#International Democracy Union

[lost-carcosa]

Disgraced former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who unlawfully suspended Parliament, restricted the right to protest, and lied to MPs, has been appointed to the advisory board of the International Democracy Union, the global centre-right group for “freedom and democracy”. 

The International Democracy Union (IDU) is an international alliance of centre-right political parties based in Munich, Germany. It is chaired by Stephen Harper, the former Prime Minister of Canada. 

The group announced on Tuesday: “The IDU is excited to announce that PM Boris Johnson has joined our Honorary Advisory Board. His extensive experience as a statesman will be of tremendous help as we work towards building an ever-stronger alliance of the centre-right! Welcome to the IDU, Prime Minister!”

The decision has been met with baffled outrage on social media. In June, a report found that democracy in the UK was in retreat, following Boris Johnson’s cavalier approach to standards in public life and efforts to warp the constitution under his tenure.

Commissioned by democratic pressure groups, Unlock Democracy and Compass, the report found that issues like the partygate scandal – where politicians making the rules repeatedly  broke them over Covid – and the lobbying scandal surrounding Owen Paterson which saw Johnson try and fail to get him out of hot water by overriding Commons procedure – undermined the strength of democracy in the UK. 

Johnson’s government also introduced mandatory photo voter ID, which has made it much more difficult for millions of people to vote. At the same time, his Elections Act undermined the principle that the body responsible for overseeing elections, in this case the Electoral Commission, should be independent of government. The government can now set the body’s strategy and has a majority of seats on the parliamentary body overseeing it. 

Meanwhile, clampdowns on the right to protest and strike, and conscious attempts to delegitimise and weaken the power of independent regulators and the judiciary, compounded existing failings within UK democracy, the report found.

The IDU post is the latest gong for the man who shut down Parliament in order to prevent it voting against his Brexit plans, and who resigned when faced with a potential Commons vote over repeatedly lying to MPs. Johnson’s Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act has also seen hundreds of peaceful protesters locked up since passing last April.

Responding to the announcement that the former Prime Minister has joined the IDU’s Honorary Advisory Board, Tom Brufatto, Director of Policy at Best for Britain, said: “There is a staggering irony in Boris Johnson – the man who unlawfully prorogued parliament, eroded voters’ democratic rights with the Election’s Bill, and was found to have deliberately misled Parliament and the country during the pandemic – providing advice on the promotion of democracy.

“He should have no further influence on our or anyone else’s politics.”

Byline Times readers responded to the news of Johnson’s new post with disbelief. “Their entrance requirements must be really low to think he’s an asset to the group,” one said. 

Another said: “Any potential credibility they have just flown out of the window. [I] can’t believe any organisation thinks having Johnson on board is an asset.”

“Johnson is one of the greatest scam artists the UK has ever seen,” one argued. “If they are pleased he has joined them it says a lot about their integrity or rather lack of it,” another said, while one branded it simply: “Farcical.”

Another pointed to Johnson’s decision in 2019 to withdraw the whip from 21 Conservative MPs who dared to challenge him over his no-deal Brexit push: “At the next election, many were replaced by people of the ‘calibre’ of Lee Anderson, Scott Benton and others.”

One reader noted wryly: “I expect they want his skills and expertise in how to dismantle and damage democracy.” Others mocked the IDU’s use of the phrase ‘Prime Minister’ to describe Johnson, in the way that former US presidents keep their ‘President’ title. “He appears to have fooled the IDU into thinking he is Prime Minister,” one said.

Several replied simply with clown emojis. 

Former Conservative leader William Hague is a former chairman of the IDU. In June last year, Hague was among those calling for Johnson to quit as PM, saying his win among MPs was the “worst possible result” for the party. 

The damage done to his premiership was “severe” and showed a “greater level of rejection than any Tory leader has ever endured and survived”, Hague said, slamming Johnson’s failure to tackle the drinking culture in No 10 during the lockdowns. 

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

Internment

"On January 11, 1940, the DOCR [Defence of Canada Regulations] were amended so as to permit preventive detention, internment before the fact of having committed a crime, ie. article 21. This meant that even though charges for precise offences might not hold up in court, communists could still be interned using vague terms. As well, should the police fail in making a DOCR charge stick, then the freed prisoner could quickly be interned. This situation applied to Ottawans Louis Binder and Arthur Saunders, and to westerners  Charles Weir, John McNeil, Pat Lenihan, Alex Miller, and Ben Swankey.

In June, 1940, via DOCR regulation 39C, the Communist Party and related  associations were made illegal. These associations included the Young Communist  League, the League for Peace and Democracy, which had succeeded the League to Fight  War and Fascism, and the Canadian Labour Defence League, as well as several pro-communist, ethnic associations: The Ukrainian Labour-Farmer Temple Association, the  Canadian Ukrainian Youth Federation, the Finnish Organization of Canada, the Russian  Workers and Farmers Club, the Croatian Cultural Organization, the Hungarian Workers  Club, and the Polish People’s Association. Membership in these organizations became illegal; it came to be the grounds most often used for internment.

The first internments took place on June 26, 1940, when Jacob Penner and John Navis, from Winnipeg, and Ottawans Louis Binder and Arthur Saunders were interned. Arrests for internment could follow at any time, but there were more active periods. On June 28 and 29, 1940, nine Montrealers as well as Nicholas Pyndus, from Trois-Rivières, and Robert Kerr and Fergus McKean, each from Vancouver, were interned. On July 8, 1940, seventeen Ukrainian Winnipegers were interned. On August 9, 1940, seven men  including five Montrealers were interned. On September 8 and 9, 1940, five more were  arrested for internment; on October 10, 1940, four more were interned. The last internment in Hull began on February 10, 1942 when Harvey Murphy was transferred from a Toronto prison.

The cases of Jacob Penner and Pat Sullivan provided important legal precedents about the question of habeas corpus. Were the governments and the police obliged to provide motives for the decision to intern someone, other than article 21 of the DOCR, whereby people presented a danger to the security of the state or the prosecution to the war, or article 39C, whereby people were members of an illegal organization? Jacob Penner was a highly-respected communist and municipal councillor in Winnipeg. After being interned in Kananaskis, Penner’s family hired a lawyer who successfully applied for habeas corpus , however, federal authorities simply held him during the summer of 1940 in an immigration centre in Winnipeg. In August, 1940, a federal appeals judge ruled that habeas corpus did not apply to DOCR article 21. Penner was returned to Kananaskis, providing an important precedent relative to internees from Western Canada.

