Category Archives: Populism

CW: Violence and murder

On the afternoon of October 15th, Leigh-on-Sea was shaken by the tragic stabbing and murder of Sir David Amess.Widely regarded as one of Westminsters most admired and dedicated MPs, the outpouring of grief from across the political spectrum was profound.The ramifications of this tragedy stretch far beyond the borders of Amess Essex constituency, and after the second murder of a British MP in five years, now is the moment to reflect on how and why the rise of populism and the subsequent polarisation of politics has changed the way we treat our public servants.

Jo Coxs murder in Leeds in June 2016 shocked the nation.For the first time since the 1990s, when Ian Gow was killed by the IRA, a sitting British MP was brutally murdered for doing their job.There were 26 years between those two tragic incidents, and now British politics is left facing the second deadly attack in five years. But what steps can we possibly take to ensure that this violence ends?

There was a lot of talk across news networks and in newspapers on the following day about increased security, changes to the way in which MPs do their jobs, and upping spending on personal protection in the name of preserving democracy.In reality, the problem is far larger and harder to solve.In the last ten years, the rise of populism has seen politics become more divided, more aggressive, and ultimately more violent than ever before.

It is important to remember that this is not simply a UK problem. Donald Trumps election in 2016 marked a turning point in American and global politics alike. The success of populism helped by a rise in the use and exploitation of social media for political gain.The Capitol riots earlier this year serve as yet another reminder of how dramatically things have changed in such a short space of time: just a few years ago the idea of the US President defying the democratic process and calling on his supporters to take the country back by marching on the symbolic home of American free speech would have been impossible to comprehend.

That climate of hatred, created in the build-up to the 2016 presidential elections in the United States, has spread far and wide and it is perhaps only now that here in the UK we are seeing the true ramifications of how things have altered in our sphere.The Brexit referendum and Trumps victorious campaign have been compared many times: both used social media to give a platform to lies and exaggerations, both captured the minds of a section of society that had been ignored and underinvested in for far too long, but most importantly, both fuelled division and hatred.The goalposts moved for what was acceptable in British politics in 2016, and they havent moved back.Huge numbers of MPs today have been forced to install panic alarms and security cameras in their homes and offices in an effort to protect staff, family, and friends.These days you will struggle to find a democratically elected official who doesnt regularly receive online hate and even death threats.

The question of how to reverse the situation is a very difficult one to answer.Suggestions in recent days have often focussed on the removal of anonymity on social media.Problems exist here too:on a basic level there are plenty of platforms, such as Facebook, where anonymity doesnt exist, and people are still happy to spout abuse and hatred.Radicalisation is almost impossible to stop in person, never mind online.Beyond that, the ability to remain anonymous is also key to allowing whistle-blowers and healthy critics to come forward and voice their political opinions without fear of consequences.What the country needs is a change in tone at the very top of politics, a change from the rhetoric of hate and division and a shift back towards healthy debate.

So, what next?Where do we go from here?It is all too easy for lawmakers to sit down in interviews and call for more stringent regulation of social media and put money aside for investment in personal protection.The truth is that the change we need is far more profound.We must return to a discourse of respect and understanding.British politics is characterised by the passionate and vocal defence of our personal beliefs, something very different to the violence and division often inspired by the leaders and politicians of today.The line has been crossed now we must go back before its too late.

Image Credits: Richard Townshend / CC BY 3.0

For Cherwell, maintaining editorial independence is vital. We are run entirely by and for students. To ensure independence, we receive no funding from the University and are reliant on obtaining other income, such as advertisements. Due to the current global situation, such sources are being limited significantly and we anticipate a tough time ahead for us and fellow student journalists across the country.

So, if you can, please consider donating. We really appreciate any support youre able to provide; itll all go towards helping with our running costs. Even if you can't support us monetarily, please consider sharing articles with friends, families, colleagues - it all helps!

Thank you!

Originally posted here:

The Murder of David Amess must change the way we look at politics - Cherwell Online

In April 2000, I travelled to Dhaka with a formidable battery of my talented lieutenants from my internet venture CricketNext.com. The occasion was indeed historic. The International Cricket Council (ICC) had curated an extraordinary contest; the worlds first Asia XI versus Rest of World XI ODI. The Kargil betrayal was indeed fresh in most minds, but in an unparalleled happenstance, Pakistani and Indian players were playing on the same side. The worlds wiliest left-arm genius Wasim Akram was the captain of the Asia XI, and playing under him were Indias legends, such as Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly, Anil Kumble, Ajay Jadeja etc.

As someone said to me, It is surreal seeing the two neighbours who had a nasty military conflict less than a year earlier, play like a bunch of school-mates, as one collective unit (the gargantuan trolling of Indian fast bowler Mohammed Shami by right-wing zealots after Indias defeat to Pakistan in the T20 World Cup, 2021 is another story altogether).

Dhaka appeared like any capital city in South Asia; brimming with staggering aplomb, its tilted demography favouring strapping youngsters who vociferously screamed for Tendulkar, its main street a crowded marmalade, reflecting a country in a chaotic state of profligate frenzy. They welcomed us with unbridled love. They loved their cricket. They clearly idolised their Big Brother to their west, the one that had valiantly in 1971, helped give them their unique identity. Thus, when I saw the deadly attacks on Hindus in a systematic, organised manner, I was perturbed. Some things had clearly changed. After all, it has been almost two decades since that public bonhomie.

