Last week’s decree made by Egypt’s president Mohamed Morsi brought Egyptians back to the streets. The decree, that has six articles, states that declarations, laws and decrees, made by Morsi during his presidency, cannot be appealed, suspended nor cancelled, until a constitution is drafted and the parliament elected. Neither can any judicial body annul them.

Following the announcement of the new decree the Egyptians have been extremely divided: People pro-Morsi agree that the decision he made was the only way to get rid of the remaining parts of the old Mubarak regime, while those against Morsi’s latest venture predicts another dictatorship, with the Muslim Brotherhood setting the agenda, if the new president gets away with implementing this new decree. Adding to this the constitution was put into vote Thursday, 29 November 2012 in spite of the fact that a significant number of non-Islamic representatives had left the constituent assembly after been called back to rethink their decision Wednesday evening, meaning that no Leftists, Liberals or Christians were left to vote.

Judging from what can be witnessed in Cairo these days – with a vast number of Egyptians occupying Tahrir Square, protesting against the current political actions by the president and the Muslim Brotherhood, who is seen as his close ally – a second revolution could be imminent. However, looking back at the economical situation of Egypt the last two years, following the 25 January revolution that had former president Hosni Mubarak step down, it is inevitable to ask: Can Egypt afford a second revolution?

It cannot be denied that Egypt’s economy has been struggling, especially since the revolution, which among other things has led to an IMF loan. According to the Egyptian newspaper, Al Ahram Online’s English version, the Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS) reports that the poverty rate is rising, thus has increased from 21.6 % in year 2008/2009 to 25.5 % in year 2010/2011: With 69% of the population in rural areas living under the poverty line, of which Assiut Governorate in Upper Egypt has the highest poverty rate nationwide. The difference in the amount of money, annually spend on expenses between the poorest part of the population and the richest, is 17.500 LE ($2864).

On an individual level the aftermath of the revolution has resulted in income lost, as one woman from the Shubra suburb in Cairo says in a research interview conducted in relation to my MA thesis: “In the beginning I was with the revolution [the 25 January revolution] and I was very happy because of it, but really, after some time my husband’s business was very bad, because he is related to tourism, so we sold everything; I sold my gold, we sold our car, the business, really, we faced big problems, so I hated it, really, in the end of it.”

And she is not alone. Several of the 45 people interviewed for the research express that they have been affected economically one way or the other as a consequence of the revolution.

Thus regardless of the sympathy one feel with the Egyptians right now camping in the sit-in at Tahrir square, keeping up their fight for democracy, it is hard not to sit back with the question: Can Egypt afford a second revolution? At the same time it must be remembered that during the January 25 revolution the demands were: ‘Bread, Freedom and Social Justice’, which nonetheless implies that the uprising witnessed was not just an opposition to the Mubarak regime, but a resistance towards the entire system applied by Mubarak and his regime. From such a perspective the current reaction is not surprising, since yet the people neither got their bread, freedom nor social Justice. On the other hand, the risk of another two years in transition, with sceptical tourists agencies, worried investors and migrating youth is unendurable and leaves Egypt’s future with very challenged future prospects.

Planned demonstrations among liberals and leftists will Saturday take place in Tahrir, which was initially intended opposed by president Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood and their supporters with a million-man counterdemonstration, however Thursday night it has been announced that the Muslim Brotherhood and their allies will move their demonstration to a different location to “protect Egypt’s national interests against division and conflict”.

The Egyptians are anticipated to return to the streets in big numbers the coming days, continuing their battle for bread, freedom and social justice, hopefully it will not end with a second revolution.

Image Courtesy : James A Dawson / Shutterstock.com

The article Can Egypt Afford a Second Revolution? appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Clinton, U.S.A. – “The issue of civil marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples is an issue of public policy, not theology,” says Rev.Delman Coates a supporter of civil marriage protection for gay and lesbian couples.

”For too long the question of equal rights for gays and lesbians has been mired in a theological debate that in my opinion is not suitable in a public policy discussion,” Delman further states.

“The role of the State in a free democratic society is fundamentally different than the role of the Church, or any religious institution for that matter.  The role of the State in a pluralistic society is to provide for the common good and to protect the civil liberties of all its citizens.  As a Christian in this country, I value my religious freedom, but I also recognize that I cannot impose my religious beliefs on others in matters of public policy.

It is completely legitimate for people of faith to debate the moral legitimacy of same sex marriage as a religious rite, but that question is more appropriate for a different arena; the theological seminary, the pulpit, or the Bible study group, for example.   In the public policy arena, the issue is simply whether gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights and civil liberties as other American citizens.  For me, the answer to that question is a resounding “yes.”

