Local news

Boston (AP) – Singing “Stop the Coup” and with signs reminiscent of “I love democracy” and “Resist”, a whole bunch of individuals gathered in Boston on Friday against President Donald Trump's policy and his billionaire consultant Elon Musk.

The peaceful rally under freezer was supported by 100 civil rights, environmental and advanced groups from Massachusetts. The spokesman, after speakers, geared toward the executive guidelines against marginalized communities and asked the gang to oppose an attack on democracy.

“I am here because I am extremely concerned about my grandchildren, especially my granddaughter, who will not have the same rights that I had to control my body, and all the rights we have experienced and I have grown with” Diane Bleer, a 76-year-old from Lexington, said on the rally in Boston Common.

“You will be taken away if this malefactor is still widespread to destroy the government and destroy our democracy,” she continued.

Others criticized what they see as disassembly of the federal government.

“It is important to get up and protest and not just stay at home and do nothing,” said Ellen Epstein, a resident of Medford, who was reading “Stop the Trumpster Fire”. “I feel forced to get up for what is correct. What happens now may be very fallacious. “

Others emphasized and protect the necessity to support and protect immigrant and LGBTQ+ apartments that were the goal of Trump administration policy within the early days of the administration.

“Our government tries to extinguish our people, the people who make our beautiful country out, the queer people, trans people, immigrants, blacks and indigenous people with colors arise,” said: “Queenness is healing.” “It is hideous and disgusting.”

The organizers of rally said they hoped to place the political leaders under pressure, show moral courage and resist Trump's agenda.

The rally got here on the identical day when the layoffs within the federal authorities were implemented as a part of the efforts to scale back the state workforce, and a day after the vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was sworn in as health secretary.

Surveys suggest that in many Western democracies, political trust is at its lowest point. Scandals, corruption, weakening economies, conspiracy theories and circulating disinformation all contribute to this. But is it really so bad for people living in a democracy to distrust their government?

In this episode of The weekly conversationLet's talk over with political scientist Grant Duncan about why he thinks a certain level of distrust and skepticism of powerful politicians is definitely healthy for democracy. And about how populists like Donald Trump manage to make use of people's distrust of the political elite to their advantage.

Grant Duncan says that the majority people don't grow up considering, “Do I trust the government?” unless asked by a pollster. And yet, when things go incorrect, he says, “we have good reason to pause and ask about promises kept or not kept.”

Originally from New Zealand, Duncan is currently a visiting scholar in politics at City St. George's, University of London within the United Kingdom. His research focus is on the issues with political trust and the right way to get there higher governments. He argues that in democracies people mustn’t trust their government.

“Democratic constitutions are based on the premise that nobody with power could be trusted. That's why we’ve separation of powers, why we’ve regular elections, a free press, persons are continually monitoring what's happening because we don't trust anyone. “Democracy with political power.”

Populists fill the gaps

Duncan says, for instance, that without the American colonists' deep distrust of the federal government of King George III. there would have been no United States of America in England. Still, he acknowledges that there’s a paradox on the core of democratic systems that relies on trust to operate. When you vote in a representative system, you're putting “a lot of trust in a very small number of people making laws and governments and making decisions on our behalf,” he says.

Duncan believes that Donald Trump's re-election as US president directly reflects the mood of political distrust within the country. Trump, together with other populists from each the left and the fitting around the globe, have exploited this paradox of representative government, which implies that a small elite is entrusted with much power.

“It often happens that a big a part of society feels that changes are happening around them that they don’t understand, that they don’t like and that they don’t approve of. And it just takes one smart leader to think: I could make political capital out of this by turning to the hustle and saying, “I'm speaking to you, the real people, the forgotten people… I'm speaking for you.”

Get higher managers

There are ways to extend people's trust of their democracies, and while it's not nearly blaming the federal government, Duncan believes those that wield power have a much greater responsibility:

“When politicians and senior officials are concerned about how to restore public trust, the first thing they need to do is take a look in the mirror because we need trustworthy leaders. “We don't want misconduct and scandals.”

In addition, there may be the competent provision of public services and ensuring the security of individuals. And having leaders who’re aware of their limitations and transparent in regards to the challenges they face, especially in light of technological developments equivalent to artificial intelligence. Charismatic leaders won’t come and solve the issues for us, he says.

“I think we are too fascinated by charisma and, on the other hand, perhaps too angry about leaders who do not meet our expectations. So we need some kind of commitment to the task of government because so much is going to change and we have to.” Remember that political trust isn’t destroyed and rebuilt like a machine. It is a human phenomenon through which all of us participate.”

end of October, greater than 80% of Botswana's electorate went to vote and voted out the incumbent government. The unexpected result was accepted by all parties and the outgoing president immediately announced his plans smooth transition of power.

