Archive for the ‘Democracy’ Category

Pakistan, Ousting Leader, Dashes Hopes for Fuller Democracy – New York Times

In such a system, even steps like Mr. Sharifs removal, which nominally reinforce accountability and the rule of law, can deepen decidedly undemocratic norms.

Though justice prevailed, so did perceptions that it is applied selectively. Though corruption was punished, so was, in the eyes of many of Mr. Sharifs supporters, defiance of the military.

The country has shown it can lawfully remove a prime minister, but it has also shown that voters, who have been allowed to decide only one peaceful transfer of power, still have their leaders selected for them. They are spectators foremost, and participants only occasionally, in their countrys democracy.

Many Pakistanis quickly noticed something that suggested Mr. Sharifs removal might perpetuate, rather than end, the undemocratic norms that have plagued Pakistan for decades.

The Supreme Court has pursued Mr. Sharif but sidestepped many of the other politicians and officials implicated in the Panama Papers leak that set off the investigation, leading to accusations that it was pursuing selective justice.

Moral of the story: when with the establishment, you will not be touched, Asma Jahangir, a prominent human rights lawyer, wrote on Twitter, adding, but if you disagree your grand mom will also be investigated.

This common perception that politicians serve their own interests and that accountability is deployed according to the whims of the elite matters. Those expectations help entrench such behavior as a norm, making it more likely to recur.

This problem extends beyond Mr. Sharif. Tax evasion rates in Pakistan are notoriously high, particularly among the wealthy. Transparency International, a corruption watchdog, ranked the country 113 out of 176 countries in its corruption perceptions index.

Though laws against corruption are strongly written, they are underenforced. And weak elected institutions are easily corrupted. Together, that means that nearly any leader is vulnerable to prosecution and removal if other institutions choose to single him or her out.

But each time they do so, they reinforce the belief impression that true power lies with the so-called hidden hands, powerful military and other elites who manipulate the system according to their own wishes, not with voters.

The decision in Mr. Sharifs case, which took a very broad view of the constitutional clauses requiring politicians to be honest and reliable, risks exacerbating perceptions that justice is often a means to a political end.

The clause under which he was removed essentially means all of Pakistan is ineligible, said Adil Najam, the dean of Boston Universitys School of Global Studies and an expert on Pakistans politics.

Accountability, in such a system, can also be a tool for targeting rivals. This weakens the expectation of punishment, which is supposed to deter future corruption, as well as the ability of healthy institutions to self-regulate.

Mr. Sharifs removal, even if it does discourage corruption, repeats a pattern that has recurred throughout Pakistans history and has been at the core of many of its worst problems. Unelected power centers, not voters, decide who rules.

Only one prime minister has left office in a democratic transition, in 2013. The rest have been removed by judges, generals, bureaucrats or assassins, Husain Haqqani, the former Pakistani ambassador to Washington, wrote on Twitter, calling it Pakistans 70-year tradition.

If Mr. Sharif had finished his term and faced elections again, that would have been a second peaceful transition, a milestone many political scientists see as a vital step in consolidating democracy.

You want elected officials to be judged by the population on the basis of their record, said Paul Staniland, a University of Chicago political scientist who studies Pakistan.

Ideally, Mr. Staniland said, successive elections would establish voters, not unelected bodies, as the final arbiters. Beyond being the point of democracy, this makes leaders accountable to the interests of their nation as a whole, rather than those of a few powerful elites.

Democracy fully takes root only when all aspects of the political system assume that final authority rests with voters and elections. For Pakistan, after so many coups and assassinations, persuading everyone of this would take time.

These interventions disrupt that, Mr. Staniland said, by sending the message that elites can continue assuming that they, not voters, still decide who rules.

Those interventions are possible because of an imbalance in the strength of Pakistans institutions. The military and courts are powerful and highly trusted by the public. By contrast, elected institutions, especially political parties, are weak.

The result is that instead of one institution checking another in ways that strengthen the democratic system, those institutions undermine one anothers already scant legitimacy, leaving the stronger unelected bodies to intervene again and again.

Individual checks like the removal of Mr. Sharif, however justified, chip away further at the legitimacy of those institutions. They remain just relevant enough to jostle for power, ensuring more such cycles, but too weak to actually clean out the system a recipe for instability.

With each such case, those institutions are also on trial. In a healthier democracy, finding a politician guilty proves the system works. In Pakistan, where elected institutions are often assumed to be corrupt, it can mean, in the eyes of voters, indicting the system as just as guilty.

Imran Khan, an opposition leader, has pursued Mr. Sharifs ouster for years, filing court petitions and leading public protests to press watchdog groups and now the Supreme Court.

