Category Archives: Populism

The former president is not alone.

I hope the truckers do come to America, Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, told The Daily Signal, a conservative website. Civil disobedience is a time-honored tradition in our country, from slavery to civil rights, you name it. Peaceful protest, clog things up, make people think about the mandates.

Nor was all this confined to North America. Ottawa truckers convoy galvanizes far right worldwide, an article in Politico on Feb. 6 declared. Leading Republicans, right-wing influencers and white supremacist groups have jumped at the chance to promote the standoff in Ottawa to a global audience.

In Bowling for Fascism: Social Capital and the Rise of the Nazi Party, a 2017 paper in the Journal of Political Economy, Shanker Satyanath of N.Y.U., Nico Voigtlnder of U.C.L.A. and Hans-Joachim Voth of the University of Zurich offer a counterintuitive perspective on the spread of right-wing organizing in Canada, Hungary, Brazil, India, Poland, Austria and in the United States.

The three authors argue that in the 1930s in Europe:

dense networks of civic associations such as bowling clubs, choirs, and animal breeders went hand in hand with a more rapid rise of the Nazi Party. Towns with one standard deviation higher association density saw at least one-third faster entry. All types of associations veteran associations and nonmilitary clubs, bridging and bonding associations positively predict National Socialist Party entry. Party membership, in turn, predicts electoral success. These results suggest that social capital aided the rise of the Nazi movement that ultimately destroyed Germanys first democracy.

Andrs Rodrguez-Pose, Neil Lee and Cornelius Lipp, all of the London School of Economics, pick up this argument in a November 2021 paper on the paradoxical role of social capital in fostering far-right movements. Noting that the positive view of social capital has, more recently, been challenged, the three economic geographers write:

The rise in votes for Trump was the result of long-term economic and population decline in areas with strong social capital. This hypothesis is confirmed by the econometric analysis conducted for U.S. counties. Long-term declines in employment and population rather than in earnings, salaries, or wages in places with relatively strong social capital propelled Donald Trump to the presidency and almost secured his re-election.

It is, the three authors continue,

precisely the long-term economic and demographic decline of the places that still rely on a relatively strong social capital that is behind the rise of populism in the U.S. Strong but declining communities in parts of the American Rust Belt, the Great Plains and elsewhere reacted at the ballot box to being ignored, neglected and being left behind.

Translated to the present, in economic and culturally besieged communities, the remnants of social capital have been crucial to the mobilization of men and women mostly men who chanted, you will not replace us and blood and soil in Charlottesville, who shot bear spray at police officers on Jan. 6 and who brought Ottawa to its knees for more than two weeks.

In a separate paper, The Rise of Populism and the Revenge of the Places, Rodrguez-Pose argued, Populism is not the result of persistent poverty. Places that have been chronically poor are not the ones rebelling. Instead, he continued,

the rise of populism is a tale of how the long-term decline of formerly prosperous places, disadvantaged by processes that have rendered them exposed and almost expendable, has triggered frustration and anger. In turn, voters in these so-called places that dont matter have sought their revenge at the ballot box.

In an email, Rodrguez-Pose wrote:

Social capital in the U.S. has been declining for a long time. Associationism and the feeling of community are no longer what they used to be, and this has been documented many times. What my co-authors and I are saying is that in those places (counties) where social capital has declined less, long-term demographic and employment decline triggered a switch to Donald Trump. These communities have said enough is enough of a system that they feel bypasses them and voted for an anti-system candidate, who is willing to shake the foundations of the system.

In a separate email, Lee noted that while most analysts view higher social capital as a healthy development in communities, it can also foster negative ethnic and racial solidarity: Social capital can be a great thing when it is open and inclusive. But when everyone knows each other, this can result in in-group dynamics particularly when people are led to be concerned about other groups.

See the original post:

Opinion | Theres a Reason Trump Loves the Truckers - The New York Times

Aberdeen fan view: Dave Cormack, in opting for populism, may choose the right manager this time Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. Linked In An icon of the Linked In logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo.

See original here:

Aberdeen fan view: Dave Cormack, in opting for populism, may choose the right manager this time - Press and Journal

THE movers and shakers of populism rule present-day Poland. They have hijacked Polish democracy and are systematically destroying it. In its place is an authoritarian regime that has no qualms about adopting the rhetoric of intolerance and quasi fascism.In the space of a single generation the Polish experiment with democracy has delivered an anti-democratic nightmare: a land of systemic repressions against women and the LGBTQ community, discrimination against the Roma, German and Ukrainian minorities and others, the demonisation of refugees, draconian censorship in schools and universities and gross mismanagement of the Covid-19 pandemic.As an academic and gay activist, Tomasz Kitlinski has been personally targeted by the ruling party, threatened with prosecutionand forced into exile in Berlin.Over the past six years the Committee for the Defence of Democracy (KOD founded in 2015) has been active in a wave of mass protests by the LGBTQ community, and nationwide demonstrations on behalf of women the Womens Strike (Strajk Kobiet) against extreme anti-abortion legislation.At the time the scale of the protest gave rise to extraordinary hope. It was founded in an entirely new social phenomenon, a queer/feminist alliance that expressed itself on the streets with rainbow flags and imaginative protest art on cardboard, similar to those seen in Britain at the BLM marches. This new aesthetic expressed a multiplicity of opinion, and a multiplicity of lives, of subjectivities, of inspirations and emotions.It aspired to the constitution of a new democracy that was being written everywhere by everybody, citizens reinventing themselves and reinventing what society could be.A major difference to the Solidarnosc demostrations of the 80s was that this time the marches were full of schoolchildren and young people the Erasmus generation.It would be wrong to see this as merely reactive or oppositional. What you could read from the cardboard were new structures of feeling, new forms of language, new and unexpected social alliances.Even though the Strajk Kobiet achieved a remarkable mass mobilisation, it was predominantly run by middle class and professional women and failed to establish a coherent alliance with the working class. Much the same can be said for the LGBTQ community.This failure to create an alliance with working-class organisations, including trade unions, impeded the achievement of their political objectives.