This just isn’t unusual within the southern African country – Botswana repeatedly leads the mainland continent in annual comparisons.“Most Most Democratic Nations” lists. Since independence in 1966, Botswana has not only experienced a high degree of democratic stability, but in addition exceptional economic growth And low polarization and other social problems that plague other countries, each in Africa and elsewhere.

In May 2023, I undertook a two-week exploratory study in Botswana to search out out why. My findings, recently published indicate the crucial role of “dikgotla” – the normal village assemblies central to politics in Botswana and known of their singular form as “kgotla” – within the peer-reviewed online journal Social Sciences.

These assemblies, which have existed since time immemorial—perhaps dating back hundreds of years—act as public forums where residents meet repeatedly to debate public issues and hold officials accountable.

By participating within the monthly Dikgotla, residents of Botswana learn the way politics works, turn out to be actively involved within the political process and are higher informed in the case of national elections.

My research was based totally on statement, including attending a kgotla session in Modipane, a village in southern Botswana, and interviewing local experts, chiefs, residents and academics across the country in regards to the impacts of the dikgotla system.

Citizens meet monthly to debate matters that directly affect their lives, similar to the development of recent roads, hospitals and schools. Neighborly disputes may also be addressed and resolved in Dikgotla. And under the system, officials are consulted and held accountable for his or her decisions.

By observing a Kgotla session, I used to be capable of witness how Botswana's citizen-focused, deliberative democracy contributes to stability, social cohesion and economic success.

In short, the Kgotla tradition promotes good governance. After assessing other possible reasons for good governance – each economic and social – and comparing Botswana with other countries within the region, I imagine that Dikgotla are likely the driving force behind Botswana's good democratic performance.

Why it matters

At a time when countries around the globe are affected by rising numbers alienation of residentsDetachment and polarizationBotswana represents a case where direct democratic practices on the local level have effectively complemented a representative system.

The Kgotla tradition offers a compelling alternative to purely representative democracies, wherein residents are represented within the political process by elected officials.

Without understanding how government works and what elected officials and state bureaucrats do, residents are likely to depend on unfounded theories about “the system” and “those in power” and risk falling victim to political manipulation.

Botswana's democratic system mitigates this risk through the lively and regular participation of residents in local governance through Dikotla.

What sets Botswana apart is the proven fact that this traditional system has survived and been integrated into the country's current governance structure.

My research shows that strengthening democracy in postcolonial countries will be more successful by drawing on long-standing democratic traditions slightly than importing foreign political systems that will not reply to local needs but only those of the previous colonizers.

What's next?

The results of this initial exploratory study highlight the potential of Kgotla as a model for sustaining participatory democracy. In the long run, I plan to conduct a more comprehensive study covering different regions of Botswana, including areas with different ethnic composition from the Tswana-dominated south.

This will enable a more nuanced understanding of how Dikgotla works in several environments and whether regional differences influence their effectiveness. Examining these aspects will probably be critical to determining how Dikgotla can function a governance model.

The study of the Dikgotla in Botswana can also be part of a bigger research project aimed toward highlighting the African contribution to Western civilization. To advance this research agenda, I’m working on a book-length manuscript tentatively titled “The African Origins of Democracy.”

The Nicaraguan government recently closed greater than 1,500 nonprofit organizations – a lot of them civil and non secular groups They perform humanitarian work in a rustic that has long been mired in political violence, economic unrest and social unrest.

The closures in August 2024 were the most recent in a long-running crackdown on civil society, including religious groups – a number of the last influential, independent organizations within the country. In the identical month, the Govt revoked the tax-exempt status of churches. Many in recent times Places of worship were or had been closed Their bank accounts have been frozen.

As a sociologistI worked with Central American scientists Explore the role of faith in public life in Central America, including Nicaragua. Several hundred Catholic figures have been arrested as a part of a sustained crackdown under President Daniel Ortega, now 78 the Sandinista National Liberation Front.

Blanket suppression

Ortega's FSLN party, because it is thought in Spanish, is the authoritarian remnant of the group that led a broad national movement against the dictatorship of Anastasio Somoza Debayle within the Seventies. After Overthrow of Somoza in 1979Ortega and the Sandinistas ruled until defeat within the 1990 elections.

Since Ortega returned to power within the 2006 elections, moderates have fled the FSLN, which they’ve used ever since oppression and violence for political and social control. In 2013, the National Assembly Presidential term limits were lifted is about out within the structure of Nicaragua.

