The methodology for the formation of government and the organizing of mankind is generally known as politics, in a sense that it should be fair, honest and transparent enough to be relied on by the general public.

Politics, or political systems for that matter, has become an integral part of everyday life; people in democratic countries view it as an opportunity of selecting people to govern the state for a specified term based on their preferences. Human life viewed from the corridors of broad logic and the prism of intellect reveals to us something extraordinarily vital about how it moves on and what affects it the most.

Principle perspectives defining human existence tell us that there are three elements that can be regarded as there epitome for survival: namely religious, social and economic, all bonded directly or indirectly through politics, impacting human life.

The extent of the government’s power is naturally limited to economic and social matters among others, because democratic countries rely on pillars of secularism to erect the structure of a neutral state. Politics acts as primary parameter for people to make judgments on how society should be formed, expressed through voting and secondly because the preferences of people helps the government to satisfy the desire of individuals by bringing in new laws and principles in accordance to people’s preferences.

But contrary to its reputation, politics acts as a servant of society by revolving around the corner of human life. In simple terms, it is a system that depends on how people feel, being expressed through voting. This is because indirectly the whole of the political system is responsible for leading the society towards certain goals. For example, in the case of less-developed nations, the ultimate focus of the system will be on how to enhance the system of social justice, economic opportunities and social dignity for individuals.

In democratic countries, society acts as a center of the universe and politics just orbits around it; survival of an entire polity in a great degree is reciprocal of survival and the enrichment of society. In case of a multiparty democracy, the primary goal of all parties will always be achieving targets envisioned for making a country prosperous, but routes they follow may differ.

But in case of theocratic governance systems, the whole establishment of governance is based on scripture or philosophy, so there arises a question of political in-fighting for supremacy.

Politics minus dirty vote-maximizing and winning tricks can lead to a path of peace and consistent prosperity, but the onus of cleaning the dirt is with the public.

Thankfully, its development of political philosophy over the years served us with the different forms of governments and establishments of societies, ultimately leading towards an augmented governing system.

The article Orbit of Politics appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

In the past weeks Muslims around the world have been offended, hurt and upset as a consequence of Westerners feeling the need to stress their freedom of expression — but for what reason?

Except for a few details, the recent incidences have had remarkable similarities with something we have seen before: the short film ‘Submission‘, made in 2004 by Theo van Goghon, a Dutch film director, and Somalia-born Ayaan Hirsi and the Mohammed Cartoons incident by a Danish newspaper in 2005, which caused the Arab world to boycott Danish-produced goods like dairy products. These are just a few of the examples to be mentioned.

Most Muslims in Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world keep their feelings to themselves and their family and friends, or express them in a peaceful way – just like many Westerners fail to comprehend the purpose of publishing that type of material, time and again. However, it seems like a controversy that we, on both sides, are forced to witness again and again which makes it valuable to investigate some potential underlying dynamics for the recent incidents.

According to Politiken.dk, a feeling exists in the Arab world of differential treatment practiced by Western Governments; examples include that Western Governments support free will except in cases where Islamic parties win elections. They fight for human rights except in countries where the oppressor is a dictator who cooperates with the Western world; Western Governments support freedom of religion, except when it concerns Islam.

Additionally, Western politicians continuously make hostile comments about Muslims and Islam. This is reinforced by my research (to be published in Arab-West Report in April 2013) on the migration of Egyptians where Muslims indicate that they feel as second class citizens in their own country next to expats living there. At the same time they feel unwelcome in Western countries such as the U.S.A. and several European countries.

So while Western countries claim they are fighting for equal rights, freedom to be whoever you are, as well as the right to control your own life, it easily comes across as the exact opposite in the countries that are the target for that fight.

Politiken.dk continues that while the mentioned examples by people in the Arab World are perceived as differential treatment and interference, Western Governments understand it as isolated reactions to specific incidents. This could be related to what Charles Clay Lemert, Professor in Sociology, characterizes as ‘colonization’ in his book Sociale Forhold -En indføring i det sociologiske liv (2004), which he defines as the process where people with power and money get the idea that their theories and perspectives of the world gives them the right to take over other countries, their assets and sometimes even the soul of the native people, who rarely are in a position to defend themselves.