In central Canada, Pat Sullivan, President of the Canadian Seamen’s Union, was arrested on June 18, 1940. The only explanation for Sullivan’s arrest offered to lawyer J. L. Cohen was Sullivan’s membership in the Communist Party, which the defendant denied. Cohen then launched unsuccessful habeas corpus proceedings in which an Ontario judge ruled that habeas corpus was not relevant since the detainer was not the minister of Justice, and the latter was not required to accept recommendations of a consulting committee considering the detention. Cohen was going to subject this tortured logic of the Ontario Appeals Court judge to the Supreme Court, but decided to desist when the federal government promised to improve the workings of the consulting committees, and to reveal more about the motives for Sullivan’s internment. Nevertheless, after considerable stalling by the minister of Justice, it became clear that the real reasons for Sullivan’s internment were strikes by the Canadian Seamen’s Union in 1938 and 1939, and especially in April, 1940, when Sullivan’s union closed shipping on the Great Lakes from the Lakehead to Montreal. Conciliation following this last strike was proceeding when Sullivan was arrested. Not only did Sullivan’s case show that habeas corpus was of no effect with respect to the internees, it also showed that for some internees, at least for Sullivan, the real motive of internment was union activity.

One suspects the considerable influence of C. D. Howe and his business colleagues working in Ottawa. This was also the case for several of Sullivan’s colleagues within the Canadian Seamen’s Union. A month after Sullivan was arrested, Jack Chapman, union secretary, was arrested while a few days later, Dave Sinclair, editor of the union’s newspaper Searchlight, was arrested for having written about the Sullivan case. Sinclair’s case also demonstrated farcically the incompetence of the RCMP. Sinclair was the nom de plume of David Siglar, a fact he did not hide. During his appeal before the consulting committee, the RCMP presented as evidence activities of someone unknown to Siglar named ‘Segal’, a common name among Jews. Siglar had no idea about whom or what the RCMP was talking not knowing the ‘Segal’ in question, but he did plead guilty to having known several people named ‘Segal’.

The case of Charles Murray, organizer for a fishermen’s union in Lockeport, Nova Scotia, a union affiliated with the Canadian Seamen’s Union, provided another example of how union activities might lead to internment. On June 15, 1940, Nova Scotia’s labour minister, L. D. Currie, sent a letter to Murray stating that:

…You are a communist and as such, deserve to be treated in the same manner as I would be treated if I endeavoured to carry on in Russia as you are doing in Nova Scotia. I warn you now to desist from your efforts to create industrial trouble, and I warn you too that your conduct will from now on be carefully watched and examined, and if I find out that you do not quit this sort of business, then it will be most certainly the worst for you. I am giving you this final word of warning. My advice to you is to get out of Lockeport and stay out…

A few days later, Murray was interned in Petawawa.

Other union leaders received similar fates to those of the leaders of the Canadian Seamen’s Union. Fred Collins had led a successful strike against furniture manufacturers in Stratford, Ontario. James Murphy was the leader of the Technical Employees Association of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and was arrested in the middle of negotiations. Orton Wade was negotiating with meat packing companies in Winnipeg when he was arrested. Bruce Magnuson was a union leader from Port Arthur, where he was local president of the Union of Lumber and Sawmill Workers. Unfortunately, his  federal MP was none other than C. D. Howe. In August, 1940, Howe responded to one of Magnuson’s colleagues complaining about the internment of Magnuson.

For very obvious reasons, the normal course of the law must be supplemented by special powers. Otherwise, the effort of the government to suppress fifth-column activities would be of no avail. The now tragic account of fifth-column activities in Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France is ample proof of the inadequacy of the ordinary peacetime machinery of the law in  controlling subversive elements… Persons who are considered to be friendly towards Canada’s enemies, or who in any way interfere with Canada’s war effort, are recommended for internment on the strength of evidence assembled by the Force (RCMP).

The motive given for Magnuson’s internment was his membership in the Party, but after the Party began supporting the war effort, Howe wrote to Magnuson in October, 1941: 

… do you think that the ends of justice would be served by your release merely because circumstances have caused a change of front by the Communist Party? You were interned because you were out of sympathy with Canada’s war effort, and because you were an active member of an organization which sought to impede that effort.

The case of Clarence Jackson also demonstrated the long arm of Howe. On June 11, 1941, Howe wrote to Justice minister Lapointe, demanding that Jackson be arrested. 

Please permit me to call your attention to the activities of one C. S. Jackson, who is undoubtedly one of the most active trouble makers and labour racketeers in Canada today. Jackson has been expelled from the Canadian Congress of Labour as a Communist. He has  been responsible for strikes at the R.C.A. Victor plant, the Canadian General Electric plant, and he is now boring in to the Canadian Westinghouse plant at Hamilton. The Westinghouse plant is the most important war manufacturer in Canada, having contracts for anti-aircraft guns, naval equipment, and a wide variety of electrical work important to our production. A strike at Westinghouse would directly stop many branches of our munitions programme. I cannot think why Canada spends large sums for protection against sabotage and permits Jackson to carry on his subversive activities. No group of saboteurs could possibly effect the damage that this man is causing. I feel sure that this is a matter for prompt police action. I suggest that responsible labour leaders can supply any information that you may require on which to base police action.

There is evidence, furthermore, according to the biographer of Jackson, that the Canadian Congress of Labour was complicit in the internment of Jackson. Jackson was arrested on June 23, 1941, but was released from Hull six months later owing to pressure by the American section of his union. 

Others were interned for strange reasons. Rodolphe Majeau, a member of the Canadian Seamen’s Union, was interned for having aided Communist candidate Évariste Dubé during the federal election of 1940, when the Party was still legal, an example of a retroactive charge. Scott McLean, a Cape Breton millwright was interned because of dynamite he had in his possession when arrested, dynamite he was using to explode rocks and a manure pile on his farm. John Prossack, from Winnipeg, an elderly Ukrainian  charged with membership in the Party, was not in the least involved in politics. Prossack believed that he was interned owing to a bad relationship with his former son-in-law, a paid police informer. Muni Taub, a Montreal tailor left the Party at the end of 1939,  one of the many Europeans disgusted at the Hitler-Stalin pact. Nevertheless, motives given for Taub’s internment included his writing for a leftist, Jewish newspaper; his  membership in the banned Canadian Labour Defence League, and most of all, Taub’s challenge of the constitutionality of Duplessis’ Padlock Law during the 1930s."

- Michael Martin, The Red Patch: Political Imprisonment in Hull, Quebec during World War 2. Self-published, 2007. p. 124-131

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Brazil's Lula says democracy at risk after far-right surge in EU vote

Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said on Thursday that democracy was at risk, commenting on the far-right gains in the European Parliament after last weekend's elections.