Communal template

There were over half-a-dozen Hindus killed in a brutal programme of religious targeting in Bangladesh. ISKCON has been singled out too, as per reports. As is the usual communal template, the conflagration happened at the time of an annual religious festival; this time it was the Durga Puja. The trigger for the violent aggression was a social media post that allegedly ridiculed the Koran.

The fact that cannot be denied is the tinder-box circumstance in which several societies exist today, especially those in our neighbourhood. It takes one WhatsApp instigation to create social unrest and bloodletting. Years of peaceful camaraderie can be incinerated, like their burnt homes. Hindus are a small minority of 10 per cent in Bangladesh, which has also been experiencing the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, as the former East Pakistan grapples with local extremism.

In the age of social media, it takes little to influence impressionable minds. While Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has reacted promptly, demonstrating her commitment to its secular composition, it is quite likely that the aftermath of the mayhem will linger much longer. This is unlikely to slow up overnight. Back home in India, one can already see that some of Indias ruling party cheerleaders are upping the communal temperature by reigniting a divisive debate. This hardly portends well.

Voices of outrage

On a TV show, the BJP spokesperson screamed loudly about why the opposition parties were playing minority-appeasement politics in opposing the Citizenship Amendment Act passed by the Modi government in 2019. It was palpable that the BJP would once again raise the outside infiltrators story as crucial state elections in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand draw closer. Expect the termites disdain to return to the mainstream. But this was being disingenuous to say the least.

For one, until the coronavirus pathogen suddenly hit India in March 2020, the country was witnessing nation-wide large, spontaneous uprisings against the brazenly discriminatory law that disallowed Muslims refugees persecuted in their home countries (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh) from getting sanctuary in India. Coupled with the nation-wide NRC and NPR, it was a deadly triumvirate to disenfranchise Indias largest minority population. The apprehensions were genuine. Detention centres for illegal migrants were going to be the next big infrastructure project. Polarised politics is BJPs coveted meal menu. It works magically at the hustings. Bangladesh appears to be following the same political business model.

Majoritarian populism

As the highly reprehensible attacks on Hindus show, Bangladesh could be following the recent global trend of rising majoritarian populism. Eventually, it is self-defeating. A few years ago, The Economist, considered a free-market torchbearer, had shortlisted Bangladesh among the countries of the year for its burgeoning exports, trade liberalisation, improved transparency and poverty alleviation. Bangladesh is the worlds second largest in garment merchandise exports. For four years in a row, pre-2020, GDP growth exceeded seven per cent, helping it to outperform its two bigger benchmarks, Pakistan and India.

On crucial human development indicators such as education access, infant mortality, primary healthcare, womens participation in the workforce etc. Bangladesh has registered a robust turnaround. Thus, if PM Sheikh Hasina allows sectarianism to spread, it will come at a huge social consequence and economic cost. No country can get away with manufactured social disunity for short-term political aggrandisement. It gets you. Finally.

Radicalism is the bane of fragile democracies that are also battling economic inequalities and social tensions. Nativism is retrograde even if in the short-term, it pays handsome electoral dividends. Bangladesh needs to be watchful here. It is easy for a country to lose the plot, just as a cricket team can suddenly find itself with an impossible asking rate. A civilised society is one that safeguards its minorities. When Sheikh Mujibur Rahman became president in 1971, he had inspired millions with his sincere message of a secular Bangladesh. His daughter now needs to walk the talk.

The author is former spokesperson of the Congress party

(To receive our E-paper on whatsapp daily, please click here. We permit sharing of the paper's PDF on WhatsApp and other social media platforms.)

Here is the original post:

Attacks on Hindus: Bangladesh could be following the recent global trend of rising majoritarian populism, - Free Press Journal

Welfare initiatives embody civil rights, whereas freebies cultivate a patron-client syndrome

A neoliberal economy encourages private capital and the market, while forcing the state to withdraw from welfare. The state is limited in taking concrete and constructive efforts to fulfil the aspirations of the people. Even as the poor perceive the state as an arbitrator of their well-being and a facilitator for their mobility in all spheres of life, todays political parties resort to unsolicited freebies to attract them. The line between welfarism and populism has blurred.

Welfare initiatives include a targeted Public Distribution System, providing social security for labourers, quality education, fair employment, affordable healthcare, decent housing, and protection from exploitation and violence. Freebies, on the other hand, are provided to attract voters to cast their vote in a particular election. They create limited private benefit for the receiver and do not contribute towards strengthening public goods/facilities.

The culture of freebies in Tamil Nadu was started during the 1967 Assembly elections. The then Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) chief C.N. Annadurai offered three measures of rice for 1. The practice of providing freebies was followed by subsequent Chief Ministers of both the DMK and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), who promised free TV sets, free laptops to students, free rides for women in buses, free gas cylinders and stoves, a goat and a cow for poor farmers, and so on.

Initially, the government attempted to strengthen the redistribution of resources for all. After the 1990s, Dravidian parties moved towards clientelism, narrowly focussing on electoral gains. A study by Shroff, Kumar and Reich (2015) on the DMKs health insurance scheme demonstrated that the main beneficiaries were the partys core supporters and swing voters who could be influenced easily. Worse, after 2009, fewer people accessed public health care centres.

