Mediaboss Marketing

Francis Fukuyama is an American political scientist most known for his bookThe End of History and the Last Man. His most recent book is Political Order and Political Decay:From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. He spoke with Alexander Grlach for The WorldPost last week in Palo Alto, Calif. about U.S. President Donald Trump, the populist wave sweeping Europe and fake news.

Larry Downing / Reuters

How would you sum up the last year? What has happened to the world order?

The big surprise is that this wave of populist nationalism has happened in the home territory of classic, liberalist Anglo-Saxon areas. For the first time, at least in my time, there is a president who openly dismisses Americas role in a liberal world order. The other problem with Donald Trump is his utter lack of qualification for the job, be it preparation, character or temperament. Nothing since his inauguration has eased any of those concerns, either

So what would you tell the people that say that he just is a tip of the iceberg, representing a repressed, white rural demographic?

Well, the majority of Americans voted against him. He has emotional support from a small group of people, but nothing close to the majority of the country behind him. The interesting aspect to his presidency for me is the role of the Republicans in this. When do they stall and say: Enough is enough!? It hasnt happened yet, and wont change as long as things stay good in the economy. Since the inauguration, hes actually ridden a wave of good economic developments, so he may be able to use that to turn around his popularity ratings.

We know that when British Prime Minister Theresa May came to visit Trump, he congratulated her on the result of the Brexit referendum. Does his opinion influence the behavior of voters overseas, especially in the Netherlands and France, where elections will soon be happening?

Its complicated. On one hand, the leaders there, of course, enjoy the praise of the U.S. president. On the other, you have a good amount of anti-Americanism in Europe. People are saying, we dont want a Trump in our country. That, for example, has been a mitigating factor against Geert Wilders, the anti-immigrant politician in the Netherlands. So I think it is an influence, but it wont be decisive.

Is this wave of populism pushing European institutions into a crisis?

The institutions, admittedly, havent [been] working well, but theres also a problem with the narrative. But, in effect, it describes the feeling that the European electorate has lost faith in the institutions the Schengen Agreement,for example, that allows free movement of people across borders within that zone.

What is your solution that accommodates both people who have lost faith in their institutions as well as ultra-left people who want open borders?

Thats a tough question. If I was the German chancellor, I would focus a lot on Italy and Greece. In the next generation, Africa will literally pour into Europe. You must secure those outer water borders, and then look into internal borders. At the same time, migration is simply picking up in pace some 800,000 Poles moved to the United Kingdom in recent years. Thats a huge number.

But is inter-European migration different from intercontinental migration?

No, thats simply a fairy tale. The European Union has done very little in terms of identity creation. Nobody thinks hes a European first, then a German. Its the other way around!

In many cases, it has even been going in the other direction, where regionalism is prioritized. We have seen that in Scotland, for example, and Catalonia. The real question here though is sovereignty. Many of these separatist areas have their own institutions. The cultural picture of serenity is utopian though. Populism exists because institutions are elite-driven. The problem is inequality in economic integration.

OLIVIER MORIN via Getty Images

But shouldnt it be both ways? I dont care whether an Uber driver in London is from the U.K. or from Poland. Is one side more favored than the other?

Sure, thats one way to think. But thats not how political organization works. Poles that take jobs away from Britons create resentment. Economic globalization has exceeded the boundaries of political globalization. Were still not organized on a global basis, and I dont think we ever will be. The German-Greek debt debate is the best example of that, with Germans feeling angry about having to send taxpayer money to Greece.

So after 70 years of somewhat successful multilateralism and a European effort of institution-building, we are going backwards?

The focus and hope back then was on economic integration, and that through this economic globalization the cultures would integrate. The world doesnt work like that, though. Its not only economics that drives a people identity and culture matter, too! And thats where the EU really fell short, and thats what they have come to regret by now.

There is currently a minuscule elite that considers themselves as global citizens, where geography and culture dont seem to matter. If this elite thinks that the rest of the world thinks like them, theyre wrong. The benefits of globalization were not shared equally, which is why there is a pushback. The majority of people still, as we said earlier, are on a national, if not regional level. Changing that will be extremely difficult and lengthy.

There is no blueprint remedy for what the debate asks for as of now. Economically speaking, were on a wrong path when considering isolationism or protectionism. Education is certainly a factor, both generational and also retraining people in jobs that are faced by extinction, especially in jobs that are becoming more and more replaced by robots and AI.

But what does that mean in the bigger picture? Are we supposed to disentangle politics, economics and culture and break down every international concept into a national and regional level? Or should we try to get everybody onto the same page and unify intentions going forward?

In all honesty, I dont know how to answer a question to such a level of abstraction. So let me give you an example: In the U.S., we need to have comprehensive immigration reform. Under President George W. Bush, an attempt failed. Essentially, the left and right of the debate both have a point. The approximately 11 million illegal aliens that we have here right now cant be deported. There has to be a way to keep them in the country, assuming theyre working and law-abiding.