"We have a problem of democracy as we know it being at risk," the head of state told journalists ahead of an International Labor Organization event in Geneva, Switzerland.

"The denialist denies institutions, denies what Parliament is, what the Supreme Court is, what the Judiciary is, what Congress itself is," the leftist leader said.

Lula, who will take part in this week's Group of Seven (G7) summit in Italy after he was invited by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, added that those who believe in democracy must fight to preserve it everywhere in the world.

Continue reading.

[windsails]

nonprofits are overrated. if you really wanted to help people you would prove economic democracy, helping others, and improving communities is popular and profitable and actually start taking over huge sections of the economy to democratize them and organize apps, software, logistical systems, communities to run it all. in other words, profiting collectively from the redistribution wealth and power to the people of the world

[trendynewsnow]

Protests Erupt in Georgia Over Controversial Election Results

In the heart of Tbilisi, thousands of opposition supporters gathered outside Georgia’s parliament for the second consecutive Monday, expressing their outrage and denouncing the election held on October 26 as illegitimate. The ruling party, Georgian Dream, was declared the victor amidst serious allegations of vote-rigging, with claims that Russia played a significant role in manipulating the…

[internationaldayofdemocracy]

Democracy 2030.

"Democracy 2030" questions how parliaments will function in the future, how to engage and involve youth, and the importance of democracy for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

[endimpunityday]

DAY I - SESSION 1: Safety of journalists in elections and crisis contexts: risks to democracies.

This session will delve into the security, violence and attacks against journalists and communicators during election periods and crisis contexts, as well as the specific obligations and responsibilities of States, officials and electoral authorities in these contexts. Participants will be able to delve into the integrity of elections, the risks faced by democratic institutions, as well as other issues related to journalistic coverage, protests and discrimination against women journalists during election cycles and other crisis contexts.

Moderator: Santiago Cantón, Secretary-General of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)

Testimonies from:

Patience Nyange, Executive Director, Association of Media Women in Kenya (AMWIK)

Nataliya Gumenyuk, Co-Founder, Public Interest Journalism Lab, Ukraine

Panel discussion:

Andrea Cairola, Senior Programme Specialist, UNESCO

Zoe Titus, Chairperson, Global Forum for Media Development, Executive Director, Namibia Media Trust 

Ambassador Salah S. Hammad, Head of African Governannce Architecture Secretariat, African Union

Gerardo de Icaza, Director, Department of Electoral Cooperation and Observation, Organization of American States 

Arif Zulkifli, Chairperson, Law Commission, Indonesian Press Council

10:30 - 11:30  - Session 1: Safety of journalists in elections and crisis contexts: risks to democracies.

[marktaylor-canfield]

Thom Hartmann: Seattle's New Anti-Caste Discrimination Law - Report From Mark Taylor-Canfield

[tanadrin]

Ok this might be a strange ask, but. do you have any opinions on the marxist/leninist/whatever idea that, western capitalist states supply a welfare state and higher wages (and so on) for western workers through imperialism, in order to subdue class struggle in western states, so that the western proletariat basically has a hand in imperialism (that anti-imperialism in practice would materially harm the western proletariat)

i think that's wrong. i think it sounds like a way you can rationalize political disengagement in a both-sidesist kinda way and also accelerationism if you're into that; i think that kind of nebulously conspiratorial belief is also a way to sort of rationalize the red-brown alliance, the need to punish the bad sheep people who don't agree with you, and a way to discount anybody who uses actual substantive policy achievements as a way to point out that actually, yes, engaging with politics can produce positive outcomes.

it is factually incorrect, of course. there's no causal connection between the welfare state and capitalist imperialism. capitalist imperialism in the form that hardcore marxists are thinking of is kind of an anachronism anyway. much like "liberalism," they're using a lens of analysis which basically thinks history ended in 1917, that the systems and politics of the long 19th century have continued forever, and we have to sort everything into categories that are a century old even though the world has changed radically since then.

it is also, annoyingly, a rejection of the wins of leftism. leftism has done a lot of good in the world! i think leftism is directionally correct. many of the things we take for granted now in many wealthy countries--the 40-hour workweek, legal protection for unions and labor organizing, universal healthcare (outside the US of course), the existence of welfare programs in various forms, employee protections (weak in the US except for Montana; strong in many other countries), and, you know, the decolonization of most of the planet--these are all things leftists of various stripes fought and died for, and for good reason!

the reason "leftism" is weak--and of course by "leftism" people taking this position usually only mean their own particular flavor of revolutionary leftism, with everybody else being a scumbag liberal or a revisionist or a trotskyist sabateur or w/e--is because leftism keeps winning when it allies with aligned interests in an electoral context. that is to say, pragmatic progressive politics is historically quite effective (the thing Americans have historically called "liberalism" but which in international political language is closer to "social democracy," and is not Reaganism/Thatcherism), is quite willing to ally with people who share its goals including less self-defeating leftists, and continues to make new gains. see this page. there is no telos to history of course, and it's a constant struggle. but the revolution-only remnant needs to come up with a narrative to rationalize being left out in the cold, because without that rationalization their whole approach starts to come under indictment. so it can't be that their politics is ineffective--it's the sheeple bribed into shutting up by welfare!

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

“Fines Imposed an Kirkland Lake Men Instead of Terms,” The Porcupine Advance (Timmins). June 11, 1942. Page 2, section 1. ---- Convictions of Men Charged with Offences During the Strike Sustained but Penalties Changed. --- Haileybury, June 10 - Three of the men whose activities during the recent gold miners strike at Kirkland Lake brought them into conflict with the authorities appeared here, Monday, before Judge G. Hayward when their appeals against convictions by Magistrate S. Atkinson in Kirkland Lake court were heard.

In every case the sentence imposed by Magistrate Atkinson was reduced to a fine and costs. George Lundstrom, convicted on a charge of intimidation had his sentence reduced from two months in jail to a fine of $75 together with $75 costs. Steve Harkin, convicted of obstructing the police, will have to pay a fine of $25 with $100 costs instead of having to serve 30 days. John Brown in place of a sentence of three months will have to pay a $100 fine and costs of $75. He was convicted on a charge of intimidation.

Reviews Lundstrom Case In only one case was the evidence reviewed, that of Lundstrom. The evidence of Mrs. Joseph Gavin, who, it was alleged, had been intimidated by the accused was read to the court she being in hospital. It was to the effect that the accused had come to her home two days after the strike started and threatened her that he would "fix" her husband if he did not cease working at the Macassa Mine. The accused stayed in the house for over three hours and repeated his threats on more than one occasion. He said how sorry he was for her because of what would happen to her husband if he continued to work and that some of the men would catch him in a dark alley some night and beat him up.