In 2021, however, there was a qualitative difference in the manifesto of the DMK, which avoided most of the freebies except tablet devices to students studying in higher secondary schools and colleges. The manifesto reflected more of a programmatic policy intervention towards better public services than narrow private benefits in the form of freebies. But both the DMK and the AIADMK were silent on land distribution and enhancing budgetary allocation for maintenance of public infrastructure like schools, colleges, hostels and hospitals. The GSDP share for health was better under AIADMK rule compared to DMK rule, but both were below 1.5%. Tamil Nadus 2021-22 Budget shows that it has allocated around 13.3% of its total expenditure for education, which is lower than average allocation for education by all States, which is 15.8%.

When Senior Counsel Arvind P. Datar submitted his arguments in S. Subramaniam Balaji v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu (2013), which challenged the freebies of both the DMK government in 2006 and AIADMK government in 2011, he emphasised that freebies violate the constitutional mandate of extending benefits for public purpose and instead create private benefits. He asserted that the literacy rate in Tamil Nadu was around 73% and there were 234 habitations across the State with no school access whatsoever, and distribution of free consumer goods to the people having ration cards cannot be justified as public purpose. Further, distributing laptops does not serve the purpose of increasing the quality of education. According to a report by Anaivarukkum Kalvi Iyakkam (Sarva Siksha Abhiyan) in 2019, there were 3,003 government schools attended by less than 15 students. Due to lack of proper infrastructure facilities and specialised teachers, parents prefer to move their students to private schools. According to a report in this newspaper in 2019, more than 1,500 hostels for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) were in a dilapidated condition. Hence, freebies will not only depoliticise the poor and marginalised communities but also indirectly deny them their due share of state resources. Freebies drastically widen the gap between the rich and the poor. Populism encourages mediocre political critics and erases critical and rational thinking, which are important to raise pertinent questions to people in power.

Compared to other States, Tamil Nadu has made impressive strides in many development indicators such as education, healthcare (mortality rate and life expectancy) and infrastructure facilities. However, it lags behind in other aspects. According to the Tamil Nadu State Agricultural Departments publication, Salient Statistics on Agriculture, 2019, SCs, who constitute nearly 20% of Tamil Nadus population, accounted for 10% of agricultural landowners and possessed 7.8% of the farmland in the State. Even though the literacy rate is high in Tamil Nadu, according to the National Family Health Survey (NFHS)-4 (2015-16), only 32% of women aged 15-49 had completed 12 or more years of schooling, compared with 38% of men. The NFHS-4 showed sharp differences between SCs and Other Backward Classes in Tamil Nadu. The neonatal mortality was 12.3 for OBCs, but 17.4 for SCs. Infant mortality was 18.4 for OBCs but 23.6 for SCs. And under-five mortality was 24.8 for OBCs and 31 for SCs. The data reflect inequal access to public health infrastructure.

According to a paper by the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, Explaining the contractualisation of Indias workforce (2019), the share of contract workers in Tamil Nadu increased sharply from 8.3% in 2000-01 to 20.17% in 2013-14, which shows the withdrawal of the state in providing social security, and leaving the workforce at the mercy of neoliberal market forces.

Theoretically, there is a qualitative distinction between being subjects in an authoritarian regime and being citizens in a democratic polity. Unsolicited freebies cultivate a patron-client syndrome and encourage personality cults in a democratic polity. Besides, they affect the critical faculties of citizens, particularly the poor and the marginalised. Providing freebies is to treat people like subjects, whereas citizens are entitled to constitutional guarantees. Welfare initiatives are an embodiment of civil rights, whereas unsolicited freebies show benevolence at best and apathy at worst towards the poor by the ruling parties.

Also read | Have freebies and bribes depoliticised voters?

There was a positive indication that the DMK is reconsidering unsolicited freebies/populism when it tabled a White Paper on the States Finances in the Assembly recently. Thereafter, there has been a lot of public discussion on this issue, which may lead to a reorientation of public policy in a healthy direction. Political parties and civil society should consider quality aspects in education, healthcare and employment and ensure fair distribution and redistribution of resources for the marginalised communities. We draw the publics attention and debate to the dichotomy between welfare and unsolicited freebies or populism, so that the constitutional ideal of a secular, egalitarian and democratic India can be realised.

C. Lakshmanan is Associate Professor at the Madras Institute of Development Studies, Chennai, and Convenor, Dalit Intellectual Collective, and Venkatanarayanan S. teaches at Christ University, Bengaluru

See the original post:

The need to move away from clientelism - The Hindu

To be facetious about it, they only have 12 days to save the Earth. As politicians and officials from 197 countries begin just under a fortnights work at the Cop26 summit in Glasgow, you can sense a strange mixture of feelings: expectation, cynicism, fatalism, anger and fragile hope.

It will be easy to lose track of what is at stake and who is who although anyone feeling confused should recall the report issued in August by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its bracing conclusion: that huge environmental changes triggered by global heating are now everywhere, and avoiding a future that will be completely catastrophic demands immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions in carbon emissions. The point is simple enough. But one familiar factor may well weaken the resolve of the key people at Cop26: the fact that too few politicians will arrive in Scotland bearing any mandate for serious climate action, because almost none of them have tried to get one.

Two crucial political problems define the contrast between what is required and what those in power have so far chosen to deliver. One centres on the populism and power cults that actively get in the way of climate action something evident in both the records of strongmen like Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Brazils Jair Bolsonaro and Turkeys Recep Erdoan, and where our ecological emergency sits in the cultural and generational conflicts that are now bubbling up all over the world.