As a nation, we have always held that the ideals of our Constitution supersede subjective religious beliefs and views.   One’s personal religious beliefs about homosexuality should not be the basis for determining whether same gender loving couples deserve equal treatment under the law.

To do so establishes a discriminatory and dangerous public policy precedent that potentially threatens the civil liberties of all people.  As a Christian minister, I believe my role is to live in my faith, not to legislate it, and as long as the State does not seek to regulate the Church, the Church should not seek to regulate the State.

Civil marriage protection for gay and lesbian couples in no way infringes upon the right of religious bodies to define religious marriage as they see fit based upon their traditions, doctrine, and scriptural interpretations.  Religious institutions have always acknowledged the role of the State to provide civil marriage for all citizens regardless of their belief system or religious background. Every union acknowledged by the State, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is a civil marriage, and is not synonymous with religious marriage.

Civil marriages, therefore, do not have the power to determine, delimit, or define how religious institutions treat marriage based upon their own values, beliefs, and scriptural interpretations.

Religious marriage is solely province of a community of faith, and there is no legislative act that can be imposed upon faith communities to acknowledge, sanction, or perform.  Just as the State has no jurisdiction over the theological beliefs, practices, and ordinances of any house of worship, religious institutions should not seek to restrict equal opportunity to others in matters of public policy.

While there are a range of theological views about same sex marriage, all Americans can stand united under the banner of extending civil liberties and justice to all citizens.  People of faith will not allow their theological diversity on this or other issues to be exploited for political gain.

The welfare of our nation rests upon growing our economy, preserving the social safety nets for the poor and the elderly, and creating a civil society of mutuality, tolerance, and respect,” the senior pastor at Mt. Ennon Baptist Church says. He is of the opinion that one’s personal religious beliefs should have no bearing in determining whether other American citizens deserve equal treatment under the law.

The article Gay Marriages an Issue of Public Policy, Not Theology appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

SUVA, Fiji – All five members of the Republic of Fiji’s Constitutional Commission are in place. The Constitutional Commission is comprised of two international experts, and three Fijian representatives, as outlined by Fijian Prime Minister Josaia Voreqe Bainimarama in March 2012. Now that the full commission has been named, for the first time in Fiji’s history there is a female majority in a representative body.

These five individuals will contribute their respective expertise and intimate knowledge of Fijian politics, life, and position in the region and world to properly lead the way to the creation of Fiji’s first truly representative constitution. As announced by the Fijian Government in March of this year, once feedback from all Fijians is collected, the Constitutional Commission will be responsible for drafting the new constitution. The draft will then be delivered to the Constituent Assembly for review near the end of this year or early next.

Biographies of the five members are as follows:

Professor Yash Ghai, Chairman of the Commission, is a world-renowned constitutional scholar, and has completed extensive research in the areas of human rights, sociology of law, and federalism and autonomy. Professor Ghai has taught and performed research in law at universities across the globe, including Yale Law School, the National University of Singapore, Harvard Law School, and the International Legal Center in New York.

From 2000 to 2004, Professor Ghai served as the Chairman of the Constitution of Kenya Review Commission, and throughout his career, has consulted NGOs on the legal framework around human rights matters.

From 2005-2008, Professor Ghai served as a Special Representative of the UN Secretary General in Cambodia on human rights, and between 2006-2008, he headed the UNDP Constitution Advisory Unit in Nepal. Professor Ghai’s publications include a number of books that address laws in different countries, including Africa and the South Pacific nations. Currently, he is UNDP adviser in Libya and advises the Constitutional Commission in South Sudan.

Professor Christina Murray is a human rights and constitutional expert; professor of constitutional and human rights law at the University of Cape Town; and the current Jennings Randolf Senior Fellow at the United States Institute for Peace in Washington, DC. Professor Murray has an extensive career spanning cultures outside the South Pacific region, having served as a member of the Kenyan Committee of Experts appointed by the Kenyan Parliament to draft a new Constitution of Kenya – approved and promulgated in August 2010.

For two years between 1995 and 1996, Professor Murray advised on the drafting of South Africa’s “final” Constitution – directly with the South African Constitutional Assembly. With a distinguished academic career, Professor Murray has taught and authored works that span a variety of subject areas – including human rights law; constitutional rights for women; violence against women; gender equality; international, and constitutional law.

Fijian member Penelope “Peni” Moore is a human rights expert, veteran of the civil society and NGO movement, and third appointed female member of the commission. Moore was trained in veterinary medicine and worked with the SPCA for four years before becoming the first coordinator for the Fiji Women’s Rights Movement from 1987 to 1993.

From there, Moore assumed the post as Creative Director at Women’s Action for Change (WAC) for the next 18 years, working to empower marginalized communities throughout Fiji. This includes mentoring at-risk juveniles; rehabilitating former prisoners; and empowering women to achieve economic independence. Also a commissioner in the Fiji Legal Aid Commission, Moore brings years of on-the-ground experience to this new position, as well as a broader understanding of the regional dynamics involved.

Fijian member Dr. Satendra Nandan is an academic, a writer, and former Member of Parliament. In 1969, Dr. Nandan joined the University of the South Pacific after being a schoolteacher for years prior. Dr. Nandan joined the House of Representatives in 1982, later winning the 1987 election on the Fiji Labour Party ticket, and served as the Minister of Health and Social Welfare.

Shortly thereafter, Dr. Nandan migrated to Australia to accept a position at the Australian National University in Canberra, where he is the Professor of Literature and Director of the Centre for Writing. Another of his current titles is Professor of Humanities and the Arts at the University of Fiji.

Fijian member Taufa Vakatale was the first female Fijian principal at Adi Cakobau School for girls, sharing a decorated history of experience in academia. Appointed Chief Education Officer in 1983, Vakatale was instrumental in driving curriculum innovations in secondary education, and establishing vocational centres.

From 1993 – 1995, Vakatale served as Fiji’s Minister of Education, Science, and Technology. Considered a pioneer in education, Vakatale’s intimate knowledge of the Fijian education system and extensive first-hand experience with various sides of education and political networks position her as a valuable resource in understanding how it all can be streamlined in such a way that will provide optimal and widespread benefits.

A member of the YWCA and other women’s organisations, Taufa Vakatale is a strong supporter of campaigns for justice and peace. Vakatale accepted the appointment as the first female Deputy Prime Minister of Fiji when in the SVT Rabuka Government from 1997 – 1999.

The article New Constitutional Commission for Fiji appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Despite being only 7 kilometers apart, citizens of Villarejo, Segovia have three times less the voice in the Spanish general election than their neighbors in Somosierra, Madrid. Interestingly enough, a vote in Villarejo is equivalent to 3 votes in Somosierra.

This is possible owing the particular electoral system that Spain adopted into its constitution in 1978. Despite the bicameral system, the legislative power is nowadays mainly held by the Congress with 350 deputies selected during general elections.

For this purpose, the country is divided into 50 provinces each one granted with minimum two deputies just for the matter of being a province and two autonomous cities, both in Morocco coastline, with one deputy. So from 350 total deputies, 102 are fixed among provinces and 248 are divided equally between all the provinces by their number of registered voters.

According to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Madrid is granted two deputies per province plus 33 deputies for its 4.5 million registered voters while Segovia has two deputies plus one for its 124,000 electors. A deputy must obtain over 128,000 votes to be elected in Madrid — far more than the whole total amount of registered voters in Segovia, where only around 40,000 votes can decide a deputy. Sometimes it gets worse — like between Barcelona and Teruel were differences are even bigger.

This makes the voting system bipolar; on one side, regional parties always campaign for their own province’s welfare, obviating the needs of other parts of the country and targeting only potential voters living within the same region. They therefore reach a very limited number of deputies.

On the other hand, the main nationwide political parties, Partido Popular (PP) and Partido Socialista Obrero Español (PSOE), target citizens throughout the country and have obtained the bulk of deputies so far. In Spain since 1982 there have been eight general elections where both PP and PSOE together obtained between 80 and 92 percent of the 350 deputies while remaining in positions covered by minority regional parties and other minority nationwide parties.

This system made a lot of sense when it was approved back in December 1978, only three years after the death of dictator Francisco Franco. By that time, the dictatorship had centralized all power and control in Madrid to make it easier to oversee what was going on and rule the entire nation.

But when the democratic process began, many regions started to claim autonomy. The dictatorship had severely repressed the desire of autonomy in regions like Catalonia and Basque Country, abolishing antique fiscal privileges and suppressing the recognition of Basque and Catalan as official languages.

Regions have been struggling for more independence after Franco´s death and while dismantling the old regime structure and creating a democratic one, the makers of the constitution feared a national partition into several independent countries — or a new civil war. In order to avoid this, they developed a voting system to support more power in regional minorities.