Makes Denial The accused denied making these statements telling the court that in the three hours he stayed there they had talked of dances, church and the odors of cooking which percolated up to the Lundstrom flat, which was over the Gavin home. He denied any intention of "fixing" Gavin and told Crown Attorney Dean that it was the swift passage of time that made him stay in the Gavin home so long.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Hayward, after hearing arguments from both Crown Attorney Dean and J. L. Cohen, K.C., who appeared for the accused men, stated he had no hesitation in upholding the magistrate's conviction.

The question of penalty then came up Mr. Cohen held that the judge had the power to assess new penalties while Crown Attorney Dean claimed that it was not in his power to do so. Court then adjourned for the noon hour and remained adjourned for two hours afterwards while Judge Hayward took the matter into consideration and looked up the authorities.

When court reopened he states he had come to the conclusion that he had the power to assess new penalties and fixed the fine in the case.

In the Harkin case Mr. Cohen stated he had, after considering the case, no fault to find with the conviction by Magistrate Atkinson but only with the penalty and after hearing the circumstances outlined by Inspector Doyle of the Provincial Police Judge Hayward fixed the fine with the higher costs due to the presence of several police witnesses from the southern part of the province.

In the Brown case the same statement as to the conviction was made by Mr. Cohen. Crown Attorney Dean called the attention of the court to several previous convictions for various offenses. His Honor held that these showed the accused was not a law abiding citizen.

Joseph Brown, committed for trial on a willful damage charge during the strike, and who was to have appeared for trail today before Judge Hayward had his trial put over until July 6. Bail was renewed.

[reasonsforhope]

Note: I super don't like the framing of this headline. "Here's why it matters" idk it's almost like there's an entire country's worth of people who get to keep their democracy! Clearly! But there are few good articles on this in English, so we're going with this one anyway.

--

2024 is the biggest global election year in history and the future of democracy is on every ballot. But amid an international backsliding in democratic norms, including in countries with a longer history of democracy like India, Senegal’s election last week was a major win for democracy. It’s also an indication that a new political class is coming of age in Africa, exemplified by Senegal’s new 44-year-old president, Bassirou Diomaye Faye.

The West African nation managed to pull off a free and fair election on March 24 despite significant obstacles, including efforts by former President Macky Sall to delay the elections and imprison or disqualify opposition candidates. Add those challenges to the fact that many neighboring countries in West Africa — most prominently Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, but other nations across the region too — have been repeatedly undermined by military coups since 2020.

Sall had been in power since 2012, serving two terms. He declined to seek a third term following years of speculation that he would do so despite a constitutional two-term limit. But he attempted to extend his term, announcing in February that elections (originally to be held that month) would be pushed off until the end of the year in defiance of the electoral schedule.

Sall’s allies in the National Assembly approved the measure, but only after security forces removed opposition politicians, who vociferously protested the delay. Senegalese society came out in droves to protest Sall’s attempted self-coup, and the Constitutional Council ruled in late February that Sall’s attempt to stay in power could not stand.

That itself was a win for democracy. Still, opposition candidates, including Faye, though legally able to run, remained imprisoned until just days before the election — while others were barred from running at all. The future of Senegal’s democracy seemed uncertain at best.

Cut to Tuesday [April 2, 2024], when Sall stepped down and handed power to Faye, a former tax examiner who won on a campaign of combating corruption, as well as greater sovereignty and economic opportunity for the Senegalese. And it was young voters who carried Faye to victory...

“This election showed the resilience of the democracy in Senegal that resisted the shock of an unexpected postponement,” Adele Ravidà, Senegal country director at the lnternational Foundation for Electoral Systems, told Vox via email. “... after a couple of years of unprecedented episodes of violence [the Senegalese people] turned the page smoothly, allowing a peaceful transfer of power.”

And though Faye’s aims won’t be easy to achieve, his win can tell us not only about how Senegal managed to establish its young democracy, but also about the positive trend of democratic entrenchment and international cooperation in African nations, and the power of young Africans...

Senegal and Democracy in Africa

Since it gained independence from France in 1960, Senegal has never had a coup — military or civilian. Increasingly strong and competitive democracy has been the norm for Senegal, and the country’s civil society went out in great force over the past three years of Sall’s term to enforce those norms.

“I think that it is really the victory of the democratic institutions — the government, but also civil society organization,” Sany said. “They were mobilized, from the unions, teacher unions, workers, NGOs. The civil society in Senegal is one of the most experienced, well-organized democratic institutions on the continent.” Senegalese civil society also pushed back against former President Abdoulaye Wade’s attempt to cling to power back in 2012, and the Senegalese people voted him out...

Faye will still have his work cut out for him accomplishing the goals he campaigned on, including economic prosperity, transparency, food security, increased sovereignty, and the strengthening of democratic institutions. This will be important, especially for Senegal’s young people, who are at the forefront of another major trend.

Young Africans will play an increasingly key role in the coming decades, both on the continent and on the global stage; Africa’s youth population (people aged 15 to 24) will make up approximately 35 percent of the world’s youth population by 2050, and Africa’s population is expected to grow from 1.5 billion to 2.5 billion during that time. In Senegal, people aged 10 to 24 make up 32 percent of the population, according to the UN.

“These young people have connected to the rest of the world,” Sany said. “They see what’s happening. They are interested. They are smart. They are more educated.” And they have high expectations not only for their economic future but also for their civil rights and autonomy.

The reality of government is always different from the promise of campaigning, but Faye’s election is part of a promising trend of democratic entrenchment in Africa, exemplified by successful transitions of power in Nigeria, Liberia, and Sierra Leone over the past year. To be sure, those elections were not without challenges, but on the whole, they provide an important counterweight to democratic backsliding.

Senegalese people, especially the younger generation, have high expectations for what democracy can and should deliver for them. It’s up to Faye and his government to follow."

-via Vox, April 4, 2024

[secular-jew]

I’m a Palestinian American. Here’s Why I Can’t Support the Anti-Israel Protesters. By Elizabeth Gillanders. August 16, 2024

Walking past Union Station in the nation’s capital, I recently was met with a heartbreaking sight. Vandals had defaced the Columbus Memorial Fountain with spray paint, writing the words “Hamas is coming” in big red letters.

Trash and signs discarded by anti-Israel protesters littered the ground. A burnt shopping cart stood off to one side with piles of ash beneath it.

