Category Administrative & Regulatory Reforms

Origin of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party

Democrats and Republicans are competing fiercely in the midterm election for the US Congress term. These are the two major political parties of the United States and each party that needs power will take the superpower in different directions both internally and externally.

So what are their sources?

According to Mayan Melanie, in the article “The Origin Of The American Democratic Party”, although the Democratic Party and the Republican Party in the US seem to be extremely opposite now, the origin of the two This party is not like that. In essence, both originate from a single party, the Democratic-Republican Party, founded in 1791 by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. The purpose of the then Democratic-Republican Party was to oppose the Federalist Party in subsequent elections.


The Democratic-Republican Party supports states’ rights, and literally interprets the Constitution. They also prioritize financial and legal support for household-based agriculture. Fearing the United States would resemble the British monarchy, the Democratic Party – Republican against the elite. They despise and fear the people of the Federal Party, extremely wealthy nobles, who want to create a federal bank, and uphold the power of the federal government rather than the state government.

In the period 1815 – 1832, the Democratic Party – Republican organization gradually became loose. No longer competing pressure, they also do not need a united front. States begin to nominate their own local electors, who have a strong personal interest. This caused the internal party to be divided into many factions. Specifically, this split led to the creation of the modern Democratic Party (symbolized as a donkey), along with another political party, the Whig Party in 1828. The Democratic Party, led by Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, composed of peasantry, urban workers, and Irish Catholics. Although the Democratic Party did not gain much support in the states of New England, it gained broad support in New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the western states.

In 1850, Democrats in the US Congress approved the “Compromise of 1850”, which included a series of bills to prevent civil war breaking out around slavery. Basically, this Agreement banned slavery in the western states; however, it also included a bill called the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

After the Compromise of 1850, the Democratic Party became popular, while the Whig Party began to lose unity and become increasingly divided over slavery and anti-immigration. In 1852, the Whig Party disbanded, making the opposition very weak compared to the Democratic Party in the same year election.


The anti-slavery Democrats left the party one after another and joined the remaining Whig Party members in the North to form the Republican Party in 1854. The party first came to power in 1860 when Abraham Lincoln was elected president and won the US Civil War. In the United States, people still call the Republican Party the nickname GOP (Grand Old Party). Republican symbol is an elephant.

Regarding religious origins, the Northern Republican Party is primarily a follower of the Presbyterian Church, the Methodist Movement, and the Congregation Justice (Congregation), while most of the Democrats are Catholics, Anglicans, and people of German descent who follow the Lutheran Church. Due to such a deep division, issues such as prohibited laws are difficult to solve. Similar to today’s political climate, Republicans thought the government should intervene in ethical issues (such as drinking alcohol) to protect citizens from sin, while the Democratic Party argued that the government was not allowed to introduce laws that interfere with religion or morality.

FIFA studies the transfer of juvenile players

FIFA president Gianni Infantino said the organization will consider changing regulations on transfer of adolescent players after the Chelsea club’s banning of two transfers.

Last week, Chelsea were banned from signing any player for the next two transfers because they were found guilty of violating FIFA’s regulations on signing contracts with foreign players under 18 years old. FIFA law stipulates that players aged 18 and under can only transfer to foreign countries if they meet one of the following three criteria: If the player’s parents migrate for reasons unrelated to football; Both clubs are in Europe or in the European Economic Area; and players aged 16 to 18 or players who live within a radius of 100 km from the new club.


Clubs like Barcelona, ​​Real Madrid and Atletico Madrid have also been banned from transfer in recent years due to violations of the statute. And at the press conference in Rome (Italy) on 27 February, Mr. Infantino emphasized that there is a need to study carefully to renew the regulations.

Reuters cited Infantino’s statement as saying: “There are rules and regulations whether we like it or not and still have to comply when they are valid. If we don’t like them, we need to change … Maybe we should increase the minimum age across Europe, or we need to allow certain exceptions based on some clear criteria, to boys or girls may have good exercise conditions on the one hand, but on the other hand, can protect minors. That is our main priority, so this is definitely the area that we must study and continue to research in the future”.