In the absence of such an alliance and the prospect of sympathy strikes the government simply beat back the protest and continued with its reactionary, regressive agenda.The government rhetoric exemplified by the utterances of Minister of Education Przemyslaw Czarnekis characterised by hysterical anti-communism. Protestors, migrants and LGBTQ people are all communists or Lukashenko and Putins infiltrators.Designed to generate knee-jerk responses, this anachronism has no political relevance because there is no significant communist party in Poland, and the closest geographically socialist governments are in Spain and Portugal and without influence.What it does do though is to corral the reactionary social prejudice of the regime in opposition to an imaginary scapegoat. Communism represents worker solidarity. It is anti-racist and opposed to state-monopoly capitalism. Communism embodies the principles of gender equality and social emancipation.To be anti-communist is to disguise (and also to enact) a political agenda that is diametrically opposed to these values. It is to be racist, to be sexist and to be repressive. It is to be (like the Nazis and present-day fascists throughout the EU) the willing instrument of monopoly capitalism.The ruling elite that the Law and Justice party(PiS) represents is an opportunistic nouveau riche-capitalist nomenclatura, and for social protest to be effective it must recognise the class basis of this regime, find common ground through class alliance.While the opposition requires the consciousness of this objective social reality this material truth it can also benefit from a historical and cultural view of the different kinds of democracy that Poland has experienced, and enrich the picture.For people of our generation, the events of July 1980 and the birth of Solidarnosc were formative. The model adopted by the new unions was not authoritarian but self-governing, and briefly the socialist economy coincided with a radical expansion of culture. If the base was socialist, the superstructure was self-governing Solidarity.In time Solidarity mutated away from these emancipatory beginnings. In the course of the 1980s it became a tool for the capitalist West to pacify the Polish working class, and eventually to let it sleepwalk into the embrace of the new masters of the privatised economy and exploitation. It provoked a wave of emigration abroad, estimated at twomillion workers, that rivals the mass migration to the US in the late 19th and early 20th century.Why were the trade union leaders blind to this process and unable to resist this outcome?The trade union, now split between left and right, sought accommodation with capitalism, rather than recognising that the interest of its members lay in opposition to capitalist exploitation. It blithely accepted the support of committed anti-socialists like Thatcher and Reagan, and was blind to its role in dismantling socialism, and capitulating to capitalism.

The workers, who had enjoyed privileged status, participated in their own abdication of power without realising it.Later, in 2009, the strike of cleaning ladies over pay and conditions succeeded when the workers themselves structured themselves as a self-organising trade union. This gave democratic strength to the action and led to their success.These are the lessons that must inform todays resistance to Polish authoritarianism, and we must learn to distinguish genuine democracy from its coercive and negative other.Democracy begins with self-government. To be represented in a democracy involves self-empowerment and self-affirmation in equal mixture.When democracy is weaponised by the capitalist ruling class we can recognise the exact antithesis of these values. Self-empowerment becomes self-negation. Individual courage becomes cowardice and vulnerability becomes aggression.This internalised self-negation is an essential component of social control under capitalism, and the means by which it disempowers the citizen to divide and rule the working class. When a system deploys self-negation it is simply recruitment into the mob.Against the spectre of this kind of brutalising coercion we must revive the experience of true participatory democracy.Those who rule Poland today fetishise the Polish constitution to defend their oppressive new laws in the face of the European charter of human rights. But, every day, they transgress the constitution that forbids discrimination against citizens on any grounds whatsoever. The government is acting illegally, and this transgression must be challenged in court.Alongside such an action we must use every strategy, including cutting twinning links with LGBT free towns (100), municipalities (50), counties (18) and provinces (four). We must protest against sending our military to support their xenophobic policies, and resist this crude mono-cultural populism and the havoc it wreaks on the great majority of our fellow citizens.

View post:

Opinion Against the populist mono-culture of Poland - Morning Star Online

Pablo Casado supports Alfonso Fernndez Maueco in his attempt to seek a solo government in Castilla y Len without Vox. The leader of the PP is in tune with the popular baron in leaving the extreme right out of the Executive, but he is no stranger to the fact that the 13 seats of the ultras will continue to be necessary to facilitate the investiture of Maueco. Therefore, he has warned Vox that the PP will set limits on any agreement whether it be investiture or legislature, if the case arises and these will be the principles of the PP. In his speech before the national executive committee, meeting this afternoon on Gnova Street, Casado has marked an ideological and strategic line of rejection of populism, defending that the PP must aspire to represent the hegemony of the immense space of the reformist center Spanish. That bet has sounded in opposition to the thesis of Isabel Daz Ayuso, his main internal rival, who has been defending a hard-right PP that agrees without problems with Vox. To be an alternative, you have to be able to form a social majority, and not balance on radicalized minorities, Casado countered.

Casado has delivered a harsh speech against populism in the context of a possible agreement between the PP and Vox in Castilla y Len. The leader of the PP has warned that the seed of populism and radicalism may take longer or less to show its fruit, but it is always a bitter fruit for the societies that cultivate it. Along the same lines, he has defended: Populism and radicalism never produce progress, nor harmony, nor international respect; they never pacify any conflict, they always make all of them worse.

Since that rejection of populism, Casado, who has not quoted Vox at any time, supports Maueco to leave the extreme right out of the Government of Castilla y Len. Alfonso has asked for a strong, stable and solitary government, with firm pillars, without borrowed suits and without the continuous sword of Damocles. And he has our full support to carry it forward, with our principles always present, he has expressed. That does not mean that the leader of the PP closes the door to any agreement with Vox, which is essential to invest Maueco if the PSOE does not abstain. Casado has explained that the PP will have limits to agree and agree. Our principles are our conditions, whoever wants to agree with us will have to accept and respect them, as always.

For us, equality is not negotiable, nor is territorial cohesion, nor regional integrity, nor integration in Europe, Casado warned. We do not accept constitutional revisionism, whether it is against the autonomous communities, the councils, the monarchy or the independent Justice.

The leader has marked a center-right ideological course for the PP, given the bets on a harder right and closer to Vox, which Ayuso represents above all. Casado has opted for strengthening a party clearly located on the right so that it can clearly carry out a central task, approaching it and not any extreme. Upon his arrival at the committee, Ayuso has defended the agreements with Vox. Do you prefer to agree with Vox?, he has asked himself. What you have to do is not listen to the left. I do not agree with the disaster; I would not agree with sanchismo.

What affects the most is what happens closest. To not miss anything, subscribe.

subscribe

The speeches of Casado and Maueco this morning have been in tune. The popular baron has warned Vox on Tuesday that he does not want a coalition government, but rather is betting on one alone with a parliamentary pact, and has warned him that he will not accept their requests to repeal the regional gender violence law . If someone thinks that the PP of Castilla y Len is going to take a step back in defending equality () between men and women, they are wrong, Maueco defended in his speech before the regional board of directors of the PP of Castilla and Len, held this morning in Valladolid. The popular baron has also anticipated the local candidates that he is not going to give in to blackmailing support for privileges of some provinces over others.

