Archive for the ‘Democracy’ Category

Canada is a great democracy. But you need to understand it. – Macleans.ca

The Peace Tower is seen on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on November 5, 2013. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick

Evaluating democracies is tricky work. There are competing conceptions of how a state should be organized and of which rules are bestindeed, weve disagreed with one another over this for thousands of years. Some prefer a participatory state, where individual citizens play an active role in self-government; others prefer an arrangement where very little is asked of citizens and in which governments are left to their own devices (between elections). Some want there to be as many elected positions in the country as possible, including, for instance, judges, so that popular control of who governs extends widely across the state; others argue that too much democracy leads to populist excesses and poor outcomes. There are many models of democracy that reflect a variety of values, priorities, and conceptions of how we ought to live together.

Canada is a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy. Roughly, this means that our government is formed by the party or group of parties that can obtain and maintain the confidence of the legislature, and that our sovereign (and head of state) is bound by the Constitution. We also have regular free and fair elections, a legitimate judiciary, and a robust set of rights and freedoms. I hope youll pardon the quick civics lesson, but a recent piece by J.J. McCullough in the Washington Post has me concerned that one is necessary.

In a column initiallyheadlined Is Canada really a truedemocracy? and now titled Canada is not a great democracy, but do we care?, McCullough argues that Canada is not a great or full democracy because of excessive executive powers wielded by the prime minster and the Cabinet, especially wide-ranging appointment authority; strict party discipline; and a lack of American-style checks and balances. He caricatures defenders of the system by suggesting all they care about is efficiency and suggests that those who support Canadian democracy and criticize authoritarian or quasi-authoritarian leaders such as Recep Tayyip Erdoan, Vladimir Putin, or Nicols Maduro are being disingenuous. In doing this, McCullough sneaks in a false equivalency between Canada, one of the worlds top-ranked democracies, and Turkey, Russia, and Venezuela (which, spoiler, dont rank so highly) while caricaturing the Canadian system.

Here are some of the many reasons McCullough is confused and wrong. For one, while efficiency is one of the goods produced by the Canadian democratic system, accountability is central to how things operate here. When a single government with broad powers (which are constrained by ordinary law and by the Constitution, which is hard to alter) acts, it must answer to both the House of Commons (in which individual members of Parliament are, admittedly, underpowered) and to the electorate come election time. In Canada, theres a long, proud tradition of turfing governments that have become unpopular.

Over time, governments in Canada have also provento be responsive to the populationindeed, far more so than in the United States, a country for which McCullough betrays a bizarre endearment coupled with a shallow understanding of it. Despite how things may seem, folks here tend to get the policies and laws they prefer on most matters, at least eventually. So, not only are governments accountable to the House of Commons (day-to-day) and to the people (during elections), the work they do delivers what the people want. And when you take a broader view of Canadian democracy, things look even better. We enjoy a robust and active civil society and a free press, which act as further checks on the government and the state.

So, thus far, we have an efficient government that is constrained by ordinary and constitutional law, accountable to the Commons and the people, responsive to the population, and further checked by civil society and the press. The same cannot be said quite the same way of Turkey, Russia, Venezuela or, when it comes to responsiveness, of the United States.

Our country is marked by extensive civil liberties, a vibrant political culture, moderate political participation rates (on this we could do much better), a well-functioning government, vibrant pluralism, and regular, legitimate elections. These goods correspond to The Economists Democracy Indexan imperfect index, as all are, but a reliable one. Its no surprise that in 2016 Canada ranked 6th in the world (as a full democracy, compared to the United States, which sits at 21st and is classified as a flawed democracy).

What McCullough is expressing is not that Canada isnt a great or full democracy, but rather thathe doesnt like how our democracy works.Fair enough. Some dont. But when arguing about whether a country is a democracy or not, its cowardly, foolish, disingenuous, or some combination of the three, to smuggle in ones own definition of democracy, especially the unsophisticated and incomplete model offered by McCullough, to set up a straw-man attack against a system you find distasteful.