Infantino also said FIFA intends to review the rules for the operation of the soccer. “We are planning to review regulations governing football players’ representatives because they feel the need to revise these rules to achieve better results”, he said. Current financial flows related to transfer are about 8 billion euros/year, not to mention the amount paid to the players. So I think it will only be fair if there are statutes for people involved in transfer missions, their careers clearly need to be managed. All other careers are managed and followed disciplines in Italy and around the world, so why are the agents not?”


The FIFA head added that players in the US are following stricter regulations. “Look at what’s happening in the US. The country is often taken as an example, but the United States is home to a market of economic freedom. Everything is open, people do what they want. But these industries are strictly regulated. In the United States there are a large number of books that govern transfer and change issues related to clubs and representatives. In Europe and FIFA, we have only small books, so we have some work to do…”.

4 potential legal issues of President Trump

In addition to the investigation of election funds and the relationship with the Russian side, President Trump also faces several other legal problems.

Not only the investigation by Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller about the connection between the 2016 presidential campaign with Russia, President Trump is also facing legal problems. Other headaches no less.

1. President Trump’s swearing-in ceremony

On December 13, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Commission for the inauguration ceremony of Mr. Trump’s President in 2017 is under investigation for federal crime.

The committee received up to $ 107 million in funding, including $ 14 million from sponsors working for investment and securities companies and nearly $ 10 million from real estate agents. product. The total amount for Mr. Trump’s swearing-in ceremony is nearly double that of his 2009 Barack Obama predecessor.

Investigators are currently investigating how much money the sworn-in commission has been used and whether regular sponsors seek to reach the new government.

6 van de phap ly tiem tang cua tong thong trump hinh 1

A report by ProPublica on December 14 expressed the concern of a “top event organizer” that, Trump International Hotel in Washington “rates” room, food and facilities provided for The committee is in charge of Mr. Trump’s oath and this may violate tax laws.

When asked about the information WSJ posted, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said, “This is not related to the President or the First Lady”. Even if this is true, there are many friends or close relationships of Mr. Trump and his daughter, Ivanka, that are deeply involved in the swearing-in plan.

2. Foreign influence

The focus of Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller’s investigation is to see if there is any relationship between Russia and Trump’s campaign. However, according to recent reports, doubts have extended the relevance of other countries.

The Daily Beast article said, stage 2 in the prosecutor Mueller’s investigation will begin next year and includes a record of the relationship between Mr. Trump’s campaign with Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Kết quả hình ảnh cho 6 vấn đề pháp lý tiềm tàng của Tổng thống Trump

The New York Times said that New York investigators are considering whether any foreign characters illegally funded President Trump’s inauguration committee.

Mueller Prosecutor’s investigation team is also said to be investigating Trump support groups to see if the groups will receive money from overseas during the 2016 election campaign. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are once again mentioned, along with Qatar.

3. Trump Hotel

Shortly after his election, Mr. Trump announced that his business would donate all income originating from foreign governments to the US Treasury.

In March, Trump Foundation funded $ 151,470 in interest from foreign governments in 2017, although the organization did not provide details. This procedure is done to avoid omitting regulations on foreign earnings in the US Constitution, thereby prohibiting federal officials from receiving gifts or payments from foreign officials or representatives.

Kết quả hình ảnh cho Trump Hotel

Although the President’s lawyers said that this procedure is not mandatory, Mr. Trump is committed to doing so to avoid missing or exceeding what the Constitution requires.

However, in June 2018, the head of the judicial department of Washington DC and Maryland sued Mr. Trump, accusing Mr. Trump of benefiting from the expenses the foreign government spent on Trump hotels. especially the hotel is located not far from the White House in Washington DC.

4. Trump Fund

New York investigators are also conducting a review of the Trump charity. The head of the New York state judicial agency, Barbara Underwood, accused Trump – a tax-exempt charity, be used as a tool to serve Mr. Trump’s political purpose.

Kết quả hình ảnh cho Trump Fund

During the 2016 presidential campaign, the Washington Post reporter, David Fahrenthold, revealed how Mr. Trump used the money from charitable funds – mostly funded by friends and close relationships – to settle business lawsuits and finance activities to build support for his campaign.

