open Democracy News Analysis - 50.50 - Comments

KeikoN on "Gender and democracy: no shortcuts to power"

KeikoN — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:22:10 +0100

This article really reminds us that the path to gender equality is a long and complex one. Making "democracy work for women" and ensuring that women take active roles in governance and have their voices heard appear sometimes as unachievable goals when statistics such as those on elections are presented. The OECD Development Centre has initiatied an innovative web platform, Wikigender (www.wikigender.org) where information on gender equality can be posted, shared and debated. The technology is easy to use and the idea is to open up the gender debates with as wide and diverse an audience as possible. Country reports, statistics and information on upcoming events and organisations are also available and every visitor is invited to contribute an article on a gender-related theme. Many of the points mentioned in this article are discussed in articles on Wikigender but there is so much more to be said - so come join the debates and help gender equality progress beyond its current status quo.

easlan on "The Iranian Nightmare"

easlan — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 05:08:44 +0100

We really are with you. We are watching. We are paying attention - we won't stop.

Tyranny will not be tolerated.

Today we truly all are Iranians.

svend on "The Iranian Nightmare"

svend — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:35:12 +0100

"Maybe there is a subconscious attitude among western spectators that thinks Iranians can not take the results of a democratic election if it's not who they liked most."

No. Not at all. We know why you're doing what you're doing.

We're with you.

Syed A Jamal on "The dark side of micro-credit"

Syed A Jamal — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:13:28 +0100

Great article on socioeconomic and cultural aspects of dowry.
Thanks
Syed Ahmed Jamal
University of Kansas
Lawrence, Kansas
USA

Sadiq Baig on "Obstacles to the progress of Human Rights in the World "

Sadiq Baig — Wed, 27 May 2009 03:17:34 +0100

The learned author has raised very important points, though missed very important one i.e. role of the countries who manufacturer and export arms:

1) USA and Israel supplied arms to Iran - la Contra affair?

2) Bofors (Sweden?) are reported to have bribed late Rajiv Gandhi for buying their gun.

India and Pakistan have been designed by Brits to remain each others' perpetual foes through problems such as Kashmir. India's has a bigger economy and its allocation for defence at par with that for healh/education will be much larger than than that of Pakistan.

Now that India has free access to latest nuclear technology, thanks to their deal with USA, how can Pakistan defend itself at the hands of Indian agrression if do not allcate more funds for her defence than health/education?

Why should not arms manufacturers and exporters be brought within added responsibility of human rights, especially economic rights of downtrodden in the countries who have to allocate more funds to defence to deal with security threats created through international power politics?.

How can UN arbitrate justly while remaining under the democle of 'veto' by any of the 5 big?

Another pertinent point: Why USA and West want Iran, Afghanistan and other Muslim countries to follow western value system?

If it amounts to human right voilation if a women is seen in 'Burka', why it is not consider a human right violation when western beauties are allowed all sort of nakedness and nudity?

Kindest regards.
Sadiq

Not logged in on "Obstacles to the progress of Human Rights in the World "

Not logged in — Sun, 17 May 2009 00:42:28 +0100

"Sixty years ago, in the hopes of creating a better world, world thinkers came together to devise international standards for how we should live and governments committed to uphold and guarantee the rights and freedoms set out in these standards for the people of their nations. Despite the fact that there has been progress in the area of human rights around the world, there still exist many observable instances of human rights violations."
In China, it is just the opposite. It was not the people nor the thinkers who had ever given any thought to human rights. It was the ruler who, in order to rule them, must first have accepted the so-called Mandate of Heaven which required him/her to serve the ruled with love (or human-heartedness) and justice. This scheme got started when Zhou Dynasty (1122-770 BCE) took power by defeating the brutal and repressive Shang Dynasty (?1766-?1122 BCE). So it was a ruler's duty or obligation to provide human care or service to the ruled. Why so? It was because during that period one of the most popular maxims circulating among the people says, "People are the foundation of a state. When the foundation is firm and solid, the state will enjoy peace and harmony."
But, what would this foundation be like and how to build it? And there came Confucius (557-497 BCE) who proposed a Great Universal Society (Datong) or Utopia, as given below:

When the Great Way prevails, the world belongs to all. Men of great virtue and talent are selected (or elected) who will foster mutual trust and promote universal understanding. Thus, men do not regard as their parents only their own parents nor treat as their own children only their own children. Sufficient provision is secured for the aged till their death, employment assured for the able-bodied, and funds provided for the loving care of the young. The widowers, widows, orphans, the childless, and those who are disabled by diseases or mishaps are adequately cared for. Each man has his duty, and each woman her hearth. While they detest those who throw away things wastefully, they do not hoard things for their own self-gratification. Disliking idleness they labor, but not alone with a view to their own advantage. In this way, selfish acts of cheating and profiteering are discouraged. Hence, their front doors need not be locked.
Such is the State of Universal Peace and Harmony for All

- The Book of Rites (Li Ji)

Except the few decades when Mao Zedong tried to replace Confucius,through his shameful Cultural Revolution, with Marx, the former's teachings have guided China on the right course for over 2,000 years - even during the 300 some years
of occupation by the Mongols and the Manchus. Now that Mao has passed away, the new regime has gradually brought Confucius
back, and once again the Chinese have become the only people on this planet who have enjoyed the same living civilization continuously for such a long time.
So, if the Chinese government ever violates any of the human rights, all the UN or the so-called NGO has to is to ask if it still respects the Mandate of Heaven and remembers Confucius's teachings. After all, a sense of shame is considered one of the most important virtues for being a virtuous gentleman (Junzi).
Unfortunately, the Westerners do not seem to possess this kind of culture in their history. Thus, even when Jesus told them to love their enemies and bless them that curse them and so on, more Christians were killed by Christians than by the pagan Romans. according to the great historian Edward Gibbon in his "Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" and millions of Christians slaughtered by Christians during the period of Reformation, according to the "Bible Handbook" by Henry Halley (1951).
So, it is no wonder that "some governments have used the concepts of human rights and democracy to their own advantage and used it to advance their own political agendas."
How about some governments using the United Nations "to their own advantage" and "to advance their own political agenda?"
Well,it seems that perhaps the United Nations may need a total reform!
!

Rollie on "Obstacles to the progress of Human Rights in the World "

Rollie — Fri, 15 May 2009 03:10:16 +0100

Ebadi addresses a very important issue and the ideas for helping correct the problem are excellent.
Subtly NGO's are a great democratic vehicle.

Not logged in on "Democracy in Palestine/Israel: a feminist fight"

Not logged in — Tue, 12 May 2009 15:32:47 +0100

Great article Naama. It brings clear insight into the political changes that have led to a surge in grassroot movements in Israel. However, it would be great if you could further detail the political/ social/ economic reasons behind the strenght of feminist movements. What urges them to act?

Andres Salgo on "Democracy in Palestine/Israel: a feminist fight"

Andres Salgo — Mon, 11 May 2009 10:54:44 +0100

Very good. I am happy to know that women are so active in this front, I believe only through women will Peace come to Israel and Palestine. Keep on, lots of courage and success will come! By the way I think it was a pity that Tipzi Livni was not elected.

Andres

kaciey on "Water problems in Somalia: a photo-essay "

kaciey — Mon, 04 May 2009 21:07:43 +0100

any solutions????

L.W. on "The gender of democracy matters"

L.W. — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:13:09 +0100

Is it possible men and women to be equal under the law and in terms of employment and benefit opportunity as human beings without that to interfere with their partenership relation based on their natural gender difference?

I have a simplified distinction between a democracy and dictatorship. Democracy ideally is based on humanity, dictatorship is based on power. Democratic society is supposed to project and practice the idea that all human beings i.e men and women are equal regardless of their mental or physical or political strength and advantages. There shouldn't be any law allowing a person endowed with more physical or mental or political power to take away human rights from those with lesser powers.

Contrary to that dictatorship allows those with more power to subjugate those with lesser powers - mental, phisical, or political. More often that is noticed religious dictatorships- theocracies. In a political dictatorship -centralised communist government for instance- things stand a bit differently. Politically empowered individuals strip the human rights from human beings who have less of those powers regardless of their gender.

