Mediaboss Marketing

My GOP cronies bridled. "This is America," one insisted. "When one side gets into power, they let the other side retire quietly -- they don't stick their predecessors' heads on spikes. We don't use the law as a tool to punish political opponents. That's what makes us different from banana republics in Africa. That's what makes us the greatest democracy in the world."

Regardless of what you think about George W. Bush -- or this characterization of the entire African continent -- my friend summed up what many Americans believe about their nation's strengths. From Thomas Jefferson onward, the rhetoric of the democratic example has been fundamental to the mythology of American exceptionalism.

Central to this reverence is the faith Americans have in their Constitution: a document which promises to punish corrupt representatives, constrain executive overreach and protect judicial independence. But beyond America's borders, even its greatest admirers reserve a dose of skepticism. America's confidence that its Constitution uniquely protects against abuse of power feels, at best, nave.

People are concerned about traveling to the US, even concerned about doing business in a country that no longer seems to uphold the rule of law. No longer is America a shining example, as my college friends would have it, to the tin pot dictatorships of Africa.

It seems much more revealing that Comey's firing took place a day after he reportedly stepped up his own inquiry into the Trump campaign's alleged links to Russia. (It is worth noting, too, that Rosenstein, an Obama appointee, does not explicitly call in his memo for Comey's dismissal -- just as Comey himself criticized Hillary, but declined to recommend charges. Precision matters in high-stakes legal inquiries.)

None of this makes comfortable watching for America's allies. Should British Prime Minister Theresa May trust her friend Donald to treat her as professionally as he has treated James Comey? Should she direct her intelligence agencies to share with American colleagues their information on Vladimir Putin's activities?

If there is a scrap of hope to be gleaned from President Trump's obvious misdirection this week, it is that Trump has veiled his attack on his own FBI director in the language of bipartisan constitutionalism. The attempt to present this sacking as a favor to Democrats -- who blame Comey for styming Clinton's campaign -- at least suggests that he knows the directors of major civic infrastructure should command bipartisan support.

Or does it? The problem with being European, looking at America, is that we know dictators have always used the language of constitutionalism to camouflage their land grabs.

If there's a single question on every European's lips, it is: How long can Trump last? To those of us who've heard Americans wax lyrical about the legacy of the Founding Fathers, now is the time when we expect to see the US Constitution's checks and balances swing into action. We know that Americans are good at getting rid of presidents: In the American TV series that form our stable diet, it happens all the time, from "Veep" to "24." It's happened in living memory, too. If you can impeach a president simply for lying about sex, surely you can impeach a president who sacks the person investigating him?

Now, however, it's American observers who sound more skeptical. If you're actually living in America, you know that it'll be hard to get much of the congressional GOP on board for an impeachment; that nothing really constrains the executive branch's power over civic appointments.

It is evident that separation of powers only truly exists in the United States when separate parties control the executive and legislature.

Smug Europeans are congratulating themselves that Americans were always wrong about their exceptional democracy. Those of us with a foot in both continents are not so much smug as heartbroken.

Original post:
Europe view: American democracy isn't as strong as you think ...

Voices from the African, Caribbean and Pacific nation states pushed back on Monday (15 May) at the focus on democracy in the European New Consensus on Development, in a debate which opens old wounds between donor countries and developing nations.

The EU the worlds largest aid donor is in the processing of adopting the New Consensus policy document, to update its policies in line with the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)s created by the United Nations.

Many of the SDGs and the New Consensus are uncontroversial, but the commitment to democracy, and what Western donor states understand by that, saw a plethora of voices from Africa and the Caribbean raise objections at a two-day summit of EU and ACP groups in Brussels.

On the opening day of the Meeting of ACP-EU Economic and Social Interest groups, speakers from Haiti, Madagascar, Zimbabwe and the Caribbean hit back at narrow or existing definitions of democracy in the New Consensus document which is being adopted against the background of the post-Cotonou trading arrangements between the 28-member bloc and the ACP nations from 2020.

In front of an audience of around 80 representatives from the Commission, Parliament, EEAS and ACP states, Jethro T. Greene, head of the Caribbean Farmers Network (CaFAN), himself a fruit grower from St Vincent and the Grenadines, warned that even in a functioning ACP democracy those elected do not represent the totality of the people.

The reality is that we have to get consensus across the parties, not just the governments, Greene told the debate.

All [our] governments are minority governments, in that 50% of the people do not vote, and the 50% that do split their vote between the ruling party and the opposition.

At the heart of the debate is clause 3.49, paragraph 49, of the New Consensus, that states: The EU and its member states will promote the universal values of democracy, good governance, rule of law and human rights for all across the full range of partnerships and instruments and across all situations, including through development action.

While that may not sound controversial in Brussels, many ACP nations complain privately and publicly that many Western states were far from parliamentary democracies with universal suffrage when they underwent industrialisation in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

And some recent academic studies show that democracy and development are not as neatly linked as some donor bodies would hope.

Another speaker, from the Indian Ocean island of Madagascar, put the problem more plainly.

Leontine Mbolanomena, a workers representative from Madagascar, said her government was 100% dependent on aid, so the government will sign up for anything [while] the citizens pay the price.

Support for civil society organisations is all well and good, she told the audience of specialists, but NGOs need the capacity to build in civil society to monitor how governments are using the funds.