The military also opposed Mr. Sharif, in part because he sought reconciliation with India, Pakistans rival. That does not mean the military played any role in Mr. Sharifs ouster. But it fed into perceptions that he was outside the good graces of Pakistans power brokers, leaving him vulnerable.

I could tell myself a happy story in which this marks the judiciary asserting the rule of law and getting everything on the right course, Mr. Staniland said. But I think thats pretty unlikely.

A more plausible reading, he added, is that justice is applied inconsistently and will be used to target parties and institutions that will then be unable to recover.

This has led to a norm, Mr. Najam said, of parties seeking to defeat one another not in elections but by creating the conditions for a military or judicial coup against them.

Without a break from Pakistans regular cycles of collapse, political institutions cannot grow stronger, and so cannot provide the real accountability and democracy that voters demand.

Pakistan has always been in this place, Mr. Najam said. Every democratic government in Pakistan that has fallen, and all of them has fallen, has fallen on the sword of supposed accountability.

The Interpreter is a column by Max Fisher and Amanda Taub exploring the ideas and context behind major world events. Follow them on Twitter @Max_Fisher and @amandataub.

A version of this article appears in print on July 29, 2017, on Page A8 of the New York edition with the headline: Pakistan, Ousting Leader, Dashes Fair Democracy Hopes.

See more here:
Pakistan, Ousting Leader, Dashes Hopes for Fuller Democracy - New York Times

Our public spaces are crucial for democracy – The Guardian

St Jamess Park in London. Photograph: Hannah McKay/PA

Your article (The insidious creep of Londons pseudo-public land, 24 July) raises an important and surprisingly neglected political issue. Public spaces streets, parks and squares played a major role in the development of democracy, serving as places where anyone, regardless of income or position, could meet, discuss, demonstrate and publicise their causes. The extent to which these spaces are disappearing and the effect on civic life deserves more attention.

Leafleting on the high street is a traditional way to publicise a campaign but is usually banned from the private space outside supermarkets and malls. Picketing is a valuable weapon against a bad employer but may not be possible where premises are inside a business park. Filming in such developments is subject to permission and often the payment of large fees, but it should also be worrying that representation and reporting in large parts of the modern city are restricted to those who meet the approval of property magnates and/or can pay high fees.

I hope your article will encourage more people to exert pressure for legislation to tackle the problem. Margaret Dickinson London

The Guardian is to be congratulated on revealing the extent of pseudo-public space in London and the issues it raises for its inhabitants and visitors alike. How we use land in the city and who benefits from it is a pressing one, especially with the London Plan currently under review by the Mayor.

While the expansion of pseudo-public space deserves attention, even more important is the scale of threat to green space and the green belt across the capital. This year CPRE London revealed a growing number of supposedly protected green spaces under threat in Greater London, with a sharp increase in planning permissions over the past two years. Despite the calls of the development lobby, we dont need to use our precious green spaces to meet the capitals desperate need for affordable housing. Our most recent report, Space to Build, shows that there is enough suitable previously developed land in London to accommodate more than 1m new homes.

We must be vigilant in standing up for the value of public, particularly green, space in our towns and cities so that they remain the civilised, shared places we all need to thrive. Neil Sinden Director, CPRE London

Try taking photographs on a major railway station these days and see how long it takes before youre challenged. Graham Larkbey London

Join the debate email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

Read more Guardian letters click here to visit gu.com/letters

Read the original:
Our public spaces are crucial for democracy - The Guardian

Why American Democracy Is Broken, and How to Fix It – New Republic

In this hyper-partisan environment, parties are voting more in lockstep (major legislation like the Affordable Health Care Act passes on party-line votes), Congress faces greater turnover in big wave elections (as in 1994, 2006, and 2010), and local elections (like the recent spate of special elections) are increasingly contested on national rather than local issues. This is pattern is self-reinforcing, making for even more extreme partisanship and even deeper deadlock. The American political system seems to be caught in a straightjacket that gets tighter the more the public struggles.

Richard Hasen, alaw professor at theUniversity of California,wonderedin a 2013 article whether this called for drastic measures:The partisanship of our political branches and the mismatch with our structure of government raise the fundamental question: Is the United States political system so broken that we should change the Constitution to adopt a parliamentary systemeither a Westminster system, as in the United Kingdom, or a different form of parliamentary democracy?His formulation of the question, though, was too blunt. As he noted, any such constitutional change would be nearly impossible, especially given the gridlock that already exists. Thus, a Catch-22: The system is so broken that it needs to be changed, but there is no way to change it because the system is so broken.

One way to out of this paradox might to move toward something closer to a de facto parliamentary system, one that wouldnt require constitutional change. The Senate could remove barriers like the filibuster, which prevents a simple majority from effecting change. Democrats might want to hold on to the filibuster now because its a guardrail against Republican policy, but in the long run, the political system would be more effective and accountable.