McCullough would have been better off arguingwhy he believes that a more populist, further-constrained, and legislature-dominant model would be more appropriate and democratic than the current model, which has served Canada well and made us one of the most robust and resilient democracies on the planet. Of course, shadowboxing is easier than battling a proper opponent, just as caricaturing Canadian democracy while lumping our country in with authoritarian regimes is easier than engaging with the layered and complex nature of how things work here. Sadly, though, facile hot-takes enjoy a marketand theyre certainly permitted in our democracy. Lucky us.

Read more:
Canada is a great democracy. But you need to understand it. - Macleans.ca

Are You Kidding Me? Keep Democracy From Dying…in a $25 WashPost T-Shirt? – NewsBusters (blog)


NewsBusters (blog)
Are You Kidding Me? Keep Democracy From Dying...in a $25 WashPost T-Shirt?
NewsBusters (blog)
The Washington Post in February introduced a self-important slogan timed for the Trump administration: Democracy Dies in Darkness. And what better way to stand up for the First Amendment than with an overpriced cotton t-shirt? The Post on Wednesday ...

See more here:
Are You Kidding Me? Keep Democracy From Dying...in a $25 WashPost T-Shirt? - NewsBusters (blog)

US policy in Middle East seems more self-serving than pro-democracy – National Catholic Reporter (blog)

Middle East observers have debated for decades whether the United States is truly interested in spreading American values of freedom and democracy in that region. The seeming disposal of these values by the Trump administration as pertains to autocratic regimes in the Middle East has led to accusations that President Donald Trump has adopted a transactional nationalism where his "America First" approach is not interested in how these regimes treat their people but more so in how they can benefit the United States.

That Trump has taken U.S. foreign policy to its most realpolitik stance in generations is indisputable, but all he has really done is remove the thin veneer of democracy promotion to expose it for the calculation it is part of. Simply put, perceived American interests will always take priority over the spreading of American values in the Middle East. Anytime values have been prioritized, it has been when they do not clash with and contradict these interests.

The Trump administration has quickly translated this realpolitik into action. Human rights conditions on arms sales to Bahrain in the Persian Gulf have been lifted. Turkey's slow slide to an authoritarian presidential system has been ignored because Turkey is key to the American strategy in fighting the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) and a critical partner in any expanded fight against the Syrian government.

Trump has also warmly welcomed Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to Washington this month. Sisi, as defense minister, toppled a democratically elected Islamist government in 2013 which admittedly was evolving into an Islamic dictatorship and replaced it with a military dictatorship, brutally suppressing any political opposition since taking power.

A brief look at history explains why "stability" has trumped democracy promotion. For about 40 years, the Cold War following World War II shaped U.S. policy in the Middle East. Everything was subsumed in the conflict with the Soviet Union, with many Middle Eastern countries even serving as battlefields for proxy wars between the two superpowers. Promoting democracy was set aside.

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 part of which was brought about by their disastrous intervention in Afghanistan and the creation of new democracies in Eastern Europe gave hope in the Middle East that the United States would now focus on helping transform the assorted Mideast monarchies and dictatorships into democracies. However, this was not to be.

One of the unintended historical consequences of the war in Afghanistan was the unleashing of the genie of militant, extremist Islamism. The same Afghan resistance fighters the United States had trained and armed to fight the Soviet army now turned their attention to the United States. Al Qaeda was born in Afghanistan and was the precursor to ISIS, which was born in the wake of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

This new "enemy" of militant Islamism was a boon to the Arab regimes that quickly realized they could remain in power and resist real democratic change as long as they served the American interest of fighting the war on terror. However, the regimes lumped all opposition, both militant Islamists and secular opposition, under one umbrella, brutally suppressing all dissent which only led to a more vicious cycle of increased extremism.

