Mediaboss Marketing

To read the headlines, one could be forgiven for thinking that democracy is in terminal decline around the world. Yet for all the challenges we face, 2024 is set to be a historic year for elections. Nearly 100 countries are scheduled to hold electoral contests, and more than half the global population lives in countries that will go to the polls.

No election is perfect, but billions of voters turning out to hold their leaders accountable and elect new ones represent a compelling case that autocracy is not the wave of the future.

Not all of these elections will be free or fair. Some, in countries such as Russia and Iran, will be outright shams. But this volume of electoral activity is a testament to the very real progress that has been made in advancing political freedom worldwide. Indeed, the fact that more people will be voting in Asia than live in China is a reminder that Beijing’s totalitarianism makes it an outlier even in its own region.

This is not to understate the serious threats facing the free world. Authoritarian aggression is on the march, from Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine to the Hamas-Iran assault on Israel to China’s menacing of Taiwan. Autocrats are also playing offense by deploying economic coercion and sophisticated campaigns of political interference against free societies.

The case of Taiwan — which will hold general elections on Jan. 13 — is instructive. Contrast Taiwan’s vibrant democracy with the faltering top-down regime in mainland China, and you’ll understand one of the key reasons Beijing cannot tolerate an independent Taiwan. The mere fact of millions of Taiwanese going to the polls shows citizens of mainland China that there is no inherent cultural reason they should not also be a self-governing people.

The democratic model has repeatedly demonstrated its superiority to authoritarianism. Authoritarian governments inevitably become sclerotic, insulated from reality, and unable to deliver for their people precisely because they lack free elections that reflect the genuine priorities of citizens. Leaders lack the knowledge they need to make good decisions in the absence of political competition, which might otherwise generate fresh approaches to policy challenges and allow the free exchange of information.

This makes authoritarians far more vulnerable to economic, social, and political instability. It also leaves them open to catastrophic strategic mistakes, such as Putin’s belief Ukraine would fall without a fight.

Alliances between democracies are stronger than those of autocracies because they are rooted in common values. America supports the rise of one Asian giant, India, in part because it is a democracy. China’s opaque authoritarianism, in contrast, makes its power so menacing to free societies on both sides of the Pacific.

Or consider how NATO rallied together in response to Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. In contrast, authoritarian partnerships are far more brittle, subject to disruption and distrust. Does anyone really believe that the Sino-Russian axis could be as strong as, for instance, the relationship between the U.S. and Japan?

Economically, democracies outperform autocracies. Their citizens are, on average, six times wealthier. Culture is not the driver here, but politics, as we see in comparing North Korea with South Korea. According to the Atlantic Council’s Freedom and Prosperity Index, “66 percent of the variation in prosperity around the world can be explained by freedom.”

This makes sense: Property rights, rule of law, and sound institutions secure capital and investment, promote entrepreneurial aspiration, and generate inclusive growth with minimal corruption. An astounding 86 percent of global portfolio investment comes from the U.S. and U.S.-aligned countries — with few indicators to suggest that China and its benighted vassal states will supplant them any time soon. In China, capital flight now exceeds inbound investment, attesting to the systemic weaknesses of Xi Jinping’s centralized and politically-directed economic model.

It’s no accident that the global expansion of democracy occurred at a time of unprecedented American power. U.S. leadership has created the conditions in which free markets and free people can thrive. Conversely, when the United States turns inward, authoritarian malefactors have been quick to fill the vacuum.

If the free world is to prevail over the tyrants who seek its destruction, America must stand up for our democratic friends and lead, not retreat. That means investing in the conditions for free and fair elections in developing democracies, and creating inroads with potential partners who are being courted by authoritarian powers. It also means defending democracies under assault — like Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan — and doing everything in our power to support the forces of democratic change, such as the women-led protest movement in Iran.

Those who argue that Americans don’t care about foreign policy should consider the lessons of history. American presidents suffer when they are viewed as abdicating our global leadership role. President Biden’s public approval rating turned negative when he abandoned Afghanistan.