Most depressing, however, were the three bare flag poles that had been robbed of their American flags. Protesters had burned the flags, the only remnant a charred piece of fabric atop another pile of ash.

This was the aftermath of the July 24 “pro-Palestinian” protests in Washington, D.C., organized in response to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address that day to a joint meeting of Congress.

As an American of Palestinian heritage, some expect me to cheer on these people. They expect me to condemn the U.S., hate Israel, and support Hamas, a terrorist organization dedicated to wiping out the Jewish state.

But these expectations don’t represent me, nor my family.

I inherit my Palestinian background from my mother’s side of the family; her parents emigrated to America from the Middle East. My grandma was born in Israel and later moved to Ramallah in the West Bank and eventually to Jordan.

After arriving in America in her 20s, my grandma worked hard to become a U.S. citizen. She learned the English language while raising my mother and uncle. She opened a restaurant with my grandpa, lovingly named the Chicken Pantry, in Hamtramck, Michigan. When that business closed, my grandma worked as a real estate agent before eventually retiring in the land of prosperity.

America brought my family prosperity. My grandparents taught my mother to “kiss the ground you walk on” because they knew what a blessing America is.

They passed this lesson on to me.

Although many seem to think that my Palestinian heritage should cause me to align with protests that supposedly are “pro-Palestinian,” it’s precisely because of my heritage that I cannot do that.

Israel went to war with Hamas in the Gaza Strip only after Hamas terrorists slaughtered 1,200 and kidnapped about 250 in a rampage of rape, torture, and murder Oct. 7 in southern Israel.

About 10 months later, as pro-Hamas protesters march in this country to “free Palestine,” they call for the death of America. As they burn the American flag, they burn all that my family has worked to achieve.

As the protesters pledge their allegiance to Hamas, they encourage a group that my grandmother wouldn’t hesitate to call a terrorist organization that operates with a strategy of human sacrifice.

Think about it. Why are there no Hamas military bases in the Gaza Strip adjoining Israel? Because the terrorists hide behind their own people.

They dress like noncombatants in Gaza. They establish bunkers in hospitals. They commandeer ambulances for transportation.

These actions are all in direct violation of Article 18 of the Geneva Conventions, the international pacts that set minimum standards during armed conflict for the treatment of civilians, soldiers, and prisoners of war.

One example is Hamas’ use of Gaza’s most important hospital, Al-Shifa. According to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Hamas uses a bunker under the hospital as a base for military operations. This not only makes the hospital a target, but takes medical resources needed for the sick.

In contrast, the Israel Defense Forces have given civilians in Gaza opportunities to evacuate and warned of impending attacks. No other nation goes this far to protect enemy civilians.

How can I support pro-Hamas demonstrators who wish to end the nation that brought my family so much? How can I back a terrorist group that uses its own people as human shields? How can I hate Israel, when the IDF has worked to keep Palestinian civilians out of harm’s way?

I believe it’s important to point out that, contrary to popular belief, not all Arabs think the same. Some of us do see this conflict differently. And our thoughts and beliefs should not be snuffed out because they go against the “narrative.”

To some, perhaps our stance makes us walking oxymorons. But we are proud ones, nonetheless.

[mesetacadre]

Half-doubting if this anon was even a good idea to begin with but, am I a bad communist for being actively hostile against any form of authoritarian concentration of power?

I just don't think any single person could embody the revolution much less serve it on a system built entirely on personalism where we worship the leader instead of the workers themselves. The only role individual people should have on communism is that of thinkers and philosophers, not of absolute rulers.

This may be drawn from a personal bias though, my country was destroyed by a dictatorship that would have gladly shot me and hid my body for being a lesbian and I have developed animosity towards authoritarians that is perhaps unhealthy.

Where do we draw the line to avoid becoming a red painted tyranny? Or am I just not a good communist for my intransigence?

Thank you for your time

I'll break this down into two parts, authority and idolatry

Authority is a value-neutral, metaphysical concept. It is the use of some kind of force to impose a will on others. If you consider yourself a communist, then how do you intend to overthrow capitalism without exerting authority? Engels said it best: «A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all». We must come to terms with this, as revolutionary marxists. If we refuse the concept of authority all-together, then all that can happen is that authority is applied against our entire class, for the rest of time. I also live in a first-world country that used to have a fascist dictatorship, and the ~150,000 thousand killed for political reasons, 30,000 disappeared, 500,000 interned in concentration camps, more than 100,000 summary trials, tens of thousands of slaves and the thousands tortured up to the very end can speak to its destructiveness. But it wasn't as simple as "they used authority, therefore all authority (abstractly) is bad". Franco's dictatorship responded to a series of needs that the Spanish and European bourgeoisie had, by the time of their sponsored coup d'etat in 1936, Spain was at the forefront of organization of the working class in Europe, the communist party had hundreds of thousand members if you include their youth wing, and the biggest unions reached the millions, in a country of just under 25 million. Italy, Germany, Austria and Portugal found themselves in a similar resurgence when their fascists took power, in every case financed by their biggest capitalists, national and foreign.

The point I'm getting at is that, if you want to understand class society, you have to go beyond the black-and-white, metaphysical liberal philosophy. Violence can be exerted by multiple classes through their own class organizations, and the character, context and sense of that violence changes accordingly. I'm not saying that all violence committed by workers without exception is wholly good. I'm saying that the relationship each class has with class society modifies the very reasoning and effect of that violence. And no example of violence in history can be really described as senseless. My country's dictatorship did not kill, torture and repress that many people for no reason, the holocaust did not happen because Hitler was an evil entity, and the various proletarian states, past and present, have not exerted their authority senselessly.

In marxist theory there are two very important concepts: the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (DotB), and the dictatorship of the proletariat (DotP). The DotB is a catch-all term for any state of any form that serves capitalist interests. This is useful because, whether it's a liberal democracy with a strong welfare system, or Pinochet's Chile, they both ultimately serve to protect and expand the interest of the capitalist class. Put another way, the capitalist economy sustains the state and other entities like the media, the military, the government (what we call the suprastructure), while the capitalist economy underneath it all (what we call the infrastructure) maintains its existence. It is a dictatorship because it is one class enacting their own will in their own interests. The DotP is the same concept, but turned on its head. After our class has taken power and has began to build socialism-communism, it is actively enacting their sole will in their own interests. Why would the formerly exploited listen to what their former exploiters want? The proletariat must be able to repress the extant capitalist elements within and the permanently hostile capitalist class without. Dwell on this for a moment. While a DotP fosters democratic mechanisms for its class, the social majority (as all DotP in history have done), it simultaneously exerts its authority on those extraneous to the working class. If you live in a capitalist state, the very same thing is happening, just reversed. The managers of capitalism, i.e. the representatives in liberal democracy, govern for the capitalist class, even representing various sections of that class, while simultaneously repressing or preventing any organization of the working class.

