Mediaboss Marketing

Coverage of elections, including this one, inevitably depicts them as a popularity contest between the party leaders focused on fluctuations in opinion polls and satisfaction ratings. Even where issues rather than personalities seemed to occupy the agenda with Brexit in the case of Conservatives and the NHS in the case of Labour the analysis remained concentrated on the respective leaders handling of these questions. We focus on individuals rather than institutions, on leaders rather than movements.

Consider the disproportionate attention given to leadership debates and the criteria used to assess them. Which of the candidates won the debate? Did Boris Johnson convince people he is fit for office? Did Jeremy Corbyn look prime ministerial?

Democracy is in trouble when the image of the messenger is more important than the content of the message. And yet the former seems to have been the question that has preoccupied commentators. Yes, we were told, the Labour party manifesto is its most radical ever, but is the leader going to enjoy the job of being PM?

It shouldnt need to be said, but enjoying office is not essential to responsibly exercising political duties. Our representatives dont need to have more passion, more expertise, more charisma, better looks, more ordered lives than the ordinary citizens they represent.

If a polity were ruled by good people, Plato wrote in The Republic, people would try as hard to avoid office as they currently try to obtain it. Politics is a duty, it is not a vocation. The more fond politicians are of their jobs, the more likely they are to cling to office. The greater dexterity they have in exercising power, the higher the risk that they will abuse it one day.

The celebration of expertise in politics belongs to an anti-democratic tradition, one that has often been deployed to undermine the power of the masses

The modern professionalisation of politics is grounded on an implicit asymmetry between those who rule through their greater skills and expert knowledge, and the ordinary citizens that make up the rest of the body politic. Political leaders are praised for possessing the right talents combined with the right experience, a set of qualities that is thought to enable them to make appropriate judgment under increasingly complex circumstances. This is the politics of virtue, a very different one from the politics of justice.

The celebration of expertise in politics belongs to an anti-democratic tradition, one that has often been deployed to undermine the power of the masses to dismiss rule by the many (democracy) in favour of rule by the best (aristocracy). Where only the best people rule, so the argument goes, political institutions are more stable; the more experienced and skilled the leaders, the less vulnerable the political community.

The division of labour across society and the differing skills required for different jobs is often invoked to explain why politics needs expertise. In increasingly complex societies, marked by the specialisation of tasks and requirements of efficient performance, it is not hard to see why. Representing your peers in parliament or leading a government is a job like any other, like being a doctor or a plumber, some would argue. One individual has the task to fix broken societies, just as another helps fix broken legs, while another repairs broken sinks.

Yet it is a mistake to think of politics as a task on a par with all these others. When elected representatives are authorised by us, ordinary citizens, it is not because they have special charisma or skills or a claim to know better. If they do, we should be wary. Elected representatives are entitled to act on our behalf because they share our beliefs and commitments. If they dont, we have a duty to ask for change.

When we vote for a party that reflects our principles, we articulate a judgment on how we want society to be, and choose individuals that endorse that view on our behalf. They dont need to be better than us ordinary citizens. In fact, they ought to be like us, because one day we may be in their place.

Democratic legitimacy is not served by perfect leaders it is endangered by them. Charisma can undermine proper scrutiny if the arguments of the many are silenced by the rhetoric of one. When democratic institutions are strong, one does not need to rely on the power of single individuals.

This is not to deny that certain conditions must be in place for citizens to exercise that power adequately. It is also not to deny that a degree of familiarity with how institutions work is bound to be of help. Clearly, in contemporary liberal societies these conditions are met by only a select few.

But if a certain set of knowledge and skills is required to be active in politics, surely the right response is to educate all citizens so as to spread competence equally, to seek to distribute these skills and assets more widely, and to collectively build the political capacity to achieve that goal. It is definitely not to celebrate the virtues of those who possess leadership skills compared to those who do not.

Lea Ypi is a professor in political theory in the government department at the London School of Economics

See the rest here:
Johnson or Corbyn? Democracy is in trouble when were obsessed with leaders - The Guardian

So now we know. Now we know what happens when you declare war on democracy. Now we know the consequences of demeaning the largest democratic vote in a nations history. Now we know what becomes of a political class that sneers at voters, silences their democratic voice, and libels them as racist, xenophobic know-nothings who cannot be trusted with stewardship of the nation. You get punished. You get rebelled against. You get replaced. Last night, in those extraordinary election results, we witnessed the revenge of democracy.