What’s more, polling by the Reagan Institute suggests that a clear majority of Americans (7.5 out of 10) want the U.S. to maintain its global leadership role, and almost 3 in 4 believe that Washington, wherever possible, should stand up for human rights and democracy in international affairs.

As we look ahead to 2024, we must be clear-eyed about both the promise and the peril that confronts us. The historic volume of democratic elections is one reason for optimism, and one that America in particular should celebrate.

Daniel Twining is the president of the International Republican Institute, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization working in more than 100 countries to advance democracy.

Read more from the original source:
The free world should celebrate 2024 as a landmark year for democracy - The Hill

One of Donald Trumps most consistent election messages is that Joe Biden, not he, is the threat to democracy. The New York Times has an excellent story explaining how this message, which Trump summarizes as BAD (Biden Against Democracy), is designed to neutralize Trumps most important political weakness.

The article puts this strategy in the context of Trumps lifelong habit of accusing his opponents of whatever Trump himself is doing in order to muddy the waters and foster cynicism. But there is another aspect of this argument the article does not consider: BAD is not only a Trumpian schoolyard taunt but also an argument that is being advanced by putatively serious conservative intellectuals.

The literal version of Trumps argument which casts Biden as an authoritarian tyrant who stole the election and is now hell-bent on imprisoning his opponent is obviously promoted by his most enthusiastic supporters. But the main purpose of the claim is to turn the democracy question into a tie. Maybe Trump has been a bad boy (January 6 and all that), the argument will go, but Biden has also threatened democracy. Since both candidates are authoritarians, we might as well vote for the one who will support our favorite domestic policies.

This version of the argument is especially attractive to conservatives who have locked themselves into an anti-Trump posture but wish to create a permission structure to support him as the lesser evil.

The most enthusiastic source of support for this argument is the anti-anti-Trump right at traditional conservative organs like The Wall Street Journal editorial page and the National Review. Rich Lowry, NRs editor-in-chief, has churned out a string of columns straining to make the case that Trumps opponents are just as much to blame for authoritarianism as he is. One recent Lowry column insists that if Biden really cared about democracy, hed quit the race. If Joe Biden were, as a matter of principle, devoted to defending democracy at all costs, he argues, obviously the first thing he would do would be to step aside for some younger, more capable, less radioactive Democrat with a much better chance of beating Trump. (Lowry does not entertain the obvious possibility that Biden genuinely, if perhaps erroneously, considers himself Trumps strongest opponent.) Instead, he argues that Biden doesnt really care much about saving democracy. So why should anybody else?

In another recent column, he concedes that Trumps critics are sincerely, and to some extent understandably, alarmed by his conduct after the 2020 election and how hes branded his political comeback as a revenge tour. But Lowry argues that they are therefore going to react to a potential Trump victory in undemocratic ways:

At least some portion of the Left will convince itself that only a color revolution can save the country.

Prior to the 2016 TrumpClinton contest, one school of Trump supporters posited that it was the Flight 93 election possibly the last chance to save the country. The consequences of failure were so awful that anything was justified to win. Now, thats the way the Left feels, except Trump won his Flight 93 election, and Joe Biden could well lose his.

If so, there will be much to fear from democracys self-styled defenders.

So, you see, this hypothetical future of left-wing behavior that mimics Trump just shows that Trump is no worse than his enemies. Suppose I steal Lowrys wallet, and when he calls me a thief, I point out that his angry rhetoric is a justification for stealing back my money what else would you do against a thief? I suppose he will agree that we are now moral equals with regard to theft.

George F. Will recently insisted in a column that Joe Biden is, like Trump, an authoritarian recidivist mostly stymied by courts and that alarmism over Trumps contempt for democracy distracts attention from the similarity of Trumps and Bidens disdain for legality.

What is the authoritarian offense of Bidens that renders him equal to Trump? I will let Will explain the despotic Biden actions that threaten the republic in all its bloody particulars:

Biden nominated Ann Carlson last March to be administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Two months later, when it was clear that the Senate would not confirm her, Biden withdrew the nomination. But less than five weeks after that, he named Carlson acting administrator. His impertinence would perhaps be limited, by the Vacancies Act, to 210 days, which would expire Dec. 26. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held that the act prohibits any person who has been nominated to fill any vacant office from performing that offices duties in an acting capacity.