And it is all justified by the perception that the invasion will result in a better moral, a better political system, and in general a better way of living. But according to whom?

If the world is believed to be a social construction that only makes sense in relation to the society in which it exists, it makes sense that people around the world have not only different ways of living, but more importantly different perceptions of what ‘the better way of living’ is. No doubts that people in the Arab world are dreaming about a better world, as witnessed during the Arab Spring that last year permeated in several Arab countries. We are still, at the time of writing, witnessing how Syrians fight against the local regime, or how Palestinians continuously experience their rights to land reduced — but is this battle a cry for the Western world to free them from Islam, Islamist or Islamic values?

Without a doubt there is a perception in the Western world that politics and religion should be two separate entities in a modern society, anno 2012 — or is there? Maybe it is more the perception that politics and Islam should be separated? This leads back to the imagination of the world as a social construction: if we acknowledge that different people have different perceptions of ‘the better way of living’, it might again be reasonable to assume that different societies have different ways of structuring a democracy.

Can democratic values not be implemented in a religious society? It is true that according to the construction of democracy that exists in the Western world, it is difficult entities to unite, but Egypt and the rest of the Arab world have a different way of constructing their societies. In this light it might be fair to assume that the construction of a democracy, in these countries, would contain different elements than what we see in Western countries’ understanding of democracy -elements that focus less on freedom of expression and more on mutual respect and the right to practice your religion.

However, as Ahram Online writes in an article on their English website, the challenges may lay in the rapid development of technological tools that connect the world, crossing societies of different social constructions. This means that a film like that of the recent controversy can be made and distributed online in Western countries where legislation is developed in the context of Western social constructions, without repercussions. One such filmmaker, or a cartoonist for that matter, may be perceived as offensive to a group of people but cannot be indicted for a criminal act, because one segment of the world does not perceive it as such.

However, in the same breath it must be stressed that individual action, like the ones discussed here, does not represent perceptions, opinions or acts of neither entire populations nor every politicians. But because of societies based on different social constructions of what is legal and what is not, a Western politician cannot demand the person behind such material brought to trial. But does this mean that Western countries should consider reversing their understanding of democracy and put restrictions on what can be expressed and what cannot?

As one of the focal points for democracies in Western countries it is hard to see that happen. Being a Westerner, brought up in the social constructions of a Scandinavian country, it is believed that having the freedom to speak up against the current government, the practices of the church, or other societal institutions that are disagreed with, is a crucial fundamental right, which should neither be restricted nor jeopardized.

But does this give the people in Western countries the right to offend the values of people in countries where social constructions of societies are different?

With an economic crisis dominating most of the Western world, it might be time to start rethinking what used to be ‘the center of the world’ – to a growing extent, the Western world depends on countries and people around it. It may be worth considering if respecting other cultures’ way of life wouldn’t be more productive than upsetting them purposefully.

Image Courtesy of  arindambanerjee / Shutterstock.com

The article Reflections on Yet Another Mohammed Conflict appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Following the Venezuelan independence day last Wednesday, US presidential nominee Mitt Romney issued a statement saying that Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez “failed to honor the spirit of freedom with which Venezuela was established. Hugo Chávez is promoting ideas in Venezuela and other Latin American countries that run counter to freedom, prevent prosperity and expand tyranny.”

The statement is typical US discourse opposing Chavez, who has long been a hate figure in US media. The populist ideas Chavez is promoting have long been a concern for the US. This was illustrated by a similar statement by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, then reacting to Salvardo Allende’s election in Chile in 1970.

Chile was then on the verge of becoming an independent socialist state rather than a Soviet satellite, a development which, according to Kissinger, “would be far more dangerous… because its ‘model’ effect can be insidious… our main concern is the prospect that [Allende] can consolidate himself and the picture projected to the world will be his success.”

Washington’s greatest fear, far greater than communism or the rise of totalitarianism, is, and always has been, successful independent nationalism. That has currently become a reality across Latin America following the last ten year’s remarkable development known as the “pink tide.” This movement is characterized by the election of leftist governments (with notable examples such as Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Rafael Correa in Ecuador and Evo Morales in Bolivia, among others), increased government control over natural resources with new social reforms favoring the poor and former marginalized indigenous populations, and a region-wide opposition to Washington influence stretching from Venezuela to Argentina.

Venezuela has been on the forefront of this socialist movement, initiated by the 1999 election of Hugo Chavez.

Hugo Chavez was elected President following two decades of economic turmoil in Venezuela. Chavez, coming from poor conditions himself, immediately set out to introduce reforms specifically targeting the poor majority – a former invisible group in a Venezuela dominated by a small and wealthy elite with close ties to the US.

Today, Venezuela has free health care and free education, as well as some of the highest literacy rates in the region. In 2002, the disgruntled upper class, rendered powerless under the Chavez government, staged a coup with the help of Washington. The US had been channeling millions of dollars to the coup makers through US Aid and the National Endowment for democracy. Chavez was replaced by Pedro Carmona, a businessman who suspended all members of the Supreme Court, the National Assembly and the National Electoral board and assumed dictatorial powers.

The IMF was not late to jump aboard; during a press briefing the day after the coup, Thomas C. Dawson, Director of the External Relations Department in the IMF, immediately pledged allegiance to the Carmona government, saying that “we stand ready to assist the new administration in whatever manner they find.”

All the while, official US spokesmen backed a phony story about Chavez supporters shooting innocent civilians. However, the poor masses were not going to accept being marginalized once again, and thus emerged with great numbers from the Barrios demanding Chavez reinstatement. As they approached the presidential palace, the army turned against the coup makers and reinstated Chavez, a mere 48 hours after his ousting.

Philip Agee, a former CIA agent operating in Latin America, explains why the US would back a coup overthrowing an elected government and replace it with a dictator: “In the CIA, we didn’t give a hoot about democracy. It was fine if a government was elected and would co-operate with us, but if it didn’t, then democracy didn’t mean a thing to us, and I don’t think it means a thing today.”

Venezuela is home to the largest oil reserves in the world outside of the Middle East, and is thus a country of vital strategic importance to the US. Detrimental to US designs, Chavez is forming close ties with China instead of Washington. Chavez is also cooperating closely with Cuba, Argentina and other South American nations under the premise of achieving a Latin American “grand unity,” in which Washington is not included.

The US often condemns Venezuela and its current form of democracy, while paradoxically praising and supporting the neighboring government of Colombia, a country with one of the worst human rights record in history. According to virtually unreported Latinobarometro polls, Venezuela is annually the highest ranking in all of South America when it comes to trust in democracy, assessment of the current and future economic situations, equality, justice, and education standards.

Venezuela has got its far share of problems, such as mounting inflation and continuous corruption, but compared to the pre-Chavez Venezuela, where the majority of the population were completely marginalized, the democratic development is nothing far from remarkable.

As Latin America is steadily slipping out of US control, Washington is waking up to a new multipolar world in which its powers are no longer taken for granted. The continent has seen a remarkable reversal of detrimental financial and social policies during the last ten years. The region, which contemptuously has been known as Americas “back yard,” is moving towards a future in which a bewildered Washington no longer has a place.

No wonder Mitt Romney is disgruntled.

Image COurtesy of   ¡Que comunismo!

The article A Dangerous Model: Venezuela and the Pink Tide appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Political blogging experts and social media activists in Thailand face frustration against their lack of liberty to express themselves at will. Thailand´s government uses two ways to censor and control the net. Firstly, by setting up an online roadblock –which already has stopped 32,500 pages- and secondly, through a government body that monitors the websites.

The increase of internet usage across the country has caused some concerns between political leaders. Thailand focuses their internet censorship energies on social issues, especially those related to online pornography, political separatists, and gambling. But their priorities are those cyber opinions that threaten the regime’s stability.

