Mediaboss Marketing

When students and prodemocracy activists took to the streets of Jakarta and other major cities in the country on May 20, 1998, and one day later rejoiced at the departure of Soehartos authoritarian regime, they never thought that a global pandemic would pose a grave threat to Indonesias fledgling democracy more than two decades later.

After 22 years, we could all certainly have expected that the danger was over, that Indonesian democracy could finally be consolidated and that it would ultimately be the only game in town.

Yet, here we are today, worrying about the current state of our democracy, and as we abide by the stay-at-home order, we grow more concerned whether the COVID-19 pandemic has become the cover for the current political leaderships authoritarian instinct and intent.

The administration of President Joko Jokowi Widodo, who was directly reelected for a second term in 2019, certainly has not chosen the path taken by leaders of some populist regimes in the world, who have quashed democratic rules and norms and accumulated power in their hands, which they claim could help deal with the pandemic more effectively.

But as COVID-19 has ravaged Indonesias economy and put massive strain on the countrys healthcare system, President Jokowi has in recent weeks taken measures that could weaken the basic foundations of democracy and rule of law.

Regulation in Lieu of Law (Perppu) No. 1/2020 is the first major sign of the country running toward an aberration of democracy. Not only has the state budget deficit been extended beyond the legal cap of 3 percent of gross domestic product, officials who order spending for programs related to COVID-19 will be protected from any criminal charges. It was this absence of accountability from Soehartos New Order regime that brought students and activists onto the streets in the late 1990s.

There has also been an increase in efforts to silence government critics during the COVID-19 pandemic. In late April, independent researcher Ravio Patra was dragged from his home in Menteng, Central Jakarta, and sent to a police detention center after sending tweets and writing an op-ed critical of government policies. Ravios arrest followed a series of heavy-handed actions taken by the police in dealing with initiatives by grassroots activists.

In recent days, we have also learned that even on issues not related to COVID-19, the central government has taken steps to accumulate ever more power. Government Regulation (PP) No. 17/2020 on the management of civil servants gives the President full power and very arbitrary authority to promote, demote or fire any civil servant. The amendment of the 2009 Coal and Mineral Mining Law is basically a recentralization of authority to issue permits for mining operations, reportedly in the interest of coal barons.

Up until the coronavirus first struck, we were accustomed to believe that democracy could die from a military coup, the emergence of a populist leader or a communist take-over. However, during this pandemic, with more and more governments following their authoritarian instincts, we could soon see democracy wither in silence and darkness.

See the article here:
Democracy in time of corona - The Jakarta Post - Jakarta Post

In his First Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln said, We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country. To disenthrall means to free from bondage, to liberate.

This column presents two studies of democracy in action. The global crisis, triggered by the COVID pandemic, calls to mind an earlier existential crisis for our nation. Both, as it happens, come to a head during the Easter season: Lincolns tragically but magnificently, Donald Trumps miserably, in a slow motion dance with death.

In 1776 the founders of our country based their claim to being a new nation on the startling proposition that all men are created equal. Eleven years later the Federal Convention drafted and sent out to the states for ratification a Constitution that counted five enslaved persons in a state as equivalent to three free persons.

By the early 1860s, the incompatibility between our founding documents could no longer be ignored. Either all persons were created equal, or it was OK to give some people more weight than others.

In March 1861, Lincoln was inaugurated president. Almost immediately the nation plunged into civil war.

In 1863, at Gettysburg to dedicate a cemetery for the Union dead, Lincoln never used the word slavery. We the living, he said, must highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

By the time the war was over, Lincoln was no longer mincing words. In his Second Inaugural Address, he eloquently summarized what the Civil War was about.

Fondly do we hope fervently do we pray that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.

On April 9, 1865, Robert E. Lee surrendered to Ulysses Grant. Five days later, on Good Friday, an assassin shot Lincoln. On Easter Sunday, in churches throughout New England and the mid-Atlantic and mid-western states, Lincoln was mourned as a martyr and hailed as a savior of the Union.