On the other side, the U.S. has not enforced its immigration laws, which is why there are these 11 million people in the first place. A national ID card would be a logical solution, but the left and right alike distrust the government too much to push such an idea through. The business community also does not want to be the enforcing arm of this policy either, so youre caught in limbo.

The American political system is deadlocked, neither side wants to give way.

WorldPost illustration

One last question about fake news. How do you, as an academic, perceive this?

It actually bothers me more as a citizen than as an academic. Polarization and distrust of existing institutions is destructive, and sadly its one result of the internet. It seems [that] anything people read on the internet they consider valid, although there is nobody standing in between the producer and consumer of information, as we are used to it from old-fashioned news.

Now, Russia and China, amongst others, are actively playing a role in undermining the credibility of information, which constitutes a new form of warfare that is being conducted. At the same time, people want to believe things and dont care as much about the factual accuracy. On the other hand, I can argue that institutions have always been controlled by the elites, and that through the presence of the internet they are losing their power. Maybe democracies dont work too well without a certain degree of control from elites. But that is all to be seen in the upcoming years.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

See more here:
Francis Fukuyama: Democracy Needs Elites - Huffington Post

Polands ruling Law & Justice party contested the mandate of the countrys top judge after she criticized the government for undermining the judiciary, deepening a rule-of-law dispute that has set the nation on a collision course with the European Union.

Fifty Law & Justice lawmakers asked the Constitutional Tribunal to assess whether the 2014 appointment of Malgorzata Gersdorf as Supreme Court first president was constitutional, party member Arkadiusz Mularczyk said Thursday. The request follows comments from Gersdorf last week in which she accused the party of seeking to take over the courts by naming judges dependent on the justice minister.

The motion is a further step by the party to reshape Polands institutional framework in a political push that has prompted the first ever probe into an EU country overrule of law. Since winning a 2015 election, Law & Justice has overhauled the constitutional court in moves that the tribunal has ruled illegal, ignored those rulings, and stacked the court with its allies despite criticism from the European Commission.

At the heart of the dispute is the judiciary, which Law & Justice describes as a privileged caste and plans to revamp by giving politicians a dominant role in deciding judicial issues, including which judges get promoted.

Our motion is not revenge or a vendetta, Mularczyk told a news briefing Thursday. Since the first president of the Supreme Court is wearing the costume of a defender of the rule of law in Poland, we have to make sure that the rules that allowed for her appointment are constitutional.

S&P Global Ratings handed Poland its first ever downgrade last year, citing concern over the independence of key democratic institutions. Polish markets were bogged down by political risk last year, but have recovered some losses in 2017, with Warsaws WIG20 stock index showing the biggest returns among EU peers.

The most important business stories of the day.

Get Bloomberg's daily newsletter.

Mularczyk said he expected her appointment to be ruled unconstitutional. The lawmakers complaint is about how Gersdorf was nominated. While the constitution states the president may appoint a candidate that is presented by a general assembly of Supreme Court judges, Law & Justice says that the process, guided by internal supreme court rules in linewith a 2002 law, should be more transparent in how candidates are picked.

Click here to read more about Polands turn toward populism

The law on supreme court has been in place since 2002 and two other presidents have been appointed based on the same procedure, theres no grounds to question Malgorzata Gersdorfs appointment," Supreme Court spokesman, Justice Michal Laskowski, told reporters Thursday. I cant explain why doubts are emerging after 15 years, everybody should find their own answer."

A Warsaw appeals court last month asked the Supreme Court to assess if Decembers appointment of a new chief justice to the Constitutional court was legal. Law & Justice legislators gave President Andrzej Duda, who won the 2015 election as the partys candidate, new powers to pick the panels leader, instead of allowing the judges to decide themselves.

According to Gersdorf, the ruling party is trying to dismantle check-and-balance safeguards without having a mandate to the change constitution. In a speech to a gathering of judges in January, she said the epoch of rule of law in Poland had ended and judges had to be ready to fight for judicial independence, including by risking disciplinary measures and removal from their posts.

The government has brushed off the EUs concerns that its backsliding on democracy, and says that the disputed changes that its made have strengthened the rule of law. The Polish zloty weakened 0.4 percent against the euro, its main currency pair, as of 4:24 p.m. in Warsaw, curbing its 2017 appreciation to 2.5 percent.

Read the rest here:
Polish Ruling Party Attacks Top Judge in New Democracy Row - Bloomberg

There are a lot of reasons to oppose school district merger plans for Windham Northeast and the Windham Southeast supervisory unions: increased bureaucracy and standardization, no long-term savings, possible loss of school programs, less responsiveness to the needs of individual students and families, loss of school choice, potential forced moving of teachers and students, possible school closures, increased centralization of control in the district office and less flexible school practices, and a slew of potential unintended consequences, the most worrisome of which is the loss of participatory democracy and the character of our communities.

