Mediaboss Marketing

Muslims vs Democracy
Muslims taking over.

By: Ricardo Langaigne

Here is the original post:
Muslims vs Democracy - Video

LDP - What is successful in Life? | khem veasna speech - khem veasna ldp 2014
Khem Veasna; born December 11, 1966) is an orphan, former movie star, movie boss, writer, director, Law student, businessman, cambodian politician, the founder of the League for Democracy Party ...

By: LDP Story

The rest is here:
LDP - What is successful in Life? | khem veasna speech - khem veasna ldp 2014 - Video

[31] The NYPD, the Crisis of Democracy, and the crazy price of education
Lee Camp and the Redacted Tonight team tackle the NYPD #39;s job description, the secret crisis of democracy, ballooning student debt, and why the US is the only country without paid maternity...

By: Redacted Tonight

Link:
[31] The NYPD, the Crisis of Democracy, and the crazy price of education - Video

By Christian von Soest and Michael Wahman January 10 at 4:09 PM

Last month, Venezuela, a longtime U.S. adversary in international relations, was hit by American sanctions to punish democratic backsliding in the country. The Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act targets government officials deemed responsible for human rights violations against anti-government protesters with visa bans and asset freezes. Since the end of the Cold War, sanctions have been an important tool for Western governments in their efforts to promote democracy and human rights abroad.

Yet critics argue that these democracy sanctions are used selectively and are mere window dressing in order to promote other Western foreign policy goals such as strengthening international security or fostering economic interests. Indeed, it may seem suspicious that international rivals such as Venezuela are targets of U.S. sanctions whereas autocracies that are American allies, like Egypt under Hosni Mubarak or Saudi Arabia, have been spared from coercive measures ostensibly to improve the state of democracy.

In a recently published article(temporarily ungated) in the Journal of Peace Research, we gather statistical data on all democratic sanctions issued by the European Union and the United States to systematically study when and where Western democracies use sanctions to promote democracy. We find that the promotion of democracy or punishing of backsliding has been the single most important goal when initiating sanctions against authoritarian regimes. Other sanction goals can be to fight nuclear programs or terrorism or to help end civil wars abroad.

Yet our analysis confirms that all dictators are not equal. Some are more likely to be exposed to democratic sanctions than others. Moreover, the way in which democratic norms are violated matters. Most notably, dramatic and highly visible events, rather than consistently low levels of democracy, are especially likely to result in democratic sanctions. Sanctions are most likely after military coups. In any given year, the probability of a Western sanction increases by 50 percentage points when a democratically elected leader has been ousted from power. To mention just a few examples, military coups in Ivory Coast, Haiti, Fiji and Thailand all resulted in E.U. or U.S. sanctions. We also find that fraudulent elections, such as those arranged in Belarus or Zimbabwe, increase the chances of democratic sanctions, albeit to a lesser extent than military coups.

Most importantly, as suggested by the Venezuelan example, our statistical investigation shows that autocratic behavior and the level of democracy is not enough to explain variations in the probability of democratic sanctions. Two additional factors fundamentally change the propensity. First, Western governments tend to focus on poorer and therefore more vulnerable countries, especially those enduring a severe economic crisis. In their decision to impose external pressure, Western leaders regularly react to domestic political dynamics in the target states. If authoritarian regimes are already troubled by domestic turmoil, sanctions are more likely to push the balance and appear successful to domestic and international audiences. For instance, in connection with the Asian financial crises and massive protests, the E.U. issued democratic sanctions against the Suharto regime in Indonesia in 1999. Similarly, the United States decided to increase the intensity of already existing sanctions, shortly before the fall of Suharto. Needless to say, the Suharto regime had been highly repressive and non-democratic for decades, but the intensity of the political crisis in the late 1990s made the timing for Western sanctions particularly beneficial.

Second, the expected political and economic costs for Western powers of exerting pressure count. In support of general public and academic suspicion, we find that the relationship between an authoritarian regime and the West does matter for the likelihood of democratic sanctions. Simply put, authoritarian regimes on friendly terms with the West are less likely to be punished for democratic wrongdoings. In this way, the lack of sanctions or other external pressure against countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Qatar represents a broader pattern: Strategic allies are often spared from Western pressure to democratize, and enforcement of democratic norms is much more selective where geostrategic interests prevail. When the Zimbabwe government arranged highly controversial and massively fraudulent elections in 2002 it resulted in democratic sanctions from the West, whereas Mubaraks resounding electoral victories throughout the 1990s and 2000s did not trigger similar reactions. Our strongest statistical results are obtained when we look at the relationship between foreign direct investments and democratic sanctions and when we observe how well a countrys foreign policy agenda is aligned with the interests of the West. More foreign investments and a more pro-Western foreign policy agenda significantly reduce the probability of Western democratic sanctions.

