Mediaboss Marketing

Protest outside the Hungarian parliament in Budapest against a new law that would undermine the Central European University, a graduate school of social sciences founded by George Soros. Photograph: Laszlo Balogh/Reuters

Tibor Fischer can describe the current state of democracy in Hungary any way he wishes, but he should not be allowed to get away with the assertion that the Central European University has failed to comply with the law (I just dont recognise Orbn as a tyrant, 21 April). For 25 years CEU has worked cooperatively with Hungarian authorities on every issue involving our work here. Our compliance with Hungarian accreditation procedures has been repeatedly confirmed by Hungarian officials and civil servants in the ministries concerned.

We have never sought special privileges that set us apart from the rest of Hungarian academic life. On the contrary, in our fight to defend our academic freedom, many Hungarian institutions, including the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, have given us their public support.

Fischer alleges that there is something irregular about offering American degrees in Hungary if CEU doesnt have a campus in the United States. In fact, CEU is one of more than two dozen American institutions that are authorised to offer American degrees overseas without operating a campus in the US. Mr Fischer is entitled to his opinions, but not to misstating the facts. Michael Ignatieff President, Central European University

Tibor Fischer is correct that media discussion of the Fidesz regime in Hungary would be better informed if more people spoke Hungarian. For readers who do not, Iwould suggest va Baloghs Hungarian Spectrum blog, and Kim Lane Scheppeles forensic analyses of Viktor Orbns constitutional coup in the academic literature, and her account of changes introduced to electoral rules to facilitate his re-election in her contribution to Paul Krugmans blog in the New York Times.

For a Hungarian opposition perspective, two recent publications by Blint Magyar are of interest: his Post-Communist Mafia State and Twenty-Five Sides of a Post-Communist Mafia State, a collection of essays coedited with Jlia Vsrhelyi (both CEU Press). The government perspective on the mafia state, however, is that creating a national bourgeoisie to counterbalance the power of multinationals, Brussels and George Soros is more important than corruption.

Fischer is also correct that there is plenty of critical discussion on TV and radio in Budapest, but opposition platforms keep disappearing, opposition TV and radio is harder to access the further one is from Budapest, and, increasingly, effective opposition comes from Jobbik on the right rather than from parties committed to liberalism or social democracy.

Antisemitism in Fidesz Hungary is heavily coded. To appreciate it fully, you not only have to speak Hungarian but be familiar with Hungarian history: which dates are celebrated, which interwar politicians resurrected as national heroes. Nigel Swain University of Liverpool

As a keen reader of his novels, I was disappointed with Tibor Fischers article. I disagree to varying degrees with all points he raises.

Let me pick out his final point on the so-called Lex CEU, which repeats the government line faithfully, and makes no sense. As both the Hungarian educational authorities and CEU have stated repeatedly, CEU previously fulfilled all Hungarian legal requirements. To my knowledge, the irregularities that were now supposedly found were never specified. Fischer mentions sloppy paperwork; I would like to see his source. If it were but a matter of 27 of 28 foreign universities in Hungary complying with existing legislation, there would be no reason to rush a bill through parliament in an emergency procedure.

This new law makes new requirements, such as the operation of a campus in the country of origin, that would effectively make it impossible for CEU to operate in Hungary. This is what the protests are about (Report, 13 April).

This not only an issue of CEU. What is at stake is the Hungarian governments power to push out an influential university because it doesnt adhere to its political ideology. And thats both an issue of academic freedom and of plurality of opinions, ie democracy. Dr Felix Jeschke Prague, Czech Republic

To claim that Orbn isnt an enemy of democracy omits his assault on civil society. Orbn intends to extrude critical NGOs in 2017 and target their foreign funding. Fischer says people living west of Vienna dont understand whats happening in Hungary, but tens of thousands of people who rallied in Budapest against the closure of the CEU certainly do, and see the attack on the university for what it is: an attempt to shut down academic freedom and critical thinking.