We live in an era when many are frustrated by national politics and what feels like our powerlessness to change policies we find disagreeable. Whether it is corporations or the top 1 percent or special interestsor unfettered presidential power, we citizens feel ever more removed from governance on issues that affect all our lives.

One of the few areas where we still have a voice in Vermont is looking out for the quality of our schools and the future of our children. We vote for our neighbors to serve on school boards. We determine how much we spend on education and the programs we support. We can scrutinize the local school budget and look for creative solutions that enlist the strengths of our community. We can attend school board meetings, and we can talk to our board members to have our voices heard. Our board members hire our teachers and administrators, and we can serve on hiring committees (and other committees) that can shape the tenor of the school. And maybe most significantly, we can join our neighbors at town meeting to speak face to face with each other about issues that matter, not only to our pocketbooks, but to the spirit of our community. Proponents of school district merger dismiss the importance of our participatory democracy. They note that not that many people come to school board meetings or town meeting. They remind us that we have already lost a lot of control regarding school policies to the powers at the state and national level. And they assume that this loss of democracy is simply the price we have to pay to comply with a state mandated, one-size-fits-all directive that has little evidence of its effectiveness.

I worry that the notion of local control gets misinterpreted as a question of governance rather than educational quality. The ultimate determinant of a students educational experience is the quality of teachers, the school principal and programs at the local level. Student learning is not an abstraction of educational policy or governance the most effective schools know students well and are responsive to the individual needs of kids and their families. The more bureaucratic and standardized our schools become, the less responsive they can be to the unique needs of the children they serve.

Local control really is about schoolbased responsiveness to the needs of kids, the initiative of teachers, the input of the community and the leadership of principals to shape an inspiring, dynamic, personalized learning environment that works for every child. Decisions made in the superintendents office or by a unified board cant be based on knowing the uniqueness of our children or the unique needs of individual schools. Our schools give us a venue to shape the character of our community and bring our voices together for a common purpose. Our children are unique our schools should be as well.

We stand at a precarious time for our democracy. There are many ways in which citizens feel further removed from decisions that affect our lives and our communities. Our local schools, school boards and town meeting are among the few institutions that continue to provide opportunities for direct citizen voice. These are the traditions that give communities the space to come together, to feel connected and to make decisions that make a difference for ourselves, for our children, and for the future of the society we wish to see.

Rick Gordon is a member of the Westminster School Board and director of the Compass School in Westminster.

Read the rest here:
Yes to democracy, no to mergers - Rutland Herald

Forbes

If 'Democracy Dies In Darkness,' Dave Workman Will Light A Torch With Gunpowder Forbes The Washington Post's new slogan Democracy Dies in Darkness is apt given all the pressures now reshaping journalism (some from the Oval Office), but then, when you consider how the Post treats a few highly polarizing issues, their new slogan at times ... and more »

More:
If 'Democracy Dies In Darkness,' Dave Workman Will Light A Torch With Gunpowder - Forbes

Research shows that the political ideology of communism restricts innovation, todays panacea for economic growth and long-term prosperity.

In broad strokes, the communist tenets of state ownership of business and property with strict government supervision lead to a risk-averse culture working in an environment that discourages ambition and creativity. This could not be further from the building blocks that innovation needs to thrive.

The 2017 International Intellectual Property Index, recently published by the Global Intellectual Property Center (GIPC) of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, ranks the current bastion of communism, China No. 27 and formerly communist Russia No. 23behind the smaller economies of Malaysia, Mexico, and Turkey, for example.

The report associates stronger intellectual property (IP) protection regimes with more innovative economies and conversely, weak IP protection as hindering long-term strategic innovation and development.

A robust national IP environment correlates strongly with a wide range of macroeconomic indicators that fall under the umbrella of innovation and creativity, according to the GIPC report.

The leading countries in IP strength are free market, capitalist economies such as the United States and United Kingdom. First-world democratic countries of Europe and Asia also rank highly.

Ma Guangyuan,Independent Chinese economist

The report states that Russias protectionist moveslocal production, procurement, and manufacturingwork to restrict IP rights. Russia also suffers from persistently high levels of software piracy.

For China, the report singles out historically high levels of IP infringement.

China and Russia are the usual suspects of cyberespionage. Theft of IP, the infrastructure for innovation, is one way these nations heavily influenced by communism try to stay competitive globally.

Melbourne, Australia-based agency 2thinknow has been ranking the worlds most innovative cities for the past 10 years. In its latest rankings published Feb. 23, the most innovative city in a communist country, Beijing, ranks No. 30, and Moscow ranks No. 43.

