those who retained a clear moral vision in the face of anti-egalitarianism. So let me close by attempting to offer the same sort of moral clarity William Lloyd Garrison offered to the abolitionist movement.

It is wrong that our Constitution denies the fundamental equality of all Americans. It is wrong to count some votes more than others. It is wrong to drive families into poverty solely because we count some votes more than others. It is wrong to allow the one unelected branch of government to dismantle our voting rights. It is wrong that our Congress will not restore those rights because a few senators care more about preserving the filibuster than they do about ensuring that Black people have an equal voice in our society.

And it is wrong that an authoritarian narcissist, who possesses no aptitude for or interest in governance, was allowed to occupy the White House after receiving nearly 3 million fewer votes than his opponent.

Juneteenth is an apt time to reflect on these matters. Its a reminder of our nations most unforgivable sin. But it is also a celebration of freedom, and of those who overcame unimaginable odds to write equality into our Constitution. It is past time that we made that promise real, by changing the Constitution, if need be.

As Garrison said in 1844, it is an insult to the common sense of mankind, to pretend that the Constitution was intended to embrace the entire population of the country under its sheltering wings; or that the parties to it were actuated by a sense of justice and the spirit of impartial liberty; or that it needs no alteration.

Ian Millhiser is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States.

Follow this link:
The Constitution rigs the game against democracy and against Black equality - Vox.com

On the Knifes Edge of Democracy – The Bulwark

Editors note: The following is the statement of Judge Michael Luttig, submitted to the United States House Select Committeeon the January 6, 2021, Attack on the United States Capitol on June 16, 2022, prior to Luttigs appearance before the Committee. We are reproducing it here in its entirety.

Honorable Members of the House Select Committee

A stake was driven through the heart of American democracy on January 6, 2021, and our democracy today is on a knifes edge.

America was at war on that fateful day, but not against a foreign power. She was at war against herself. We Americans were at war with each other over our democracy.

January 6 was but the next, foreseeable battle in a war that had been raging in America for years, though that day was the most consequential battle of that war even to date. In fact, January 6 was a separate war unto itself, a war for Americas democracy, a war irresponsibly instigated and prosecuted by the former president, his political party allies, and his supporters. Both wars are raging to this day.

A peaceful end to these wars is desperately needed. The war for our democracy could lead to the peaceful end to the war for Americas cultural heart and soul. But if a peaceful end to the war for Americas democracy is not achievable, there is little chance for a peaceful end to that war. The settlement of this war over our democracy is necessary to the settlement of any war that will ever come to America, whether from her shores or to her shores. Though disinclined for the moment, as a political matter of fact only the party that instigated this war over our democracy can bring an end to that war.

Like our war from a distant time, these twin wars are testing whether th[is] nation or any nation . . . so conceived in Liberty . . . can long endure. We must hope that January 6 was the final battle of at least the deadly war for Americas democracy.

These senseless wars are of our own making, and they are now being waged throughout the land, in our city centers and town squares, in our streets and in our schools, where we work and where we play, in our houses of worship even within our own families. These wars were conceived and instigated from our Nations Capital by our own political leaders collectively and they have been cynically prosecuted by them to fever pitch, now to the point that they have recklessly put America herself at stake.

America is now the stake in these unholy wars.

Serious thinkers about the American experiment who are not given to apocalyptic prophesying question whether America is on the verge of a literal civil war. But is even this figurative civil war to be our generations legacy to posterity?

These wars that we are waging against each other are immoral wars, not moral ones, being immorally waged over morality itself. We Americans no longer agree on what is right or wrong, what is to be valued and what is not, what is acceptable behavior and not, and what is and is not tolerable discourse in civilized society. Let alone do we agree on how we want to be governed or by whom, or where we go from here and with what shared national ideals, values, beliefs, purposes, goals, and objectives if any at all.

America is adrift. We pray that it is only for this fleeting moment that she has lost her way, until we Americans can once again come to our senses.