Summing up, historian Jill Lepore writes, A great debate had ended. A terrible war had been won. Slavery was over. However, she added, a more dire reckoning was still required. The war left millions of men, women and children, stolen, shackled, hunted, whipped, branded, raped, starved and buried in unmarked graves. No president consecrated their cemeteries or delivered their Gettysburg Address; no committee of arrangements built monuments to their memory.

A century and a half later, Donald Trump became our president. By early May 2020, a global pandemic was raging: over 1.3 million Americans were infected, more than 80,000 had died. Itwas not just a public health crisis. The nations economy was also crashing: more than 20 million people were out of work; oil at times was fetching less than zero cents per barrel.

To understand how we got to such a state, we must once again confront our nations original sin racism.

Trump in 2016 lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, yet he won the presidency due to the way we count votes. The so-called electoral college was part of a deal struck at the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787. Delegates representing slave owners in the five Southern states insisted on the 3/5th rule. Enslaved people did not vote, but the effect of the 3/5th rule was to give owners of enslaved persons an increment for each slave in their state.

In 2016, the Federal Conventions deal with slave-owners delivered the White House to a brazen racist, whose incompetence and vanity imperils us all. He dithered when a new virus emerged in China and while it spread around the world. He failed to seek guidance on the dangers of the virus or to heed the warnings of his advisers and other authorities about the vulnerability of our economy.

At one of his daily briefings, he called the pandemic unprecedented, displaying spectacular ignorance about the history of life on this planet. When criticized for such errors, he blamed the media, purveyors of fake news, and dared them to contradict him. The most reputable among them refused to take the bait, but his drumbeat of lies and misinformation ravaged public discourse.

The weakened economy led to other dangers. As tax revenues plummeted, mayors, governors and other local officials struggled to meet their responsibilities with sharply diminished resources. The federal government is encouraged by Keysian theory to use deficit spending as a fiscal stimulus, but state and local governments have no such option. They must somehow contrive to balance their budgets.

Now Trump is encouraging protesters who demand that restrictions designed to keep the virus in check be withdrawn immediately so that the nation can get back to work. When public health experts insist that a hasty lifting of these regulations risks a resurgence of the pandemic, Trump complains about remedies that are worse than the disease.

The United States is proud to be a democratic nation. We need to remember, however, that history is not forgiving to nations just because they have chosen to be democracies.

What then does democracy require? It requires political leaders that are honest, like good scientists, willing to admit what they do not know; smart, capable of finding a viable path forward through complex problems; eloquent, able to frame and deliver compelling narratives; and possessed of a sense of humor, able and willing to deliver self-deprecating anecdotes.

Democracy also requires followers citizens who are demanding, able to find and encourage leaders that are worthy of their trust, and wiling to dismiss the rest; and able themselves to sort through the din of public controversy and willing to rise above the nonsense.

These requirements, of leaders and followers, set a high bar for a democracy. May the Lord temper the wind before shorn lambs.

Read more:
Guest columnist Don Robinson: Lincoln, Trump and the demands of democracy - GazetteNET

ATLANTA I talk with black voters every day, and what I hear keeps me up at night. Their faith in the political system is being eroded by voter suppression and the governments negligent response to the pandemic. It breaks my heart that even black women at church unfailing voters who rally their friends to turn out for every election have asked me, Will our votes even be counted?

These very real challenges require a whole new playbook. Although Donald Trump won Georgia by just 211,000 votes in 2016, some 900,000 eligible black people stayed home, a majority of them Atlanta residents. They were unconvinced that voting for the Democratic candidate would mean getting a president who represented them.

This is a treasure trove of gettable voters. They could overwhelm the political system if Democratic candidates persuade them that voting will get them power to build the kind of state and country they want. But the Democrats are treating black people as though all they need is a gentle nudge the week before the election. If we do not address our shortcomings, I fear we are on track for another catastrophic Election Day.

Part of the problem is the mismanagement of the pandemic. Georgias governor, Brian Kemp, defied science and logic when he started reopening the state on April 24. One model predicts the number of Covid-19 deaths will quadruple by August.