The few encouraging phases of promoting democratization have been quickly quashed by evolving national security interests. President George W. Bush argued that decades of subordinating democracy in favor of stability in the Middle East had yielded neither. Bush sent Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Egypt to declare that the U.S. was "taking a different course" after previously "pursuing stability at the expense of democracy" in the Middle East. This quickly changed when the Iraq War deteriorated and Egypt's authoritarian leader, Hosni Mubarak, reinvented himself as an ally against extremism.

In 2009, President Barack Obama made human rights a central theme of his famous address in Cairo."The Obama administration urged Mubarak to resign during the Arab Spring and temporarily froze some military aid to Egypt after Sisi came to power," reports The Atlantic. Aid was quicklyresumed as conflict and terrorism spread in the Middle East.

By 2012, the evolving Arab Spring provided another brief flicker of hope that democracy was about to flower in the Middle East. Mass demonstrations in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia led to the toppling of regimes, one of which, Egypt, was a stalwart ally of the United States. While Obama encouraged protesters during the Arab Spring, once it became apparent that Egypt's new democratically elected Islamist government was quickly adopting the same non-democratic practices of the Mubarak era, the tone changed to the Egyptian military "restoring democracy" when it staged a brutal military coup in July 2013.

Is this U.S. realpolitik paradigm sustainable for the long term, both for the Middle Eastern regimes who trample on human rights and for the American interest that allows that? The answer is yes and no. Yes, in the sense that brute and overwhelming military force can suppress human rights and freedom almost indefinitely. No, in the sense that such a suppression can lead to stability and moderation.

The threat of militant Islamism and terrorism is real. But it is a false dichotomy that it is either stability or democracy in the Middle East. If the history of the modern Middle East has taught us anything, it is that the lack of democracy both sustains autocratic regimes and provides fertile soil for the spread of extremism in ever more evolving vicious forms.

Democratization in the Middle East can serve the long-term security and economic interests of the United States. American values and interests can be reconciled. This is a challenge requiring building the foundations of democracy over generations, but this is how terror is finally defeated.

[Ra'fat Al-Dajani is a Palestinian-American businessman and political commentator.]

Read this article:
US policy in Middle East seems more self-serving than pro-democracy - National Catholic Reporter (blog)

Hollywood director: Russian election involvement was worst attack … – TheBlaze.com

Famous Hollywood director Rob Reiner spoke out against President Donald Trump Monday, while also drawing harsh comparisons between the Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election and the 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that killed 2,403 American citizens.

Speaking on MSNBC, Reiner insisted that normalizing the 2016 presidential election was a dangerous practice.

Theres a danger here of normalizing things. This is not normal. Weve had the greatest attack on this democracy since 1941, and we have to understand that, he began. Where are our Republican leaders elected leaders standing up and saying, Weve been attacked here, our democracy is being compromised?

Reiner, a longtime liberal activist, indicated that American society could be on the brink of collapse, pointing to the Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election as thepotential tipping point.

Great societies last 250, maybe 300 years, he said. Were at that cusp right now.

The question is: Will our institutions withstand this attack that weve had from a hostile foreign power? So far, were seeing our legislature not standing up, Reiner askedbefore singling out Republican lawmakersand condemning them for not speaking out against Russia.

He continued on his tirade, accusing Trump of attacking the American press.

The press is under attack by the president calling it fake news, theres another pillar of our democracy under attack, he said.

Will these institutions remain in tact in order for our democracy to survive? Reiner asked before expressing he wasnt sure what the answer would turn out to be.

(H/T: Washington Free Beacon)

See the rest here:
Hollywood director: Russian election involvement was worst attack ... - TheBlaze.com

The First 100 Days of Resistance Restored Our Faith in Democracy – The Nation.

But progressives must continue to take to the streetsand push Democrats to offer a real alternative.