The Thailand government has invested millions of dollars for an internet gateway that will prevent any harsh comments on the country’s supreme monarch. The same system crosses out sites owned by terrorists. The Thailand Ministry of Information and Communication Technology works closely with the companies that provide internet in the country. If the companies do not block websites which have been asked to by the government body, these businesses could lose their licenses or have their networking area limited.

Local internet providers, fearing sanctions, follow the Thai internet censorship. In more than four years, the country’s communication ministry has blocked about 15,000 websites. Today, the number of websites blocked is unknown and the reasons remain hidden to the public. This year, the Thailand government has officially endorsed Twitter’s ‘country-by-country’ censorship policy. Twitter’s new policy allows for restrictions of ‘certain types of content’ for various ‘cultural reasons.’

By reading some scholarly articles and journals, I found that Thailand is one of the most engaged countries in the world to practice internet filtering. Thailand is also listed as “Not Free” by Freedom on the Net 2011 report by Freedom house which works on censorship and freedom on the internet (read report here). Moreover, Thailand is listed in Internet Enemies Under Surveillance by Reporters Without Borders as of March 2011 (read report here). By restricting the freedom to use the net, the Thai government is converting political, social and religious subjects into a taboo.

The future of global internet freedom looks dark in spite of the growth of Thai net users. Private companies respond with more innovation to cyber security instead of promoting news ways to implement a democracy,due to fear.

Future Thai generations will see their political and social knowledge being dwindled, in spite of the new ways that modern technologies offer citizens to build a democracy. Despite the Thai government’s wish to control Thai residents’ online activities, the internet is too vital in this new era, where foreign companies look at these kind of issues in order to decide whether to invest in a country or not.

The article Thailand´s Censorship Neglects Rights to Citizens appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

New York, U.S.A – The Committee to Protect Journalists condemns the campaign of harassment and intimidation against a newspaper in South Africa after it published a photo of a painting of President Jacob Zuma more than two weeks ago.

On May 13, local private weekly City Press published an art review of an exhibition in Johannesburg that featured a painting of a Soviet-era propaganda poster casting Zuma in the mold of Vladimir Lenin with exposed genitals, according to news reports. After a series of criticism and threats against the paper in the week of 28 May, the paper’s editor-in-chief, Ferial Haffajee, announced the removal of the photo from the website on Monday, she said in an op-ed.

Haffajee told CPJ 31 May 2012 that she had received a letter from a government official that said the paper’s coverage could instigate a race war if they continued to report on Zuma. Days before City Press removed the photo, news accounts reported that a City Press reporter was obstructed from covering a local union meeting on Saturday, while others said that on Sunday, protesters from Zuma’s ruling African National Congress (ANC) party had burned copies of the paper that featured the painting.

The ANC released a statement on May 24 saying that City Press had singled itself out as being against Zuma, the ANC, “our democracy, and the majority of South Africans.” Jackson Mthembu, a spokesman for the party, called the newspaper “a perpetrator of injustice and slander,” and told supporters “to indefinitely boycott buying the City Press Newspaper … until the removal of the insulting portrait of President Jacob Zuma from their website.”

On 31 May 2012, the Goodman Gallery announced that it had reached a deal with the ANC to remove the painting permanently, according to news reports.

“We condemn acts of intimidation and threats against City Press, as they undermine the rule of law in South Africa and curtail the freedom of the press to report on speech critical of the authorities,” said CPJ Africa Advocacy Coordinator Mohamed Keita. “As head of the ANC and the ruling coalition, President Jacob Zuma must call his supporters to restraint. We hold the government responsible for the safety of the staff of City Press.”

Zuma had filed a complaint at the Gauteng High Court on May 18 seeking the removal of the painting from both the gallery and the newspaper’s website, arguing that the artwork depicted him as a “philanderer, a womanizer, and one with no respect.” In court, City Press argued, as shown in an affidavit published online, that its decision to publish the photo was lawful and “amounted to the publication of legitimate criticism” in light of the president’s public admission of extramarital affairs and involvement in several sex scandals in office, the newspaper reported.

The Film and Publication Board also summoned City Press for a meeting, but then referred the case 30 May 2012 to the Press Ombudsman, who could take disciplinary action against the publication, according to news reports.

“It is a view I still live by and have never claimed that my or City Press’ freedom of expression is limitless. But our right to publish and to free expression is constitutional,” wrote Haffajee in an earlier Sunday op-ed.

The article South African Paper Forced to Remove Controversial Painting appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The Global Alliance for Zimbabwe applauded British Prime Minister David Cameron’s call for fostering the growth of democratic culture in Zimbabwe, and echoed fully his appeal to the international community to ensure non-violent, free and fair elections later this year.

“Advocating for a peaceful, prosperous, and free Zimbabwe is our daily mission, and we agree with Prime Minister Cameron that non-violent, free and fair elections are the essential first step,” said Chairman Roy Bennett.

“For this reason, members of the international community will be gathering in Washington, DC on April 19, 2012 to learn more about the rampant human rights violations in Zimbabwe, and how they can help to eradicate them,” Bennett continued.

For nearly thirty years, Robert Mugabe and his ZANU-PF have ruled Zimbabwe with ruthless, destructive focus. Employing torture and terror to maintain control of the citizenry, they’ve confiscated private property, dismantled once thriving businesses, and shuttered all but state-controlled media. Thousands have been killed, tens of thousands have been raped or maimed, and hundreds of thousands have been forcibly removed from their homes.

“During the Zimbabwe elections of 2008, our citizens voted overwhelmingly for a new democratic government. In the face of organized beatings, mob attacks, rapes, murders and torture, the people of Zimbabwe stood strong and united in their opposition to Mugabe and ZANU-PF.

Sadly, it was not enough,” said Bennett. “Robert Mugabe and ZANU-PF refused to recognize the results of the election and punished those who opposed him. Since the 2008 election, atrocities in Zimbabwe have continued, with military henchmen using violence and intimidation to maintain control of the country.

“During the aftermath of the 2008 election, International opinion was offended, but not inclined to intervene. This time around, we won’t be so timid about asking for the world to please pay closer attention. In our effort to bring awareness to the humanitarian crisis and focus international attention on upcoming elections – to proactively advocate for non-violent, free and fair elections in 2012 – we strive also to seek, summon, and coalesce International outrage with which to pressure Robert Mugabe and ZANU-PF to end abuses and free Zimbabwe.

“With your help, we envision a peaceful, prosperous and free Zimbabwe that is an example to the region, the continent and the world of how a country, and its people, can thrive when good governance, the rule of law and a democratically-elected government are allowed to exist,”

Image Courtesy of   http://www.flickr.com/photos/number10gov/

The article David Cameron Articulates Vision for Zimbabwean Elections 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!.

Turkey’s upcoming general election will be held on 12th of June 2011. AKP (Development and Justice Party) established two governments since 2002, and is the ruling party since then.

Despite the claims of the ruling party, the country is facing hard times. Poverty, unemployment, Kurt issue, abridgment of freedom of speech, decadence and indecency in politics, led Turkey into a deep crisis, but the ruling party is pressuring the citizens with the claim of stability.

The main principles of Turkish constitiution, that Turkey is a secular and democratic republic, is at stake since many people are afraid of the secularism of Turkey is in danger. In the spring of 2007, millions who shared the concern that Turkey’s politics are getting conservative, rallied to defend Turkey’s secular democrasy. Neglecting the concerns and fears of many people, State minister and Deputy minister Bulent Arinc, recently declared that, the main thing that keeps Turkish people together is not secularism but the religion Islam. This comment made people even more worried, since it compromises the basis of Turkish foundation which depends on secularism as a guarentee of the protection of different point of views and beliefs.

AKP’s enforcements such as, the new polemical regulation of internet filtering, the alcohol ban in events, festivals and organisations where young people under 24 attend with the claim that the aim of protecting young people from alcoholism, are some proofs that disclose the ruling party’s oppressive mentality. Turkey’s top administrative court recently cancelled the alcohol ban, since the law sets for drinking age as 18 and not 24.