If this allegation is true, Mr. Trump may face financial fines, a 10-year ban on any nonprofit organization in New York. In addition, his three children, Eric, Ivanka and Donald Jr. may also face a similar ban within a year.





Controversy About The Legitimacy Of Bitcoin In India To The Supreme Court

The lack of a clear legal policy for crypto currencies like Bitcoin has made a petition letter sent straight to the Supreme Court of India, the most powerful judiciary in the South Asian nation.

Bitcoin is not currently recognized as a legitimate means of payment in India. However, no one said it was illegal. The official stance, according to a notice issued by the central bank of India in February, writes: “… the bank does not license/authorize any institution or company to conduct a good business trading Bitcoin or any electronic currency; investors who do business with Bitcoin will have to take risks for their own actions”.

In an effort to erase ambiguity, a lawyer aroused this issue by filing a petition of group interests (Public Interest Litigation – PIL) on the Supreme Court on November 3.

This petition was only released in the past few days, when the Court representative revealed that this was a request from Dwaipayan Bhowmick to urge the country’s government to quickly establish a “Bitcoin flow management” mechanism and make sure it can be audited.

The PIL version contains: “The lack of a solid mechanism to set up a legal framework is making a lot of loop holes, eventually leading to the inability to audit or monitor bitcoin transactions and transfers together pre-algorithm”.

We will mobilize ourselves

Indeed, the fact that it is unmanaged or recognized by the Government has frustrated the Indian industry, so much so that they have to formulate a self-monitoring institution earlier this year. Standardization of procedures for Customer Information Management (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) is one of the main focus of this apparatus, besides acting as a supervisory body for the scene community report on the pre-algorithm scams in India.

Kết quả hình ảnh cho Tranh cãi về tính hợp pháp của Bitcoin tại Ấn Độ lên đến Toà án Tối cao

Indian officials then established the “Virtual Monetary Commission”, which is a collection of representatives from ministries and departments related to the financial sector who have many cases of researching and proposing a regulatory framework domestic pre-algorithm segmentation.

The role of the Central Bank

And yet, the petition also “blames” the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) – the country’s central bank – and the Securities and Exchange Commission of India (SEBI), said that these two agencies are always “push” responsibility for each other in electronic money monitoring.

Kết quả hình ảnh cho Tranh cãi về tính hợp pháp của Bitcoin tại Ấn Độ lên đến Toà án Tối cao

“Needless to say, RBI and SEBI are trying to push responsibility for the other when constantly arguing over the issue so calling Bitcoin currency or goods”, the petition stressed. PIL then called on the Supreme Court to issue appropriate guidelines for managing the bitcoin flow (and electronic money) and ensure that the state treasury could audit it.

The fact that a group of lawsuit petitions was submitted to the Supreme Court only appeared a week after RBI said it still could not consider Bitcoin as a means of payment or money transfer. Besides, the central bank is in the process of building its own legal algorithm currency, which is the future replacement for the current rupee local currency.







Bureaucracy: Thou Shall Not Speak

Bureaucracy, specifically All India Services, is in the news again.  It is being flogged for all the unjust and unfair reasons.  A young lady IAS officer of two years seniority was suspended in a northern state without proper inquiry only to be reinstated when baseless charges came in the public domain.  Fortunately, media took up the case and debated the implications of such an arbitrary action.  The actors in governance did not pause or were concerned to take stock of the impact it will have on the morale of junior civil servants.  The debate in media reached a crescendo when an important political leader stated that the State could do better without All India Services.  The latest FIR in coalgate scam involving the then Coal Secretary Mr. Parakh is alarming and painful because it raises the basic issue of advice and recommendatory role of civil servants.  Fortunately, the political master in this case has risen above the controversy to confirm the transparency, propriety and integrity of the decision. The letter sent to the then Cabinet Secretary in 2005 by Mr. Parakh highlights the political culture of trampling the system. The undercurrent message of this episode is being debated in many smaller groups in bureaucracy regarding the hazards of decision making.