Protesters of President Donald Trumps Muslim travel ban gather at San Francisco City Hall for a peaceful demonstration on Feb. 4, 2017 (Sipa / AP Images)

The awful irony of Donald Trumps first 100 days as president is that a man who is still frequently described as erratic has governed as an entirely predictable corporate conservativeas everyone paying attention knew he would. Trump was always going to choose billionaire-ism over economic populism. The outsider who promised to drain the swamp was always going to pack his administration with Goldman Sachs cronies and corporate lobbyists pushing privatization, deregulation, and austerity. The fabulist who inflated claims about his opposition to the Iraq War was always going to drop bombs and escalate conflicts. A political newcomer, Trump was always going to revert to xenophobic bombast and a permanent campaign of fear and bigotry in order to hold on to a base of supporters who will never get the security and prosperity that he promised.1

Yes, of course, Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller drafted an inaugural address that reflected their dystopian vision of American carnage. Yes, of course, White House press secretary Sean Spicer shredded his credibility on his first full day on the job, and former campaign manager Kellyanne Conway shredded her credibility on her second full day as whatever it is she does. Yes, of course, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos turned out to be incapable of discussing the basics of the system she was nominated to oversee. Yes, of course, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell put partisanship above principle in order to secure the confirmation of DeVos, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, and Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt, as well as equally unsettling figures like his own deregulation-obsessed wife, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, and conservative judicial activist Neil Gorsuch, who will prove that there is space to the right of Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. And yes, of course, Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan bumbled the task of repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act because, it turned out, nobody knew that health care could be so complicated.2

The error made by casual observers of Trump has been a refusal to accept him for who he is: a self-absorbed and largely uninformed man entirely unprepared to assume the responsibilities of the presidency, yet entirely certain that he could gut it out. America finally has the CEO president that dim-witted business-channel commentators have argued that we needed for years. Like George W. Bush, the MBA president who screwed up everything he touched, Trump brings nothing to the White House but a certainty born of his silver-spoon upbringing and an unaccountable business career.3

The open questions on January 20 had little to do with Trump and much to do with the rest of us: Would Americans resist Trump from the start? Would they shout No! in the streets and in Congress, on courthouse steps and at airport terminals? The answers came quicklyand gloriously. The epic Womens March on Washington restored the faith that many of us had lost on Election Day. Trumps Muslim ban was thwarted not just by judges, but by immediate and massive opposition across the country. His attempt to overturn the ACA was tripped up, at least in part, by overwhelming opposition from an Indivisible movement that packed town halls with Americans who proudly declared that they wanted not just Obamacare, but health care as a right. Trumps initial pick for labor secretary, Andy Puzder, withdrew because, as Puzder admitted, the left and the Democrats really didnt want [me].4

THE STAKES ARE HIGHER NOW THAN EVER. GET THE NATION IN YOUR INBOX.

But in a fight like this, success is only meaningful if its followed by more of the same. To continue to derail the Trump train, Americans must stay in the streets for events like the April 29 Peoples Climate March. Democrats must answer the call of their base and run hard in red states like Kansas, Georgia, Nebraska, and Montanaputting in place a full-scale 50-state strategy for the 2018 midterms. These are the basics. No one should be distracted or deluded by palace intrigue gossip about the cabal of Goldman Sachs executives wrestling for influence with the cabal of Breitbart alumni. They have shared agendas: Bannons talk about the deconstruction of the administrative state was music to Wall Streets ears. Democrats must press harder for investigations and oversight of those agendasnot just of ties between Trump aides and the Russian government, but of ties between Trump appointees and the corporate powers they are supposed to regulate.5

Trumps first 100 days extended from a campaign in which he won only 46 percent of the vote. By governing from the right, Trump managed to get his approval rating as low as 35 percent in an April Quinnipiac poll. It is said that Trump has nowhere to go but up. Not true. The great lesson of these first 100 days is that, even when Republicans control Washington, resistance is possible. Now is the time to turn resistance into something more: a coherent opposition that is capable of saying no to Trump and holding him to account while at the same time organizing, marching, campaigning, and voting for a whole new politics that will consign crony capitalism, militarism, fearmongering, and the cruel chimera of the CEO president to the dustbin of history.6

See the article here:
The First 100 Days of Resistance Restored Our Faith in Democracy - The Nation.