The challenge here is how democracy deals with the conflict between the humaine ideal of equality between human beings and the natural gender struggle in personal relationships.

Can we have a society in which men extend equal employment pay and employment opportunity to women so women could enjoy the same freedoms without men falling victim to a "castration" complex?

Is democracy natural to a religious household ?

What should we do with the atheist sexists ?

Not logged in on "The wrong turn (2): 'hegemonic masculinity'"

Not logged in — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:15:56 +0100

As a Briton having lived in Austria and France during what were essentially my formative years, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Unless you grew up in 1950's Yorkshire, I think you've got it all wrong. Perhaps your stereotyping doesn't stop at the highly strung British governesses, but extends to the free-loving, nymphomaniac Europeans?

With a new generation of Britons has come a new passion for learning about different cultures. I myself know several friends who have chosen to spend their 3rd year at university abroad, and frankly I think they'd rather stay in Madrid or Lyon. Every year we go to the Continent for a huge holiday, to immerse ourselves in the culture and learn, as well as have fun. I've had a seksy French boyfriend...surely a ridiculous feat for a prudish British girl such as myself?

I agree that we Britons have a slightly reserved view, but we're anything but the stuffy Victorians we were a century ago. As for not eating garlic...maybe you should have stuck to Butlins.

---------
evlilik

william the bastard on "Sharia law comes to the Swat valley"

william the bastard — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:03:19 +0100

Once again, let me remind you we have 10,000 uranium-tipped warheads, and y'all still eat with one hand, and wipe your ass with the other...

john90 on "A world of women "

john90 — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 22:11:10 +0000

I consider that the situation in these countries changes for the better in relation to women.

aeionline_1 on "Sharia law comes to the Swat valley"

aeionline_1 — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 15:17:15 +0000

Thanks for right focusing on the real problem - hijacking of religion (all not just Islam) and using it as a tool to usurp control over others.

Islam remains as threat for elite ruling class, also for Muslims since Karbala; they never like egalitarian teachings of Islam and try their best to mutilate and corrupt these, hence Islamphobia.

The point which, Afiya Shehrbano – a sociologist and women right activities, makes in in this article(http://www.socialmedian.com/story/2756371/re-branding-islam-through-global-faith-based-violence-studies) must be considered from religious and world power politics stand point so that negative projection of Islam must be countered and audience must know about the studies about Islam conducted by biased minds.

The problem is that it not only non-Muslims but most of us Muslims who do not, or don't want to, understand the real teachings of Islam perhaps because real Islam means that every human being has equal rights to live this temporal life in a manner which should not impinge on any other's rights and that powers that be; and it happened right after the martydom of Calip Ali (RA) that's why sharia laws have never been updated for centuries now - Quran and Sunnah are not laws but provide basis for evolving sharia laws.

Caliph Umar designed Muslim statecraft purely on the basis of true Islamic teachings but Amir Muawia reverted that back to Roman basis, that is why most of the Muslim rulers (pysedo-calips or sultan or whatever) have been ruling over masses like non-muslim kings and invaded other countries to divert masses' attention to their usurped power and illegitimate rule.

Right solution of the problem is that Muslims, anywhere in majority, must be allowed to have governments and laws on the basis of Islam (be that as they understand, even the Taliban) so as to get corrected through advancements in science and technology as well as socio-economic pressures; and not through Western dictate!

NO muslim country can pose any challenge to the Powers such as USA, UK et al; but the christian west, having granted rights of a King to their Pope, really fear that true Islamic manifestion of a government anywhere would awaken people in their countries demanding full rights and would refuse exploitation unleashed all over world by profit motive!

Therefore, the most powerful are the most FEARFUL hence the bogy of terrorism though it is simple common sense that terror flow out of power and any powerless entity can never be a terrorist. For example Bush, Mush, OBL first got rich enough and powerful enough to terrorize the world through unleashing War OF(not on) Terror - awe and shock - Abu Graib, Gitmo and torture centre all over the world!