Mediaboss Marketing

When the late Roman Republic was considering whether to go to war against their sworn enemy of Carthage for a third (and, it turned out, final) time, one Roman leader, Nasica Corculum, argued fruitlessly against the attack. He feared that the loss of a common enemy would lead the Roman people to lose their virtue and discipline, sink into decadence, and even turn against each other in vice, greed, and competitiveness. And indeed, not long after the total Roman victory over Carthage in 146 BCE, a series of civil conflicts and uprisings erupted, lasting until Julius Caesar replaced the Republic with an empire for good. Of course, historians argue about whether the eradication of Carthage really helped cause the Roman Republics decline, but the narrative point remains: in the ebb and flow of history, the seeds of an empires destruction often appear at the moment of greatest triumph.

Now for the inevitable comparison with the United States and liberal democracy. In 1992, the political scientist Francis Fukuyama famously published a book with the juicy title of The End of History and the Last Man, in which he argued that liberal democracy was the final form of human governance. Fukuyamas thesis was that, now that the Communist bloc had decisively lost the Cold War, world politics would henceforth inevitably move toward an ever more complete victory for liberal democracy. For one thing, no other type of government was as desirable. For another, continued economic industrialization required an informed, participatory, democratic populace. Even more compellingly, mature democracies didnt go to war against each other. Over time, liberal democracy would simply expand further and further, until we arrived at the end of ideological conflict: the end of history.

For a decade or so after Fukuyamas book appeared, Americas predominance as the worlds foremost power seemed unchallenged, and its style of liberal democracy was indeed spreading. Country after country gave up their authoritarian ways and turned to the ballot box. At the same time, globalization was the the rallying cry of the cognitive elite: in high school classes and college seminars, in newspaper columns and shareholders reports, the ever-greater economic integration of the world went unquestioned. Liberal democracy was sweeping away all rivals and laying the groundwork for a truly global society defined by human rights, democratic good governance, benevolent technocratic expertise, and the untrammeled exchange of goods, capital, people, and ideas.

And then the 21st century showed up.

The meteoric rise of China showed the world that it was, in fact, completely possible to rapidly industrialize without making even the tiniest concessions to democracy or liberalization. In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, many nations have suffered from democratic backsliding, or the loss of democratic norms. Most ominously, the United States the lodestar of modern liberal democracy and, up til now, the linchpin of the postwar global order slipped to flawed democracy status in the global Democracy Index in 2017, and hasnt moved back up the ratings since. At the same time, extreme partisan polarization has degraded American political culture, and growing numbers of young people across the industrialized world no longer view democracy positively.

The medieval Islamic philosopher Ibn Kaldun argued that societies crumble when their elite classes become complacent, having vanquished their enemies and grown accustomed to wealth and comfort. Without the need for discipline and unified purpose that come from rallying against a shared enemy, the privileged turn to pursuing their own pleasure and competing with one another for status. From a Kaldunian perspective, Nasica was right: the destruction of Carthage deprived Romans of their shared enemy, and so their sense of common purpose. The loss of the Soviet Union might have had a similar effect on the United States, leaving the country feeling overconfident, complacent, and disinclined to make the continued sacrifices that a functioning democracy requires.

Its impossible to know whether Nasica Corculum was right about the dangers to Rome of losing a common enemy to keep people bonded together, or whether his apocryphal warnings really apply to our present day. But its hard not to see echoes of the late Roman Republics predicament: just as the days begin to shorten again as soon as summer reaches its height, liberal democracys apparent wholesale triumph lasted only a few sweet moments before its shadow started to lengthen. Serious rivals in particular, Chinas brand of illiberal capitalism and authoritarian governance quickly gained momentum and clout at the same time that infighting, loss of common vision, and withering morale began to plague the most advanced democratic countries.

These developments raise a sticky question: what happens to the world if liberal democracy loses its position as the default norm? Liberal democracy has always seen itself as universal, after all not the parochial worldview of some pastoral backwater, but the End of All Ideologies, the spirit of reason itself come to enlighten and liberate all people. But as I discussed here recently, our democratic ideals dont actually come from some pristine, timeless Platonic realm of universal reason. Theyre the unique and contingent product of a particular place and a particular history. Liberal democracy is, in many ways, an outgrowth of the Reformation.

