BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Center for International and Regional Studies - ECPv6.15.15//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:Center for International and Regional Studies
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for Center for International and Regional Studies
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Europe/Moscow
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0300
TZOFFSETTO:+0300
TZNAME:MSK
DTSTART:20150101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Asia/Qatar
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0300
TZOFFSETTO:+0300
TZNAME:+03
DTSTART:20150101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20161123T123000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20161123T133000
DTSTAMP:20260404T085033
CREATED:20161121T133124Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T094056Z
UID:10001311-1479904200-1479907800@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Trump’s Election and the Need for a Mass Movement for Constitutional Reform
DESCRIPTION:In his November 23\, 2016 talk\, “Trump’s Election and the Need for a Mass Movement for Constitutional Reform\,” Anatol Lieven\, Professor of International Politics at Georgetown University in Qatar\, spoke about the recent US elections in the broad context of the United States Constitution. Today\, many Americans consider the Constitution “sacred\,” and would reject even the smallest changes to it\, even though it has undergone twenty-seven successful amendments over its history. This passionate attachment comes from the Constitution’s central importance to American civic nationalism and national identity\, and its success in framing the United States as it grew to become the most powerful country on earth. \n \n \nThis is not really a problem if a system delivers good government and basic\, consensual civic peace\, however\, Lieven said: “I fear that the US Constitution is\, as it presently exists\, less and less able to do this.” As things stand today\, “the Constitution is beginning to work massively in favor of one section of the American population and American politics\, namely white conservatives\, who are not anxious to give up the advantages that this system gives them\,” he said. \n \n \nOther western democracies have made changes to their constitutions over the years\, but systems that have been as successful as that of the USA over a long period will find it more difficult to change. But however successful it may have been in the past\, “A system which is not capable of even limited and pragmatic change may be in serious trouble\,” Lieven cautioned. Because of the way that US presidential elections work\, and because of the institution of the US Electoral College\, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in this election\, but Donald Trump won because he secured the Electoral College votes. The same thing happened with Al Gore and George Bush in 2000. “As far as I know\, the United States is the only presidential democracy in the world that operates in this this way\,” he said. \n \n \nThe US presidential election campaign has essentially been reduced to fifteen states\, those needed to win the Electoral College\, according to Lieven\, and the other thirty-five states are ignored to a considerable degree. This has created a somewhat odd image of American democracy in the world. Lieven asked\, “Is the United States\, in fact\, a democracy? Well\, the obvious answer is no\, of course it isn’t\, because it wasn’t intended to be.” The founders were notoriously suspicious of democracy\, which they associated with the threat of anarchy and mob rule leading to tyranny\, according to Lieven. They put barriers against democracy into the Constitution\, and it was almost forty years later that the US actually became a more or less democratic country in the (then) sense of a country where all adult white males had the vote. \n \n \nThe founders’ intention was to create a system that would prevent tyranny while providing reasonably good\, though very limited government. “It was\, above all\, to create a system that would last\, that would create institutions that could mediate and reconcile different interests\,” among thirteen very different states\, Lieven said. This balanced state powers against those of the central government. The battles of states’ rights remain critically important to this day\, especially when it comes to racial and cultural issues\, Lieven said. This is what led to the secession of the South before the Civil War and the battles over states’ rights in the 1940s–60s\, as the white South fought to retain racial segregation and discrimination. \n \n \nWhile some of the workings of the Constitution have been transformed\, formal institutions such as the Electoral College remain in place. The founders saw it as a kind of temporary parliament\, a national assembly of elected\, independent legislators who had made promises to their electors\, but were also free to choose the president as they saw fit. In this context\, direct democratic election was secondary\, according to Lieven. “Today we have a situation where the Electoral College remains in certain respects highly undemocratic\, but is democratically nailed to the candidate to whom they have promised their vote in advance\,” he said. \n \n \nWhen the Constitution was formulated\, the smallest state had roughly one-twelfth of the population of the largest state\, and most states had roughly similar populations. In 2010\, there were seven states with more than 10 million people each\, and they had fourteen US senators. These are the big\, urban states\, multi-racial and largely Democratic in their leanings\, and they account for approximately 45 percent of the US population. There were seven states with fewer than one million people in 2010\, accounting for about 2 percent of the total US population. These are overwhelmingly Republican leaning states with white conservative populations\, and they also have fourteen US senators. Basically\, this means that California has roughly 40 times less representation than a state like South Dakota. \n \n \nThe problem of