Articles | World Democracy Now

I have an excellent command over the English language, with a graduate degree from London University and 35 years of experience in the engineering industry. After my retirement in 2004, I have pursued my passion for writing – both technical and creative. I have just completed an assignment of 25 technical articles (each of 500+ words) for an American engineering company. I also have a monthly column in a magazine and am a member of its advisory board. I also blog; and you can read my articles on (ArticlesBase SC #2929946)

Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/ – Rape of Democracy

India is a functioning democracy – of sorts. It has been one since it gained independence from Great Britain over 60 years ago. On the face of it, this is an impressive achievement in a region that has had its fair share of military coups (Pakistan, Bangladesh and Burma) and a civil war (Sri Lanka). As an Indian, I am both proud and mortified, because the democracy we have managed to sustain is flawed, at best; and downright venal at worst. It is also an object lesson to emerging Third World nations that it is not enough for a country to proclaim itself a democracy; it requires vigilance and effort to make it work.

A recent news item reports how the Bombay Municipal Corporation purchased three hi-tech jet-patchers to repair the notorious pot holes on Mumbai roads, at a cost of Rs. 78 lakhs ($160,000) each two years ago; and is yet to put them in use. Even more staggering is the revelation that the corporation then awarded the maintenance contract to a favoured firm for an incredible 68 crores ($1.40 million). In other words, the annual maintenance contract cost is more than 25 times the cost of the equipment itself; a feat that must surely qualify for the Guinness book of records. However, that is not the real issue here.

The imminent Commonwealth Games to be held in Delhi are supposed to announce India’s emergence as an economic and political superpower. What they are showcasing instead is India continuing to remain a third world nation. With the first monsoon showers, the roof of a shooting range, constructed just two months ago, has collapsed. At another stadium, the false ceiling has come down; and leakages are prevalent at most other venues. The usual culprit, of course, is shoddy construction, a result of contracts being awarded at unrealistically low rates – with the contractors groaning under the added compulsion of giving a substantial cut to the babus who hand out the contracts. This is not the issue either.

The Times of India is running a series of articles under the heading “Mumbai for Sale”. They describe how unscrupulous politicians are virtually gifting away prime plots of government land to favoured builders at throwaway rates – and greatly enriching themselves in the process. They have been doing this for decades; and it is one of the city’s worst kept secrets. Everybody knows, but we just shrug our shoulders and get on with our lives. What can we do, after all? Hardly a day goes by without the media revealing a financial scam, or the Anti-Corruption Bureau trapping some public official accepting a bribe. That’s all very well, but what happens to the perpetrators? They are suspended or transferred; and then quietly reinstated – sometimes even promoted – after the public has lost interest. Even the few who are actually charge sheeted are promptly released on bail. This is virtually the same as an acquittal, since their cases are unlikely to be heard for years. Some deterrent.

The root of the problem with this country is that apathy, callousness and wasteful profligacy in spending public money by government agencies has become so commonplace that it hardly registers on the public consciousness. Even worse, our “leaders” are so shameless that they are least bothered by frequent exposure of their wrongdoings in the media. They carry right on with business as usual. The tragedy is compounded by the reality that we, the people, pride ourselves on living in a democracy without having any notion of what that entails. We accept the sloth and rampant corruption prevalent among our public “servants” to be as inevitable as death and taxes; and something we have no control over.

And therein lies the rub. We do have control. But either through indifference or a feeling of helplessness, we choose not to exercise it. Not only that, we actually abet their nefarious activities. The corruption we bitterly complain about cannot happen without our active participation. How many of us would rather pay a bribe to “get our work done”, rather than make the effort to report the corrupt ones and file a complaint? Is it any wonder that our venal government officials regard the receiving of bribes as their due – rather like the tribute Roman emperors used to expect from their subjects.

That is our first mistake. We are not subjects, we are citizens. In a democracy, power is supposed to flow from the people to elected representatives. In India, however, it happens the other way round. The people we elect ride roughshod over us because we let them. The so-called intelligentsia, me included, delude ourselves that we are making a difference by writing articles and letters to the editor; and appearing on panel discussions on television. However, the only reaction we provoke in those we condemn is mild amusement – even contempt. We don’t hold any threat to them because we don’t matter. They would fear us a lot more if, instead of pontificating to an audience that does not matter to them either, we went out and voted. The only weapon that terrifies them is the ballot box, with its implied threat of removing them from power. And they are experts at nullifying that danger. They cultivate and pamper the people who actually do go out and vote; the poorer sections of society who can be bought for a few hundred rupees. And these are the very people we “the elite” tend to ignore. They are not “one of us”. We just cannot communicate with them. And so, we continue playing right into the hands of those who make us tear out our hair in frustration.

Our leaders, many of whom come from humble or outright criminal backgrounds, tend to behave like mini-emperors as soon as they are appointed to ministerial or legislative positions. They brazenly make it apparent that one set of rules applies to them, which is quite distinct from those the rest of us are forced to live by. They have been doing this for decades and we continue to allow them to get away with it. What is the explanation for this phenomenon? Is there some marker in the genetic make-up of Indians that makes us content to be subservient? Have we been so conditioned by centuries of existence as a conquered people, that we expect, nay need, masters or “mai-baap” to lord it over us? Why do we accept is as the natural order of how things are?

Even in countries like the Philippines, Romania and Poland – to name just a few – which went through a long period of dictatorial rule, the people reached a tipping point of tolerance and rose up to overthrow the despots. But here in democratic India, where the people have been given the constitutional power to keep our elected representatives in check, we choose not to exercise it. We endure instance after instance of skulduggery, brazen criminality and sheer incompetence on the part of our leaders; and we just let them slide. The intellectuals and others who profess to be the conscience of the nation do not even bother to vote.