I did not mention Chile as an example for no reason beforehand. When the working class of Chile attempted to build socialism through non-violent means, after the election of Allende (there were many tendencies within Allende's party and among his entire support base but that's beyond this post), they were met with an intervention that did not have any qualms about using violence, kickstarting Pinochet's 17 year long dictatorship, backed by Chilean and USAmerican capitalists, atop the corpses of at least 40,000 executed and/or tortured. Look up the massacre of Estadio Nacional if you're interested, it's where Victor Jara was murdered.

"Authority" in DotP is never as widespread nor as violent, firstly because it doesn't aim to repress the social majority, but rather the small but resourceful capitalist class, and secondly because its "repression" more often than not manifests in our actual goals, which is to build a socialist economy, which would necessarily eliminate the social basis for a capitalist class to exist in the first place. In the USSR, for example, the rich landowner peasants disappeared first an foremost because the structure of land ownership was completely changed, eliminating the source of their power. Any instances of actual violence were mostly against saboteurs during collectivization or during the grain seizures to curb the mass starvation that happened in the cities during the civil war, since no grain made it there. Capitalist authority is meant to keep the mass of working people subservient and exploited, proletarian authority is meant to protect the project of socialism-communism against attacks. It has never been about killing all the rich people, it has been about abolishing the capitalist mode of production and building a new one, one which does not need the oppression of any kind of people to keep functioning.

I recommend the following books if you're interested in sources about "authority" and democracy in DotPs:

The Soviets Expected It, Anna Louise Strong (1941). It is focused on the USSR's lead-up to the fascist invasion, but it contains a few examples from ALS' own, unsupervised, experience with soviet democracy and the general attitude of working people

In North Korea: First Eyewitness Reports, Anna Louise Strong (1949). Same as the previous one, it has a few examples of ALS' unsupervised travels through North Korea before the Korean War that talk about how democracy was set up.

The Triumph of Evil, Austin Murphy (2002). I've said a lot how this author is very annoying about keeping to this useless good vs evil dichotomy when talking about socialism and capitalism, but apart from those sporadic remarks, it's incredibly well researched. It focuses on economic aspects, but chapters 1, 2, especially 3, and 7 all contain analyses on the actual mechanisms of authority that DotP use, taking East Germany as an example. Again though, the author is very annoying as soon as he begins to give his personal opinions on morality.

Stasi State or Socialist Paradise? The German Democratic Republic and What Became of It, Bruni de la Motte and John Green (2015). Pretty self explanatory title, this one goes into more detail about the security apparatus of East Germany. I haven't read this one in full, but it has a dedicated chapter on democracy and the state security service.

Onto idolatry. I promise this part will be shorter.

I've written more in detail about this, but while personality worship is a problem, I don't agree that it leads to the problems you outline. It's undeniable that there have been elements of individual idolatry, but that's neither a reflection of actual power concentration or ever a substitution for the elevation of workers. Leadership in any communist party is always collective, and if it follows Leninist principles of organization even partially, then internal democracy is always guaranteed save for the most extreme of situations. Stalin might have been a popular figure, but the Central Committee he was a part of was not below him, and the periodical Congresses had more authority than the CC or any individual person. ALS mentions how, for example, the 1936 constitution was made. It was a wholly democratic process, more than a hundred thousand suggestions were all recieved and considered by the organs in charge. It was the most progressive constitution in its time, it guaranteed rights many of us still do not have. And that process supposedly happened while the "worship" of Stalin was in full force. Every position in DotPs has some mechanism of recall and accountability, everything is elected and ratified. Can you start a process of recall for any specific member of the state administration in your DotB? In one instance, as ALS says, in the region of Crimea up to half of the elected officials were all recalled in one year.

I keep using the USSR as an example because it's the system I'm most familiar with, but any other DotP you can think of has similar mechanisms and limitations to power. Once again, was there a certain amount of idolatry towards a few individuals? Yes. Was this a harmful vice which created unchecked concentration of power and undue oppression? Most certainly not. Besides this, we're materialists, and we understand that human psychology is largely molded by the underlying material conditions. Focusing on individuals when it comes to these sorts of things is almost inevitable for large groups of people because of how the exploitative economic conditions modify psychological tendencies. It is a remain of liberal ideology for the most part, and it should be fought against. But you can't expect millions of people to change how they view certain processes, changes like those take a lot of time, generations, and education.

I've spent essentially all of my political life within a party structure not very dissimilar from that of Cuba's, the USSR's, China's, the DPRK's, etc, and I can say with full confidence that it is the most democratic and simultaneously productive set of principles you can have in political activity. Compared to liberal democracy, and compared to horizontalist/non-centralized structures, even those employed by anarchists, which I have also experienced, it is still far more democratic and effective at taking into account all input without devolving into a glorified debate club.

I don't think you're a bad communist, having these doubts and talking to other people about it is a very good habit to have. If you still have doubts or want to keep talking about this, feel free to shoot me another ask or a private message :)

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

November 6, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Nov 06, 2024

Yesterday, November 5, 2024, Americans reelected former president Donald Trump, a Republican, to the presidency over Democratic candidate Vice President Kamala Harris. As of Wednesday night, Trump is projected to get at least 295 electoral votes to Harris’s 226, with two Republican-leaning states still not called. The popular vote count is still underway.

Republicans also retook control of the Senate, where Democrats were defending far more seats than Republicans. Control of the House is not yet clear. 

These results were a surprise to everyone. Trump is a 78-year-old convicted felon who has been found liable for sexual assault and is currently under indictment in a number of jurisdictions. He refused to leave office peacefully when voters elected President Joe Biden in 2020, instead launching an unprecedented attack on the U.S. Capitol to stop the counting of electoral votes, and said during his campaign that he would be a “dictator” on his first day in office.  

Pollsters thought the race would be very close but showed increasing momentum for Harris, and Harris’s team expressed confidence during the day. By posting on social media—with no evidence—that the voting in Pennsylvania was rigged, Trump himself suggested he expected he would lose the popular vote, at least, as he did in 2016 and 2020. 

But in 2024, it appears a majority of American voters chose to put Trump back into office. 

