Mediaboss Marketing

The strength of a nation depends on its institutions, which must be independent and display intellectual integrity and vigour in performing their duties. India is a functioning parliamentary democracy, but its institutions seem to buckle before challenges. We must make institutions stronger, and therefore more effective, writesB K CHATURVEDI,former cabinet secretary and member of the erstwhile Planning Commission.

-

THIS week, at a G-7 conference, India reaffirmed its commitment to democracy in a joint statement. The statement, which India has signed, says, We are at a critical juncture, facing threats to freedom and democracy from rising authoritarianism, electoral interference, corruption, economic coercion, manipulation of information including disinformation, online harms and cyber-attacks, politically-motivated internet shutdowns, human rights violations and abuses, terrorism and violent extremism.

While the statement contains very clear affirmations of our values, several Indian policies have raised concerns in the international media.

Also read:India signs joint statement at G-7 for freedom of expression: Internet curbs threat to democracy

The 2021 World Press Freedom Index produced by Reporters without Borders (RSF), a French NGO, again placed India at 142nd rank out of 180 countries. The report mentioned that with four journalists killed in connection with their work in 2020, India is one of the most dangerous countries for journalists trying to do their job properly.

When Freedom House, an organisation based in the US, released its report on the functioning of democracies in March, it had downgraded Indias ranking from free to partly free. It observed, Rather than serving as a champion of democratic practice and a counterweight to authoritarian influence from countries such as China, Modi and his party are tragically driving India itself toward authoritarianism.

There may be issues with these assessments, and one may legitimately contest the views of these organisations, but they are one indicator of how some in the international community view the functioning of democracy in India.

Quite apart, the strength of a nation lies in how independently and with how much intellectual integrity the different parts of its democratic institutions carry out their responsibilities.

Also read:Freedom in the World 2021

Despite more than seven decades of a functioning parliamentary democracy, several institutions have not taken strong roots in our country. Some institutions have often not shown intellectual integrity when faced with challenges. A major issue is that corruption remains high, which weakens institutions and their effectiveness.

The recent Assembly election in West Bengal highlighted several major weaknesses in the working of some institutions. Our Election Commission has, over the years, acquired an image of a very strong and independent body. Unfortunately, it did not manifest in the West Bengal election. The polls were announced to be held in eight phases. Given the presence of a large number of paramilitary forces there, this schedule was difficult to understand.

There were allegations that it was done to favour the party ruling at the Centre so that its leaders could campaign in most of the constituencies right till the end. Since Prime Minister Narendra Modi has the image of a very popular leader, a long campaign was important for the BJP if it wanted to win this election. Further, the election was held when the country was going through one of the worst epidemics.

The Election Commission ought to have been really strict in implementing safety norms during the West Bengal election, but there was very little evidence of this. Large political meetings were allowed with blatant disregard for social distancing or wearing of masks.

The recent cyclone in West Bengal and the visit of the Prime Minister to review the losses in the state was yet another occasion when our institutions did not act in the spirit of the Constitution, as they must in a mature democracy. In our setup, the Prime Minister generally visits states ravaged by floods or other natural disasters.

During these visits, it is customary to hold meetings with the Chief Minister and other officials, including the Chief Secretary. Generally, meetings with public representatives are also held. It would have been appropriate if this was done. Unfortunately, it seems the bitterness of the elections affected the visit.

After handing over the papers to the Prime Minister, the Chief Minister chose not to stay back any further. She returned to the cyclone-affected areas along with the Chief Secretary.

While it was unfortunate that the West Bengal Chief Minister left the meeting with the Prime Minister early, the orders of the central government calling the Chief Secretary to report to the Government of Indiaissued immediately after this incidentviolated the All India Service Rules.

No concurrence of the state government or the officer was taken and, only a couple of days back, the government of India had agreed to his extension as Chief Secretary for three months. The entire incident did not reflect mature institutional functioning.

The Supreme Court of India is the highest judicial forum in the country. Sometime back, four of its judges held a press conference to express concerns about its functioning. When Article 370 was abolished in Jammu and Kashmir and many public representatives were put behind bars under various laws, several Habeas Corpus petitions were filed. Such petitions require urgent hearings as human freedom is at stake in them. Sadly, these petitions were kept pending for months. The courts did not take cognizance of them.

In January, the Supreme Court-appointed a committee to look into the problems faced by the farmers in light of their agitation. All the members appointed to this committee were generally seen to be in favour of the three central legislations that the farmers are opposing.

Similarly, the question of electoral bonds is still pending in the Supreme Court since 2017, although it has significant implications on the flow of funds to various political parties. The expeditious listing and hearing of the bail application of a pro-government TV anchorand subsequent relief to him has given rise to the belief that there is a strong influence of the government over the courts.

Also read:Farm laws: Supreme Court-appointed committee submits report

Day-to-day administration in our country is carried out by the executive. There are major chinks in the armour of this arm of government. For example, the functioning of the governors of states has been a cause of worry for a very long time. Over the years, chief ministers have complained about the conduct of several governors.

In July 2016, the conduct of the governor of Arunachal Pradesh, who imposed Presidents rule, was criticised heavily by the Supreme Court. Sometime back, the Governor of Maharashtra administered the oath of office to the Chief Minister at 8 am, after the President was woken up even earlier in the morning to revoke Presidents rule!

Also read:Maharashtra: How things played out on a day marked by intrigue

Electoral processes need to be free. However, recently, it has been noticed that before elections, the CBI, the Enforcement Directorate, and the income tax authorities launch investigations or carry out raids on the candidates of Opposition parties. The timing of these raids raises questions about their independence and fairness.

The functioning of the legislatures of states and Parliament, too, raises questions. The most basic question is the number of days our parliamentarians sit to discuss issues. Sadly,neither Parliament nor the state legislaturesare meeting enough.

According to recent reports, 19 state Assemblies met, on average, for 29 days a year. The last time our Parliament was in session for more than 100 days in a year was in 1988! Unless legislators meet and hold the executive accountable, democracy cannot be strong.

What independent institutions can achieve was evident some months back in the United States presidential election. It is remarkable that despite nearly 50 challenges to the election coming from different states, all the judges expeditiously rejected them.

According to reports,86 judgesand theUS Supreme Courtrejected the suits that challenged the election. The executive also responded very independently to the election process.

Even where President Donald Trump intervened personally and wanted a state governor to withhold the election result or ensure it is not certified, the governors refused. Arizona Governor Doug Hobbs, who is Republican, refused all pressures and certified the results.

After the 2020 election result, the US executive acted under the rules and laws despite pressure and did not delay decisions, nor did it just sit on papers. Even the investigating agency in the US, the FBI, and the Attorney General stood firm.

United States Attorney General William Barrsaid, To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election. Within days of his comment, he announced his resignation.

What is important for our democracy is to be strong, its institutions to function independently and with intellectual integrity. This approach must get strong support from all political parties. This will have strong positive results for the rule of law. It will make our nation strong.

(The author is a former Cabinet Secretary and former member of the Planning Commission. The views are personal.)

Read the rest here:
Indian Democracy is only as strong as its institutions - The Leaflet

Breadcrumb Trail Links

The notwithstanding clause is a dangerous and altogether unnecessary tool

Author of the article:

Publishing date:

Canadas democracy has always been considered resilient and well immunized against the democratic backsliding that is occurring in other liberal democracies. Yet there is one feature of Canadas Constitution that undermines this rather smug assessment: Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms the infamous notwithstanding clause which permits Parliament and the provincial legislatures to provisionally suspend the operation of the charter with respect to certain fundamental rights and freedoms.

In recent weeks, we have seen two provincial premiers resort to the notwithstanding clause in order to insulate legislation from charter scrutiny. In Ontario, Premier Doug Fords Progressive Conservative government announced that it plans to invoke the notwithstanding clause in order to restore parts of the Protecting Ontario Elections Act that restricts third-party election advertising and that had been struck down by a judge for infringing freedom of expression.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

And in Quebec, the Coalition Avenir Qubec government of Premier Franois Legault has invoked the notwithstanding clause as part of Bill 96, which seeks to amend Canadas Constitution to identify Quebec as a nation and make French its official and common language. In 2019, the Legault government also resorted to the notwithstanding clause when it passed Bill 21, An Act Respecting the Laicity of the State, which is intended to eradicate religious symbols in most of the public sector.

Back in 2018, Premier Ford introduced legislation cutting the size of Torontos city council in half, and announced that he would be prepared to invoke Section 33 in order to save the law in the event that it was found to violate the charter. In the face of public opposition, both Ford and his attorney general cavalierly defended the proposed use of Section 33 by touting their access to all the tools in the toolbox.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The willingness of our leaders to resort to the notwithstanding clause is cause for concern. Although the invocation of Section 33 does not offend the rule of law because the notwithstanding clause is, indeed, in the constitutional toolbox, it nevertheless poisons the liberal-democratic well from which free citizens draw their water.

Section 1 of the charter already anticipates that there will be circumstances in which rights and freedoms may lawfully be curtailed. But the courts have imposed a rigorous, multi-pronged test under Section 1 that requires the government to establish that the law or action responds to a matter of pressing and substantial concern, that its objective is rationally connected to the abridgement of a charter right, that the impairment of the right must be minimal and that there must be proportionality between the benefits of the law and the deleterious effects of the impairment.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

With Section 33, however, governments are not required to satisfy a judge that any of these conditions are present. Except to the extent that a governments purpose is articulated in legislative debate, the exercise of justifying the abridgement of constitutionally protected rights and freedoms can be dispensed with altogether when such an exercise risks producing an inconvenient or embarrassing result for the government.

The notwithstanding clause is the product of some heavy-handed, high-stakes bargaining amongst federal and provincial negotiators during the constitutional negotiations of 1981. The insistence by then-premiers Peter Lougheed, Allan Blakeney and Sterling Lyon on the inclusion of such a constitutional override clause was crucial in securing the requisite provincial support for the patriation package.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The principal justification for such an override was perhaps best articulated by constitutional law scholar Peter Russell: A belief that there should be a parliamentary check on a fallible judiciarys decisions on the metes and bounds of our fundamental rights and freedoms. However, almost four decades after the inclusion of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canadas Constitution, we have had the benefit of a rich and well-developed jurisprudence under Section 1.

It is high time we recognize that the escape hatch of Section 33 undermines Canadas commitment to protecting civil liberties, erodes the legitimacy of our democracy, renders it vulnerable to democratic backsliding and compromises Canadas credentials as a global champion of human rights and liberal-democratic values.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The problem is not that first ministers will be tempted to use all the tools in the constitutional toolbox, but that Section 33 is a dangerous and altogether unnecessary tool. It simply has no place in the constitutional toolbox of any mature and robust liberal democracy. It ought to be repealed.

National Post

Peter L. Biro is the founder of Section1.ca, a democracy and civics education advocacy organization, a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and chair emeritus of the Jane Goodall Institute, Global. He is a lawyer, business executive and the editor of Constitutional Democracy Under Stress: A Time For Heroic Citizenship.

Listen to our new podcast, COVID Conspiracies, on Apple Podcasts or Spotify

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of NP Posted will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Read the original here:
Peter L. Biro: Section 33 has no place in a liberal democracy. It ought to be repealed - National Post

Over the past year the authorities in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KR-I) have ruthlessly cracked down on journalists, activists and protesters exercising their right to freedom of expression, including by arbitrarily arresting and forcibly disappearing them, Amnesty International said today. The crackdown which first began in March 2020, intensified after widespread protests in August 2020 demanding an end to corruption and better public services.

Authorities in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq have launched a chilling crackdown in their efforts to silence critics over the past year. They have rounded up activists and journalists and prosecuting them on trumped-up charges in unfair trials and harassing or intimidating family members who were kept in the dark about the status of their loved ones, said Lynn Maalouf, Deputy Director for Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International.

"The Kurdistan Region of Iraq authorities must end the crackdown and immediately release all of those who have been arbitrarily detained. The authorities must also refrain from using vague and ill-defined laws to curtail the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

Authorities in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq have launched a chilling crackdown in their efforts to silence critics over the past year.

The organization investigated the cases of 14 people from Badinan, in Duhok governorate, who were arbitrarily arrested between March and October 2020 by Asayish (KRG security and intelligence) and Parastin forces (Kurdistan Democratic Party intelligence) in connection with their participation in protests, criticism of local authorities or for their journalistic work. All of them were held incommunicado for up to five months and at least six were forcibly disappeared for periods of up to three months. Eight of them claimed they had been tortured or otherwise ill-treated during detention. On 16 February 2021, five of them were sentenced to six years in prison based on confessions extracted under duress.

Amnesty International spoke to former detainees, lawyers, human rights workers and journalists, and reviewed court documents. The organization documented the use of three laws that have been used to arrest and prosecute these activists, namely Law no.21 on matters of national security, a defamation law and law on the misuse of electronics, all of which contain vague and overly broad definitions of crimes that are not recognized under international law.

In the governorate of Duhok alone Kurdish security forces arrested more than 100 people between March 2020 and April 2021. Most were later released but at least 30 remain in detention, including the five activists and journalists already sentenced.

Peaceful freedom of expression and journalism are not crimes. Many of those detained were tried on fabricated charges and some of those who have been released have fled the region, amidst a growing atmosphere of fear that has even seen family members of activists, journalists and protesters threatened and harassed, said Lynn Maalouf.

Read more here:
Arbitrary arrests and enforced disappearances in Kurdistan Region of Iraq - Amnesty International

Erbil, Iraq, 14 June 2021 On 11 June, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Iraq and the National Committee on the Implementation of the Strategy to Combat Violent Extremism at the National Security Advisory launched a four-day workshop on the role of theassigned teams and committees at the presidency, parliament, and prime ministry offices and at the governorates in implementing the strategy to Combat Violent Extremism in Iraq.

The workshop, facilitated by experts from the national committee and UNDP international experts, aimed at presenting the national strategy to combat violent extremism and its implementation plan, discussing the responsibilities of the central teams and governorates committees in implementing the strategy and developing action plans at the local level. Participants were also engaged in sessions highlighting regional and international comparative experiences with focus on the role of local government and community members, including women, in combating violent extremism.

UNDP Iraq Resident Representative Zena Ali Ahmad states, Sustainable solutions to violent extremism require an integrated holistic approach that focuses on unity and cohesion in society and strengthening governance at local levels. Our workshop with representatives from the national committee sets the stage for a partnership conducive to preventing violent extremism in Iraq.

Ali Abdullah Albedeiri, chairman of the National Committee on the Implementation of the Strategy to Combat Violent Extremism in Iraq, states, This workshop is timely and important to engage the local authorities in the implementation of the strategy which requires integrated and coordinated national and international efforts and the buy in from the community and local government.

Additional specialized sessions will follow, targeting other national and local partners including civil society, governorate teams, youth and religious leaders to enhance their role in the implementation of the national strategy to combat violent extremism.

Support to Prevention of Violent Extremism (PVE) in Iraq is part of UNDP Social Cohesion Programme to promote stronger, peaceful, and more cohesive communities in all areas of Iraq.

Media contact:

Miriam Pineau, Media & Advocacy Project Specialist | miriam.pineau@undp.org |+964 790 110 1982

See original here:
UNDP Iraq Supports the National Security Advisory / the National Committee on the implementation of the Strategy for Combating and Preventing Violent...