Its not coincidence, then, that the United States has been both the global epicenter of Protestantism for more than a century and a half and the bellwether for all things liberal and democratic. So what if the apparent (if temporary?) global triumph of liberal democracy wasnt a grand historic inevitability after all, but the political outworkings of the United States own, particularistic agenda? A 2006 paper by political scientist Mark Sheetz of Columbia University argues that, in fact, globalization has just been American imperialism all along:

the United States is a hegemonic power insofar as it has been able to impose its set of rules on the international systemIf globalization refers to the impact of foreign forces across national borders, be they economic, societal, cultural, or information-related, then globalization, in one sense, amounts to little more than an expression of US hegemony.

Today, the word hegemony often means, roughly, oppressive and unjust, thanks to the influence of early 20th-century Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci. But Sheetz doesnt mean it that way. He simply means that the United States is extraordinarily powerful, with the ability to enact its agenda in the world. Sometimes this agenda is beneficial, as in the U.S.s commitment to the military protection of European and Asian allies. Say what you like about having a global policeman, but its entirely possible that Steven Pinkers celebrated 20th-century decline in warfare is really the straightforward result of America being so overwhelmingly dominant that no one else wants to rattle the cage. The same goes for the supposedly ironclad law that mature democracies dont wage war against one another. Since mature democracy isjust another way of saying Americas ally, of course these mature democracies dont fight one another but not necessarily because democracy inherently emits magic anti-war rays. Its becausethey constitute a de facto bloc.

At the same time, the U.S. has been uniquely, even overwhelmingly, dominant in the realms of culture, economics, and science:

The hegemonic dominance of America across multiple domains has allowed the U.S. to spread its ideological vision a culturally Protestant-ish, capitalist, and liberal-democratic one across the Earth, even shaping how the world saw the future. I mean, ever watch Star Trek? Heres a vision of the future that nearly precisely matched the universalistic conceits of American democracy: a cosmic federation, based on the ideals of freedom, science, truth, and equality, that overcomes the irrational biases of the past and achieves technological mastery of the physical world. Just as the United States hosts the headquarters of, and is by far the largest funder of and biggest player in, the United Nations, the fictional United Federation of Planets is centered on and ultimately dominated by Earth. The UN flag was even the inspiration for the United Federation of Planets logo.

So our very imaginations have been shaped to see the future as looking like the continual expansion of liberal-democratic norms and ideals, complemented by ever-growing technological mastery of nature. Thats what the future meant. But that vision was never really inevitable or universal. Instead, it stemmed in large part from the Protestant (and Enlightenment) ideals that have historically infused American society, including an emphasis on individual liberties and rights, skepticism of traditional or inherited authority, and an abiding belief in technological and economic progress.

Its easy to be cynical about power. The boons of liberal democracy, including greater freedom and equality for women, large-scale reduction of poverty, and widespread political self-governance, have always been entwined with a darker side. The United States has a checkered history, after all: racism and slavery, conquest, broken treaties with American Indian tribes, economic oppression, the invention of daytime television. These moral failings (okay, except the last one) have become topics of intense focus in elite academic circles to such an extent, in fact, that cynicism is often the default mode under which thought leaders (especially in academia) discuss and think about America. Seen through this darkened lens, Americas leading role in the spread of liberal democracy is simply a brute power grab, an attempt to dominate and oppress the rest of the world.

Yet it wouldnt have been possible for Western leaders to disseminate democratic ideals so effectively if many of them hadnt really believed, in a genuine and non-cynical way, in what they were evangelizing. In the same way, Protestant missionaries wouldnt have been as successful in spreading global Christianity if they didnt really believe in the gospel they preached. This odd mix of facts leads us to a truly existential question: what happens when the leading members of the worlds leading societies no longer believe in their societies core narratives? If its the case that modern democracy is, in many ways, an historical outgrowth of Protestantism, does the rapid decline of Protestantism in its former geographic heartland Europe and North America have implications for the future of democracy itself?

In the social sciences, there are two schools of thought about this question. One, exemplified by cultural evolutionists such as Ara Norenzayan, proposes that religion is simply a ladder that, once societies use it to attain a stable level of good governance, can be kicked away. This view sees the progression from Christianity to secular democracy as path-dependent, but mostly unidirectional. Cultural values and habits, once instilled, can continue to operate and provide a stable basis for continued evolution, even if the institutions that instilled them have vanished.

The second school of thought, exemplified by anthropologistScott Atran, argues instead that the disappearance of religious practices, habits, and institutions leads to the eventual withering away of the values that they instilled. Without Protestant churches to impart individualistic, self-disciplined, relatively egalitarian values, people will invariably begin to pick up other values and drift toward other institutions probably ones that arent as conducive to democracy.