That echoed a point of Greenes, who said he was not optimistic about achieving the SDGs [by 2030], because we have to get grassroots people involved.

More declarations and Consensus are easy on paper, he warned, but at grassroots level a more difficult thing. Civil Society doesnt have all the technical skills to analyse [what governments do.]

At the other extreme, Zimbabwe something of a pariah state in diplomatic circles, if not for the aid groupstrying to operate within its borders warned EU leaders against trying to achieve Utopia in a day.

John Mufukere, director of the Employers Confederation of Zimbabwe, said: It is good to empower CSO (Civil Society Organisations) to hold governments to account, but the British have a saying Dont throw the baby away with the bathwater.

Dont insist we can get there, before we can get there, he warned. Zimbabwe has been run continuously by President Robert Mugabe since 1980, who last year announced he would stand again as president in 2018, at the age of 96.

The 17-point UN Sustainable Development Goals criticised at the meeting as more abstract and fragmentary than the better-known Millennial Development Goals they replaced are supposed to be met by 2030, and include the opening promise of No poverty.

They are at least superficially less doctrinaire about the promotion of democracy, relegating it to the 16th of 17 goals, under the heading Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions.

The EU was not immune from criticism at the meeting. Ionut Sibian, the rapporteur for the European Economic and Social Committee, railed against what he called trendsetters [in Official Development Aid] who count financial implication areas for expenses that five or 10 years ago would have been unthinkable for this policy.

Although he did not single them out by name, the UK, Germany and Sweden, among others, have recently started using ODA funds on so-called in-house host country spending, that is, housing and feeding refugees, with some also now mooting classifying some security spending under ODA.

Sibian did specify that theme, asking rhetorically: Security and migration control [spending]? Okay if we channel more money to poverty eradication.

Michael John Ellis, head of unit for Policy and Coherence at DG Devco, struck a conciliatory note, telling the audience it was fair to ask Okay, theres a declaration, a nice ceremony, we all pat ourselves on the back, but sometimes what happens [next]?

He added it was fair that recognising governments dont necessarily represent everyone, but one good thing about the SDGs was that they at least bring everyone together.

Joan Lafranco, speaking for the Trade Union Development Cooperation Network, suggested that while developing ACP states were formalising their economy, each country was different, and a baseline of striving for decent work, with social dialogue was the least states could sign up to.

But if we rely on the market alone [rather than pushing for democratic practices], the SDGs will never be achieved, he warned.

The ACP-EU two day meeting continues today (16 May), with sessions on industrialisation, and food waste.

Continued here:
ACP states push back at New Consensus on Development over 'democracy' deficit - EURACTIV

Common Dreams

March on Harrisburg: What Democracy Is All About Common Dreams Determined to pressure politicians to support three pieces of pro-democracy legislation, scores of activists set off from Philadelphia on Saturday on a 100-mile trek to the Pennsylvania state capitol. Called March on Harrisburg, this action grew out of ...

Go here to see the original:
March on Harrisburg: What Democracy Is All About - Common Dreams

There should be little doubt that the extraordinary days that followed his original testimony -- most notably, almost exactly 24 hours later, President Donald Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey -- began in some measure because of his understated but highly damning testimony.

Now, as he voluntarily makes the media circuit since the firing, Clapper sees the consequences of Trump's actions as so threatening to our democracy that he is not likely to recede soon.

Let's go back to last week; yes, it was only last week. All eyes were on former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates as she testified about what she told the White House regarding former national security adviser Michael Flynn and his potentially compromising ties to foreign governments.

His testimony threw a wrench into a narrative that the White House had long used. According to that narrative, while serving as director of the national intelligence, Clapper said there was no proof of collusion between the White House and Russia. But Clapper admitted last Monday that he was unaware of the ongoing FBI investigation, so he wouldn't have been in a position to know if there had been any evidence of collusion. In other words, the White House could no longer use him as a validator.

He shouldn't have focused on Clapper. Because, of course, that tweet amounted to a lie. Clapper had said something much more nuanced. Clearly, there was something about Clapper's testimony that spooked the White House, and something that required the President to reclaim Clapper as a defender.

I suspect there are very few things that would have brought Clapper back to the media, including a sit down with Jake Tapper on "State of the Union," but the President telling tales about him may be one of them.

And he is again, as he did as a long-serving intelligence operative, defending America. He is on the news circuit, speaking of his concern about how the institutions of our governance are being undermined and assaulted. There is a stress on our checks and balances that has seen no equivalent in our democracy, he warned. America is under threat "externally and internally," Clapper noted. "Internally from the President?" Tapper asked. "Exactly," Clapper replied.

It is that assault on our norms, processes and constitutional order that make the week we just had so historic. How extraordinary? Clapper began that week testifying the enemy was Russia. He ended it, unwittingly it seemed, by telling us that the enemy was also within.

See the original post here:
James Clapper: Defending democracy from Trump - CNN

Forbes

China Will Suppress Terrorism, Diversity, And Democracy In Pakistan: Leaked Document Forbes The document poses diversity and multi-party democracy as problems, which raises questions about the extent to which the international community should allow autocratic China's use of $1 trillion in upcoming investment to push its diplomatic and ... and more »

Continued here:
China Will Suppress Terrorism, Diversity, And Democracy In Pakistan: Leaked Document - Forbes