It is not as if there are no men and women of integrity and honour in India. There are hundreds of thousands of them; and they exist in every section of society. Unfortunately, for our politicians, they hold the same value as an illiterate labourer, or even a common criminal. The fault lies with our system of universal franchise. Our founding fathers no doubt had noble intentions when they proposed that the vote of each Indian would have equal value; and that every eligible Indian would be entitled. Perhaps in their idealistic fervour, they overlooked the reality that there is no one India, but several. Each is defined and bound by factors such as poverty, caste and region; and they have virtually nothing in common with each other. Only a fraction of the country’s population has the luxury of independent thought and reasoning. The rest are fully occupied just trying to survive. They are eminently susceptible to false promises and negligible handouts, because when you have nothing, even a pittance can seem like manna from heaven. Not surprisingly, it is the second, larger group that is targeted and cultivated by the politicians. They pay lip service to the so-called elite, but secretly deride us, since we are no threat to them.

Ever since the end of the era of stalwarts like Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel, who fought for India’s freedom and provided its first government, the quality of our “leaders” has been steadily deteriorating. Not that the first lot was without flaws. Nehru institutionalized inefficiency and sloth in the working of government officials and, with his irrational partiality for socialism and the Soviet model, almost bankrupted the nation. But there was no denying that he, along with his cabinet colleagues, was a man of integrity and a genuine desire to improve the lot of the people. Ever since then, the venality of India’s political class has increased exponentially – and the less said about their notion of public service, the better. The reason is obvious. Their aspiration to hold political office is motivated solely by their intention to make as much money as possible in the shortest feasible time. Everything else, like servicing the portfolio they ostensibly hold, is secondary. That is why decisions are inordinately delayed and public works are almost never completed on schedule and under budget.

So can anything be done to make the people we elect to govern us actually do so? Can we make them accountable for their misdeeds? Can we get rid of the blackguards and get a political class we can actually trust and look up to? On the face of it, it seems an uphill, almost impossible task. Yes we, the people, have made a tentative start by forcing the government to establish the Right To Information Act, although experience has taught us that getting any worthwhile information from official agencies is like squeezing blood from a stone. Yes the mainstream television and newspaper media regularly exposes the various scams and shady deals politicians indulge in. But it seems to make no real difference on the ground. At most, the political parties dispatch their designated spokesmen to participate in television debates which generate a lot of sound and fury, but achieve nothing. Indeed, the favourite tactic for answering charges against a particular political party is to point out that a rival party indulged in a similar malpractice. In their lexicon, two wrongs do indeed make a right.

Why are our efforts proving to be so ineffectual? Because we are targeting the wrong audience. As I have already pointed out, it the masses that the politicians fear. They are the ones who have the actual power to get rid of the “leaders”. And the masses don’t read mainstream newspapers. After a gruelling 16 hours of manual labour, if they watch television at all, it is limited to the occasional movie or soap opera – not the news and talk shows. So while the pundits and experts pontificate in their rarefied environment, they are not communicating with the people who matter; the people who can make a difference. Until that happens, mediocrity, mendacity and corruption will continue to rule the roost. In the final analysis, we get the government we deserve.

Retrieved from “http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/rape-of-democracy-2929946.html”

(ArticlesBase SC #2929946)

Firoze Hirjikaka -
About the Author:

vote(s)
0 vote(s)

Feedback
RSS
Print
Email
Re-Publish

Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/rape-of-democracy-2929946.html

Article Tags:
india, democracy, politicians, corruption

Christian Democracy and Islamic Theocracy

Posted by admin on Nov 1, 2010 in Articles | 0 comments

Lets face it: The essence of Democracy was reintroduced by the adherents of Christianity even before the rise of Renaissance Europe.

In fact, much of what the renaissance teaches are basically the humanistic philosophy of ancient Greece and Rome already being re-discovered and re-written by Western Catholic Christian scholastic writers and monks who came centuries earlier than the renaissance men of the 16th century.

There are a lot to these classical writings by the Greeks and the Romans. The concept of democracy is one of them. The democratic thoughts and ways of these ancients ushered in the present democratic system. And Christianity, which came in much later to scene , saw in these democratic principles the essence of basically one thing: Freedom. Freedom which is inextricably link to the essence of man’s free will. The free act of man to a mysterious calling to be good and sometimes… bad.

This democratic tradition is therefore deeply rooted in the west, and probably molded and tempered to perfection by Christian principles. In fact the term “Christian Humanism” is precisely this blending of the humanities of the ancients and Christian precepts.

The essence of Islam is Theocracy. In simple terms, whatever is dictated by religion becomes law. The Muslims are deeply indebted to their prophet Muhammad, a merchant turned warrior and prophet, who converted people to Islam initially by force. As a testament to this legacy, the sword has become one of their enduring symbols. In fact, the Saudi Arabians even have their flag intricately embossed with a sword called the Kris. After the death of Muhammad, several Islamic groups fought against each other for supremacy.

But in all fairness, Islam, as a religion of peace, has proven itself to be equally rich in terms of culture and other significant achievements in the realm of human progress.

But they were typically of the martial type.They successfully subdued much of Europe for almost three centuries , reached places on earth farther than those of Alexander the Great and the Romans , and planted the banner of Islam in places far earlier than their Christian counterpart .

Today, they comprise nearly half of the world’s total population, and probably more. And not only are their numbers increasing, their theocratic tendencies are also on the rise.

If you notice, many Muslims thrive in places where hard core democracies exist. In England and the United States for example, Muslims are free to build a thousand and one mosques, pray five time a day in every nook and corner, and even complain against authorities for putting up close circuit cameras in public places where they converge. Some even get to enroll in US flying schools and use their flying hours by slamming hijacked planes into tall buildings.

And all these they are able to do because of what we call democratic space.

But Christians cannot even make a head start in hard core Islamic communities. In Saudi Arabia alone, rosaries are banned the moment you step into the arrival area. Along with these banned Christian paraphernalia are the bible, crucifixes, prayer books, and whatever items not related to Islam. Just recently, even Blackberries, an iconic symbol of the west, are banned. In some Muslim areas, Christians have to hear mass or conduct prayer sessions underground.

Now, where is democratic space here? Unfortunately, there is no democratic space.

