Mediaboss Marketing

As a country of 1.3 billion people, more than 800 million of whom are eligible to vote, India takes pride in being the worlds largest democracy. India has often lauded its ability to transfer power peacefully every five years since the first general election of 1951 (except for Indira Gandhis experiment with autocracy in 1975). Most recently, even news of the Uttar Pradesh assembly elections is keen to point out that state elections in India are larger than the national elections of several European countries. However, while such self-aggrandizing statistics highlight the monumental task of the Election Commission of India, they do nothing to validate Indias success as a democracy. Rather, a superficial satisfaction with the size of Indias elections risks perpetuating ignorance of the underlying issues that plague Indias democracy.

The health of a democracy cannot be measured by the size of its voter base nor simply by the peaceful transition of power. Such standards of evaluation may be sufficient for nascent democracies struggling to implement the practice of universal adult suffrage (such as countries in the Middle East and North Africa that are experimenting with democracy in the wake of the Arab Spring), but not for India, which has a more mature democracy. India aspires to become a secular, liberal, global superpower and considers itself a counterweight to undemocratic regimes in its backyard. As such, voter participation is a necessarybut insufficientmeasurement of how far the country has come since its independence and how much further it has to go to truly uphold the ideals of democracy. If much of Indias soft power (as well as its moral superiority) against China, Pakistan and other competing states arises from successful democratic tradition, then India must ensure a more complete understanding of the challenges its democracy is currently facing.

Even if Indias democracy was measured by the size and success of its elections, its efficacy is called into question by news of candidates bribing voters, using threat of force to sway voting behavior and otherwise finding ways to ignore or circumvent the principles safeguarded by the Election Commission. Even when elections are not overtly manipulated, electioneering that focuses on identity and caste politics promotes the selection of suboptimal candidates, without respect to their merit or the substance of their policies. This adulteration of the election process has a ripple effect leading to perverse outcomes through the rest of the democratic institutional machinery.

As Indias democracy continues to mature, an increasingly important indicator of its health will be the health of its constituent political institutions. The key political institutions responsible for executing the functions of democracy and protecting its founding principles of liberty, equality and justice constitute the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government. Not only is each branch of government important in its own right, but it is even more important that all three branches work in concert to check and balance each others powers. Institutions such as the Parliament of India, which function upon the principle of majority rule, are counterbalanced by institutions such as the judiciary, which are responsible for protecting the rights of the minorities against the potential abuses of the majority. Institutions of the executive branch fall within the ambit of both aims, as they are responsible for executing the dictates of Parliament, while also enforcing laws that protect minorities. If the health of Indias democracy were gauged by the efficacy of its political institutions, then it would likely be judged to be in a fragile, and perhaps dismal, state.

For example, the most visible of all democratic institutions, the Parliament, has largely lost the faith of the electorate. The election of Members of Parliament who are underqualified has eroded the Parliaments ability to pass laws and be responsive to the needs of the nation. More than one-third of the current Members of Parliament have criminal charges pending against them. Though they are permitted to serve under Indian law (but face the risk of dismissal if they are convicted), such ignominious qualifications do not befit a role of national leadership. Furthermore, the inability of elected representatives and Parliament to think holistically (rather than for the narrow benefits of their caste and constituents) has led to a fractionalization of the political assembly that has rendered ineffectual and mired in gridlock. Representatives are either looking to fill their own purses, to satisfy the whims of their narrow vote banks, or to oppose the initiatives of the majority for the sake of opposition itself. As a result, Parliament often fails to pass meaningful reforms regardless of which political party is in power. Even the conduct of Parliamentarians, who are keen to employ feuds, foul language and hysteria on the floor of the chamber, has become an entertaining soap opera, but has eroded the publics trust in this keystone institution. The nature of Parliament as a forum for thoughtful debate of issues facing the nation is clearly at risk, reflecting the endemic failure of the election processes, despite Indias claim to the title of worlds largest democracy.

Read more here:
Is India Still the World's Largest Democracy? - The National Interest Online

Liberal, secular democracies are besieged. Their ideals are being challenged among Hindus in India, among Republicans in America and among political parties in France. They are besieged in Russia, Turkey and other countries. Alarms were heard around the world with the unexpected election of Donald Trump as president of the USthough there were many earlier warnings of dissatisfaction with institutions of liberal democracy, with the rise of authoritarian leaders and populist movements on all continents. Like global warming, which has come into collective human awareness lately, the causes of discontent with liberal democracy have been brewing outside the gatherings in which people like us from around the world were celebrating globalizations benefits. They werent listening.