About the internet restrictions, when the Turkish Industry and Business Association (TUSIAD), declared their concerns, the Deputy minister Bulent Arinc accused TUSIAD of being an unreliable organisation, and by adressing the chairman of TUSIAD, Umit Boyner, said that, “they can liberate porn sites and sites which contain violence, when they have the charge”. Umit Boyner in her written press release, declared that she found Deputy Minister’s attitude as terrifying. It seems that the voice of Turkish people who stands for their individual rights such as freedom of speech, is taken by government as being a fan of porn and violence.

Freedom of press in Turkey is not pleasant at all. Many journalists are in jail in Turkey mainly because of the “anti-terror” law. International Press Institute, in its press release on 4th April, 2011, mentioned  the report of OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) which indicates that at least 57 journalist are being held in prison. On 13th April 2011, at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), reffering to the reporter Ahmet Sik’s being held at prison because of his “unpublished book”, Prime Minister Erdogan responded PACE members’ questions about freedom of speech in Turkey, in outrage, claiming that “It is a crime to use a bomb, but it is also a crime to use materials from which a bomb is made. If informed that all materials needed to construct a bomb have been placed in a certain location, wouldn’t the security forces collect these materials?”. The Prime Minister of  Turkey in 21st century, basically compared a book with a bomb.

When it comes to political decency, Turkey represents a failure. Before 2011 elections, opposing parties had to deal with sex tape scandals. On 2010 Deniz Baykal, the former leader of the opposing party CHP (The Republican People’s Party), resigned because of a tape that he claimed to be a conspiracy. And now the other opposing party MHP (Nationalist Action Party) is facing the same issues and the scandal caused 10 resignations inside the party during May. This scandal also resulted by the ban of more websites such as Rapidshare.

One of the main problems that Turkey comes face to face with every time, is the regulation of general election in Turkey, since every party has to take the 10% of the votes in order to enter the parliament. That means, according to the results of last election, approximately 11% of the electors could not be represented in the parliament. It is clear that Turkey needs a brand new constitution which has to bring new regulations, such as  the general election law, the parliamentary immunity,  the anti-terror law, and many others.

Turkey’s one of the biggest issue, Kurt issue has to be solved, approaching to the case with neither Turkish nor Kurdish nationalism. A deeper action must be taken by improving the individual rights and conditions, and by taking into account people’s prosperity without dividing them as Turks and Kurts.

There’s an urge to take a further step for Turkey’s democracy challenge. The tendency of ruling party’s using religion as a tool, is transforming the country’s modern and democratic face into a conservative and oprresive mentality. The main issues of Turkey should be discussed despite the manipulations of politicians.  As a country in between, Turkey has to recognise its innermost problems and stand for most basic rights, without having the fear of unstability as the ruling party claims. People in Turkey do not have to live in such nonsense, or compromise the basic rights, just to sustain stability. Who knows, “chaos” could lead us to a better life.

The article Democracy Challenge of a Country in Between: Turkey Before 2011 Elections appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

What if the whole domino set falls? What then? Will a new hopeful Middle East arise from the ashes of its former self or will it end up being the theocratic extremist monster of the world, a title it seems to hold today.

The Middle East has yet to wrestle with issues of separation of church and state in any conclusive manner. Although the debate has been raging on for centuries among Islamic scholars, the current changes taking place in the different countries of the region offer a unique opportunity for the debate to take center stage.

With the recent uprisings suggesting that change is in fact being created from the ground up, the degree of separation between organized religion and the state will be dictated by a newly empowered national audience. In doing so, this debate will be contentious and at times slightly dangerous. However if the Middle East is to ever be expected to fix the fundamental issues that currently plague its various institutions, it must learn to do so on its own. That would entail no course correction interventions by world powers, no matter how difficult it is to fight back the urge.

