Democracy (Theory and Philosophy)

Subterms

    Latest story

    88 Shares168 Views

    Why Democracy Lives and Dies by Math

    by

    A documentary filmmaker and a mathematician discuss our fear of numbers and its civic costs.“Math is power” is the tag line of a new documentary, “Counted Out,” currently making the rounds at festivals and community screenings. (It will have a limited theatrical release next year.) The film explores the intersection of mathematics, civil rights and democracy. And it delves into how an understanding of math, or lack thereof, affects society’s ability to deal with its most pressing challenges and crises — health care, climate, misinformation, elections.“When we limit access to the power of math to a select few, we limit our progress as a society,” said Vicki Abeles, the film’s director and a former Wall Street lawyer.Ms. Abeles was spurred to make the film in part in response to an anxiety about math that she had long observed in students, including her middle-school-age daughter. She was also struck by the math anxiety among friends and colleagues, and by the extent to which they tried to avoid math altogether. She wondered: Why are people so afraid of math? What are the consequences?One of many mathematicians who share their perspectives in the film is Ismar Volic, a professor at Wellesley College and a founder, in 2019, of the Institute for Mathematics and Democracy. He is also the author of “Making Democracy Count: How Mathematics Improves Voting, Electoral Maps and Representation.”Dr. Volic grew up in Bosnia-Herzegovina, a country that in the early 1990s went through “a horrific war,” he said. “I am familiar with what collapse of democracy can lead to.” He saw parallels between what happened in Bosnia and what was happening in the United States and around the world. “That has driven me in the last few years, understanding the mechanics of democracy, the infrastructure of democracy, which is very much mathematical,” he said.The following conversation, conducted by videoconference and email, has been condensed and edited for clarity.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 88 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      For Executives, ‘Defending Democracy’ Can Seem Risky

      by

      Even seemingly anodyne sentiments supporting fair elections have become politically charged.Republicans have spent months laying the groundwork to challenge a defeat of Donald Trump in the presidential election. During a fund-raising call organized by corporate lawyers in September, Douglas Emhoff, the husband of Vice President Kamala Harris, asked for help if those efforts veer outside legal grounds.According to two people on the call, Emhoff asked the lawyers to reiterate to their corporate clients the risks posed by efforts to undermine the integrity of the election.The request underlines the pressure some executives are feeling to repeat public calls they made four year ago, urging politicians to respect the results of the 2020 presidential election. But making those kinds of public statements may have gotten more complicated. Executives, who were outspoken during the pandemic, have resumed their efforts to stay out of politics. And seemingly anodyne sentiments are now politically charged: Only one of two candidates has refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power. That candidate has support of roughly half the country. And he has made it clear that if he takes power, he’s willing to go after his enemies.Democracy, as a term, “has become kind of loaded” for executives, Charles Elson, the founding director of the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance, told DealBook.“I think that’s why you haven’t heard anything from them. But you got two weeks to go.”The landscape has changed. The Blackstone C.E.O. Stephen Schwarzman and the hedge fund boss Nelson Peltz, two billionaires who condemned Trump after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, have since offered him their support. And one of his most high-profile supporters, Tesla C.E.O. Elon Musk, has questioned the accuracy of elections themselves: “When you have mail-in ballots and no proof of citizenship, it’s almost impossible to prove cheating,” Musk said at a rally in Pennsylvania this week.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      American Business Cannot Afford to Risk Another Trump Presidency