Nowadays, all Spanish regions have obtained more authority on such matters as education, health, transportation, economy, public security and so forth, transferred by the central government over three decades. They have gained an autonomous status with their own regional elections and parliament.

Moreover, the central government has given many other authorities to Brussels after the admission to the European Union. So what is the point of maintaining the system unchanged if regional minorities today have gained most of their demands? For instance, Izquierda Unida (IU), a political party whose ideals rest between communism and socialism obtained at the last general elections almost a million votes — but only obtained two deputies.

Meanwhile, Partido Nacionalista Vasco (PNV), a seeker for independence of Basque Country, received merely 300.000 votes but gained six deputies. Obviously, the vote to deputy ratio does not hold. Imagine that someone decides to create a new party supporting gay and lesbian rights and gains support in the community.

Unfortunately, the gay community is considered a national minority; in aggregated numbers there are several hundred thousands but divided by provinces, their numbers are limited, as low as 3 percent, and not enough to obtain a deputy to represent them. Project this to other national minorities like environmental activists, communists, immigrants with the right to vote, pacifist and so on. Under this system they will never be able to obtain a chair in the Chamber of Deputies.

In 2008, according to the Ministry of Home Affairs, there were 98 different political parties. Nevertheless, two parties obtained more than 90 percent of deputies, effectively holding the legislative right og Spain without effectively representing the diversity of the nation.

The last opinion poll dated September 2011, just two months before the polling day, shows the same scenario for next general elections. A scenario where the PP and PSOE will obtain over 75 percent of the total votes. Either the Spanish citizens are quite homogeneous or there is a fake democracy in place where plurality has no effect.

Democracy is not only the right to vote once every four years, nor the right to do it freely and secretly. Democracy must encourage dialogue, space for confrontation between ideas and ideals, space to be heard and a space to defend your rights.
Natursports / Shutterstock.com

The article The Death of Spanish Democracy? appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The new constitution recently passed by the Hungarian parliament is matter of concern about some of its articles, which seem to put at risk even fundamental human rights and smooth the way for different kinds of discrimination.

On April 25^th President Pal Schimtt signed the new constitutional text presented by the parliament. The new constitution was passed in parliament without the participation of opposition parties, voted only by Fidesz, the right-wing party that has the parliamentary majority and owns the two thirds of the seats, and thus can proceed independently.

The most criticized articles regard abortion, homosexuals’ rights, freedom of religion, freedom of information and expression, and division of powers.

Article 2 is one of the most controversial, it states “The life of a fetus will be protected from conception.” The concern of organizations as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International is that this will provide the basis to restrict the access to abortion or even to ban it completely. Pro-abortion groups are worried about the potential danger of a tougher and stricter abortion law and a restriction of women’s rights.

Another crucial point is about the ban on gay marriage, and the exclusion of sexual orientation from the protected grounds of discrimination. The new constitution recalls the idea of the Christian traditional family and traditional marriage, defined as a union of a man and a woman. Disappointment on this question has been expressed by Amnesty International, and homosexual right’s groups are very critical.

Also freedom of information and expression seem to be undermined. In fact, the rights of being informed about the public interest’s acts and to freely express the personal opinion have been restricted, together with the independence of media. This will be controlled by the National Media and Infocommunication Authority (NMHH), that has strong sanctioning powers and is under the majority party’s control.

Also the powers and the autonomy of authorities and of independent bodies as the Constitutional Court, the regular courts and the ombudsmen, would be rather weakened, scaling down the whole system of checks and balances.

There is another point which has a marked ideological nationalistic connotation. It regards the reference to a broadened Hungarian nation. This model of new Hungary would include also the Hungarians whom don’t reside on the national territory – for example the Hungarian minority groups that live in Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia – that are being considered as member of the nation with the right of participate in the elections. This could appear an actual definition of ethnic nation instead of political, which could even create frictions with the neighboring countries.

The new constitutional document strongly reflects only a one-sided vision of the nation. All the symbols and the elements recalled are ideologically and politically clear expression of the right-wing part. The lack of neutrality and of warranty of normal political balance, competition and change among the parts sounds somewhat anomalous for a modern democratic country.

In a country as Hungary marked by a long and hard history made of totalitarianism, whether black or red, this removal from democratic values rouses worry and the criticism even of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe. Meanwhile, Europe looks with concerns at this situation as Hungary waits for 2012 when the new constitution will come into force.

The article Hungary Passes a Controversial New Constitution appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.