The truth, as usual, is probably somewhere in between. Cultural traditions and values can have a lot of inertia, even in the absence of formal institutions to perpetuate them. Catholic taboos against cousin marriage remained strong in western Europe even after the Reformation, when Protestant churches took over that lacked official restrictions on it. But without a common set of references or a shared narrative, even a very powerful society like the U.S. can quickly lose its ability to solve problems, much less disseminate its vision of the good life. The norms and values we once took for granted really can evaporate.

What were living through right now is a crisis not just of democracy, but of the kind of culture that underlies democracy. Im not just talking about the coronavirus pandemic I mean the political and existential upwellings that were already shaking the world before December of 2019. Democratic norms and values came from a particular place and emerged out of a unique procession of historical events in Europe and North America. These norms and values underpin science, facilitate technological progress, gave rise to secular liberal culture. They were the warp and weft of globalization. Without them, its not clear what our trajectory looks like. It doesnt take 2300-year-old Roman reactionaries to tell us that the future can be very uncertain indeed.

______

* Now, in 2020, that number has declined to about 24 percent. By comparison, Chinas economy accounts for about 19.5 percent of the world economy, but China has 18.2 percent of the worlds population, compared to 4.3 percent for the US.

______

Im writing about these large-scale political and cultural topics partly to help get my own thoughts in order about whats going on in the world, and partly because they have a tremendously significant bearing on the future of science. Theres a real question as to whether science as we know it would be able to thrive in a post-democratic world (say, a world dominated by illiberal state capitalism and authoritarian governments). Scientists tend to think about themselves as detached from the contingencies of politics, but the uncomfortable fact is that the intellectual openness, liberal government funding, and institutional infrastructure that make scientists jobs possible are hard to separate from open, democratic societies. Similarly, the international collaborations that so many scientific projects depend on could be imperiled in a multipolar world in which great power politics (and potentially wars) came rushing back. Thinking at a meta-scientific level about how society and science are interconnected (a project with an estimable pedigree) seems like a worthwhile thing to do at a time of change and uncertainty like our own.

Read the original:
Liberal Democracy, Science, and the End of the End of History - Patheos

The extremely serious revelations made by former Justice Minister, Sergio Moro, need to be investigated

Issued by Transparency International in Brazil

This Friday, Brazil suffered aserious institutional setback in its fight against corruption and yet another terrifying authoritarian move against its democratic regime.

The former Lava Jato judge and Minister of Justice, Sergio Moro, submittedhis resignation in protest against the decision of the Brazilian President, Jair Bolsonaro, to replace the chief of the Brazilian Federal Police. Political interference in national oversight institutions has been a consistent problem during the Bolsonaro government. Thisundermines the hard-won independence of these bodies, which has allowed for recent advances in the countrys fight against corruption. In a government marked by the corrosion of the democratic system, this new attack on national institutions is not an isolated act. Now, with revelations byformer minister Moro that the President of the Republic is seeking to control the federal police force to obtain intelligence and obstruct investigations and with who knows what otherintentions the threats Brazil faces under its current government have reached an unprecedented level. Society and institutions must react firmly to contain the abuses of this government. Otherwise, the country might not only return to the historical prevalence of impunity, but might also have its democracy shattered.

In its 2019Annual Review and a report addressed to international organizations, Transparency International Brazilexposed the setbacks to Brazilian legal and institutional anti-corruption frameworks that took place last year, as well as attacks on the press and civil society.

Brazil must not tolerate another authoritarian advance and must respond to these threats, which become more audacious every day.

The Federal Police, its members and class associations, must resist, within the framework of the law, any political attempt to interfere in its leadership.

The Prosecutor General's Office and the Supreme Court must investigate the crimes of fraud, failure to perform duties, coercion, obstruction of justice and corruption possibly committed by the President of the Republic.

Congress must deliberate on the alleged crimes committed by the President of the Republic and, if confirmed, enforce the rule of law.

Brazilian society should follow with the utmost attention and rigorously demand that the rule of law, institutions and democratic values prevail in the country.

Contrary to what the President of the Republic said in a speech to the nation, the "source of corruption" was not exhausted in his mandate. On the contrary, the progressive deterioration of legal and institutional frameworks promoted by his government has weakened the country's capacity to tackle the problem. This reality was reflected in the latest edition of Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index (CPI), in which Brazil achieved its worst position in the entire history of the ranking: 106th out of 180 countries and territories, with 35 points (on a scale of 0 to 100).