Fischer says Orbns illiberal democracy is still a democracy because it has elections. But European freedoms are about much more than holding regular votes they also require encouraging robust and critical civil society institutions, not smothering them. International human rights organisations know how to spot an authoritarian regime in the making. Orbn and his apologists can call whats happening in Hungary what they like, but if it looks and swims and quacks like a government undermining democracy, it probably is. Brian Dooley Senior adviser, Human Rights First

Join the debate email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

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

Visit link:
Democracy and academic freedom in Viktor Orbn's Hungary - The Guardian

Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription)

Can Yascha Mounk Save Liberal Democracy? Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription) I t hasn't escaped Yascha Mounk's notice that the decline of liberal democracy has been good for his career. "It's a very bittersweet moment," Mounk says over coffee at a Washington, D.C., cafe. "I'd much rather that my work continue to be obscure and ...

Excerpt from:
Can Yascha Mounk Save Liberal Democracy? - Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription)

He proposed a religious test on immigration, promised to open up U.S. libel laws and revoked press credentials of critical reporters. He called for killing family members of terrorists, said he would do a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding terrorism suspects and suggested that a U.S.-born federal judge of Mexican heritage couldnt be neutral because of his ethnicity. He whipped up animosity against Muslims and immigrants from Mexico, branding the latter as rapists.

When protesters interrupted his rallies, he cheered violence against them. He told a political opponent that if he won, he would get a special prosecutor to look into your situation, adding youd be in jail. He threatened not to respect election results if he didnt win and, in Idi Amin fashion, made the claims of a strongman: I alone can fix it. He publicly expressed admiration for authoritarian Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Cherished notions of religious freedom, a free press, an independent judiciary and the rights of minorities took a beating from him. The prospect of mob violence in his defense and imprisoning of political opponents found favor.

With all that, Donald Trump became the nations 45thpresident in an election marred by stealth interference from a foreign adversary, Russia, and with the support of millions of voters who survey data show were influenced by the toxicity of racism.

How did a pluralistic nation that propounds democratic values and practices come to this?

This not being the authoritarian in the White House who dismisses basic constitutional principles as if they were annoying gnats, but this an electorate that looks past the disrespect shown toward democratic ideals.

That haunting question has occupied the minds of Richard D. Kahlenberg and Clifford Janey, two education scholars and writers who began to take a hard look at this fundamental domestic challenge long before Novembers results came in.

Janey, former superintendent of schools in our nations capital, as well as Newark, N.J., and Rochester, N.Y., and now senior research scholar at the Boston University School of Education, traces the problem close to home: public schooling. So, too, does Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, author of six books and editor of 10 foundation volumes.

I sat down with both this week to discuss what they regard as an American democracy under severe strain. Kahlenberg observed that public education that ought to help prepare students for citizenship in a democracy is coming up short. He cited a recent survey in which two-thirds of Americans could not name all three branches of the federal government; only a third could identify Joe Biden, who at the time was the vice president, or name a single Supreme Court justice.

Janey observed that U.S. schoolchildren educated in what are essentially apartheid schools divided by class and race get a mixed message about equal political rights and American values.

Together, they spelled out the scope of the challenge in their joint Century Foundation report released in November, Putting Democracy Back into Public Education. The report was boiled down in an article in the Atlantic, Is Trumps Victory the Jump-Start Civics Education Needed? published at the same time.

Simply put, Janey and Kahlenberg argue that our schools are failing at what the nations founders saw as educations most basic purpose: preparing young people to be reflective citizens who would value liberty and democracy and resist the appeals of demagogues.

They said todays schools turn themselves inside out trying to prepare college-and-career ready students who can contend with economic globalization and economic competition and find a niche with private skills in the marketplace.

As for preparing them for American democracy? Raising civics literacy levels? Cultivating knowledge of democratic practices and beliefs with rigorous courses in history, literature and how democratic means have been used to improve the country? Not so much or maybe not at all, they suggest.

The authors point out that in 2013, the governing board of the National Assessment for Educational Progress dropped fourth- and 12th-grade civics and American history as a tested subject in order to save money.

Its okay to test kids crazy in math and reading. Civic education? Fuhgeddaboutit.