The West has clearly had an important role in promoting democracy abroad. There are several instances when different forms of pressure have resulted in democratic improvement in authoritarian states. For instance, conditionality related to E.U. membership in Eastern Europe has been hugely important for democratic development within the post-communist block. Similarly, active aid policies and aid sanctions against African one-party states was instrumental in the vast wave of African democratization in the early 1990s. Mounting evidence also suggests that the expansion of election monitoring has been beneficial in many new democracies. Nevertheless, our study casts serious doubts on whether the West has actually fulfilled its role as an active and consistent democracy promoter globally. Not only is U.S. assistance to democracy in other countries declining, but more generally, consistent democracy promotion seems to be restricted to countries where democracy is not trumped by other foreign policy goals and more likely when dramatic and highly visible events such as military coups put a countrys lack of democracy in the international limelight.

Christian von Soestis aSenior Research Fellow, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies.Michael Wahmanis aSwedish Research Council Fellow, London School of Economics and Political Science, and as of September 2015 Assistant Professor, University of Missouri-Columbia

More:
Monkey Cage: How the West selectively promotes democracy through sanctions

Democracy triumphed against all odds at Thursday's Presidential Election which saw Maithripala Sirisena as the sixth Executive President of Sri Lanka. It was a momentous event that reaffirmed

Sri Lankan collective faith in pluralism and democracy. Despite the many rumours that circulated to the contrary, there was a smooth transfer of power from outgoing President Mahinda Rajapaksa to new President Maithripala Sirisena, a veteran in the political arena with over four decades' experience.

The new President as well as his Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe hit the right note at the very beginning, starting with a simple swearing-in ceremony at Independence Square, the very place which symbolises the country's freedom from tyrannical colonial rule. Simplicity and humility are the hallmarks of President Sirisena, a true son of the soil from the rice bowl of Rajarata.

During his brief, nationally televised speech at Independence Square, the new President identified several challenges before his administration. He said that he will crusade for an economic, social and political transformation in the country as pledged in his election manifesto, adding that he is committed to build a society where freedom, democracy, people's sovereignty and law and order reign. In short, he promised to build a new country in 100 days.

This is indeed the need of the hour as all these cherished values had taken a beating under the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime which brazenly disregarded all norms of civilised conduct and democracy. This was most evident in the way the previous incumbent conducted his re-election bid. According to one conservative estimate, he had spent at least Rs. 250 billion on the campaign, from giant cut-outs to utterly revolting TV advertisements that ridiculed the Common Candidate.

The State media, including this newspaper, were used in the most shameless manner to promote the previous President who was seeking an unprecedented third term, with not one inch of room given to the Common Candidate or to any of the other 17 candidates. As President Sirisena highlighted in his speech, it was his political maturity and mettle that enabled him to fearlessly withstand this barrage of mudslinging.

It is indeed vital to restore democracy, freedom, people's sovereignty and law and order in the shortest possible period of time. Having ended the three-decade old conflict, the previous President had a golden opportunity to become a revered leader like Nelson Mandela by bringing all communities and religious groups together and strengthening democratic institutions. However, he eschewed this path and chose to tread in the opposite direction by steadily undermining and weakening all democratic structures and sowing ethnic and religious discord for short-term gain.

As John Acton said years ago, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Mahinda Rajapaksa embodied this perfectly through the passing of the draconian 18th Amendment which removed Presidential term limits and repealed all the independent commissions appointed through the 17th Amendment. He spent government funds lavishly on fruitless projects, most of which were named after himself. Even the opening ceremonies of these projects cost millions of rupees. The intimidation of independent media and human rights groups and the tacit approval given to extremist organisations such as the Bodu Bala Sena were other factors that led to his downfall. His close and extended family was given a free rein to ride roughshod over the populace and engage in acts of massive corruption.

As the Presidential Elections showed so decisively and clearly, the people had flatly rejected these anti-democratic measures. The voters rejected communalism, nepotism, corruption, injustice and authoritarianism. The people have rightly demanded a country free from these despicable acts.

In line with its promise of good governance through the Maithri Palanaya (Compassionate Rule), the Maithripala Sirisena administration should, among other things, take steps to Amend the Executive Presidency to prevent the concentration of unlimited power on one individual; Repeal the 18th Amendment and bring back the 17th Amendment and its independent institutions; Reinstate Chief Justice Shiranee Bandaranayake; Restore the rank, medal and pension of war hero General Sarath Fonseka; restore law and order; establish a suitable mechanism to probe the mega deals of the previous administration and bring back any monies stashed abroad by corrupt individuals; check waste and corruption; appoint competent persons to head all Government institutions; restore complete media freedom; eliminate drug abuse; reduce the Cost of Living and fuel prices and depoliticise the judiciary, police, administrative service and the foreign service.

Read the original:
A triumph for democracy