It would be naive to think that democracy and direct public participation will lead to any single government in the region being composed entirely of liberal, western oriented public servants. Islam is a part of the social fabric of these societies. Like evangelicals in America, religion is the preferred narrative of many in the region. The responsibility of figuring out how to temper both religion and liberalism so that they may coexist will fall to the people of the Middle East and they should knowingly invite this new challenge. After all, it is their history and their future that will be at stake.

The president of the United States can lead the international community in this regard by issuing a public statement promising to leave the Middle East dictate its own future. Such a statement would go a long way in fortifying a sense of confidence and ownership among the people. It would simultaneously help dispel whatever rumors and hyper conspiracy theories to come in a region that has a seemingly over abundance of both. However with the unfortunate intervention in Libya,

How exactly the individual countries in the Middle East will look like in the future is quite frankly impossible to tell with any degree of certainty. However a strong combination of both conservative religion and liberal ideals might be the dominant feature of the region, with each country inching towards one or the other. In either case, both will face numerous and ongoing challenges. Conservatives will have to temper their brands to fit within a framework of democracy, while liberals will have to make liberalism fit and adapt into the larger cultural narrative.

The article Middle East: An Islamic Caliphate or Budding Democracies appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The Egyptian revolution has begun to transition into an administrative phase as the first rounds of voting commence in the coming weeks. Working towards a stable, democratic government, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces has appointed a committee to revise Egypt’s constitution, and prepare for the upcoming elections.

On March 19 a public referendum scheduled to take place, will set the preliminary measures by which Egypt’s political future will be defined. In polling stations open to the public from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m., Egyptians will determine whether they agree to amendments made on 8 articles in the constitution (75, 76, 77, 88, 93, 139 and 149 and the cancellation of Article 179).

Article 75 now states that a president—of at least 40 years old— must be borne by two Egyptian Parents, and cannot marry a foreign wife—Mubarak’s wife, Suzanne, was half Welsh.

Article 76 outlines the eligibility of a candidate to run for president: the candidate should be endorsed by 30 members from the People`s Assembly or the Shura Council (the lower and upper houses of parliament); receive 30,000 signatures from Egyptians from 15 Governorates; or be a member of a party that holds at least one seat in Parliament.

Article 77 restricts a president from serving more than two terms in office, each lasting four years. No limit previously existed, and Mubarak was able to hold five, six-year terms.

Article 88 was modified to allow judicial oversight during the election process—from voter lists to the announcement of results.

Article 89 concerns the means to amend the constitution, ensuring that the next elected parliament will form a 100 member elected commission to draft a new constitution within the first six months after its election.

Article 93 has been amended so the Supreme Constitutional Court is the sole arbitrator on contested memberships. Previously, the People’s Assembly had authority in determining the validity of the parliamentary membership.

Article 139 requires a president to appoint a vice president within the first two months of inauguration.

Under article 148, if the president wants to apply the State of Emergency for over six months, it must be approved by a public referendum. Formerly, the Emergency Law could be renewed by the People’s Assembly.

If passed, the changes will be the basis for parliamentary elections scheduled for June, and the presidential election in August.

“We are putting them [the amendments] to public debate now,” said Sobhi Saleh, the only member of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood on the committee. “If there is a substantive challenge, we will take it into consideration.”

The June elections will affect the formation of political parties in parliament and consequently establish nominees for the presidency.

Anticipated frontrunners emerging are Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa, and former International Atomic Energy Agency director Mohamed ElBaradei.

ElBaradei, 68, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005, said he will vote in opposition to the March 19 amendments, pushing for a new constitution to be drafted. “The current constitution fell. It would be an insult to the revolution if we decided to retrieve this constitution.”

On March 9 Moussa, 74, the most prominent figure to announce his candidacy, stated he “would not be another Mubarak.” Popular amongst middle class Egyptians, Moussa’s future plans include peace with Israel, cooperation in favor of submission to U.S. relations, political integration between the Muslim Brotherhood and Copts, and encouragement for women and the younger generation to become involved in Egypt’s future. “The choice should be to the people.”

The article Egypt Closer to Democracy appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.