In the UK, the latest manifestation of the populist rights belligerent scepticism is the suggestion that we might rerun the Brexit referendum in the form of a vote on whether or not to pursue the goal of net zero carbon emissions. You also see it in those seemingly daily video clips of some or other sub-Alan Partridge TV or radio host arguing with someone from Extinction Rebellion or Insulate Britain, a ritual which feels like a new national sport.

The other impediment to action is more insidious. On both the centre-left and centre-right, there is superficial recognition of the hard yards required to do something about the climate emergency but, so far, an aversion to thinking about the huge changes to everyday life that will be necessary. We can build back greener without so much as a hair shirt in sight, says Boris Johnson.

Keir Starmer may not have uttered anything so crass, but he too seems to believe in a modest utopia of a new green economy, insulated homes, increased funding for science, and the day somehow being saved by British derring-do. Climate change is about jobs, he insists, which is partly true. But, like Johnson, he doesnt mention revolutionising what we eat and why and how we travel, or God forbid the continuing fetishisation of economic growth.

Might that be an inevitable feature of democracy? Perhaps. But in the UK, the first focus of blame should be the two-party Westminster model of politics kept in business by our stupid electoral system, and the way that it sustains political philosophies that ought to have been left behind in the 20th century.

On the right, notwithstanding Johnsons swerve into the politics of big spending and economic interventionism, Toryism remains beholden to the market, and dead against the idea of the common good shaping the lifestyles of anyone who is halfway affluent (the poor, of course, are fair game). Its contorted priorities are illustrated by the fact that the governments current leading lights managed to take us out of the European Union at a huge cost to national income and the countrys economic future. But they cannot muster anything like the same enthusiasm for risking some stability and prosperity in the interests of saving the planet.

And Labour? Here is a radical thought: given his beleaguered position and the urgency of the crisis, Starmer could conceivably go for broke, and predicate his leadership on the climate emergency, finally bringing its scale and urgency somewhere close to the heart of politics. The thought, unfortunately, would not even occur, because of what the Labour party is. Its origins lie in a world of coalmines and smokestacks. Like its sister social-democratic parties in Europe, whatever reinventions Labour has undergone since, it has a deep, sentimental attachment to an idea of the good life centred on work and the factory, and raising peoples living standards so that they can consume with the same enthusiasm as everyone else. At the most basic level, it shares the Tory idea that growth is the sine qua non of economic policy.

During the Corbyn years, some of this stuff was undoubtedly shaken up, although there were also signs of a conservatism that still runs across all wings of the party. In 2015, as he ran for the leadership, Jeremy Corbyn endorsed reopening mines in south Wales. Four years later, as Labour decisively embraced a so-called Green New Deal in preparation for the 2019 election, some of the big unions who represent gas, oil, and aviation workers insisted on 2030 being a target for significant progress rather than a non-negotiable net zero deadline.

It is worth remembering the view of the then leader of the GMB union, Tim Roache: the latter stance, he raged, would mean within a decade peoples petrol cars being confiscated. This will mean families can only take one flight every five years. Net zero carbon emissions by 2030 is utterly unachievable.

So, which way out? As a means of at least trying to reorientate our politics, a lot more people are going to have to vote for the Green party and, to maintain the sense of last-ditch urgency that Extinction Rebellion have brought to things, the case for what some people call extra-parliamentary activity feels beyond argument. Without wanting to sound overly pessimistic, the most likely outcome of all the negotiations and diplomatic theatre in Glasgow will push even more people in that direction, and their protests will bring on the usual sneers and priggishness, not least from Westminster politicians. But as ever, the people involved will have a simple answer: that if politics endlessly fails, the streets may be all you have left.

Excerpt from:

Politicians talk about net zero but not the sacrifices we must make to get there - The Guardian

Francis-Xavier Sosu, Madina MP

Its better to sell the V8 and share proceeds among the poor Xavier Sosu toldManaging Director for the Accra Digital Center, Kofi Ofosu Nkansah, has asked the Member of Parliament for Madina Francis-Xavier Sosu to stop the populism and focus on making a lasting impact.

Francis Xavier Sosu in an interview on Citi TV earlier this week indicated that although he has taken delivery of a V8 provided for parliamentarians, he cannot use it.

He said he has parked the car because he cannot be using a V8 when his constituents and other compatriots are battling poverty.

I dont use V8, I have been given but when I look at the level of poverty in my community, I dont feel right driving V8 around. Honestly, I dont feel right. So it is parked. I have been given but its parked, he said.

But reacting to the claims by the Member of Parliament, Kofi Ofosu Nkansah who is a Managing Director for the Accra Digital Center, described Sosu's decision and claims as populist.

To him, if the MP means well, he should rather sell the vehicle and give the proceeds to members of his constituency.

Why dont you sell it and give the proceeds to the poor in your Constituency then? Populism will kill yaanom, he said in a post shared on Facebook.

See more here:

Better sell your official V8 and share proceeds among the poor Madina MP told - GhanaWeb

An audience of about 200 attended a conversation Friday night (Oct. 29) between Jason Kander and Congressman Adam Schiff at the St. Louis County Library headquarters in Frontenac. Kander, former Missouri Secretary of State, and Schiff are both Jewish. It was one of the first return to live events in the librarys author series.

It coincided with the publishing of Schiffs first book, Midnight in Washington: How We Almost Lost Our Democracy. Schiff discussed his workaholic nature, with the consequences of not getting enough sleep, and why he persisted in politics after losing his first two attempts at elected office, as a candidate for the 43rd district seat in the California state assembly: As my 93-year-old father says, Whats the point of being a Schiff if you cant be stubborn?