2. Rationale

2.1. Rationale

Between late 2013 and 2017, intensification of conflict in north and central Iraq has resulted in large scale displacement.Following the de-escalation of active military operations against ISIL, Iraq has witnessed an increase in numbers of IDPs returning to their Area of Origin (AoO). Although many have since already returned, as of the beginning of 2021 approximately 1.2 million people remain internally displaced with more than half of them for more than four years, and 4.1 million people needing some form of humanitarian assistance, including 2.4 million people with acute humanitarian needs1. This includes 187,555 individuals that reside in 29 IDP camps, or composite camp areas.2 The round VII of REACH-CCCM Intentions Assessment in April 2021, which looked at 15 prioritised camps, found that only 1% of IDPs intended to return over the twelve months following data collection.3 Considering the rapidly-changing context of the crisis with the closure and consolidation of camps from August-December 2020 as well as new displacements and waves of returns throughout Iraq, including the movement of Iraqis previously in Syrian camps to camps in Iraq, up-to-date information about the needs of IDPs and available infrastructure and services in camps is necessary in order to address these needs as well as plan the camp strategy for the coming months. The conditions in camps differ greatly from one camp to another as well as between governorates, thus regular monitoring of conditions is essential to strategise appropriately the consolidation of some camps and closure of others in the coming year.While the humanitarian situation in Iraq has been gradually improving over the past two years, the transitional process has been defined by persisting political instabilities, resurgences of localised conflicts, and regional insecurities that are not directly related to the protracted displacement crisis. The large scale protests that broke out in Central Southern cities in late 2019, the Turkish military offensive in Northeast Syria, the heightened tensions between the United States and Iran and an increase in attacks of non-state armed groups on civilian and military targets have led to a substantial worsening of the political and security situation in Iraq and have added another layer of complexity to the humanitarian response. The current economic situation in Iraq is also characterised by a currency devaluation, due to oil-price collapse in 2020, happening for the first time in decades, which further shrinks the economy of the country and impacts the humanitarian situation. 4 Furthermore, the outbreak of COVID-19 in Iraq represents a public health crisis that could further aggravate the humanitarian situation and exacerbate existing vulnerabilities.5 The first case of COVID-19 in Iraq was recorded in February 2020 and as of 10 June, the World Health Organisation had recorded 1,237,856 confirmed as well as 16,614 deaths related to COVID-19.6 While the Iraqi government was able to largely contain the spread of the virus in the early stages, government-imposed lockdowns, and movement restrictions have inhibited access of millions of Iraqis to livelihood opportunities, education, and essential health services. The recent increase in COVID-19 cases throughout Iraq, as well as the ongoing access constraints have further restricted the provision of humanitarian aid to populations in need.Camp Profiles:To inform a more effective humanitarian response for IDPs living in camps, REACH and Iraq CCCM Cluster conduct IDP Camp Profiling assessments. Information from this profile will be used to monitor camp conditions and highlight priority needs and service gaps faced by households in all accessible IDP camps across Iraq, as well as multi-sectoral differences across camps, in order to address needs, and to inform prioritisation of camps for consolidation or closure where necessary. The data collected by the Camp Profiling will provide a comprehensive evidence base for programming and for future monitoring exercises inside camps. In addition, results of Camp Profiling will inform future planning by the CCCM cluster, as the primary harmonised mechanism for assessing IDP camps across Iraq.Intentions:The different settings in which IDPs reside can have a considerable impact on their stability in their area of displacement and the specific threats and vulnerabilities that they may face, which may in turn affect intentions to move, with regard to decisions to return or remain, and reasons for doing so. Consequently, it is important to understand and assess the movement intentions of IDP population groups.

Continued here:
Research Terms of Reference Camp Profiling XV & Intentions Survey VIII IRQ1705 & IRQ1806, June 2021 - Iraq - ReliefWeb