You dont have to be a fan of Boris Johnson or his withdrawal treaty to appreciate the significance and even brilliance of yesterdays events. The results are striking, historically so. Labour suffering one of its worst results in decades, the Tories winning a powerful majority which, in the final days of the campaign anyway, not many people were predicting. Most striking of all has been the corrosion, collapse in fact, of Labours red wall that historic terrain of red constituencies stretching from North Wales through northern England. Well, its not red anymore: brick by brick it has fallen, with vast swathes of people who have voted Labour for decades turning to the Tories this time.

Stockton South, Darlington, Wrexham all Tory seats. Even saying that sounds strange. Bolsover, held by Dennis Skinner since 1970, now has a 5,000+ Tory majority. Former mining towns that have long loathed the Tories Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield have turned blue. Bishop Aucklands Tory MP 25-year-old Hull-educated Dehenna Davison is the first its had in its 134-year history. Don Valley is gone, too, despite MP Caroline Flints best efforts to warn her party that its betrayal of its working-class, Brexit-backing voters would cost it dear. The wall hasnt only been breached its been torn down.

The red wall collapse is the most significant, telling event in this election because it speaks, clearly and profoundly, to the revolt-like nature of yesterdays ballot-box rejection of the Remainer elites. These working-class communities were at the sharp end of the elites seething contempt for Brexit voters. When you heard liberal-elite EU lovers or the performative radicals of the bourgeois Corbynista movement bemoaning the low-information, demagogue-swayed sections of society who had apparently been misled into backing Brexit, this is who they were talking about. The good people of Blackpool South, of the Vale of Clwyd, of Workington all Tory seats this morning. That poisonous contempt was aimed most directly at these people. And now these people have responded. They have returned the contempt that has been heaped so heavily on them these past three-and-a-half years.

The red-wall revolt against Labour feels era-defining. This is working people rejecting that foul old idea that they would vote for a donkey so long as it was wearing a red rosette. This is ordinary people rebelling against the neo-aristocracy of the woke identitarian middle classes who have hijacked the party their forefathers founded. And this is an uprising against anti-democracy. For more than three years the political class has agitated against the largest democratic vote in our history. They have used every legal and parliamentary trick in the book to thwart or delay Brexit. And now the people have passed their judgement on this disgraceful behaviour. Democracys payback.

Just consider the ridiculous, authoritarian figure of Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson. Shes lost her seat. She said bollocks to Brexit, the people said bollocks to her. Just as they have to many Remoaner MPs who tried to stymie democracy. Guess what? People take their vote seriously. They know it was hard fought for. They know people struggled and even died for this every-now-and-then piece of paper that allows every free adult citizen to determine the shape and nature of government. They do not take kindly to its being undermined, whether by the EU or our own anti-democratic elites here in the UK.

Already leftist elitists are demeaning this mass vote against anti-democrats as the work of racist idiots. These stupid voters remain in the intellectual stranglehold of evil tabloids and populist demagogues, they claim. They will never learn. This is precisely the kind of contempt that made people turn against the aloof left and technocratic elites. More importantly, yesterdays election shows the opposite of what these anti-democrats claim. It shows that people can think and decide for themselves. For three years people have been bombarded with overblown threats and hysterical warnings about the dangers of Brexit and the vulnerability of our economy and public services if we go down the populist route. Well look after you by stopping Brexit and doing the right thing, politicians assured them. The people rejected all of this paternalistic guff. They thought for themselves and said, Nope. This was an act of an independent people.

We have a job of work making sure Boris doesnt sell out Brexit. Well get to that. For the time being lets recognise and celebrate what this election reminds us of: that democracy remains the greatest corrective to elitism and tyranny that mankind has ever invented.

Brendan ONeill is editor of spiked and host of the spiked podcast, The Brendan ONeill Show. Subscribe to the podcast here. And find Brendan on Instagram: @burntoakboy

Read the rest here:
The revenge of democracy - Spiked

One of the most striking findings in the Australian National Universitys Australian Election Study the survey of voters the university has undertaken after every federal election since 1987 are the results on satisfaction with democracy.