Schiff discussed the increased threats of violence he deals with, and misinformation disseminated by some media sources, including social media. He specifically addressed the presence of about a dozen QAnon protestors outside the library before the event:

You saw the protestors. Ill sometimes get off a plane and somebody will recognize me and say, I want to shake your hand, you are my hero, Another person will see me and say, I dont want to shake your hand, you lie all the time. They cant both be right. We need to figure out how to be good consumers of information. This downward spiral, particularly online, is dangerous.

The final question Kander posed to Schiff was related to the congressmans grim assessment of the political divide in America. Kander asked if Schiff had any reason to be optimistic about the future, and Schiff said the answer is yes. He explained that while the countrys leaders tell him theyve never previously seen anything like the level of violence seen at the January attack on the U.S. Capitol, At the same time they recognize just how incredibly resilient this country is . . .

The countrys endless capacity to reinvent itself and the millions and millions of decent, wonderful people who live in every state. This wave of xenophobic populism didnt start here. It was already creating the Viktor Orbn, the right-wing populists in Poland, the right-wing parties in Austria and Germany. This is a global phenomenon, and it will not persist if we do our job as Americans.

Read this article:

In visit to STL, Jewish congressman addresses QAnon, Jan. 6 and future of democracy - St. Louis Jewish Light

Press play to listen to this article

Forget Machiavelli.

In the world of politics these days, its not better to be feared than loved. Nor is it better to be loved. The key to success in the Western worlds hyper-polarized political culture is to be neither.

Just look at Joe Biden. Or Frances Emmanuel Macron. Or Mario Draghi. Or even Germanys Olaf Scholz (who?).

What these men all of whom are gathering this weekend for the G20 meeting in Rome have in common is not just their whiteness, but that most voters in their home countries find them at best to be more or lessmeh.

Biden, though loved by his party faithful, has the dubious distinction of having the lowest approval rating of any president at this stage of his term with the exception of Donald Trump. At just 41 percent, Macrons ratingis even worse though not bad by recent French standards. By comparison, Draghi, the former head of the European Central Bank, who won his office by appointment, not election, looks like a man of the people with 47 percent approval.

Blame populism. What the leading lights of Western democracy all have in common is that theyre under constant fire from the populist right. That means their base isnt comprised of just traditional supporters, but of voters who feel they have no other choice.

Just a few years ago, personality was the coin of the Western political realm. And it wasnt just Trump. Macron, a pro-EU former socialist who promised to reinvent France as we know it, the U.K.s Boris Johnson and Austrias Sebastian Kurz all rose to power as one-man shows.

But slick populism has turned out to have the allure of a one-night stand. Trump and Kurz are gone. Johnson is still around, but with an approval rating of just 32 percent, the U.K. leader is no longer the all-conquering take back control Brexit leader of years past.

To be taken seriously in 2021, it helps to be reviled by half your electorate. The fact that Macron is holding firm in France has as much to do with his political skills as it does with the fact that some of his main challengers would be best described as the far right and the ultra-far right.

Despite their popularity deficit, chances are that every Western leader at the G20 will remain in power for the foreseeable future. Thats largely because even for voters who arent dyed-in-the-wool supporters, the alternative is simply too scary to contemplate. It might be easy, exciting even, to go with the shiny new thing, when the alternative isnt going to result in the end of the world as we know it (think about the appeal of Ronald Reagan in 1980, Tony Blair in 1997 or Macron in 2017).

If Trumps presidency taught the Western worlds democracies anything, its the virtue of the establishment. Put it the current context, if the alternative to a predictable, boring safe pair of hands is to be governed by pandemic-denying whackjobs inCamp Auschwitz T-shirts,mehstarts to look pretty attractive.

Thats why, despite political analysts incessant hand-wringing over the future of democracy, were not on the cusp of Armageddon.

This weekends Rome gathering is a reminder of that. It was forgotten before it started. The issues on the G20 agenda (vaccinating the developing world and combatting climate change) are as weighty as ever. But weighty is what serious leaders do best, which is why most citizens of the Western world happily ignore such summits. And without the antics, the drama and thegratuitous tweets, they can safely do so.

Post-Trump, the goal of any straight-thinking Western leader is to be as modest and meek as possible. The model: Angela Merkel.

At first blush, the German leader, who will make way for her successor as soon as a new government is formed, would seem to be the exception to the rule. Shes boring, yet hugely popular.

But recent outpouring of Merkel-love came only once she announced she was departing. Her decision three years ago not to seek a further term triggered a wave of nostalgia to rival Elton Johns endless farewell tour. It was made all the more potent by the fact that the crop of her potential successors left something to be desired.

Despite the recent Merkel mania, any honest appraisal of Merkels 16-year record would have to conclude that her accomplishments were few and far between. Her real achievement has been to hide that reality by giving Germans a sense of stability.

Thats why todays leaders would still be wise to bone up on their Machiavelli.

Everyone sees what you appear to be, he wrote Few experience what you really are.

See the original post:

Biden, Macron and the rise of the meh men - POLITICO Europe

At the 1992 US Republican convention, the paleoconservative pundit and presidential candidate Pat Buchanan introduced the world to the idea that politics had become a culture war between progressives and conservatives. Campaigns for environmentalism, abortion and LGBT rights werent just about policy, he claimed, but were in fact intended to destroy wider American traditions and identity. This war is for the soul of America, Buchanan said, and called on fellow citizens to take back our culture, and take back our country.