In April 2018, Ortega's regime began take targeted motion against student demonstrators. Since then, tons of of residents – religious leaders, university students, academics, journalists and doctors – have done so been killed or arrestedsubmerged or forced to go away the country.

Ortega's crackdown was comprehensive. Universities had their assets were confiscated and funding was cut and a few were closed as government took control of upper education. Media company were closed, and international aid organizations were expelled.

Paramilitary police and prison guards have been accused of collaborating arbitrary killings and torture. Meanwhile a Record variety of refugees flee the country.

Silence churches

Under the nearly 5,500 nonprofits which have closed In Nicaragua, between 2018 and 2024, there are Catholic, Evangelical Christian and historic Protestant organizations, in addition to secular humanitarian organizations. Those, 1,650 organizations and churches were closed in August 2024, with government officials claiming their closure was because of ties to non-public firms or a scarcity of economic records.

Catholic media and Radio station, Missionary Order And humanitarian groups have also been closed as Ortega and the vice chairman – his wife Rosario Murillo – have sought to eliminate places where ideas and data flow freely and folks act independently of the federal government.

The most distinguished religious leader affected by the repression is Rolando Álvarez, a preferred bishop, critic of Ortega and a distinguished Catholic voice of protest. Alvarez was arrested in August 2022accused”Conspiracy and spreading false news,, deprived of his citizenship and sentenced to 26 years in prison.

Due to increasing international pressure, Alvarez and a bunch of other imprisoned Catholic clergy were released in January 2024 exiled to the Vatican – where the regime had previously expelled the Apostolic Nuncio, the Pope's top diplomat in Nicaragua. They are among the many 245 Catholic personalities within the country has shown in recent times. Another 135 people, including Catholics and evangelicalswas deported and stripped of their citizenship in September 2024.

Today, 43% of Nicaraguan residents discover as Catholic. However, this percentage was much higher, and the country has deep cultural roots in Catholicism.

In Nicaragua, as in much of Latin America, the Catholic Church is essentially the most powerful source of social authority and the biggest independent institution to public debate. It represents a key channel through which democratic values ​​can take rootgrow and prosper – an obstacle within the eyes of the regime.

It has been for a few years The church was the one organization that escaped Ortega’s grip – but no more.

Dangerous path

I witnessed firsthand Nicaragua's transformation from a rustic with promising seeds of democracy to a violent autocracy. As Civil war was raging between the unique Sandinista regime and US-backed Contras In the Eighties, I led travel seminars to Nicaragua for faith communities, journalists, congressional staff, and university students. I once met Ortega in person when he acted as translator at a gathering with American journalists when his official translator failed to point out up.

Today, as Ortega continues to consolidate his power by suppressing the opposition, Nicaragua has degenerated right into a repressive state ruled with an iron fist. This reality reflects broader dynamics worldwide, from autocratic movements within the United States and Western Europe to current regimes in Russia, India, Turkey, Hungary and China.

Closer to home, Ortega poses a regional threat and serves as a job model for other would-be autocrats. This is especially true in neighbors like El Salvador, where President Nayib Bukele – the favored, self-described “coolest dictator” – sinks the same path transforming the nation into an authoritarian state.

I actually have seen the generosity and courage of Nicaraguans within the long struggle for freedom and justice. The closure of democratic spaces, civil society institutions and humanitarian organizations, in addition to the suppression of non secular freedom, are a transparent sign that the country is on the trail to more oppression and violence – and, as history shows, is in peril of becoming ripe for revolution .

I imagine that only a gradual reconstruction of civil society can save Nicaragua from this fate. The tragedy is what Nicaragua might have been: a thriving democratic society with a commitment to empowering the poor.

Supporters of each major U.S. parties are inclined to claim that their presidential candidate is the “real” Christian, or the “better” Christian, or just the “true” Christian.

For a Majority of white evangelical ProtestantsTrump is the great Christian. Christians for Kamala, a newly formed group of self-described Christians supporting the Democratic candidate, say her campaign is the “compassionate heart of Jesus and his teachings.”

But most American adults agree that religion ought to be separate from governmentThis widespread belief is a cornerstone of spiritual freedom. Scholar for religious freedomI even have examined the complex and ever-evolving role of faith in American politics. I argue that while the Christian character of each candidate is being discussed in all places this election yr, religious freedom, one in all the elemental freedoms of American democracy, will not be.

The case of Ezra Stiles Ely

The history of spiritual freedom in America is stuffed with stories that instructive for our present momentOne of those instructive lessons comes from the early Nineteenth century.

The Second Great Awakening was an intense period of spiritual renewal. Evangelical Christians sought to reform American law and policy to reflect what they believed to be true Christianity. According to legal scholars Geoffrey R. StoneAt that point, the claim was made that the “The United States is a “Christian nation” first seriously took root.”

A notable personality from this era is the Presbyterian pastor of Philadelphia. Ezra Stiles ElyOn July 4, 1827, the Yale-educated pastor announced his infamous call for the “foundation of a Christian political party” within the run-up to the 1828 presidential election.

Ely's speech, The duty of Christian suitors to elect Christian rulersis a Nineteenth-century version of what we now call “Christian nationalism.” In it, Ely sets out his distinctly Christian vision of who should function political leader and the way they need to govern.

Before an Independence Day audience at Philadelphia's Seventh Presbyterian Church, Ely declared: “Every ruler should be a professed and sincere friend of Christianity. He should know and believe the doctrines of our holy religion, and act in accordance with its precepts.” Ely also advocated for “a new kind of union, or, if you will, a Christian party in politics.”

Ely concluded his sermon by urging Christians to “be conscious of our sacred duty to our Divine Lord, and not to admit rulers who are not known to be openly Christians without our consent and co-operation.”

Criticism in defense of spiritual freedom

While Ely attempted to unite Christianity and American politics, there have been also voices that opposed this move. Religious freedom was latest to the young nation. But its supporters recognized its importance for American democracy.

On February 7, 1828, a pamphlet entitled Sunday School Union or Union of Church and State was placed on the desk of each member of the Pennsylvania Senate. The pamphlet contained excerpts from Ely's speech through which he argued for the connection between Christianity and politics. Ely's speech was also the topic of debate in several Nineteenth-century newspapers, including the Harrisburg Chronicle and the Pennsylvania Reporter.

Notable amongst these voices was Massachusetts-born and Harvard-educated Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story.

In a speech delivered in Salem, Massachusetts, in 1828, Story boldly declared his support for religious freedom. He explained: “Religious freedom is a birthright of man. Governments have no authority to impose penalties for differences of conscience. And to worship God according to our own beliefs is not only our privilege but our duty, our absolute duty, from which no human court can absolve us.”

“Wherever there is religious freedom,” he argued, “it will first or last bring with it and establish political freedom.”

Politics and American Democracy

America isn’t any longer the identical because it was in the course of the Second Great Awakening, however the role of Christianity in political life seems as alive as ever.

The regular decline in church attendance has not led to a diminished presence of Christianity in American public life. In the general public sphere, strong appeals to Christianity slightly than to a shared democratic heritage remain.

Former President and Republican candidate Donald Trump recently explained“We have to bring our religion back. We have to bring Christianity back to this country.”

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito praised the religious beliefs of residents,“People with deep religious convictions are less likely to succumb to prevailing ideologies or trends and are more likely to act in accordance with what they believe to be true and right. Civil society can count on them as engines of reform.”

A Survey 2023through which the nonprofit, nonpartisan research and education organization PRRI surveyed greater than 22,000 adults, found that about 3 in 10 Americans supported or held Christian nationalist views. Christian nationalists are inclined to “view political struggles through the apocalyptic lens of revolution and support political violence.”

In my opinion, the mix of Christianity and politics within the United States undermines American democracy. Amanda Tyler, Executive Director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Libertya distinguished public voice, explains how Christian nationalism undermines each Christianity and American democracy. In her 2024 book,How to finish Christian nationalism“,” writes Tyler, “Christian nationalism represents the greatest threat to religious freedom in the United States today and a clear and present danger to our constitutional republic.”

While debates concerning the Christian virtues of candidates could also be essential to Christian communities, religious freedom is very important to American democracy. The answer to Christianity and politics will not be more Christianity, but more democracy. And religious freedom is the important thing.

“Uncommon Courses” is an irregular series from The Conversation US that presents unconventional teaching approaches.

Course title:

Campaigns and elections in theory and practice

How did the concept for the course come about?

I noticed that a lot of my students, including those fascinated with political science, had never become involved politically, even beyond voting. I've also noticed that most of the clubs and activities that helped me make friends as a university student appear to have atrophied throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. I wanted students to have a likelihood to get to know one another, see how politics works in practice, and get something useful for his or her resume.

What does the course examine?

Every student participates in an election not directly. They might help register people to vote, volunteer for a campaign, non-partisan election staff or function Election observers. You can volunteer for any style of campaign, from presidential to local elections, where students may come into direct contact with the candidates. We will spend the vast majority of class time processing what happens within the campaign: the nice, the bad, the ugly, and the absurd.

Why is that this course relevant now?

Today's students face serious headwinds. They inherit historical political and social divisions which are exacerbated once they are told to not trust anyone. They are also strikingly lonely. I imagine the one way out of cynicism and distrust is to become involved, participate and understand how the system works and the way it doesn't.