Because in a real theocratic society, democracy is an illusion.

Now, isn’t this arrangement a bit skewed? And why do western societies allow theocratic principles to sometimes even gain ground right in the middle of their own democratic grounds; and sad to say, allow these sometimes at the expense of real, clear, and present danger.

Just recently in the UK, the Muslim community were against cctv’s; in France they objected against non wearing of black hoods which cover faces; in one Scandinavian country they even threaten to kill a writer for writing against Muhammad.

Do the Muslims think they have already ruled the world once again ? Are we experiencing a second fall of Constantinople? Is Islamic theocracy silently gnawing our well cherished Christian democracy?

Perhaps, its about time for the Christian West to recognize and regain its real identity. Times have not really changed since the Battle of Lepanto. Losing one’s identity as Christians will imminently bring about the victory of the other party, still and mightily waving their banners with the sword.

But, my God, pray tell, … where have all the real Christian soldiers gone?

Measuring Democracy – - Artur Victoria Studies

Posted by admin on Oct 25, 2010 in Articles | 0 comments

The International Political Risk Service Group Ltd. is a private company that provides analysis of political risk for 140 countries in the world. The data are organized into two groups. First group of data are country reports that are concentrated mainly on the risk in the business environment and economic conditions of the country.

Several issues related to economic policy and regulatory framework are referred to in the report. The type of data provided in this way is given in the appendix for about 100 countries. This type of data provided in this report is not very relevant for the measurement of democracy. The more relevant for the purpose of the measuring democracy are the data provided in the International Country Risk Guide. The data in the Guide are updated on the monthly basis and the number of countries included is 140. The only problem is the fact that the data are accessible only to subscribers. However the sample report for September 2001 is available for free and the data can be assessed from it. The ICRG assesses risk on the basis of the three groups of risk components. Those risk components are grouped into three Risk Categories – Political, Economic and Financial. The political risk category is composed of 12 components and the financial and the economic risk categories of 5 each. The sum of the risk scores of all elements of one component determines the risk score for that component, and the risk score of each component determines the overall risk rating. Somewhat arbitrarily, the scores of components are weighted and then added so that the political risk category participates by ½ in the final score, while other two participate by ¼ in the final score. For each score, whether for component, one element of component or the whole score the highest score means lower risk. The scores are available for each component, for three groups of components and for the overall index.

Of the three components used in the risk assessment, two of them are economic. They use economic statistic indicators that do not tell much about democracy. Component of political risk is the one that is covering areas that are relevant for the democracy measurement. Political risk component has 12 subcomponents of its own. These components differ by weight by which they participate in the final score, and some of them are divided into sub-components from which the score of the individual component is set.

The components of the scale are the followings (their weights are shown in parentheses: government stability (12), socio-economic conditions (12), investment profile (12), external conflicts (12), military in politics (6), religion in politics (6), law and order (6), ethnic tensions (6), democratic accountability (6), and bureaucratic quality (6).
The First five components are divided into three sub-components each. The score of its sub-component determines the score of the component in this case and each sub-component has a maximum score of 4. Law and Order component is divided into two sub-components, with maximum score of 3 for each of them.

The components are defined in the following way.

Government Stability is an assessment both of the government’s ability to carry out its declared program(s), and its ability to stay in office.

Socioeconomic conditions is an assessment of the socioeconomic pressures at work in society that could constrain government action or fuel social dissatisfaction.

Investment Profile is an assessment of factors affecting the risk to investment that are not covered by other political, economic and financial risk components.

Internal Conflict is an assessment of political violence in the country and its actual or potential impact on governance. The highest rating is given to those countries where there is no armed opposition to the government and the government does not indulge in arbitrary violence, direct or indirect, against its own people. The lowest rating is given to a country embroiled in an on-going civil war.

External Conflict measure is an assessment both of the risk to the incumbent government from foreign action, ranging from non-violent external pressure (diplomatic pressures, withholding of aid, trade restrictions, territorial disputes, sanctions, etc) to violent external pressure (cross-border conflicts to all-out war).

Corruption is an assessment of corruption within the political system. The most common form of corruption met directly by business is financial corruption in the form of demands for special payments and bribes connected with import and export licenses, exchange controls, tax assessments, police protection, or loans. Although this measure takes such corruption into account, it is more concerned with actual or potential corruption in the form of excessive patronage, nepotism, job reservations, ‘favor-for-favors’, secret party funding, and suspiciously close ties between politics and business.

Military in Politics even at a peripheral level, is a diminution of democratic accountability. However, it also has other significant implications. The military might, for example, become involved in government because of an actual or created internal or external threat. Such a situation would imply the distortion of government policy in order to meet this threat, for example by increasing the defense budget at the expense of other budget allocations. In some countries, the threat of military take-over can force an elected government to change policy or cause its replacement by another government more amenable to the military’s wishes. A military takeover or threat of a takeover may also represent a high risk if it is an indication that the government is unable to function effectively.

Religious Tensions may stem from the domination of society and/or governance by a single religious group that seeks to replace civil law by religious law and to exclude other religions from the political and/or social process; the desire of a single religious group to dominate governance; the suppression off religious freedom; the desire of a religious group to express its own identity, separate from the country as a whole.

Law and Order is defined by two sub-components. One of them is the strength and impartiality of the judicial system and the other is popular observance of the law

Ethnic Tensions is an assessment of the degree of tension within a country attributable to racial, nationality, or language divisions. Lower ratings are given to countries where racial and nationality tensions are high because opposing groups are intolerant and unwilling to compromise. Higher ratings are given to countries where tensions are minimal, even though such differences may still exist.

Democratic Accountability is a measure of how responsive government is to its people. The points in this component are awarded on the basis of the type of governance enjoyed by the country in question. The following types of governance are defined:

Alternating Democracy

The essential features of an alternating democracy are:
A government/executive that has not served more than two successive terms.
Free and fair elections for the legislature and executive as determined by constitution or statute;
The active presence of more than one political party and a viable opposition;
Evidence of checks and balances among the three elements of government: executive, legislative and judicial;
Evidence of an independent judiciary;
Evidence of the protection of personal liberties through constitutional or other legal guarantees.

Dominated Democracy

The essential features of a dominated democracy are:
A government/executive that has served more than two successive terms.
Free and fair elections for the legislature and executive as determined by constitution or statute;
The active presence of more than one political party
Evidence of checks and balances between the executive, legislature, and judiciary;
Evidence of an independent judiciary;
Evidence of the protection of personal liberties.

De-facto One-Party State

The essential features of a de-facto one-party state are:
A government/executive that has served more than two successive terms, or where the political/electoral system is designed or distorted to ensure the domination of governance by particular government/executive.
Holding of regular elections as determined by constitution or statute
Evidence of restrictions on the activity of non-government political parties (disproportionate media access between the governing and non-governing parties, harassment of the leaders and/or supporters of non-government political parties, the creation impediments and obstacles affecting only the non-government political parties, electoral fraud, etc).

De jure One-Party state

The identifying feature of a one-party state is:
A constitutional requirement that there be only one governing party.
Lack of any legally recognized political opposition.
Autarchy
The identifying feature of an autarchy is:
Leadership of the state by a group or single person, without being subject to any franchise, either through military might or inherited right.

In an autarchy, the leadership might indulge in some quasi-democratic processes. In its most developed form this allows competing political parties and regular elections, through popular franchise, to an assembly with restricted legislative powers (approaching the category of a de jure or de facto one party state). However, the defining feature is whether the leadership, i.e. the head of government, is subject to election in which political opponents are allowed to stand.

Bureaucracy Quality – high points are given to countries where the bureaucracy has the strength and expertise to govern without drastic changes in policy or interruptions in government services. In these low-risk countries, the bureaucracy tends to be somewhat autonomous from political pressure and to have an established mechanism for recruitment and training. Countries that lack the cushioning effect of a strong bureaucracy receive low points because the change in government tends to be traumatic in terms of policy formulation and day-to-day administrative functions.

The definitions given above are taken from the ICRG methodology section. They are not defined more precisely, nor are criteria for assigning scores given. Especially some sub-sections are not defined, so it is not totally clear what is meant under terms like cross border conflict, government unity or popular support. Another problem with these political risk indicators is that it is not stated how are they measured, and how are different scores allocated. About the data collection and score allocation the methodology section says that ICRG staff collects political information and financial and economic data, converting these into risk points for each individual risk component on the basis of a consistent pattern of evaluation, but from their methodology section it is not clear what does that consistent pattern of evaluation is supposed to mean, and what are the criteria for allocating scores. Without the information about what data are used in assessment and what criteria are used for allocating scores it is not possible to assess how reliable and valid these indicators are. The political risk assessments are made on the basis of subjective analysis of the available information that is conducted by the staff. Financial and economic risk assessments are made solely on the basis of objective statistical data. The methodological part also says that to ensure consistency, between countries and over time, points are assigned to different components for a country on the basis of a series of pre-set questions for each component. But those sets of questions were not accessible, so it is not possible to assess do they provide sound ground and clear criteria for allocation of points.

We could not assess the temporal variance in the data since the report is freely available only for one time point. Only the overall data for political and total risk are given for a timeframe of some 2 years. Maximum score of the index is 100 for political risk. Some cases show change of up to 10 points during the period covered, suggesting that the index may be capable of capturing short-term changes. But since the time series are not given for components, it is not possible to say how much of the reported change in random fluctuation that may be caused by simple measurement error.

Apart from the general data about risk, each report has a section in which a number of individual countries are covered. Those reports are mainly descriptive and cover most important developments, so the emphasis is different from a one country to another.

http://sites.google.com/site/arturvictoria/ http://sites.google.com/site/cliparturvictoria/

How to Measure Democracy – The Freedom House Survey of Political and Civil Liberties – Artur Victoria Studies

Posted by admin on Oct 18, 2010 in Articles | 0 comments

Freedom House was founded almost sixty years ago by Eleanor Roosevelt, Wendell Willkie and other Americans concerned with the dangers that faced democracy. Freedom House is led by a Board of Trustees composed of Democrats, Republicans and Independents; business and labor leaders; former senior government officials, scholars, writers and journalists. It conducts a large array of U.S. and overseas research, advocacy, education, and training activities that promote human rights, democracy, and free market economics, the rule of law, independent media, and U.S. engagement in international affairs (Freedom House: 2002).

Freedom House started publishing in 1973 and its aim was to provoke a discussion about the levels of political freedom. Even if the survey rated the level of freedom in all the countries in the world, actually it was concerned with the measurement of political democracy. Only one person performed the first surveys without any research staff. This may be an advantage because of the possible biases that a research staff might have. The survey was also considered by some as too rightist, and Freedom House itself continues to have a somewhat pro-Republican reputation. The critics were usually too general with no emphasis on the indicators or other elements of the surveys. As any survey that contains a large number of cases this also gives only a rough account of the development of democracy. It often disregards certain nuances that are connected to the relations between institutions, or how certain institutions as well as procedures take different shapes from country to country.

Gastil (1991) notices that the first period surveys were concerned with more institutional features that often, as in the case of Latin America, do not reveal a real democratic development. Even if several Latin American countries have relatively open elections there is an oligarchy that transforms elections in something symbolic.

Freedom House provides a minimal definition of democracy as being “a political system in which the people choose their authoritative leaders freely from among competing groups and individuals who were not designated by the government. Freedom represents the opportunity to act spontaneously in a variety of fields outside the control of the government and other centers of potential domination” (Freedom House 2002). Contradicting this definition, among the criteria they consider in rating political systems one can also find “socioeconomic rights”, “freedom from war”, “freedom from gross socioeconomic inequalities” and “property rights” (Gastil 1991: 32-3; Ryan 1994: 10-1).