In the ensuing decades, the right closely adopted the strategy proposed by Buchanan. It claimed that, by dint of their alleged control of the media and academia, unpatriotic and elitist progressives were imposing radical changes like openness to immigration and the demolition of the traditional family against majority will. The plan worked: culture war tactics were instrumental in the right gaining support among disgruntled workers increasingly suspicious of a centre-left that had little to offer in terms of socio-economic policies.

Since the beginning of the Covid-19 crisis, the pandemic has become yet another stage for the culture war. But it may be one that the right will end up regretting. The emergency unleashed a flood of disparate conspiracy theories about the virus and vaccines that spread rapidly on social media, while anti-mask and anti-lockdown protest movements framed contagion prevention measures as a health dictatorship.

Populist right leaders were quick to take advantage of this, seeing in Covid scepticism yet another opportunity to show the gulf between the priorities of progressives and ordinary people. In Brazil, President Jair Bolsonaro described Covid as little flu, and to this day continues to claim he has not been vaccinated, though nobody knows for sure. In the US, Donald Trump went into full conspiracy mode, suggesting that bleach may be a cure for Covid. In the UK, Johnson took a more pragmatic mainstream stance after briefly favouring herd immunity. But to his right, Nigel Farage and some Tory MPs continued to dally with Covid scepticism.

Yet, in many countries the populist right is now finding itself at odds with a movement it has fuelled, but cannot control any more. In August, Donald Trump was booed by supporters at a rally in Alabama, after recommending they get the jab. In Italy, Matteo Salvini of the League party has faced heavy criticism from Covid sceptics for supporting a government which is enforcing vaccination passports a programme called Green Pass. Meanwhile, his more extreme rightwing competitor, Giorgia Meloni of post-fascist Brothers of Italy, has managed to gain support among anti-vaxxers by opposing the Green Pass and defending freedom of choice.

In France, Marine Le Pen also risks being outflanked on her right by populist candidates who have taken more radical culture war stances. These include anti-immigration talk-show star ric Zemmour, who is sky-rocketing in the polls, as well as Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, the leader of the nationalist Debout la France party, and Le Pens estranged ally Florian Philippot, who have both espoused Covid conspiracy theories.

In Germany, the far-right Alternative fr Deutschland party has had a stormy relationship with the Covid sceptic movement Querdenker (literally lateral thinkers). Querdenker activists were involved in internal party squabbles and have gone on to launch a new formation called Die Basis (The Base) contributing to the AfDs disappointing performance in the last elections.

Amid growing culture war polarisation, rightwing parties that have adopted a populist strategy are struggling to hold together their brittle electoral coalition. One in which true believers who embrace conspiracy theories whole-cloth sit alongside more moderate centre-right voters with little patience for popular superstitions.

While anti-vaxxers are very vocal, they are actually a relatively small proportion of the population. In the US, according to a recent Axios-Ipsos poll, only 20% of US citizens say they are not likely to get vaccinated. In the UK vaccination rates among adults are around 80%, while in France and Italy 75% of people have had at least one dose. Being wholly identified with this relatively small section of public opinion is electorally dangerous.

Furthermore, the Manichean frame of a quasi-religious battle between good and evil that characterises the culture war approach means that any act of moderation or compromise on the part of existing populist or simply opportunistically populist leaders can be easily presented as betrayal, opening the space to holier-than-thou challengers, thus splitting the vote.

Embracing the culture war was meant to divide society along the cultural cleavage between progressives and conservatives, rather than the economic division between haves and have-nots that the left has traditionally preferred, giving the right a strategic advantage. However, the animosity of the culture war now seems to be playing out in a sort of civil war in the rights own ranks, and may lead to serious difficulties for the likes of Salvini, Le Pen, Trump and Farage.

In coming months and years, the culture war approach isnt going anywhere. In fact it may become even more intense and vicious, as the climate crisis and green transition policies impose major changes in peoples everyday lives. Rightwing populists once thought they were in control, but riding the tiger of conspiracy theories may prove more costly than they had anticipated

Paolo Gerbaudo is a sociologist at Kings College London and the author of The Great Recoil: Politics After Populism and Pandemic

The rest is here:

The populist right is regretting its encouragement of Covid conspiracists - The Guardian

Hungary and Poland have both faced accusations of violating the EUs democratic values. Andrs Saj argues that while it has become common to portray these states as implementing distinct forms of illiberal democracy, they share more in common with western democracies than is commonly recognised. The actions of the Hungarian and Polish governments should be viewed as an abuse of constitutionalism and the rule of law, not as a different conception of these ideas.

The new member states of the EU are increasingly perceived as populist-authoritarian political regimes. They are accused of (further) undermining the values and decision-making efficiency of the EU. But while the departure of these states from the EU normal is obvious, we have witnessed a Manichean forcing of Hungary and Poland into political science terminological straitjackets (autocracy, competitive authoritarianism, right wing populism, even soft fascism) with all the paralysing consequences dictated by the label.

Pedantic straitjacketing of this kind may serve the disciplinary needs of academia, but it does little to aid our understanding of complex phenomena. In a new book, Ruling by Cheating: Governance in Illiberal Democracies, I argue that these failing democracies are not simply the opposite of democracy: in reality, they unpack the totalitarian and authoritarian tendencies of democracy itself, maximising the illiberal potential of western constitutionalism.