What is a crucial lesson from the course?

I need students to learn that they don’t must be what gamers call NPCs – Non-player characters – in politics. They are only as able to participating in democracy and leading their communities because the people who find themselves already in charge.

What materials does the course contain?

The only book for the course is “Campaigns and elections” from Political scientist John Sides of Vanderbilt University and three of his colleagues. This great text is each practical and rooted in political science research on elections. As a gaggle, we also select podcasts to hearken to, news articles to read, and videos to look at.

Since we’re in Texas, students can stay awake up to now with what is going on here by The Texas Tribune and hearken to the Take Texasa political podcast from the Houston Chronicle. You may even get insider knowledge about national politics through media similar to The hill, Politico And Axios.

I also make sure that they learn about AllSides.coma web site that shows how different media outlets cover the identical issue. I've found that AllSides is precisely what distrustful students have been on the lookout for. During an election cycle, it helps them see what narratives campaigns are constructing from the news of the day.

What does the course prepare students for?

I hope that students take away from this course two essential lessons that could appear contradictory. First, it is simple to become involved in and volunteer for election campaigns. Second, it’s difficult to run a campaign or manage an election well.

If you don't understand how things work, every part can seem like a conspiracy. I hope that students will gain confidence within the US electoral system by seeing how the system works. It's not perfect. But there are numerous individuals who mostly mean well and are attempting to make things somewhat more perfect. And students have the chance and the power to do the identical.

When an election comes around, most of us know what to do on election day. With various degrees of enthusiasm, we go to the closest polling station, give our details and forged our vote. After a century of compulsory voting, this seems pretty straightforward.

It's easy to forget that not every Australian is used to this process. What when you've never lived in a spot where voting is compulsory? Or when you've moved here from a spot where political engagement is actively discouraged?

This is commonly the case with recent migrants. They could have less political education. This only further disadvantages these groups, who often have already got less social and cultural capital. It also makes our democracy less representative.

According to our research, over 50 percent of Chinese respondents said they didn’t fully understand how Australia's democratic system works. Almost half of our South Asian respondents said the identical.

Diverse political participation

Chinese and South Asian communities are fast growing in Australia. We examined the political education and participation of those population groups.

Civic education is the knowledge needed for somebody to take part in the political processes of a society and interact in informed debates about sociopolitical issues. This may include knowing the right way to vote, the right way to submit a press release to a parliamentary inquiry, or just understanding the structure of presidency.

Over the course of 2023 and 2024, we surveyed 192 Chinese and South Asian migrants. We also conducted five focus groups. More than 80% of our research participants are first-generation migrants and greater than 90% have lived in Australia for greater than six years. More than 70% of them are Australian residents and subsequently have the suitable to vote.

Our survey found that the Chinese and South Asian communities have various levels of political participation. Some actively campaigned as candidates, while others were hesitant to do extensive research before making political decisions.

The majority of our participants actively eat political news and publicly express their political beliefs. Most also take part in political events resembling petitions, protests, and demonstrations. We found that Chinese migrants have higher levels of political participation in comparison with South Asian communities.

Our polls show that each Chinese and South Asian migrants pay particular attention to the policies and social and political background of candidates when making their voting decision, which is consistent with the concerns of Australian voters typically.

Chinese respondents also consider what the candidates say about China and what their policy preferences are in relation to it. South Asian respondents, however, pay more attention to the fame of every candidate.

Interestingly, shared ethnicity with a candidate plays little role in political decisions, though politically educated respondents are concerned about meaningful representation of their communities.

Our focus groups also show that an absence of political education can lead people to favor candidates who share their cultural heritage without understanding what policies those candidates stand for.

This may potentially end in some parties having only symbolic representation in constituencies where they can’t win.

A challenge to get entangled

Respondents demonstrated various levels of understanding of Australia's democratic system, including political parties, the 2 houses of parliament, and electoral systems in any respect levels.

More than half of Chinese respondents said they don’t fully understand government systems. This lack of information is probably going on account of China's authoritarian system, wherein direct elections are held only on the local level, not on the national level.

Respondents from South Asian communities demonstrated higher levels of political literacy, but almost 50% of them said they didn’t fully understand how Australian politics works.

According to the Australian Election Study 2022Trust in democracy reached a historic low in 2019, reflecting a general trend towards the necessity for more authentic engagement from the political class.

Other research has highlighted that the usage of the Internet for political information only widens the gap between the politically engaged and the uninterested.

The lack of information of Australian politics facilitates the spread of political misinformation and disinformation. This was demonstrated within the 2023 Voice referendum.