Here, as elsewhere in the world, Transparency International draws attention to the authoritarian trap in tackling corruption. This is a struggle that is not won with heroes, but with strong institutions and guarantees and freedoms to citizens. We will continue our fight in the name of what it most fundamentally represents: a fight for rights.

ENDS

About TI Brazil Transparency International is a global movement with the same purpose: to build a world in which governments, companies and people's daily lives are free from corruption. We work in Brazil to support and mobilize local groups to fight corruption, produce knowledge, raise awareness and commit companies and governments to the best global practices of transparency and integrity, among other activities. The international presence of TI allows us to defend initiatives and legislation against corruption and for governments and companies to effectively submit to them. Our network also stimulates collaboration and innovation, which gives us privileged conditions to develop and test new anticorruption solutions.

For any press enquiries please contact

Andr Dayan +55 11 3817-7895 andre.dayan@cdicom.com.br

Gislene Rosa +55 11 3817-7919 gislene@cdicom.com.br

Jorge Valrio +55 11 3817-8002 jorge@cdicom.com.br

See the rest here:
Brazilian institutions and society must act to save democracy and the fight against corruption - Transparency International

Only weeks ago, Benjamin Netanyahu was a hairs breadth from being ousted from the Israeli Prime Ministers Office in disgrace, after 11 years of continuous rule. But after a dramatic turnaround in fortunes last week that saw him signing a pact with Benny Gantz, his chief political rival Mr Netanyahu has begun to rapidly consolidate his power.

In what many critics fear amounts to a power grab, he began pushing through changes on Thursday to Israels basic laws, the equivalent of a constitution. The move was described as terrifying by Elyakim Rubinstein, a conservative former supreme court judge.

Another commentator warned that, under cover of forming an emergency government to deal with the coronavirus epidemic, Mr Netanyahu had driven Israel into the early stages of totalitarianism.

What has especially alarmed observers is the apparent ease with which Mr Netanyahu has manoeuvred Mr Gantz, a former general, into rubber-stamping the new arrangements.

Mr Gantz led a bloc of parties whose anti-corruption platform expressly promised to bring down Mr Netanyahu, who is due to stand trial on bribery, fraud and breach of trust charges in a months time. After an election in March, the third in a year, Mr Gantz vowed to use his blocs 62-seat majority to pass a law making it impossible for a criminal defendant to serve as prime minister.

Mr Netanyahu was on the backfoot, too, fearful of a fourth election in the late summer when he risks being blamed for the expected collapse of the Israeli economy after more than a month of lockdowns.

Instead, Mr Gantz has caved. He has not only secured Mr Netahyahu at least another 18 months in office but, in the words of one Israeli commentator, has offered to serve as his bodyguard.

The coalition agreement means Mr Gantz cannot dislodge Mr Netanyahu during the governments three-year term. The two stand or fall together. That gives Mr Netanyahu a solid advantage in his court proceedings, as he fights the case not only with the authority of a prime minister but with Mr Gantzs complicit silence.

Even if Mr Netanyahu is found guilty, Mr Gantzs faction is barred from ousting him or voting to bring down the coalition, leaving Mr Netanyahu free to launch an appeal from within the government. Likewise, under a rotation agreement, Mr Gantz must let Mr Netanyahu serve out the second 18-month period as his deputy. Assuming, that is, that Mr Netanyahu steps back.

Despite some two-thirds of Israelis supporting the emergency government, a poll shows more than 40 per cent doubt Mr Netanyahu will honour his commitment to hand over power. In any case, even as Mr Gantzs deputy, Mr Netanyahu will have the allegiance of the vast majority of the governing coalitions legislators. He could still be in the driving seat.

Most expect him to use his position to intensify his long-running campaign to demonise the courts, accusing them of overseeing an undemocratic, leftist plot to unseat him.