Ruling by cheating

Constitutional democracies are inherently vulnerable as they have historically incorporated illiberalism, for example by granting privileges to certain churches and illiberal actors. From Poland to Bulgaria and from Peron to Chavez, illiberal democracies rely on shortcomings that are kept within boundaries in consolidated democracies. All these continuities and commonalities are important, although there remain fundamental differences between the cheaters and more honest democracies.

In a genuine though imperfect democracy it is unthinkable that political competitors would aim at the perpetuation of power or seek to increase their domination without inhibitions. The uninhibited extension and perpetuation of centralised state power in the hands of the ruler necessitates systematic and systemic lying (disinformation by state means like education and mass media) and cheating.

While the illiberal democracy systematically relies on cheating and lying, the democratic credentials of illiberal democracies still matter. The illiberal regimes cannot, and do not wish to, dispense of democratic processes, elections in particular. These are successful systems because they manage to mobilise genuine popular support (at least of a relative majority). The leader receives this popular support even if it is the result of mass media manipulation that relies on existing prejudice and resentment. The European illiberal leaders mobilise deeply rooted nationalism. National identity is a source of pride and a cultural expression of fear originating in historical losses. In most illiberal regimes, the leader can also rely on authoritarian predispositions among a good number of citizens (a predisposition that exists in many mature democracies too).

Most commentators fail to note that such regimes are popular enough to allow the illiberal leader to play at democracy and win elections (just like critics of China tend to forget that the restrictions imposed by the Party on individuals are welcomed by many Chinese). Illiberal democracies are successful, among other reasons, because they clean democracy of liberalism (constitutionalism).

These systems are built from the imperfections of consolidated democracies. The imperfections (shortcomings of constitutional design, cronyism, and the prevalence of ressentiment in politics that has become a personal competition in a world of spectacle democracy) are present in consolidated democracies and the demise of democracy (politely called a backlash) is not a tale about a faraway fairy land. The cocksure West would be better off to see its own traits in the mirror of Hungary (and Hungary should see its own traits in Russia).

Plebiscitarian leader democracies

Poland and Hungary (as well as Perons Argentina and Chavezs Venezuela, among others) are plebiscitarian leader democracies in the sense used by Max Weber. Weber defined these democracies as being democratic in their form but authoritarian in their substance, with a leaders legitimacy stemming from their charisma. For Weber, Britain served as a model for these democracies many years before the UK turned into an elective dictatorship. Weber realised the dangers of this form of democracy (centralisation of personal power) but assumed that there would be sufficient parliamentary and other controls to counter the inevitable tendency.

While parliamentary controls, checks and balances are formally in place in Hungary and Venezuela, none of these institutions work as envisaged in theory. Plebiscitarian leader democracies eventually turn into Caesarism (aka Bonapartism) with populist overtones. Not all plebiscitarian leader democracies are populist even if the elite/people dichotomy is always present and (most importantly) those who are not the supporters of the leader are deemed to be fake nationals. But in Hungary and Poland, nationalism is more important than populist arguments, though populism was important in obtaining power.

These regimes insist on defining the identity of the ruled and the ruler in a populist manner. In a plebiscitarian leader democracy, the leaders do care about their people.

As Jacob Talmon points out, there are dictatorship[s] resting on popular enthusiasm and thus completely different from absolute power wielded by a divine right king, or by a usurping tyrant. The leader will express their peoples desires and fears (nasty as these may be) and cater for the wellbeing of this part of the electorate, in the name of the common good.

The people here means a sufficiently large minority that is sizeable enough to win elections. This is unremarkable: it is normal in democracies to have distortive electoral systems, such as relative majorities receiving a bonus. This is not a peculiar shortcoming of the often-vilified US electoral college.

European plebiscitarian leader democracies not only cheat on democracy. Illiberal democracies abuse the rule of law systematically, relying on shortcomings such as formalism and inflexibility that are an inherent part of western rule of law. For example, public procurement follows the general frame required by EU law, but the specific criteria of the calls contain objective criteria that favour government cronies. If that does not help, the procurement will be classified as a matter of national security interest, or otherwise classified as not requiring a public call.

While the semblance of the rule of law is maintained and legal security is provided for ordinary life, law becomes a matter of cheating when it comes to power and domination. Legalism is observed: with a sufficient parliamentary majority, the laws can be written in a way that authorises formally neutral legal decisions even though the law systematically favours the interests of the government and its cronies and keeps the subjects of the law dependent of the state and its local satraps. These same rules (for example tailor-made electoral rules in the best tradition of US gerrymandering) help secure continued electoral victories.

The rule of law

The rule of law is both a shield and a sword. As Oscar R. Benavides, President of Peru, described it, for my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law. Giovanni Giolitti, the liberal Prime Minister of Italy, formulated it as laws are applied to enemies, but only interpreted as regards friends. The first version describes Putins Russia, the second one Hungary and Poland. The Caesarist regime pretends to observe law to protect otherwise illegal transactions and consolidate the gains of corruption. This is how the basis of power is built: the legally entrenched favours granted to cronies enable them to provide a network necessary for political, economic and cultural domination.

Law-making and its application are based on tricks and cheating. Benjamin Constant called such regimes usurpation which is characterised by counterfeit liberty. The Manichean presentation of these regimes fails to observe that contrary to standard authoritarian regimes, liberty does exist in usurpation: the plebiscitarian leader, because he or she responds to their peoples wishes, allows private liberties and tolerates political liberties as long as their exercise does not threaten the perpetuation of power.