Yes, you read that correctly. The equivalent of Trump openly threatening to lock up his enemies, use the military to crush protests, glorifying in violent attacks on his critics, deeming all elections he loses ipso facto stolen, and inciting a mob led by right-wing paramilitaries to storm the Capitol is Biden allowing Anne Carlson to serve as acting administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Now, look. We can agree that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, like other federal agencies, should have a Senate-confirmed leader. And we can further agree that a system that allows presidents to use acting appointees to circumvent Senate confirmation Will notes later in the column this problem has been ongoing since at least the 1990s is broken and in need of reform.

But the idea that this now-routine approach to running the bureaucracy is remotely comparable to the behavior of a man who transparently idolizes dictators is not remotely tenable. It is not a way to hold Democrats to account for the normal failings of politicians. It is a way of running interference for Trumps scheme to undermine the foundations of the republic. Its adherents should at least have the self-respect to stop posing as Trump critics and unmask themselves as water carriers for his own campaign message.

Irregular musings from the center left.

By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice and to receive email correspondence from us.

See the rest here:
'Biden Against Democracy,' the Right's Favorite Trump Rationale - New York Magazine

We are told that the case in which Israel is accused of genocide in Gaza, which has opened in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague, could take years to reach a verdict.

So, let us save all of those 17 judges sitting in the ICJ and everybody else a lot of time and millions of euros. Israel is not guilty of committing genocide against the Palestinian people of Gaza in its war of self-defence against the Islamic terrorists of Hamas.

In truth, Israel is guilty of being the only Western-style democracy in the Middle East, and the only Jewish state on Earth. Defending those qualities has now caused Israel to be branded as uniquely criminal, not only by South Africa (which brought the ICJ case), but also across much of the world, including by many in Europe and the US.

To the shame of Europe, in the ancient Dutch city of The Hague, the United Nations highest court is now staging one of the most grotesque spectacles of political theatre seen in modern times.

The formal title is Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). A more fitting title might be Gaza Through the Looking Glass because the case before the ICJ has stood reality on its head and turned the truth inside out, in the fantastical manner of Lewis Carrolls Alice stories.

Israel stands accused of the crime of genocide, essentially because it is waging war on the Jew-hating, genocidal murderers of Hamas.

The case offers a thin legal faade for a political vendetta against Israel. Under the UN Genocide Convention, for a state to be found guilty of genocide there must be a proven intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. South Africas lawyers argued in court that Israels campaign in Gaza was intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, religious and ethnical group.

In reality, there has been no intent on Israels part to destroy the Palestinian population in Gaza. Quite the opposite; the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) have done more than any other army in wartime to try to limit civilian casualties, including targeting attacks on Hamas bases and warning people to evacuate.

Of course, war is a brutal business and there have still been thousands of civilian casualties. Not least because Hamas uses the civilian population of Gaza as human shields, and builds military bases in highly-populated areas, hospitals, and schools. But lets be clear: the only part of the Palestinian group that the IDF has shown proven intent to destroy is that part involved in Hamas Islamist jihad to destroy Israel and kill Jews. To accuse Israel of genocidal intent is effectively to say that war is genocideif you are on what the woke deem the wrong side of history.

In this conflict only Hamas has demonstrated its proven intent to commit genocide. The war began with the pogrom Hamas terrorists launched against Israel on October 7th that left more than 1,200 deadthe bloodiest day for the Jewish people since the Nazi Holocaustwith some 240 taken hostage. Hamas didnt only butcher, brutalise, and rape Jewsit boasted about its antisemitic pogrom, in Gaza and across social media, in a way that even the Nazis never did.

Hamas is proudly guilty of genocidal intent, of killing Jews for being Jewishcondemned out of its own mouth. Yet that truth has been turned upside-down, so that the Israelis fighting to eliminate genocidal Islamists themselves stand accused of genocide. And many in the West seem to accept that inversion of reality.

Some might have expected the central role of South Africa to at least raise questions about this case. The post-apartheid Republic of South Africa is widely regarded as a failed state, wracked by violent crime, oppression, corruption, and poverty. Even the UN and other Israelophobic global agencies are forced to rank South Africa well below Israel in their league tables regarding democratic rights and civil liberties.

Most of the majority black population appears no better off under the autocratic ANC regime than under the racist apartheid state, while the few remaining white farmers are subject to a campaign of violence that last year prompted South Africa-born Elon Musk to express fears of a genocide of white people in his homeland.

Yet now, by fronting the genocide case at the ICJ, South Africa hopes to posture on the moral high ground of global politics, looking down in judgement on the apartheid state of Israel (you see what they did there?). It has been joined by many of the worst repressive regimes in the world, all queuing to back anti-Israel resolutions passed at the UN that do not mention the Hamas massacres. Once again, the one Jewish state on earth is held to different standards than the rest. Why ever could that be?

Surely more doubts about this attempted show trial should have been raised by the fact that Hamas itself enthusiastically supports South Africa bringing the case to court. In an official statement, Hamas looked forward to the judges of the ICJ delivering a decision that does justice to victims and which demands that Israel stop the aggression. One might almost imagine that Hamas were innocent victims of injustice, perhaps on a par with the persecuted UK sub-postmasters, rather than an Islamist death cult that has sworn to repeat its antisemitic aggression of October 7th again and again and again.

Yet despite all of that, many in Europe and the West have joined Hamas in demanding that the ICJ find Israel guilty of genocide. The crazed Islamoleft scream that Israel is, in the words of a leading UK leftist, a society possessed with murderous mania. And such manic Israel-bashing is no longer confined to the radical fringes.

Belgiums deputy prime minister, Petra de Sutter, quickly broke ranks with the likes of Germany and the UK to demand that Europe must join South Africas case against the threat of genocide in Gaza. Many other EU member states, from Spain to Ireland, have accused Israel of slaughtering civilians and demanded an immediate ceasefirewhich, as Democracy Watch has argued all along, amounts to demanding that Israel surrender.

A glance through the 80-odd pages of South Africas application to the ICJ confirms that this is a political witch-hunt dressed up as a legal indictment; an attempted show trial disguised as an appeal for justice.

Their documented case to prove Israels genocidal intent rests largely on rhetoric rather than evidence. They cite the bellicose rhetoric of selected Israeli figuressuch as the defence minister who, in the aftermath of the barbaric Hamas massacres of October 7th, said Israel was at war with human animals. And they counterpose this to the shrill rhetoric of UN and other aid agenciessome of which, as reported by The European Conservative, are heavily involved with the Hamas authoritiessimply declaring that Israel is guilty of genocide in Gaza.

One particularly surreal section that leapt out of the court application was the allegation that Israel is guilty of genocide because it is Imposing measures intended to prevent Palestinian births through something called reproductive violence. It cites the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls asserting that, the reproductive violence inflicted by Israel on Palestinian women, newborn babies, infants, and children could be qualified as acts of genocide.

No doubt women and childrenand perhaps especially pregnant womenare suffering the consequences of the war in Gaza. But the claim that Israel must thus be guilty of reproductive violence is bizarre. Yet it is in tune with much of the media coverage of the war, which highlights claims that Gaza has become a graveyard for children and death zone for babies.

In 40 years of following war reporting around the world, I have never before seen such an emphasis on the suffering of children and images of dead babies. (Though far less attention is paid to the Jewish children killed and kidnapped on October 7th.) It looks like a campaign to demonise the Israeli state as uniquely cruel. And doesnt it conjure up a modern version of the ancient blood libel about Jews supposedly slaughtering Christian children? Perhaps we should be grateful that nobody has (yet) gone full blood libel and alleged that the Israelis are using Palestinians babies blood to bake their bread

Let us step back from the clouds of legalese, and remember what is at stake here. Israelis are engaged in an existential war against enemies who want to wipe their state off the map and drive the Jews into the Mediterraneanthe real meaning of that from the river to the sea slogan so beloved of the Western Left. Israels war against the genocidal Islamists of Hamas is also the frontline of a wider conflict which we have defined from the start as one between civilisation and barbarism.

Yet even to say that today is to risk being accused of endorsing genocide. If you think I exaggerate, look at the legal document South Africas lawyers have set before the International Court of Justice. There you will find, presented as incontrovertible proof of Israels genocidal intent, a December quote from prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in which he dared to suggest that This is a battle not only of Israel against these barbarians, its a battle of civilisation against barbarism.

Several years ago, in a left-wing demonstration in Europe, I recall a banner declaring that Civilisation Is Genocide. That self-loathing sentiment now seems to have colonised the institutions of the West, everywhere from the UN and the ICJ to the universities and the mainstream media.

As a result Israel, a democratic state founded in response to the Holocaust, the worst genocide in human history, which is now fighting for its civilised life against genocidal antisemites, finds itself cast in the role of global villain. At a time when Islamism threatens world peace, we are invited instead to focus on the alleged crimes of the democratic Jewish state in the frontline of fighting against it.

If there is a crime on display in The Hague, it looks like global conspiracy to commit perjury against the Israel people.

Whatever the ICJ rules, the Israeli government has vowed to pursue its war against Hamas. But the attempt to brand Israel as guilty of genocide is an important part of the wider campaign to isolate the only democracy in the Middle East and legitimise global intervention against it. So let all who believe in true justice and democracy continue to make our case clear. We are guilty of standing with Israel against Islamism; of standing with the Jewish people against antisemitism, old and new; and, yes, we plead guilty to standing for civilisation against barbarism.

Excerpt from:
DEMOCRACY WATCH Israel Is Only 'Guilty' of Fighting Against Genocide - The European Conservative

Former White House lawyer Ty Cobb warned that people need to take former President Trump seriously as a threat to democracy.

CNN anchor Erin Burnett asked Cobb about an argument from Trump’s legal team Tuesday that suggested a president directing SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political opponent is covered by presidential immunity. She pointed out Trump’s past comments praising Chinese President Xi Jinping, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and Russian President Vladimir Putin and asked Cobb whether people should take Trump literally.

“I think you have to take Trump seriously, because he poses the gravest threat to democracy that we’ve ever seen,” Cobb said on “Erin Burnett OutFront.”

Trump’s lawyers argued in front of a three-judge panel that former presidents can only face prosecution if they are first impeached and convicted by the Senate. His legal team is claiming Trump has presidential immunity from charges stemming from efforts to overturn the 2020 election — an argument the three judges appeared skeptical of Tuesday. 

Trump, who was in the courtroom for the hearing, is facing four charges from special prosecutor Jack Smith related to efforts to remain in power after losing the 2020 election. His legal team Tuesday answered hypothetical questions as to how far a former president could go and remain shielded from prosecution under their argument.

Trump attorney John Sauer answered with a “qualified yes” when asked if a former president would be barred from prosecution even if he ordered SEAL Team Six to take out a political rival. 

“He would have to be impeached and convicted,” Sauer said.

Cobb pushed back on this argument, saying the legal team is just hoping to delay the case. Trump’s trial regarding 2020 election interference — the first of his four criminal cases — is currently scheduled for March 4.

“On the other hand, I think his legal arguments are interposed solely for delay,” Cobb said, suggesting that “it would be very scary if there’s no accountability” when someone attempts to stop the peaceful transfer of power.

“I think the, you know, lack of accountability that he desires — which Putin has, the ayatollah has, Xi has — as you as you alluded to, you know, I think that he may want an America that is like that,” Cobb said.

Cobb also noted that the founders of the U.S. wanted to ensure “this was not going to be a country where we had a king. This was going to be a country where we had an accountable executive.”

See the original post:
Ty Cobb says Trump poses gravest threat to democracy weve ever seen - The Hill

Author: Chris Morris, ANU

2024 promises to be a busy year for Indonesian democracy. Voters will elect a new president, 20,462 national and regional legislators and, later, some 548 regional heads. These are the provincial governors, district heads and municipal mayors responsible for delivering many basic services under Indonesias system of decentralised governance.

As Indonesias democratic transition has stagnated and shown increasing signs of regression, direct election of regional heads remains popular among voters even as some elites have again soured on the idea. Well-known shortcomings including widespread vote-buying and civil service involvement in politics will all likely feature again in this election cycle. But there are additional factors that may either strengthen or further undermine the quality of Indonesian democracy in 2024.

2024 marks the first time that all regions nationwide will hold regional head elections in the same year and on the same day. This will align national and regional development planning cycles, confine campaign disruptions to roughly one year out of five and theoretically drive efficiencies of scale in election administration.

In order to synchronise differing regional election cycles, regional leaders whose five-year terms expired in 2022 and 2023 have been replaced by acting regional heads, drawn from the ranks of senior civil servants through a selection process widely criticised for lacking transparency. This means that almost half of all regions those that last held regional head elections in 2017 and 2018 will have been without an elected incumbent for at least a year at the time the 2024 elections are held.

While acting regional heads cannot stand for election while remaining active in that capacity, there appears to be nothing stopping them from resigning and then running as a candidate, having used their time in office to strengthen their political base. A more insidious and likely prospect is that President Joko Widodos (Jokowis) administration is using its influence over acting regional heads to further its own political interests.

A recent significant development is the governments manoeuvring to bring the date of the regional head elections forward from November to September 2024. The official explanation for this move is to eliminate the need to extend the appointment of acting regional heads (and appoint new ones in regions where terms end in 2024) if there are delays in finalising election results and enable the simultaneous inauguration of new regional heads on 1 January 2025. But the real reason is likely a belated realisation by political elites that an earlier poll date better serves their interests.

The November election date was originally set through a 2016 amendment to the Regional Head Elections Law at the beginning of Jokowis first term. In 2021, during deliberations to set the date of the 2024 presidential election, February was chosen after April was dismissed for pushing a possible second-round presidential poll too close to the regional head elections in November. Bringing forward the regional head elections to September will have precisely the same effect.

This presents a significant logistical challenge for the General Elections Commission and its regional equivalents. It may also require shortening the campaign period for regional head elections to only 30 days instead of the typical 7080 days, potentially favouring incumbents over newcomers.

But for Jokowi, a September election would mean that he is still in power and better able to promote his preferred candidates, including members of his own family. His youngest son Kaesang Pangarep, initially slated to contest the 2024 Depok mayoral election on the southern outskirts of Jakarta, suddenly finds himself chairman of Jokowi-aligned Partai Solidaritas Indonesia and being floated as a potential candidate in the Jakarta gubernatorial election. And his son-in-law Bobby Nasution, currently mayor of Medan, is widely anticipated to run for governor of North Sumatra.

Allegations have emerged of subtle interference by state security agencies to thwart the campaign activities of presidential candidates Ganjar Pranowo and Anies Baswedan, to the benefit of third-time presidential contender Prabowo Subianto and his running mate Jokowis eldest son Gibran Rakabuming Raka. Remaining in power until regional head elections are held would maximise the potential for similar interference strategies in regional campaigns.

Most political parties are also in favour of the change because of the opening it creates for legislators with executive aspirations to have their cake and eat it too.

The Regional Head Elections Law requires that sitting legislators resign their position to contest regional head elections. This has meant that if a recently elected legislator subsequently ran for regional head but was unsuccessful, they would be left empty-handed. But if legislators elected in 2024 are not sworn in until October, as per the schedule for the national parliament, a September election would mean that legislators-elect could run for regional head without giving up their seats.

Both the government and parliament were initially reluctant to be seen as pushing a change to the election date, suggesting an awareness that the official reasons for it are unconvincing. But after abandoning an earlier proposal that the executive change the date using an emergency method of law-making, it is now agreed that the parliament will do so by making limited amendments to the Regional Head Elections Law.

This episode demonstrates that Jokowi is not limiting his self-acknowledged electoral meddling to only the presidential contest. More broadly, it suggests that even though direct elections for regional heads are safe for now, they remain vulnerable to the forces that are gradually eroding the quality of Indonesias democracy.

Chris Morris is a PhD candidate at the Coral Bell School of Asia Pacific Affairs at The Australian National University.

Continue reading here:
Will 2024s regional head elections strengthen or undermine Indonesian democracy? - East Asia Forum