Democracy (Theory and Philosophy)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Nancy Pelosi, on Reforms to Reinforce Democracy

      by

      The former House speaker, responding to an Opinion essay, points to legislation pending in Congress.To the Editor:Re “The Constitution Won’t Save Us From Trump,” by Aziz Rana (Opinion guest essay, April 28):Mr. Rana makes a strong case for legislative solutions that will reinforce American democracy. To that end, many of the reforms he calls for were already passed by House Democrats in 2022.Our Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act would take these steps:1) Aim to stop voter suppression and election subversion.2) Establish a nationwide redistricting commission to end partisan gerrymandering.3) Empower the grass roots with matching funds for small-dollar donors.4) Curtail the harmful, anti-democracy Citizens United decision by enacting the Disclose Act, which curbs anonymous funders from suffocating the airwaves with misrepresentations.President Biden, a patriotic and determined champion for democracy, has been forceful in his support for these reforms. But shamefully, Senate Republicans are the final obstacle.When we retake the House, hold the Senate and re-elect Joe Biden in 2024, the filibuster must be pulled aside so this democracy-advancing legislation can become law.Doing so will enable us to pass important legislation to protect our planet from the fossil fuel industry and protect our children from the gun industry, to name a few examples where big dark money stands in the way of progress.It is our duty to empower the public, reduce cynicism in government and put people over politics.Nancy PelosiWashingtonThe writer is the former speaker of the House. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Justice Alito Is Holding Trump to a Different Standard

      by

      I mentioned it in passing in my Friday column, but I was struck — disturbed, really — by one specific point made by Justice Samuel Alito during Thursday’s oral arguments in Trump v. United States.Alito began innocuously enough: “I’m sure you would agree with me that a stable democratic society requires that a candidate who loses an election, even a close one, even a hotly contested one, leave office peacefully if that candidate is the incumbent.”“Of course,” answered Michael Dreeben, the lawyer arguing the case for the Department of Justice.“Now,” Alito continued, “if an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?”The implication of Alito’s question is that presidential immunity for all official acts may be a necessary concession to the possibility of a politically motivated investigation and prosecution: Presidents need to be above the law to raise the odds that they follow the law and leave office without incident.If this sounds backward, that’s because it is.There have been, in the nearly 236 years since Americans ratified the Constitution, 45 presidents. Of those, 10 sought but did not win re-election. In every case but one, the defeated incumbents left office without incident. There was no fear that they would try to overturn the results or subvert the process, nor was there any fear that their successors would turn the power of the state against them. Thomas Jefferson did not try to jail John Adams after the close-fought 1800 election; he assured the American people that “we are all republicans, we are all federalists.” Jimmy Carter did not sic the F.B.I. on Gerald Ford in the wake of his narrow victory; he thanked him for “all he has done to heal our land.”By Alito’s lights, this should not have been possible. Why would a president leave if he could be prosecuted as a private citizen? The answer is that the other nine people who lost had a commitment to American democracy that transcended their narrow, personal or partisan interests.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 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      My Father, Ronald Reagan, Would Weep for America

      by

      The night before my father died, Ronald Reagan, I listened to his breathing — ragged, thin. Nothing like that of the athletic man who rode horses, built fences at the ranch, constructed jumps from old phone poles, cut back shrubs along riding trails. Or of the man who lifted his voice to the overcast sky and said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”Time and history folded over themselves inside me, distant memories somersaulting with more recent realities — the 10 years of his journey into the murky world of Alzheimer’s and my determination to abandon the well-worn trail of childhood complaints and forge a new path. To be blunt, I had resolved to grow the hell up.I can still remember how it felt to be his child, though, and how the attention he paid to America and its issues made me jealous.Long before my father ran for office, politics sat between us at the dinner table. The conversations were predictable: Big government was the problem, the demon, the thing America had to be wary of. I hated those conversations. I wanted to talk about the boy who bullied me on the school bus, not government overreach.In time I came to resent this country for claiming so much of him. Yet today, it’s his love for America that I miss most. His eyes often welled with tears when “America the Beautiful” was played, but it wasn’t just sentiment. He knew how fragile democracy is, how easily it can be destroyed. He used to tell me about how Germany slid into dictatorship, the biggest form of government of all.I wish so deeply that I could ask him about the edge we are teetering on now, and how America might move out of its quagmire of anger, its explosions of hatred. How do we break the cycle of violence, both actual and verbal? How do we cross the muddy divides that separate us, overcome the partisan rancor that drives elected officials to heckle the president in his State of the Union address? When my father was shot, Tip O’Neill, then speaker of the House and always one of his most devoted political opponents, came into his hospital room and knelt down to pray with him, reciting the 23rd Psalm. Today a gesture like that seems impossible.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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Don’t Underestimate the Mobilizing Force of Abortion

