Foundation for Democratic Advancement

FDA Podcast: Money and Democracy Part 1 of 2

2012-02-02T14:53:00.000-08:00

In this month's podcast, Mr. Stephen Garvey FDA founder and executive director chairs a seven person panel on the topic of should citizens with more money have more political say in a democratic society? This podcast is part 1 of 2. "Money" refers to an individual's wealth, and "political say" refers political influence prior to an election and during the term of a government. The panelists are comprised of Mr. Marc Power, Alberta NDP candidate for Calgary-Klein electoral division, Mr. Artur Pawlowski, member of the Christian Heritage Party of Canada and lead pastor at the Street Church Ministries based out of Calgary, Dr. Lisa Young, Political Science Professor at the University of Calgary, Mr. Dale Monette, FDA Director of Finance, Mr. Norm Kelley, Alberta Party candidate for the Calgary-Prairie electoral division, and Mr. Jim Blake member of the Christian Heritage Party of Canada and national chairman of the Concerned Christians Canada. The two political representatives were randomly selected. The views in this podcast do not necessarily represent the views of the FDA. For non-mainstream, insightful, and provocative discussion from people working in the field of international politics, listen in or download the FDA podcasts.

Money and Democracy Part 1 of 2

Eisenhower Forewarns of Threat to Democracy and the People

2012-02-02T14:33:00.000-08:00

In his farewell speech in 1961, Eisenhower talks about the threat from the US military industrial complex to liberties and democratic processes, and he encourages Americans to be politically active and vigilant to protect their freedoms. In contrast, US politicians like Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney talks about quiet rooms and the politics of envy.

Nader Questions the US Two-Party System or Oligopoly?

2012-01-26T13:17:00.000-08:00

The FDA is committed to expanding electoral discourse and choice, with the purpose of increasing the voice of the will of the people. In this video, Nader echoes the FDA concern for example that Americans' electoral choice is limited to only two parties. Interestingly, the Conservative government in Canada has been pushing through rhetoric for less Canadian parties and has vilified coalition governments. Self-serving agenda? (In the FDA electoral fairness audit on the US federal electoral system, the FDA shows that the US two-party system is a legislated creation which favors very significantly the Republicans and Democrats over all other parties. The point being that the US two-party system is a human creation, rather than a natural phenomenon.)

FDA Electoral Fairness Report on the US Federal Electoral System

Harper Conservative Government Weakens the Canadian Health Care System?

2012-01-25T13:36:00.000-08:00

Recently the Harper Conservative government made a unilateral health care funding announcement to the provinces (similar to a strategy taken with the recent union strikes by Air Canada and Canada Post Corporation, in which negotiations were abruptly shortened). Also, the Conservative government side stepped the Canada Health Act, thereby disconnecting federal health funds with national standards.

Political Background of the Harper Conservative Government:

In the 2011 Canadian general election, the Harper Conservative government received 39.6 percent of those Canadians who voted, and 24.3 percent including non-voters. Yet, through the first-past-the-post system, the Harper Conservative government received a 54 percent majority of the Canadian parliament. (Currently, in Canada, in a clear conflict of interest, the majority of the MPs determine the federal election laws. Over the last few decades, the Liberals and Conservatives have a created the electoral system Canadians have.)

The FDA proposes the following electoral reforms to the Canadian federal electoral system in order to the increase the voice of the will of the people:

1. The majority of federal politicians cease to determine the federal election laws.

2. An independent, non-partisan, elected citizen body made up of the diverse regions of Canada determine the federal election laws, and which must be consistent with the Canadian Constitution and Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

3. The Canadian mainstream media and broadcasters three months prior to an election period and during it, are required to present an equality of non-partisan political content of all registered political parties.

4. The creation of media ownership concentrations laws in order to promote the plurality of Canadian media. (Source: France, Norway, and Bolivia's media ownership concentration laws.)

5. No registered political party is given an unequal advantage prior to and during an election. All registered political parties begin an election from the same starting place in terms of finances and media access, and throughout the campaign.

6. Registered political parties should have public support of at least .5 percent member support from the voting population and have a national platform. The .5 percent threshold is a democratic means of limiting political access by unpopular political parties. The requirement of a national platform prevents interest and regional based political parties from having the same privileges as registered political parties. However, interest and regional based political parties would be allowed to be on electoral lists as long as they satisfy the .5 percent member support threshold. (Sources: ideas of FDA auditors; Venezuela, Organic Law of Electoral Processes, Chapter II, Article 9-10, .5 percent declared member support either national or regional; Norway, Political Parties Act, Chapter II, Article 3(2), party registration based partly on public support from 5000 person who are eligible to vote; France, Organic Law No. 2011-410, representation on electoral list requires support from 500 elected officials at any level of government, and new political parties need $10,000 in donations in a 12 month period to receive public funding; Bolivia, Bolivian Law of the Electoral System, Act No. 26, political groups must represent at least 2 percent of vote in last election to be registered in subsequent election; New Zealand, Electoral Law 1993, to be registered political parties need at least 500 members; Egypt under Mubarak, Law No. 40 of the year 1977 Concerning the Political Party System and Its Amendments, ban on political parties which are based on religious, class, sectarian, categorical, or geographical basis. Note, countries with minimal barriers to entry for political parties like New Zealand, Canada, and the United States have various barriers within their electoral systems which favor significantly established and large political parties.)

The 2011 Conservative Party of Canada's platform on health care:

RENEWING THE FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL HEALTH ACCORD

We are committed to a universal public health care system and the Canada Health Act, and the right of provinces to deliver health care within their jurisdictions.

More work is needed to reduce wait times for other treatments and diagnostic procedures. And there remains a need for more timely and uniform reporting from the provinces and territories in order to measure progress.

Canadians expect and deserve timely access to high-quality health care services. To help achieve that goal, we will work collaboratively with the provinces and territories to renew the Health Accord and to continue reducing wait times.

In our discussions we will emphasize the importance of accountability and results for Canadians – better reporting from the provinces and territories to measure progress, and guarantees covering additional medically necessary procedures.

In the spirit of open federalism, when renewing the Health Accord we will respect the fact that health care is an area of provincial jurisdiction and respect limits on the federal spending power.

Recognizing asymmetrical federalism, we will follow the precedent of a separate agreement with the Government of Quebec regarding the implementation of the renewed Health Accord.

MORE DOCTORS AND NURSES FOR RURAL COMMUNITIES

We will help attract new doctors, nurses and nurse practitioners to these communities, by forgiving a portion of federal student loans for those who agree to practice in underserved rural or remote areas.

The result will be better health care and a higher quality of life for Canadians in rural and remote communities.

DEFIBRILLATORS IN EVERY HOCKEY ARENA IN CANADA

From the Council of Canadians (January 24, 2012):

Harper government abandoning public health care

Council of Canadians’ National Chairperson Maude Barlow and Health Care Campaigner Adrienne Silnicki joined other Council staff, members and chapter activists in Victoria, B.C. earlier this month as provincial and territorial premiers met to talk about the 2014 Health Care Accord and the future delivery of health care services in Canada.

At the meeting, premiers condemned the Harper government for its unilateral funding announcement that will limit the amount of money provinces can expect from the federal government to deliver health care services. The Harper government hoped the announcement would put an end to financial negotiations for federal health transfers. By stepping away from the Canada Health Act and not tying federal funds to national standards, the Harper government closed the door on any opportunity to improve Canada’s health care system through the new accord.

Public health care advocates were at the Premiers’ meeting in force, reminding politicians of Canadians’ strong support for medicare. Young activists lined up outside meeting, holding up red umbrellas to tell politicians that “medicare has us all covered.” That evening, the Council of Canadians joined the BC Health Coalition in hosting a public forum about the 2014 Health Care Accord and what it means to Canadians. Keynote speakers at the event included Maude Barlow, Diana Gibson of the Parkland Institute, and Mike Luff of the National Union of Public & General Employees.

The Council of Canadians will be working with public health care allies across the country to sound the alarm about medicare’s uncertain future. We will lobby governments to take a strong stand in support of this valued social program, and push the federal government to assume a leadership role that strengthens medicare – not abandons it – in the lead-up to the signing of the 2014 accord.

Nenshi Pay Reduction a Political Ploy?

2012-01-24T14:01:00.000-08:00

For the second year in a row, Nenshi takes a self-induced, non-anonymous pay cut.

His salary has been cut by 10% which means he will taking about $180,000 of Calgarians' tax dollars rather than about $200,000. Wow he must be hard up with such a drastic cut and modest income. (In 2010, the per capita income for Albertans was $70,826. (Statistics Canada).

In the 2010 Calgary Mayoral election, Nenshi never campaigned on reducing his mayoral income. He campaigned on his self-proclaimed eight better ideas (than all the other Mayoral candidates) and probably the entire world! Did he even look at the platforms of the other candidates? Would he concede that some of his and perhaps most of his ideas are not better; they are the best!?

Could Nenshi have his eyes and smile already on a reelection bid by manufacturing an image that he saves Calgarians' tax dollars? Did he save them when he spent 5 million of Calgarian tax dollars to merely and rashly replace the CEO of Enmax? Did he save them when he spent $60,000 of Calgarian tax dollars in a frivolous law suit against the freedom of expression of a Calgarian street preacher? Is he saving Calgarians' tax dollars by pushing through an airport tunnel which apparently is 500 million over budget?....

From Macleans (January 11, 2012):

"Holy unreasonable: The City of Calgary spent more than $65,000 fighting a controversial street preacher in court over a $100 bylaw fine."

Nenshi takes pay reduction

Colbert echoes the FDA's findings on the US electoral finance laws

2012-01-23T13:59:00.000-08:00

Colbert in blunt terms points out to Americans the severe unfairness of US federal electoral finance laws. In the FDA electoral fairness report on the US federal democracy, the US received a score of .5 percent out of 100 percent. The score means that the US finance laws are bordering complete unfairness.

Colberts's thoughts on the US campaign finance absurdity

FDA Electoral Fairness Report on the US Federal Electoral System

Are there parallels between Alberta and Canada and Texas?

2012-01-22T19:35:00.000-08:00

Ann Richards, former Texas governor, provides an interesting perspective on the history of Texas in terms of values, property rights, the environment etc., the Harper Conservative Party ran in the last federal election partly on increased property rights for land owners and weak policies on the environment as indicated by the recent withdrawal of Canada from the Kyoto Protocol on Global Warming. Also, about 40% of Alberta is privately owned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_ownership_in_Canada) and the province is weak on the environment as showcased by the environmental disaster called the Alberta tar sands.

Bill Mayer responds to "quiet rooms" and envy....

2012-01-22T10:42:00.000-08:00

Enjoy Mayer's humor and wit as he responds to Romney's views on "quiet rooms" and envy...

Ann Richards discusses the nature of the US politician

2012-01-21T18:21:00.000-08:00

Ann Richards, former Texas governor, shares her insight on the nature of the US politician and behind the political scenes.

Troubling insight into the erosion of fundamental democratic principles

2012-01-21T18:11:00.000-08:00

Republican nominee Gingrich voices his disdain for fundamental democratic principles such as the political right to disobey, protest, and criticize.