Follow this link:

Casado supports Maueco in the search for a solo government and charges against populism - Then24.com

Addressing Dalit issues should be top priority

Charanjit Singh Channi has been declared Congress CM face because he comes from a poor family and understands their problems. But how will he eradicate poverty and redress core Dalit issues if appointed the CM, seems to be a pipe dream. Actually, Channi has been declared a CM face for many reasons such as keeping an eye on 32% Dalit population that can tilt the scales in favour of Congress, to checkmate Navjot Sidhu, the bte noire of Captain and Channi governments; to rein in Jat Sikhs dominated politics in Punjab and to show the people of Punjab that they need a CM who is from a Gareeb ghar . Is he really Gareeb? Anyway a CM face is not the answer to all the woes of Dalits. It is the Dalit vote bank policy that has worked in favour of Channi . The party wants to keep the pot of caste, colour, creed and religion boiling for extracting political mileage. Poverty is widespread not only among the Dalits but also among other communities. The poverty cannot be eliminated in a short time; rather it is a long term goal. How will Channi be able to prevent corruption and the high- handedness of the bureaucracy to eradicate poverty, is anybodys guess? He doesnt have any magic wand to alleviate the lot of his clan. For that he will have to develop and implement rapid and sustained economic growth, policies and programmes in areas like health, education, nutrition and sanitation allowing the poor to participate and contribute to the growth. That seems to be quite a tall order as Channi wont be allowed to function independently by Sidhu and his ilk.

Tarsem S Bumrah

Politicians dont care about our needs

The declaration of Charanjit Singh Channi as the Congresss chief ministerial face in Punjab will be projected as a historical step and will be the hot topic for debate. Every religion, community, caste or creed in India has the poorest of the poor as well as the ultra-rich in them. Is it not just unconstitutional to expect that any person belonging to any such section of the society will take special care of the ones belonging to his group? For politicians, politics is a lucrative business for amassing wealth. The poor and deprived are conveniently divided on numerous counts so that they do not rise together to demand their basic rights and to question the performance of their elected representatives. We the people of India... so begins our Constitution. The politicians have made us Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Swarns, Dalits or the ones belonging to this caste or that and whatnot. Unless we correct politicians as responsible and united Indians, they wont care about our needs and problems, their catchy slogans and promises notwithstanding.

Hira Sharma

A populist approach bound to fail

Announcement of a Chief Ministerial face, whether by one party or the other, is a negation of the parliamentary democratic system. In the context of Rahul Gandhi and his Congress, it is a big IF. IF the party wins adequate number of seats, and IF Charanjit Singh Channi also wins from Chamkaur Sahib or/and Bhadaur, he will likely be the Punjab Chief Minister of the next government. Yes. But all this is political exigency of the Congress and yet another instance of populism. Incidentally, Channi is not a poor man by any stretch of imagination. As per law, the leader should be elected by the winning team. The core issues of the Dalit and of those living below the poverty line are food, health, education and most importantly, jobs. They are not organised. I think only a poor intellect will confidently believe that only a poor leader can address the core issues of the poor. These issues need a genuine political will, proper planning, prioritisation and the required funds. In the present election imbroglio, no party talks of funds, no one is assured of majority but everyone is building castles in the air. The public is fed on fallacies and falsehoods. Fortunately this time, the voters are disillusioned and understand that politics is the business of politicians. They invest in it and know how to reap the harvest. Their families run the state whether from this party or the other. They have members everywhere and regular lawyers and liars who guide them on this lucrative business of befooling the electorate. Tomorrow, we will have some PM faces. Are we heading for the Presidential system? It needs a thorough discussion.

MOHAN SINGH

Post of CM has been deprecated

In the Punjab electoral history, there has never been such a colossal clamour for forcing the party high-commands for declaration of CM face, particularly by the Congress and AAP candidates. It is a well-known fact that over the last some decades, the regimes have been out and out endeavoured to devastate the state over which they were ruling. The post of CM has been profusely deprecated by the masses as except for lording over the drug, cable, transport, property, and sand mafias, they hardly did anything. The Congress high command was forced to appoint Channi as CM. The CM candidate for SSM has done creditable service to the kisan morcha. The kisans led by Punjab have shown at Delhi that they could defeat the mightiest. But, it is baffling that the same bunch of self-sacrificing super mortals remained silent spectators to the devastation of Punjab. Declaring CM candidate is immaterial, when the majority of the members of the parties remain treasure hunters. AAP candidate, though, reportedly honest, has to follow orders from Delhi.

SS Sandhu

Move to attract Dalit voters

The question asked is relevant not only for Charanjit Singh Channi but to all political parties leaders. This is because nowadays irrespective of party all leaders are busy wooing Dalits by giving tall promises to redress all woes of them. No political party and its leaders are concerned about general category people. All are in pursuit of gathering votes by making tall promises to uplift Dalits as all know that Dalit vote bank will help them win elections. So, there is no doubt that the CM will ensure redressal of core Dalit issues and poverty but at the same time its doubtful that populist measures will be ever taken and implemented. As we are all aware of the fact that whatever our politicians make commitments before elections in their manifestos are never fulfilled on assumption of power by them.

Sanjay Chawla

Parties use religion card to gain votes

Recently, the incumbent CM of Punjab has been declared as chief ministerial face by the Congress high command for the Assembly elections. The announcement was an effort to overcome the core issues related to Dalits. As CM Channi is from Dalit background, thats why he was considered as the best candidate who can resolve issues pertaining to eradication of poverty in state. Political parties always use religion card to gain votes. They need to understand that being a Dalit face is not enough if he is incompetent to operate the economy. A candidate should possess qualities of a true leader who can do welfare of public and is capable to remove corruption in state.

Sukhmeet Kaur

Improve the political set-up of our country

Elections are just around the corner and political parties are using many means to woo voters. Dalits constitute a major part of population and leaders are trying to gain their confidence by many means. Having a CM face belonging to a particular caste has been experimented in the past but there has not been much improvement in the daily lives of these people. It is usually a way for leaders to associate themselves with the public but they forget about the important issues after they come into power. People must be made aware to not fall into such traps but vote for a person based on his/her work performance in the past. People who are committed to their work can improve the lives of Dalits and they are urgently required to improve the political setup of our country.