      by

      Poland recently ousted its right-wing, nationalist Law and Justice Party. In 2020, a party-appointed tribunal severely restricted the country’s abortion rights, sparking nationwide protests and an opposition movement. After a trip to Poland, the Times Opinion columnist Michelle Goldberg came to recognize that similar dynamics could prevail in the United States in 2024. In this audio essay, she argues that Joe Biden’s campaign should take note of what a “powerful mobilizing force the backlash to abortion bans can be.”(A full transcript of this audio essay will be available by Monday, and can be found in the audio player above.)Illustration by Akshita Chandra/The New York Times; Photograph by Getty ImagesThe Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, X (@NYTOpinion) and Instagram.This episode of “The Opinions” was produced by Jillian Weinberger. It was edited by Kaari Pitkin and Alison Bruzek. Engineering by Isaac Jones and Sonia Herrero. Original music by Isaac Jones, Sonia Herrero. Fact-checking by Mary Marge Locker. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Kristina Samulewski. More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Senegal Parliament Delays Elections Until December After Opposition Showdown

      by

      President Macky Sall abruptly postponed elections scheduled for this month, and on Monday, legislators in the West African nation voted to allow him to stay in office months after his presidency is to end.Senegal’s Parliament voted late Monday to delay elections until December, after opposition lawmakers seeking to block the vote were thrown out of the National Assembly. The vote came after President Macky Sall last week postponed the upcoming ballot, a move critics condemned as an “institutional coup.”Voters had been preparing to go to the polls on Feb. 25, until Mr. Sall — who has said he is not seeking a third term — announced on Saturday that he was postponing the election. Experts and many opposition and civil society leaders called it a power grab by an unpopular president who is not certain that his chosen successor would win.But on Monday night, police officers in helmets and bulletproof vests expelled opposition members from the National Assembly, preventing them from voting after a marathon session debating the legality of Mr. Sall’s move. The bill then passed with a vote of 105 to 1. In effect, Mr. Sall will be allowed to stay on until the election is held on Dec. 15, nearly 10 months after his presidency is supposed to conclude.Anticipating an outburst of protest, the government on Monday morning cut internet access to cellphones, banned motorcycles in the capital, Dakar, and sent hundreds of security forces into the streets in a show of force. The big public protests that had been expected for Monday afternoon never materialized; Dakar’s streets emptied, as many residents chose to stay indoors.When Mr. Sall announced that he was postponing the election, he said in his address to the nation that a dispute between the national assembly and the constitutional court needed to be resolved before a vote could be held, but critics dismissed this as a “manufactured crisis.”On Sunday, isolated protests broke out across Dakar, but they were quickly put down by security forces who used tear gas and arrested several demonstrators, including former Prime Minister Aminata Touré.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

    • 75 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Only Voters Can Truly Disqualify Trump

      by

      Intense debate has accompanied the decision by the Supreme Court to review the decision by Colorado’s highest court to bar Donald Trump from the state’s primary ballots based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — about the precise meaning of the word “insurrection,” the extent of Mr. Trump’s culpability for the events of Jan. 6 and other legal issues.I’m not going to predict how the Supreme Court will rule, or whether its ruling will be persuasive to those with a different view of the law. But there’s a critical philosophical question that lies beneath the legal questions in this case. In a representative democracy, the people are sovereign, and they express their sovereignty through representatives of their choice. If the courts presume to pre-emptively reject the people’s choice, then who is truly sovereign?The question of sovereignty was central to the purpose of the 14th Amendment in the first place. The Civil War — unquestionably an armed insurrection — was fought because of slavery. That was the reason for the war.But its justification was a dispute over sovereignty, whether it resided primarily with the people of the individual states or with the people of the United States, who had established the Constitution.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?  More