Watch as jaws drop at these findings from a 2011 World Values Survey, which Kahlenberg and Janey noted in the Atlantic: When asked whether democracy is a good or bad way to run a country, 17 percent said bad or very bad, up from 9 percent in the mid-1990s. Among those ages 16 to 24, about a quarter said democracy was bad or very bad, an increase of one-third from a decade and a half earlier.

Skills for the private workplace? Essential. So, too, the skills for workplace democracy.

But the declining civic portion of public education, maintain Kahlenberg and Janey, is a threat to our democratic values. It must be addressed, and now. Only a demagogue would argue with that.

Read more from Colbert Kings archive.

More here:
We're teaching our students not to care about democracy - Washington Post

With seven weeks to go, Britain's democracy is spinning up a gear.

At a dinner with friends a few weeks ago, the discussion turned to Brexit, as it so often does here in London these days.

Someone at the table asked me a very simple question. I was surprised at my answer.

She asked: "So what do we have in common?" She meant all the nations that are currently members of the European Union.

I paused for a moment. After a short deduction process, I was left with one thing: democracy.

"Democracy," she exclaimed. "Why didn't anyone say that before?"

She wasn't being facetious, and I certainly wasn't joking.

In all the debate around Brexit, she asked, why didn't former Prime Minister David Cameron mention democracy in the referendum campaign?

I agreed. It seems obvious, when you think about it.

The answer is simple: the ability to argue every detail without fear of arrest -- or worse. The single thing we all have in common is that we live in democracies. We needn't look far to see how lucky we are.

This weekend, France goes to the polls to select the two candidates who will face each other next month in a runoff for the presidency. Chances are at least one of them -- and maybe both -- will advocate following Britain out of the EU.

They will cite differences over currency. They will demand sovereign rights back. They will want control of their own borders. It'll all sound very familiar.

It is an odd conundrum that northwestern Europe is experiencing. It is so surrounded by its commonality it doesn't see it.

So many trees, the wood is invisible. Democracy is flourishing, but its fragrance is drifting over most heads.

Yet on the fringes of Europe, in the south and the east, the scent is sharp. Authoritarianism is on the rise, and the whiff of dictatorship is in the air.

Last weekend, by the slenderest of margins -- and the sleight of hand only media manipulation can manage -- President Recep Tayyip Erdogan took control of his country out of the hands of the people.

His referendum on 18 constitutional changes removes the prime minister and gives him sweeping power over government and legislation.

Erdogan has turned his back on the model democracy that is enjoyed in Europe, yet when he isn't railing against its leaders and calling them racists or Nazis -- as he did a few weeks ago -- he is saying how much he wants to have access to the EU's single market.

The odds of Turkey being allowed to join the EU were always long. But after last week's tight -- and heavily questioned -- vote, any bet had better be transferable to one's children. Turkey is unlikely to be allowed in to the democratic club in the near future.

In Eastern Europe, the fulcrum between democracy and dictatorship runs through Ukraine.

The see-saw is unbalanced, as Russian President Vladimir Putin takes Ukraine's desire to tip towards democracy and do away with cronyism as a slap in the face.

Putin may wrap up his rhetoric in flourishes and describe an overreaching NATO that encroaches on regions of historic Russian interest, but the truth is that many Ukrainians despise his malignant manipulation of economy and media.

What they want -- and have worked towards for more than a decade -- is a more stable and dependable European-style democratic business model than one where a president can take all.

Next month, US President Donald Trump will attend two summits in Europe: one at NATO in Brussels, and one in Sicily, where the G7 world powers will gather.

At both events, Russia and Turkey -- and the different challenges they pose -- are sure to come up. At NATO, Erdogan will represent Turkey and sit side by side with leaders who demand that he respect the 49% of his country that didn't vote to have him grip the country tighter than ever.

In Sicily, leaders will follow up on US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's comments at the foreign ministers' G7 last week in Italy, where the topic of how to handle Russia's backing of President Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria has raised the specter how to handle Putin in the long run.

We may even hear Trump express again not just his profound about-face on NATO or his other 180-degree turn on the value of European unity but the importance of democracy and how it binds us together.

Regardless of the fact that it is not Trump but his scriptwriters who are managing to create these new narratives that even he is unable to mangle, one should applaud the sentiment if it is expressed.

One should applaud because on Europe's borders, the anti-democratic forces are converging. If they sense weakness, they will exploit it.

Erdogan treats every EU negotiation as a bazaar. Take the refugee deal: What started off as 3 billion ($3.2 billion) in aid quickly became 6 billion ($6.4 billion) and a few extras.

Putin's aim with Europe seems to be pulling off the weak nations one by one. Divide and conquer. Not by force, of course, but by breaking our unity and resolve to punish his land grabs and violations of international law.

Neither Erdogan nor Putin gives a fig for our North Atlantic values. Nevertheless, their proximity and appetite for power shines a light on what we have in common: a democratic process whereby leaders like Theresa May can hold a snap election knowing the outcome is unquestionably free and fair.

In France, no one will be voting for an end to democracy: It's not on the ballot, and after all, what kind of turkey votes for Christmas?

But worryingly, that may not be enough to stop democracy from being shoved to the backseat while nationalism takes the wheel.

Read more:
European democracy is under threat. Who knew? - CNN

The protests following President Donald Trumps inauguration and recent protests calling for the president to release his tax returns have this in common: his the-rules-dont-apply-to-me behavior is a presidential style rejected by both our tyranny-fearing founding fathers and the majority of voters in last Novembers election.

To guard against an autocrat in the White House, our ancestors in 1787 replaced the political power once held by sovereign monarchs in Europe with a popular sovereign, placing the nations political power, collectively, in the hands of the people.

With this power shift, each American now shares responsibility for the manner in which political power is wielded and a civic obligation to challenge abuse of power in Washington.

Historically, engaged Americans have aimed their anger against major close-to-home issues, not anti-democracy presidents. Tax protests in the late 18th century were followed by abolition, womans suffrage and workplace conditions protests in the 19th century.

Citizen activism took off in the 1800s, so much so, that some observers warned that the spread of popular sovereignty fever was endangering democracy itself.

By the 1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville, in his famous "Democracy in America," wrote, In America the principle of the sovereignty of the people is neither barren nor concealed, as it is with some other nations . If there is a country in the world where the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people can be fairly appreciated and where its dangers and its advantages may be judged, that country is assuredly America [where] the people reign in the American political world as theDeity does in the universe.

But Tocqueville also tempers this glowing account by pointing out some dangers associated with Americas rush toward mass democracy.

It is a constant fact that at the present day the ablest men in the United States are rarely placed at the head of affairs I hold it to be sufficiently demonstrated that universal suffrage is by no means a guarantee of the wisdom of the popular choice. Whatever its advantages may be, this is not one of them.

Fifty years later, Princeton University professor Woodrow Wilson sized up the hectic late 19th century period of social and political change by declaring that government by the people was not working, that an elite public workforce was needed to make democracy work.

There is, he wrote, scarcely a single duty of government whichwas once simple which is not now complex; government once had but a few masters; it now has scores of masters. He declared none other than the founding principle of popular sovereignty of the people was standing in the way of a more efficient government.

The very fact that we have realized popular rule in its fullness has made the task of organizing that rule just so much more difficult An individual sovereign will adopt a simple plan and carry it out directly But this other sovereign, the people, will have a score of differing opinions.

The protests matter because they are a reminder that with the election of Mr. Trump we are once again, as a nation, engaged in a tug-of-war between autocratic efficiency and popular government.

Efficiency has never been the foremost goal of our democratic government. Rather democracy is designed to be responsive to the values and traditions near and dear to liberty loving citizens. Public officials who do not understand the difference do not understand democracy.

And, because it is a dangerous step toward tyranny, the office of the president is no place for an autocrat.

Ronald Fraser, Ph.D., of Colden is the author of "America, Democracy & YOU: Where have all the Citizens Gone?" He can be reached at fraserr@starpower.net

Read more:
Protests help keep American democracy alive - Lockport Union-Sun & Journal