The Freedom House ratings rely on a published checklist of political liberties and civil rights, but it has never been announced how this checklist is actually used in the process of rating the state of political and civil rights. By political rights the survey refers to permitting people to freely take part in the political process that represents the method by which the policymakers are chosen to make effective decisions. By civil liberties Freedom House means “the freedoms to develop views, institutions, and personal autonomy apart from state” (Freedom House: 2002).
Each country is analyzed using as references descriptions in news, books or scientific journals. Already here it is easy to notice a first possible caveat. A change in a year in a country might not affect the rating of the country immediately and there is an inevitable element of subjectivity introduced by relying on a single judge. It bears stressing though that as time passed, the number of available sources increased and the checklist started to become more complex. Now the sources have increased in number and are based on information provided by the web and from the several institutions and non-governmental organizations.

As the sources increased in number, the staff of Freedom House increased rapidly. In this way all countries of the planet could come to be covered. But inevitably there remains a great deal of uncertainty in the validity of the ratings regarding little known underdeveloped countries. This critique can be addressed to all world surveys since they inevitably depend on sources of information that are easy to access.

Freedom House divides territories into related and disputed. Related territories refer to colonies, protectorates and island dependencies of sovereign states between the two not being any serious political disputes. Puerto Rico, Hong Kong and French Guyana are in this category. These are enjoying a large range of political liberties and the majority is categorized as “free”. Disputed territories are areas in sovereign states that are dominated by a minority that is in a violent dispute with the majority and its status is threatened. Usually the majority of population from these territories wants to secede from the sovereign state. Examples might be Tibet, Kashmir and Abkhazia. For these territories Freedom House assigns labels of “Free”, “Partly free” and “Not free” without giving scores. The same status enjoy the micro-states like Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Rapanui (Easter Island), Falkland Islands, Niue, Norfolk Island, Pitcairn Islands, Savalbard and Tokelau. Uninhabited territories like Johnston Atoll owned by the US are excluded from the survey.

Freedom Houses uses seven-point scales for rating political rights and civil liberties, but the exact coding rules remain unknown. The freest rating is one and the least free is seven. This seven-point rating was maintained over time because changing the scale would lead too much confusion. The simple average of the scores on the two scales is converted into a three-point categorization of the countries as “free”, “partly free” and “not free”. The cutoff points between the three categories seem to have been established entirely arbitrarily, just as the rule about the equal weighting of the two sub-dimensions.

Even at the aggregation stage one can find certain inconsistencies. The countries rated by the two checklists (political rights and civic liberties) were considered free if the points received were 1-1, 1-2, 2-1, 2-2 and not free when receiving 7-7, 7-6, or 6-7. The problem is with the “partly free” category because it could happen that a country that has 6-5 is deemed not free in one year and partly free a year later, with no change in rating.

While the high correlation between the two ratings allowed the categorizing the countries into subgroups, from another perspective the correlation actually seems to high in that Freedom House’s ratings of political and civil liberties are apparently more closely correlated with each other than with other ratings of how democratic the political system is, prepared by different groups of scholars (cf. Figure 3 of Munck and Verkuilen 2002). Thus it appears that some countries get consistently higher (or lower) rating on both Freedom House scales than they would seem to deserve given alternative scholarly ratings of the state of political democracy.

The Checklist of Political Rights is as follows:
1. Chief authority elected by a meaningful process
2. Legislature recently elected by a meaningful process

Alternatives for 1 and 2:
a. no choice and possibility of freedom
b. no choice but some possibility of rejection
c. government or single-party selected candidates
d. choice possible only among government-approved candidates
e. relatively open choices possible only in local elections
f. open choice possible within restricted range
g. relatively open choices possible in all elections

3. Fair elections laws, campaigning opportunity, polling and tabulation

4. Fair reflection of voters preferences in distribution of power
- parliament, for example, has effective power

5. Multiple political parties
- only dominant party allowed effective opportunity
- open to rise and fall of competing parties

6. Recent shifts in power through elections

7. Significant opposition vote

8. Free of military or foreign control

9. Major group or groups denied reasonable self-determination

10. Decentralized political power

11. Informal consensus; de facto opposition power

The investigator determines the presence or absence of these elements in the political process and checks other aspects of the system that might determine some negative or positive effects on the democratic process. Below we briefly note some possible sources of error, which, implicitly, are assumed to cancel out each on the aggregate by the Freedom House survey methodology and be randomly distributed across referees, countries and criteria.

Electoral Process: One extreme is that of inherited monarchies or the communist system in which election is performed by simple appointment. Even if there are elections they may be completely meaningless. Then a more democratic system can have election with one candidate but there is the possibility of rejection. All these are controlled electoral systems but with a higher or lower degree of freedom.

Multiple Parties: Not every system that has multiple parties is automatically more democratic. The dominant party systems in Asia have dominant party systems with more parties in opposition. But the activities of these parties are under tight control so that always the party in government could win.

Does elections cause meaningful change? Even if it can happen that one party wins more elections, if a party has support over 70% percent in several elections then something is wrong. Another indicator is the size of the opposition. If a party has over 90 % in elections, the opposition is nonexistent. In this case we can hardly speak about democratic election.

Military Influence: In this case cases range from countries that do not have armies like Iceland to cases in which the military rules directly. These armies usually come to power through the use of force and do not have any kind of legitimacy. The army is a legitimate pressure group in society as long as it does not use force in achieving its ends. The Latin American states have a tradition of having army influence in politics and the measurement of the degree of influence might be problematic. What is important is to keep in mind that the item should measure the level of political violence as a means in preserving power.

Self-determination: This item measures the degree of possibility of meaningful participation in the political process. People should not feel outsiders to the political system and there should be some apparatuses that promote specific, local interests. It is about the degree of autonomy and decisional power of local governments.
Decentralization of Political Power: The indicator tests how groups from periphery can get access to center and have success in politics. One example might be the access of Scottish nationalists to the parliament in UK that shows the level of decentralization of institutions.