A democracy or an econocracy?

An expanding movement called Rethinking economics, of over 40 groups of economics students in 13 countries, is expressing dissatisfaction with the ideas of economics they are being taught. They also point to a root cause of the global discontent with democracies. In their view, the large influence of economists on governments and in multilateral organizations, as well as the dominant ideas of economics that are being translated into public policy, have converted democracies into econocracies. They present their arguments in a very readable book, The Econocracy: The Perils Of Leaving Economics To The Experts.

The economy, they say, has become a parallel universe to human society. It has its own models of the world founded on over-simplified premises such as: Human beings are rational, self-interested agents; transactions between them can be modelled as mathematical formulas; and whatever cannot be quantified cannot have a role in their models. In this over-simplified view of human society, politicsthe cut and thrust of human aspirations and poweris an interference in the growth of a disembodied economy, the maximization of whose growth must be the ultimate goal of good economic policies.

The authors give the example of how a famous childrens charity justified a campaign to encourage fathers to read to their children on the basis that improving literacy would increase GDP (gross domestic product) by 1.5% by 2020. With the dominance of economists in public policy, people are being led to think that something is worth doing only if it will contribute to the growth of GDP.

Rather than society being manipulated to feed the growth of a disembodied economy, the economy must be changeable to serve society. In his introduction to The Econocracy, J.B.S. Haldane, chief economist at the Bank of England, writes, Public interest in institutions has been dented. Repairing that dent... will require new and wider means of listening to, and learning from societal stakeholders. The student authors say, We believe that at its core, economics should be a public discussion about how to organize society. To be able to do that, economics must be transformed from a technical discipline into a public dialogue.

EVMs and deliberative democracy

US Justice Louis Brandeis said: The greatest menace to freedom is an inert people. Public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be the fundamental principle of the American government. The popular vision of democracy is a society in which every citizen has a right to vote for her representative in government. In this vision, the core of democracy is free, fair and frequent elections. According to this concept, India is a hugely successful democracy. Using technology, such as electronic voting machines (EVMs), it conducts elections on a scale no other country does. EVMs are transported even to remote mountain hamlets so that every citizen can exercise her right to vote.

This vision sees only the vertical threads of democracys fabricthe constitutional relationship between the people and those who govern them. It misses the horizontal threads that make the fabric of democracy strong. The horizontal threads are processes for deliberation among citizens, who may have diverse opinions about the qualities of their society and differences about what public policy should be. As Brandeis said, public discussion is the duty of citizens; only to vote in elections is not enough.

Technology is making it easier for consumers to exercise their choices in the marketplace. With a touch on their smartphones, they can select from a dazzling array of products and services sellers offer them. They can also electronically select a candidate from those offered to them at elections. Social media and marketing companies are deploying increasingly better algorithms to understand every individuals preferences and give her what she wants. They know what we like and give us more of what we like. Thus, social media, with its vast reach, is creating large echo chambers of people with the same preferences, within which they can hear more about what they like, from people they want to follow. However, it is deepening divides between people with different views. They do not hear each other.

For a healthy democracy, shared public spaces, online or not, are a lot better than echo chambers, writes Cass Sunstein in his book, #Republic: Divided Democracy In The Age Of Social Media. Digital technologies and social media are making life easier for consumers. But they are making life more difficult for citizens. Two centuries before social media, framers of the US Constitution were deeply worried that without the horizontal weft of democratic deliberations, democracys fabric would be weak. Social media facilitates populism. It is making people passive consumers and passionate supporters of productsincluding political leaders.

Democracys vertical links between people and their governments have become weak, with experts making policies which they are convinced are good for the economy, without listening to the people. Democracys horizontal threads are fraying, with people like us listening only to people we like, a tendency that social media strengthens. Deficiencies in listening are root causes for the weakening of democracys fabric.

Arun Maira served in the erstwhile Planning Commission.

First Published: Sun, Apr 02 2017. 10 58 PM IST

Read the original here:
The fraying fabric of liberal democracy - Livemint

A few days after last year's presidential election, Mike Pence, then the vice president-elect, attended a Broadway production of the musical "Hamilton."

The boos he heard from the audience, he said afterward, were merely "what freedom sounds like."

His response was appropriate because freedom is kind of messy, especially in a nation with such a broad range of religious, gender and political viewpoints that often collide on a minute-by-minute basis.