The real story of retired civil servants facing investigation and charges has not been highlighted or explored by mainstream media.  Such retired officers facing charges are compelled to engage defence attorney who may charge Rs. 1-2 lakh per appearance.  The justice in most of these cases is rendered after a long trial period.  The unfortunate retired civil servant exhausts all his savings in protecting his image. There is lack of systemic mechanisms to screen the charges with reference to prevailing circumstances and the delivery expectations.

Of late, the officers are being subjected to a draconian provision, section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for criminal misconduct.  It reads, “While holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest”.  Simply interpreted, it will invite prosecution if a decision results in pecuniary gain to any individual, corporate or any organization.  The interpretation of public interest is often ‘subjective’.  In today’s scenario, public servants take a decision for development and growth.  Private sector is invariably a partner in such endeavours.  It is difficult to imagine a decision which would not impact in terms of gain or loss to economic actors be it private, public or both.  There are any number of economic decisions which are made, reviewed, amended, depending on the circumstances and economic challenges.  Very recently, spectrum prices have been revised downward.  It could be argued that such a downward revision was too steep and helped private sector.  It is also possible to interpret that unutilized spectrum is a greater loss in terms of revenue to the country.  It also affects consumer satisfaction as the quality of service for want of adequate spectrum suffers.  This draconian provision can be applied with the benefit of hindsight without appreciating exigencies at the time of decision making.  In spite of repeated recommendations of various committees, this provision in the Prevention of Corruption Act is yet to be omitted.   Hon’ble Prime Minister promised to put in place a system and create an environment in which civil servants are encouraged to be decisive.  He further promised to protect honest and well meaning civil servants.  Unfortunately, there is a huge gap between the promise and the delivery.

The Second Administrative Reforms Commission has observed that “Governance is admittedly the weak link in our quest for prosperity and equity”.  The consistent end performance in achieving the growth targets points to poor governance.  While it may not be a feasible proposition to achieve major reforms in the civil service due to lack of consensus at the political level, a minimal agenda of reform in civil service should not be out of bounds.

It is not denied that there exists a ‘spoil’ system where transfers and postings have been described as an industry.  Political interference and pressure on civil servants has become cancerous.  More than 600 committees and commissions, according to Second Administrative Reforms Commission, have looked into different aspects of civil service reforms.  It is important to eliminate the ad-hoc and non-transparent transfers and postings which often reflect the whims and caprices of political functionaries.  There is a need to do away politicized transfers and assure officers a certain security of tenure and demand accountability.  There are States where the District Magistrates and Superintendents of Police have an average tenure of about six months.  The implications of such a decision are well-known; but little has been done to check the rot.  The transferred officer is demoralized.  Knowledge and expertise gained during short stint is wasted.    There is a huge financial burden both on the State as well as on the officer concerned.  It is common knowledge that the States with administrative instability find officers keeping two establishments – one for the work station and the other for the family.  Its negative impact on the efficiency is self-evident.  The conference of Chief Ministers has passed resolutions for the constitution of civil service boards to depoliticize the so called transfer/posting industry.  Unfortunately, these have remained on paper and no one has questioned the gross political interference in the transfer/posting and also in disciplinary matters.  A Civil Service Board properly constituted could be entrusted with the task of managing the personnel matters and advise the Chief Minister on administrative matters.  It is important that all pre-mature transfers should be accompanied with a detailed reasoned order so as to become a subject matter of scrutiny for legislature, media and civil society.  Normally, a civil servant should be given a fixed tenure of minimum three years to foster fair and objective decision along with accountability and performance.

In recent controversies, there have been references to different forms of communications including oral orders for compliance from superior to the junior. There should be a blanket ban on any communication which has not been formally recorded.  Even urgent communications not conveyed in writing should be referred for confirmation as early as possible. Once implemented, the above suggestions would positively contribute to the quality of delivery and implementation of policies and programmes and overall, ensure efficiency and transparency in governance.

By Nripendra Misra, former Chairman of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India & Director, Public Interest Foundation

(This article was published in Dainik Jagran on 31st Oct, 2013 and The New Indian Express on 5th Nov, 2013)