It is subsequently comprehensible that nearly 50% of the participants in our study found engaging with Australian politics difficult.

Chinese respondents reported that language barriers were a major problem. Both the Chinese and South Asian communities reported that social exclusion from mainstream Australian society and an absence of shared concerns with non-migrant cohorts were common barriers to their political engagement.

For example, one focus group participant, a South Asian migrant who has lived here for eight years, noted:

I vote on immigration issues, but I'm undecided my white colleagues care.

As a matter of fact, Past surveys show that elderly care, climate change and education are amongst voters' top concerns. However, our research shows that other priorities apply.

Economics and diplomacy are common concerns for our respondents, but our survey also reveals barely different approaches between the Chinese and South Asian communities.

Chinese respondents usually tend to deal with Australian politicians and immigration, while South Asian respondents prioritize human rights, gender equality and social welfare.

How can we help?

Our previous research shows that there’s a lack of organized efforts to extend the political and media competence of naturalized recent immigrants.

A number of dedicated participants are making great efforts online and offline to teach their family and friends, but at the identical time, many are looking for information on unreliable social media platforms.

This study has shown that there are opportunities for organizations working in immigrant communities to leverage the political education of community leaders and members to assist others.

Furthermore, it offers insight into the things political parties could do higher to have interaction more meaningfully, craft their messages to be more tangible, and never take recent migrant communities with no consideration.

---

Poor election science may cause lasting damage to democracy and undermine public confidence within the electoral process.

This is the primary finding of our study, which was published in July 2024 within the journal Public Opinion Quarterly. It examines the Impact of educational claims about electoral fraud within the 2020 South Korean parliamentary elections.

The ruling Democratic Party won that vote by a bigger margin than expected, leading supporters of the opposition United Future Party to assert that the manipulation of the outcomes of early voting.

But what began as a typical post-election dispute took a turn when a US-based election fraud researcher analyzed the info and concluded that almost 10% of the votes for the Democratic Party were fraudulent. This finding spread quickly through the South Korean media, appearing in greater than 300 news reports, while the scientist conducted prime-time television interviews concerning the alleged fraud.

What was not immediately clear to the general public – although South Korean political scientists and statisticians explained later – was that the evaluation based on a misunderstanding the election data and the South Korean electoral system.

Although the electoral science research was flawed, the damage was done: the erroneous claims of electoral fraud significantly undermined public confidence within the electoral process in South Korea. As a direct result, the National Election Commission was forced to resort to costly hand counting again to avoid any allegations of electoral fraud.

And our study shows that the impact is larger than expected.

In one experiment, we randomly varied the knowledge given to 1,750 eligible South Korean voters several months after the 2020 election. One control group was given no information in any respect about foreign academic research on voter fraud, while others were presented with academic research that suggested either a high or low likelihood of fraud.

Those who were shown studies suggesting a high risk of fraud were 12 percentage points more more likely to imagine that fraud had actually occurred than those that weren’t shown such studies. This represents a 52% increase within the likelihood of somebody believing that fraud had occurred.

We found that respondents who were presented with scientific research suggesting a high risk of fraud were 65% more more likely to vote than those that pushed for an investigation into voter fraud.

These effects were focused on supporters of the losing party within the 2020 elections.

Why it is vital

As political polarization deepens within the highly developed democraciesDisputes over allegations of electoral fraud are commonplace.

And the evaluation of suspected fraud by academic researchers and other experts can have a major impact, as the controversy surrounding American economists John Lott's fraud allegations in reference to the 2020 US presidential election.

Our study highlights how academic research can significantly influence public perceptions of election integrity. The results show that voters' responses are consistent with pre-existing beliefs – supporters of the losing party found allegations of fraud more credible, while supporters of the winning party showed little change.

Crucially, our findings also show how the publication of flawed scientific research on electoral fraud can exacerbate political polarization and undermine democracy itself.

Poor research can result in widespread distrust of electoral processes, undermine faith in democratic institutions and deepen political divisions.

What will not be yet known

Our research was limited to South Korea. As one in all Asia's most stable democracies, the country shares similarities with other advanced democracies. However, a few of our findings will not be applicable to elections in other countries.

Particularly where elections were conducted fairly but polarized, misinformation suggesting fraud may are likely to widen the divide between supporters and opponents of the winning party. Conversely, in countries affected by actual electoral fraud, such information could mobilize opposition against the guilty parties, increase election monitoring, and promote democracy.

And although the media played an important role in spreading the flawed evaluation to the South Korean public, our study didn’t examine the extent to which traditional media contributed to this in comparison with social media. We suspect that flawed research findings may spread more easily through social media because they’re subject to fewer oversight bodies and may be shared indiscriminately by partisans.

