Free Trade vs Democracy
Cliff DuRand (Feb. 2016)
President Obama is poised to sign an international agreement that will limit sovereignty and override many of our laws and regulations. It’s called the TransPacific Partnership. It will then be presented to Congress for ratification under a fast track procedure that will allow only 20 hours of debate and no amendments. TPP was negotiated in secret among 12 Pacific rim countries with major input from 600 transnational corporations, but no input from the public or our Congressional representatives. But it will require them to change U.S. laws protecting the environment, food safety, internet freedom, labor protection, consumer rights and more.
It’s most controversial provision is it allows foreign corporations to sue the government for lost expected profits due to democratically enacted measures even though they protect a legitimate public interest. International panels, operating in secret, will decide how much we have to pay corporations for democracy. Read More
Recreating Democracy in a Globalized State
Carey, Diamant, DuRand, & Rosenthal
The Center for Global Justice is proud to offer a new book, “Recreating Democracy in a Globalized State” by Cliff DuRand and Steve Martinot. Published by Clarity Press, it is a critique of corporate led globalization and its transformation of nation-states into globalized states that serve the interests of transnational capital above the interests of their national populations. This undermines sovereignty and democracy. The book concludes with a call to ordinary people to make the state serve their interests rather than the 1%, the true interests of the nation, through social movements like Occupy Wall Street.... Read More...
Democracy and Struggles for Social Justice
by Cliff DuRand (2004)
Today, almost everyone is in favor of democracy. Nearly every measure undertaken by our government, whether foreign or domestic, is legitimated by invoking the term ‘democracy’ –whether it be the invasion of another country or the privatization of social security. Similarly, the economic marketplace is often spoken of as ‘democratic’, with consumers ‘voting’ their preferences with their dollars. Likewise, the expansion of stock ownership through pension systems and IRAs is sometimes claimed to represent the democratization of capitalism. Opportunity for upward social mobility is likewise spoken of as democratic. Even fast food chains that allow you to have your hamburger “your way”, suggest that such ‘free choice’ is democratic. It seems that everything is being marketed as ‘democratic’ these days. In other words, it is a much abused concept.
Sounds of Silence: What’s Left out of the Debate
On January 9, 2013 the Center for Global Justice took a look at some of the important issues that were all but ignored by the candidates in the November election in the US. Cliff DuRand, Bob Stone and Gregory Diamant gave voice to some of those issues and reflected on why they were unspoken by our leaders. Read More...
Click here for the video: https://vimeo.com/57641278
Assessing Elections- Panel Discussion
by Cliff DuRand, Susan Goldman, Ken Rowland, and Carl Davidson
ASSESSING THE U.S. MID-TERM ELECTIONS, 2010
What happened in the mid-term elections in the U.S. and why? What are the lessons we should take away from them? This was the topic of a public forum the Center for Global Justice held on November 22, 2010.
Only a day after the midterm elections, the U.S. media quickly coalesced around a narrative, accepted by everyone in the political establishment, that the victory of the Republican Party was a popular repudiation of the supposedly left-wing policies of the Obama administration.
Few have ventured this alternative narrative: after coming to power by posing as the tribune of “hope” and “change you can believe in,” Obama, through his pro-corporate and pro-war policies, has succeeded in alienating and politically demoralizing large sections of the population that had voted for him. Disillusioned, on election day they stayed home in droves.
These competing interpretations lead to very different views of how to move ahead from here. In his press conference the next day, Obama himself adopted the first analysis, pledging to work closely with the Republican Party, find some compromise on tax cuts for the wealthy, and improve his relations with corporate America. Progressives, on the other hand, conclude that Obama and the Democratic Party needs to take up the fight to oppose the lies and obstruction by championing real change that will meet the economic needs of the middle and lower classes.
Here are three of the presentations given at the forum by Cliff DuRand, co-founder of the Center for Global Justice, Susan Goldman, retired mental health nurse, and Ken Rowland, former chair of Democrats Abroad Voter Registration. Read More...
by Cliff DuRand, John Mason, and Peter Weisberg
As the US election fever built in the media, on August 29, 2012 the Center for Global Justice held a discussion that went beyond the horserace coverage and the attack ads. The panel examined some of the broader questions affecting our quadrennial spectacle. Why do some sectors of the electorate vote against their own interests? What difference does it make which party wins in November? What can be done to save our disappearing middle class? What can we do to change the sorry state of public affairs? Our three panelists were Peter Weisberg, social philosopher Cliff DuRand, and John Mason. Read More...