Congress could also restore now disused procedures like regular order, which McCain drew attention to in Tuesdays speech.Lets trust each other. Lets return to regular order, he said. Weve been spinning our wheels on too many important issues because we keep trying to find a way to win without help from across the aisle.As Peter C. Hanson of the Brookings Institution explains, regular order is the budget procedure for debating and passing individual appropriations bills in each chamber. Today this procedure has been replaced by the passage of huge omnibus packages at the end of the session, with little scrutiny and opportunity for amendment. A few procedural changes (including, as it happens, limiting the filibuster) could bring regular order back to life, making budgeting decisions much more orderly and rule-bound.

Another important restoration would be in congressional staffing, which was gutted by thenHouse Speaker Newt Gingrich in the 1990s. Prior to Gingrichs slashing, members of Congress had large staffs that helped them navigate the choppy waters of policy. Now, much of that work has been outsourced to think tanks, which are beholden to special interests. For Congress to act as an effective parliamentary body, it needs to more policy advisors on congressional staffs.

Congresscould also limit the power of the presidency, curtailing his ability to issue executive orders and to wage war without congressional approval. This would make the president more of a figurehead, with the real power residing in the House speaker and the Senate majority leader. In such a system, voters would, as in a parliamentary system, have a clearer idea of what policies theyre approving when they cast their vote in the booth.

A weak president and strong Congress is not incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. It existed in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century, until Theodore Roosevelt came to power. During that period, presidents had sharply curtailed roles, mainly tasked with making appointments and administering the state while important policies were under the control of strong congressional leaders. Theres no reason why such a restoration of congressional power couldnt happen right now.

Much of governance inthe currentAmericansystemis opaqueespecially in periods of divided government, but not exclusively. For instance, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnells elaborate shell game with health care was designed to conceal the Obamacare repeal plan not only from public view, but from Democrats and even many Republican colleagues.If the existing system operated in a more parliamentary fashion, it would bring clarity to politics. As in the United Kingdom, political platforms would take on a much more meaningful role than a simple wishlist. They would be elaborate policy documents, with parties in power judged by their ability to fulfill their specific promises.

To be sure, a full parliamentary system would still be out of reach, because there would still be a bicameral legislaturethe House and Senate might not be controlled by the same partiesand the president would still have some power (although there could be constitutional amendments to limit even those, including the right of veto). Still, it would be more like a parliamentary system than what exists today.

It could be argued that these reforms are unnecessary given that the main problem with American democracy is Republican extremism. After all, the system worked fine in the brief period of Democratic unitary government from 2009-2011. But that was a two-year window that has only existed once in the last two decades. The greater norm is division or Republican unitary government.

Another objection might be that this reformed system would be less democratic than what exists now, a problem given that the current system already has many undemocratic featuressuch as the existence of the electoral college, and the Senates unequal representation. But surely the most undemocratic feature is the lack of public engagement, far lower in the United States than other comparable democracies (58 percent turnout in the last national election). A move towards a more parliamentary system might well increase political participation.

A governmental reform movement is perhaps the only way out of the current chaos. As American political parties act more like parliamentary ones, its time for the system to change accordingly.

See the rest here:
Why American Democracy Is Broken, and How to Fix It - New Republic

On Complacency and the Thinning of Democracy – National Review

Janan Ganesh is one of the worlds great newspaper columnists, and his column in Tuesdays Financial Times is another stellar entry in a remarkable oeuvre. Casting about for a macro-level explanation to the tumults of our time Trump, Brexit, and their ilk he finds one in the apparent complacency that has overtaken Western society since the end of the Second World War. There is no Passchendaele, no D-Day, no Iwo Jima to give our politics an anchored, foundational meaning; over time weve become bored with the way things are and lost the discipline that did so much to create our current prosperity. The typical view sees Trump and Brexit as reactions to the economic and social dislocations wrought by globalization and its attendant forces. Ganesh sees them as the opposite, products of our faded memories of past trauma.

It is a fascinating argument: It runs perfectly counter to conventional wisdom and raises serious questions about the future viability of our system of governance. But complacency and the fractures of globalization alone cant explain our current predicament. Something significant has also changed in the way that we govern ourselves..

The first half of the 20th century was, for better or for worse, a period of mass democratic involvement in Anglo-American society. In the United States, the votes of the people effected the New Deal, a fundamental change in the relationship between American government and society; in the U.K., something similar happened under the postwar government of Clement Attlee, whose New Jerusalem dramatically rewrote the British social contract or recognized it as having been rewritten to provide a generous welfare state for all. These were times when people mattered, or at least believed they did, and when the choices they made at the ballot box stood a fair chance of entirely upending the existing order, typically for the better.