      by

      Throughout American history, business leaders have been able to assume that an American president of either party would uphold the rule of law, defend property rights and respect the independence of the courts. Implicit in that assumption is a fundamental belief that the country’s ethos meant their enterprises and the U.S. economy could thrive, no matter who won. They could keep their distance from the rough-and-tumble of campaign politics. No matter who won, they could pursue long-term plans and investments with confidence in America’s political stability.In this election, American business leaders cannot afford to stand passive and silent.Donald Trump and his Democratic opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, have sketched out versions of their parties’ traditional positions on issues like taxation, trade and regulation that are well within the give-and-take of politics. In this election, however, stability itself is also at stake.Mr. Trump denies the legitimacy of elections, defies constitutional limits on presidential power and boasts of plans to punish his enemies. And in these attacks on America’s democracy, he is also attacking the foundations of American prosperity. Voting on narrow policy concerns would reflect a catastrophically nearsighted view of the interests of American business.Some prominent corporate leaders — including Elon Musk, a founder of Tesla; the investors David Sacks and Bill Ackman; and the financier Stephen Schwarzman — have been supportive of Mr. Trump’s candidacy. Beyond pure cynicism, it’s nearly impossible to understand why.Business leaders, of course, may be skeptical of Ms. Harris’s policies, uneasy because they don’t feel they know enough about how she would govern or worried that she may not be open to hearing their concerns — a frequent criticism of the Biden administration. They may be reluctant to offend or alienate employees, customers or suppliers who have different political views. Most of all, they may be afraid of angering Mr. Trump, who has a long track record of using the levers of power to reward loyalty.They should be more afraid of the consequences if he prevails.This week Donald Trump provided a stark reminder that this election is different. In remarks that ought to alarm any American committed to the survival of our democratic experiment, the Republican nominee again refused to commit to accepting the results of the 2024 election. That comes on the heels of remarks in which he declared that he regards his political opponents as an “enemy from within” and that he would consider deploying the military against them merely for opposing his bid for the presidency. The implication is that participation in the democratic process is treason, and the threat is a fresh indication that if he is elected to a second term, Mr. Trump intends to deploy government power in new and dangerous ways.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      En caso de crisis electoral, esto es lo que debes saber

      by

      En 2020, cuando Donald Trump cuestionó los resultados de las elecciones, los tribunales rechazaron decisivamente sus intentos una y otra vez. En 2024, el poder judicial podría ser incapaz de salvar nuestra democracia.Los renegados ya no son principiantes. Han pasado los últimos cuatro años haciéndose profesionales, diseñando meticulosamente una estrategia en múltiples frentes —legislaturas estatales, el Congreso, poderes ejecutivos y jueces electos— para anular cualquier elección reñida.Los nuevos desafíos tendrán lugar en foros que han purgado cada vez más a los funcionarios que anteponen el país al partido. Podrían ocurrir en un contexto de márgenes electorales muy estrechos en los estados clave de tendencia electoral incierta, lo que significa que cualquier impugnación exitosa podría cambiar potencialmente las elecciones.Disponemos de unas pocas semanas para comprender estos desafíos y así poder estar alerta contra ellos.En primer lugar, en los tribunales ya se han presentado docenas de demandas. En Pensilvania se ha iniciado un litigio sobre si están permitidas las papeletas de voto por correo sin fecha y si se pueden permitir las boletas provisionales. Stephen Miller, exasesor de Trump, presentó una demanda en Arizona alegando que los jueces deberían tener la capacidad de rechazar los resultados de las elecciones.Muchos estados han cambiado recientemente su forma de votar. Incluso una modificación menor podría dar lugar a impugnaciones legales, y algunas invitan afirmativamente al caos.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      A Filmmaker Focuses on Climate and Democracy