De-facto Opposition Parties and Consensus: In any country there should be a minimum level of general consensus so the electoral process would not become a mean of division in society. The electoral process should be an arbiter of diverging interests.

The Checklist for Civil Liberties is as follows (here the survey is looking for patterns and balances in activities, rather than failures to observe particular human rights standards):
12. Media/literature free of political censorship
a. Press independent of government
b. Broadcasting independent of government

13. Open public discussion

14. Freedom of assembly and demonstration

15. Freedom of political or quasipolitical organization

16. Nondiscriminatory rule of law in politically relevant cases
a. Independent judiciary
b. Security forces respect individuals

17. Free from unjustified political terror or imprisonment
a. Free from imprisonment or exile for reasons of conscience
b. Free from torture
c. Free from terror by groups not opposed to the system
d. Free from government-organized terror

18. Free trade unions, peasant organizations, or equivalents

19. Free businesses or cooperatives

20. Free professional or other private organizations

21. Free religious institutions

22. Personal social rights: including those to property, internal and external travel, choice of residence, marriage and family

23.Socioeconomic rights: including freedom from dependency on landlords, bosses, union leaders, or bureaucrats

24.Freedom from gross socioeconomic inequality

25.Freedom from gross government indifference or corruption

http://sites.google.com/site/arturvictoria/ http://sites.google.com/site/cliparturvictoria/

Life in the New World Order – Soul Mates or Cell Mates?

Posted by admin on Oct 11, 2010 in Articles | 0 comments

“The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government …. all under their control…. Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent.” – Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976

“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”

Our lives are being directed according to a business plan. The agenda has been laid out over decades and centuries, we are just led to believe it’s happening in real time. There are some very significant dates coming up within the next few short years. Hard to imagine that we are smack dab in the middle of an end-game scenario, with plans coming to fruition that have been laid out and documented since at least the 1920′s and 30′s. Even more incredible, you can literally go back hundreds of years to find out it’s the same basic cast of characters through elite bloodlines responsible for secret societies and shadow governments. Members of this group are said to include such prominent families as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Morgans, Duponts, as well as presidents, prime ministers and European monarchs.

Using their influence through international organizations such as the World Bank, the IMF, the CFR, the United Nations and NATO, the objective of the internationalists is nothing less than the subjugation of everyone on the planet to a one world government. How long has all this been going on? Without stretching the limits of your indulgence regarding quotations (I’ll do that later), consider these, which, if you disregard the names and dates, could easily have been uttered this morning:

“The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.” – Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli of England 1844

“From the days of Sparticus, Wieskhopf, Karl Marx, Trotsky, Rosa Luxemberg, and Emma Goldman, this world conspiracy has been steadily growing. This conspiracy played a definite recognizable role in the tragedy of the French revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century. And now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their head and have become the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.”- Winston Churchill London Press l922

” If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning.” – President Andrew Jackson 1829-1837

“The real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of a self created screen….At the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both political parties.” New York City Mayor John F. Hylan, 1922

“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson” – President Franklin D. Roosevelt l933

“The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes.” Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, 1952

The Council on Foreign Relations states the following on their website:

“Three former high-ranking government officials from Canada, Mexico, and the United States call for a North American economic and security community by 2010 to address shared security threats, challenges to competitiveness, and interest in broad-based development across the three countries.”

“North America is vulnerable on several fronts: the region faces terrorist and criminal security threats, increased economic competition from abroad, and uneven economic development at home. In response to these challenges, a trinational, Independent Task Force on the Future of North America has developed a roadmap to promote North American security and advance the well-being of citizens of all three countries.” – May 2005 task force report Building a North American Community published by the Council on Foreign Relations

I refute these assertions categorically. The biggest terrorist and criminal threat we face in North America is from the US government itself. There is a long history of false flag operations or self inflicted wounds like 9-11 committed by this country, so having us join them would surely not mitigate that threat, rather it would increase. As far as competition or uneven economic development, the market will have to take care of any imbalances within itself. Just because the economy is not doing so well right now is no excuse to do away with a sovereign country and abrogate our rights as free individuals, or steal our resources. There is no reason to believe that secretly plotting to merge these nations against the will of their citizens would advance the well-being of anyone, instead, it would destroy our heritage and turn us all into slaves of a corporate fascist state. No thanks. Same goes for the plans to adopt a new common currency for all 3 countries, as if we should have anything to do with the corruption tied to the Federal Reserve System. I would rather not have any part of a nation that can remove people from their home, torture and imprison them, and then deny them any right to a fair trial. What happened to sweet land of liberty, oh right, that’s just a song.

Everyone should be aware that the corporate elites in this world fully endorse the Red Chinese model of social governance and economics as the standard for their emerging New World Order. That is the reason for the FEMA camps that have been set up currently under the guise of emergency centers for immigration, natural disaster, or “other”. As per the Chinese model, dissidents will be dealt with severely and placed into work camps. A United Nations global police force will help keep everyone in line, once they implement their plans for the Universal Biometrics Identification Card.

“Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.” David Rockefeller 1973 New York Times

The movers and shakers of this world will use any means necessary to force their plans of unification on the world. Any issue, whether real, imagined or created can and will be utilized to achieve their objectives; overpopulation, global warming, disease, natural disasters, civil unrest. Population control measures include biological warfare targeting food supply, as well as various methods of climate manipulation through Chemtrails spraying and implementation of the HAARP technology .

The net has begun to close. You are not going to like the changes coming up – we will be forced, bribed and cajoled into accepting new identification measures, new laws, new taxes for global warming, new taxes for more security. After all, there’s going to be a lot of angry Iraqi Muslim terrorist types who are out to kill us, especially after we invaded, then decimated their country, destroyed their noble and learned culture, killed about a million of them, displaced a few million more. I guess you could say they might be a tad snarly towards America. They hate our freedoms huh? I guess after we brought our freedom and democracy to them so spectacularly in Iraq, they checked it out and said, “I hate it”.