The survey tells us that back in 2007, Australians were sanguine. Kevin Rudd had won the federal election, and politics was hovering on the brink of a decade of profound disruption. At the tail end of the revolving door of prime ministers, and the failure of our parliament to achieve a durable consensus on important issues like climate change, only 59% of us are satisfied with democracy, and trust has reached its lowest level on record, with just 25% believing people in government can be trusted.

Loss of faith, given the experience post-2007, is to be expected. But the striking bit for me in the latest AES was the rate of decline in satisfaction with democracy. The faceplant in Australia has been steeper than the experience in the United Kingdom after the 2016 Brexit referendum and in the United States following Donald Trumps 2016 election win. Just roll that small insight around in your head for a minute. Politics in the US and the UK has completely jumped the shark yet our citizens are hitting the screw-this button faster than the citizens of America and Britain.

Assuming this insight is correct, thats really quite something. It tallies with the despair I encounter among the community of politically engaged people on social media, day in and day out, heaving and crashing. My inbox is studded with it. Progressives, engaged folks, are clearly angry, frustrated, thwarted.

Some of this roiling is currently trained in Labors direction. Anthony Albanese has copped a hiding on social media and elsewhere this week for visiting coal communities during the bushfires the visit seen as a portent of capitulation by Labor on climate policy. I want to work through the points Im going to make about this reaction, step by step, just so we are clear.

This first thing to say is Im minutely interested in where Labor ultimately ends up on climate policy. If Labor does ultimately capitulate on climate action, producing an execrable policy for the next federal election, then I will be the first one lining up with the rhetorical baseball bat. I will be taking no prisoners.

But rather than fly off in a rage because Albanese went to Emerald, or looked sideways at a coalminer while Sydney choked in smoke, right now Im content to wait and watch. Im content to wait and watch not because Im a naturally patient person, or a trusting person, or a generous person, but because Im a student of history.

Its worth laying out the recent history just so its clear, because right now the debate feels a bit untethered, and things that can be known and proved (as opposed to being speculated about) are a bit obscured in the thicket of fail hashtags.

History tells us that Labor has made mistakes on climate policy, significant errors of hubris, fear and poor judgment that have set back the cause of progress.

But history also tells us this political party shows up on climate action. It is the only party of government in Australia that does, election cycle after election cycle. That basic fact seems a bit lost in the wash in some of the current emoting and hectoring.

The other lesson of history that may not be obvious is this. Labor has lost two elections on climate change 2013 and 2019.

Climate change wasnt the only negative factor in these contests. Labor lost predominantly in 2013 because it was more interested in conducting a civil war at taxpayer expense than serving Australian voters, but Labor also lost because Tony Abbott was successful in weaponising climate change. It was diabolical, what Abbott did, but it was a precision, partisan, demolition.

A backlash against climate action in regional Queensland was also part of the story of Labors election loss in May. I dont think a lot of progressive people have really grasped this basic fact, because they prefer to think climate change switched votes Labors way in 2019, because thats a more comforting story.

I cant fathom, given what the science says, why climate change goes on being Australias Brexit.

Now its true, climate change did help shore up Labors left flank against the Greens, and pushed a number of swing votes Labors way in 2019. But its important to look where those positive swings happened, and they were largely in seats Labor had no prospect of winning.

Any political party will happily bank any positive swing. Its gratifying. It suggests the dial is moving. But obviously it is better if the swings deliver you government rather than just a warm inner glow, and abstract validation.

So what Im trying to convey this weekend is Labor has paid a price electorally for pursuing climate action.

I dont high five this fact. I dont find it comforting. I cant fathom, given what the science says, given the clear evidence that warming is under way, why there is even a debate in this country about what needs to happen, why climate change goes on being Australias Brexit.

But there is a debate, pushed by corporates with vested interests, and culture warriors intent on routing progressivism, whatever the cost; and materialist anxiety is stoked assiduously by poisonous agitprop rags like the Daily Telegraph, and other alleged news outlets in the Murdoch stable that act like sheep dogs rounding up thought criminals, fully resolved to let no good deed go unpunished.