Insight into the leadership candidates of the US two-party political system

2012-01-21T18:06:00.000-08:00

Republican nominee Mitt Romney dismisses issues of electoral fairness as rooted in envy, and that they should be talked about in quiet rooms. In contrast, the FDA believes that electoral fairness is rooted in a pillar of democracy called fairness, and that electoral fairness should be discussed and debated rigorously in public.

FDA Updates its "About Us" Statement

2012-01-18T15:55:00.000-08:00

This excerpt is taken from the "About" page on the FDA website:

The Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) is a non-partisan and independent democracy reform and advocacy organization. The FDA's reforms are centered on increasing the voice of the will of the people. FDA members embrace the following principles: progress, innovation, objectivity, and transparency. The mission of the FDA is to advance democratic processes all over the world in terms of transparency and fairness, thereby bringing the will of the people to the forefront of democratic discourse.

The FDA is divided into four departments: Finance, Marketing, Research and Project Initiative, and Technology. To maintain its independence and objectivity, the FDA only accepts donations and grants from individuals and organizations that do not compromise its independence and objectivity.

As a non-profit organization, we are always looking for members and volunteers. If you would like to help our cause, please click here.

Informing the public:

The FDA grassroots advocacy movement informs the public on democratic concepts and issues by engaging the public in dialogue and discussion. The FDA is active in social networking, podcasts, audio and video interviews, and collaborates with other organizations to achieve its purpose of democracy reform.

Collaborative, In-depth research:

The FDA conducts research on key issues in democracy including electoral processes and their application. This is done through analysis of constitutional and legislative material and real-world application. The intent of this research is to provide policy recommendations on electoral systems to key stakeholders and the general public. The FDA reports are based on defined methodology, matrices, and scoring scales. The FDA also researches both legislative documents and theoretical literature. The FDA audit process, comprised of audit teams and observers, forms the structure of the FDA reports.

Direct Involvement:

The FDA also is striving to conduct on the ground assessments on electoral systems to determine their legitimacy. Because the FDA values the concept of "the will of the people," the more fair, impartial and equitable an electoral system is, the more likelihood the will of the people will be represented.

History:

The FDA was founded in 2007 in Kimberley, British Columbia by Stephen Garvey, a Canadian activist, author and writer. In 2009, Mr. Garvey moved the FDA to the larger center of Calgary, Alberta. The organization started with five members, but since 2009 has grown to over 40 members and volunteers worldwide. Earlier FDA projects focused on Canadian issues, but now the FDA has evolved into an organization and grassroots movement that promotes democracy reform globally.

FDA Executive Body:

Mr. Stephen Garvey, founder, FDA Executive Director, and Director of Research and Project Initiative.

Mr. Garvey has been with the FDA since its formation in 2007. He has spearheaded numerous FDA electoral projects and initiatives, and he is fully committed to the FDA cause. He has a bachelor degree in Political Science from the University of British Columbia and a masters degree in Environment and Development from the University of Cambridge. Also, Mr. Garvey has written several books on political theory and decision-making as pertaining to democracy. Mr. Garvey has an interest in the role of audit and evaluative processes in the functioning of society, with special emphasis on electoral processes.

Mr. Dale Monette, FDA Director of Finance.

Mr. Monette has over 6 years of experience as an entrepreneur and over 3 years experience in finance and accounting. He holds a Bachelor of Commerce degree and is currently undergoing his Master of Professional Accounting degree. Mr. Monette has a passion for democracy, and he realizes fundamentally that democracy requires attention and work by citizens.

Mr. Aurangzeb Qureshi, FDA Director of Marketing.

Mr. Qureshi has worked in a marketing and communications capacity in diverse industries such as health care, chemicals, technology and utilities. With a passion for international politics, he joined the FDA in 2010 and has since helped the FDA raise its profile in Canada and abroad. Mr. Qureshi is also a freelance writer, and his work has appeared in publications such as the Edmonton Journal, The Canadian Charger, Al-Arabiya English and AntiWar.com.

FDA's Key Electoral Fairness Definitions

2012-01-16T17:04:00.000-08:00

These electoral fairness definitions provide a conceptual framework for the FDA electoral fairness audits:

Key Definitions:

Candidate and party influence refers to the opportunity and action of candidates and parties to campaign directly and indirectly in the public domain for elected positions of political representation. This opportunity and action occur before, during, and after an election period. Also, this concept may overlap with the political content of media, electoral finance, and voter influence. In the terms of the FDA electoral fairness audit, candidate and party influence includes:

Registrations requirements for candidates and parties.
Laws for candidates and parties access to media and and reasonable opportunity to take advantage of the access.
Regulations on access to major debates.
Electoral complaints process for candidates and parties.
Laws on donations/contributions to candidates and parties.
Procedures for formation of electoral lists and boundaries.
Procedures for the determination of elected winners in constituencies/districts.
Regulations on the political content of public and private media.
Laws on the structure of state bodies and their relationship in terms of political power.
Length of the campaign period.
Rules on right of reply in the media for registered candidates and parties.

Candidate and party influence only entails laws, regulations, procedures etc. which impact the influence of candidates and parties. For example, candidate and party influence does not entail procedures for electoral complaints by voters nor does it entail laws on voter assistance at polling booths.

(Source: Foundation for Democratic Advancement)

Electoral fairness refers to the impartiality, balance, and equitability of election law, regulation, procedure, access, opportunity, and action, before, during, and after an election period. In the context of the FDA electoral fairness audit, electoral fairness encompasses the concepts of political content of media, candidate and party influence, electoral finance, and voter influence: the impartiality and balance of the media's political content; the equitability of opportunity and action of registered candidates and parties to influence; the equitability of electoral finance laws and regulations in the case of registered candidates and parties; the equitability of opportunity and action of voters in terms of voicing their political views and/or influencing the outcome of an election.

Electoral fairness does not entail bias through for example legislation which gives a concrete electoral advantage to one registered party over another, or a mix of equitability and bias through legislated equal access to media while unequal reasonable opportunity to take advantage of that equal access. In contrast, electoral fairness would entail a broad, balanced diffusion of electoral propaganda by registered political parties during the campaign period, equal campaign finances (not just equal expenditure limits) for all registered parties according to the number of candidates endorsed, and the registration of parties based on reasonable popular support (rather than financial deposit or unreasonable popular support).

The underlying concepts behind electoral fairness are an equal playing field for registered candidates and parties so that they are distinguished by the voting public based on who their candidates are, and what their policies, visions, and pledges etc. are, and a broad, balanced electoral discourse in which the people as a whole are given the better opportunity to determine their political representatives. Electoral fairness as defined is a vision of what ought to be for democratic processes.

(Source: Foundation for Democratic Advancement)

Electoral finance refers to electoral finance law and regulation applied to registered candidates and parties before, during, and after an election period. Electoral finances encompasses campaign finances which are restricted to the campaign period.

In the context of the FDA electoral fairness audit, electoral finance includes:

Caps on electoral donations/contributions (or the lack of).
Caps on candidate and party electoral expenditures (or the lack of).
Procedures for financial disclosure and reporting of candidate and party electoral finances.
Procedures for the handling of electoral donations/contributions by registered candidates and parties.
Public electoral subsidies (or the lack of).
Laws on who can make electoral donations/contributions.
Laws for third-party electoral expenditure (or the lack of).
Rules for electoral deposits by registered candidates and parties.

Electoral finance does not include non-financial laws, regulations, procedures etc. such as laws on candidate and party equal access to media, political right laws like freedom of speech and assembly, rules on right of reply in the media, laws on the political content of media, and laws on voter assistance with the act of voting.

(Source: Foundation for Democratic Advancement)

Political content of media refers to the political content of radio and television broadcasters, the press, and online media such as news sites before, during, and after an election period. This content may entail news stories, editorials, articles, programs, and group analysis and discussion. It does not include electoral advertisements by candidates, parties, and third-parties. Electoral advertisements by candidates and parties are included in the concept of candidate and party influence, and electoral advertisements by third-parties are included in the concept of voter influence.

In the context of FDA electoral fairness audit, political content of media includes:

Registration requirements for television and radio broadcast companies and press companies.
Laws on the ownership concentration of media (or the lack of).
Laws on the political content of media before, during, and after a campaign period.
Laws on freedom of the press and broadcasters.
Laws on the regulation of broadcasters and the press.

The FDA applies “balance” in the case of the political content of media as equal political content of all registered political parties. This application is based on the premise that voters should have balanced information on all registered candidates and parties, and that registered candidates and parties should be elected by the will of the people. The FDA does not support the idea of parties successful in the previous election being favored in media coverage in a current election, because this would create bias based merely on past results, and thereby weaken the process of capturing the will of the people in the present. Also, the FDA does not support unlimited freedom of broadcast and press media. The FDA believes that there is a misleading connection between freedom of broadcasting/press and democracy. The purpose of democratic elections is to capture as accurately as possible the will of the people. A broad, balanced electoral discourse supports the will of the people, rather than a narrow, imbalanced electoral discourse. Although the FDA acknowledges that imbalance in the media's political content could be canceled out if there were media ownership concentration laws which produced pluralistic media ownership and an overall balanced coverage of all registered political parties.

(Source: Foundation for Democratic Advancement)

Voter influence refers to the citizens who are eligible to vote and their opportunity to express through assembly, articles, letters to editors, blogs, advertisements etc. their political voice in the public domain and to vote (including the relative weights of votes). Voter influence applies to before, during, and after an election period.

In the context of the FDA electoral fairness audit, voter influence includes:

Laws and regulations on freedom of speech and assembly.
Laws on the registration requirements for voters.
Laws on voter assistance at the polling booth.
Rules on right of reply by voters in the media.
Laws on the inclusion of minorities in the electoral process.
Caps on electoral donations and candidate and party expenditures (or the lack of).
Caps on third-party electoral expenditures (or the lack of).
Laws on electoral complaints to the election authority by voters.
Laws on the ownership concentration in the media (or the lack of).
Laws on the political content of the media.
Registration requirements for candidates and parties.

Voter influence does not include procedures for the counting of votes. Also, in the context of the FDA electoral fairness audit, voter influence may include overlap with the concepts of political content of media, candidate and party influence, and electoral finance. The overlap is contingent on the impact of these other concepts on voter influence. For example, no caps on donations/contributions to candidates and parties will impact voter influence because the lack of cap will favor voters with more financial wealth, and thereby create inequity and imbalance in voter influence.

(Source: Foundation for Democratic Advancement)

FDA Research on the Alberta Provincial Electoral System

2012-01-11T15:56:00.000-08:00

This research is restricted to the legislative components of the Alberta Provincial Electoral System and the FDA's four categories of electoral fairness--media's political content, candidate and party influence, electoral finance, and voter say.

Additional research on theoretical sources will be included into the research.

This research will be used as the basis for the FDA's electoral fairness audit of the Alberta Provincial Electoral system on January 18th.

FDA research on the Alberta Provincial Electoral System

Free market tested and works?

2012-01-06T17:11:00.000-08:00

The Canadian Conservative government under Harper and now with a majority government with less than 25 percent overall Canadian voter support, is on a campaign of changing Canada's ideology of reliance on public service to a reliance on the private sector. Evidences of this shift are the Conservative government's weakening of the Canadian Wheat Board by making participation in it voluntary, significant behind the scenes slashing of public service sectors such as Environment Canada in which many of the staff have been dismissed, increased government consultation contracts for Canadian right-wing think tanks, and remarks from the Conservatives like Harper that the market is tested.

The issue I have with the Conservative approach is that this organization fails to see the limitations and failures of the marketplace. For examples, the US recent economic recession was linked directly to the lack of regulation of the US marketplace, marketplace corruption such as Enron, market unfairness through favoritism, inequities, and illegal deals, and most important, a subjective valuation of things, objects, and life-forms.

The marketplace which the Conservative's put so much faith in is far, far from perfect.

In relation to democracy, the Conservative market approach does not apply. Based on the FDA electoral findings, there is a severely unfair free market democracy in Canada, in which established and large political parties through their own rules which must apply to all, have an enormous electoral advantage over smaller and new political parties. (See the FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Canada.) So much for an equal playing field and fair market democracy. To put this in context, the Conservatives offer nothing to deal with this electoral shortcoming, and instead focus of electoral reforms which benefit them such as cutting party subsidies (which would do more harm to the NDP and Liberals than the Conservatives).

My advice to Canadians over the next few years when you are being bombarded directly and indirectly with the free market ideology of the Conservative government and its right-wing think tanks, to think about how free and fair the Canadian marketplace is, how things are valued monetarily in it like water and air, and consider the idea that there is a failed disconnect in the ideology of the Conservatives and the free market when it comes to Canadian democracy.

I am not proposing to do away with the marketplace; however, checks and regulations are necessary, as an unrestrained marketplace leads to social inequities, increased environmental harm and corruption etc., and most important the marketplace due to biases, inequities riddled through it falls well short of an accurate valuation of things and people. We see this in the case of the polar bear which the Conservative government has so failed to provide any protection despite the bear's threatened existence or the government's failure to deal with mounting national and global environmental issues like global warming, and the lack of plurality in Canadian mass media. (Countries like France and Bolivia have media ownership concentration laws; Canada has none.)

FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Canada

Racial Segregation 2.0

2011-12-28T20:33:00.000-08:00

Americans are constantly being reminded of their accomplishments regarding civil rights and racial equality. This sudden surge of televised introspective into the progress the U.S. has made is due in large part to election of Barak Obama, and the recent deaths of prominent civil rights activists including Rosa Parks – the black woman who was made famous by her refusal to sit at the back of the bus, thereby sparking a year long bus boycott and bringing racial segregation to the forefront of the American conscience. After watching and reading numerous biographical segments about her life and the lives of other civil rights activists, I began to wonder if much has changed since the days of racial segregation. It is true that blacks are not being lynched any more, but is that really enough to congratulate our collective selves? After all, there is very seldom a day goes by without news of racially motivated crimes. If we are too quick to congratulate ourselves we would neglect to face the very ugly reality that racial segregation still exists and is as strong as it ever was. Contemporary western society is as guilty today of racial segregation as it was 60 years ago, because a necessary byproduct of economic segregation is racial segregation. Take a drive down any middle or upper class suburb in Calgary and you would be hard pressed to find any blacks. You would think they simply did not exist in this city, until, of course, you take a drive down to a low income area. All of a sudden it’s all pepper and no salt. Here is how I think it goes: if you are colored you are more likely to be poor. If you are poor, your children are more likely to be poor. Poor children are exposed to nastier things than rich children, because the schools they go to and the neighborhood they live in is filled with other poor children doing nasty things: drugs, sex, gambling, gangs, etc. Children exposed to these elements of society are more likely to wind up in jail, pregnant at sixteen, or addicted to drugs. These things tend to limit ones ability to procure the amount of money it would take to move to the middle class suburbs. As a result, these children will grow up and have children of their own who will be raised in the same perilous environment as their parents, thus perpetuating this cycle of racial segregation via economic segregation. One needs to look no further than the places a disproportionately high amount of American blacks are concentrated: prison, the army, the ghetto, and low paying jobs. It is no secret that blacks make up roughly 13% of the American population. This fact is not debatable. So why do they make up 50% of the prison population? Are they more predisposed to commit crimes than white people? Absolutely. Poverty leads to crime, and crime leads to getting caught and winding up in jail. Why do they get caught? Because the police presence in poor (black) areas is much higher than it is in rich (white) areas. Some blacks slip through the cracks and defy virtually impossible odds to make it out of the low income areas and into the middle class suburbs. Many find a loophole by joining the army, because they will pay for College. As a result 25% of the U.S. army is made up of blacks, while only 13% of the American population is. That means that blacks are much more likely to get their heads blown off fighting an oil war so that rich white kids could gas up their SUV’s a little cheaper.

As a Canadian I am especially troubled by the North American Native reservation system that was setup hundreds of years ago supposedly for the sake of Native autonomy. Really? Upon studying the primary sources you will find that it was setup primarily because our founding fathers did not want the few natives that survived the smallpox they imported to the Americas living among them. Our legacy of systemic racial segregation is something we as Canadians cannot deny and have a well documented history of supporting. One might even argue that the present day reservation system in concert with the Department of Indian Affairs is guilty of promoting and propagating inequity and injustice, due to the squalor that many aboriginal people find themselves living in on reservations all over the country. All the while their Chiefs are some of the highest paid politicians in the country who are just as happy to take the billions of taxpayer dollars as the Government is in doling it out to buy their silence and cooperation.

What does all of this mean in the context of a fully functioning free and democratic society? To answer that question we must first ask: can a true democracy function where rampant and unchecked hyper-capitalism has allowed for the disparity of wealth to equal a disparity in political representation? Is it really any better that racial segregation based on skin color has been replaced by racial segregation based on income or a centuries old reservation system? Unless we attend to these issues and reform our democratic processes to first address and then mitigate the impact of the disparity of political representations, we will continue to find ourselves actively participating in a system which compounds and perpetuates segregation and injustice. Let us not congratulate ourselves too much, lest we forget there is much more to be done to promote true equality.

Update to the FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Canada

2011-12-27T13:10:00.000-08:00

The recommendations in the FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Canada have been updated to include the following:

5. Canadian registered political parties should have member support of at least .5 percent from the voting population and have a national platform. The .5 percent threshold is a democratic means of limiting political access by unpopular political parties. The requirement of a national platform prevents interest and regional based political parties from having the same privileges as registered political parties. However, interest and regional based political parties would be allowed to be on electoral lists as long as they satisfy the .5 percent member support threshold.

(Sources: FDA auditors' ideas; Venezuela, Organic Law of Electoral Processes, Chapter II, Article 9-10, .5 percent declared member support either national or regional; Norway, Political Parties Act, Chapter II, Article 3(2), party registration based partly on public support from 5000 person who are eligible to vote; France, Organic Law No. 2011-410, representation on electoral list requires support from 500 elected officials at any level of government, and new political parties need $10,000 in donations in a 12 month period to receive public funding; Bolivia, Bolivian Law of the Electoral System, Act No. 26, political groups must represent at least 2 percent of vote in last election to be registered in subsequent election; New Zealand, Electoral Law 1993, to be registered political parties need at least 500 members; Egypt under Mubarak, Law No. 40 of the year 1977 Concerning the Political Party System and Its Amendments, ban on political parties which are based on religious, class, sectarian, categorical, or geographical basis. Note, countries with minimal barriers to entry for political parties like New Zealand, Canada, and the United States have various barriers within their electoral systems which favor significantly established and large political parties.)

2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit Report on Canada

The following FDA podcasts are related:

Religion and Democracy Parts 2 and 3

FDA Religion and Democracy Podcast (Part 3 of 3)

2011-12-18T14:03:00.000-08:00

In this month's podcast and with reference to the 2011 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Reports (found on slideshare.com), Mr. Stephen Garvey FDA founder and executive director chairs a seven person panel on the topic of what is the threshold to ban secular and religious based political parties in a democratic society? The panelists are given two minute opening statements and closing statements, and observers at the podcast are given an opportunity to share questions and comments with panelists. The panelists are comprised of Mr. Randy Tyson from the Center for Inquiry and scientist with the National Research Council of Canada, Mr. Artur Pawlowski member of the Christian Heritage Party of Canada and pastor at the Street Church Ministries out of Calgary, Alberta, Mr. Brian Seaman lawyer and research associate with the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Center, Mr. Adam Idris past director of the Muslim Council of Calgary and an active member of the Muslim Christian Dialogue, Mr. Lawrence Irwin pastor at the Centre Street Church in Calgary, and Ms. Lindsay Tetlock FDA researcher and auditor. For non-mainstream, insightful, and provocative discussion from people working in the field of international politics, listen in or download the FDA podcasts.

FDA Podcast on Religion and Democracy (Part 3 of 3)

Conservative Party of Canada's environmental policies consistent

2011-12-14T20:21:00.000-08:00

The Conservative Party of Canada's environmental policies under the Harper Regime are consistent with what the FDA auditors saw in the party's environmental policies in the 2010 federal election: short sighted, narrow, and lack of interest. Also, the Conservative Party of Canada never ran on a policy of pulling out of the Kyoto Accord, nor did the Conservative Party consult the Canadian people via referendum on such a significant issue.

The Harper Regime without the consent of the Canadian people has pulled Canada out of the Kyoto Accord, slashed the operating budget of Environment Canada, and has laid off and silenced many of Environment Canada's scientists. (Please see one source of many below.)

In the 2010 federal election, the Conservative Party of Canada received 39.6 percent of the votes of those Canadians who voted, and 24.3 percent support overall from all Canadian voters. Yet, through the federal election laws, which the Conservative Party of Canada and the Liberal Party of Canada created over the last several decades, the Conservative Party of Canada received 54.7 percent majority of the Canadian Parliament. (In Canada currently, the majority of the members of parliament create Canada's federal electoral laws despite a clear conflict of interest.)

In the 2010 FDA Canadian Federal Election audit, FDA auditors gave the Conservative Party of Canada's environmental policies a score of 20 percent out of 100 percent. FDA auditors assessment of the Conservative Party of Canada's environmental policies are as follows:

"Conservative Party of Canada’s policies lack progressive vision, and they are contradictory by promoting more intrusion into the environment via snowmobile trails and increasing landowner rights. The score of 20 percent is justified by the fact that the Conservatives support two new national parks."

From the 2010 FDA Canadian Federal Election Audit Report, the Conservative Party of Canada's policy platform on the environment is as follows:

CONSERVING AND PROTECTING OUR ENVIRONMENT

We will conserve and protect our environment. We will work toward an agreement with provincial, regional, municipal, Aboriginal, and community stakeholders to establish a National Conservation Plan; facilitate the creation of new protected areas, National Parks, and National Marine Conservation Areas; make the land between protected areas more permeable to wildlife, and expand the use of digital and multimedia technologies to help connect Canadians to nature; and strengthen our efforts to restore degraded ecosystems
and reintroduce native species.

We will invest in the creation of Mealy Mountains National Park, in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We will also take action toward the establishment of a new National Park in the Rouge Valley, in the eastern part of the Greater Toronto Area. In establishing this new National Park, we will work toward an agreement with provincial, regional, municipal, Aboriginal, and community stakeholders. We will ensure that the rights and interests of farmers in the region are fully protected. We will also ensure that communities in the region remain free to address their infrastructure needs.

HUNTING ADVISORY PANEL TO THE MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT

We must take action to protect endangered species. But all too often decisions have been made without input from the Canadians most directly affected, who have unique expertise in the conservation of our natural heritage.

We will establish a Hunting Advisory Panel, reporting to the Minister of the Environment, comprised of representatives of provincial and territorial hunters and anglers associations, to ensure government decisions are based on solid science and balanced advice.

STRENGTHEN PROPERTY RIGHTS

Property rights were omitted in drafting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, however, leaving landowners without appropriate protection against unfair restrictions on the use and enjoyment of their property. Species at Risk Act provides for compensation for land-use restrictions intended to protect the habitats of endangered species, in practice compensation is virtually never granted.

We will strengthen the rights of landowners, by reviewing the Species at Risk Act with a view to ensuring that when compensation is owed, compensation will be paid.

IMPROVE AND EXPAND CANADA’S SNOWMOBILE AND RECREATIONAL
TRAILS

We will build on the accomplishment of improving 500 trails, through additional funding for upgrades and new trails.

The Conservative Party of Canada's policies on energy, which the Conservative Party received a 20 percent score out of 100 percent, are as follows:

SUPPORT FOR CLEAN ENERGY

Stephen Harper’s Government will continue supporting clean energy initiatives, to protect our environment and improve the quality of the air we breathe. We will support economically viable clean energy projects that will assist regions and provinces in the replacement of fossil fuel with renewable fuel sources. The criteria for
our support of a project will be whether it has a national or regional significance; has economic and financial merit and will significantly reduce greenhouse emissions.

In addition to the criteria noted above, our support for any clean energy project will be based on the principles of respect and equitable treatment for all regions of the country. We will also continue taking action on climate change we have a climate change plan, and it is working. As part of our ongoing efforts we will make new investments to improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions – including an extension of the ecoENERGY Retrofit-Homes program. We will also provide additional support for research and development in clean energy and energy efficiency.

ACCORD ON QUEBEC’S OFFSHORE RESOURCES

Will allow the Government of Quebec to explore development of the Old Harry oil & gas field in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The result will be long-term job creation and economic growth in the regions of Quebec. We will implement the accord on Quebec’s offshore resources, by tabling the necessary legislation in Parliament.

FDA auditors assessment of the Conservative Party of Canada's energy policies are:

"Conservative Party of Canada’s policies are extremely vague and narrow. The score of 20 percent is justified on grounds of a few specifics such as the ecoEnergy Retrofit-Homes Program and development of Quebec’s offshore resources."

Harper Regime silences Environment Canada's scientists

2010 FDA Canadian Federal Election Audit Report

Threshold for Banning Political Parties in Democratic Society

2011-12-12T12:24:00.000-08:00

The Case of Omar Khadr Parts 2 and 3

2011-12-11T08:53:00.000-08:00

In this second and third of three part interview, Stephen Garvey FDA executive director interviews Audrey Macklin, Professor of Law at the University of Toronto, on Omar Khadr's ordeal since being captured in 2002 by the United States Army in Afghanistan.

Professor Macklin sheds light on why the Canadian government under the Liberals and now the Conservatives failed to secure Omar Khadr's release from Guantanamo Bay. Also, Professor Macklin explains why Omar's ordeal impacts all Canadians.

Related FDA Report: Incumbency section on the Conservative Party of Canada:

2011 FDA Canadian Federal Election Audit Report

Latin America's Renaissance

2011-12-08T13:48:00.000-08:00

In a new FDA podcast and with reference to the 2011 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Reports on Bolivia and Venezuela, Stephen Garvey, FDA executive director, interviews Dr. Maria Paez Victor about humanism and the Boliviarian/Latin American revolution. Dr. Victor provides in depth insight into Latin America humanism and the Bolivarian revolution. She argues that Latin America is going through its renaissance by freeing itself from colonialism and imperialism. Moreover, Dr. Victor points out that Latin American humanism emphasizes the interconnectedness of all living beings in a country, thereby transcends the one-dimensional profiteerism/consumerism of capitalism. Dr. Victor contends that the Latin American Bolivarian revolution is a necessary movement for the survival of all earthly life.

Latin America's Renaissance

2011 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report on Venezuela

2011 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report on Bolivia

FDA Media Advisory on Electoral Fairness Report on Jordan

2011-12-06T13:50:00.001-08:00

FDA Media Advisory on Jordan

FDA Electoral Fairness Report on the DRC

2011-12-05T19:35:00.000-08:00

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) received an overall electoral fairness score of 3.75 percent. The scores means that the constitutional and legislative basis for Congolese democracy is bordering on complete unfairness. The FDA auditors reached consensus in all four sections of electoral fairness. The only identified elements of electoral fairness were the legislative basis for multi-political parties and freedom of voter choice. However, these elements are canceled out by significant elements of electoral unfairness. In all four of the electoral fairness sections, the Congolese state has shut off switches: the state can shut down media companies; the state can dissolve political parties; the state can dissolve political parties for violation of electoral finances; the state can silence voter say and expression on grounds of public order or morality. In addition, the Congolese media ownership concentration laws are canceled by the lack of transparency of media ownership. The Congolese electoral finance laws are canceled out by the lack of public transparency of political parties' finances. The state uses the vague terms of public order and morality to restrict freedom of expression and assembly, media ownership, and registration of political parties. In the FDA's opinion, the Congolese electoral system is authoritarian within a muddle, insignificant constitutional, electoral, and media laws which appear to exist only to satisfy international donors.

2011 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report on the DRC

The Case of Omar Khadr--FDA interview of Audrey Macklin (Part 1)

2011-12-04T11:12:00.000-08:00

In this first of three part interview, Stephen Garvey FDA executive director interviews Audrey Macklin, Professor of Law at the University of Toronto, on Omar Khadr's ordeal since being captured in 2002 by the United States Army in Afghanistan.

Professor Macklin sheds light on why the Canadian government under the Liberals and now the Conservatives failed to secure Omar Khadr's release from Guantanamo Bay. Also, Professor Macklin explains why Omar's ordeal impacts all Canadians.

DRC's electoral system receives 3.75 percent score out of 100 percent

2011-12-01T19:16:00.000-08:00

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) received an overall electoral fairness score of 3.75 percent. The scores means that the constitutional and legislative basis for DRC democracy is bordering pn complete unfairness. The FDA auditors reached consensus in all four sections of electoral fairness. The only identified elements of electoral fairness were the legislative basis for multi-political parties and freedom of voter choice in who they vote for. However, these elements are canceled by significant elements of electoral unfairness. In all four of the electoral fairness sections, the DRC state has shut off switches: the state can shut down media companies; the state can dissolve political parties; the state can dissolve political parties for violation of electoral finances; the state can silence voter say and expression on grounds of public order or morality. In addition, the DRC's media ownership concentration laws are canceled by the lack of transparency of media ownership. The DRC's electoral finance laws are canceled out by the lack of public transparency of political parties' finances. The state uses the vague terms of public order and morality to restrict freedom of expression and assembly, media ownership, and registration of political parties. In the FDA's opinion, the DRC electoral system is authoritarian within a muddle, insignificant constitutional, electoral, and media laws which appear to exist only to satisfy international donors. (Democratic reform including multi-party elections is a requisite for mobilizing financial assistance. (Source: Africa Today 56:4 (Summer 2010), 52.))

The FDA Global Electoral Fairness Report on the DRC will be published shortly.

Democracy and Venezuela Podcast

2011-11-26T15:15:00.000-08:00

In November 2011, Stephen Garvey FDA founder and executive director interviewed Mr. Leonardo Tovar on the current and future states of Venezuelan democracy. Mr. Tovar is a Venezuelan expatriate, who is completing a masters degree in public policy, and who was in Venezuela during the 2002 attempted coup d'état on Chavez's government. Among other things, Mr. Tovar discusses from a relatively neutral standpoint the polarization of Venezuelan society. This podcast is in contrast to the Dr. Victor interview on Venezuela on October 6, 2011, and the podcast is a supplement to the 2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Venezuela. Overall, Mr. Tovar provides a pragmatic outlook on the current and future states of Venezuela.

FDA podcast interview of Mr. Tovar on democracy and Venezuela

2011 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Report on Venezuela

Religion and Democracy Podcast

2011-11-23T13:53:00.000-08:00

In the Religion and Democracy podcast, FDA members and invited guests discuss whether or not religious based political parties should allowed to participate in elections as electable political parties.

Invited guests include Mr. Randy Tyson from the Center for Inquiry, Mr. Artur Pawlowski, member of the Christian Heritage Party of Canada and Christian pastor at the Street Church Ministries based out of Calgary, and Mr. Jim Blake, member of the Christian Heritage Party of Canada and Chairman of Concerned Christians of Canada.

Religion and Democracy (Part 2) will be taking place on December 6th, and it will explore the threshold for banning secular and religious based political parties.

Religion and Democracy (Part 1)

Jordan Receives 0 percent Score for Electoral Fairness

2011-11-18T17:51:00.000-08:00

Executive Summary:

Jordan received an overall score of 0 percent for electoral fairness. The score means that Jordan's electoral system is completely unfair. FDA auditors could find no overall, free standing element of fairness in Jordan's electoral system. In the FDA's opinion, three key things define Jordan's electoral system: the Jordanian king is above Jordanian law; the kingdom restricts freedom of expression; and there is no public transparency of electoral finances. These elements, and others, cancel out all elements of electoral fairness in the Jordanian electoral system such as the guaranteed parliamentary seats for women, religions, and tribal minority, and caps on individual donations to political parties. Consequently, the Jordanian electoral system is undemocratic and part of the authoritarian control of Jordan by the king and his royal family. Progressive reform of the Jordanian electoral system must start with constitutional reform in which the king ceases to be above Jordanian law, the Jordanian Senate seats are determined by election rather than appointment by the king, and the king ceases to have the constitutional right to dissolve the Senate and Council of Deputies, postpone elections, and appoint cabinet ministers.

2011 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report on Jordan

FDA Podcast on Religion and Democracy

2011-11-17T18:31:00.000-08:00

Last night FDA members and invited guests met for the monthly FDA podcast. The topic of the podcast was whether or not religious based political parties should be allowed to participate in elections as electable parties.

The podcast will posted on itunes under the Foundation for Democratic Advancement shortly.

Here is an opinion piece on what transpired during the podcast:

Atheist perspectives on the FDA podcast

Jordan's democracy on par with Bahrain, Syria, and Egypt under Mubarak.

2011-11-12T15:10:00.000-08:00

On November 9th, the FDA audited Jordan's parliamentary electoral system, in which Jordan received a 0 percent score overall and 0 percent scores in all four sections of electoral fairness. The overall score means that FDA auditors could find no overall, free standing element of fairness in Jordan's parliamentary electoral system.

With no public transparency of electoral finances, restrictions on freedom of expression, and the Jordanian king above law, any element of fairness in Jordan's electoral system is canceled out.

The FDA electoral fairness report on Jordan will be produced shortly.

Egypt under Mubarak receives 0 percent for Electoral Fairness

2011-10-24T15:34:00.000-07:00

Executive Summary:

Egypt's Arab Republic electoral system under Hosni Mubarak received an overall score of 0 percent for electoral fairness. The score means that Egypt's electoral system under Mubarak is completely unfair. FDA auditors could find no element of fairness in the four sections of the audit: political of content of media, candidate and party influence, electoral finance, and voter say. Through the legislated exclusion of particular Egyptian political parties, severe infringement of citizen freedoms and political and human rights, state control of media political content, and lack of public transparency of electoral finances, Egypt's electoral system under Mubarak is undemocratic. Any elements of fairness such as caps on presidential candidates' electoral expenditures and the equality of political content of state media during the election period are canceled out by more significant unfairness such as the state's ban on societies which are inconsistent with state ideology and national order, or the state imprisonment of journalists who question the financial integrity of government officials, or the state removal of political rights of any citizens who are convicted of making false statements in the news, or the state registration of only political parties which promote national unity and social peace, and support the Constitution, and thereby do not challenge Mubarak and the National Democratic Party's hold on political power.

2011 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report on Egypt

Religion and Democracy in Egypt

2011-10-20T12:57:00.000-07:00

Last night FDA auditors met to audit electoral fairness in Egypt under Hosni Mubarak.

The audit reached a point of contention from Article 3 of Law No.40 of the year 1977 Concerning the Political Parties System and its Amendments, which states,

"The state bans political parties which are based on religious, class, sectarian, categorical, or geographical basis, or on the exploitation of religious feelings, or discrimination because of race, origin, or creed."

FDA auditor #1 viewed Article 3 as fair, because religious based parties should not be part of democracy, because they are based on membership and thereby exclusionary.

Other auditors #2 viewed Article 3 as unfair, because it limits the electoral choice of the people and excludes political parties from the electoral process. Viz., the will of the people should be the ultimate decider of who governs society. If the will of the people wants a religious based party then that should not be circumvented.

Auditor #1 replied that religious based parties would lead to tyranny of the majority, and they would use religion as the sole basis for moral and ethical decisions and thereby discriminate against other religious groups and non-religious groups.

Auditors #2 responded that the Constitution and any bill of rights of the country are in place, in part, to protect minority interests. Also, the moral and ethical codes of a society are subjective whether they are religious based or not, and that many secular moral and ethical codes have their roots in religion.

If a religious based party respects the Constitution and fundamental human rights then why should the religious party be disallowed the opportunity of governing society?

In the case of Egypt, it states clearly in the Constitution that the country is Islamic:

Article 2
Islam is the religion of the State and Arabic its official language.
Islamic law (Sharia) is the principal source of legislation. (Source: Egypt Constitution of 1971, Amended 2007)

Why is it fair for Egypt (under Mubarak) to ban religious based parties?

FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report on Afghanistan

2011-10-11T16:49:00.000-07:00

Afghanistan received an overall failing score of 23.75 percent for electoral fairness. The score means that the constitutional and legislative basis for Afghanistan democracy is bordering on significantly more unfair than fair. A passing score is 50 percent. The Afghanistan score is only 6.25 percent lower than the score for the United States and 67 percent lower than the score for France. Out of 27 countries, Afghanistan ranks 17 for electoral fairness. Although Afghanistan democracy has elements of electoral fairness such as freedom of expression and assembly, advanced political rights for women and disabled persons, and regulation of mass media during the electoral period, these elements are more than offset by unfair elements. Within the core of Afghanistan's political system are severe favoring of wealthy Afghans and the privileged, educated Afghan tier of society. Opposition parties do not have a reasonable chance of forming government. The FDA believes based on its research and audit that the Afghan political system is set up to keep the Karzai regime in power, while on the surface may appear to be free, equal, and fair. Consequently, the FDA concludes that the Afghan political system is authoritarian within the shell of democracy.

2011 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Report on Afghanistan

Media, Democracy, and Venezuela

2011-10-08T10:25:00.000-07:00

On October 1, 2011, Stephen Garvey, FDA founder and executive director, interviewed Dr. Maria Piez Victor about media, democracy, and Venezuela. Dr. Victor, based out of Toronto, Canada, is a founding member of the "Louis Riel" Canadian Bolivarian Circle, has a Ph.D in Sociology from York University, and is an outspoken Venezuelan expatriate on President Chavez and Venezuelan Democracy. The interview is an hour and eighteen minutes in length, and covers a range of issues from international media malignment of President Chavez and the Venezuelan government, and US psychological warfare ongoing in Venezuela with the purpose of destabilizing the Venezuelan government and weakening its credibility with the Venezuelan people.

The FDA interview of Dr.Victor will likely adjust your view of Venezuela and the world.

FDA Interview of Dr. Victor

Afghanistan Democracy a Shell Around Status Quo

2011-10-05T11:54:00.000-07:00

A team of nine FDA auditors convened last night to audit the constitutional and legislative basis for Afghanistan's Islamic Republic electoral system.

The FDA auditors gave Afghanistan's democracy the following scores:

Political content of media: 50 percent

Candidate and party influence: 22.2 percent

Electoral finance: 0 percent

Voter say: 22.5 percent

Total audit scores: 23.75 percent (out of 100 percent)

Despite elements of electoral fairness such as restrictions on the political content during the electoral period and regulations to support women and disabled persons electoral rights and participation, Afghanistan democracy supports significantly wealthy Afghans and the privileged, educated class in Afghanistan.

The FDA auditors concluded that Afghanistan's democracy is a mere shell of democracy, within an authoritarian regime backed by America and its allies. The Afghan democracy is set up to maintain a regime in power favorable to the USA, while give the impression of a legitimate, fair democracy.

The FDA's report on Afghanistan will be posted on October 10th.

FDA Research on the Afghanistan Electoral System

2011-09-29T15:46:00.000-07:00

FDA research shows that Afghanistan democracy is similar to democracy in the Western countries that imposed it on the country: too much emphasis on freedom in the mass media, weak and unfair electoral finance laws, and favoring of candidates and parties with greater access to financial resources and that are more established. (France is an exception.)

Afghanistan democracy is contingent on the Afghan government through the Independent Electoral Commission and the Joint Electoral Management Body in terms implementation and enforcement of the electoral laws. Similar to Iraq's de-Baathification program, the Afghanistan electoral system is biased against the Taliban.

It is questionable that the Afghan government, an extension of US interests in Afghanistan since the government was first installed by the Americans and is allied to the Americans, is a reliable and trustworthy upholder and enforcer of the western influenced Afghan constitution and electoral laws. Beyond this point, it is questionable that the Afghan constitution and electoral laws really represents the will of the Afghan people since the framework for the constitution and electoral laws were imposed on Afghanistan.

On October 4th, FDA auditors will conduct a detailed audit of the Afghan electoral system to determine its electoral fairness score and rating.

FDA research on Afghanistan

2011 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit on France

Spain's democracy: a two party dictatorship

2011-09-26T15:01:00.000-07:00

With reference to the FDA Report on Spain's democracy, FDA auditors determine that Spain's democracy unfairly favors parties successful in the previous election. The Spanish system, which has similarities to Canadian and American federal democracy, promotes a status quo through two parties, and thereby creates a narrow and unbalanced electoral discourse, and less informed electorate. Consequently, Spanish political society is deprived of progression and is vulnerable to corruption.

2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit Report on Spain

Spain receives a failing grade for electoral fairness

2011-09-22T14:54:00.000-07:00

An eight-person FDA audit team met last night to audit electoral fairness in Spain's parliamentary monarchy electoral system.

After two hours of discussion, the FDA auditors gave Spain the following scores:

Political content of media (including broadcasters and the press): 53.75 percent

Candidate and party influence: 40 percent

Electoral finance: 11 percent

Voter say: 64.3 percent

Total: 42.25 percent (Rank: 6 out of 26 countries)

The Spanish electoral system has areas of electoral fairness including proportional representation and free public airtime to all registered parties. However, these areas are more than offset by legislated bias to parties successful in the previous election, weak regulation of the political content of media, and poor transparency of electoral finances.

Since the fall of the Franco dictatorship, the Spanish electoral system has had only two parties in power. (People's Party and the Spanish Socialist Worker's Party) In the FDA's opinion, the Spanish electoral system is legislated to produce a two party system (though not as significantly as the US federal system). Although such an approach maintains a status quo, the Spanish democracy is weakened by a narrow electoral discourse, which deprives Spaniards of electoral choice. An entrenched status quo can also undermine a democracy and society by stifling progressive ideas and allowing a minority to control the country.

An optimal democracy will encourage broad electoral discourse and create an equal playing field for registered parties.

The FDA Report of Spain will be completed by September 28.

Iraqi Democracy Mirrors US Democracy in All the Wrong Ways

2011-09-21T14:59:00.000-07:00

http://democracychange.com/FDA%20Iraq%20media%20advisory.pdf

Critical look at democracy in the Middle East Gulf states

2011-09-21T13:42:00.000-07:00

A-democracy-gulf-in-the-Gulf

Spain's Political System Similar to Canada's

2011-09-19T09:32:00.000-07:00

Spain's parliamentary political system overall is similar to Canada's federal political system, in the sense that there exists in both systems significant unfair favoring of large, established political parties. Spain's regulation of the mass media and electoral finances, similar to Canada's, favors significantly parties sucessful in the previous election. And just like in Canada, the majority of Spanish parliamentarians determine the laws and regulations of the Spanish political system, which creates a blatant conflict of interest.

On September 21st, FDA audits will convene to determine precisely electoral fairness in the Spanish political system. A FDA electoral fairness audit report on Spain will then be produced on Spain.

FDA research on Spain

American Assumptions on Freedom Challenged

2011-09-12T15:50:00.000-07:00

This article in the June 2011 issue of The Altantic suggests of the emergence of challenges to American assumptions on freedom. The FDA Report on Iraq does very this, by arguing that American federal democracy has too much emphasis on liberty at the expense of electoral equality and fairness. Unfortunately, in the opinion of the FDA, this flawed democratic model has been imported to Iraq.

Danger Falling Tyrants

FDA Report on Iraq

Iraq's federal democracy receives failing overall score of 35.25 percent for electoral fairness

2011-09-09T18:11:00.000-07:00

In the 2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit Report on Iraq, Iraq's federal democracy received a failing overall score of 35.25 percent. The score is 5.25 percent greater than what the US federal democracy received (30 percent), and yet it is 56 percent less than what France received (91.25 percent).

Despite many elements of electoral fairness, Iraq's democracy is undermined by an overemphasis on electoral freedom and at the expense of electoral equality and fairness. In particular, the Iraq's media and electoral finance laws are severely deficient. The FDA recommends significant reform of Iraq's democracy in order to avoid the entrenchment of significant electoral inequality and unfairness like in the US federal democratic system.

2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit Report on Iraq

Freedom and Democracy (Part 2)

2011-08-31T17:40:00.000-07:00

FDA podcast series #3 "Freedom and Democracy" (Part 2)

In this podcast with reference to the FDA Electoral Fairness Audit Reports, a five person FDA podcast team discusses the French Enlightenment, Simon Bolivar, modern Venezuelan democracy, and Bolivian democracy under Morales, in an attempt to come to a closer understanding of an optimal democracy.

FDA Freedom and Democracy (Part 2)

FDA Report on Bolivia's Democracy

2011-08-27T16:35:00.000-07:00

Executive Summary: Bolivia received an overall score of 78.75 percent for electoral fairness. The scores means that the constitutional and legislative basis for Bolivian democracy is on the border of outstanding. The Bolivian electoral system has many progressive elements such civic and indigenous organizations have the same rights as political parties, and TV and radio markets are divided equally between private interest, government, and social and indigenous organizations. Also, there are caps on electoral propaganda on TV and radio, and only registered political organizations can produce election propaganda. However, the lack of caps on donations and candidate and party spending may favor wealthy candidates and parties through lack of caps on poster and billboard election propaganda and campaign events. Further, the progressive law for immediate removal of electoral advertisement and/or news in case of a claim of inaccuracy, for example, can undermine the electoral process by encouraging less than credible claims.

2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Bolivia

Bolivia Scores High in the FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit

2011-08-24T12:08:00.000-07:00

An eleven person FDA audit team gave Bolivia an overall score of 78.75 percent for electoral fairness. The score means that the Bolivian national electoral system is significantly more fair than unfair. Bolivia scores highest in the fairness and equality of voter say (86.6 percent), followed by political content of media (80 percent), electoral finance (79 percent) and candidate and party influence (69 percent).

Bolivia ranks 3rd in the FDA global audit on electoral fairness, behind Venezuela at 85 percent and France at 91.75 percent.

The FDA electoral fairness report on Bolivia will be published by August 30th.

Assad addresses the Syrian people

2011-08-21T12:06:00.000-07:00

The FDA is closely monitoring the situation in Syria, and will be doing to comparative study on constitutional changes in the country. Moreover, on Tuesday, the FDA will be interviewing a Syrian dissident located in London, which will be uploaded to the FDA itunes page.

Assad speech

FDA Report on Syria

Harper and conservatives: no regard for the environment

2011-08-20T14:00:00.000-07:00

As established in the 2010 FDA Canadian federal election audit report, Harper and the Conservatives are grossly negligent when it comes to the environment.

Tar Sand Pipeline another environmental assault by harper

2010 FDA Canadian Federal Election Audit Report

UK Prisons nearly full

2011-08-20T13:47:00.000-07:00

What does it say about UK society?

UK Prison Time Bomb

Bahrain: Systematic Annihilation of Opposition

2011-08-19T12:58:00.000-07:00

The Bahrain monarchy continues its assault on protesters, in a most systematic, calculated fashion. Where are the cries of democracy from Western governments??? Selective support of protesters means less than genuine interest in the people and democracy.

systematic annihilation of opposition

FDA Report on Bahrain

FDA Media Advisory on state of New Zealand's democracy

2011-08-18T13:48:00.000-07:00

FDA auditors gave New Zealand an unacceptable score of 54.75 percent for overall electoral fairness. FDA auditors identified severe deficiencies in the political content of New Zealand's media, broadcasters, and press, which affected other areas of electoral fairness.

FDA Media Advisory on New Zealand

UK Establishment Fails to See Bigger Picture

2011-08-18T13:19:00.000-07:00

UK Crackdown on Protesters

Social media under threat in Uganda

2011-08-17T15:38:00.000-07:00

Social Media Blamed for War

Cameroon's republic presidential electoral system receives a failing score of 2.5 percent for electoral fairness

2011-08-17T15:10:00.000-07:00

In buildup to the 2012 Cameroonian Presidential election, Cameroon's republic presidential electoral system receives a score of 2.5 percent for electoral fairness. (50 percent is a passing grade; 70 percent is a satisfactory grade.) Cameroonians face difficult choices as their lives and society are held in the grip of an authoritarian regime masked by the shell of democracy.

FDA Electoral Fairness Audit Report on Cameroon

In a moving speech, Chavez talks to the Venezuela armed forces

2011-08-17T12:49:00.000-07:00

Chavez says Venezuelan military protector of the people

Harper: What Canadians Should Know

2011-08-17T12:32:00.000-07:00

Canadian Charger: What Canadians Should Know

UK imprisons two for social media usage

2011-08-16T16:38:00.000-07:00

Social media under threat in UK

Have/Have not gap widening in Canada

2011-08-16T11:42:00.000-07:00

Income disparity widening in Canada

Spain, US Continue to Interfere in Venezuela's Internal Affairs

2011-08-16T10:21:00.000-07:00

Would there be any interference in Venezuela's affairs if the country did not have oil?

Spain's right wing government funding Venezuelan opposition groups

Harper Government fueling Israel/Palestine Conflict

2011-08-15T19:08:00.000-07:00

Syrians Protests--People's Voice--

2011-08-15T15:55:00.000-07:00

Chileans Fight for Right to Education

2011-08-15T14:24:00.000-07:00

Chileans Fight for Public Education

Turkey Government Postpones Internet Censoring

2011-08-15T12:07:00.000-07:00

Turkey Internet Censoring

FDA Helping to Encourage Democratic Advancement

2011-08-15T11:12:00.000-07:00

Subject: Congrats, "Syria--2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit Report" is hot on Twitter this hour

Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 11:10 PM

"Syria--2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit Report" is being tweeted more than anything else on SlideShare right now. So we've put it on the homepage of SlideShare.net (in the "Hot on Twitter" section).

Well done!

- SlideShare Team

We have your email address as fdadvancement@gmail.com.
Click here to unsubscribe from ALL SlideShare emails or here to adjust your email notifications........

FDA Report on Syria

Conservative's government pr push for dirty crude consumption

2011-08-15T10:58:00.000-07:00

Interesting article on the Conservative government's promotion of the tar sands, and the US politics involved.... Again a disconnect is being shown between government and the people.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/aug/14/canada-tar-sands-keystonexl

Haper government snubs Cuba, Venezuela, Bolvia etc.,

2011-08-14T12:03:00.000-07:00

Harper government shows that ideology and arrogance guide them as they snub countries that don't fit the neo-liberalism mold.

Haper ignores countries

Neoliberalism blamed for UK riots

2011-08-14T11:28:00.000-07:00

Interesting article which suggests that the increasing separation between the have and have not via the capitalistic system, is undermining democracy:

failure of neoliberalism

UK riots put into context

2011-08-13T10:30:00.001-07:00

UK riots a missed opportunity for social change in the UK?

UK riots put into broad context

Why Are not Americans and Canadians in the Streets

2011-08-13T10:15:00.000-07:00

Article on American and Canadian Democracies

Indian Democracy at Cross Roads

2011-08-13T09:37:00.000-07:00

This article explores the demise of Indian democracy:

Indian challenges to sustain democracy

FDA Research on Norwegian Democracy

2011-08-12T14:57:00.000-07:00

The FDA research on Norwegian democracy is posted:

FDA Norway Research

A team of FDA auditors will audit Norwegian democracy on Tuesday, August 16th. Based on the research results alone, Norwegian democracy appears to be very progressive and democratic.

A FDA report on Norway will be produced by August 19th.

What Canadians Should Know About Harper and the Conservatives

2011-08-12T11:22:00.000-07:00

Two weeks prior to the 2011 federal election, the Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) produced a non-partisan 226 page audit report on all federal registered political parties with a national platform barring the Bloc Québécois. The FDA electoral audit focused on a detailed background audit of the party leaders, audit of the visions and policies of the parties, and audit of the incumbency record of the Conservative Party. The nine-person audit team was diverse in terms of profession, gender, age and ethnicity.

The Conservative Party placed eighth out of twelve registered political parties, with an overall failing score of 43.8 percent (out of 100 percent). The FDA concluded that the Conservatives were worthy of insignificant representation (15 seats maximum) in the Canadian Parliament.

In the federal election, the Conservative Party received a large majority (167 seats) based on 39.6 percent support from those Canadians who voted, and only 24.3 percent support from Canadian voters overall, including Canadians who did not vote. (167 seats out of 308 seats equals 54.2 percent)

In 2011 as well the FDA conducted an electoral fairness audit of the Canadian federal electoral system, in which Canada received a 25.75 percent grade (out of 100 per cent) for electoral fairness. (To put this score in context, the US received a 30 percent score, Finland a 40.75 percent score, and France a 91.75 percent score.)

The FDA concludes that if the Canadian electoral system was significantly more fair, the Conservatives would not have attained a minority government let alone a majority government. A more fair Canadian electoral system based on an equal playing field for registered political parties in terms of electoral finances, media access, and impartial media would have created a balanced, equitable Canadian electoral discourse, and thereby expanded Canadian electoral choice. In the FDA’s opinion, the Conservative majority is representative of an unfair democratic system (as documented in the FDA’s electoral fairness report), and a resulting misinformed and uninformed Canadian public, rather than the popularity of the Conservative party.

A summary of the FDA’s non-partisan electoral findings on Harper and the Conservative Party are as follows:

Background of Harper:

59 percent score for suitability of being prime minister of Canada. The low score is reflective of Mr. Harper’s professional experience that entails brief work in the Alberta oil patch as a computer programmer and reporting for three major newspapers. Also, the FDA auditors found no evidence that Mr. Harper has ever volunteered. (The FDA uses volunteer experience as an indicator of commitment to public service.) The 59 percent score is reflective of Mr. Harper having an MA in Economics, 18 years political experience including prime minister in a minority government, and living his entire life in Canada. (In contrast and as an example, Elizabeth May received a score of 84 percent for very strong academic and professional backgrounds, 31 years of political experience, and 41 years of volunteer and activist experience.)

Vision of the Conservative Party:

40 percent score. The Conservative Party’s vision for Canada is restricted to the short-term, with emphasis on economic recovery, elimination of debt, and low taxes. The Conservatives’ vision statement is devoid of any vision of an ideal Canada or a Canada worth striving for (or at least a long-term vision the Conservatives are willing to share publicly).

Incumbency Record of the Conservative Party:

30 percent score. In the FDA’s opinion, the Conservative Party did not uphold Canadian values in their last term: as example, at the 2010 CITIES forum on endangered marine life the Conservatives blocked international attempts to protect the endangered polar bear (viz., the polar bear has become a universal, emotional symbol of the decline of northern regions; Canada has an established history of wildlife conservation starting with famous Canadians like Grey Owl); the Conservatives got Canada further embroiled in military conflicts in Afghanistan and Libya (when Canada could have abstained from direct participation like Germany in the case of Libya and the Netherlands which withdrew early from Afghanistan); the Conservatives did not secure the removal of its citizens from Guantanamo Bay unlike every other western country; and the Conservatives did not acknowledge publicly the Palestinians' right to their own state (viz., self-determination is a fundamental democratic right, which is enshrined in Article 1 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: “All peoples have the right of self-determination…” Also, the 30% percent score reflects that the Conservative Party did not balance the federal budget, changed their position on the income trust tax, and increased Canadian overall debt. Furthermore, the FDA auditors think that the Bank of Canada had a larger role than the Conservative Party in guiding the country through the recent recession.

Policies of the Conservative Party:

Economy:

80 percent score. In the FDA’s opinion, the Conservative policies are sound, comprehensive, relevant, and apply to all sectors of the Canadian economy.

Taxes:

70 percent score. The Conservative policies are comprehensive and relevant, and cover a range of tax credits with no increase in taxation. The FDA auditors question how the Conservative Party can balance the federal budget in four years without slashing significantly government programs.

Energy:

20 percent score. The Conservative policies are extremely narrow and vague, with only specifics on the ecoEnergy Retrofit-Homes Program and development of Quebec’s offshore resources. There is no direct mention of the Alberta tar sands and nuclear energy, and the Conservatives provide no specifics on “clean energies” (as opposed to renewable energies).

Environment:

20 percent score. The Conservative policies lack progressive and practical vision, and they are contradictory by promoting more intrusion into the environment via more snowmobile trails and increasing landowner rights. The score of 20 per cent is reflective of the Conservative Party’s pledge to create two new national parks, while major environmental issues such as the endangerment of northern wildlife, global warming, nuclear waste, alternative means of transportation such as the electric car, depletion of fish stocks, contamination of lakes, bulk water exports, and oil and gas development in ecologically-sensitive areas are ignored and even promoted as is the case with the proposed Northern Gateway Oil and Condensate pipeline from Bruderheim, Alberta to Kitimat, British Columbia.

Education:

30 percent score. The Conservative policies lack passion for education and demonstrate no investment in the future of education. The Conservative Party does not address a number of educational issues such as increasing post-secondary tuition fees and recruitment of teachers.

Health:

20 percent score. The Conservative Party health policies lack vision and relevance in dealing with Canada’s health care issues. There are no stated policies which address the increasing costs of prescription drugs and universal healthcare. However, the Conservatives support more doctors in rural areas and a commitment to deal with increasing wait times.

Arts and Culture:

10 percent score. The Conservative Party’s arts and culture policies are extremely vague and demonstrate a lack of interest and support for arts and culture. Moreover, the Conservatives do not mention their policy for the CBC. The score of 10 per cent reflects the Conservative support for the RC of Music national examination system and Canadian Periodical Fund.

Domestic Security:

60 percent score. The Conservative Party takes a top-down and power-oriented approach to crime. In the FDA’s opinion, the Conservatives do not understand the complexity of crime and its underlying sources. Moreover, the Conservative proposed terrorism laws threaten Canadian civil liberties. The 60 per cent score is based on the comprehensiveness of the Conservative surcharge policy for victims of crime.

Foreign Affairs:

60 percent score. The Conservative Party’s foreign policy is comprehensive and relevant with an emphasis on building the strength of the Canadian military. This policy likely shifts Canada into a more aggressive foreign military role which may not be in the better interest of Canadians. Also, the Conservatives do not address a number of foreign affair issues such as international aid, Middle East conflicts and revolutions, and the proliferation of nuclear arms.

Democracy Reform:

20 percent score. Though the Conservatives propose progressive reform of the Senate and elimination of party subsidies, they do not address significant electoral unfairness issues in the federal electoral system like partisan public and private media and severe inequality in electoral finance and broadcast laws. There is no demonstrated intent by the Conservatives to make the federal election system more equal and fair for all registered political parties, and thereby more democratic.

Miscellaneous:

60 percent score. The Conservative Party has very sound, progressive policies on First Nations transparency and fair regional representation in the House of Commons. Yet, at the same time, the Conservative are committed to using Canadian tax dollars to build a holocaust memorial (for the victims of the holocaust) and a communist memorial (for the victims of communism).

In the FDA’s opinion based on its research and audit findings, Harper and the Conservative Party are unworthy of a majority government, and the fact that they received a majority is symptomatic of a flawed electoral system (due significant electoral inequality and unfairness) and the human factor through Liberals and Conservatives who over the last three decades have created the current electoral laws and regulations.

As indicated by the Conservative Party’s mediocrity (in the FDA’s opinion) and their majority government, a renewal and redirection of Canada’s democracy is necessary through both significant system reform and new representatives who are truly reflective of the will of Canadians as a whole.

Stephen Garvey is founder and executive director of the Foundation for Democratic Advancement.

Executive Summary of the 2011 FDA Canadian Federal Election Report

2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit Report of Canada

UK government battles its own people

2011-08-11T15:04:00.000-07:00

Conservative PM Cameron for the UK announces new measures to combat public riots, such as social networking restrictions, curfews, and ban on face masks.

Are there larger issues in the UK, such as a disconnect between the people and government, inequality, and freedoms favoring minority groups?

Cameroon recently said that multiculturalism is a failure. What does this statement mean to the 7 million plus immigrants living in the UK?

Unemployment levels in the UK are presently at 7.7%.

As part of the FDA global electoral fairness audit, in late August, the FDA will be looking at the fairness of the UK electoral system.

Cameron's hard line

UK Riots Fourth Day

FDA Podcast: Freedom and Democracy (Part 1)

2011-08-10T19:52:00.000-07:00

Summary: In this month's podcast and with reference to the FDA's electoral fairness audit reports on 22 countries, an eight-person FDA team discusses freedom and democracy from philosophical, constitutional, and historical perspectives. Also, FDA members discuss the modern day usage of freedom and democracy, partly in relation to the G.W.Bush and Obama governments' foreign policies. For non-mainsteam, insightful, and provocative discussion from people working in the field of international politics, listen in:

FDA Freedom and Democracy Podcast

Insightful documentary on the Bahrain upraising....

2011-08-06T07:53:00.000-07:00

The FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Bahrain correlates with the brutal crackdown by the Bahraini authoritarian monarchy.The hypocrisy of western governments in ignoring the cry of the Bahraini people is inconsistent with western values, and demonstrate that western political systems are failing to produce representatives who truly represent the people. It must be remembered that western governments have supported Middle Eastern authoritarian and totalitarian regimes for decades and still do as is the case, for example, with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Yemen.

2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Bahrain

Saudi Arabia--2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit Report

2011-08-05T15:53:00.000-07:00

Executive Summary: Saudi Arabia received a failing overall score of 0 percent for electoral fairness. The score means that the constitutional and legislative basis for Saudi Arabia's political system is completely unfair. Although there are elections in Saudi Arabia at the municipal level of government, they are irregular, and women are not permitted to participate as either voters or candidates. Also, the elected members of the 178 municipalities are offset by an equal portion of unelected members of the municipalities. Further, the municipalities have no power over the Saudi king and the executive and consultative branches of government. Underlying this political framework is the dominance of Islam and Sharia law as determined by the Sharia Religious Council, and whereby political parties are banned. The FDA auditors could find no element of electoral fairness in Saudi Arabia, and concluded that a country directed and guided by Islam and Sharia law is inconsistent fundamentally with democracy. The will of the people is replaced by the will of God as determined by the Saudi Sharia Council and the Saudi king and his royal family.

2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit Report on Saudi Arabia

New Zealand--2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit Report

2011-08-05T12:02:00.000-07:00

Executive Summary: New Zealand received an overall score of 54.75 percent for electoral fairness. The score means that New Zealand's constitutional and legislative basis for its democracy is unacceptable. Despite many elements of fairness such as the distribution of public electoral monies based on popular support and proportional electoral mechanisms, New Zealand has extreme unfairness in laws and regulations on the media's and broadcaster's political content. Private media and broadcasters have no restrictions on their political content, and the state broadcaster (TVNZ) and radio (RNZ) were privatized on July 12, 2011. The political content issue impacted negatively the other electoral fairness sections. New Zealand needs to progress beyond unrestricted freedom of the media to restrictions on the freedom of the media in order to promote democratic plurality (like in France) and complete and balanced electoral coverage (like in Venezuela).

2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Report on New Zealand

FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Results as of August 4, 2011

2011-08-04T18:33:00.000-07:00

New Zealand receives a 54.75 percent score for electoral fairness, and Saudi Arabia receives a 0 percent score for electoral fairness

2011-08-02T21:28:00.000-07:00

On August 2nd, an eight-person audit team audited New Zealand and Saudi Arabia as part of the FDA global electoral fairness audit.

New Zealand received a passing overall score of 54.74 percent. The low score is reflective of the lack of restrictions on the political content of New Zealand media and broadcasters coupled with the July 12th, 2011 privatization of the public national broadcaster and radio.

Saudi Arabia received a failing score of 0 percent. The score is reflective of complete electoral unfairness, whereby the Saudi king and his royal family control the country through Islam and Sharia law.

The FDA Saudi Arabia and New Zealand reports will published on August 5th.

Sweden--2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit Report

2011-07-28T14:06:00.000-07:00

Executive Summary: Sweden received an overall score of 34.5 percent for electoral fairness. The score means that Sweden's constitutional and legislative basis for its democracy is bordering on significantly more unfair than fair. Paradoxically, the shortcoming of Sweden's electoral system is the significant emphasis on political freedom, at the expense of political equality and electoral fairness. Swedish major media and broadcasters have no restrictions on their political content, and there are no laws and regulations on electoral finance. Consequently, media access and exposure and electoral finances are the dominant unfair features of the Swedish electoral system, and despite proportional distribution of public electoral subsidies and proportional allocation of parliamentary seats.

2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit Report on Sweden

Sweden receives a failing overall score of 34.5 percent for electoral fairness

2011-07-26T21:08:00.000-07:00

On July 26th, a six-person FDA audit team audited electoral fairness in Sweden. After a two hour session, the audit team gave Sweden a failing score of 34.5 percent. Although Sweden is very progressive in the proportional aspects of its electoral system and has fair and progressive distribution of state electoral subsidies, these elements of fairness and others are offset by extreme unfairness in Sweden's laws and regulations on the media's political content and electoral finance.

On July 29th, the FDA will release its audit report on Sweden.

2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Report in Azerbaijan

2011-07-26T16:34:00.000-07:00

Executive Summary: Azerbaijan received an overall failing score of 25 percent for electoral fairness. The score means that Azerbaijan's constitutional and legislative basis for democracy is significantly more unfair than fair. Although there are elements of fairness in Azerbaijan's electoral legislation such as free air time and print space, and lottery mechanism to determine print spaces, this fairness is overshadowed by unfair restrictions on political content and electoral finances laws which favor significantly wealthy citizens, candidates, and parties. Under Azerbaijan's current electoral legislation, small and new political parties are at a severe disadvantage against large parties.

2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Azerbaijan

2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Iran

2011-07-25T16:05:00.000-07:00

Executive Summary: Iran received an overall score of 0 percent for electoral fairness. The score means that Iran's constitutional and legislative basis for democracy is completely unfair. FDA auditors found no overall elements of electoral fairness in Iran. Through severe state controls on political content, parties, and candidates, and with strict and severe enforcement, the Iranian system is authoritarian within a theocratic framework. The will of the Iranian people is replaced by the will of Islam and the Islamic Republic of Iran and its constitution. Citizens who oppose the Iranian state are restricted severely and face severe consequences including imprisonment and the death penalty. In the FDA's opinion, for Iran to move forward, the Iranian state needs to unite itself with the will of the Iranian people, or continue to face instability and disunity, and resulting reduction in individual and national harmony, productivity, and security.

2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Iran

Berwick's Manifesto

2011-07-24T21:30:00.000-07:00

Below is a link to the Andrew Berwick's manifesto. Apparently, Berwick is extremely anti-Muslim and anti-progressive political movements such as the Norwegian Labor Party. Also, apparently Berwick felt alienated by the Norwegian political establishment and mainstream media.

On August 2nd, the FDA will conduct a Norwegian electoral fairness audit.

2083 A European Declaration of Independence

2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit Report on France

2011-07-24T10:31:00.000-07:00

France received an exceptional electoral fairness score of 91.75 percent. (A score of 50 percent is the minimum passing grade, and 100 percent is the maximum grade.) In the candidate and party influence audit section, FDA auditors could not find any unfairness, and thereby awarded France a 100 percent score for this section.

In terms of the FDA's global electoral fairness audit results, France overtook Venezuela in the number one spot with an overall score of 91.75 percent and Venezuela with a 85 percent overall score. Regardless both France and Venezuela have exceptional basis to their democracies.

2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Report on France

Cameron received a poor grade in the FDA's 2010 British Electoral Audit

2011-07-21T20:39:00.000-07:00

Cameron who received an unacceptible grade of 65.8% in the FDA's 2010 British Electoral Audit, is showing why the score is sound.

Cameron may be washed away by phone hack scandal

2010 British Electoral Audit Report

France overtakes Venezuela in the FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit

2011-07-20T12:54:00.000-07:00

A nine person FDA audit team convened last night to audit France. The audit took two hours to complete.

France received the following scores:

1. Political content of media 82.2%

2. Candidate and party influence 100%

3. Electoral finance 90%

4. Voter say 95%

Total score: 91.75%

France overtook Venezuela in the number one spot of the FDA global electoral fairness rankings. The FDA Electoral Fairness Report on France will be published shortly.

FDA Research on France

FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Venezuela

FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Results as of July 20, 2011:

1. France 91.75% (A+)
2. Venezuela 85% (A+)
3. Finland 40.75% (F)
4. Lebanon 37.5% (F)
5. Denmark 35% (F)
6. Russia 35% (F)
7. Argentina 32.5% (F)
8. United States 30% (F)
9. Canada 25.75% (F)
10. Azerbaijan 24.25% (F)
11. Mexico 22.5% (F)
12. Tunisia (under Ben Ali) 10% (F)
13. Cameroon 2.5% (F)
14. Yemen (under Saleh) 1.25% (F)
15. Bahrain 0% (F)
15. Egypt (under Mubarak) 0% (F)
15. Iran 0% (F)
15. Libya (under Gaddafi) 0% (F)
15. Syria (under Bashar al-Assad) 0% (F)

2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit Report on Bahrain

2011-07-18T17:19:00.000-07:00

FDA auditors gave Bahrain an overall score of 0 percent for electoral fairnress. Though Bahrain's electoral laws have elements of fairness, they are canceled out by the kingdom's severe restrictions on political societies and political content, and the powerlessness of the elected Council of Deputies over the kingdom's executive branch.

http://www.slideshare.net/FDAdvancement/bahrain2011-fda-electoral-fairness-audit-report-of-bahrain

Interesting Commentary on Democracy and Its Relation with Capitalism

2011-07-17T17:32:00.000-07:00

These comments were copied from the GISXXI website and in regard to the article, "VENEZUELA: DEMOCRACY POLITICAL AND UNFAIR COMPETITION (Correo del Orinoco)"

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=es&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gisxxi.org%2Farticulos%2Fvenezuela-democracia-politica-oposicion-desleal%2F&act=url

Comments

27 June, 2011
11:31 a.m. June 27, 2011
11:31 a.m. Federica Castellanos said Federica Castellanos said:

Based on this important part where you cite GISXXI say the liberal ideology of political democracy could only be made by the Bolivarian revolution and its commitment to socialism of the XXI Century are right as well which egalitarian democracy to guarantee economic, social and cultural features of political democracy as part of their model and practice. Democracy is not only an ethical political system which we should aspire to have a civilized society that can be considered as such. It is not only a system of coexistence based on freedom and respect.

27 June, 2011
11:46 a.m. June 27, 2011
11:46 a.m. Urdaneta Hermes said Urdaneta Hermes said:

I propose the shortest way possible, try to see the relationship between the degree of democracy in a society and daily living conditions of citizens. The quality of the political system affects the quality of life of ordinary people. The more and better democracy, better living conditions, even happier is the population of a country. This, again, may seem obvious to many of my colleagues, but it is not, repeat, for many citizens. To realize this, simply discuss in forums unrelated to the ideas, revolutionary, just talking to friends, relatives, neighbors, fellow-workers, is why we must continue to strengthen the Bolivarian revolution and supporting GISXXI to continue their studies every day give us tools for further analysis in this revolution.

27 June, 2011
24:19 27 June, 2011
24:19 Fabiana Gallegos said Fabiana Gallegos said:

Very good article, since we can not forget that with enough democracy, all ideas, all signs must be able known and proven to be equal, thus triggering the THUS likely to solve the problems of society.

27 June, 2011
11:34 p.m. June 27, 2011
11:34 PM Liberal Democrat said Venezuela: Venezuelan liberal Democrat said:

Lords liberal idealism is totally opposed to the Bolivarian revolution, liberalism is freedom, progress, respect for individual, private property, no re-election to public office, state control NO, DO NOT enter idealism in education, such as ETC ETC view is opposed to the Bolivarian revolution that Chavez and Fidel Castro himself said that is equal to communism. So this article is Artoo wanting to confuse the Liberal Democrats with the totalitarianism of the Bolivarian revolution. More respect for the Liberal Democrats that we never jalamecates more of a Bolivarian revolution.

29 June, 2011
8:20 a.m. June 29, 2011
8:20 a.m. Jesse Chacon said Jesse Chacon said:

Liberal Democrat Hello, thank you for your comment, in theory, liberalism is everything you say, but maximizing the value of private property makes that real political practice violated all principles, the logic of property is the tendency to concentration and from there his idealized freedom is reduced to the most disgraceful dictatorship of privilege, I invite you to read the article "Economy of 1%, 1% by 1%," Joseph Stiglitz Nobel Prize in economics 2001. That article describes the economic model frighteningly for the few that is consolidated in the United States imagine http://ve.globedia.com/stiglitz-economia-del-1-por-el-1-para-el-1- liberal ideal that you do not want that to Venezuela, right?

29 June, 2011
8:28 a.m. June 29, 2011
8:28 a.m. Jesse Chacon said Jesse Chacon said:

Liberal Democrat friend, finally I would say that historically the ideas of political liberalism has only been made by social choices, the Socialists are nurses of the real practices of freedom and beyond that established a critique and transformation conditions of inequality and anthropology of selfishness touted by economic liberalism, the grand launch of post-war Europe after the project was linked to socialist society, it is now when the economic liberalism of Europe takes the direction that the project begins to plunge them into deeper crisis. Just as in Venezuela, the Bolivarian socialist option and that has made structural changes to overcome inequality in just 12 years.

29 June, 2011
8:34 a.m. June 29, 2011
8:34 a.m. Jesse Chacon said Jesse Chacon said:

And to end liberal Democrat, in the political process as the re-election, which issues such as andidemocrática, remember that the heart of democracy is control and reversibility and the elected in Venezuela can vote and choose, as well can revoke the mandate, you have political freedom and respect for life, no opponent is massacred in the streets for his politics, the opposite of the previous cycles of fake democracy. The revocation was a farce in the fourth republic, imagine 40 years of bipartisanship. The revocation Was a farce in the fourth republic, imagine 40 years of bipartisanship. Anyway, the robustness of the political and democratic processes have been evaluated by external actors are not biased, but around this you can give a reasonable dialogue and listen to arguments, but you can not talk around matrices of opinion manipulated or speeches emotionalize no arguments. Thanks for your comments respectful and serious.

1 July, 2011
1:20 a.m. July 1, 2011
1:20 a.m. Munini Franco said Munini Franco said:

Participatory democracy can not be passive point. It is necessary to bring the revolutionary evengelio those corners darkened by violence, drugs and self-inflicted exclusion. And we must do now: it is the only time this group is disconnected from the revolution that was born just for them.
The unfairness of the opposition is not merely the result (and also shown) of the arrogant attitude of the wealthy economic sector and its partnership with the media and the empire. Not only is unfortunate: it is criminally dangerous, it opens the door to invasions and fratricide in a particularly aggressive phase of capitalism vulgar and just slows down to making arguments "legal" before attacking.
The vote is a good shelter, but votes are needed for this to remain so.
How do we prevent the disloyal opposition becomes government, if we let him away with using illegal weapons against us?

1 July, 2011
1 July 2011 11:19 p.m.
11:19 PM Jesse Chacon said Jesse Chacon said:

When Franco Munini in his commentary speaks of the "arrogance of the wealthy economic sector," we think it opens as a reflection on the unfairness of the opposition is directly proportional to the type of bourgeoisie that is set in Venezuela, which is a bourgeois rentier violates the basic principles of capitalist enterprise. Its very disrespectful to the basic rules of democracy (coups, no rule of law) is the disrespect for the rules of bourgeois enterprise focused on competition, on the contrary economic behavior is the hoarding, speculation, usury. Bourgeoisie is always looking for the shortcut and below, is a bourgeois trap closest to the mafia and the logic of accumulation.

Libya--2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit Report

2011-07-17T16:10:00.000-07:00

The 2011 FDA Report audits electoral fairness under the Gaddafi regime. The Libyan republic electoral system received an overall score of 0 percent for electoral fairness.

http://www.slideshare.net/FDAdvancement/libya2011-fda-electoral-fairness-audit

Insight into the politics of Obama

2011-07-17T10:04:00.001-07:00

http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-mother-insurance-health/

Open Letter to all Venezuelan expatriates who are opposed to Chavez's democratic government

2011-07-15T12:39:00.000-07:00

The FDA's mission is to advance the fairness and transparency of democratic processes wherever elections occur. The FDA is a non-partisan organization guided by objectivity, soundness, and transparency.

The FDA's Venezuela Report is based on an audit of the constitutional and legislative basis for Venezuelan democracy. We acknowledge, as stated in the report, that the application of laws and the public’s response to them would impact, either positive or negative, the laws themselves. Also, a country's constitution and electoral laws are part of the reality of its democracy.

We regret if you do not agree with our findings. If we have misinterpreted the Venezuelan constitution or electoral laws in terms of our concrete, literal interpretations, please inform us.

Sincerely yours,

Stephen Garvey
FDA Executive Director

FDA Venezuela Report

Russia Shows Signs of Addressing Deficiencies in its Political System

2011-07-12T13:07:00.000-07:00

Russia Governments Says Political Reforms are Needed

FDA Electoral Fairness Audit Report on Russia

Discussion on the FDA Venezuela Report

2011-07-10T12:45:00.000-07:00

Some good points mixed in with denial and lacks of understanding of the importance of the constitutional and
legislative basis for democracy.... It is good at least people are discussing the report, and thereby improving their understanding of democracy.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread726749/pg1

Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Democracy – fair and square

2011-07-09T13:24:00.000-07:00

Article makes some interesting points about how major media networks discredit, unfairly, the Chavez government. The FDA is waiting and prepared to deal any unfair criticism directed at its Venezuela report (while
being open to constructive criticism).

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/printer_63367.shtml

Venezuela Ranked Number One in Electoral Fairness by Foundation for Democratic Advancement

2011-07-07T21:44:00.000-07:00

Link to the articles: "Venezuela Ranked Number One in Electoral Fairness by Foundation for Democratic Advancement":

http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/6336

Interesting overview of Venezuelan politics (September 24, 2010)

2011-07-07T17:11:00.000-07:00

RT report on Venezuela

FDA Electoral Fairness Report On Venezuela Updated as July 7, 2011

2011-07-07T13:45:00.001-07:00

The updated FDA Report on Venezuela can be viewed at:

2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit Report on Venezuela

2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Russia

2011-07-06T21:03:00.000-07:00

Executive Summary: Russia received a failing overall score of 35% for electoral fairness. This score means that there are major deficiencies in most areas of Russia's electoral legislation. In particular, the severe unfairness of Russia's electoral finance laws canceled out many instances of electoral fairness in Russia's electoral legislation. Also, Russia's 90% score for equality of political content could not overcome the negative impact of Russia's electoral finance laws in all other areas of the FDA audit.

2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Russia