    • 63 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Medio planeta a las urnas

      by

      Medio planeta a las urnasDesafíos democráticos, operativo Metástasis en Ecuador y más para estar al día.Millones de votantes acudieron a las urnas a inicios de este mes. A la izquierda, en Bangladés; a la derecha, en Bután.Monirul Alam/EPA, vía Shutterstock; Money Sharma/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesEste 2024 se perfila como el año de mayor actividad electoral en el mundo: están previstos más de 80 comicios importantes, la mayor cantidad en, al menos, las siguientes dos décadas.Esto significa que, en el transcurso del año, unos 4000 millones de votantes tendrán en sus manos algún tipo de decisión para incidir en el futuro de su país, según algunos cálculos. Es casi la mitad de los habitantes del planeta.Solo en América, se prevé que electores en El Salvador, Estados Unidos, México, Panamá, República Dominicana, Uruguay y Venezuela acudan a las urnas para elegir a sus mandatarios.A pesar de que este intenso ejercicio electoral podría parecer un indicio positivo para la democracia, algunos expertos aseguran que hay motivos para preocuparse. Por todo el mundo han surgido desafíos a este sistema político: grandes migraciones, conflictos internacionales, crecientes brechas económicas, polarización.“Casi todas las democracias están bajo estrés, sin tomar en cuenta la tecnología”, dijo en un artículo reciente Darrell West, investigador del Instituto Brookings. “Cuando a eso le sumas la desinformación, simplemente se crean muchas oportunidades para causar problemas”.Entre esos problemas se encuentran los esfuerzos para “desacreditar la democracia como modelo global de gobernanza”, escribieron los reporteros Tiffany Hsu, Stuart A. Thompson y Steven Lee Myers. Además observaron que cada vez hay más actores que impulsan narrativas de fraude electoral con este fin.México es uno de los países que va a tener elecciones presidenciales este año.Las divisiones sociales, las guerras culturales y la polarización también sirven como terreno fértil para la propagación de discursos extremistas y de odio en distintas plataformas, lo que, a largo plazo, socava la capacidad de superar las diferencias y formar gobiernos de unidad.Más allá del plano de las votaciones, la institucionalidad es crucial para el buen funcionamiento democrático. En una columna reciente de The Interpreter, Amanda Taub reflexiona sobre sus virtudes y retos.Las instituciones, escribió Amanda, “existen para que los procesos complejos puedan automatizarse, para que grandes grupos de personas puedan colaborar sin tener que crear nuevos sistemas para hacerlo y para que personas como yo podamos confiar en su pericia sin poseer ni un ápice de esa experiencia”.Sin embargo, continúa, en los últimos años se ha registrado un deterioro institucional que pone en riesgo la gobernabilidad en numerosos países.Apenas este fin de semana, Guatemala vivió horas de zozobra ante la incertidumbre de si Bernardo Arévalo podría asumir la presidencia. Arévalo ganó la segunda vuelta de las elecciones con 20 puntos porcentuales de ventaja y, no obstante, enfrentó diversos esfuerzos para impedir que tomara posesión del cargo. En la madrugada del lunes, después de un retraso, Arévalo fue juramentado.El presidente de Guatemala, Bernardo Arévalo, y su vicepresidenta, Karin Herrera, saludan a los asistentes desde el balcón del Palacio Nacional para celebrar su toma de posesión el lunes.Daniele Volpe para The New York TimesSin embargo, los obstáculos que enfrentó por parte de sus opositores se generaron mayormente por la vía institucional. “En el siglo XX eran golpes de fuerza con tanques, bayonetas, con militares y duraban dos o tres días”, comentó Arévalo el año pasado en un reportaje del Times. “Los golpes del siglo XXI son dados con diputados, con abogados, en las cortes, se hacen así”, dijo. “Es más sofisticado, tarda mucho más tiempo, se hace con la pretensión de que se continúa con las instituciones”.En todo el mundo hay indicios de este tipo de erosión. En Estados Unidos, Francia e Israel, por ejemplo, se ha observado una tendencia de los distintos poderes de gobierno a desafiar los límites constitucionales. En Hungría, Viktor Orbán ha reconfigurado la Constitución a fin de concentrar el poder. En Ecuador, una investigación reciente mostró que el crimen organizado se había infiltrado en el sistema penitenciario.A pesar de las teorías conspirativas y la desinformación, es relativamente fácil seguir el hilo de las carreras electorales: hay candidatos, conteo de votos y ganadores y perdedores. Pero, como observa Amanda, también vale la pena prestar tanta atención a la salud institucional como al desempeño de las contiendas electorales.P. D.: Hablando de votaciones, Taiwán eligió presidente el fin de semana. Esto es lo que hay que saber.Si alguien te reenvió este correo, puedes hacer clic aquí para recibirlo tres veces por semana.Rincón de los lectoresGrisy Oropeza y su esposo, Dyluis Rojas. Solicitaron asilo poco después de llegar a Nueva York.José A. Alvarado Jr. para The New York TimesA continuación, una selección de diversos puntos de vista y experiencias que nuestros lectores enviaron a la sección de comentarios y a nuestro buzón de correo, editadas por extensión y claridad.