We Americans are very parochial beings. From our political points of view to our religious traditions and our community pride, we decide what tribe we belong to and protect it when we feel it is threatened.

Democracy, like freedom, also is messy. So is governing something President Donald J. Trump should have pointed out frequently as he worked with Congress to reform America's healthcare system.

The battle for ultimate control of the bill was always going to be tribal: Republicans were split between the "Hell No" crowd (the Freedom Caucus) and moderates, while Democrats were unwilling even to look at any proposal.

A presidential statement such as "Hey America, this is what democracy looks like, not marching in the streets just to march, but doing the hard work of negotiating with Congress. And oh, by the way, this is part of what makes us great" would have been a great reminder that, yes, governing is hard but that this is what you sent him to Washington to accomplish, and ultimately it will be worthwhile.

In other words, Trump needs to remind people with the same bravado that took him to the White House that getting bills passed isn't going to be easy but that that does not mean it eventually won't get done.

What the healthcare debacle did do for Trump was to hinder the notion from the left, the resistance movement and the press that he's a ruthless dictator who will turn our county into Soviet-era Russia. After all, if you cannot control your own party, you certainly are not going to rule the country with an iron fist.

Also from the Washington Examiner

"We had a great day with the president," Paul said. "We talked about a little bit of healthcare."

04/02/17 5:29 PM

There is a lot of hypocrisy in complaining that Trump is both dictatorial and ineffectual.

It's been four months since the November election, yet in many ways the news media has failed to move on to other stories because it didn't get that story right.

That's a drag that has pulled both it and the Trump administration into political quicksand, making it impossible for anyone to move forward because both entities are trying to correct the other.

"It's like it is still midnight on November 8 and we are waiting as a country for the dawn on November 9," explained Brad Todd, founder of OnMessage Inc. "So many people cannot get to the next day."

A lot of people who are trying to understand why people voted for Trump believe that those voters did not care if he was competent or not and were going to vote for him because they were voting against America's elites.

Also from the Washington Examiner

"It is ironic that all of the real evidence of real money and real influence-buying relates to Democrats."

04/02/17 5:24 PM

This is only partially true. There were negative and positive elements to their votes; they were excited by Trump not only because he appeared to like them and offered to be their champion but also because they thought he was skilled. Just look at Trump Tower, the plane and the role he played on his reality television show.

In addition, they are suffering under Obamacare's insurance premiums. (Yes, they really are.)

But, if they start to believe Trump is in over his head, they might turn on him something that has not happened yet, but there is always that danger.

Regarding healthcare, Trump shouldn't give up.

The biggest problem for people is the cost, not the insurance provisions. Focus on that first, and point out that any reform will reduce the entitlement problem; convene a special panel with someone like Toby Cosgrove from Cleveland Clinic as its chairman, give them six months to produce results and promise to support its recommendations (unlike what former President Barack Obama did with his budget commission). And then move on to taxes.

If he starts with reducing corporate income tax rates, eliminates deductions to win Democrats' votes and drops border adjustments for now (too complicated for the quick, bipartisan victory he needs), then the markets will soar and he can go back to using his popularity and the special panel to truly reform healthcare.

This presidency is in its infancy; this populism is not. It is not the beginning nor the end of it, and, in all likelihood, it will continue for a very long time. Our world is changing in technological terms, more rapidly and drastically than our values, traditions and economic stability can keep up with.

Despite the drama of the healthcare vote, the president has not lost the base of supporters who put him into office. As Todd said, we are stuck at midnight on November 8; yes, he can lose them, but he hasn't yet.

It's nothing that a broader staff and a realization of limitations and how to work within those can't fix.

And, of course, Trump needs the self-awareness and discipline to do that.

The president gave us a peek at that willingness last week, when he hosted a bipartisan dinner for members of the U.S. Senate in the White House. His nod to his Democratic rivals was the first step toward getting policies in place, such as reforming healthcare. It was the right tone acknowledging that it is complicated and tough as well as politically smart.

Going after the Freedom Caucus one day later, also smart.

Why? It is Trump's unique pivot of persuasion and one of the things that his supporters love about him.

In Freedom Caucus districts he is the only person those House members are afraid of. No one else can scare them, certainly not Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.

The only thing they fear is a primary, and the president is the one person who could do that.

Should he continue to have them over for bowling? Yes. But he should also continue to hammer them on social media and specifically in local newspapers and on local talk radio.