Campaign 2010 and Class War
By Cliff DuRand
It was just two years ago that our hearts soared when President-elect Obama gave his victory speech in Grant Park. After eight dark years our hopes were buoyed for changes that would address the nation’s deep problems and return a sense of pride in being an American. And on January 20 we wept with joy as we inaugurated our first Black president.
To understand what went wrong we need to look at the very different reaction of another group, the very rich, the plutocrats who had prospered beyond their wildest dreams under previous administrations. They looked upon this new, young, charismatic president with fear and trembling. They saw a man at the head of a massive popular progressive movement that, in the midst of a systemic crisis, could bring about the “wrong” kind of change, change that might narrow the income differences between them and a declining “middle class,” change that might punish the bankers and those on Wall Street who had caused the crisis by their reckless gambling, change that might even nationalize the banks so they could be made to serve the public rather than private interests. And even though from Day One President Obama continued the same bank-friendly bailout program begun in the waning days of the Bush administration and surrounded himself with Wall Street insiders, they were not reassured. Because what was at the root of their fears was his base. Read More...
Free Trade vs Democracy: A Primer on the Trans-Pacific Partnership
by Cliff DuRand
Watch the Video http://vimeo.com/59532110
“In a global economy in which multinational corporations are no longer bound to any single country, they have gained a new kind of power over national governments that, by their nature, are confined by borders. Companies have created a new kind of marketplace in which governments compete with one another for investment, essentially undercutting in a fundamental way some of the familiar, potent, and until recently enduring foundations of sovereignty.”
–David Rothkopf, former partner of Henry Kissinger and a Treasury Department official in the Clinton administration. Rothkopf, Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2008), p. 117. Cited by Jeff Faux in The Servant Economy, p. 82.
For the last couple decades US foreign policy has become increasingly about trade policy. The US has become the world advocate of “free trade,” promoting it through trade agreements like NAFTA and other bi-lateral agreements as well as through global governance institutions it has sponsored such as IMF, World Bank and WTO. The US has promoted free trade for much the same reason Great Britain promoted it in the 19th century, viz. the economically strongest country in the world benefits from free trade. It is the weaker countries that seek tariff protection for their infant industries, protection from competition with cheaper and higher quality imports. That protection is what enabled the US to industrialize in the last half of the 19th century. But then when the US became economically strong enough to compete regionally and eventually globally, it became an advocate of free trade and demanded that others abandon protectionism. Read More...
Globalization and the Crisis of Democracy
By Cliff DuRand
As popular movements surge around the globe, people everywhere are asking about the possibilities of social, political and economic transformation. But governments seem to be unable to respond to their citizens, unable to solve the problems that plague them. Why is it that democracies don’t seem to be able to represent their people? What can we do about it?
These are the questions that Center for Global Justice author Cliff DuRand addresses in his book “Recreating Democracy in a Globalized State.” It is a critique of corporate-led neoliberal globalization, arguing that it has transformed nation-states into globalized states that serve the interests of transnational capital above the interests of national populations. DuRand sees this tendency in both states of the global North like the US and the global South like Mexico. With political systems in crisis, what can we the people do? View the video of his February 6, 2013 talk at: Read More...
Individualism and the Impoverishment of Democracy
By Cliff DuRand (2009)
Individualism is the belief that I am the master of my own fate. This prompts us to think I don’t need social institutions to support me. But in reality we do each need social supports to flourish. In a democracy those institutions are the collective means by which society nurtures its members. The individualistic culture so predominant in the United States prompts us to devalue democracy and weakens those institutions.
“Tribute to Howard Zinn” Panel presentation by Cliff DuRand, February 24, 2010
Center for Global Justice, San Miguel de Allende, Mexico
Howard Zinn celebrated the struggles for justice of common men and women, their protests against injustice, our social movements for change. He understood that these struggles outside the established political institutions are the lifeblood of democracy. Democracy is in the streets, not in the halls of Congress where the powerful operate. It is the counter power of the People that makes our country sometimes democratic.