democracy in the House of Representatives is a different one. Currently in the House of Representatives\, due to the rights held by the states under the Constitution\, forty-three out of fifty states have their constituency boundaries for the House determined by state legislatures and state executives\, and they are politically manipulated. This despite the fact that the House was always conceived as a national popular legislature\, popularly elected. The drawing of constituency boundaries to produce solid\, unchangeable majorities for one party or another is favored not just by Republicans but also by black Democrats\, who see this as a way to guarantee black representation in Congress (and their own seats). \n \n \nAs a result of this effectively rigged system\, in this year’s election\, Republicans won the national popular vote\, but by a margin vastly smaller than the number of seats won in the House. In 2012\, Republicans lost the popular vote by a wide margin but gained a majority of seats. “This raises not just questions about democracy\, but it creates additional problems in America\, especially a polarized America\,” said Lieven. Only around seven per cent of House seats were really contested in the last four elections. The result of this is to push the real political contest for the House from the area envisaged by the Constitution (elections) and into party primaries\, in a way that inevitably favors extremists and increases polarization—since there is no longer any need for candidates to try to win candidates from the middle ground or the opposing party. “Battles in party primaries always\, always—in every country—tend to favor active activists and extremists\,” said Lieven. \n \n \nThe courts have challenged individual cases of drawing district maps\, but Lieven said\, “It seems obvious that this should be done the way it is done just about everywhere else in democracies\, which is to have an impartial national—not politically chosen—electoral commission that will distribute the seats\, and be subject always to judicial review\,” Lieven said. “The Supreme Court has to judge according to the Constitution\, and it is very difficult to challenge the system as a whole constitutionally\, given the power of states’ rights. Additionally\, there is the pretty strange provision under the Constitution that the Supreme Court has far greater powers than those of any other Supreme Court that I know of in the world. Powers that are\, in effect\, legislative—not just judicial\,” said Lieven. “And the Supreme Court has repeatedly made laws—not interpreted them—made new laws that have radically changed aspects of American life\,” he said. When to this are added the Constitutional provisions that Supreme Court judges are chosen by the President\, and for life\, there is a very real possibility that (with a number of Democrat judges nearing the end of their life)\, President Trump could ensure a Republican grip on the Supreme Court for a generation to come\, putting the Republicans in a position constitutionally to block large parts of a future democratic president’s legislative agenda—completely irrespective of the popular vote. \n \n \nLieven predicted that as America changes demographically and whites sink from a majority to a plurality of the population\, the effective disenfranchisement of millions of urban Americans and the demand for constitutional reform are going to become a much bigger issue in the future. However\, he said it is highly unlikely that the Democrats under their existing leadership will raise this issue effectively. \n \n \nDue to the Senate distribution\, the way the House is arranged\, and the certainty the Supreme Court would do nothing about it such a demand for change would have to be pushed for by a mass popular movement—as in the struggle against slavery and for civil rights. The Democratic leadership that produced Hillary Clinton is far too cautious and intertwined with the US economic elites to consider such a radical step. Fortunately\, Bernie Sanders has shown the deep desire among much of the rank and file of the Democratic Party for a more radical path. \n \n \nHowever\, Lieven cautioned against a movement for Constitutional reform couched in terms of democratic rights for racial minorities\, as this would be sure to drive many moderate working class whites into the ranks of the reactionary opposition. Instead\, he summoned up the examples of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Martin Luther King when in his last years he campaigned for social and economic justice for all Americans. Lieven called for “A movement for democratic reform\, linked to economic justice\, appealing to the disadvantaged and disenfranchised urban poor of all races\, and couched in terms of the need to renew American democracy in the name of American nationalism and America’s national image in the world.” \n \n \nAnatol Lieven teaches International Politics at Georgetown University in Qatar. He received a BA in History (double first) and a PhD in Political Science from the University of Cambridge. Before joining academia\, he spent most of his career as a foreign correspondent for British newspapers\, and later as a member of think tanks in Washington DC. Between 2007 and 2014 he worked in the War Studies Department of King’s College London\, where he remains a visiting professor. His main project at present is a book on the history of the Pashtun ethnicity in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the context of the wider history and theoretical analysis of modern nationalism (commissioned by Yale University Press). His taught courses at Georgetown in Qatar include international security issues; US foreign policy; war and diplomacy in Afghanistan and South Asia; comparative political systems and the history\, theory and comparative study of nationalism. He is author of numerous books\, including Pakistan: A Hard Country (2012); America Right or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism (second edition 2012); and Ukraine and Russia: A Fraternal Rivalry (1999). \n \n \n  \n \n \nArticle by Jackie Starbird\, Publications and Projects Assistant at CIRS.