Israelis demonstrate against Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, under strict restrictions made to slow down the coronavirus spread, on Rabin Square in Tel Aviv, Israel April 19, 2020 REUTERS

A man wearing a protective face mask holds an Israel's flag as Israelis demonstrate against Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, under strict restrictions made to slow down the Covid-19 spread, on Rabin Square in Tel Aviv, Israel April 19, 2020 REUTERS

Israelis hold up their mobile phones as they demonstrate against Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, under strict restrictions made to slow down the coronavirus spread, on Rabin Square in Tel Aviv, Israel April 19, 2020. REUTERS

Israelis hold posters with the picture of Benny Gantz, head of the Blue and White party, that read: "I would not sit in a government under a man with criminal indictment", as they protest against Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, under strict restrictions made to slow down the coronavirus spread, on Rabin Square in Tel Aviv, Israel April 19, 2020. REUTERS

Israelis protest at a rally in Rabin Square on April 19, 2020 in Tel Aviv, Israel. Getty Images

Israelis light flash lights as they protest at a rally in Rabin Square on April 19, 2020 in Tel Aviv, Israel. Getty Images

Thousands of Israelis gather at an Anti-Corruption rally under coronavirus restrictions. Getty Images

Israelis protest at a rally in Rabin Square on April 19, 2020 in Tel Aviv, Israel. Getty Images

Thousands of Israelis gather at an Anti-Corruption rally under coronavirus restrictions, decries proposed unity government talks between Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Blue and White Party leader, Benny Gantz. Getty Images

To an increasing number of Israelis, the countrys political system looks broken. Several thousand of Mr Gantzs former supporters defied Israels lockdown at the weekend as they did the week before to attend a rally in central Tel Aviv.

Standing on marked positions to maintain two metres distance, they protested Mr Netanyahus increasing accumulation of powers. Carmi Gillon, a former head of Israels domestic spy agency, the Shin Bet, told the crowd the courts were now all that left to defend Israeli democracy before it is finally crushed.

Critics note that the Shin Bet have already been given an unprecedented right previously available for use only against Palestinians to track Israeli citizens.

Combined with anti-coronavirus restrictions, opponents fear Mr Netanyahu is establishing a security regime at home that can be used to oppress dissenters. They point to his imminent trial, noting that most of the charges relate to his alleged efforts to intimidate or bribe major Israeli media outlets into becoming little more than his personal cheerleaders.

Ultra-orthodox Jewish members of the religious burial organisation Hevra Kadishah wear protective suits as they prepare to carry the coffin of 72-year-old French rabbi Masoud Hamu, who died from Covid-19, at a funeral home in Jerusalem, on March 26, 2020. EPA

A man sits in front of closed shops in Jerusalem's Old City, amid measures to stem the spread of coronavirus, on March 27, 2020. AFP

Palestinian health ministry workers check the temperatures of men crossing the Tarqumiya checkpoint, near Hebron, West Bank, on March 27, 2020. EPA

A Jewish ultraorthodox man looks onto a local billboard with instructions related to coronavirus in the Orthodox Jewish neighbourhood of Jerusalem on March 27, 2020. Reuters

Palestinian security forces attempt to arrest a shop owner who did not abide by a national lockdown, in Hebron, West Bank, on March 28, 2020. EPA

Ultra-orthodox Jews practice social distancing while praying at the Western Wall in Jerusalem. AP Photo

Coptic priests hold a mass outside a closed Church of the Holy Sepulchre, in Jerusalem, on March 28, 2020. AP Photo

A man feeds pigeons at an empty parking lot in Tel Aviv, Israel, on March 28, 2020, as the country largely shuts down to avoid the spread of coronavirus. AP Photo

Ultra-orthodox Jews, wearing traditional prayer shawls, pray outside their closed synagogue, following instructions to stop the spread of coronavirus by keeping a distance of two meters from one another, in Jerusalem on March 29, 2020. AFP

A picture taken on March 27, 2020 shows a view of the Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem amid measures to stem the spread of coronavirus. AFP

Israel fears little in the way of repercussions. And Mr Gantz now appears on board. As defence minister, he will be responsible for crushing any Palestinian resistance to Israels annexation moves

Meanwhile, other checks on the executive branch he heads are being sacrificed on the altar of the emergency government.

Despite being a criminal defendant, Mr Netanyahu will have a veto on the appointment of the two most senior law-enforcement officials the state prosecutor and attorney general who are supposed to oversee the case against him at trial.

Mr Netanyahu has already installed an acting prosecutor considered loyal to him who, according to the coalition agreement, cannot be removed for many months. Israeli commentators have expressed little faith that he will prosecute Mr Netanyahu with full vigour.

Mr Netanyahu will also continue to wield control over the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court, which has been drifting ever further rightwards after more than a decade of Mr Netanyahus influence.

In these circumstances, the courts may baulk at the prospect of inflaming a constitutional crisis and possibly civil war by trying to remove a sitting prime minister. With the judicial and legal branches increasingly enfeebled, the coalition agreement also strips the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, of any meaningful oversight. The government will be able to strangle legislative proposals at birth, before they can be debated. Unusually the main parliamentary committees will be under the governing parties control, too. And again unusually, a Netanyahu loyalist will be the Knesset Speaker.

But the coalition agreement does allow for one emergency legislative move unrelated to tackling the virus: annexation of swaths of the West Bank in violation of international law but under licence from the vision for peace published earlier in the year by US President Donald Trump.

The government can set forth an annexation plan from July well before Mr Trump faces a re-election contest in the US in November. Mike Pompeo, his Secretary of State, offered what appeared to be Washingtons blessing for fast-track annexation last week.

While Mr Gantz headed the opposition bloc, he refused to rule out annexation, expressing concern only that it would prove unpalatable to some western allies.

But aside from formulaic denunciations from a few European states, Israel fears little in the way of repercussions. And Mr Gantz now appears on board.

As defence minister, he will be responsible for crushing any Palestinian resistance to Israels annexation moves, while Gabi Ashkenazi, his political ally and another former general, will be responsible as foreign minister for putting a respectable face on the annexation drive in overseas capitals.

Mr Netanyahu appears to have the wind behind him, and three more years in which to meddle in ways that could see him maintaining his grip on the Israeli Prime Ministers Office well beyond that.

Jonathan Cook is a freelance journalist in Nazareth

Updated: April 27, 2020 12:05 PM

Read more here:
Has Benjamin Netanyahu just put Israeli democracy on the road to peril? - The National

On this episode Mark Kenny talks with Anne McNaughton, Mark Evans, and Marija Taflaga about the governments COVID-19 app, post-crisis tax and economics, and whether consensus politics has any chance of continuing after the crisis.

The government has released its coronavirus-tracing app, but do Australians trust their government with the data it gathers? Could it be time to revisit the findings of the Henry Tax Review as the country charts a course to recovery? And will the consensus politics weve seen through the national cabinet continue after the crisis? Professor Mark Kenny is joined at the Democracy Sausage hotplate by Anne McNaughton, Professor Mark Evans, and Dr Marija Taflaga to chew over the week in politics and public affairs. Listen here:https://aca.st/dc8efa

Mark Kennyis a professor in the ANU Australian Studies Institute. He came to the university after a high-profile journalistic career including six years as chief political correspondent and national affairs editor forThe Sydney Morning Herald,The Age, andThe Canberra Times.

Marija Taflagais a lecturer in the ANU School of Politics and International Relations. Her major research is on political parties and particularly the Liberal Party of Australia. She has previously worked in the Australian Parliamentary Press Gallery as a researcher atThe Sydney Morning HeraldandThe Age.

AnneMcNaughtonis a senior lecturer at the ANU College of Law and conducts research on the European Union as a unique legal order in international law.

Mark Evansis Director of Democracy 2025 at the Museum of Australian Democracy and Professor of Governance at University of Canberra.

Democracy Sausage with Mark Kennyis available onApple Podcasts,Spotify,Google Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Wed love to hear your feedback for this podcast series! Send in your questions, comments, or suggestions for future episodes topodcast@policyforum.net. You can also Tweet us@APPSPolicyForumor join us on theFacebook group.

This podcast is produced in partnership withThe Australian National University.

Read the original post:
Democracy Sausage podcast: Coronavirus crisis theres an app for that - Policy Forum

Zambian democracy is in peril. There are many forces both visible and invisible, overt and covert, internal and external, conscious and unconscious that are imperiling Zambian democracy which we fought so hard for to birth prior to the 1991, culminating in the multiparty dispensation victory by the people in the 1991 elections.

Prior to those elections, there was a one-party dictatorship which saw many independent minded and opposition leaders detained without charge or trial, jailed, compromised or refused to run for elections held under the dictatorship and some fled into exile. We are not going back to that period except over our dead bodies. Only those who did not live under that dictatorship would want to go back.

There are many books written under that period, two of mine included: 1. Thoughts Are Free: Prison Experience and Reflections on Law and Politics in General (1991), and 2. Class Struggles in Zambia, 1889-1989 and the Fall of Kenneth Kaunda, 1989-1991(1992). Our reaction therefore is not theoretical or merely an academic exercise to show ones intellectual prowess.