What's next

Our findings highlight the danger that arises when flawed research influences public opinion.

In the longer term, we plan to explore strategies to combat the influence of such misleading results on public opinion. Scientists have long tried to balance objectivity and accuracy with communicating results that may influence opinion.

As polarized politics increasingly involves experts based on scientific evidence, the educational community must determine how one can higher inform the general public while stopping flawed research from undermining trust in democratic foundations. Adhering to rigorous standards while clearly communicating the reality shall be critical.

The Research Brief is a summary of interesting scientific papers.

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prepares for the speech Despite the joint session of the US Congress on July 24, 2024, the country he leads continues to maneuver away from democracy.

Even before Hamas's attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, the country was rocked by an intense debate over government-led reforms to limit judicial power, which sparked massive and sustained public protests for months.

Following this debate, a number one democracy index was created for the primary time Israel's rating downgraded from a “liberal democracy” to an “electoral democracy.” The latest classification notes an erosion of legal and legislative constraints on government and fewer protection of civil liberties.

Israel isn’t the one country where democracy is in danger: a recent report by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance concludes that the worldwide state of democracy has been declining for six years.

Democracy is linked to three key elements: leadership, institutions and citizen values. If these look like deteriorating, a democracy should go backwards.

Historians and social scientists have found that the Democracy tends to weaken during a protracted warFor example, residents may lose trust in civil institutions similar to courts, police and the military. And militaristic values ​​similar to support for using violence and political extremism often change into more widespread in society.

Shortly after October 7, there have been some modest expectations that the attack would result in less internal political partisanship and maybe reverse Israel's democratic decline. But because the war against Hamas continues, the country's democracy is becoming increasingly weaker.

Israel’s democratic regression

Most assessments of Israel’s democratic decline give attention to Netanyahu's criminal trial for corruptionwhich continues to be ongoing, in addition to his administration's efforts to strip the judiciary of the ability to review and restrict government actions.

But more serious are longer-term trends toward illiberal legislative initiatives, restrictions on civil society organizations, and an erosion of fundamental democratic values.

In 2018, the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, passed a law declaring Israel the nation-state of the Jewish people and establishing the principle of civil equality for the 21% of the population who are usually not Jewish

What can be worrying is the growing proportion of the population, especially amongst young people, that supports this exclusionary policy. According to a report from 2016Nearly 40% of Israelis aged 15 to 24 believed that Arab residents must be denied political rights.

Another example is the NGO Transparency Act of 2016, which calls on human rights and other groups that receive half of their funding from abroad are required to reveal their sources, which increases the executive burden for these organisations.

Moreover, each of those aspects occurs within the context of Israel's ongoing occupation of and control over the Palestinian people and territories. Netanyahu's populist rhetoric and leadership style have long focused on the conflict between Arabs and Jews. He uses language that highlights the threats posed by Palestinians inside and outdoors Israel to Israelis and the state, similar to his “warning” on election day in 2015 that “the Arabs go to vote in droves.”

Not surprisingly, the war reinforced this rhetoric.

Likewise, and because the above examples show, attempts to undermine democratic institutions and values ​​are often focused on Israel’s relations with the Palestinians each inside Israel and within the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Limits of freedom of expression

Since the war began, the situation has only worsened because the coalition government has passed several laws restricting civil liberties, particularly freedom of expression.

For example, a law passed in April allows the federal government to shut down a foreign news channel in Israel if the prime minister or the minister of communications determines that it poses a security threat. Israel has closed Al Jazeeraa Qatar-based television station, in May. And when the Associated Press provided media services to Al Jazeera, The Israeli government confiscated AP’s equipmentAlthough the equipment is Great outcry, also from the White Househighlights the impact of this law on press freedom.

A legislative proposal from June would require the dismissal of educational professors who allegedly incite or support terrorism. The bill would impose punishment without trial for a vaguely defined offense and without due process. Critics argue that this could possibly be used to silence the opposition.

Another law, currently Waiting for a call from Israel’s Supreme Court The bill, which questions the constitutionality of the law, would give the far-right security minister sweeping powers over the police. Critics fear it could possibly be used to crack down on people protesting against government policies.

This direct interference by the Ministry in police matters is already having a chilling effect on freedom of expression, as people say they’ve distanced themselves from participating in public protests for fear of police violence. Furthermore, this laws appears to politicize the police, which is imagined to be an independent institution in a democracy.

Illiberal mood

Even before the war began, a growing proportion of Jewish residents of Israel believed they need to have more rights than the non-Jewish residents and wanted a powerful leader who was not easily influenced by the media or public opinion.

