China: Democracy Wall Beijing Dec 1978 video only
For a short time a new free expression was permitted along a gray brick wall near the old bus station on Beijing #39;s Chang An Da Jie near Xidan Street. The ...
By: Jim Laurie
Visit link:
China: Democracy Wall Beijing Dec 1978 video only - Video
Democracy Now! 2015-01-29 Thursday
Headlines for January 29, 2015; Oil Should Stay in the Ground: Robert Redford on Republican Climate Change Deniers and Keystone XL; Robert Redford Will Fer...
By: Democracy Now! - Amy Goodman
Read the rest here:
Democracy Now! 2015-01-29 Thursday - Video
This week marks the 25th anniversary of the free election in which the Nicaraguan people ousted the Marxist Sandinistas from power after 12 long years of revolution, war and poverty.
It was part of a global democratic revolution, the dramatic high point of which came with the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989.
Today, however, Nicaragua is back under the rule of the Sandinistas or, more precisely, the rule of Sandinista President Daniel Ortega and his family. Democracy there continues to be weakened by the authoritarian tendencies of the president, and efforts to subvert the constitution for his political benefit, in the words of the Economists Intelligence Unit. Translation: The Ortegas are building a dynastic pseudo-democracy eerily like the Somoza regime the Sandinistas overthrew in 1979.
In short, if little Nicaragua epitomized the democratic revolutionary spirit of 1989, now it epitomizes a resurgence of dictatorship, illiberalism and anti-Americanism. Freedom House recently reported a disturbing decline in global freedom in 2014, the ninth straight year in which the organization has documented democratic back-sliding. The worst case, perhaps, is in this hemisphere: formerly democratic Venezuela, which manages to be both brutally repressive and wildly chaotic. But the trend is manifest from Beijing to Ankara to Budapest.
What went wrong? The United States, which spearheaded the democratic wave as part of its Cold War endgame, moved on to the war against terrorism after Sept. 11, 2001, a long and necessary, but draining, struggle that became Washingtons rationale for making common cause with various dictatorships.
Attempts to occupy and democratize Iraq and Afghanistan went sour, sowing permanent doubts, both in America and abroad, about democracys universal applicability and about the United States democratic credentials, given its own compromises, and its own controversial measures against terrorism such as the prison at Guantanamo. The Great Recession and partisan gridlock damaged the democratic capitalist brand.
Yet all of that would not have generated an anti-democratic wave unless there were forces determined to make such a wave happen. Amid the joy and lets admit it triumphalism of 1989, we forgot that revolutions have a way of spawning counterrevolutions.
Indeed, we failed to notice that the seeds of that counterrevolution were being sown even then: most notably in the crackdown at Beijings Tiananmen Square in June 1989 but also in places such as Havana, where the Castro regime purged and executed reformist military and intelligence officers after a Stalinist show trial.
And that is what we are witnessing now: the deliberate erosion, manipulation or outright destruction of liberal democracy, if not always by the very people who lost out a quarter-century ago, as in Nicaragua, then by their political heirs.
The counterrevolutions hallmarks are an unapologetic ideological attack on democratic capitalism; the revival of traditional moral values allegedly threatened by the decadent, conniving West; assertiveness about national interests, real and invented; and, perhaps most important, flexibility about methods. Illiberal states, parties and politicians have learned to exploit democratic institutions elections, media and free markets in order to undermine them.
Continue reading here:
Counterrevolution came with pushes for democracy
Perpetual Direct Democracy
During Elections 2015 in Canada, we might want to think about changing our democratic system rather than just changing representatives of political parties. 29 minutes video. https://www.youtube.co...
By: Ion Delsol
Excerpt from:
Perpetual Direct Democracy - Video
By Phrangsngi Pyrtuh
Democracy in India is a legacy of the British rule as is the legal system that still operates in many areas. The constitution of India makes democracy a political process and formation binding to India. Enshrined in the constitution are various provisions which accord special status such as the Sixth Schedule. The constitution is not static but evolves as time changes hence the number of amendments. Policy making and the relevance of the constitution is in sync with the requirements of strengthening democracy in India. Any policy/legal framework not in consonance with the constitution not only subverts it but may endanger the entire process of our democratic foundation. The Sixth Schedule is given a place to strengthen the democratic process that is taking place throughout the country albeit in a manner and time that is suitable to the uniqueness so accorded in the few North Eastern States.
Local self government remains the cornerstone of Indias democracy and it is hoped that with time participatory democracy at the grassroots level will strengthen and make robust the notion of Indian democracy. Democracy in itself is not inert. The more power the people possess the more vibrant it becomes. Institutions, traditional or modern, falling within the jurisdiction of the Indian constitution must endeavor to strive towards democratizing themselves. If they do not, then the law which is again a product of the democratic process given in the constitution will eventually take due notice.
It is still a wonder that we in Meghalaya have instead uses the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution to shield us from the ethos of (modern) democracy which is abysmally absent at the grassroots level. The prohibition against women to shoulder responsibilities in the Dorbar Shnong (DS) by citing tradition is one such problem and the amorphous and uncodified role of the Rangbah Shnong (RS) is another.
There are two schools of thoughts on these two issues with one refusing to look through the prism of modern democratic practices viz participatory and decentralized politics based on fairness and (gender) equality. This perspective has sought to justify their stand invoking tradition and oddly divinity and sacredness of that tradition. They would rather burn bridges than budge from their rigid and parochial outlook. In case of the RS issue some of our leaders saw this as an opportunity to invoke sentiments as was evident from the flip-flop position of the present CEM Adelbert Nongrum. And he did it with elan by smoldering the issue of the jaidbynriew. Being part of this great democratic set up let me ask this to the present CEM. Do we not as a jaidbynriew deserve the best of democratic participation even at the level of the Shnong? What utility does it give us if we uphold the constitution of India and due process of law but it mitigates attempts for democracy to seep further to the people?
Instead of taking potshots at the court it should trigger us to delve deeper on the nuance of the judgment. And we expect no less from our so called upholders of tradition. Instead of casting aspersions on the ruling, the leaders in the Council should have introspected and followed a course that is in sync with modern democratic practices. The High court Judgement should in fact bring into spotlight the role of the District Councils and questions must be sought from them, and not from the court. What have the District Councils contributed that we can all be proud of and which we can share with the rest of the world in line with best shared practices? Have the District Councils progressed much since their inception? There are many other philosophical and scholarly questions yet. However the District Councils have become so much a part of our tribal consciousness that questioning them is seen as anti-tribal or anti-jaidbynriew. It is assumed that what they do (or dont) is right for us. This is nothing but misplaced trust and the people leading the Councils have used it to their political advantage.
The Dorbar Shnong is a social institution and attempts to reform it must be seen purely from its societal functions and how best it can supplement the role of the government which is trying to reach out to the masses through different welfare programmes. Since we have no Panchayati system or municipal bodies, the Dorbar Shnong has become by default an entity to facilitate the same. Only in this case some of the Dorbar and Rangbah Shnong have misused their positions. Evidently the end user of the system ie the beneficiaries of different welfare programes have been at the receiving end of such malpractices. Can we therefore say that such occurrences are rare and exceptional and it is no excuse to dilute the role of the DS/RS?
Another question maybe asked as to why such occurrences are becoming more frequent? Is it because the social welfare programmes have intensified and there is much scope for rent seeking behaviour and opportunism and if not checked this may become pervasive? It is in this realm that I think the recent ruling of the Honorable High court on the Rangbah Shnong has been overdue. I hope that the three District Councils take immediate cognizance of this and either come up with a specific law as manifested in the village administration bill of the KHADC or that the government frames a law applicable to the entire State of Meghalaya regarding the role and responsibilities of the Dorbar Shong and RS.
As long as the shortcomings and loopholes in the functioning of the DS/RS are fixed, it should not really matter whether the District Councils or the State Government gets the job done. I only hope that such a law is progressive and not regressive.
View original post here:
New age democracy versus old age practices