This article will name a few entities that are a danger to democracy in Zambia, pointing out with evidence why we think the behaviour or writings of these entities pose a danger to democracy in Zambia. And behind any entity we name are living and breathing individuals that are responsible for this. Everything that is anathema to democracy in Zambia is propelled by human beings, named or unnamed.

We will start with the public media which is taxpayer-funded and is supposed to promote democracy as constitutionalised in Zambia and as expected of an institution of public trust. The Sunday Times of Zambias editorial comment of March 22, 2020 is one of the greatest threats to Zambian democracy in a long time. I hypothesise that there was corroboration in writing of that editorial with a scholar based in England. We will start with that scholar although I have no proof that there was collaboration. It is my opinion. It is difficult to distinguish that editorial from the writer of the lengthy article in the same paper by Dr. Katiba Mbinga, a lecturer in the History Department, University of London.

The article on page 10 is entitled, Bill 10 and the UPNDs Hidden Agenda. Dr Mbinga laments the following after indicating that the opposition and pseudo intellectuals and arm chair critics who have been roundly opposed to Bill 10, an innocent documentwithout elaborating its salient points, concludes: I am afraid if this is multiparty we fought for in 1991, and then reverting to the one party government is better. Bill 10, an innocent document? Of course, a document is simply a piece of paper. But innocent? The Bible is innocent but look at the carnage it had wrought throughout history.

Dr Mbinga is advocating for a return to a one-party state dictatorship. His quarrel is that the opposition and the pseudo intellectuals and arm chair critics have not given any concern to the depth and complexities of Bill 10 or are not offering any credible explanations to their opposition to this Bill and in the entire article he laments how the allied entities are not credible alternatives and their aim is to criticise everything the government does or proposes.

Unfortunately, Dr Mbinga offers absolutely no evidence or analyses as to what the opposition, pseudo intellectuals and arm chair critics have given in opposition to Bill 10 and Zambian economics and politics in general. He does not seem to have read the numerous court documents, editorials, writings of lawyers like Professor Muna Ndulo, Michelo Hansungule, etc, practising lawyers like John Sangwa SC, Elias Munshya and others about Bill 10.

He has not read the contributions by many opposition parties in the forum provided by the News Diggers newspaper and The Mast newspaper. He does not seem to be aware that the very newspaper that gave him the platform to write his article, the Times of Zambia, does not give the opposition the platform to publish their critique and visions of governorship as it does to the government.

This goes the same for the Zambia Daily Mail and Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation (ZNBC). He is not aware that the government killed the main independent newspaper, the dynamic The Post newspaper; that the government has recently closed an independent TV station without following procedure.

Dr Mbinga does not seem to be aware of the dangers to democracy posed by Bill 10 because he does neither summarise his so-called salient points, nor the breadth and tenor of the criticisms offered in opposition to this Bill. One wonders who is a pseudo intellectual and arm chair critic here. He has behaved in the same vein as the opposition and pseudo intellectuals and arm chair critics that he criticises in his support for one-party state dictatorship. He is a danger to multiparty democracy which we fought so hard for.

The Sunday Times editorial regurgitates precisely the arguments of Dr Mbinga when it states that the oppositions alleged offer of bribery to Independent MPs to oppose Bill 10 causes it to come to the conclusion that: We should revisit the whole essence of plural politics and the problems it has caused in Zambia in polarising the citizenry along tribal and regional lines.

Like Dr Mbinga, the Times does not supply any evidence of its claims that opposition to Bill 10 has caused degeneration in the dispensation of democracy and whether it is this opposition that has brought into play any tribal and regional politics. The Times has not supplied any evidence that the opposition tried to bribe any Independent MPs in the Bill 10 saga. The Times has not looked at itself whether it has fully covered the reasons the opposition and others have given in opposition to Bill 10.

The Times must have access to court filings and all written articles and documents that oppose Bill 10, but the newspaper has not taken time to summarise these arguments like it has for the government side in promoting Bill 10. Did I miss a concerted summary of the documents including extended arguments offered in court or any published interview that the Times must have had with those vehemently opposed to Bill 10? The Times simply wants the country to consider going back to one party state dictatorship like Dr Mbinga does. The paper knows as well that the Zambia Daily Mail and ZNBC have behaved exactly the same as the Times in not giving the opposition the forum to participate in informing the public as to why they are opposed to Bill 10 and the alternative vision for the country.