The war on democracy instigated by the former president and his political party allies on January 6 was the natural and foreseeable culmination of the war for America. It was the final fateful day for the execution of a well-developed plan by the former president to overturn the 2020 presidential election at any cost, so that he could cling to power that the American People had decided to confer upon his successor, the next president of the United States instead. Knowing full well that he had lost the 2020 presidential election, the former president and his allies and supporters falsely claimed and proclaimed to the nation that he had won the election, and then he and they set about to overturn the election that he and they knew the former president had lost.

The treacherous plan was no less ambitious than to steal Americas democracy.

Called to Washington D.C. that day by the president, the president himself, and the presidents followers, supporters, and allies gathered near The White House for a Stop the Steal rally. The president maintained at that rally that the 2020 presidential election had been fraudulently stolen from him. The president addressed his faithful followers thus: Were going to the Capitol. . . . Were going to try and give them [the Republicans in the Congress, presumably] the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. . . . We will never give up. We will never concede.

Inflamed, the gathered mob marched up the hill from The White House to the United States Capitol to protest, disrupt and prevent the counting of the electoral votes for the presidency, which the president falsely charged were wrongly about to be counted by the Congress in his political opponents winning favor and in his own losing favor.

Once staged at the Capitol, the mob soon erected gallows on the United States Capitol grounds, chanting that Vice President Mike Pence should be hanged. Hanged, the mob chanted, for cowardly refusing the presidents lawless entreaties that his Vice President declare their president reelected, against the will of the American People, though he had lost both the Electoral College and the popular vote for the presidency.

There were many cowards on the battlefield on January 6. The Vice President was not among them.

Soon thereafter, the rioters stormed the Capitol itself, breaching, occupying, and ransacking the temple of our democracy for seemingly endless wrenching hours at the precise democratic moment when the Congress of the United States convened in Joint Session to begin the constitutional counting of the votes for the presidency of the United States.

Not until over three hours after the riot had begun, and then only after the siege had achieved what by that time was its truncated objective to interrupt and indefinitely delay the counting of the vote, did the president finally yield to the pleas and prayers from his own family, friends, and political allies, and grudgingly ask his supporters in a hastily forced video tweet to disperse and return to their homes.

The Nation wept during the evening of January 6, as the Capitol police began to clear and resecure the Capitol at days end. Finally, at 8:00 p.m. on January 6, seven hours after the siege on the Capitol had begun, Vice President Pence gaveled the Joint Session back into order with measured, understated resolve: Today was a dark day in the history of the United States Capitol. . . . Lets get back to work.

January 6 was a dark day in the history of the United States, too.

It was not until the next day, January 7, 2021, at 3:42 a.m. in the morning almost fifteen hours after the Joint Session had first been gaveled into session by Speaker Nancy Pelosi that the Vice President finally declared that Joe Biden had been elected the 46th President of the United States.

On January 6, 2021, the prescribed day for choosing the American president, there was not to be a peaceful transfer of power for the first time in the history of our Republic.

Over a year and a half later, in continued defiance of our democracy, both the former president and his political party allies still maintain that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him, despite all evidence all evidence now that that is simply false. All the while, this false and reckless insistence that the former president won the 2020 presidential election has laid waste to Americans confidence in their national elections. More alarming still is that the former president pledges that his reelection will not be stolen from him next time around, and his Republican Party allies and supporters obeisantly pledge the same.

False claims that our elections have been stolen from us corrupt our democracy, as they corrupt us. To continue to insist and persist in the false claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen is itself an affront to our democracy and to the Constitution of the United States an affront without precedent.

Those who think that because America is a republic, theft and corruption of our national elections and electoral process are not theft and corruption of our democracy are sorely mistaken. America is both a republic and a representative democracy, and therefore a sustained attack on our national elections is a fortiori an attack on our democracy, any political theory otherwise notwithstanding.

Accordingly, if, and when, one of our national elections is actually stolen from us, our democracy will have been stolen from us. To steal an election in the United States of America is to steal her democracy.

As in all things, the essence of our participation in democracy is not knowledge, but judgment studied, discerning judgment. No more so is this true than in the Constitution and in the Law.