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), not a single Chinese university ranks among the worlds top 30 in terms of most-cited scientific publications.

Universities are breeding grounds for young, innovative minds. Within their walls, ideas are born and debated, companies are formed, and research is conducted. They are key components of a healthy innovation ecosystem.

Harvard Business School professor William Kirby wrote about the strict limitations within Chinese universities on what faculty could discuss with students.

Faculty could not talk about any past failures of the communist party. They could not talk about the advantages of separation between the judicial and executive arms of the government, Kirby stated in an article in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) in 2015.

It is hard to overstate the impact of these strictures on campus discourse and the learning environment, Kirby wrote.

Protestors shout slogans during a rally against a pro-Beijing official who was appointed as chairman of Hong Kong Universitys (HKU) governing council, in Hong Kong on Jan. 3, 2016. Fears are growing over political interference in the citys education system. (Anthony Wallace/AFP/Getty Images)

Communism is known for its corruption and cronyism. A Science editorial noted that the bulk of the Chinese governments R&D budget is allocated due to political connection rather than merit based on the judgment of independent review panels.

McKinseys 2014 report The China Effect on Global Innovation noted that the impact of innovation on Chinas economic growth declined to the lowest level since about 1980.

China has a massive consumer market and a government willing to invest huge sums of moneynearly US$200 billion on R&D in 2014and its universities graduate more than 1.2 million engineers each year.

Garry Kasparov,former world chess champion

Clearly, China has so much potential, but it is the United States that has taken the lead in technological dominance.

The country [China] has yet to make an internal-combustion engine that could be exported and lags behind developed countries in sciences ranging from biotechnology to materials, according to McKinsey.

While almost all western technology giants have R&D labs in China, the bulk of what they do is local adaptation rather than developing next generation technologies and products, wrote Anil Gupta and Haiyan Wang in a 2016 article in the HBR. Gupta and Wang are co-authors of the book Getting China and India Right.

Excessive government involvement often leads to waste and excessoverbuilding and overcapacity. Chinas real estate bubble and steel mills are two such examples.

Lately, the Chinese government has been trying to spur an onslaught of startups by providing them with generous subsidies. But it doesnt have the savvy to pick winners and losers. Instead, a more efficient use of capital comes from knowledgeable and discerning venture capitalists. Most startups are meant to fail after all.

Why China Cant Innovate, a 2014 article in the HBR co-authored by Kirby, noted that the Chinese Communist Party requires one of its representatives to be associated with every company of more than 50 employees. Larger firms must have a Party cell, whose leader reports directly to the Party at the municipal or provincial level.

These requirements compromise the proprietary nature of a firms strategic direction, operations, and competitive advantage, thus constraining normal competitive behavior, not to mention the incentives that drive founders to grow their own businesses, according to the article.

The system of parallel governance constrains the flow of ideas. Chinas innovation largely comes through creative adaptation, which can mean a lot of things including foreign acquisitions, partnerships, but also cybertheft.

Communism is against private ownership of property. This puts a damper on innovation.

The key to whether China can become a country of innovation is tied to the respect of property rights and the rule of law, wrote Ma Guangyuan, an independent economist in China.

In his blog, Ma cites renowned U.S. investor William Bernsteins writings, which discuss property rights as being the most important of four factors needed for rapid economic growth. Guangyang wrote, Entrepreneurs live in constant fear of punishment, due to the questionable business practices in China, an environment that leads them to lose trust in a viable long-term economic future.

Capital flight out of China is one symptom of the problem; another is the preference of wealthy Chinese to send their children overseas for higher education. The loss of entrepreneurs like Li Ka-shing and Cao Dewang is a sign that greener pastures lie abroad.

Former world chess champion Garry Kasparov, a Russian, wrote: Communism as a political ideology is as bankrupt as ever.

In his blog, he went on to say: It is no coincidence that the values of the American century are also the values of innovation and exploration. Individual freedom, risk-taking, investment, opportunity, ambition, and sacrifice. Religious and secular dictatorships cannot compete with these values and so they attack the systems founded upon them.

The authors of the HBR article Why China Cant Innovate recognize the nearly limitless capability of the Chinese individual, however, the political environment in China acts like a choke collar on innovation.

The problem, we think, is not the innovative or intellectual capacity of the Chinese people, which is boundless, but the political world in which their schools, universities, and businesses need to operate, which is very much bounded, they wrote.

Follow Rahul on Twitter @RV_ETBiz

Communism is estimated to have killed at least 100 million people, yet its crimes have not been compiled and its ideology still persists. Epoch Times seeks to expose the history and beliefs of this movement, which has been a source of tyranny and destruction since it emerged.

See the entire series of articles here.

Originally posted here:
How Communism Stifles Innovation - The Epoch Times