I thought after the defeat in May we would see ignominious surrender from the ALP. I fully expected that to happen, not because its right, but because retreat is not irrational in terms of the electoral calculation.

But the only person Ive heard in Labor saying we need to lower the level of ambition is Joel Fitzgibbon, who got the fright of his life after suffering a huge negative swing in his coal community in the Hunter Valley, and has now embarked on a coal worshipping tour of the country as an act of contrition.

Mark Butler isnt saying lower ambition. Albanese isnt saying it. Penny Wong isnt saying it. Senior New South Wales rightwingers, such as Tony Burke and Chris Bowen, are saying we need to maintain ambition consistent with the science and find a way to do that while reassuring our blue-collar base. Burke and Bowen have floated the New Green Deal, or something like it, as a mechanism that might square the circle.

Maybe Labor will, ultimately, surrender. Its certainly possible. But whats happening now isnt surrender its an attempt to stitch climate action and blue-collar jobs together. Its an attempt to craft a nuance.

Now some progressive people will argue thats impossible, so dont even bother; Labor should just draw a line now and say we are for climate action, no compromises, no redux on the messaging. If you dont like it, vote for someone else.

Thats fine, as long as the people making these arguments understand a couple of basic things.

Labor cant win an election by saying that. Not on current indications.

Perhaps that could change in time, because public sentiment will shift as the evidence and experience of warming grows. The community is clearly mobilising. But right now, Australians are telling pollsters they are increasingly worried about climate change, but a majority is not voting in favour of climate action when push comes to shove. The country remains divided, and rancorously so. Thats the legacy of our busted arse politics, and our busted arse media conversation.

While ever that remains the case, Labor will have to hold its progressive post-material constituency and hold its traditional base, or enough of it to win enough seats to form a government.

If its either/or, Labor loses.

So lets be precise about what that means. It means the only party of government in Australia that is halfway serious about climate action, the only party with the capacity to deliver tangible action, remains out of power, unable to move the dial.

This is less of a problem obviously if the Liberal party can enjoy a Damascene conversion. I remain hopeful that it might happen. But theres not much evidence of that happening currently.

These are just facts. These might be irritating facts, facts disruptive to the flow of feelings, but they are facts.

Lets loop back to despair, which is where we started this weekend. I get despair. I understand why people who care about the fate of the planet are so worried about the failure of our political system, particularly on this issue. I worry about it constantly. I report on it incessantly in the hope that something will change.

I understand the feelings of helplessness and hopelessness. I battle these feelings myself. But also know this. Lashing out is a waste of time and energy. Rage in advance of the facts is just more noise. Some of its eloquent noise, but it is just noise.

David Remnick of the New Yorker wrote one of the finest pieces of the year about the challenges of reporting during the age of Donald Trump. He told his readers despair is not an option. Despair is a form of self-indulgence, a dodge.

Remnick is absolutely right. Despair is not an option, particularly in advance of the facts.

The times are just too serious.

Visit link:
Australias democracy has faceplanted and Labor is staring down some disturbing truths - The Guardian