Jatinderpal Singh Batth

Can be a turning point for Dalits

As Charanjit Singh Channi comes from a poor background, he is quite aware about the common mans woes. For instance, having already waived off the electric bills, he has started revolutionising the world for the Dalits. Not only Dalit issues, he can also work on and improve the conditions of every common man. The Congress must work for their communal harmony by employing them in the government services. According to the doctrine of right to equality, the category discrimination must be completely removed by the Congress in Punjab. Having a very supportive group of leaders in Punjab, the Congresss small steps can prove to be the turning point in the lives of the Dalits.

Nimish Sehgal

Expectations would certainly be high

Charanjit Singh Channi has been declared as the CM face of Punjab by the Congress. Almost one third (32 percent) of Punjabs population is Dalit, which is the highest for any Indian state. The Dalit voters are many in numbers in the state and their expectations would be certainly high from the Channi if congress party wins. There are numerous issues of Dalit community in Punjab and Channi should pay heed to that since Channi is the only hope for them. Besides, Channi should also take care the predicament of other communities too since being a CM is the huge responsibility and one should perform it with dedication and conviction.

SAAHIL HANS

Dalit votes hard to resist for anyone

The Congresss initiative of declaring Channi as the CM face in the state elections is nothing but a desperate political maneuver with the sole motive

of enhancing the prospects of winning elections. It has nothing to do with uplifting the Dalit community and removing the poverty as claimed by Congress leadership. The candidature of Channi is nothing more than an attempt of using Dalit narrative to garner maximum votes to retain power in the state. But how far the exercise is going to benefit the party is a serious subject of debate. Akali Dal has also tried to woo Dalit votes by promising deputy chief ministership to a Dalit candidate for which even alliance with the BSP was formed. Dalit votes which constitute roughly 32% of Punjab electorate are hard to resist by power greedy political parties which otherwise have lost their credibility due to wide spread corruption, patronised and unabated nexus of various mafia gangs with the government earlier headed by both Akali Dal and Congress.

Jagdish Chander

Vote for those having good credentials

Rahul Gandhi has played a trump card with the naming of Charanjit Singh Channi as the chief ministerial candidate. But, only if the Congress party gets a majority of seats in the coming assembly elections, Dalit Chief Minister will get for the Congress majority of SC and BC votes. Since Independence, Congress used to get good number of votes from these classes all over the country. But its percentage declined over time as many parties got their votes. Previously it was vote-bank politics for the Congress. No more. Many parties promise many things to the voters, particularly the SC and BC population. Subsequently, they dont fulfil their promises. It is true of all the parties. With the SC and BC population more than 30%in Punjab, the Congress may get majority of their votes. Is the Dalit CM face answer to all the problems of those communities and ensure redressal is a moot point. With many parties in the fray, its unlikely that any single party will get majority of seats. I think there would be a hung Assembly and a coalition government would be in the chair. People have to be watchful and vote only for the party and candidate whose work and credentials are reliable and good. Now the ball is in the court of the people.

JS Wadhwa

Political system need extensive reforms

As the polling date to Punjab Assembly is getting nearer, political parties are leaving no stone unturned to garner votes to their favour. This time, it is a multi pronged contest among candidates as pre-poll alliances are far less. Now that the election campaign is at full momentum, political parties are making various strategies and offering all kinds of sops to allure voters. To fetch favour of 40 per cent SC/ST population of the state, every party is proposing higher berths to them in government, on coming to power. As the winning margins in these polls are anticipated so close, they are all out to polarise the society on volatile line of caste, creed and religion for electoral gains. Surprisingly, the major issues like mounting debt burden & depleting groundwater concerning the State are left to occupy the back seat. After declaration of next CMs face by AAP and SAD, Congress party has also announced incumbent CM Channi as their face for another term. Though the objective is to attract Dalit votes by signalling to address their core issues, it is paradoxical to predict that the communal card may tilt the electoral balance to their side, since the party is fighting broad dissent over ticket allocation besides anti incumbency. Notwithstanding some improvements in the past, our political system still demands extensive reforms, where division of votes on caste and creed basis has to be curbed.

Nirmaljit Singh Chatrath

Populist schemes upsets state economy

Congress has decided to play power game on the issue of Dalits by projecting the present Chief Minister Charanjit Singh Channi as its CM face in the state to woo the Dalit vote bank. Congress is focusing on Dalits vote bank but the issue arises that whether it will succeed in securing more votes of Dalits than the other political parties who have their core cadre of Dalits in BJP, BSP, and SAD (B). Chief Minister Charanjit Singh Channi has already announced liberal policies during his tenure. Populist schemes are always announced in the pre-poll period but if implemented in the post election period upsets the economy and further exceeds the states debit. Punjab is already under heavy debt from the Centre. Wait and watch is the ultimate result to be witnessed after the counting of votes, Jo Jeeta Wohi Sikander.

RAJAT KUMAR MOHINDRU

Bid to divert attention from real issues

Amid accusations of non-performance, severe internal wrangling and large-scale defections, the Congress announcement to pick the incumbent CM Charanjit Singh Channi to lead the party in the upcoming Assembly elections is solely aimed at wooing the crucial Dalit-OBC vote-bank that has a sizeable population in Punjab. Channi has openly declared that education, health and employment are his priorities; it has a special appeal for the marginalised sections which bear the brunt of inadequate infrastructure in these areas. Moreover, they face problems of equal socio-economic rights, untouchability, residential plots and cultivatable land. But to keep his commitment will be a formidable task as Punjab is in dire financial straits.

D S Kang

QUESTION

As Punjab votes on February 20, what should voters keep in mind while deciding which party should be at the helm of affairs for the next five years. What vision should one have for a prosperous Punjab while exercising franchise?

Suggestions in not more than 200 words can be sent to amritsardesk@tribunemail.comby Thursday (February 17)

#charanjit channi #Dalit

See the original post:

Open House: Will the dalit CM face ensure resolution of Dalit issues & poverty, beyond populist measures? - The Tribune India

Despite ric Zemmour's grand entrance into the French presidential racein which the right-wing politician was expected to contend for second placerecent polling puts him in fourth behind established right-wing party candidates Marine Le Pen and Valrie Pcresse, who are neck-and-neck for second. But regardless of which woman makes it to the runoff against Emmanuel Macron, polling indicates neither has a solid chance of rallying enough voters to defeat the incumbent. The probable defeats of Pcresse and Le Pen risk being the swan songs of both the already weakened political parties they lead: Les Rpublicains and the National Rally, the historical center-right and far-right parties, respectively. Their fading legitimacy raises the question of what lies ahead for the French right, which is proportionally the largest ideological force in France, encompassing over 40 percent of French voters. In the political long game that will begin post-election, Zemmour and his call for a "union of the rights" will play a central role in any attempts to forge a new right-wing political force capable of winning elections.