“The terrorist is the one with the small bomb” – Brendan Behan

You’re going to hear more hoo-ha about things like the NAU, the Amero, RFID chips, you’re going to see more jack-booted heavily armed militia types wearing Kevlar, detaining you and abrogating every god-given right you once had, rights that were once so beautifully encoded by those brilliant fathers of the Constitution, you remember the Constitution don’t you? – that inspired set of principles that once made America the envy of the world, until the likes of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld ripped it up and wiped their arses with it, all the while laughing while they grew rich and flushed the country and it’s noble ideals down the toilet.

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” – Thomas Jefferson

“The deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principles on which it was founded” – Charles-Louis De Secondat 1748

The coup has already happened folks, you’re too busy worried about Democrats and Republicans, but the truth is – these crooks rigged at least a couple of elections which is common knowledge, so they assumed power illegitimately. In reality, the false left/right paradigm is but another low-level reality to keep the masses diverted and occupied. Republican or Democrat, they all answer to the same bosses – now would you like Coke or Coke Classic? – it’s the same damned pop. And how nice when you control the military, the media, the judiciary, the senate – you can just pretend you have support, even if the vast majority of people in your own country are fully cognizant of the fact that you lie, cheat, murder and abuse. How else can you explain the polls which show 80 – 90% of the populace demanding an end to war, or a real investigation of the US government’s unquestionable cover up and involvement in 9/11. A real opposition would call them on at least some of the lies, a real media would research some of the corruption, a real Supreme Court would hold everyone accountable to the law. These guys are good at it too, they make the Sopranos look like choir boys. There’s going to be more fireworks so get ready. These psychopaths are being backed into a corner, and it’s going to get rough.

“A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny” – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Starting to get hot around here

“There is nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine . . . been here 4 1/2 billion years. We’ve been here, what, a 100,000 years, maybe 200,000. And we’ve only been engaged in heavy industry a little over 200 years. 200 years versus 4 1/2 billion. And we have the conceit to think that somehow we’re a threat? The planet isn’t going away. We are.” – George Carlin

The global warming thing is already past due and beginning to stink. Any sane person would have to admit that this planet is in some kind of trouble if we don’t properly manage our resources and stop polluting ourselves into ecological extinction. What I object to is the way the globalists are trying to use this fact, and sometimes distort it to further their own agenda. I can remember back in the 70s when we were told about the cooling down of the earth and the impending ice age. Soon they will find a way to blame and tax us for the temperature rising on other planets as well, in the meantime – let’s see a few of you politicians get out of your limos and hop on a bus like a regular shmoe.

“‘Protecting the Environment’ is a ruse. The goal is the political and economic subjugation of most men by the few, under the guise of preserving nature.” J. H. Robbins

Witness all the stark incongruity that exists in this strange world of ours – there are now special units that check garbage cans to make sure people are fined for not managing their refuse properly, we’re made to feel like some kind of criminal if we screw up sorting our tin cans. I only hope that they make a carbon tax that is very high so we can feel guilty for driving the car to buy milk, or pay a fine for using a 60W bulb – meanwhile, the US government is dumping depleted uranium that will continue to poison the earth for, let’s say (glances at watch) 5 BILLION YEARS. But never mind that – don’t you dare put the plastic milk jug in the same box with the cardboard – you Bastard!

“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” Thomas Jefferson

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H. L. Mencken

Another Path

“If totalitarianism wins this conflict, the world will be ruled by tyrants, and individuals will be slaves. If democracy wins, the nations of the earth will be united in a commonwealth of free peoples, and individuals, wherever found, will be the sovereign units of the new world order.” – Declaration of the Federation of the World

Two men stand at the top of a mountain – one man sees the panoramic beauty of all existence, the line of sky between earth and the heavens but a jumping off point for his consciousness – what other worlds? what other possibilities in my mind? What a blessing and a benediction is this life, I have my family, my friends, and all the beauty of nature at this moment to behold. The other man stands in the exact spot – he sees an opportunity to capitalize on the richness of the mountain, extract the ore, use the local tribe for cheap labour, and if I can just get rid of this guy standing beside me…

We spend most of our lives trying to acquire things like knowledge, experience, wealth, respect. Once past a certain point in our lives, usually closer to the end, many find themselves trying to cast off those trappings they have spent a lifetime gathering, seeing all such things as chains or diversions, layers between ourselves and our truth. Focused within the resolution provided through the lens of wisdom, and diminishing opportunity of time – those vestments, once thought as prizes to be won, can be seen as constraints that limit one’s true potential. We learn to redefine our perspectives or else we end up very frustrated with the world, our greatest fear being stagnation and mental intransigence, which only inhibits growth and progression in our life. We learn that the only thing constant in this world is change.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” Margaret Mead

Change is good, change is inevitable, but no matter how many things might change in our life there will always remain certain constants that must never change. You know, basic things, like the things we learn as children – simple rules that tell us it’s wrong to lie, to kill, to steal. These things do not change because you are a bus driver, a politician, a multi-billionaire, or you work for the CIA.

“The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations” – David Friedman

I spent my whole life thinking I could avoid politics and anything to do with the public realm. I believed that if I just looked after myself and my family, what happened outside of my little sphere would not matter too much. After all, I’ve never hurt anyone, always paid my taxes, was known to enjoy the odd hockey game with a beer. My discovery of the truth regarding 9/11, followed by my realization of the malevolent forces that control our world has turned my life around, and so once again I must change.

“Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.” – Pericles 430 B.C.

The raising of my family confers upon me the responsibility to try and make sure they can grow up in a world where mass-murderers are not allowed to rule the planet, despoiling the earth and killing whomever necessary to fit their plans for expansion and domination. As the saying goes, it’s not about right and left, its about right and wrong! If somebody marched into your country, accused you of international high crimes, occupied your land and slaughtered your family and friends while stealing your resources, and was then found to be guilty of lying about those accusations – which were subsequently proved to be categorically false, but stayed on year after year, killing, stealing, lying….Would that seem all right to you? How can you not allow that same reasoning to prevail for the people of Iraq, or anywhere else?

“Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it” – William Penn

I am just one person, but we are many. In every sense they have lost the battle with me, and so I know it is possible for others. The truth movement is only gaining in strength with each passing day. The truth will out, every time – it’s only got one way to go. I salute the great people in this movement who have inspired me with their integrity, their bravery, and most of all their brilliance as scholars in search of the truth. And on the other side, I feel only contempt for those who knowingly uphold such deceit and hypocrisy which brings us all to war.

“An individual’s character is not defined by their circumstance, it is revealed through it” – Peter Zaza

I am able to live in a psychologically clean environment where nobody rules my thoughts, I pay little attention to the mainstream media, other than to discern the true subtext of every headline and article so blatantly part of the grand pysops campaign. Most importantly, I have a cause, and a true inner moral compass with which I can live my life and fight this battle, and let’s be clear – this is going to be tantamount to war – a war for our thoughts, and as so many who are still dying every day prove to us all – a battle for our very lives.

“There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.” – Elie Wiesel

Yes, the truth can only get bigger, it is within its nature. Those who would adhere to the myths promulgated by liars must employ increasingly desperate measures – repressive laws, no fly lists, surveillance, termination of basic rights, more aggressive tactics to instill fear. Fascist dictators do not claw back measures like the egregiously titled Patriot Act, they don’t make bogus laws giving themselves omnipotent powers because they intend to repeal them 6 months later, they just keep on exposing themselves further as parasites and psychopaths, with ever more obvious signs of their waning struggle for power. Do you want the Patriot Act? Or do you want to act like a patriot?

“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.” Benjamin Franklin.

“Why, the Government is merely…a temporary servant…Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.” – Mark Twain

Something else seems to happen in these situations as shown to us through history – there will be a large economic correction or depression which will help settle the matter of the current cabal in office. It will most likely be expensive for us all, but the cost of our hubris and callous indifference will exact a price on ordinary men, as well as the nations they support.

“Wars are not paid for in wartime, the bill comes later” – Benjamin Franklin

It’s too bad really, they could have invested those trillions of dollars and all that human potential into energy research, education, health care, anything to do with the betterment of mankind rather than its destruction. Instead, they opted to make war and commit the worst crimes of humanity in some insane quest for dominance.

“When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.” – Jimi Hendrix

How can we retain hope or have any chance of true fulfillment in our lives with all this going on?

“When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of Truth and Love has always won There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it, always” – Mahatma Gandhi

I alone retain complete and utter sovereignty over my life – no one gave me my freedom, and no one is going to take it from me. I refuse to carry RFID tracking devices, biometric implants, or whatever else you want to use to restrict and monitor my life. I will not let you degrade and humiliate me at airports, roadside checks, random searches, or whatever else you concoct to try and subjugate us with in the name of your bullshit war on terror. I reject your new world order and the idiot box TV it rode in on.

I challenge everyone to turn off the television, do some research and think for yourself. Stop looking toward anybody outside of yourself for direction, leadership, understanding or help in this world – especially if that someone is a politician. Stop waiting for somebody else to get their hands dirty and fix all the problems.

Stop thinking about other people who live on this Earth as being other.

“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” – Thomas Jefferson

CasaZaza

Sound Ideas – Music – Digital Arts

Hubpages by CasaZaza

How the Power of the People Can Affect World Peace

Posted by admin on Oct 4, 2010 in Articles | 0 comments

It seems that many people are convinced that the rich and powerful have enough money to run our country.

The truth is, nothing ( including our politicians, governments, religions, corporations and businesses) can survive without the constant flow of money and labor provided by the masses of people.

Therefore, the people are the real power in this world when they function as a collective group because they can control the flow of money.

In regards to building the foundation for World Peace through the establishment of a system of International Law and Order, which would be based on Human Rights, the people working together as a collective group have the voting power and spending power to achieve World Peace simply by not voting for any politician or doing business with any business that does not publicly support the plan for World Peace, which we are providing and now pursuing.

What would happen to any politician running for office if they were approached about supporting the plan for World Peace?

Who would vote for a politician who is against World Peace, against their country being peaceful and civilized, against providing safety and increased survivability for the citizens, against securing the sovereingty of his country, against Human Rights, against freedom and democratic choice, or against the government functioning within a system of international law and order.

Would any person willingly do business with any corporation or business that did want this world to be peaceful and civilized under a plan for World Peace.

The people become very powerful when they speak as a collective group on issues, such as World Peace, Human Rights, democracy and democratic choice, and Law and Order because there is only one way to answer questions about those issues.

Politicians follow the popular issues as do businesses and making World Peace the popular issue will make our politicians and corporate leaders respond to the people on the World Peace issue, and what do you think they will say?

The people become the power when they unite for one goal that serves the good of all people.

The people always win when they unite their power for logically and morally right and just causes that serves the good of all people because they can always find ways to stop supporting any politician or corporation that attempts to stop them from achieving their goals.

Our Plan for World Peace will be successful only if the people are willing to unite and support it.

I have been ask to simplify, or by using the fewest words possible to explain the main point in our theory for creating a system of World Peace through the establishment of a system of International Law and Order. Here goes, the key word is

We Want World Peace Organization is GIVING AWAY $100,000.00 to any indivual or group that can come up with a better plan for World Peace than ours! Check out the challenge at ==> World Peace Challenge

Page 4 of 10« First...«2 345 6 »10...Last »

Rape of Democracy

Christian Democracy and Islamic Theocracy

Measuring Democracy – - Artur Victoria Studies

How to Measure Democracy – The Freedom House Survey of Political and Civil Liberties – Artur Victoria Studies

Life in the New World Order – Soul Mates or Cell Mates?

How the Power of the People Can Affect World Peace

Global Referendum – Please Vote Now

World’s Most Necessary Book

World Democracy Now

World Democracy Tags

Amazon Picks

Google Translation

Start Living Longer

Free Subscription

Fountain of Youth

Interesting Websites

Web Stats

Pages