He saw the history of the U.S. as a people’s history and in that pointed to a very different concept of democracy from the one promoted by the powerful. In their narrative the essence of democracy is found in contested elections and in the deliberations among the representatives chosen thereby. The role of the people is to choose from among a political elite who is to rule them; the role of elections is simply to produce a government. Once this is done, we have discharged our civic responsibility as citizens and we are expected to return to the affairs of our private lives. Political scientists call this representationism by the term polyarchy. It is essentially an elitist theory of democracy, a kind of low intensity democracy at best. As Joseph Schumpeter put it, democracy simply means that “the people have the opportunity of accepting or refusing the men who are to rule them.” [Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Harper and Row, 1975, p. 285]
Democracy Matters 2012
by Cliff DuRand
On February 15, 2012 social philosopher Cliff DuRand presented “Democracy Matters” — an assessment of democracy today in a globalizing world based on his newly published book Recreating Democracy in a Globalized State. Published by Clarity Press, it is available on Amazon.com in either paperback or ebook format. View a 74 minute video of the talk at: Read More...
Class War: The View From the Board Room
By Jeff Faux
The Vice-President for Governmental Affairs has just finished his report to the corporate board of directors. “Thanks, Ted,” says the Chairman. “You and your Washington staff have done a great job. Getting that little amendment inserted in the budget bill will save us at least $25 million next year. …. Questions or comments? Paul?”
Paul, the hedge fund CEO: “I’m worried about the big picture down there in Washington, Ted. It’s a mess. Deficit out of control.The anti-business attitude. Not to mention incompetence. Can’t even run a website for their own health care program. Pathetic.”
“Amen,” says Hank, who used to run a tobacco company. “What bugs me is Obama’s complaining about inequality. Just whips people up. Saw them last night on the TV news, in front of a McDonald’s somewhere, screaming for more money. Makes you sick. Want money? Get a job!”
“Actually Hank, those people already have a job,” says Cliff from Silicon Valley. “And lucky to have it. Plenty more out there ready to take their place.”
Willard, the oil and gas exec: “Now they want to raise the minimum wage—$10, $11 or more. Really stupid. It’s a job-killer. Isn’t that right Martha?”
Martha, the economics professor: “Absolutely. Simple economics: raise the price of labor the demand for it will fall. To be competitive, business has to pay people according to their productivity.”
Jim from the retail conglomerate: “Law of nature: pay for performance.”
Several furtive glances around the room.
“I mean, within reason,” Jim adds.
“I’m curious,” says Cliff to Martha. “What’s your response to people like Krugman who say that when we had high minimum wages, higher corporate taxes and stronger unions America was the most prosperous?” Read More...
Election Over: Time for Progressive Dems to Face the Truth
by Jeff Faux
Also published on the Huffington Post
Terrorized by the prospect of a complete takeover of the U.S. government by right-wing reactionaries — progressive Democrats swallowed their unhappiness with Barack Obama throughout the campaign. They gamely defended his policies on the economy, health care, budget priorities and other issues on which they felt betrayed in his first term.
We’ve now dodged the bullet of a Romney White House, so let’s get back to reality. Despite his campaign-trail populism, the president will continue the politics of accommodation to conservatives. Two of the three priorities he has set out for his next term are at the top of the GOP agenda: a “grand bargain” to cut government spending over the next 10 years and corporate tax reform that would cut rates — don’t hold your breath — close loopholes. The third priority, rationalizing immigration law, is one of the few progressive ideas that also has the support of the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable.
Moreover, his next term’s policy advisers will be the same — or come from the same Washington/Wall Street executive personnel pool — as his last term’s advisers. Indeed, from the White House perspective, the election vindicated their first term performance.
The core organizations of the Democratic base have vowed that after the election they will hold Obama’s “feet to the fire” with a Tea Party-style mobilization from the left — forcing votes on progressive proposals, organizing mass rallies and grooming their own candidates for the next congressional elections. They’ve sworn these oaths before, but after each election they persuade themselves to give the leadership another chance. Soon the next election is upon them, and they line up for their marching orders. Read More...
The Elites Are Unanimous
by Jeff Faux
Calls for a bipartisan “Grand Bargain” on taxes and spending for the next decade ring out daily, if not hourly, from the politicians and pundits who dominate our political media. But the national discourse is silent on the tacit agreement both parties have already made on the future that lies ahead for the majority of working Americans: a dramatic drop in their living standards.
The United States can no longer satisfy the three great dreams that have driven most of its domestic politics since the end of World War II: the multinational corporate class’s dream of limitless profits; the military-industrial complex’s dream of global hegemony; and the dream of the people for rising incomes and expanding opportunities. One out of three? Certainly. Two out of three? Maybe. All three? No.
So far, Corporate America gets priority boarding in the economic lifeboat – with the safest seats reserved for Wall Street. Four years after the crash, the financial sector remains heavily subsidized with cheap federal loans that it uses to buy higher yielding bonds, speculate in exotic IOUs and pay outrageous salaries to those at the top. Larger than ever, they are more than ever “too big to fail.” As a result, Wall Street continues to divert the nation’s capital away from investment in sustainable high-quality jobs in America.
Next in line is the Pentagon and its vast network of corporate contractors, members of Congress with military facilities in their districts and media propagandists for the empire. The administration, along with some libertarian Republicans, insists that military spending will not be spared in the coming era of austerity, and has proposed modest cuts over the next decade. At the same time, virtually all of Washington supports the policies that require huge defense budgets, i.e., remaining in the Middle East, expanding in Latin America and containing China in its own neighborhood. The threatened across-the-board cuts in federal spending that become automatic if a long- term budget deal is not made by December will almost certainly be finessed in order to protect the military budget.
All of which leaves the American middle class on a badly listing, although not yet sinking, economic ship. Even before the financial crash, real wages for the typical American worker had been stagnant for 30 years as a result of: 1) trade and investment deregulation that shoved American workers into a brutally competitive global labor market for which they were unprepared; 2) the relentless war on unions that began with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980; and 3) more recently, the erosion of the social safety net for low wage workers and the unemployed.
Women Organizing for Global Justice
by Ann Ferguson
University of Massachusetts, U.S.A.
My aim in this paper is to investigate some of the various global social movements involving women against corporate globalization, sometimes called “globalization from below”, to see what concepts and visions of social justice they presuppose and advocate. I am including in my purview women’s self-help and empowerment projects which in some way challenge capitalism and male domination. Is there a way that we can frame these movements to see a historical trajectory that can create a unified vision and be capable of achieving it? That is, to develop an alternative vision that is not merely utopian but one that can be achieved in spite of the hegemonic forces arrayed against us?
Here I am going to concentrate on the ideological questions involved in an alternate vision of global justice. Radical social movements have to gather strength from moral arguments against the existing order, pointing out injustices even according to the existing conceptions of Justice that are based on capitalist morality: for example, government corruption, collusion of private corporate interests with politicians in representative democracies who claim to stand for their constituents’ interests, and monopolies, such as WalMart is coming to be, which make the so-called choices of the free market not available to consumers and workers who must deal with them.
I shall compare and contrast three different paradigms of Social Justice that are presently being used by women activists against aspects of corporate capitalist globalization. These are the Neo-Liberal and Libertarian Conception of Justice, the Welfare Liberal or Social Democratic Conception, and the Solidarity Conception of Justice. Although appealing to all three paradigms can be morally effective and mobilize people against existing injustices, only the last paradigm can mount a successful radical critique of the existing order which presents a vision of a systematic alternative social and political economy and alternative form of globalization.
The two main camps defending the justice of capitalist democracy as a political economy, Neo-Liberals and Social Democrats, disagree on whether to prioritize individual Freedom or Equality when there is a conflict between them in the operation of a capitalist democracy, with the former camp emphasizing freedom and the latter equality. Radicals argue that the social and economic policies of neither camp can overcome the two internal critiques of a capitalist political economy discussed below, particularly in the age of corporate globalization. They maintain that no form of capitalism is able to deliver its own values, either freedom or equality, to the majority, and hence that capitalist democracy does not meet its own internal criterion for social justice.
Lifting the Veil of Mirage Democracy in the United States
By Margaret Flowers and Kevin Zeese
On February 4, 2013 Cliff DuRand was interviewed about his book “Recreating Democracy in a Globalized State” on Clearing the FOG Radio Show
http://clearingthefogradio.org/ Listen to Clearing the FOG Radio Show live every Monday morning at 11 am Eastern time on 1480 am in the Washington, DC area or on WeActRadio.com or watch the show at http://www.ustream.tv/itsoureconomy.
Listen to archived shows on Mixcloud.com.
Then co-hosts Margaret Flowers and Kevin Zeese wrote an article on mirage democracy based on the interviews with Cliff and Chris Hedges. It was published February 13 on Truth-Out.org at http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/14489-lifting-the-veil-of-mirage-democracy-in-the-united-states
The Secret Rise of 21st Century Democracy
by Margaret Flowers and Kevin Zeese
New Economies based on greater democratic control, real representation and citizen participation are on the rise. Much is to be learned from countries like Venezuela that break from the Washington Consensus.
Every Citizen Has a Stake in the Business of Journalism
By Ed Fouhy
February 27, 2013
View the video of this talk at http://vimeo.com/62306410
Veteran journalist Ed Fouhy has 30 years experience in online, print, television and radio news. Fouhy covered the civil rights struggle in the South, Watergate and was Saigon bureau chief for CBS News at the height of the Viet Nam war. He has won numerous awards for his reporting including five national Emmys and the Drew Pearson Award for Investigative Reporting.
My topic today is the news media, how rapidly the media have changed as the Internet has gained a foothold in our lives. I also will talk about whether the media will survive and most importantly, why you ought to care.
But before I start I wanted to get some idea of the news consumption habits of this audience. So let me ask you a couple of questions – the same ones I ask students in the course I sometimes teach on the media:
Are you a daily consumer of news? How do you get it – and many of you will have multiple answers so let me see a show of hands on all of these –Do you get your news on TV, Newspaper, Online, Radio?
I’m curious why do you get news? And again more than one answer is perfectly acceptable.
Because you think you should?
Because citizens have an obligation to know what’s going on? Because the news is stimulating, or it’s entertaining? Which?
One final question: Do you think it’s possible for our form of government to survive without the news media? whether from newspapers, online or broadcast? Show of hands. Possible for democracy to survive?
Okay I think we’ve established that most of you are readers and listeners and you have a variety of reasons why you get the news. And you think the news business is essential to democracy. Read More...
Citizenship, Democracy and Globalization
Margaret A. McLaren
Rollins College, U.S.A.
In the spring of 2006 I read in my local paper, the Orlando Sentinel, that according to a United Nations survey, 65% of the people surveyed in Peru said they did not know what democracy was. This made me think about the various ways that democracy is used in public discourse. In the current Bush era, democracy has been used as a weapon, as an excuse, as a justification for military intervention. In spite of this, the values at the heart of democracy—equality and liberty -–strike me as important cornerstones of a political system. As I reflected further about the Peruvian survey response, I was not at all surprised that over half of the respondents replied that they did not know what democracy was, because the more I thought about it, the more confused I became. This paper is a first attempt to think through some of the complicated and difficult questions surrounding citizenship and democracy in the context of globalization.
In the context of globalization questions about citizenship and democracy become even more pressing. This paper examines three models of democracy: imperialist democracy such as that imposed on other countries through force or economic sanctions, representative democracy, where there is popular support for democracy, and the political structure is committed to egalitarian representation, and economic democracy, in cases where the focus shifts from political and legal representation to issues of economic justice. Given the differences in these various models of democracy it is not too surprising that the respondents to the survey discussed above claimed to not know what democracy is; I suggest that this ”confusion” results from the multifarious forms that democracy takes, and the entwining of the political, legal and economic spheres. Imperialist democracy imports the values of capitalism through its neo-liberal agenda. Representative democracy advocates egalitarian values, but if it focuses too much on legal equality and political representation it may be unable to fulfill its own promise of equality, as those who are poor, illiterate and uneducated cannot exercise their full political and legal rights. Finally, economic democracy is primarily concerned with the just distribution of resources.
Is Democracy a Universal Value? Whose Democracy?