Since announcing his run, Zemmour has aimed for an unprecedented union of the different right-wing elements in France. This idea gained traction in the past decade in both far-right and traditional right-wing militant circles as an innovative strategy to win elections, but its rise has correlated with the structural weakening of Les Rpublicains and National Rally.

Les Rpublicains has historically been the center of gravity of a heterogenous "Gaullist" right: from centrists and economic liberals to security and immigration hawks to cultural conservatives. This ability to unite diverse strains of the right enabled Les Rpublicains to succeed electorally in the past. Until now, they have refused any alliance with the far-right, branding themselves not as a party of populism but as a party capable of governing.

Nevertheless, in recent years under the leadership of Laurent Wauquiez, the party worked diligently to woo far-right voters by adopting their themes and rhetoric. This strategy enjoyed support amongst the party's militants, who had broadly begun warming to the idea of a union of different right-wing elements. However, it did not suit all ideological factions, and many centrist elements of the party departedincluding current presidential nominee Valrie Pcresse.

The current regional council presidentsomewhat similar to a governorof the wealthy and culturally liberal Ile-de-France region that encompasses Paris, Pcresse rejoined Les Rpublicains and won the party's presidential primary by campaigning as an experienced moderate capable of reuniting the center-right. However, this reconciliation has little chance of holding after the election if Pcresse loses. A loss would likely pull the party apart; centrist elements will continue their already significant flight to Emmanuel Macron's party, La Rpublique en Marche, while the hard-right factions of Les Rpublicains will defect to Zemmour, whose beliefs they largely share. Recent defections by two of Les Rpublicains' former leaders, Eric Woerth to Macron and Guillaume Peltier to Zemmour, foreshadow what is to come.

The picture for the National Rally party is even more dire. Marine Le Pen has lost favor among her base through her attempts at moderating the party's positions to widen its electoral appeal. A large part of this base has been absorbed by Zemmour (the summer prior to his candidacy, Le Pen was polling at 25 percent, but is at 16 percent today). Furthermore, Le Pen has already lost two presidential runs, and it is unlikely her leadership will survive a third.

Without any logical successor to Le Pen, many in her party will abandon the debt-ridden National Rally for Zemmour's new, ideologically similar Reconquest party, which benefits from a war chest filled with the dues of its over 100,000 members. Here again, the defection of prominent National Rally leaders to Zemmour, from Gilbert Collard to Jean Messiha, foreshadows what is to come.

It is unclear whether Zemmour's vision for a "union of the rights" is totally realistic. There are important ideological differences between the Gaullist right and the far-right, including disagreements over economic liberalism, the European Union and the future of the welfare state. However, there is consensus on the need for increased state authority and security, as well as an overhaul of immigration and assimilation policiesprecisely the themes Zemmour has focused on. The deterioration of the other parties, combined with the ascendance of the Reconquest Party, will enable Zemmour to act as kingmaker in the realignment that is to come. His influence will also solidify the role of populism, as long as it advocates for the defense of the notion of a French people and civilization, as a primary goal for the French right. If such a reconstruction occurs and proves capable of winning elections, the implications for the future strength of European populism cannot be understated.

Anglique Talmor is a graduate student at Harvard's Kennedy School and a fellow at the Tikvah Fund.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

Read more from the original source:

Win or Lose, ric Zemmour is the Future of the French Right | Opinion - Newsweek

Chart

11:54

by UnHerd Staff

credit: Getty

Castile and Leon is a huge landlocked region to the north of Madrid. Yesterday its people went to the polls to elect a new Cortes or regional assembly.

The ruling conservative Peoples Party (PP) called the election early after falling out with their coalition partners, the liberal Citizens party. But while the latter were almost wiped out, the PP made only modest gains. (See here for full results).

Instead, the balance of power will now be held by the Right-wing populist Vox party. Compared to the last election in 2019, Vox increased its vote share from 5.5% to 17.6%. From winning just one seat three years ago, it now holds 13 out of 81.

Thats still a long way behind the second-placed Socialists who now hold 28 seats (a loss of seven), but Vox is now the most obvious coalition partner for the first-placed Peoples Party which has 31 seats (a gain of two).

The significance for the rest of Spain is clear. Yesterdays result confirms a pattern seen in the national polls the conservatives inching forward, the Left dropping back, the centrists collapsing and Right-wing populists poised to make gains. In fact, compared to the polls, Vox somewhat exceeded expectations in Castile and Len.

If this pattern holds until the next general election which needs to be held no later than December next year then Spain faces the previously unthinkable: the return of the radical Right to power.

It should be said that Vox is not as far to the Right as General Franco was. Nor is there any credible scenario in which it ends up ruling Spain alone. By far the likeliest path into national office is as a junior coalition partner to the Peoples Party.

Nevertheless, the fact is that there are no no-go areas for populism in Europe. Both Spain and Portugal, once thought to have been immunised by their history of dictatorship, are clearly susceptible.

See the article here:

In Spain, the Right-wing edges closer to power - UnHerd

John Geddes: The convoy chaos suggests Canadians are just as susceptible to Trump-like forces as Americans. Our real advantages lie in our political system.

Its hard to cling to faith in the orderly temperament of Canadians with streets and bridges blockaded, diesel fumes hanging heavy in the winter air. No matter how the convoy chaos in Ottawa (and beyond) is ultimately resolved, this episode should spell an end to illusions about Canadas supposedly peaceable culture and moderate character insulating our country from the scary side of right-wing populism.

In fact, the notion that theres something in the Canadian disposition that makes us less susceptible than the Americans were to Donald Trump (or the Brits to Brexit, or the French to their far-right presidential contenders) has never been all that convincing. Sure, a big majority of Canadians overall disapproved of Trump, but we should have taken heed when an Ekos Research poll at the outset of his dystopian presidency showed that 57 per cent of Conservative voters in Canada viewed him favourably.

And Canada has its share of the factors that strain social cohesion, including economic anxiety, nativist intolerance, regional resentmentsall exacerbated by the nerve-fraying frustrations of the pandemic. Yet this doesnt mean we should abandon hope that sensible, centrist politics might stand a better chance of prevailing here than in some other democracies. Its just that we should trust less in the mysteries of Canadian identity, and more in the advantages of our political system, and key policies and practices that have flowed from it.

The first factor to keep in mind these days is the outsized clout of sparsely populated states in the U.S. Senate, and hence in Washingtons power dynamic. At the federal level, theres nothing in Canada that parallels the way, say, Vermont elects two senators and so does New York, or Wyoming two and so does California. In Ottawa, the big provinces with the big cities wield legislative power at the federal level commensurate with their large, diverse populations.

But that shouldnt be mistaken for meaning resentment of what Toronto and Ottawa symbolize across much of Canada is less virulent than antagonism toward what New York and Washington represent across vast swaths of the U.S. map. Its just that our Parliament doesnt lend the less populous regions nearly as much legislative leverage. Our system is different, not our psyche.

Or consider the way elections are run. In the U.S., local and state control over the voting process has led to the sort of wildly varying rulebooks that Trump and his allies tried to exploit to sow confusion after he lost the 2020 presidential vote. In the early years after Confederation, Canadian elections were also largely local affairs, and subject to confusion and corruption. That was largely fixed in 1885, when the national election processes we benefit from today were instituted.

Dirty politics, though, persisted. For example, gerrymandering was a long-running scandal in Canada up until a key 1964 reform finally took the key task of mapping of ridings out of the hands of party functionaries, and gave the job to upright independent commissions. In the U.S., constituency boundaries for seats in the House of Representatives remain notoriously subject to being redrawn to favour one party or the other. History shows that Canadians arent inherently more fair-minded. We owe our edge to far-sighted reformers who made the right change when the opportunity arose.

Canadians also shake their heads at the highly politicizedeven polarizednature of U.S. judicial appointments. No serious watcher of Canadas courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, pretends judges dont bring their own ideologies to the bench. But the Canadian process for picking them remains far less tainted by partisanship than in the U.S., and that must be safeguarded to preserve whats left of public faith in institutional authority.

This is another advantage Canadians shouldnt take for granted. Sean Fine, the Globe and Mails veteran justice reporter, has flagged concerns about Ontarios excellent appointment system becoming more exposed to the preferences of the party in power. As well, the Globe reported a few years ago on the federal Liberal government checking potential judges names through a party database. The eye-glazing details of selection processes will never generate sustained public concern, but we need journalists and independent experts to be vigilant and vocal.

This sort of Canads-U.S. compare-and-contrast exercise leads inevitably to an even more fraught issue. Is Canadian politics less twisted by racism? That question is too big for this piece, but I can point to research from academics like University of Torontos Phil Triadalopoulos, who have shown how Canadas immigration policies, dating back to the reforms of the 1960s, offered an easier path to citizenship and fostered greater democratic participation among new Canadians.

Those engaged newcomers tend to concentrate in Toronto and Vancouver, often in suburbs where party election strategists know they must be competitive to have any hope of prevailing in national elections. In this way, immigration policy loops back to reinforce the way power in Parliament properly reflects population density and diversity. (And it helps that getting rid of gerrymandering meant nobody could redraw the electoral map to erase the ballot-box clout of any inconvenient voters.)

These and other ways Canadas democracy looks healthier, compared with the U.S., dont rest on some underlying Canadian sensibleness, some congenital propensity to moderation. In other words, theres nothing in our national character we can count to make us less likely to gather for an unruly, unreasonable protest, issue blatantly undemocratic demands, and lay siege to the capital. Theres also nothing to stop certain duly elected politicians from actually praising such actions. It turns out Canada and the U.S. have this in common.

When the diesel fumes clear, there will be plenty of agonizing over misguided motivations and uncivil inclinations. Fair enough. But soul-searching is less important that recognizing the strongest elements in how our democracy works, and build on the parts that hold firm even when our sentimental sense of our national character is rudely shaken.

See the original post:

Whats actually standing in the way of right-wing populism in Canada? - Maclean's

Breadcrumb Trail Links

I fear that for far too many of those occupying the streets of downtown Ottawa, it was never about vaccines.

Publishing date:

What happens when the rules and accepted norms of a democratic society are threatened by those who violently reject the safeguards of order and stability? The events of the last several days in downtown Ottawa have provided a disturbing glimpse into such a world, a place where mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.

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

What allegedly began as a protest against cross-border vaccination requirements quickly descended into a shrill and incoherent exercise in public disorder, fuelled by a toxic stew of abusive language and often violent, anti-social behaviour. Some of the leaders tactics bordered on the fantastical, notably the manifesto calling on the Governor General and the Senate to override the democratically elected House of Commons.

Those behind the siege clearly lack even a basic awareness of parliamentary responsible government, likewise the division of federal-provincial powers. The fact that the vast majority of vaccine-related mandates fall under provincial responsibility appears to have escaped them. Then again, those responsible for such heinous acts as desecrating monuments to our war dead and threatening staff at a homeless shelter are unlikely to care about the nuances of the Constitution. Their use of our national flag and the Charter of Rights as props to justify their actions is an insult to the values that underlie both of those symbols. Intimidating citizens living and working in the downtown area makes a mockery of the protesters alleged concern with freedom.

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

The tactics of the protesters are also part and parcel of a growing and disturbing phenomenon which has come to characterize populism. We like to think of populism as an expression of public will. But populism is a two-sided coin. The dark side of populism is demonstrated by authoritarian tactics aimed at subverting democratic institutions and the rule of law. It is hardly surprising, for example, to hear that Donald Trump has been cheering on the Ottawa siege. This is, after all, the man who sat and watched as his supporters sought to violently overthrow the results of a democratic election. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, another self-described populist, had no hesitation in seeking to demonize Parliament during the Brexit debate. Coercive tactics, including violence, are regular features of populist political movements in France, Italy, Hungary and elsewhere.

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

Certainly one of the most distressing aspects of recent events in Ottawa is the descent of the Conservative Party, now engaged in a time-honoured tradition of in-fighting. Deposed party leader Erin OToole has no one to blame but himself. He shamelessly courted the right wing of his party while running for leader, then swiftly tacked to the centre during the 2021 federal election, leaving both hard-liners and moderates bewildered and doubtful of his convictions. His position on vaccinations proved wildly out of step with public opinion, geared more towards pacifying the anti-vaccine elements within his own party; likewise his flaccid response to the tactics of the protesters.

The strongest condemnation, however, should be reserved for those MPs, including Ottawa-area MP Pierre Polievre, who make excuses for this occupation because they imagine it serves their own narrow political ends, with no thought for the consequences of this implicit endorsement of mob action. It is particularly shocking that someone like Saskatchewan MP Andrew Scheer has cheered on the siege. This is a man who was once Speaker of the House of Commons, and as such custodian of the rules and conventions which are the foundation of our parliamentary system of responsible government. That such a person could cheer on lawlessness is a stain on democratic society. Other Conservative MPs who spent their time taking selfies with participants in this occupation have shown a shocking and contemptuous lack of civic responsibility.

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

I fear that for far too many of those occupying the streets of downtown Ottawa, it was never about vaccines. In the 2008 filmThe Dark Knight, Batman struggles to understand the motives behind The Jokers violent crime spree. Neither money nor power seem to be the reason behind it all. It appears to be nothing more than chaos for its own sake. Batmans wise counsellor, Alfred, supplies the answer:

Some men arent looking for anything logical, like money. They cant be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to see the world burn.

Michael Kaczorowski lives in Ottawa and is a retired senior policy adviser with the federal government.

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

Sign up to receive daily headline news from Ottawa Citizen, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

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

The next issue of Ottawa Citizen Headline News will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

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

Visit link:

Kaczorowski: The dark side of populism is at work in the truck protest - Ottawa Citizen

Viewpoint by Jan Servaes *

BRUSSELS (IDN) Military coups d'tat posed the greatest threat to democracies during the Cold War, until about 1990, and were responsible for nearly three out of every four democratic collapses. Democracies in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Thailand, Turkey and Uruguay all died in this way.

Africa seems to be the continent where military coups are still the preferred way to topple a sitting government. It is estimated that there have been at least 100 successful coups in Africa in the past four decades, with more than twice the number of coup attempts. Burkina Faso tops the list with seven coups in less than the past 20 months. Experts say coups are prevalent in Africa due to incompetent leadership and corruption.

Also in Southeast Asia, we commemorated the first 'anniversary' of the coup against Ang San Suu Kyi in Myanmar on February 1. A few years ago, in 2014, the democratically elected Thai government was overthrown by General Prayuth Chan-ocha, who, after rewriting the constitution and rigging the electoral law, is still in power.

However, while coup proofing is typically portrayed as a tactic of dictators, it is also used in democracies. Therefore, since 1990 democracies have mainly died from within: killed by elected autocrats. Like Hugo Chvez in Venezuela, elected leaders have undermined democratic institutions in Cambodia, Georgia, Hungary, Nicaragua, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Sri Lanka, Turkey and Ukraine, among others.

In most parts of the world trust in democracy (all-in-all limited, because not applicable to the economic field) is declining. This decline goes hand in hand with a deterioration of the freedom of civil liberties and human rights. Freedom of the press is rapidly shrinking to invisibility in Russia under Putin, and in Xi Jinping's China. And the way Hindu nationalist Modi stirs up tensions between Hindus and Muslims in India is unworthy of "the largest democracy in the world."

Even in the US, that under President Joe Biden is still posing as the world champion of democracy, democracy is under threat according to a detailed and historically sound analysis by Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt: How Democracies Die. They show how elected autocrats in different parts of the world use remarkably similar strategies to undermine democratic institutions.

Though it is premature to argue that military coups are outdated; in general, however, it can be said that since the end of the Cold War, most democracies have slid into authoritarian or autocratic regimes without the presence of boots in the streets.

Democracies slide towards autocracy

Many government attempts to undermine democracy are "legal" in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They can even be portrayed as attempts to improve democracymake the judiciary more efficient, fight corruption or clean up the electoral process.

Newspapers still publish but are bought off or bullied into self-censorship. Citizens continue to criticize the government but are often confronted with tax or other legal problems. This sows public confusion. People don't immediately realize what's going on. Many continue to 'believe' that they live under a democracy.

Now the democratic setback begins at the ballot box

Democratic backlash begins today with elections. The electoral road to collapse is dangerously deceptive. Levitsky and Ziblatt argue that recognizing patterns of democratic breakdown is important. As these patterns become apparent, the steps to degradation become less ambiguous. Knowing how citizens in other democracies have successfully resisted elected autocrats, or why they tragically failed to do so, is essential for those who want to defend democracy today, they contend.

Can Democracy Isolate Extremists and Populists?

An essential test for democracies is whether political leaders, and especially political parties, succeed in isolating popular extremists (including those within their own ranks). Because argue Levitsky and Ziblatt, when fear, expediency or miscalculation drives established parties to bring populists into the mainstream, democracy is in jeopardy.

Once an authoritarian aspiring to power comes to power, democracies face a second critical test: will the autocratic leader undermine or limit democratic institutions?

Institutions alone don't stop autocrats

Institutions alone are not enough to keep elected autocrats in check. Constitutions must be defendedby political parties and organized citizens, but also by democratic standards. Without robust standards, constitutional checks and balances do not serve as the bulwarks of democracy as we envision them. Institutions become political weapons, wielded forcefully by those who control them, against those who don't.

Autocrats Abuse Institutions to kill democracy

This is how elected autocrats undermine democracy: packing and 'arming' the courts and other neutral bodies, buying off or silencing the media and the private sector, and rewriting the rules of politics to tilt the playing field against opponents.

The tragic paradox of the electoral road to authoritarianism is that the killers of democracy use democratic institutionsgradually, subtly and even legallyto kill it (p. 8).

Indicators of authoritarian behavior

The current political climate in Western democracies, especially the United States, is characterized by increasing ideological polarization. What causes or initiates this erosion of democratic institutions? The four main indicators, or behavioural warnings, of authoritarian behaviour outlined by Levitsky and Ziblatt are (1) the rejection, in word or deed, of the democratic rules of the game, (2) the denial of the legitimacy of political opponents, (3) tolerating or encouraging violence, and (4) a willingness to curtail the civil liberties of opponents, including the media.

These four main indicators of authoritarian behaviour can be summarized as follows (on pp. 23-24):

The election of Donald Trump has sparked much debate about the fate of American democracy. Does the election of a figure like Donald Trumpan inexperienced outsider with obvious authoritarian instinctssuggest that democracy in the US is on the decline? Indeed, according to Levitsky and Ziblatt, we should be wary because Trump exemplifies each of the aforementioned characteristics (pp. 65-67).

Was 2016 Trump's rise a turning point?

Until 2016, the American democratic system was able to resist such authoritarian tendencies and exclude overt demagoguery in two ways, both formally and informally.

Until Trump's rise, the gatekeepers of democracy (p. 37), such as political party leaders and bosses, effectively marginalized extremists from their parties on both the left and right sides of the political spectrum.