      by

      In his next documentary, Michael P. Nash takes on A.I. and how it might be used to address environmental issues.The Athens Democracy Forum last week featured an array of speakers from countries worldwide: politicians, leaders of nonprofits, youths dedicated to promoting democracy. Michael P. Nash was the only filmmaker to speak.Mr. Nash, who resides in Nashville and Los Angeles, is behind more than a dozen documentaries and psychological thrillers. His most well-known work is “Climate Refugees,” a documentary that debuted at the 2010 Sundance Film Festival and portrays the stories of people from 48 countries who were affected by climate change.Mr. Nash’s other notable films include “Fuel” (2017), which focuses on alternative energy, and “Saving the Roar” (2021), an inspirational sports documentary about Penn State University’s football culture.Mr. Nash is directing and producing “Chasing Truth,” a documentary examining whether artificial intelligence can solve environmental issues such as climate change and food security. The film is a collaboration with the actor Leonardo DiCaprio and his father, George DiCaprio, who are executive producers. It is expected to be released in 2026.George DiCaprio said he and his son got to know Mr. Nash more than a decade ago, at a screening of “Climate Refugees” at their home. “It was clear that we all shared a passion for addressing the world’s most pressing issues, and now, more than ever, that commitment has deepened,” he said in an email. After the forum, Mr. Nash was interviewed by email and phone about his interest in democracy advocacy; the connection between climate change and democracy; and what he had learned in Athens. The conversation has been edited and condensed.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Athens Democracy Forum: Where Is Global Politics Headed?

      by

      Voters have more opportunities than ever in 2024 to shape history in their countries, but war, technology and other forces pose a powerful threat, experts said.This article is from a special report on the Athens Democracy Forum, which gathered experts last week in the Greek capital to discuss global issues.Jordan Bardella, the 29-year-old far-right leader who nearly became France’s prime minister last summer, warned last week that his country’s existence was imperiled by Muslim migrants who shared the same militant Islamist ideology as the Hamas-led assailants who committed deadly attacks in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.“We have this Islamist ideology that is appearing in France,” he said. “The people behind it want to impose on French society something that is totally alien to our country, to our values.“I do not want my country to disappear,” he said. “I want France to be proud of itself.”The politician — whose party, the National Rally, finished first in the initial round of parliamentary elections in June, before being defeated by a broad multiparty coalition in the second and final round — spoke in an onstage conversation at the Athens Democracy Forum, an annual gathering of policymakers, business leaders, academics and activists organized in association with The New York Times.The defeat of Mr. Bardella and his party by a broad anti-far-right coalition were a sign of the endurance of liberal democratic values in the West. Yet his rapid rise as a political figure in France also comes as a warning that the basic tenets of liberal democracy are constantly being tested — and like never before in the postwar period.The year 2024 has been the year of elections: More of them were held than ever before in history. Some four billion people — more than half of humankind — have been, or will be, called to the ballot box in dozens of elections around the world. They include the 161 million U.S. voters heading to the polls on Nov. 5.Elections are the unquestionable cornerstone of democracy: the process by which voters choose the leaders and lawmakers who will rule over them. Voters’ ability to make an informed choice rests on their access to accurate and verified news and information about the candidates and their parties.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      A Young Activist Arrested in Zimbabwe Holds Onto Her ‘Why’

      by

      Namatai Kwekweza said she remained committed to her advocacy for change in Africa, despite a harrowing experience in Zimbabwe.This article is from a special report on the Athens Democracy Forum, which gathered experts last week in the Greek capital to discuss global issues.A year ago, during the 2023 Democracy Forum in Athens, Namatai Kwekweza was awarded the Kofi Annan NextGen Democracy prize for her pro-democracy and feminist advocacy in Africa. Last week, as the forum again met in Greece, Ms. Kwekweza was dealing with repercussions of that activism: her recent arrest in Zimbabwe and pending trial.On July 31, Ms. Kwekweza, who is the founder and director of Zimbabwe’s youth leadership development and advocacy organization WELEAD Trust, boarded a domestic flight from Harare, the capital, to the city of Victoria Falls to attend a conference on philanthropy.While on the tarmac with the engines running, Ms. Kwekweza, 25, along with Robson Chere and Samuel Gwenzi — activists who were also traveling to the conference — was escorted off the plane. The three were then forced to enter a domestic arrivals terminal, which was under renovation, through the luggage carousel hole, with Ms. Kwekweza being kicked through it after her initial refusal. They were beaten and tortured for several hours, she said, before finally being taken to a police station and charged with disorderly conduct on allegations that they had protested outside a court in June over the arrests of six dozen supporters of the opposition leader Jameson Timba.In a statement issued by the United Nations, independent human rights experts expressed concern over the arrests and detention of Ms. Kwekweza, Mr. Chere and Mr. Gwenzi: “The enforced disappearance, incommunicado detention and torture, followed by the arbitrary detention of these human rights defenders is inexcusable, and not only violates international human rights law but also makes a mockery of the safeguards contained in Zimbabwe’s own Constitution.”Ms. Kwekweza, who was held for 35 days before being released on bail, was in South Africa when those protests were taking place in Harare. In a court hearing on Sept. 30, her trial was postponed until Oct. 22. In a video interview before the hearing, she spoke about her arrest and what she believed was the real reason behind her incarceration. The following conversation has been edited and condensed.What happened when you were taken off the plane?Immediately I started asking a lot of questions, like, “Why are we being asked to leave? Who are you? You didn’t identify yourselves — what is the purpose of all of this?” As soon as I got outside, there was a man who tried to grab my phone. So instantly I knew something was really off. I started texting my mom and texting some lawyers that “I think we’re being arrested at the airport.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Athens Democracy Forum: Seeking the Road to Peace in the Middle East