How does cheating fit into the rule of law? It is a standard technique of interpretation used by judges all over the world not to see injustice. Procedural formalities enable malefactors to keep illicit gains and political accountability is of little relevance when immorality is normalised. One could refer to all the examples of cronyism without legal consequences or political consequences during the Covid-19 pandemic, from Greece to the United Kingdom.

Morphological research that concentrates on the techniques of emptying democracy and constitutional institutions is important for practical reasons too: it helps to unmask the normalisation of cheating, the deliberate impotence of judges and prosecutors, and the inhumanity of the everyday submission of citizens. Those concerned about a democratic backlash should be aware of continuities and commonalities between democracy and usurpation in order to understand the insufficient reactions of the European Union and its member states to the challenges to the foundational values and common interests of the European Union that illiberal democracy represents.

For more information, see the authors new book, Ruling by Cheating: Governance in Illiberal Democracies (Cambridge University Press, 2021)

Note: This article gives the views of theauthor, not the position of EUROPP European Politics and Policy or the London School of Economics. Featured image credit: European Council

Read the rest here:

Is the West really that different? | EUROPP - EUROPP - European Politics and Policy

It will be some time until the Republican Party turns the page on Donald TrumpDonald TrumpTrump announces new social media network called 'TRUTH Social' Virginia State Police investigating death threat against McAuliffe Meadows hires former deputy AG to represent him in Jan. 6 probe: report MORE and returns to its more mainstream, conservative principles.

Eight months after the Jan. 6 insurrection, Trump still has the soul of the Republican Party. On Oct. 18, the former president filed a federal lawsuit against the Jan. 6 select committee seeking to block the panel from obtaining his administration's records from the National Archives.

Can Republicans move past 2020?

Having fundamentally shifted away from its axis of reasonable conservative and libertarian archetypes, the Republican Party continues to relitigate Americas ugly past without any logical orientation or ideological reasoning to shape the party's future. There is no pablum platform or component figurehead, and the GOP doesnt have leaders but sycophants, afraid to challenge the distortion of the partys axis.

Very simply, it feels as if our federal republic is slowly eroding, and Jan. 6 was the breaking point.

The loss of Gen. Colin PowellColin PowellOvernight Defense & National Security Presented by Raytheon Technologies Navy probe reveals disastrous ship fire response Colin Powell: Soldier, scholar, statesman and gentleman CNN's John King says he has multiple sclerosis MORE is an unfortunate reminder that we are grieving our national political party system and an America that once was a collective bipartisanship. Nine months ago, in the wake of the Trump-inspired riot at the U.S. Capitol, Gen. Powell said that he could no longer call myself a fellow Republican. He castigated not just Trump but his enablers within the party. Ironically, a quarter-century before, the Republican Partys nomination had been Gen. Powells for the taking if he had wanted it.

Gen. Powell knew that the nations political landscape had become highly polarized, but he also knew that average citizens must engage to hold elected officials accountable; that the people dictate the terms of American politics. Moreover, citizen engagement is critical now more than ever, with Republican efforts systematically rolling back voting access in states following Democratic victories in the 2020 election.

Gen. Powell helped a generation of young people understand civic engagement. Furthermore, while he never denied the unfortunate role race played in his life and in our society more broadly, he repudiated the idea that race could end his dreams or the dreams of others, and through his balanced and moral leadership, helped pave the way for so many who would follow.

Our country is now teetering between the tyranny of elites and the tyranny of irrationality a societal bipolar condition that threatens to crash down on us. Moreover, representative democracy both domestic and abroad is being degraded by rampant populism being exploited by malicious forces to enshrine the dominance of political minorities over prevalent (not populist) will.

This anti-democracy craziness does have roots in a willingness of the Republican Party to leverage the structures of national governance to effect rule by the minority. But Republicans arent only at fault here; Democrats continue to be too soft during both campaigning and legislating and they fail to organize effectively. For a few decades now, it's been apparent that both parties are continuing to move to the extreme, turning to political gangsterism instead. This is worsened by the number of Democrats retiring and the few moderate Republicans like Rep.Anthony GonzalezAnthony GonzalezDemocratic retirements could make a tough midterm year even worse Ex-Trump aide sues Grisham over abuse allegations Juan Williams: GOP's assault on voting rights is the real fraud MORE (R-Ohio)leaving Congress altogether.

Gen. Powell served Republican administrations but was willing to endorse then-candidate Barack ObamaBarack Hussein ObamaEbay founder funding Facebook whistleblower: report Emanuel defends handling of Chicago police shooting amid opposition to nomination McAuliffe rolls out ad featuring Obama ahead of campaign stop MORE for president in 2008. And when conspiracy theories were trolling, and many Republicans were questioning Obamas faith, Gen. Powell replied in a resonant way, exemplifying his ethical clarity: The correct answer is, he is not a Muslim; he's a Christian. Hes always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Thus, is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president?

Gen. Powell is the standard-bearer for what it means to be a great American regardless of political affiliation, race or creed. Could we as the American people emulate his example? Or could we as a country get back to what it truly means to be great the way in which Gen. Colin Powell made it great?

Quardricos Bernard Driskell is a former Republican operative and an adjunct professor of legislative politics at The George Washington University Graduate School of Political Management. Follow him on Twitter @q_driskell4

See the article here:

Colin Powell's example to the GOP and to America | TheHill - The Hill