But Levitsky and Ziblatt argue that democracy cannot survive only through formal political channels. Democrats do have written rules (constitutions) and umpires (the courts). But these work best, and survive longest, in countries where written constitutions follow their own unwritten rules, i.e. are the soft guardrails of democracy (p. 101).

The importance of mutual and institutional tolerance

Two crucial informal norms that the authors emphasize and explain as the robustness of American democracy are (1) mutual tolerance and (2) institutional forbearance.

The first norm refers to recognizing the legitimacy of one's political opponents to fight for power through the democratic process, as long as they play within constitutional rules (p. 102). Mutual tolerance precludes the use, or even encouragement, of threats and violence to prevent political opponents from competing for office.

The second standard is closely related to the rule of law; institutional forbearance means that elected officials cannot take legal action that intentionally favours one group of individuals at the expense of another. For example, the introduction of poll taxes or literacy tests, such as those that took place throughout the US post-Civil War reconstruction South, were generally applied to the entire population, with no reference to race. Southern states, however, passed these laws, knowing that the intended effect would be to disenfranchise African Americans who overwhelmingly voted Democratic, and therefore restored Republican dominance in the South. This example was a violation of institutional forbearance: it was not worthy of the rule of law.

The reversal of these anti-democratic measures through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Levitsky and Ziblatt say, had a polarizing by-product, triggering a partisan realignment between Republicans and Democrats along ideological lines. With the disappearance of conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans after this reshuffle, the common ground between the parties gradually disappeared (p. 169).

What further fuelled this political polarization, which eroded democratic norms, was the emergence of a system of presidential primaries. From 1972, the vast majority of delegates to both the Democratic and Republican conventions would be elected in state-level primaries and caucuses (p. 50). This shift in the political selection process meant that the road to nomination no longer had to go through the party establishment. For the first time, the party's gatekeepers could be bypassed (p. 51). Placing presidential nominations increasingly in the hands of voters eroded the pre-existing peer-review process of candidates and opened the door to political outsiders.

These formal changes, coupled with the rise of social media (p. 56), would unleash a political dynamic, with each party increasingly targeting its ideological base from which a populist candidate like Donald Trump could emerge, independent of the political establishment and with complete disregard for democratic norms. Even, according to Levitsky and Ziblatt, if the Trump presidency failed to break through the 'hard guardrails' or the formal institutions of our constitutional republic, by eroding the informal democratic norms of mutual tolerance and institutional forbearance, "he has increased the likelihood that a future president will (p. 203).

Political lessons

What political lessons can we draw from How Democracies Die, given the institutional erosion of democratic norms? Given our polarized political environment, how can we save democracy from itself?

Use institutions where they exist

Where institutional channels exist, argue Levitsky and Ziblatt, opposition groups should use them (p. 217). Indeed, using extrajudicial means and other political measures to oppose a potential demagogue will only have a series of consequences undesirable for proponents of democracy, namely increasing political polarization and legitimizing the erosion of democracy. Therefore, opposition to authoritarian tendencies in democracy should try to preserve, rather than violate, democratic rules and norms (p. 217).

Take political parties out of the clutches of interest groups

All this implies that the reduction of political polarization requires political parties to escape the clutches of interest groups, as the authors argue (p. 223). However, it fundamentally requires the elimination of political discretion, the foundation on which interest groups lobby not only for special privileges, but also the foundation on which authoritarianism is built. As Levitsky and Ziblatt argue, most "elected autocrats begin by offering prominent political, business, or media figures public positions, favours, perks, or outright bribes in exchange for their support or, at the very least, their quiet neutrality" (pp. 8182). Therefore, the road to authoritarianism can only be prevented if political parties are banned from writing laws and granting privileges intended to favor one interest group at the expense of another.

How to restore democracy?

The Republican Party, meanwhile, has become increasingly aligned with Trump and appears to be uniting around a strategy of actively collaborating with him in its efforts to remove the barriers to American democracy. Given this state of affairs, how can American democracy be restored?

According to Levitsky and Ziblatt, democracy can only be saved by forging broad, pro-democracy coalitions that cross racial, gender, ethnic, religious and socioeconomic boundaries. Their nature and composition allow them to appeal to a wider part of the country and transcend the partisan divide that consumes current politics. This partial elimination of partisan tensions can lead to depolarization, which in turn reinforces democratic norms of mutual tolerance and institutional forbearance.

The lack of a diverse coalition to maintain it could go a long way to explaining why the Republican Party is in such a dysfunctional state. It is predominantly a party of white Christians who are relatively less numerous in society. As long as it maintains this basic makeup, the Republican Party will simply not be able to act as a pro-democracy force in an increasingly diverse society.

Accordingly, the Republican Party should expand its appeal to a more diverse cross-section of the electorate. Only when it becomes a "big tent" party stretching across religious and ethnic lines can the Republican Party resume its function as the centre-right and conservative benchmark of American democracy.

The key is to get American politics to both embody strong democratic standards and ensure effective political representation for all members of a diverse society. Only then will democracy really stand on solid ground.

The book How Democracies Die offers important insights into how autocrats are emerging and provides both warning signs for the US and a potentially hopeful way forward. The book is filled with impressive historical research and analysis. It is profound in its insights, and its conclusions are shocking. Anyone left unimpressed and unaffected deserves what he or she receives," concludes Roger Abrams in The New York Journal of Books.

Steven Levitsky & Daniel Ziblatt (2018). How democracies die, B/D/W/Y Broadway Books, New York, 308 pp. (ISBN 978-1-5247-6294-0)

https://crownpublishing.com/archives/feature/democracies-die-steven-levitsky-daniel-ziblatt [IDN-InDepthNews 05 February 2022]

* Jan Servaes was UNESCO-Chair in Communication for Sustainable Social Change at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. He taught international communication in Australia, Belgium, China, Hong Kong, the US, Netherlands and Thailand, in addition to short-term projects at about 120 universities in 55 countries. He is editor of the 2020 Handbook on Communication for Development and Social Change

https://link.springer.com/referencework/10.1007/978-981-10-7035-8

Photo credit: https://thealtworld.com/andrew_korybko/the-moral-dilemma-of-every-color-revolution-coup-democratic-security-movement

IDN is the flagship agency of the Non-profit International Press Syndicate.

Visit us on Facebook and Twitter.

We believe in the free flow of information. Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, except for articles that are republished with permission.

Continue reading here:

Are Democracies Slowly Dying in The Age of Authoritarianism and Populism? - IDN InDepthNews | Analysis That Matters