      by

      Panelists at the Athens Democracy Forum discussed the widening conflict and the challenge of getting the warring parties to a consensus.This article is from a special report on the Athens Democracy Forum, which gathered experts last week in the Greek capital to discuss global issues.As the war in the Middle East faced another round of deadly escalation, the international negotiator Nomi Bar-Yaacov called on all sides in the conflict to stop and consider how “we got here.”An Israeli citizen and associate fellow at the London-based think tank Chatham House, she didn’t hesitate to give her own answer.“At the heart of this lies the right of the Palestinians to self-determination and to statehood,” Ms. Bar-Yaacov said, leading off a sometimes-edgy 40-minute panel discussion on the Middle East at the Athens Democracy Forum last week.In recent days, the heightened confrontation between Israel and Iran has exacerbated fears in the region and globally about an even larger and more dangerous conflict.And yet, the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict was what started the current war, just as it has other Middle East wars before it. And most of the panelists agreed that the most feasible path to peace would be the two-state solution that has been on and off the table since Israel was created.“Nobody in 76 years has come up with a better idea,” said Roger Cohen, Paris bureau chief of The New York Times, who has reported frequently from the region.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Does India Offer a Glimmer of Hope for Democracy?

      by

      Prime Minister Modi was re-elected, but his party fell short in dominating Parliament. Was that an inflection point for the world’s largest democracy?This article is from a special report on the Athens Democracy Forum, which gathered experts last week in the Greek capital to discuss global issues.Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India was elected to a third term in office in June, but his Bharatiya Janata Party failed to win a simple majority in the lower house of Parliament, surprising political observers inside and outside the country.With the B.J.P. winning only 240 of the 543 seats, far short of the 300 that party members had hoped for, Mr. Modi now leads a coalition government.India and the Allure of Modi, a panel discussion at the Athens Democracy Forum on Oct. 3, addressed this issue, focusing on the appeal — and the shifting role — of this galvanizing figure and the future of Hindu nationalism that had cemented much of his power. Ahead of the Democracy conference, two of the panelists, Yamini Aiyar and Maya Tudor, were interviewed by video for their take on Mr. Modi’s future and what it portends for the world’s largest democracy and for other democracies facing elections. Ms. Aiyar is a visiting senior fellow at the Saxena Center for Contemporary South Asia at Brown University and Ms. Tudor is the professor of politics and public policy at the Blavatnik School of Government, and a fellow at St. Hilda’s College, both at Oxford University. The panel was moderated by Jyoti Thottam, senior editor and member of The New York Times editorial board.The interviews were edited and condensed.What is the allure of Narendra Modi, and how has it evolved?MAYA TUDOR Modi came to power in 2014 on the heels of several corruption scandals that had marred the previous governments. He was able to nationalize a strategy he had really honed in the state of Gujarat when he was the chief minister, which was to polarize in places where doing so reaped political dividends.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More