Very few ever have the honor of counseling the President of the United States of America. That highest of honors carries with it the highest of obligations. Counsel provided to the President of the United States must be the product of not only exquisite, penetrating legal analysis but also profound, insightful legal judgment. These two combined are so far from mere technical legal competence as almost to be its polar opposite. The President and the country deserve nothing less from those who counsel the President, so consequential are the stakes for the Nation when the President acts upon the advice of his or her Counsel.

Whatever else, the President of the United States did not receive such counsel during his sustained effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election. It is as much the former presidents fault as anyones that he did not.

Irrespective of the merits of the legal arguments that fueled the former presidents efforts to overturn that election irrespective of them, though there were none those arguments, and therefore those efforts, by the former president were the product of the most reckless, insidious, and calamitous failures in both legal and political judgment in American history.

From their inception, the legal arguments that underlaid the efforts to overturn the 2020 election were, in that context, little more than beguiling and frivolous, perhaps appropriate for academic classroom debate, but singularly inappropriate as counsel to the President of the United States of America in his effort to overturn the presidential election an election he had lost fair and square and as to which there was not then, and there is not to this day, evidence of fraud.

It is breathtaking that these arguments even were conceived, let alone entertained by the President of the United States at that perilous moment in history.

Had the Vice President of the United States obeyed the President of the United States, America would immediately have been plunged into what would have been tantamount to a revolution within a paralyzing constitutional crisis.

The former presidents accountability under the law for the riot on the United States Capitol on January 6 is incidental to his responsibility and accountability for his attempt to steal the 2020 presidential election from the American People and thereby steal Americas democracy from America herself. This said, willful ignorance of law and fact is neither excuse nor defense in law. Willful ignorance, thus, is neither political nor legal excuse or defense available to the former President of the United States, his allies, and his supporters.

On January 6, 2021, revolutionaries, not patriots, assaulted America and American democracy. The walls of all three of our institutions of democracy were scaled and breached on that appalling day. And almost two years thence, one of Americas two political parties cannot even agree whether that day was good or bad, right or wrong. Worse, it cannot agree over whether January 6 was needed, or not. Needed or not. Pause for a moment and reflect on that. The former president and his party cannot decide whether the revolt at the United States Capitol to disrupt and prevent the constitutional counting of the votes for the presidency was needed, and therefore whether another revolt might be needed at a future date to accomplish that which the previous revolt failed to accomplish.

If one of our national political parties one of the two political guardians of our democracy cannot agree even as to whether the violent riot and occupation of the United States Capitol, inspired by the President of the United States and carried out by his followers to prevent Congress from counting the votes for the presidency of those same United States, was reprehensible insurrection or needed, legitimate political discourse, we all can agree on nothing.

Nor should we.

The former presidents party cynically and embarrassingly rationalizes January 6 as having been something between hallowed, legitimate public discourse and a visitors tour of the Capitol that got out of hand. January 6, of course, was neither, and the former president and his party know that. It was not legitimate public discourse by any definition. Nor was it a civics tour of the Capitol Building though that day proved to be an eye-opening civics lesson for all Americans.

January 6 was, rather, a defining, and a redefining, day in American history defining and redefining of America itself. On that day, America finally came face to face with the raging war that it had been waging against itself for years. So blood-chilling was that day for our democracy, that America could not believe her eyes and she turned them away in both fear and shame. Even so, many have already forgotten, and many more have chosen to forget. Some who rioted and occupied the Capitol that day had already decided how this war for our democracy must end, while others of their compatriots, upon sober reflection afterward, decided that no, no, this war must end now, before there is further bloodshed.

As did we, these latter saw how this war ends, and they realized that no one should want for such end.

For their part, the former president and many of his party remain to this day undecided as to which end of this war they will commit themselves undecided, that is, as to which end they want to commit themselves. To be undecided today as to whether to end this war over our democracy is to have decided how one wants this war to end.

Thus, for the rest of us Americans, the time has come for us to decide whether we allow this war over our democracy to be prosecuted to its catastrophic end or whether we ourselves demand the immediate suspension of this war and insist on peace instead.

We must make this decision because our political leaders are unwilling and unable, even as they recklessly prosecute this war in our name. We Americans begin to make this consequential decision this week, when Congress, rightly if painfully, takes us back to that day in January we want so much to forget but mustnt, and reminds us of what was at stake that day and still, in what is this most unholy of wars.

America is at a perilous crossroads. Who is it that we have become and what is it that America has become? Is this who we want to be and what we want America to be? And if not, just who is it that we Americans want to be? And just what is it that we want our America to be?

Many will again turn their eyes away, miscalculating that this is the last time they must see, and thus remember. The partisan mercenaries, who have no interest in either understanding or peace, will be the first who turn away and, in their determined ignorance, ignore. The mercenaries know better than we that what we forcibly put out of our minds or what we forget, we are destined to repeat.

No American ought to turn away from January 6, 2021, until all of America comes to grips with what befell our country that day, and we decide what we want for our democracy from this day, forward.

The genius that is Americas democracy is this. The Constitution vests all power in We the People. We agreed in the Constitution to delegate our power to our representatives, only during their time in our service, and at that, exclusively for the purpose of representing our interests in the Nations Capital, not theirs. Our democracy is the process through which our representatives, using the power that we have delegated to them, in turn and in trust, govern us. We choose in our national elections those who we want to represent us, including most importantly the President of the United States. It is for this simple reason that to steal an election for the presidency from us is to steal our democracy from us.

Americas democracy was almost stolen from us on January 6.

Our democracy has never been tested like it was on that day and it will never be tested again as it was then if we learn the lessons of that fateful day. On the other hand, if we fail to learn the lessons that are there to be learned, or worse, deny even that there are lessons there to be learned, we will consign ourselves to another January 6 in the not-too-distant future, and another after that, and another after that. While for some, that is their wish, that cannot be our wish for America.

America can withstand attacks on her democracy from without. She is helpless to withstand them from within. The relentless assaults on America and its democracy from within, such as January 6, which designedly call into question the

very legitimacy of the institutions and instrumentalities of our democracy, are simply not contemplated by the Constitution of the United States and are therefore not provided for by that Great Charter for our governance.

America is not in constitutional crisis until and unless the Constitution and the institutions and instrumentalities of our democracy are under withering, unsustainable, and unendurable attack from within. Then, and only then, is the constitutional order in hopeless constitutional disorder. Only then is America in peril. Today, America is in constitutional crisis and at a foreboding crossroads with disquieting parallels to the fateful crossroads we came to over a century and a half ago.

It is no wonder that America is at war over her democracy. Every day for years now we have borne witness to vicious partisan attacks on the bulwarks of that democracy our institutions of government and governance and the institutions and instrumentalities of our democracy by our own political leaders and fellow citizens. Every day for years now we have witnessed vicious partisan attacks on our Institutions of Law themselves, our Nations Judiciary, and our Constitution and the Laws of the United States the guardians of that democracy and of our freedom. For years, we have been told by the very people we trust, and entrust, to preserve and to protect our American institutions of democracy and law that these institutions are no longer to be trusted, no longer to be believed in, no longer deserving of cherish and protection.

If that is true, then it is because those with whom we entrusted these institutions have themselves betrayed our sacred trust.

And, indeed, it does seem at the moment that we no longer agree on our democracy. Nor do we any longer seem to agree on the ideals, values, and principles upon which America was founded and that were so faithfully nurtured and protected by the generations and generations of Americans that came before us. Yet we agree on no other foundational ideals, values, and principles, either.

All of a sudden it seems that we are in violent disagreement over what has made America great in the past and over what will make her great in the future. In poetic tragedy, political campaign slogan has become divisive political truth. And there is no reason to believe that agreement about America by we Americans is anywhere on the horizon, if for no other reason than that none of us is interested in agreement. In the moral catatonic stupor America finds itself in today, it is only disagreement that we seek, and the more virulent that disagreement, the better.

This is not who we Americans are or who we want to be. Nor is this America or what we want America to be.

Reeling from twin wars, leaderless, and rudderless, America is in need of help. Our polarized political leaders have shamefully and shamelessly failed us. They have summoned our worst demons at the very moment when we needed summoned our better angels.