Karsten J. Struhl
John Jay College of Criminal Justice (CUNY)
In an op-ed article written for the New York Times (March 17, 2004), Ian Buruma writes: “One year later, most of the stated reasons for invading Iraq have been discredited. But advocates of the war still have one compelling argument: our troops are not there to impose American values or even Western values, but universal ones. The underlying assumption is that the United States represents these universal values.” The main universal value that the United States put forward in what it euphemistically called “regime change” was “democracy.” Democracy, for the United States clearly means “liberal democracy,” a particular hybrid of liberalism and democracy, of which much more will said later. What I want to do in this paper is consider first whether democracy as such is a universal value? I will then discuss liberal democracy as a specific contender for the mantle of universality. Finally, I shall return to the question of whether it is ever legitimate to export or impose democracy.
Is Globalization the Problem?
Karsten J. Struhl
John Jay College of Criminal Justice (CUNY) U.S.A.
In this paper, I shall offer six theses on globalization. My overall claim is that globalization as such is not the problem, that the core problem is the lack of democracy, and that actually existing globalization has within it the dialectical seeds of its transformation. However, I do not present these theses as final conclusions but as openings to further discussion, debate, and reflection.
First Thesis: Globalization is a long term historical process which had its roots in ancient society. Its present form, however, is the necessary result of the expansion of the capitalist mode of production. Since Word War II, it has reached a qualitatively new level of development. The globalization of culture was already in process with the expansion of the world’s major religions and such early empires as the Roman Empire . In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, trade and financial interactions were connecting much of the emerging European markets. Michael Ignatieff has noted, “we have lived with a global economy since 1700, and many of the world’s major cities have been global entrepots for centuries.” By the middle of the nineteenth century, as a result the destruction of mercantile barriers, the accelerated growth of industrial technology, and the search for new markets, capitalism had become a global system. As Marx and Engels wrote in The Communist Manifesto: “The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere….The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls.” Since World War II, with the development communication technology, global capitalism entered a new phase. Radio, television, satellite communication, digital technology, and the Internet have made it possible to transmit information almost instantaneously across the globe. The world is becoming a global village.
Beyond Capital and Beyond Democracy: What will it look like?
Notes on the present political / economic transformation of the United States of America: A contribution to the analysis of the changing relation between the State and Corporate – Capital, and its implications for the future of democracy.
To paraphrase István Mészáros and Rosa Luxemburg: Beyond Capital and beyond democracy … Barbarism?
The current range of the debate on the political transformation of States and their relations to Transnational Corporate-Capital , particularly with reference to the United States of America (USAmerica or USA) has clustered around two major positions related to sovereignty : one stresses the consequences of the formation of Supra-National, quasi-governmental, administrative institutions such as the World Trade Organization that mediate the broad interests of Transnational-Capital, while the other emphasizes the continuing effort of the USA to maintain its assumed hegemonic leadership of shaping the future Neo-liberal Corporate-Capitalist agenda also known as The Washington Consensus. The second, the USAmerican defense and projection of its National-hegemonic position presents two important divisions within the National Ruling Class which may be best described as tactical differences on the same strategic objective of National Corporate-Capitalist domination of resources, communications links and labor supplies essential to its National-Imperialist goals. Both the unilateralist Neocons grouped around the present administration and those advocating a return to a multilateral, shared-power, posture of the Clinton-democrats no longer represent viable options.
Although the quarrel between the two National Parties of Corporate-Capital may mean the difference between the continuation of murderous Imperialism and Imperialism Lite, or returning Iron Fist to the Velvet Glove, the goal is international economic and when necessary political domination. The National process of the inter-party debate and political maneuvering are changing the political landscape of the process of meeting the insatiable needs of National and transnational Capitalism. Furthermore, the long term tendencies of Capitalism that gave rise to the corporate form have been resulting in radical changes in the norms of capitalist practices that have affected the political relations between the state and Capital that go beyond classic economic theory. The cumulative affects of the cultivated interplay between the State and Corporate-Capital has already taken corporate operations beyond Classic Capitalism in ways that have brought Corporate-Capital to high levels of political prominence that are influencing major transformations in State relations with Capital that have resulted in what may be called State Capitalism. The operations of the National-State and Corporate-Capital have never been as a tightly coordinated and both are turning their back on democracy.
I argue that the authoritarian character and operational style of Corporate-Capital insinuates its culture of regimentation and conformism into the operations of the host state and subverts democratic standards, forms and processes of decision making as it circumvents the practices and content of the remnants of popular democracy, thus changing the nature of the Constitutional State.