The Israeli government has not been functioning for the entire year of 2019. Weve already had two elections, and a third election season is now upon us. Government offices, which even in more stable times have no long-term strategic plans in place, are barely functioning. No decisions regarding the functioning of the country as a whole are being made, budgets are not being passed and some local authorities are rebelling against the national government. Hospitals are collapsing, infrastructure plans are not being approved, and there is no sign that anything will change in the near future. Some commentators will claim that this is the price of living in a democracy. But thats just not true. Democracy is indeed the foundation upon which the State of Israel was built, and the Declaration of Independence states that the country is both a Jewish and democratic state. Nonetheless, democracy must serve its citizens, and not the other way around. For citizens to feel that they are an integral part of the democratic system, they must be able to trust their elected officials, the electoral system and the governments structure. The government must represent them and fulfill their needs. Unfortunately, something bad has happened here in Israel over the last decade. The ideal of democracy seems to have gotten lost as a handful of elected officials have taken over and begun ruling the country according to their whims. They have their own laws and they make up new rules as they go along. They apply democratic principles only when it suits them. The ruling party, Likud, has been in power almost continuously since 1977, with just a few short breaks. In fact, I would venture to say that it is the only significant democratic party in Israel. And yet, something very undemocratic has been taking place within its walls for some time now. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has headed the Likud Party and been prime minister for over a decade now, in addition to his previous term. He has done a tremendous amount of good for our country, while cementing his standing in all the party institutions and surrounding himself with an almost blind loyalty from other politicians and businesspeople who take care of themselves before thinking about whats good for the country. No, Netanyahu is not a magician, though he did serve the country for many years and represented Israel in the world quite honorably. He is a brilliant diplomat and a gifted politician. But he did lose in the Likud primaries when he ran against Ariel Sharon, and in 1999 he lost in the election to Ehud Barak, which led the Likud to an all-time low of just 19 seats in the Knesset. In 2006, Netanyahu once against suffered defeat and brought the Likud to a record low of 12 seats in the Knesset. Since 2009, the Likud has remained in power with Netanyahu at its head. The last time primaries were held in the Likud was in 2014. Since that time, the big guns of the Likud have ensured that no potential rivals might jeopardize his position. BUT THINGS have changed since then. Gideon Saar returned to politics, and to his home party, Likud. Hes garnered substantial support in his efforts to wiggle his way up the top of the list, despite great efforts by Netanyahu and his associates to thwart Saars rise. And so now, after Netanyahu served as prime minister for over 10 years, and failed to form a government after both of the elections that took place in 2019, Saar is demanding change. Hes demanding that the Likud uphold its democratic character and hold primaries. This is not a putsch or a betrayal. No one is being disloyal to a ruling leader. This is simply the necessary step that must take place in Israels most popular party if there is to be any hope of a functioning, stable government being formed. One of the Likuds greatest strengths is the loyalty of its members to whichever leader is in control, even in times of crisis. Despite what has happened in the Labor Party, this loyalty has proven itself and brought about long-standing stability within the Likud leadership. Nonetheless, the time has come for change. Its time to thank Netanyahu for his loyal service, and to replace him and his close supporters with a new leadership. This form of action is the only option available for the Likud if it wants to survive. After the dust settles, Netanyahus replacement will have to begin repairing all the broken parts and establish a proper political relationship with the political Left, the religious parties and representatives of the Arab sector. The party needs to reinstate the partys vision established by Zeev Jabotinsky, and do whats best for the people and not just its leaders. There is no one today who is more fitting than Gideon Saar to take over the Likud leadership. Saar brings with him many years of political expertise, intelligence and critical thinking. He is capable of long-term strategic planning, is a great speaker and a courageous leader with the air of senior official. He is also the only figure who is capable of bridging the gaps between the various political camps and maintaining a functioning, stable government. In the past, Saar has proven himself through his long-term strategic planning in the fields of education, health, welfare and security. Its hard to think of any other politician with such a successful record since the days of David Ben-Gurion. All the polls are showing that if a new Likud leadership is chosen, the party would grow to such an extent that it would succeed in forming a stable, long-standing government. Its time for a change of leadership in the ruling party. The people are demanding this and the country needs it. Its time we started dealing with the issues and solving our problems. The next items on the agenda need to be changing the electoral process and government structure. We dont have any more time to waste on unnecessary and expensive elections. The writer is a former deputy Shin Bet chief, an intelligence and terrorism specialist, and an author.

More here:
Likud needs a change of guard if democracy is to be served - The Jerusalem Post

A Better World Is Possible. We Will Only Get There If We Stick Together.

Our journalists work hard to inform by bringing you the news that matters - which is often about how the world is. But we think the most important part of our mission is to inspireand so we work hard to bring you the voices of visionaries who dream about how the world should be. Independent journalism and democracy itself have never been more needed yet more fragile and at risk than now. Pleaseno amount is too large or too smallpitch in to support our people-powered model and help Common Dreams start 2020 at full strength. Thank you. -- Craig Brown, Co-founder

Please select a donation method:

Support Independent Journalism. The only thing that keeps us going is support from readers like you. Every contribution makes a huge difference.Yes! I will support this work

Read more here:
'To Protect Our Democracy,' Tuesday Night Rallies Planned In All 50 States to Demand Congress Votes to Impeach Trump - Common Dreams