Behind the Times, the Daily Mail, ZNBC are real living breathing human beings propagating the system Zambians rejected in 1991 and all of Africa rejected in that same decade. All to save the demise of this government with the help of Bill 10. This Bill 10 is a danger to democracy in Zambia. These allied entities are a danger to multiparty democracy. The individuals behind them are a danger to democracy in Zambia.

The Times is totally oblivious to some of the reasons why the opposition and others go to alternative means of participating in democracy. It is precisely because the Times, The Daily Mail and ZNBC are hostile to covering credible and well-reasoned platforms of the opposition that the latter seek out alternative platforms.

It is so hypocritical when the Times states with a straight face that: By pushing their complaints onto the streets as much as in the courts, opposition leaders are disrupting peace and blackmailing governments to have things their way. Dont you want to laugh or cry when you read such? Hello Times of Zambia, we are in a democracy.

We won our independence by going onto the streets and to the hostile courts. We did the same after one party state dictatorship was imposed in 1993. We did the same under Frederick Chiluba, Levy Mwanawasa, Rupiah Banda, Micahel Sata and Edgar Lungu. This is the stuff from which democracy emanates. They are doing the same in all democracies otherwise democracy dies. In Zambia you The Times dont provide an alternative platform so that the opposition does not resort to the streets or courts or social media. Even going to the streets is curtailed by the Public Order Act. Are you aware of that Mr or Mrs Times of Zambia?

Like Dr Mbinga, the Times concludes the editorial, In Zambia, there is need to take claims of opposition leaders having evidence against malpractices by those in power with a hefty pinch of salt. Yes, the courts are already doing that by throwing out cases on technicalities or rephrasing issues that are not before them or butchering constitutional law by imposing interpretations that dont fit or ignoring clearly laid down transitional provisions or constitutional articles. You, The Times dont even publish what these claims are and that some of the claims are published by government agencies like the Auditor General and the Financial Intelligence Centre. When these agencies report the truth, they are discredited by the government and their personnel removed or moved around.

One of the visionary leaders within the government was lawyer Kelvin Bwalya Fube KBF. The Times has, unless I missed it, not summarised his excellent two volume set, Zambia Must Prosper: Actualising Zambias Prayer For Prosperity (2018) and Zambia Must Prosper II: The Blueprint For Zambias Rapid Economic Transformation(2019). These books would offer a dynamic workable vision for the PF.

But examine where KBF is and how he has been removed from the party that he helped win the 2015 elections, if they won at all, and look at where some of the people Zambians let go in 2011 are: enjoying themselves after Satas death. Those people were removed because they were a danger to democracy, they still are. Those people who brought them in, are a danger to democracy in Zambia.

The Times newspaper brings in tribalism as if it is a creature of the opposition. Lawyer Elias Munshya has publicly declared that the government is basically a Northern and Eastern alliance government. Look at the majority of the Cabinet, Ministers, Permanent Secretaries, Army and Police personnel, directors and managers of public agencies, Tribunals, Cabinet Office, Courts, Ambassadors and all conceivable appointments this government has made and judge for yourself who is consciously and silently promoting tribalism and indignities against the victims of being left out of appointments or being declared fired in the Public Interest.

And this tribalism heightened under the current PF regime, starting with President Sata. And it is all documented by looking at the contents of newspaper reports on these appointments and by reading excellent books including my compilation, The Case Against Tribalism in Zambia(2016); Charles Mwewa, King Cobra Servant King Has Struck: My Letter to President Michael C. Sata(2012); Charles Mwewa, Allergic to Corruption: The Legacy of President Michael Sata of Zambia(2019); Chisanga Puta-Chekwe, Cobra in the Boat: Michael Satas Zambia. These books dont only talk about the subject matter, they talk further about political and economic failings of the PF government and how to improve the potentialities. The Mast, Diggers, intellectuals, authors, civil society and many other entities have pointed out the phenomenon of tribalism in Zambia under this regime as well as the political and economic failings and the way forward. The Times, the Daily Mail, ZNBC do not venture into these their uncharted territories but want to turn the tables against those who are doing things in good faith. We refuse. We know who the enemies of democracy are and we know the people behind the veil. They are as transparent as a clear October sunny day. They are hiding under Bill 10 and the Times and Dr Mbinga dont even seem to know it. But Zambians know it. Dont push them too far.

The author teaches Law of Evidence; Criminal Law; and Research Methodologies and Writing in Law. The views in this article are solely his. Send comments to: forthedefence@yahoo.ca

See the original post:
Naming the real dangers to democracy in Zambia - themastonline.com