It is hard to say that sort of democratic choice exists today. Rather, in the words of John Lanchester, democratic choice now has something of a thinned, diminished texture to it, there is a sense that democratic choice [has] narrowed; that, in most elections, a narrow set of economic ideas would be the dominant facts of life, irrespective of where you put your x. The precise date that this diminished texture came into existence is a matter of debate one might say the elections of Reagan and Thatcher were the last times the votes of individuals could recreate the system under which they lived, but even that pair had only minimal success in rolling back the post-war welfare state. What matters is that voters no longer possess this feeling of control over the vicissitudes of their own lives; the system exists, and it cannot be changed.

There is much to the idea that the underlying explanation for Trump and Brexit (and perhaps also Podemos in Spain and Syriza in Greece) is that people feel powerless to bring about any meaningful change and have thus chosen to direct the instruments of democracy toward ends foreign from the system. Complacency is indeed an evil, and it seems true enough that the fading memory of the great democratic struggles of the mid 20th century is a factor in the tumults of 2016. But an equal factor must be that people feel unable to escape the abiding sense of complacency even when they desire to do so. The Petri dish of radicalism, to use Ganeshs phrase, is not mass suffering, but a combination of prolonged order and diminished democracy.

The solution, then, seems clear enough: Reinvigorate the moribund democratic spirit of the Anglosphere through both cultural shifts and political action. Remind people that they really can effect deep changes in the way their societies operate, that not all votes are simply useless howls into an entirely uncaring ether.

There is a problem with that proposal, though. The institutions that Ganesh describes the ones that may well have generated the complacency that in turn eased the path toward our ongoing troubles are, by and large, good. War, despite the fantasies of the alt-right, is on the whole a bad thing, and the vast human toll of the world wars seems a high price to pay for the reminder that politics is indeed a rather serious business with rather serious consequences. So too do the dual phenomena of Trump and Brexit the former is doing much harm to the United States, both domestically and on the world stage, while the latter seems to be drifting listlessly toward a disastrous scenario in which the United Kingdom crashes out of the European Union in March 2019 without having secured an exit deal of some sort. These phenomena may, it is true, do their part in forcing us to confront politics with a cold, rationalistic mind once again. But surely there are better, less wantonly destructive ways to drag ourselves out of the politics-as-sports morass into which we have been drawn.

Indeed, finding those better ways is the most crucial task before us today. A robust version of democratic choice is a boon to any society it invests citizens with a thickened sense of purpose and meaning in their own lives and it provides the means for an endogenous course correction when the projects and schemes of the ruling elite either go wrong or run out of steam. What is crucial is that a reinvigoration of democratic choice does not mean a reneging on the institutions of post-war governance that have served us relatively well for most of their existence, creating prosperous economies, stable political systems, and open, tolerant societies. We would be better off directing our democratic energies toward the murky and uncertain future to come.

The politician or intellectual who comes up with a solution to that question lying at the nexus of civilizational complacency and democratic inspiration will have gone a long way toward squaring the political circle of our time. And the need to square it is evident. More Trumps could prove a fatal blow. So too could the present democratic malaise. Both problems merit solutions. But let us make sure that in finding them we do not destroy an existing order that has earned its chance to adapt.

Noah Daponte-Smith is an editorial intern at National Review and a student of modern history and politics at Yale University.

See original here:
On Complacency and the Thinning of Democracy - National Review

BJP’s ‘greed for power’ is putting democracy at risk, says Mayawati – The Hindu

Lashing out at the BJP for its greed for power, BSP supremo Mayawati on Saturday said the recent developments in Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat had put democracy at risk.

The political developments in Goa, Manipur, Bihar and now in Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh are proof enough that the Modi government has put democracy at risk, she said in a statement here.

BJPs greed for power has turned into lust for power. The manner in which the official machinery and power is being misused is most condemnable, she said.

The BSP chief said the central government had misused its power in a very blatant manner in Gujarat, following which MLAs have been forced to leave their state and move to a safer place.

After forming its government in Goa and Manipur by crushing democracy, whatever is happening in Bihar, Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh is an example of misuse of official machinery like ED, CBI, income tax etc against opposition leaders, she said.

All this is being done to divert attention from the wrong policies and works of the BJP government, she added.

The governments in Odisha and West Bengal are also facing official terror, she alleged. On the resignation by three MLCs, two from Samajwadi Party and one of BSP in Uttar Pradesh, Mayawati said rather than bowing before the BJP, they should have faced the challenge.

Read the original post:
BJP's 'greed for power' is putting democracy at risk, says Mayawati - The Hindu