Harris and her running mate, Minnesota governor Tim Walz, offered a message of unity, the expansion of the economic policies that have made the U.S. economy the strongest in the world in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, and the creation of an “opportunity economy” that echoed many of the policies Republicans used to embrace. Trump vowed to take revenge on his enemies and to return the country to the neoliberal policies President Joe Biden had rejected in favor of investing in the middle class.

When he took office, Biden acknowledged that democracy was in danger around the globe, as authoritarians like Russian president Vladimir Putin and China’s president Xi Jinping  maintained that democracy was obsolete and must be replaced by autocracies. Russia set out to undermine the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) that enforced the rules-based international order that stood against Russian expansion. 

Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán, who overturned democracy in his own country, explained that the historical liberal democracy of the United States weakens a nation because the equality it champions means treating immigrants, LGBTQ+ individuals, and women as equal to men, thus ending traditionally patriarchal society.

In place of democracy, Orbán champions “illiberal democracy,” or “Christian democracy.” This form of government holds nominal elections, although their outcome is preordained because the government controls all the media and has silenced opposition. Orbán’s model of minority rule promises a return to a white-dominated, religiously based society, and he has pushed his vision by eliminating the independent press, cracking down on political opposition, getting rid of the rule of law, and dominating the economy with a group of crony oligarchs. 

In order to strengthen democracy at home and abroad, Biden worked to show that it delivered for ordinary Americans. He and the Democrats passed groundbreaking legislation to invest in rebuilding roads and bridges and build new factories to usher in green energy. They defended unions and used the Federal Trade Commission to break up monopolies and return more economic power to consumers. 

Their system worked. It created record low unemployment rates, lifted wages for the bottom 80% of Americans, and built the strongest economy in the world in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, setting multiple stock market records.  But that success turned out not to be enough to protect democracy. 

In contrast, Trump promised he would return to the ideology of the era before 2021, when leaders believed in relying on markets to order the economy with the idea that wealthy individuals would invest more efficiently than if the government regulated business or skewed markets with targeted investment (in green energy, for example). Trump vowed to cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations and to make up lost revenue through tariffs, which he incorrectly insists are paid by foreign countries; tariffs are paid by U.S. consumers. 

For policies, Trump’s campaign embraced the Project 2025 agenda led by the right-wing Heritage Foundation, which has close ties to Orbán. That plan calls for getting rid of the nonpartisan civil service the U.S. has had since 1883 and for making both the Department of Justice and the military partisan instruments of a strong president, much as Orbán did in Hungary. It also calls for instituting religious rule, including an end to abortion rights, across the U.S. Part of the idea of “purifying” the country is the deportation of undocumented immigrants: Trump promised to deport 20 million people at an estimated cost of $88 billion to $315 billion a year. 

That is what voters chose.

Pundits today have spent time dissecting the election results, many trying to find the one tweak that would have changed the outcome, and suggesting sweeping solutions to the Democrats’ obvious inability to attract voters. There is no doubt that a key factor in voters’ swing to Trump is that they associated the inflation of the post-pandemic months with Biden and turned the incumbents out, a phenomenon seen all over the world.

There is also no doubt that both racism and sexism played an important role in Harris’s defeat. 

But my own conclusion is that both of those things were amplified by the flood of disinformation that has plagued the U.S. for years now. Russian political theorists called the construction of a virtual political reality through modern media “political technology.” They developed several techniques in this approach to politics, but the key was creating a false narrative in order to control public debate. These techniques perverted democracy, turning it from the concept of voters choosing their leaders into the concept of voters rubber-stamping the leaders they had been manipulated into backing. 

In the U.S., pervasive right-wing media, from the Fox News Channel through right-wing podcasts and YouTube channels run by influencers, have permitted Trump and right-wing influencers to portray the booming economy as “failing” and to run away from the hugely unpopular Project 2025. They allowed MAGA Republicans to portray a dramatically falling crime rate as a crime wave and immigration as an invasion. They also shielded its audience from the many statements of Trump’s former staff that he is unfit for office, and even that his chief of staff General John Kelly considers him a fascist and noted that he admires German Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler.

As actor Walter Masterson posted: “I tried to educate people about tariffs, I tried to explain that undocumented immigrants pay billions in taxes and are the foundation of this country. I explained Project 2025, I interviewed to show that they supported it. I can not compete against the propaganda machines of Twitter, Fox News, [Joe Rogan Experience], and NY Post. These spaces will continue to create reality unless we create a more effective way of reaching people.” 

X users noted a dramatic drop in their followers today, likely as bots, no longer necessary, disengaged. 

Many voters who were using their vote to make an economic statement are likely going to be surprised to discover what they have actually voted for. In his victory speech, Trump said the American people had given him an “unprecedented and powerful mandate.” 

White nationalist Nick Fuentes posted, “Your body, my choice. Forever,” and gloated that men will now legally control women’s bodies. His post got at least 22,000 “likes.” Right-wing influencer Benny Johnson, previously funded by Russia, posted: “It is my honor to inform you that Project 2025 was real the whole time.” 

Today, Trump campaign press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump would launch the “largest mass deportation operation” of undocumented immigrants, and the stock in private prison companies GEO Group and CoreCivic  jumped 41% and 29%, respectively. Those jumps were part of a bigger overall jump: the Dow Jones Industrial Average moved up 1,508 points in what Washington Post economic columnist Heather Long said was the largest post-election jump in more than 100 years. 

As for the lower prices Trump voters wanted, Kate Gibson of CBS today noted that on Monday, the National Retail Federation said that Trump’s proposed tariffs will cost American consumers between $46 billion and $78 billion a year as clothing, toys, furniture, appliances, and footwear all become more expensive. A $50 pair of running shoes, Gibson said, would retail for $59 to $64 under the new tariffs.

U.S. retailers are already preparing to raise prices of items from foreign suppliers, passing to consumers the cost of any future tariffs. 

Trump’s election will also mean he will no longer have to answer to the law for his federal indictments: special counsel Jack Smith is winding them down ahead of Trump’s inauguration. So he will not be tried for retaining classified documents or attempting to overthrow the U.S. government when he lost in 2020. 

This evening, Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán posted on social media that he had just spoken with Trump, and said: “We have big plans for the future!” 

This afternoon, Vice President Kamala Harris spoke at her alma mater, Howard University, to concede the election to Trump. 

She thanked her supporters, her family, the Bidens, the Walz family, and her campaign staff and volunteers. She reiterated that she believes Americans have far more in common than separating us.

In what appeared to be a message to Trump, she noted: “A fundamental principle of American democracy is that when we lose an election, we accept the results. That principle as much as any other distinguishes democracy from monarchy or tyranny, and anyone who seeks the public trust must honor it. At the same time in our nation, we owe loyalty not to a president or a party, but to the Constitution of the United States, and loyalty to our conscience and to our God. 

“My allegiance to all three is why I am here to say, while I concede this election, I do not concede the fight that fuels this campaign, the fight for freedom, for opportunity, for fairness and the dignity of all people, a fight for the ideals at the heart of our nation, the ideals that reflect America at our best. That is a fight I will never give up.”

Harris urged people “to organize, to mobilize and to stay engaged for the sake of freedom and justice and the future that we all know we can build together.” She told those feeling as if the world is dark indeed these days, to “fill the sky with the light of a billion brilliant stars, the light of optimism, of faith, of truth and service,” and to let “that work guide us, even in the face of setbacks, toward the extraordinary promise of the United States of America.” 

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[mariacallous]

A month after Franklin D. Roosevelt won the 1940 presidential election, he called for legislation to ramp up military aid to countries fighting Nazi Germany. Congress passed the Lend-Lease Act in March 1941. Within months, Britain and the Soviet Union were pounding Adolf Hitler’s forces with U.S. weapons and other equipment.

Now that Americans have voted to return Donald Trump to the White House, the situation risks flipping into reverse: After Jan. 20, 2025, the United States may abandon its European allies to Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s fascist war machine.

During his campaign, Trump said he will “not give a penny to Ukraine.” Part of his plan to end the war “in one day” is that he would “tell [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky, no more. You got to make a deal.” But if Russia is allowed to conquer and subjugate Ukraine, it would only be a matter of which democracy gets colonized next by a neighboring dictatorship: Poland, the Baltic States, Moldova, or Taiwan.

Thus, over the next 75 days, Congress and the Biden administration face an urgent historic mission to help Ukraine get as many weapons as possible before a possible withdrawal of U.S. support.

U.S. President Joe Biden has directed the Defense Department to draw down all remaining Ukrainian security aid that Congress has appropriated by the end of his term. It’s not clear if the Pentagon could supply much more weaponry than that by Inauguration Day, even if it received additional funding from Congress.

Instead, the way to promptly fund more arms is to bankroll Ukrainian procurement of U.S. weapons. Specifically, Biden should request, and Congress should pass, another supplemental funding bill on a similar scale as the one in April, which included $60.8 billion for Ukraine. The new supplemental should authorize the administration to spend any amount of the aid—up to the full amount—to cut a massive check to the Ukrainian government with the stipulation that Ukraine use the funds to purchase U.S.-made weapons.

Sending Ukraine $60 billion to spend on weapons would be entirely consistent with the strategy that the Biden administration had been preparing in case of a Trump win. One of Biden’s main initiatives has been to push the G-7 to give $50 billion in frozen Russian assets to Ukraine, deliberately structuring the transfer to get out the door before Jan. 20 so that Trump cannot stop it. Biden originally wanted to seize and give to Kyiv all $300 billion of Russia’s frozen money, but the Europeans could not be convinced. The administration has also shown its willingness to throw U.S. budgetary resources into the mix: When the $50 billion was blocked by the Hungarian government, the White House engineered a clever way of guaranteeing the money through the Treasury Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The key political challenge, however, could be getting House Speaker Mike Johnson to support this legislation during the lame duck period, when he will probably be preparing to run for another term as speaker. This may require some hardball maneuvering by some of the many pro-Ukraine Republicans in the House. It would be much easier, of course, if Trump quietly goes along with it, like he did with the last supplemental.

The United States would not be the first government to fund Ukrainian arms procurement. Denmark paved the way this year with a grant that finances contracts between Ukraine and defense manufacturers. Denmark and Ukraine developed a transparent set of financial controls that include factory site visits, validation of delivery, and auditing processes. All sides regard this pilot program as so successful that other allies are pulling out their checkbooks to join in on the action.

Americans’ tax dollars would be safely held by the most credibly reformed and reputably led wing of the Ukrainian Defense Ministry: the defense procurement agency. In the early weeks of the full-scale invasion, when Russian forces were bearing down on Kyiv and heavy Western weapons hadn’t yet arrived, Ukraine’s desperate Defense Ministry called up illicit intermediaries, begging them to help buy up old stocks of Soviet-type munitions on the notoriously opaque and fragmented international arms market. But over the following months, as Western aid started flowing, Ukraine’s strategy shifted to building a clean, transparent pipeline for buying weapons straight from producers.

Established in August 2022, the defense procurement agency is now run by Maryna Bezrukova, a seasoned reformer who previously cleaned up procurement at Ukraine’s national electricity company. To be her deputy, Bezrukova hired Ukraine’s most reputably independent corruption investigator: Artem Sytnyk, the former head of the state National Anti-Corruption Bureau. With these sheriffs in town, the surest way for even the most powerful Ukrainians to go to jail is to try to corruptly make money off weapons acquisitions.

Under this reformist leadership, the defense procurement agency is aggressively cutting out intermediaries by contracting directly with arms manufacturers. The clearest sign of success is that excluded arms dealers and their cronies are attacking Bezrukova with threatening messages, smear campaigns, and doxing on Telegram. Most recently, these intermediaries tried to sideline Bezrukova by getting Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov to merge her agency into another one—and fire her in the process. That announcement triggered such strong pushback by NATO and Ukrainian civil society that the minister canceled the planned reorganization. Instead, with support from Ukraine’s allies, the ministry formed a new supervisory board of reputable experts to oversee the procurement agency.

Any U.S. legislation that funds weapons contracts arranged by Ukraine’s defense procurement agency should come with one additional condition: Before Kyiv receives any money, it must enact legislation mandating the existence of the agency, safeguarding the independence of its supervisory board, and most importantly, prohibiting the defense minister from firing the agency head without a concurring decision by the supervisory board.

Beyond the strategic benefits, this approach could create jobs for Americans during Trump’s second term, largely in states that voted for him. Unlike military aid provided by Europe or allocated by NATO, U.S. funding would come right back home: to Northrop Grumman’s gun truck production line in Arizona, General Dynamics’ artillery shell facility in Texas, Raytheon’s missile factory in Alabama, and Lockheed Martin’s F-16 plant in South Carolina.

To prevent the Trump administration from using executive authority to block the export of weapons procured by Ukraine under the program, Congress should insert one exemption to the Buy American requirement: If the U.S. government ends up blocking exports, Ukraine would be free to redirect the funds to non-U.S. arms manufacturers.

Just as vital as the original Lend-Lease Act, this legislation could be called the Buy American Weapons Act. And it would keep the United States on the right side of history against the imperial armies that are once again on the march.