Black people, who make up one-third of the population of Georgia but represented 83 percent of coronavirus hospital patients in March and half of deaths, will continue to be disproportionately harmed. Weve been screaming from mountaintops about the health care crisis in the states rural southwest for years; the region has a dire shortage of doctors and hospitals. Yet a few majority-black counties there have some of the highest death rates in the country.

Republicans in Georgia and other Southern states are weaponizing the virus against black people while ramping up efforts to suppress the vote.

Another part of the problem for November is that we havent addressed the sins of elections past. Southwestern Georgia is also where, long before anyone listened, black people sounded the alarm that Mr. Kemp would try to steal the race for governor in 2018 from his Democratic rival, Stacey Abrams (disclosure: my organization was founded by Ms. Abrams). As secretary of state overseeing his own election, Mr. Kemp served as umpire, player and scorekeeper.

A consultant linked to Mr. Kemp recommended that the board of elections in majority-black Randolph County close seven of its nine polling locations. Why? The bathrooms in the polling locations lacked handrails, which the board claimed violated federal disability law.

But the county had earlier refused to apply for money for the handrails when given the chance. It dropped the consolidation plan only after enormous attention from the news media. Such hyperlocal voter suppression has become rampant since the Supreme Court freed elections officials in Georgia and other states from having to prove to the Justice Department in advance that their voting changes would not be discriminatory.

Yet theres more. As secretary of state, Mr. Kemp purged 670,000 voters from the rolls in 2017 and, weeks before the 2018 election, withheld 53,000 more registrations under a spurious exact match law (70 percent of those registrations were from black people). He also oversaw the shutdown of 214 precincts. Georgia had the longest lines in the country that year and the highest rejection rates of absentee and provisional ballots. Mr. Kemp won the race by just 54,700 votes.

If Jim Crow laws suppressed votes by forcing black voters to guess the number of jelly beans in a jar, Dr. James Crow, with a Ph.D. in data science, has erected a more sophisticated suppression apparatus sophistication we have to match.

But I have not seen any campaign, political party or elected official address voters pain at having their voices silenced. I know that pain has also spread to Alabama and Mississippi, where people were looking at Ms. Abramss candidacy as a glimpse into what was possible. They also saw the theft. And they saw the world move on as if a major crime against democracy had not been committed. Thats a problem.

When we talk to college students now, the most common refrain we hear is, I know my vote wont count. My organization registered a staggering 18,000 17- and 18-year-olds in the months after the school shooting in Parkland, Fla., in February 2018. They flooded our office with earnest messages, wanting to learn how they could set up registration drives in their schools.

We told them voting was a way to make material improvements in their lives by electing candidates like Lucy McBath, a Georgia representative who cares about gun reform. Then they watched as they were robbed of their civic voice, without any consequences. We have to address that if we want to win in November.

Action is even more urgent because the pandemic is being used as cover for more voter suppression.

At the national level, the Republican National Committee doubled its litigation budget to file even more lawsuits to limit vote by mail access. Republicans aim to recruit up to 50,000 volunteers in 15 key states to monitor polling places and intimidate voters. Those efforts are aided by Donald Trump, who appointed a top Republican fund-raiser to serve as postmaster general, and is withholding a $10 billion loan from the Post Office, which desperately needs the money.

Georgia may be the center of all this. The state has created an absentee ballot fraud task force made up of mostly prosecutors and mostly Republicans to hinder voting by mail. If a county official says my signature doesnt match, Cathy Cox, a Democrat who is a former secretary of state for Georgia, asked a reporter, is this task force going to show up with guns and badges at my office or my home?

Our office continues to receive a troubling number of inquiries about whether absentee ballots will even be counted. The question is common, and for good reason. We asked the 159 counties in Georgia where theyll place drop boxes for those who want to avoid human contact during the pandemic. Only 78 provided locations and more than one-quarter wont have drop boxes.

These are monumental challenges that require a monumental response. We need the courage to act on a scale weve never seen before.

If Democrats invest in an enormous marketing and organizing campaign that persuades black people and young people to participate in our democracy, we will win. That campaign should answer uncomfortable questions about what happened in Georgia in 2018 and explain how this year will be different. Through millions of personal conversations, organizers can connect the dots between who makes decisions that puts their lives at risk and who can make things better. Thats how we can show young people grieving the killing of Ahmaud Arbery in South Georgia that voting is a way to create real change by electing new sheriffs and prosecutors.

Campaigns never balk at investing significant resources to court moderate white men. But when all the data is laid out about black people, why does the political industry hesitate? Black people have long been the most loyal supporters of the Democratic Party indeed, no other major voting bloc is as loyal to a political party as black people.

Every 10 new black voters nets eight Democratic votes, but the party gets only two net votes for every 10 new white, college-educated female voters. Democrats have to stop treating black people as deserving of only mailers after Labor Day and instead see them as the core of the multiracial coalition.

We have to address voter suppression head on, identifying the hurdles and offering solutions now, not in October. My organization is suing Georgia over its practice of throwing out absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day but received after 7 p.m. that night. And for imposing a poll tax by sending absentee ballot applications to voters without prepaid returnable envelopes. This creates obstacles for people unwilling to go out during a pandemic to buy stamps or vote in person.

Vote-by-mail is not a panacea. While it is the safest option we have and it provides a paper trail, some states are using it in a way that creates hurdles.

My organization is building mobile video games to educate new and infrequent voters. Bad actors are online, sowing doubt about basic facts to undermine faith in the democratic process. Thats why we are launching programs to monitor social media and provide media literacy that will compete for black voterss hearts, minds, attention and votes. We also need foundations, state and federal governments and the Democrats to prevent and neutralize disinformation campaigns. Part of that means investing in trusted messengers to spread competing messages with good information, in addition to inspirational candidates who can alleviate voters concerns.

The next federal coronavirus legislation package must include $3.6 billion so states can expand their vote-by-mail initiatives and make voting easier. In addition, states should mount public education campaigns that include infographics and videos in multiple languages about how to cast ballots during the pandemic. In Georgia, the secretary of state must urge elections officials and lawmakers to increase funding and hire and train more staff members to deal with the increase in absentee ballots.

A vibrant, robust democracy is our greatest weapon against authoritarian rule. And black people have been at the vanguard of fighting for that democracy. This year, more than ever, we need overwhelming participation in our elections to neutralize voter suppression and halt the rise of despotic, unaccountable leaders. Our liberty and our lives are at stake.

Ns Ufot (@nseufot) is the executive director of the New Georgia Project Action Fund.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Excerpt from:
Black Voters Are Key Witnesses to Crimes Against Democracy - The New York Times

Democracy has not always been trendy. But it developed into a fashionable story of success, a real marketing winner, to the point that even totalitarian political systems like Chinas portray themselves loudly as democratic.

Terrified by the ideas of genuine democracy, liberty and political autonomy, as despotic regimes typically are, the China Liaison Offices recent statement that it is authorised to handle Hong Kong affairs may be the ultimate drop before the last drop. It is a deceitful and foolish violation of the Basic Law.

Certain concepts, such as justice, moral goodness or even art, are evaluative to their core, triggering fundamental disagreements about their essential meaning. But this is not the case for democracy.

There may be much to disagree over about democracy as a social ideal, but the view that there is a fundamental disagreement about its core meaning muddies the debate and serves the purposes of totalitarian rhetoric, allowing tyrannies to call themselves democratic.

Democracy contrasts precisely with dictatorship and self-appointed rulers, rejecting the autocratic principle that personalised political power can be held irrevocably.

It is a method of collective decision-making based on peoples (contingent) consent involving fair elections, competitive and cooperative political processes, civic activism, free speech and accountability. It comes in different forms and gradations but must include universality, political equality, and meaningful participation in shaping the communitys rules and decisions.

Lacking in Macau and Hong Kong, democracy has been questioned even to the point of democrat acquiring a pejorative tone. So it may be worth enquiring, yet again, whether it is valuable and where its value lies. Several reasons have been historically presented in the affirmative.

First, it presses rulers to take into consideration the rights, interests, and opinions of most people in society. If you are elected by the many, you tend to care for the many. Immigrants, for instance, are subject to generalised mistreatment precisely because they are the few, and lack rights of democratic participation.

Second, bringing a lot of people into the political process ensures that decision-makers are better informed about the interests of citizens and better equipped to advance those interests.

Third, involvement in democratic processes tends to enhance the autonomy of the participants themselves. Also, distributing political power equally is the best recipe to mitigate rulers abuse of power.

These are instrumental values, which evaluate democracy in terms of its results. With all its serious shortcomings, democracy has brought about better societies: providing social and economic progress, liberty, equality, plurality, and the rule of law.

Democracy, it has been added, is also intrinsically valuable: independently of its consequences and, to a degree, even when it errs.

It is intrinsically valuable, first, because it is grounded in personal autonomy. A person is autonomous when she is, to a significant extent, the author of her own life. It expresses the vision of control of ones destiny by exercising meaningful individual choices throughout life.

One needs (i) liberty and (ii) a variety of relevant options available to lead an autonomous life. No one doubts that adults have the right to self-government, to be the masters of their own lives. That we not others should choose our partners, jobs, sports, diet, books, movies, and friends.

Democracy extends the idea that each person ought to be the ruler of her own life to the sphere of collective decision making. Each persons life is profoundly affected by the communitys legal, social, and cultural environment, which impacts on the options and opportunities available to make our choices and exercise our liberties.

Since individuals have a right to self-government, they should take part in the designing of the environment that will pervasively affect their choices, life, and destiny.

The merits of not being coerced to do or not do something reside, not only in being independent of others, but also in having the ability to do something else. If there were nothing else of relevance to do, freedom (to do nothing) would not change our life significantly.

We need opportunities to take advantage of freedom. Democratic participation makes it partly possible to be an author of the legal and social environment providing for those options and opportunities that contribute to moulding our lives. This, therefore, leads to an autonomous life.

Additionally, or in the alternative, democracy is intrinsically valuable for treating people as equals. Democratic decision-making gives each an equal say in cases of disagreement and in compromising on matters of common interest.

People deprived of this right are treated as inferiors, not as equals. A non-democratic system treats its citizens as objects rather than subjects: why should others decide for us, not with us, on matters of our mutual interest?

Treating us as inferiors morally translates into treating us as inferiors practically. A Chief Executive appointed by authoritarian Beijing, and not by her fellow citizens, will seek to please Beijing, not the citizens.

Whatever the law may say, and the rhetoric promote, officials know they are ultimately accountable to Beijing, not to the people. How can they genuinely represent a community that did not and would not choose them? Why would the Chief Executive further the interests of the population against the interests of the dictator who appointed her?

Democratic regimes with neo-liberal ideologies have failed in the fight against entrenched economic and social inequalities. But democracy is still the best method to secure the interest of the underprivileged: only those who have a say can aspire to have their interests addressed.

Ultimately, dictatorships sole motivation to care for its people is political survival. Authoritarian systems are self-serving, serving the powerful. They are not rooted in civic principles such as autonomy and moral equality and have no genuine primary motivation to care for citizens as equals and holders of rights.

Non-democratic regimes are maintained by force not by argument, reason, or consent. Yet, force is arbitrary: one does not win a debate by engaging in a fistfight. A government maintained by the sheer force of its army, police, and non-independent courts cannot be legitimately justified.

The idea of humans having a meaningful say in their own lives, individually and collectively, is not culturally specific and should not be discarded as westernisation. How can some humans treating others authoritatively as inferiors, paternalistically deciding on their lives and abusing their rights, liberties and integrity be a respectable culture-specific attribute?

Look at South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Mongolia, Asian cultures in their own right, content with significantly having an equal say in their countrys life.

Recently in Hong Kong, the majority cast their vote for democracy why should they not be listened to? What is it in the culture of one of the most civic and financially sophisticated societies in the world that disavows democracy? What is it Hongkongers lack that others dont?

Democracy is valuable, both instrumentally and intrinsically. People aspire to liberty, autonomy, and moral equality. Defending democracy in any corner of the world is vital. Beginning with Hong Kong and Macau.

We dont want to be bought, lectured and repressed by governments appointed by and accountable to others. We want to be served by governments elected by us, accountable to us, representing us. Arguing actively in favour of democracy is the practical and morally right thing to do. Anything else fails to consider our moral standing as free and equal people.

Follow this link:
The value of democracy and how it terrifies the Chinese Communist Party - Hong Kong Free Press

On Sunday May 17, Albanias National Theatre in Tirana was finally demolished after more than two years of protests and resistance from civil society, artists, and activists.

Early in the morning, at 4.30am, police cleared out protesters who had occupied the building, causing injury to some according to reports from sources in Albania. There were further clashes, and a number of people were arrested after throwing water bottles at the police.

The demolition had been announced on May 14 by the citys council, but since council decisions take 10 days to come into effect, the legality of the demolition is questionable.

Protests continued on Monday, despite a heavy police presence. Violence then erupted as police attacked demonstrators.

Additionally, police officers were spotted on roofs near the site of the National Theatre building, monitoring the protests with binoculars and sniper rifles.

Albanias ombudsman reacted strongly to the events, condemning the use of force, the jailing of several journalists, and the fact the police had failed to take proper coronavirus-related protective measures.

The ombudsman also pointed out that the demolitions began while some people were still in the building, which severely endangered their lives.

Albanian President Ilir Meta condemned the demolition as a a moral crime that cannot be granted amnesty.

On the other hand, Prime Minister Edi Rama accused those who oppose his plans for a new theatre of not liking development.

He has also denied that any violence was used against the protesters.

Demolition has been strongly opposed by artists and members of the cultural community in Albania ever since it was first announced in 2018.

This has been the longest continual protest in Albanian history,Alice Taylor, a Tirana-based journalist and blogger tells Emerging Europe. It brought together artists, intellectuals, journalists, civil society, and foreign institutions. It became an agora where every night people would meet to talk, share ideas, put on plays and performances.

The National Theatre, built in 1939 during the early years of Italian rule of Albania, is considered by many to be a historical building of significant cultural importance.

However, neglect in the form of lack of maintenance and investment has left it partially dilapidated and in need of renovation.

Despite this, the theatre remained operational. It also housed artefacts such as photos, recordings, and costumes which have now all been destroyed along with the building.

According to Ms Taylor, the real reason for the National Theatres demolition is a wider plan to replace historical buildings located in prime Tirana real estate with residential towers, shopping malls, and other new developments.

A day after the demolition, Mr Rama unveiled a project for a new theatre while dismissing the protests as antagonism from a group of professional troublemakers.

The new National Theatre is to be built by Bjarke Ingels Group under commission from Fusha, a construction company closely associated with the Rama government.

Fusha will also build new high-rise buildings behind the theatre.

Meanwhile, Albanias Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutors Office (SPAK) has launched an investigation into Tirana mayor Erion Veliaj and deputy major Arbjan Mazniku.

The charges of corruption in relation to the National Theatre were brought by the Alliance for the Protection of the National Theatre on May 6, before the land on which the building is located was handed over by the government to the Tirana municipality on May 8.

Less than a week later, the municipality decided to tear the building down.

For a lot of people in Albania, it is not just a building that is being demolished, but also democracy.

For Albanian people this signifies more than just a theatre, it is a democratic movement against the perceived corruption and increasingly concerning behaviour of the government, Ms Taylor explains.

The film director and protester Edmond Budina said the event was a turning point in Albanian democracy.

This is not the destruction of a building. This is also the installation of a dictatorship, he says.

Unlike many news and information platforms,Emerging Europeis free to read, and always will be.There is no paywall here.We are independent,not affiliated with nor representing any political party or businessorganisation.We want the very best for emerging Europe, nothing more, nothing less. Your support will help us continue to spread the word about this amazing region.

You can contributehere. Thank you.

Read the original:
Protesters decry demolition of Tirana's National Theatre as an attack on democracy - Emerging Europe