As a consequence, America finds itself in desperate need of either a reawakening and quickening to the vision, truths, values, principles, beliefs, hopes, and dreams upon which the country was founded and that have made America the greatest nation in the world a revival of America and the American spirit.

Or, if it is to be, we are in need of a revival around a new vision, new truths, new values, new principles, new beliefs, new hopes and dreams that hopefully could once again bind our divided nation together into the more perfect union that We the People originally ordained and established it to be.

We cannot hobble along much longer, politically paralyzed and hopelessly divided, directionless and undecided as to which revival it will be if any at all.

Where do we begin? This is the easier question. Who has the patriotic and political courage to go first? This is the harder question.

As to the first question, we begin where the reconciliation of all broken human relationships, be they broken from war, anger, betrayal, or love, begins by talking with each other, and listening to one another again, as human beings and fellow citizens who share the same destiny and the same belief in America and hope for her future. For years now, taking the lead from our politicians, we Americans have spoken only coarse, desensitizing, dehumanizing political vile at each other, which enables us to speak to each other without guilt or regret. For too many years now, we have spoken to each other as charlatanic political gladiators in an arena that today has become annihilative of Americas future, not promising of that future.

By constitutional order, We the People of this great Nation confer upon our elected representatives the power that they are then, by solemn constitutional obligation, directed to wield on our behalf and on Americas behalf. But today our politicians live in a different world from the rest of us, and in a different world than that ordained by the Constitution. They live in a fictional world of divided loyalties between party and country, a world of their own unfaithful making.

Todays politicians believe that they never have to choose between partisan party politics and country, when in fact they are obliged by oath to choose between the two every day, and every day they defiantly refuse to choose. For todays politicians, never the twain shall meet between partisan ambition and country, and never the latter before the former, either. The politicians in todays America only sponsor partisan incitement and only traffic in the same, rather than sponsor bi partisan reason and lead in thoughtful deliberation. They have purposely led us down the road not in the direction toward the bridging of our differences, but in the direction away from the bridging of those differences. They have proven themselves incapable of leading us.

But still, all it would take to turn America around is a consensus among some number of these political leaders who possess the combined necessary moral authority and who would agree to be bound together by patriotic covenant, to stand up, step forward, and acknowledge to the American People that America is in peril.

In order to end these wars that are draining the lifeblood from our country, a critical mass of our two parties political leaders is needed, to whom the remainder would be willing to listen, at least without immediate partisan recrimination. The logic for reconciliation of these wars being waged in America today dictates that this number needs to include a critical mass of leaders from the former presidents political party and that those leaders need to go first. All of these leaders then need to summon first the moral courage and then the political courage, the strength, and the patriotic will to extend their hands, and ask of the others and of all Americans Can we talk? America needs us.

While Memorial Day is still fresh in our minds, we would all do well to remind ourselves of the immortal words spoken to the West Point cadets at the United States Military Academy a half century ago: Duty, Honor, Country. Those three sacred words of profound American obligation were spoken on that occasion to reassure those who had given their lives for their country in the past, and who would give them in the future, that their sacrifice would not be in vain. Those words are as apt today for this occasion as they were on that day for that occasion, if not more.

Then we need to get back to work, and quickly. We need to get back to the solemn business of preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States and the United States of America.

The hour is late. God is watching us.

Respectfully,

Michael Luttig

* With my respect to the Select Committee, I did not submit this statement prior to my testimony today pursuant to the Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives, so to avoid any appearance or suggestion that my testimony is that of an interested political party partisan or is on behalf of the Select Committee or any person involved with, on, or after January 6, or is that of a witness in any other way interested in these hearings.

I testify today only as a private citizen, and as a non-partisan, disinterested, independent former Federal Judge on the United States Court of Appeals who happens to have been a fact witness to the events surrounding January 6. The views, the thoughts, and the words herein are mine and mine alone, submitted to the Select Committee on my own behalf and no one elses.

More:
On the Knifes Edge of Democracy - The Bulwark