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/trumps-election-and-the-need-for-a-mass-movement-for-constitutional-reform/
CATEGORIES:American Studies,Dialogue Series,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/11/events_122291_45166_1495704827-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Qatar:20161128T080000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Qatar:20161128T170000
DTSTAMP:20260404T085033
CREATED:20161120T104654Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T094049Z
UID:10001309-1480320000-1480352400@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Did Democracy Lose this Round? And Why?
DESCRIPTION:Azmi Bishara\, General Director of the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies\, delivered a CIRS Monthly Dialogue lecture on the topic “Did Democracy Lose this round? And Why?” on November 28\, 2016. While these questions were posed in regard to the state of democracy in the Arab world in the wake of the recent uprisings\, he noted that some of these concerns could be equally applied to the failure of liberalism in the West\, and the rise of increasingly right-wing tendencies. \n\nBishara gave four broad explanations for why this round of democratic transition has failed in the Arab world\, with a background of the brutality of old regimes and the oppression of civil protests. The first of these was that Arab political elites of both the opposition and the ruling factions could not come to any compromises or agree on shared settlements in the wake of the Arab uprisings. This\, he said\, was because “the Arab political elite\, had no democratic culture”. He rejected the tendency to blame popular culture. Democratic cultures take time to flourish in society in general\, and are learned over many years through various aspects of a nation’s foundational systems\, including its educational system\, the institution of which is the responsibility of political elites in the transitionary phase. \n\n\n\n \n\nTo this effect\, Bishara argued that there is no such thing as a “democratic revolution\,” since “democracy happens afterwards through reform\, not through revolutions. This includes the French Revolution. It did not lead to democracy at the beginning; it needed a long process of reform to reach democracy at the end.” It is a historical norm that after mass societal and political changes\, opposing political elites enter into rounds of negotiation regarding the future direction of the country. This did not happen in the post Arab uprisings. He argued that “the young people who went out to the streets\, protesting torture\, humiliation\, and physical abuse of human beings\, thought that…they actually achieved or finished the job when Mr. Mubarak and Mr. Zine El-Abidine resigned or abdicated.” In earnest\, the protestors delivered their hard won changes to the political elites in order to transform the new raw political environment into actionable\, viable reforms\, but no such restructuring took place. \n\nThe second reason for why democracy did not take root in the region is because of the failure to find a balance between democracy and liberalism—something that was achieved only relatively recently in Western nations in the post-World War II period. Today\, we understand that “democracy in itself is not only majority rule; it is not only a question of the ballots; and it is not only a question of free elections\,” Bishara argued. “Now when we speak of principles of democracy that should be respected by the majority\, we actually mean liberal rights\,” he said. These are the meta-constitutional principles that have not been taken to heart by Arab political movements. Even as traditionally conservative parties finally began to accept democracy in the shape of ballots and elections\, they did not respect or believe in the related liberal principles. While it is understood that the more radical Islamic movements\, like the Islamic State\, openly reject democracy in general\, in the post-Arab uprisings\, “even the mainstream Islamic movements who accept democracy as majority rule underestimated how important civil liberties are for the co-called new Arab middle class\, without which you cannot build anything\,” and without which the urban centers will be lost—as was witnessed in Egypt when the Muslim Brotherhood took control. \n\nBishara’s third reason for the failure of democracy is due to the ways in which modern Arab regimes are engaging in the divisive and dangerous politicization—and polarization—of the multiethnic\, multicultural\, and sectarian social structures of their societies\, especially in the countries of the Levant. Recently\, there have been concerted attempts “to mobilize political loyalties to nondemocratic ruling regimes by using subnational affiliations repoliticized sects\, identities\, ethnicities\, tribes\,” which was not the case in the past\, he said. This policy of so-called secular regimes elicited feelings of sectarian discrimination and confessional reaction among the people. In fact\, “political sectarianism\, which is exploiting these lines of identity in the struggle to control the state\, is a new phenomenon.” Bishara noted that it would be impossible to build a sustainable democracy within these polarized and factionalized societies. \n\nA fourth reason for why democracy has failed in the Arab world is due to the military’s historical stranglehold on political systems in some of these countries. When imperial powers withdrew from Arab lands\, new national armies were created from the remnants of colonial military structures\, and these emerged as the most organized and powerful entities from the chaos of newly forming postcolonial nations. Bishara said that “we still live the issue of politicization of the military in the Arab world\,” and these armies have become increasingly politically motivated. Powerful figures within Arab militaries have strong political ambitions and think of themselves as both powerholders and as watchdogs in the balance of power. For example\, in “Egypt\, the army achieved a kind of autonomy before 2011\,” but when the government collapsed during the Egyptian protests\, “the army thought that there was an opportunity\, reinforced by the inability of the elites to reach a bargain\,” he explained. He drew a comparison between Sisi’s military coup in Egypt and that of Pinochet in Chile in the 1970s. \n\nAlthough these many political impasses facing the Arab world might seem insurmountable\, Bishara concluded on a positive note by arguing that “these hard times are suitable for rethinking\,” and for encouraging a new generation of political elites who can accept disagreements and who can debate and bargain to reach compromises with each other for the sake of a future that respects democratic principles. \n\nAzmi Bishara is the General Director of the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies and the Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies. A prominent researcher and writer\, Bishara has published numerous books and academic papers in political thought\, social theory\, and philosophy\, in addition to several literary works. \n\n  \n\nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, Manager and Editor for CIRS Publications.