Complaining about them to the Washington Post means nothing to these members. Go in their districts, though, and he can make them bend.

That is what his voters are looking for, and that is what will keep them on his side, because they know that is what democracy looks like.

Salena Zito is a columnist for the Washington Examiner.

View original post here:
This is what democracy looks like - Washington Examiner

The Hindu

The legitimation crisis of Indian democracy The Hindu I don't want to go into specifics; instead, I draw attention to three distinct moments of the legitimation crisis of representative democracy in India. The first I call the crisis of procedural legitimacy. For long, our representatives were elected by ... and more »

Link:
The legitimation crisis of Indian democracy - The Hindu

As a child, I remember that my family regarded animated political discussions as a sporting event. Vocal wrangling never personally appealed to me, but it did teach me to appreciate an inherent aspect of our living democracy - the exchange of ideas.

We harbor thoughts about small government versus large, Jefferson versus Hamilton, federal versus state, state versus local control. We vote for or against candidates based on what we hear candidates say and how that aligns with our personal beliefs. Democracy evolves - it is messy, it's hard work, and sometimes it's loud. It doesn't end at the ballot box. To the contrary, if we truly are engaged, voting and getting elected are just the beginning and conversations around the issues we care about will grow and evolve, as well.

This Iowa legislative session has offered up a lively, up-close and personal lesson on how our form of democracy works - or should work, if we are all willing to participate. No doubt about it, the Republican Party won control of all three branches of state government, so they get to set the agenda. But our representatives still have to come home, still have to engage with their constituents - even the ones who didn't vote for them - and still be held accountable for their stands on issues.

One arena where I've witnessed tremendous opportunity to learn from an exchange of ideas is the series of town hall meetings hosted by the League of Women Voters of Sioux City with other civic groups on the last Saturday of the month during the legislative session. The January meeting was definitely boisterous, but it came from passion and reaction to what had been an unadvertised, full-throated, frontal attack on Chapter 20 that defines what can be covered under the bargaining rights of public employees. The folks who stood in line for more than 90 minutes to ask questions, express outrage or fear or confront the legislators were there because it was personal - the kind of personal that made them step out of their comfort zone and talk about how vulnerable they felt.

The three legislators present earned not just their salary as elected officials, but also the respect of their constituents. In addition to Democratic Representatives Chris Hall and Tim Kacena, Republican Representative Jim Carlin attended the January, February and March town hall meetings. They listened - sometimes over noisy audience rumblings - they shared, they explained, but most of all they made themselves available. I noticed the audience expressed appreciation to Rep. Carlin, while disagreeing with him, because he took their phone calls, answered their questions and explained his stance on issues. There has been an earnest exchange of ideas in these forums.

But where were our locally elected state senators? Where was their exchange of ideas and the give and take of opposing points of view? Please explain why Chapter 20 needed revamping. Why is it imperative to reduce compensation for work injuries even though the National Council on Compensation Insurance claims premium costs in Iowa decreased and claims have been fair for employers? Why is the stand-your-ground provision in the proposed gun bill so urgent, despite deep reservations expressed by Iowa county sheriffs, attorneys and police chiefs across the state, including Woodbury County Sheriff Dave Drew? Why are $440 million in corporate tax credits untouchable in light of the state's $220 million budget shortfall? If our corporate taxes are so onerous, why has U.S. News & World Report ranked Iowa as the nation's sixth-best state for economic development?

Lets have a public discussion about the origin of bills sent out by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) for state legislators to propose. For example, the Iowa House recently passed a "Convention of the States" bill to limit the power of the federal government and limit terms of office for members of Congress. The name and language of the bill are verbatim from the model distributed by ALEC. This is just one example. What property or state income taxes does ALEC pay into the Iowa treasury?

When and where did legislation that weakens the earning power of working-class wage earners who pay state income and property taxes get publicly aired?

Public forums can be emotional, nerve-racking and uncomfortable, but making every effort to be accessible to your constituents helps both sides of the democratic equation mature and deepens our engagement in self-governance. Legislators and voters alike have a responsibility to partake, and when we do we all gain a foothold in the outcome.

Katie Colling is the executive director of Women Aware, a private nonprofit agency. She was elected to two consecutive terms on the Woodbury County Extension Council and serves on several civic-organization boards. She and her husband, Ron, live in Sioux City.

Read more:
THE REGULARS: Democracy: It's messy, it's hard work .. and sometimes it's loud - Sioux City Journal