“Emigrar es una opción válida para cualquier persona que crea que lo quiere o lo deba hacer, lo irregular es la actitud que desde hace mucho tiempo viene ejerciendo Estados Unidos contra infinidad de países a los que considera enemigos o contrarios a sus políticas”. —Octavio Cruz González, Cali, Colombia, respecto al reportaje sobre una familia venezolana en un limbo burocrático en Nueva York.“Me gustaría compartir con ustedes algunas recomendaciones para quienes realizan senderismo, a propósito de su artículo sobre esta actividad: 1) A menos que se trate de un parque urbano no invites a tus mascotas, se pueden extraviar o dañar la fauna y flora salvajes. Si insistes en llevarlos, usa correa y hazte cargo de sus excrementos llevándolos hasta un contenedor. 2) Hazte responsable de tu basura. No tires nada al suelo, ni siquiera lo orgánico: ese corazón de manzana que crees que se descompondrá pronto lo puede terminar comiendo un animal salvaje. 3) La gente que te rodea va a disfrutar de la naturaleza y el paisaje, queremos oír el ruido del agua y del viento, ¡no lo que sale de tus parlantes! 4) Si vas a una zona afectada por la sequía, lleva un litro adicional de agua para regar algún arbusto. Y si ya vas a terminar, usa el agua que te sobra también para regar o dejar en los bebederos de aves”. —Javiera Osorio, Santiago, Chile, respecto al senderismo y sus beneficios.“Viví una experiencia similar el pasado verano cuando cayó mi iPhone al mar. Decidí no reponer el teléfono móvil inmediatamente. Estaba cansado de tanto mensaje de WhatsApp, de Instagram y otras apps. Gané libertad, recuperé la vida próxima (la realidad que me rodeaba). También observé que me involucraba más en lo que hacía. Así aguanté hasta el iPhone 15, vuelta a la normalidad. Estoy pensando cómo reducir las horas de pantalla. Es difícil compaginar, por un lado, la vida ‘normal’, la del trabajo y las conexiones con familiares y amigos, y por otro la vida ‘desconectado’”. —Enrique López-Amor, Barcelona, España, respecto a la adicción a los teléfonos inteligentes.“La humanidad es testigo de cómo una tecnología puede ser utilizada para el bienestar o para la destrucción del otro. Leo y escucho que debe controlarse, la ética, la moral deben ser los cinturones de ajuste. La pregunta, entre otras interrogantes, es: ¿quiénes serán los ‘jueces’ que determinen cómo, dónde, con quién, para qué se hace un correcto uso de esta tecnología? El tema es que las grandes corporaciones se están arrogando el título de jueces, inclusive por encima de los gobiernos”. —Roberto Gómez Sánchez, Lima, Perú, respecto a un ensayo sobre la inteligencia artificial.— More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      The U.S. Lacks What Every Democracy Needs

      by

      The history of voting in the United States shows the high costs of living with an old Constitution, unevenly enforced by a reluctant Supreme Court.Unlike the constitutions of many other advanced democracies, the U.S. Constitution contains no affirmative right to vote. We have nothing like Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, providing that “every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein,” or like Article 38 of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany, which provides that when it comes to election of the Bundestag, “any person who has attained the age of 18 shall be entitled to vote.”As we enter yet another fraught election season, it’s easy to miss that many of the problems we have with voting and elections in the United States can be traced to this fundamental constitutional defect. Our problems are only going to get worse until we get constitutional change.The framers were skeptical of universal voting. The original U.S. Constitution provided for voting only for the House of Representatives, not for the Senate or the presidency, leaving voter qualifications for House elections to the states. Later amendments framed voting protections in the negative: If there’s going to be an election, a state may not discriminate on the basis of race (15th Amendment), gender (19th Amendment) or status as an 18-to-20-year old (26th Amendment).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?  More