The Shock over the surprise attack and the brutality of Hamas actions triggered an increase in militarism and illiberal sentiment. In the primary month of the war, for instance, There were 18,000 calls In Hebrew posts on social media platform X, the New York Times called for Gaza to be “razed,” “wiped out” or left “destroyed,” it reported, citing FakeReporter, an Israeli group that monitors disinformation and hate speech.

This sentiment has not abated, whilst fighting continues and Israelis generally rally behind the war and its goals. Survey from February 2024 found that two-thirds of Jewish Israelis oppose humanitarian aid to Gaza, while 42 percent say Israel mustn’t abide by international humanitarian law and mustn’t abide by the international laws of war.

While Israeli protests and global media coverage give attention to Netanyahu, claiming he’s prolonging the war to remain in power, I consider the primary risks to Israeli democracy are the increasing restrictions on freedom of expression and the growing illiberal mood amongst Israelis. I fear these dangers will outlive Netanyahu and the war.

With a attack against Donald Trump at a rally in Pennsylvania on July 13, 2024, the United States experienced one other violent episode in its increasingly polarized politics. Former President Trump, who’s officially set to change into the Republican presidential candidate within the 2024 election, survived the assassination attempt when, as initial reports said, a the bullet grazed his ear. But one demonstrator was killedother bystanders were injured and the suspected shooter can also be dead. The Conversation's political editor Naomi Schalit spoke to University of Massachusetts, Lowell, scientist Arie Perliger after the event. Perliger shared insights from his study of political violence and assassinations. Given the strong political polarization within the US, Perliger said, “it's no surprise that people end up behaving violently.”

Schalit: What was your first thought while you heard the news?

Pearls: The very first thing that occurred to me was that we’re principally just one centimeter away from a potential civil warI consider that if Donald Trump had actually suffered fatal injuries today, the extent of violence that we’ve got seen up to now could be nothing in comparison with what would have happened over the following few months. I consider that may have unleashed a brand new level of anger, frustration, resentment and hostility that we’ve got not seen within the United States for a lot of, a few years.

The attackat the least at this early stage, it’d confirm the strong sense amongst many Trump supporters and lots of people on the far right that they’re being delegitimized, that they’re on the defensive, and that there are efforts to fundamentally prevent them from participating within the political process and stop Trump's return to the White House.

For many individuals on the far right, what we’ve got just seen suits thoroughly right into a narrative that they’ve been constructing and spreading for months.

Political assassination attempts usually are not nearly killing someone. They have an even bigger goal, don't they?

In some ways, Assassinations to avoid the lengthy technique of downgrading and defeating political opponents when there may be a sense that even an extended political struggle is not going to be enough. Many perpetrators see murder as a way That will allow them to realize their political goals in a short time and effectively without having to have quite a lot of resources or quite a lot of organization. If we try to attach that to what we've seen today, I believe quite a lot of people see Trump as a unicorn, a singular phenomenon that in some ways has absorbed your entire conservative movement. So when you remove him, you’re feeling just like the problem shall be solved, or may very well be.

I believe the conservative movement has modified dramatically since Trump was first elected in 2016. Many features of Trumpism at the moment are quite popular in various parts of the conservative movement. So even when Trump eventually decides to step down, I don't think Trumpism – as a set of populist ideas – will disappear from the Republican Party. But I can definitely understand why individuals who see Trump as a threat consider that removing Trump will solve all problems.

In a study on the causes and effects of political assassinationsYou have written that if the electoral process fails to deal with “the most serious political grievances,” electoral competition has the potential to trigger further violence, including the assassination of politicians. Did you see that on this attempted assassination?

Democracy cannot work if the several parties, the several movements, usually are not willing to work together on certain issues. Democracy works when several groups are willing to succeed in some type of consensus through negotiations, to work together and cooperate.

What we’ve got seen over the past 17 years, essentially since 2008 and the rise of Tea Party Movementis that there may be increasing polarization within the United States. And the worst thing about that polarization is that the American political system has change into dysfunctional within the sense that we’re pushing out all politicians and decision makers who’re eager about working with the opposite side. That's one thing. Second, people delegitimize politicians who’re willing to work with the opposite side, thus portraying them as individuals who’ve betrayed their values ​​and their political party. And third, people delegitimize their political rivals. They turn a political disagreement right into a war wherein there is no such thing as a room for cooperation to deal with the challenges they consider the nation faces.

When you mix these three dynamics, you essentially create a dysfunctional system where either side are convinced that it's a zero-sum game and that it's the top of the country. If the opposite side wins, it's the top of democracy. When either side keep drumming into people's heads that losing an election is the top of the world, it's no surprise that individuals will eventually be willing to take the law into their very own hands and use violence.