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/did-democracy-lose-this-round-and-why/
LOCATION:Education City\, Al Luqta St\, Ar-Rayyan\, Doha\, Qatar
CATEGORIES:American Studies,Dialogue Series,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/11/events_122321_43126_1481182675-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20161130T180000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20161130T200000
DTSTAMP:20260404T085033
CREATED:20161208T124747Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20210901T095324Z
UID:10001313-1480528800-1480536000@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Mishal Husain on "News and Views in a Post-Truth World"
DESCRIPTION:Mishal Husain\, one of the BBC’s best-known presenters\, delivered a CIRS Focused Discussion on “News and Views in a Post-Truth World” on November 30\, 2016. Her talk gave insights into how journalists navigate through\, and respond to\, ever-changing news environments\, particularly during seismic world events such as the Arab uprisings and the recent spectacle of the US presidential election. Relaying her journalism experience\, spanning over two decades in the field\, she said: “I am aware\, and feel the privilege of the job I do\, not just the places I go to\, but the moments in time and\, certainly\, the access to both the powerful and the powerless.” \n \n \nHusain reflected on how the UK’s recent EU referendum was reported\, highlighting the duty of the BBC and other broadcasters to ensure due impartiality in political coverage\, the controversy about “fake news” in the wake of Donald Trump’s election victory\, and her concerns about hearing “mainstream media” employed as a term of abuse. \n \n \nMany people have become progressively dismissive of traditional\, established news channels that reach a mass audience\, and there is a growing environment in which people are seeking to reinforce their own views\, rather than opening up to a culture of informed debate. “The debate about fake news is very compelling at the moment\, but the influence of stories that are misleading at best will also require careful scrutiny.”  Ultimately\, she noted\, all this is leading to the increasing circulation of misinformation\, the dismissal of facts\, and the erosion of truth. \n \n \nIn conclusion\, she argued that there is a personal responsibility for people to examine the facts and to weigh the evidence. “I am deeply concerned today about the echo chamber\, but also what I see as the lack of a critical thinking mindset\, which is now even being identified as a bulwark against radicalization.” Husain stated. She talked about the importance of a wide range of news sources\, particularly for minority communities\, and an openness to explore other opinions and perspectives. “Our capacity for citizenship will not improve unless these personal skills are developed.”   \n \n \nMishal Husain appears on the influential Today programme on BBC Radio 4 and presenting the main Sunday evening news on BBC1. She also presents on location from around the world\, including Pakistan after the killing of Osama Bin Laden and the Peshawar school massacre\, and the Middle East through the Arab uprisings and the Syrian refugee crisis. For many years she was one of the main presenters on the international channel BBC World News\, and while based in Washington between 2003 and 2004\, her nightly news broadcasts developed a keen following among American viewers on PBS. She was also based in the BBC’s Singapore bureau for a time\, presenting business news programmes\, and her sustained focus on Asia took her to the Beijing Olympics in 2008 and the Shanghai Expo in 2010. Mishal has presented four critically acclaimed BBC documentaries: Malala—Shot for Going to School\, and How Facebook Changed the World on social media and the Arab uprisings\, and a three-part series on the life of Mahatma Gandhi. In 2016\, her hour-long film Britain & Europe: The Immigration Question was screened days before Britain’s landmark EU referendum vote. In January 2016\, she was named by the Sunday Times as one of the 500 most influential people in Britain\, and in 2015 she won the London Press Club’s Broadcaster of the Year award and was the Women in Film and TV Awards Presenter of the Year. In 2013\, she was one of the Financial Times’ Women of the Year and in 2009 the Times named her as one of the top five most influential Muslim women in Britain. \n \n \n  \n \n \nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, Manager and Editor for CIRS Publications. \n \n \n  \n \n \n  \n \n \n 
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/mishal-husain-news-and-views-post-truth-world/
CATEGORIES:Dialogue Series,Distingushed Lectures,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/12/events_122391_43431_1481201525-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR