Ireland will be the only nation to vote through referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon, an agreement that would streamline procedures in the EU. The treaty must be ratified by all 27 member states before it can take hold, but Ireland stands out as the only nation that is asking its citizens whether or not they approve. As noted in this article however, the population finds itself unsure regarding how to vote because the government has failed to communicate the significance of the vote or the substance of the treaty. Without proper communication and education, a referendum is void. Of course it is better to hold a referendum than not, but without tools or organizations through which to communicate the various stances on the issues, people do not know how to adequately represent their own interests. If this and future referenda fail to present the issues at hand before the vote, we are not taking sure passes toward direct democracy. -Editor
All Eyes on Ireland
Source: http://gulfstreamblues.cafebabel.com/en/post/2008/06/09/All-Eyes-on-Ireland2
In Europe, all governments will be looking to Dublin on Thursday when the Irish people go to the polls to vote yes or no to the Lisbon EU reform treaty. It is the only referendum being held on the treaty in the EU, and if it is voted down, there will be virtual panic in Brussels that could even, in the long run, lead to the collapse of the 27-member block. As former EU commissioner Peter Sutherland commented over the weekend, this Irish vote could be the "most crucial decision in international affairs in its history."
Perhaps this is a bit of hyperbole, but it's hard to think of a vote in Ireland's history that has affected people in other countries as much as this one will. If Ireland votes no to the reform treaty it would derail the entire process, which could force the treaty to be scrapped. And if the EU can't make these changes, which it deems necessary for it to function properly, the very future and purpose of the union would likely be called into question.
Brussels has been caught off guard by last week's polling, which showed that the number of people who intend to vote 'no' and those who will vote 'yes' are now about even, with a massive amount of people still undecided. At the begining of this process, few would have expected a snag in the ratification to come from Ireland, a country that has benefitted enormously from EU membership and is one of the most pro-EU countries in the block. But, the reason Ireland is the only nation putting the treaty approval to a public referendum isn't because it's particularly unpopular or controversial there, but because a quirk in its constitution requires it.
Direct Democracy
Of course in many ways, the confusion around this referendum in Ireland demonstrates exactly why every other EU country has avoided one: putting a complex, 300-page document's approval up for a vote by a public almost completely unfamiliar with its contents at its heart a bizarre concept. A majority of the people who have answered pollsters saying they would vote 'no' have cited the fact that they don't understand what the treaty is as the reason. A majority of the rest cited reasons that don't actually reflect the reality of what's in the treaty. Direct democracy at its finest.
Now the government is scrambling to push an old-fashioned 'get out the vote' effort with their constituencies. But without the time or resources to educate six million people about the vagueries of a 300-page tome, parliamentarians are going to have to resort to basic 'because i said so' mobilisation efforts, probably even personally driving their constituents to their polling station. And it will be almost the entire parliament that will be doing this, because every serious party in Ireland wants the referendum to pass. The only party in parliament that doesn't is Sinn Fein - the political wing of the IRA whose main issue is the unification of Northern Ireland with the Republic – and they only have six MPs.
The 'no' pushers are a loose coalition of various factions who have various issues with the treaty but are banding around a basic appeal to nationalism - the idea that a 'yes' vote on the treaty would effectively be surrendering Ireland's military independence and history of neutrality. This claim though is dubious, as the treaty doesn't obligate member nations into any specific foreign or military policy. There are other more legitmate objections, such as the idea that Ireland should have negotiated for special opt-outs like the UK did, or that Ireland occasionally losing a seat on the European Commission after it is shrunk is not in its best interest. But even these issues are a bit complicated, so the campaign for a 'no' vote is being framed around nationalism - as demonstrated by the posters around the city this past weekend. The vote is also seen by many to be a referendum on the government of new prime minister Brian Cowen, and many say they will vote 'no' just to send a message that they don't like the prime minister.
What Would Happen?
If Ireland does vote 'no' on Thursday, there are a few possible courses of action, none of which will be very palatable to Brussels. In the first, the government will just put it to another referendum again in a few months, changing nothing but campaigning more vigorously this time and making a massive effort to educate people about the treaty. This is what happened when Ireland voted no on the Nice Treaty in June 2001. A revote was held in October 2002, and this time turnout improved and Yes won by a longshot. A revote is the best outcome for Brussels, but of course it will delay the treaty's implementation and in the mean time the EU would be in a state of dysfunctional limbo. Plus, in the mean time other countries might feel pressured to reverse their position and hold a referendum as well, particularly the UK.
The second possibility is that the Irish government will attempt to negotiate special opt-outs for itself and then go back to the public with a referendum on a different agreement. Of course this would be hard to do since the grievances of the 'no' voters don't seem to be very specific, so the government would be unsure of what opt-outs it would need to ask for in order to make them happy. Brussels wouldn't be very happy with this outcome either because if every tiny country started demanding opt-outs from treaties in order to ratify them, the whole union would fall apart. The UK is a special circumstance, but if a country the size of Ireland, which has benefitted so much from EU membership (and particularly EU subsidies) then turned around and demanded special opt-outs, it would enrage many similar-sized countries on the continent.
The third possibility is the most dire, in fact it is what many in Brussels are calling the 'doomsday scenario.' If Ireland says 'there's no way we can get this treaty to pass a public vote,' Ireland would either have to change its constitution (which, since it would require another referendum, is extreemly unlikely) or the entire treaty would have to be scrapped. The problems that currently exist in the union would go unfixed. People would lose their faith in the union's workability, and it could eventually either degenerate into just a glorified free trade zone or cease to exist at all.
Across the Irish Sea
No matter which of these three scenarios followed it, much has been made of what a 'no' vote in Ireland would immediately mean in the UK. No doubt, it would be bad news for Gordon Brown, who has stuck to his guns and refused calls for a referendum in the UK. Besides keeping alive an issue Brown wants to go away, it would also give credence to the idea that he is trampling on a massive tide of public will. If even Ireland, a country that has benefitted enormously from EU membership, doesn't want this treaty, how can Brown force it down British throats?
But what is perhaps lost in this theorizing is that a 'no' vote in Ireland would be even worse news for the prime minister's rival, David Cameron. Because as much as a 'no' vote in Ireland would be a headache for Gordon Brown, it would be an absolute nightmare for David Cameron, and could very well derail the Tory win the country seems headed for in the next general election. As the Economist's Euroblog pointed out today, despite his public posturing demanding a referendum, everyone behind the scenes at Westminster knows that Cameron is desperate to avoid Europe becoming an issue in the next election. The Conservative party is historically split over this EU issue, with half being pro-Europe and half being Eurosceptic. Cameron does not want to see a civil war erupt in his party once again over ratification, particularly during an election when the nastier, more hard-line Eurosceptic Tories would come out of the woodwork with some not-too-nice words about the continent, which would be damaging to the "softer Tory" brand Cameron is trying to create. If the treaty still hasn't been ratified by the time Cameron came into office (if he did), he would of course be expected to call a referendum based on his posturing for a referendum up till now. Cameron of course knows that he can't call a referendum, because it would surely fail and derail the whole process and throw Britain's relationship with the EU, and the EU itself, into turmoil. But if the issue is still open by the time of the next general election, it may force his hand.
In any event, Thursday is going to be a key turning point in the EU. If the Irish vote yes, nothing should stop the Lisbon Treaty from coming into force in a matter of months, making the union a stronger, more functional body with the constitutional question finally behind it. If Ireland votes no, it could be the catalyst that eventually leads to the disintegation of the union.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Ireland: Referendum Regarding EU Lisbon Treaty
Monday, June 9, 2008
EL SALVADOR: Women Defend Their Own Rights
In a country plagued by violence and oppression, women bear the brunt of machismo, economic frustration, joblessness and gang conflict. There is no way we can ask them to feel safe in a "democracy" built and maintained by men who violate women, even their own family members as cases revealed by Oxfam pointed out. Women and girls are creating their own safety network to educate and advocate for their rights. This can be seen as a first step toward their participation within society and politics. Within the current structure, they would be unsafe and oppressed. But by working within a social context that hopes to change individuals and communities through non-violence and education, women are creating a new structure that will create safe and open environments for their participation. The following article describes their successes thus far. - Editor
A New Campaign Led by Women
21 May 2008
A call for more resources and better laws, along with education for women and all young people, will reduce violence.
In 2005, Oxfam America joined with four other development and women’s rights organizations to address the vulnerability of women in El Salvador by challenging the government to provide better protection; training and mobilizing women and men to change the machista culture in the country; and raising public consciousness through the media, street theatre, and other public events. What emerged is a campaign under the slogan “Entre Vos y Yo, Una Vida Diferente” (“Between you and Me, A Different Life”) that is calling for new laws to protect women, as well as the financial commitment to back up the laws at both the local and national levels. Along with better laws and policies, members of the coalition are training public officials such as police officers, judges, doctors, and social workers to be more sensitive to gender violence in their work, recognize the signs of abuse, and take steps to stop crimes against women. Six communities have made public commitments to the campaign and have stepped up their efforts to help women affected by violence.
The Next Generation
One of the goals of the campaign is to increase the number of women who understand their rights and can effectively defend them as Adelina Ortiz did. To help educate the next generation, the campaign developed a program for teachers and schoolchildren in 2007 that teaches young people about how to prevent gender violence and what to do if they are attacked.
“We used to talk about gender equity here,” says Patricia Jovel. “But never gender violence.” Jovel is the director of a school participating in this new initiative in El Progreso, a village perched on the impossibly steep Quetzaltepeque volcano outside San Salvador. The school, where 850 students from 6 to 16 years old attend classes in two half-day groups, is a collection of six cinderblock classrooms topped by metal sheet roofing on either side of a terraced concrete courtyard sloping down the mountainside. It is a beehive of activity after classes, as without any level area for a playground, the students play tag around the central courtyard in the brisk mountain air. Jovel says the young women who sometimes have to walk home in the dark after school are now better equipped to fend off the young men offering drinks and cigarettes to them. “Thank God there have been no rapes,” she says.
The students have learned their lessons well: Karla Sanchez, 15, says it is a matter of her basic rights. “Everyone must respect our rights as children, girls, youth… We all have the same rights, and no one can violate them. And if something should happen, we know we can tell our parents, our teachers, or adults we trust. They are here to help us,” she explains patiently. And if these people can’t help, she knows where to go. She lists a number of institutions where she can turn for protection: the Human Rights Office; the National Police; and the Salvadoran Institute for the Advancement of Women, known as ISDEMU. As she leaves, Sanchez articulates one essential idea about reporting gender violence: “We should not be afraid of what people say.”
In 2007, this pilot project in 53 schools exposed 25,000 students to the key messages of the campaign and trained 1,000 students and 1,000 teachers. The teachers now have incorporated violence prevention into their curriculum, and they work with the trained students. The pilot was supported by the Ministry of Education and was such a success that the minister decided to incorporate it into the public school curriculum nationwide.
Changes in Attitude
Sustained pressure to change societal attitudes toward women is a slow process. One effective way to question long-held ideas and beliefs is to educate those entrusted with defending the rights of women, protecting them in the community, and helping them if they are attacked or injured. These include public officials like police officers, judges, public health officials and doctors, and social workers. The campaign organized a formal training program at the University of Central America (UCA) in 2005, and 45 people attended.
Maritza de Vasquez, a psychologist at the family court in the city of San Marcos, just outside San Salvador, says this training has helped her assist the many women who come through her office. De Vasquez says that women are hearing the messages of the campaign and are taking action to protect themselves. In the steady stream of domestic violence and divorce cases she sees, there is a different attitude. “Women take the opportunity to come here and talk about their situation they come here right away to denounce it,” she says. “They are expressing their rights more openly now.”
Back in Ahuachapan, Ortiz grows corn and raises sheep to support her children and grandchildren. He husband is in jail awaiting a hearing. “I’d rather see him in prison than anywhere else,” Ortiz says. It was her participation in a sheep-raising program run by one of Oxfam America’s partners, Association of Salvadoran Agriculturalists (AGROSAL), that exposed Ortiz to the human rights training that helped her defend her own life and protect her children. She points out that in all her training to become a health worker, no one ever educated her about domestic violence or how to prevent it. “The training taught me that women have rights and people are obligated to respect them,” Ortiz says. “This made me act, to look for help, and thank God I found it.”
More on El Salvador's grassroots movements see:
Sunday, June 8, 2008
NIGERIA: Participatory Democracy Part of Sustainable Development
The people must have a say in how their country creates the necessary infrastructure to ensure that all citizens have the opportunity to be successful and healthy. Leaders have historically manipulated the hopes of the population in order to gain political support, power, and money. But when the people have the opportunity to take part it structures of governance, suggestions regarding development are much more specific to the locality and the region instead of being imposed from above. Not only does this eliminate corruption, it ensures that the development will be sustainable and upheld by the people whom it directly effects. Nigeria is a popular topic because there have been many efforts at improving governance in that country, especially evidenced in this speech by Governor Aliyu. -Editor
Participatory democracy as an ingredient for sustainable development (1)
By Muazu Babangida Aliyu
Dr. Muazu Babangida Aliyu,
Niger State governorDistinguished scholars, today’s event is indeed a historic opportunity for me to share my views and experience with you with a view to stimulating our collective thinking on how we can evolve and sustain a credible development process in Nigeria through participatory democracy. I believe for us to achieve that, we should look at such variables as transparency, accountability, leadership and good governance. This may require us to enlighten, educate and mobilize the common people, for everybody to understand their role and place in the community, and to understand what to expect and what is expected of them.
Let me emphase how strongly I share the view that unless we in the developing democracies are able to systematically evolve a political system that takes account of our socio-cultural peculiarities and characteristics, we run the risk of thinking that the wholesale robust economic and democratic ideas and precepts of the developed world would have the magic wand to solve our developmental problems
We thus may be under a dangerous illusion that we are making progress while in the actual sense, we may indeed be engaging the reverse gear and be going in the reverse direction, because of wrong applications to different settings and environments. In other words, we must domesticate democratic principles to take cognizance of excellent values and institutions.
We need to understand that although there are general elements and principles of democracy - participation and inclusiveness, responsiveness, free and fair multi-party elections, freedom of speech and association, respect for human rights, observance of rule of law, etc., there is no universal blueprint for development. Development, in my view, must be home grown, home-made and targeted at improving the lives of the people. Indeed, development must be people-conscious and people-centred. And this precisely underscores the critical role of participatory democracy in sustainable development.
But first, we should be clear about what participatory democracy implies. In my view, the term ‘participatory democracy’ is tautology as the two words describe the same thing - depicting a process that emphasises the broad participation (decision-making) of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Whereas, in the actual sense, any democracy would rely on the participation of its citizens, which is the etymological root of the term ‘democracy’, derived from the Greek ‘demos’ and ‘krotos’ – combined to suggest that “the people rule”. This provides the general basis for the simple and widely held definition of democracy as ‘a government of the people, for the people and by the people’.
As earlier pointed out, we must appreciate that there is no universal blueprint of development or democracy. What matters most is which works well in bringing about good democratic practices that promote good governance to facilitate sustainable development in different settings. What do I mean here? Some forms of democracy tend to limit citizens’ participation to voting, thereby leaving actual governance to politicians, who often do not know any better than the electorate; especially if we consider the general psyche of Nigerians in 1999 when politics was left in major parts to charlatans and the unemployed. Many politicians see victory at the polls as an opportunity to make money, to plunder the state and corruptly mismanage the resources. No, it is not so and should not be so. Politics is too important to be left to the Nigerian politicians alone.
My strong view in this regard is that the Gown must make conscious efforts to meet the Town. Intellectuals and academics must participate in politics if we really desire sustainable development. We need to refocus attention on community-based activity which strives to create the opportunity for all members of the society, and not just the politicians, to make meaningful contributions to decision-making in the overall interest of the society. There is no such term as ‘professional politician’ who most often give the impression that they have the monopoly of wisdom in providing leadership. We – academics, public servants, farmers, artisans, etc - must all stand up to challenge this misleading assertion, and exercise our obligation to participate in governance at our individual levels. We can do this effectively by paying close attention to the programmes and manifestos of the political parties, by monitoring and asking questions about the implementation of the campaign pledges, by sending written contributions on ways to improve governance and indeed by having sympathy for or being bonafide members of a political party of our choice.
In order for participatory democracy to attain legitimacy and reinvigorate democratic politics as a whole, the institutional frameworks have to be established and certain conditions need to be in place.
• Participatory arrangements need to be open at their foundation to everyone affected by such decisions and people made aware of how such decisions affect their lives.
• There is need for mutually-agreed and openly-negotiated rules to be upheld by everybody, and mechanisms for sanctioning deviants.
• There should be an enabling environment for participatory institutions and groups to monitor implementation of government’s decisions. We should create both formal and informal institutions that should monitor, checkmate public servants with the objective to enhance their performance.
• There should be general sharing of knowledge; where users and service workers, for instance, can share their ‘inside knowledge’ to improving services, thus making the public service reform process democratic. People must be carried along in the entire decision-making process – from the inception through the implementation and review
For this concept to take firm roots and to produce desired effects, every social unit of the society needs to imbibe democratic ideals. This should in effect start at the family level, with parents being open and involving all family members, particularly the children, in decisions that affect the entire household. It should then go on to the school system, where democratic principles should be applied in the entire running of the schools, particularly on matters that people are likely to have differing positions and interests.
The same should take place in our faith-based groups and associations as well as in the large civil society, so that democratic values become fully established and entrenched in the society, rather than limiting such to party politics. In that process, people develop confidence in themselves, in their institutions and in the leadership
I had an opportunity to travel to Brazil on study tours, first, on federation and federalism, and second, on public services. I noted that when participatory democracy was introduced in municipal administration of Brazil’s Porto Alegre, it enhanced transparency, reduced corruption, assisted in the redistribution of public resources from the high income areas of the city to the poor areas and improved the efficiency of the social services. Indeed, people were/are willing to blow the whistle on corrupt public officials and began/begin to see public property as the peoples’ property, with a sense of ownership being translated into positive protection and increased value
It is significant to stress that popular participation in politics not only enhances good governance – exposing corruption, challenging bureaucratic systems, keeping close to the real needs of the people – it also raises ‘political consciousness about economic power at every level’. What I observe in Niger State is that many people, many villages and indeed many communities know and understand their problems; they understand their needs and the solutions to their problems. However, many do not appreciate the concept of economic power – that every kobo allocated to their local government or state is actually their money; that they need to ask questions and to hold whoever is in charge of the resources responsible – be it the President, the governor, the local government chairman or even the councillor – for every expenditure or the lack of it
They should therefore demand not only for quality services to be delivered transparently but also respectfully, because government is about people and for the people and not about some esoteric ideas that have no bearing with peoples’ lives
We demonstrated this concept of people-centred and people-conscious politics during our recent local government elections which our party, PDP won in all 25 local government councils, for the first time in the political history of Niger State. How did we achieve that feat? Simply, we insisted on non-interference with the political process leading to the nomination of candidates; that is, non-imposition, and therefore discouraged ‘godfatherism’. But above all, we were sensitive to the expressed needs of our people and earned their confidence through demonstrated commitment to the improvement of the quality of their lives
The point to note in this is that when you demand, as an individual, to know the state of public expenditure simply for your selfish reasons, so that you can be ‘settled’ as a way of sharing with the corrupt ones, then you become compromised as one of them and you remain a beggar, - an apologist
Dr. Aliyu, the Niger State governor, delivered this paper at the Foundation Day lecture of the Igbinedion University, Okada, Edo State on Saturday, May 10, 2008
Friday, June 6, 2008
KERALA: An Experiment in Mass Participation
Having posted various articles regarding participatory democracy in India, the tiny state of Kerala somehow escaped our radar until now. It turns out that the heterogeneous population of 32 million has had a unique opportunity to manage public policy and achieve tangible success on the heels of the Panchayathi Raj movement. The following article provides the unique history of development experienced in the region and points out the advantages of mass participation in politics as an example for other "developing" states. -Editor
Kerala's Silent Revolution
Rajaji Mathew Thomas
18 March, 2005
Countercurrents.org
Source: http://www.countercurrents.org/eco-thomas180305.htm
The significance of the tiny Indian state of Kerala’s experience is often underestimated in national and international discussions. One reason for this is that Kerala, not being an independent country, is often missed in policy analysis based on international comparisons. Yet Kerala, with it’s 32 million people, has a larger population than most countries in the world (even Canada), including many from which comparative lessons are often drawn for India, such as Sri Lanka (19 million) or Malaysia (23 million), not to speak of tiny Costa Rica or Singapore (less than 4 million each). Even South Korea, which receives a great deal of attention in the development literature, had about the same population size in the early sixties (when it’s rapid transformation began) as Kerala has today. To achieve as much Kerala has done for a population of it’s size is no mean record in world history.
This is basically because Kerala has been fortunate with it’s past. For one thing, bulk of what is now Kerala used to consist of two ‘native states’-Travancore and Cochin- formally outside British India.
They were not subjected to the general lack of interest of Whitehall officialdom in Indian elementary education (as opposed to higher education). When Rani Gouri Parvathi Bai, the young queen of Travancore, made her pioneering statement in 1817 on the importance of basic education, there was no need to bring that policy initiative in line with what was happening in the rest of India, under the Raj. (The independence from general British Indian policy applied not only to the princely rulers of these states, but also to the British ‘Residents’ in Trivandrum. The Residents could consider independent initiatives, and indeed in the big move in Travancore in the direction of elementary education in the early nineteenth centaury, the Resident Mr. Munro played as extremely supportive – and possibly even catalytic role. There is some evidence that he drafted Parvathi Bai’s 1817 statement, whether or not the initiative was also his.)
Kerala has also been fortunate in having strong social movements that concentrated on educational advancement – along with general emancipation – of the lower castes, and this has been a special feature of left-wing and radical political movements in Kerala. It has also profiled from a tradition of openness to the world, which has included welcoming early Christians (at least from the fourth centaury), Jews (from shortly after the fall of Jerusalem), and Muslims (from the day of early Arab trading, with settlers coming as economic participants rather than as military conquerors). Into this rather receptive environment, the extensive educational efforts of Christian missionaries, particularly in the nineteenth centaury, fitted comfortably. Kerala has also benefited from the matrilineal tradition of property inheritance for an important part of the community in the past. While the Nairs constitute about 20 percent of the total population, and the practice has changed a good deal in recent years, nevertheless the social and political influence of a long tradition of this kind, which goes against the conventional Indian norms, must not be underestimated.
Having good luck in one’s history is not, however, a policy parameter that one can command. Those who see a unique and unrepeatable pattern in Kerala’s remarkable record of social progress can point to the very special nature of it’s past, and suggest that other states can learn rather little from it. This, however, would be quite the wrong conclusion to draw from Kerala’s heterogeneous history. When the state of Kerala was created in independent India, it included not only the erstwhile native states of Travancore and Cochin, but also - on linguistic grounds – the region of Malabar from the old province of Madras in British India (later Tamil Nadu). The Malabar region, transferred from the Raj, was at that time very much behind Travancore and Cochin in terms of literacy, life expectancy, and other achievements that make Kerala so special. But by the eighties, Malabar had ‘caught up’ with the rest of Kerala to such an extend that it could no longer be seen in divergent terms. The initiatives that the state government of Kerala took, under different ‘managements’ (led by the Communist Party as well as by the Congress), succeeded in bringing Malabar rather at par with the rest of Kerala over a short period of time. So there is a lesson here that is not imprisoned in the fixity of history. Other past of India can indeed learn a lot from Kerala’s experience on what can be done here and now by determined public action.
It is also worth noting that while Karala was already quite advanced compared with British India at the time of independence, much of the great achievements of Kerala that are so admired now are the results of post-independence public policies. In fact, in the fifties Kerala adult literacy rate was around 50 percent compared with over 90 percent now, it’s life expectancy at birth was 44 years vis-à-vis 74 now and it’s birth rate was 32 as opposed to 18 now. Kerala did have a good start, but the policies that have made it’s achievements so extraordinary today are, to a great extend, the products of post- independence political decisions and public action[1].
Any student of history can observe participation of huge masses in public action in determining political decision that has been instrumental in transforming Kerala to the present state. Let it be the mass movements, of late fifties, sixties and early seventies, for radical land reforms or for liberating the educational system from the clutches of powerful managements. This has been proven true in the complete literacy programme, or in the people’s science movement and in the political mobilization to guarantee eight-hour working day and statutory minimum wage for agricultural labour. These are the rich experiences of the Kerala society, which forms the foundation, for moving ahead to the new era of participation in further developments of it’s social, political and economic life.
Peoples Plan Movement: An experiment in mass participation.
The much-debated peoples plan movement stands tall among all experiments in Kerala in the mobilization of masses in the process of participatory democracy and decentralized planning. The enactment of 1994 Kerala Panchayathi Raj – Municipal act, in tune with the 73, 74 constitutional amendment of 1992, opened up great opportunity for people to participate directly in the process of governess at the local self-government level. Conceived by the then Left Democratic Front government, of 1996-2001, the People’s Plan Movement was aimed at empowering people by allowing them the freedom of choice in the selection and formation of development projects in accordance with their concrete situations. By allocating about 40 percent of the state budget and a considerable number of state government employs to the local self governments, from different departments, significant efforts were made by the state government to empower the system with resource, powers and strength. Kerala, a highly political and open society, could not save the movement from its share of controversy. Despite all genuine criticism and reservations expressed by several quarters, it will be impossible to reverse the process of mass participation in the decentralized plan movement. Come whatever the change there may be, in its name, due to political consideration, this form of participation shall remain and strengthened in the days to come. Further it has already set in motion a chain of action and reaction affecting the entire spectrum of social, political and economic life of Kerala.
Major flaw of the much-celebrated Peoples Plan Movement was that, due to several reasons it could not attract middle and upper class sections, youth and students people with higher education and those with expertise and skill who could have been contributed to the process. This had its adverse impact on the movements’ quality and vibrancy. The movement had been dumped as one with the sole purpose of doling out benefits to individual political supporters, though the fact is largely otherwise. Secondly, the experts committees created in accordance with provisions of people’s plan, mainly composed of retired government officials, instead of assisting the elected local self governments, in several cases, usurped powers and even succeeded in blocking the process of participatory democracy and dwarfed the elected bodies.
Despite all those flows mentioned, the people’s plan movement made it’s definitive mark in improving grass root level participatory democracy, involving masses in the planning and execution of developmental projects; and improvement, in real terms, in the lives of a large number of marginalized. It was instrumental in drawing huge number of masses, especially women, who never had enjoyed in their life, meaningful participation in public action other than routine ritual of voting once in five years.
With the change in government, from Left Democratic Front to United Democratic Front, the movement has been re-christened as ‘Kerala Development Project’. Though, the basic character of the movement remain unaltered, the improper flow of state funds to the local self governments and the shift in priorities and perspective of the reigning government has dampened the enthusiasm that has been generated among the people of the state.
Participation : Kerala Women in Focus.
In comparison, with many other states, women in Kerala, are highly literate and educated. According to the 2001 census they outnumber male population with 1058 per every 1000. Manipur is the only other state in India with a higher female population than men. Female foeticide is almost unheard off. Dowry system, though prevalent among almost all cast and religious communities, dowry related murders and other atrocities are comparatively lower. However this is no indication to the statues of women n the family or in society. Neither it indicate absence of discrimination, elimination of atrocious acts against women including sexual harassment and exploitation. They still are economically underprivileged and prone to exploitation.
However, it is interesting for a keen observer of Kerala scenario to notice the radical shift, taking place, in the socio-economic and political status of women. And it is no exaggeration to state that, it is a silent revolution in the making. The women self-help group’s, especially the state supported ‘Kudumbasree’ project that are basically aimed at micro credit facility among women has become the main catalyst in the process. Their participatory public action has almost effectively eliminated cutthroat moneylenders from outside the state who had deep pen iteration in communities. This act put an end to the unproductive outflow of hard earned money from the state. They have provided women a new sense of self-respect, put in place a voluntary but efficient organizational system and infused new strength in them. This has been slowly being transformed in to determined socio-political action.
The new found economic freedom, organizational strength and exposures to the outside world, other than the traditional domain, is slowly leading them to micro enterprises-that are caring the family, society, above all the fragile environment, without forcing them to the migratory tendencies for bread winning jobs. With in a short span of years the money accumulated in banks by the women self-help groups have exceeded few hundred crores of rupees. Interestingly, now public sector banks are coming forward to advance capital lending for their enterprises and initiative with no collateral security. Further, in the Kudumbasree project circles itself, there is a thinking of establishing an exclusive bank catering entirely to the needs of women self-help groups. The enthusiastic participation of women in the grass-root level democratic process and their willingness to part-take in public action is not only surpassing the traditional role of men but also promise to change the stagnating socio-political and economic scenario of the state.
It is worth noticing the ongoing movement initiated by women groups, which mobilizes means of women, to establish Vigilance Committees and Family Empowerment Forum at each and every local self-government level. These committees empowered with statutory powers, equivalent to a civil court, will have great impact in ensuring gender equality, eliminating violence and atrocities on women and ending their marginalized existence at home and society. Further, if succeed, the movement will prove the power of public participation of women in getting things done were the state fail.
Mass Participation in altering the decadent state policies: The Kerala Experience.
Kerala has been witness to informed and voluntary public participation and action in altering the state policies that are against the interest of people, state and the nature and ecosystem itself. The mass opposition to the exploitation of invaluable ground water by the profit hungry multi-national Coco Cola; the use of deadly pesticides like Endosulphan; the move to extract mineral wealth from the coastal sands of Kerala, with no regard to grave consequences; the projects to build hydroelectric projects disregarding it’s implication to the rarest of rare forests; the proposal to build an Express Way dividing the narrow strip of land that is Kerala with no thought of its social, economic and environmental coast; the public pressure that is building up against polluting industries which are destroying our land, water sources and the nature itself are some resistance movement that have been witnessing mass participation worth mentioning.
The scenario gives a picture of public participation not only for the success of state sponsored programmes but also critical to its rational in the larger interest of people. Rational and informed participation in socio-political and economic life in Kerala requires patient study and analysis in order to understand an evolving society.
-Rajaji Mathew Thomas
Thenguvilayil House
Kannara.P.O, 680 652
Thrissur, Kerala.
Phone: 0487 2284207, Cell: 9895313696
E-mail:rajajicpi@yahoo.co.in
[1] India: Development and Participation.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Ghana: Radio Promotes Participatory Democracy
According to the piece below, much of the developing world relies upon the radio for outside information. As the social structures evolve from small village-based consensus governance to an increasingly urbanized and diversified population, modes of communication struggle to transform as quickly. Radio is used as tool to disseminate information in areas where TV and Internet cannot reach. As with any form of media, the radio is an opportunity to hold governments accountable to the people as it provides people with information regarding the issues at hand. The more radio stations and views presented, the more people will be educated about the issues and therefore more likely to participate in the debate. If radio becomes one-sided or dogmatic, it becomes stifling, and it poses risks to democracy and discourages people from standing up against decisions they oppose. -Editor
Ghana: Radio, Participation And Governance - the Nexus
Source: http://allafrica.com/stories/200805161022.html
Public Agenda (Accra)
OPINION
16 May 2008
Posted to the web 16 May 2008
Richard Ellimah
The caller tells Joy FM's Super Morning Show host, Kojo Oppong-Nkrumah that she is caught up in the middle of an early morning rainstorm and there is a danger of her car submerging in the ferocious floods.
In fact, the panic in her voice is so palpable. Another caller, Bernard, sends an SOS to the programme host and says if help does not come in a few minutes he will be swept away by the floods. In response, Kojo calls National Disaster Management Organisation (NADMO) and Ghana National Fire Service (GNFS) officials and directs them to the areas where the distressed calls came from. It is amazing the level of people's expectations of radio.
Radio is the new craze in developing countries. It is uncommon to see young and old, men and women, rich and poor, urban and rural dweller clutching at rectangular electronic devices that blare out both music and talk shows. For some of these people, radio is their companion day and night and is the closest device to contemporary technology that they possess. Welcome to the radio revolution!
Radio is simple, cheap and accessible. This makes it a real friend to many in the developing world where pervasive poverty means people cannot afford the luxury of a television set let alone access the internet. In Ghana, with as little as 2 cedis, a person can get a radio set. Families therefore purchase one set and the entire household benefits. Wherever you are, be it the kitchen, farm, bathroom, toilet, classroom, walking by the roadside or relaxing under a tree, radio can intrude and keep you company. The added benefit of radio is the multiplicity of stations one radio receiver can churn out.
It is not that there has never been a mode of sending messages in the past. Long before the advent of European colonialists, traditional societies had their own means of sending messages. In times past, the town crier was the chief messenger. It was his duty to transmit messages to the people from the chief and his elders. His mode of presenting the message galvanized people to actively participate in local governance. In traditional Akan societies, the tone of the drum beat connotes the message being sent. For instance, when the chief or a prominent person passes away, the sound of the drumbeat is different from that of a festival announcement. This way, the community was adequately informed of events both within the community and outside.
This medium of communication that promoted active participation in community governance has virtually faded out. One reason is that through increased urbanization, more and more people have moved out of the close village environment into more diversified and complex environments where community mobilization by means of a town crier is extremely difficult, if not impossible. Such communities will therefore have no need of a village crier. Furthermore, increased use of modern technology has presented other opportunities for announcing events to community people and certainly, the "tontonsansan" or talking drum is not one of them because it has outlived its usefulness.
With these disadvantages, radio presents the easiest and simplest methods of enhancing community mobilization for development. Its advantages transcend both rural and urban dwellers. In fact, the late media icon Professor P. A. V. Ansah describes radio as the only true "mass medium" because the transistor revolution has reached even "the rural dwellers".
In developing key governance indicators, the World Bank, notes that accountability of government officials, transparency in government procedures, openness in government transactions as well as reliable flow of information are all crucial to the survival of any democratic order.
Governance is therefore not only about structures or institutions. These institutions exist to further the process of governance. Ultimately however, empowering the people to actively participate in this process by feeding them with timely and reliable information is critical to the survival of the structures. It can therefore be deduced that there exist the "hard" and "soft" parts of governance. What most developing countries have done is to place a lot of emphasis on the hard part. These countries have succeeded in establishing flamboyant institutions with sweeping powers and incidentally, raised hopes that the mere existence of these institutions alone ever solved any governance questions. Why didn't Bernard call NADMO or the GNFS straight away? There are several possibilities one can look at. It is very probable that he did not even know the contact numbers of these public officials who are supposed to come to their aid in their moment of need. The other possibility is that even if he did know the contact numbers, the problem might be with how he would be received. To expand the argument further, how many Ghanaians know the telephone numbers of key governance institutions? At the district level, what is the nature of interaction between the assembly and the people within the district?
The advent of radio has contributed significantly to solving the questions of governance. How does radio contribute to governance? If indeed, the general consensus is that governance involves people, then how do people participate in governance? To begin with, there is no denying the fact that radio plays some role in enhancing participatory democracy. It provides a platform for the citizenry to share ideas, question existing policies of government, and generally hold public office holders accountable to the people. In an election year like this, radio stations are bringing politicians and the electorate together in a marriage whose fruits can only further our democracy.
What do Ghana's radio stations sound like? Check out this link:http://myghanaradio.com/
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
ECUADOR: Indigenous Movements Press Correa on Cultural Rights and Control of Resources
Ecuador's long running clash between exploiters of natural resources and defenders of indigenous cultural rights is yet again coming to a head as CONAIE (the country's main indigenous organization) released a rejection of President Correa's proposed exploitation of land and resources. The indigenous voice must be recognized in the country's new constitution or Correa will face mass revolt by the people who have always been excluded from political processes. Symbolic gestures will not be tolerated because these people want to make their own decisions about how their land and their country will "develop". The article below outlines the demands of CONAIE and the government's oppositional actions. -Editor
Ecuador: CONAIE Indigenous Movement Condemns President Correa
Source: http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1288/49/
Written by Daniel Denvir and Thea Riofrancos
Friday, 16 May 2008
The Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE) declared itself in opposition to the government of Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa on May 12. The CONAIE accused the president of continuing right-wing neoliberal economic and racist social policies. The harsh condemnation focused on Correa´s opposition to two key demands: the recognition of Ecuador as a plurinational state in the new constitution and the requirement that communities must offer prior consent before large-scale mining and other major extractive projects take place.
Ecuador is currently governed by a Constituent Assembly, which is writing a new Ecuadorian constitution as well as performing all legislative functions. The Assembly was convened after voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional referendum in April 2007. Members of Correa´s Alianza Pais party won 74 of the 130 seats. Patchakutik, the CONAIE's electoral arm, has four representatives in the Assembly.
While the CONAIE has supported a number of Correa`s programs, most social movement activists in Ecuador say that this conflict was foreseeable. Correa`s support for large scale mining and his opposition to plurinationality run up against the indigenous movement's top political priorities.
Plurinationality is a broad framework that encompasses a number of key indigenous movement demands, including cultural rights—such as bilingual education and culturally appropriate healthcare—and collective economic rights such as the requirement of affected communities' consent before any exploration or extraction of non-renewable resources, whether by State or multinational corporations.
The CONAIE's strong position against large-scale mining and for prior consent is a boon to Ecuador`s anti-mining movement, led by the National Coordinator in Defense of Life and Sovereignty. Over the past several months, the Coordinator has organized massive road blockades in Southern Ecuador, sparking government condemnation and repression. In response, a large pro-mining march took place in Quito in early May, apparently organized by government and industry forces.
The environment is a central issue for the Ecuadorian indigenous movement, as they see cultural rights as closely tied to territorial rights and the preservation of biodiversity. The CONAIE's environmental demands extend beyond the indigenous movement and involve close collaboration with local and international environmental organizations. The CONAIE, along with a wide range of regional social movements, rejects the South American regional integration plan known as the Initiative for the Integration of Regional Infrastructure in South America (IIRSA). The development program, funded by the Inter-American Development Bank and other regional financial institutions, such as the Brazilian Development Bank and the Andean Development Corporation, consists of mega-development projects such as dams and hydroelectric plants. According to the Bank Information Center, the IIRSA "poses one of the greatest challenges to environmental sustainability and social justice today." In Ecuador, the main IIRSA project is the Manta-Manaos multimodal transportation axis between Ecuador and Brazil, which includes building a port and the construction of several new roads leading to and from the coast. In the words of the Ecuadorian government, this transportation project will achieve the "dream of joining the Atlantic and Pacific oceans through a terrestrial-river route," and will facilitate the creation of a new East-West trade axis.
The CONAIE also strongly criticized the negotiations for a Free Trade Deal (misleadingly called "Association Agreement") between the European Union and the Andean Community, which took place three weeks ago.
The CONAIE's leadership is now visiting and holding consultations with its constituent base communities throughout Ecuador. The leadership will reconvene at the end of the month to make decisions about what actions to take next. It is widely rumored that the CONAIE will launch a national indigenous uprising, events that have in the past shut down the entire country. According to the CONAIE spokesperson Pacha Taran, "We are not calling for an uprising. But we are not ruling that out, either."
While certain members of Correa´s Alianza Pais (AP) party have made statements in support of plurinationality, Correa and a number of AP assembly members either oppose the measure or support it symbolically while opposing its substance of collective territorial and cultural rights. As Taran put it, "Correa likes us, except for when we start to protest. Then he tells us to shut up."
According to the CONAIE declaration, "We reject President Rafael Correa´s racist, authoritarian and antidemocratic statements, which violate the rights of [Indigenous] nationalities and peoples enshrined in international conventions and treaties. This constitutes an attack against the construction of a plurinational and intercultural democracy in Ecuador. Correa has assumed the traditional neoliberal posture of the rightist oligarchy."
The declaration goes on to accuse the government of "handing over national and indigenous territories to transnational oil, mining, pharmaceutical, logging and hydroelectric companies." The CONAIE also demands that the Constitutional Assembly support food sovereignty and declare Ecuador "free of transgenics and agrofuels."
Furthermore, the twelve-point resolution called for the firing of Minister of Mines and Petroleum Galo Chiriboga and Minister of the Environment Marcela Aguiñaga. Chiriboga has been widely criticized for allowing foreign companies, namely the Brazilian state company PetroBras, to violate Ecuadorian law. Aguiñaga is accused of allowing large scale logging in the Amazon and of failing to adequately investigate the murders of an undetermined number of Huaoroni indigenous people earlier this year. It is widely believed that the Huaorani were killed by either loggers or paramilitary groups hired by logging companies. They have also called for action to be taken against Attorney General Washington Pesántez. Pesántez is accused of persecuting social movement activists from unions and indigenous groups and organizations like Indymedia.
Finally, the CONAIE declared its solidarity with the people of Bolivia and President Evo Morales. They condemned the Bolivian right-wing's attempt to declare wealthy regions like Santa Cruz "autonomous" and warned against pro-autonomy statements by Ecuadorian opposition leader Jaime Nebot. Although this resolution represents the indigenous movements' strongest public condemnation of Correa to date, the CONAIE makes it clear that they are not part of the right-wing opposition and oppose Correa on their own terms.
Daniel Denvir and Thea Riofrancos are independent journalists from the United States and collaborators at the Latin American Information Agency (www.alainet.org) in Quito, Ecuador. They are also editors at the forthcoming journal Caterwaul Quarterly (www.caterwaulquarterly.com). Daniel Denvir is a 2008 recipient of NACLA's Samuel Chavkin Investigative Journalism Grant.
Mexico: Taking Stock of the Oaxaca Commune
Granito de Arena and Un Poquito de Tanta Verdad by Corrugate Films are recommended viewing for first-hand accounts of the people's resistance to structures of continued poverty and lack of education. -Editor
"Assemble-ist" forms of direct democracy were developed in order to organize both the rebellion and the governing of the city of Oaxaca for the five months that the popular forces controlled the city. This experience demonstrated the tremendous creative potential that can emerge in the course of popular struggle. It also exposed the limitations of rebellion in one region.
To understand the experience of the Oaxaca Commune, its strengths and limitations, the rebellion must be situated and contextualized in the conjuncture of the national crisis, a crisis that created space for the rebellion and – as it was not yet a national revolutionary crisis – set limits on its development and eventually led to its defeat. The national situation allowed the movement to grow but also set boundaries on its potential. The movement was brutally repressed on November 25, 2006, but it has survived – weakened but alive, vibrant, and with great potential.
The continuing crisis in Mexico
The crisis of the neo-liberal, authoritarian Mexican regime continues to deepen. The regime has very little political legitimacy. Popular discontent exploded in two mass and creative mobilizations in 2006: that of the anti-fraud movement over the presidential elections and the Oaxaca insurgency and commune.
These two movements, while sharing many of the same roots and hopes, were very different. And their failure to coalesce into a broader movement was a key factor in their mutual defeat. Nevertheless, important currents in the Partido de la Revolución Democrática (Party of the Democratic Revolution – PRD) provided linkages between the Oaxacan popular movement and national forces. Now, the deepening crisis – and likely split – of the national PRD could isolate the Oaxaca resistance even more from national struggles.
Neither the national crisis nor these two movements have disappeared. The national crisis deepens by the day with the determination of the national government to carry out a slightly veiled privatization of oil and energy and anti-labour reforms. The tenacity of popular resistance has slowed the neo-liberal assault without being able to stop it.
The "catastrophic equilibrium" of the Mexican regime continues. Militarization and repression have intensified but popular resistance continues to grow, in spite of continuous repression and the weaknesses and political crises of the left.
State-engineered assassinations, disappearances and arrests have continued on a daily basis in Oaxaca. Some people have remained in jail. The low intensity war against popular movements that started even before November 25, 2006 has continued ceaselessly. It has had a great human toll and, combined with the defeat of the popular insurgency, has led to a significant decomposition of the social order. In addition to the constant violence by the state, there has been a generalization of violence in society. This presents very difficult conditions for the resurgence of mass, open, popular resistance.
The Oaxacan popular resistance
Nevertheless, the various components of the Asamblea Popular de los Pueblos de Oaxaca (Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca – APPO) continue the battle against repression, authoritarianism and neo-liberalism.
Section 22, the Oaxacan state section of the teachers union, whose repression initiated the rebellion – and who provided a core of cadre for the popular movement – continues to fight for union democracy, improvements to education, better wages and working conditions, and an end to the ongoing repression. And both section 22 and the APPO play important roles in attempts to form national movements of resistance. The APPO has sought, with some success, to deepen its roots in small towns and the countryside. But the same structures of power and the same repressive governor that the people rose up against continue. None of the problems that gave rise to the APPO have been resolved. Section 22 and the APPO lost the battle in 2006, but the war continues. Major mobilizations are planned for Oaxaca for May that will intensify both the resistance and the repression.
The possibilities for the resurgence of the Oaxacan popular movement will be conditioned by developments both at the state and the national level. The Oaxacan resistance needs a strong national left as an ally but the Mexican left is itself in deep crisis.
The defeat of the Oaxaca movement and the escalation and institutionalization of extreme violence in Oaxaca also present extremely difficult conditions for the growth of the Oaxacan movement. There is, however, a continuing vitality to movements of resistance in Oaxaca and no end in sight to the continuing assault of neo-liberalism and repression. There is also now a shared memory of democratic, popular insurgency that can play an important role when popular resistance rises to new levels again.
The Oaxaca Commune has added the experience of popular, self-governing insurrection to the repertoire of images, strategies, and processes of struggle in popular consciousness. As things polarize more and more in Mexico, this example could take on even more relevance as an alternative in the repertoire of those in struggle. But for a new Oaxacan rebellion to have any possibilities of success, the Mexican left nationally must overcome its deep crisis.
This article was originally published by the Socialist Project E-Bulletin. A pamphlet on the Oaxaca Commune is available for download
Richard Roman writes regularly on Mexico.
Edur Velasco Arregui is a Mexican trade union activist.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Switzerland: Immigration Referendum Update - The People Have Spoken
Critics said the posters for tougher rules had racist undertones.
Voters in Switzerland have rejected a move to make it even harder for foreigners to obtain citizenship.
In a referendum, they voted 64% against a bid to revive the practice of approving citizenship candidates by secret ballot and scrapping appeals.
Secret ballots were outlawed five years ago by the supreme court, which judged them to be discriminatory.
Switzerland has one of Europe's highest numbers of foreign-born residents - more than 20%.
Many Swiss said not allowing voters to have the final say on who became a citizen violated the country's system of direct democracy, the BBC's Imogen Foulkes reports from Berne.
However, opponents of Sunday's poll, which was called by the nationalist Swiss People's Party, suspect the real agenda behind it was not Swiss democracy, but how best to keep certain groups out of Switzerland, our correspondent adds.
Twelve years of residence
Initial reporting of the poll results showed that the measure to raise the threshold for citizenship was soundly defeated, gaining approval in only one of Switzerland's 26 cantons (states).
Swiss laws on naturalisation are already tough.
Candidates for citizenship must live in Switzerland for at least 12 years, they have to pass tests in one of the official languages of the country, and culture, and those born in Switzerland have no automatic right to citizenship.
The final hurdle is approval by the local community at a town meeting.
The supreme court outlawed secret ballots five years ago after it became clear that some towns were regularly rejecting candidates from the Balkans, Turkey and Africa, while approving those from Western Europe.
It also gave those rejected the right to appeal.
The Swiss People's Party, the largest in parliament, wants the secret ballots back and the right to appeal removed.
More on the Swiss Naturalization Referendum Debate
The political uses of Swiss-ishness
Source: http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog/ourkingdom-theme/admin/2008/05/24/the-political-uses-of-swiss-ishness
Tony Curzon Price (London, oD): A friend of mine tells this story of a first encounter with a French scientist, met under the building-sized replica of the DNA molecule in Crick and Watson's laboratory: English Scientist: "Beautiful, isn't it ?... " pointing at the bobbles and wire. French Scientist: "Not like Fermat's theorem". English Scientist: "Of course, I speak from Anglo-Saxon empiricism". French Scientist: "I know. You should never have burned Joan of Arc".
These are the coded short-cuts which, with enough depth to the relationship, speak loudly. Helvetiophiles will know this kind of short-cut well: Helvetiophile: "Democracy can be distributed, look at Switzerland". Party Animal: "Don't you miss the strong leadership, the direction, the re-alligments and historic moments?" Helvetiophile: "I meant for everyday democracy, for an informed citizenry, for people responsible for their collective decisions". Party Animal: "Ah yes. Cuckoo clocks, Nazi gold, gnomes and sanatoria ..."
Time Magazine is running the latest episode in this rapid reduction. (Hat tip to the enthusiasts at Direct Democracy). The populist anti-immigrant Volkspartei (SVP) has organised a referendum aiming at returning the power to bestow citizenship to the lowest level of government, the Communes. This is where the power lay until 2003, when a Supreme Court ruled that the repeated refusal of citizenship by some German-speaking rural Communes was against the federal constitution. Naturalisation became a centralised administrative procedure.
So is the SVP referendum to add to the litany of abuse: "... sanatoria and anti-immigrant referenda"? I am not sure. The Volkspartei holds plenty of nasty opinions, and it wants this referendum to reduce the rate of naturalisations. But I think it is right, and for legitimate reasons that are far from the considerations of the Volkspartei, to keep the decision at the most local level possible.
Naturalisation is not asylum; it is a request to join a group for the long haul, to participate in a future. It is quite right for asylum and sanctuary to be universal rights, protected by international law. But not naturalisation. Naturalisation engages everyone, and responsibility for it should be active and positive on all sides. A bureacratic Britishness test does not politically engage either the host or the potential subject.
Before 2003, it was always known that the French-speaking cantons, and especially Geneva, were an easy touch for naturalisation. There is no reason to think that these open political cultures would become closed if the power to naturalise were returned to them. Many London local authorities would similarly be open if naturalisation decisions were so-devolved here. Switzerland taken as a whole naturalised more people per head of population in the decade before 2003 than any other European country.
Of course, giving localities the right to naturalise imposes an "externality" on the other localities within the state. This is the same for citizenship of the EU---whoever Sweden naturalises also has residence permission in Poland. There is the danger that "rogue liberals" will become extra-soft on naturalisation knowing full-well that some of the cost will be borne by the xenophobic autarchies of the union. Decentralised naturalisation seems to have an automatic bias in favor of openness---anyone naturalisable by the most liberal is naturalisable by the group.
The Volkspartei, it hardly needs to be said, is not championing states rights for this reason. There is a danger that "rogue openness" will stretch the federation to breaking point, but if it does not get that far, then it offers a wonderful compromise: all the benefits of a liberal naturalisation policy while the xenophobes can continue to feel that the foreigners in their midst are not there with their blessing.
Our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will point to us and say: "How could you have done it? how could you have excluded so many, so systematically, from your protected gardens?" We should have an answer that does not involve the excuse that these decisions were taken by an impenetrable central bureaucracy that we trusted to do the right thing. Localising naturalisation would be a good place to start.
MarkZ said:
Mon, 2008-05-26 15:10
You're making an interesting point here. However you seem to ignore why this initiative is so highly disputed here in Switzerland. It's not because we're taking power away from the communes as the SVP wants everyone to believe. It's because the SVP wants to bypass our constitution and basic human rights. The main point about this initiative is that the decisions made by the communes are irrevocable and not subject to a need for explanation. Basically this would mean that the commune could decide "We don't like your skin colour, so go away" and no one would be able to do something about it. However it is a basic right, from our constitution, that you are allowed to know the reason for such a decision.
Thanks anyhow for motivating me to register and post at openDemocracy. MarkZ
opendemocracy said:
Mon, 2008-05-26 16:24
Thanks, MarkZ for the clarification.
Can you explain the pre-2003 situation --- did that have the rights of communes subordinated to Federal over-ruling? Or is the SVP essentially asking for a return to the status quo ante?
I am also interested in the notion of "reason" in democracies. Is it not a reason to say: "you were refused naturalisation because your demand was voted down"? And if you were told: "your demand was voted down because this commune is full of nasty xenophobes", then would you have been given a reason or a motive? The first is a better reason, it would seem to me.
But I suppose this just delays the fundamental point. While sanctuary and refuge ought to be rights, administratable by courts, I am less sure about naturalisation. Pretending that it is not political pushes xenophobes into anti human rights positions.
paul.carline said:
Mon, 2008-05-26 21:17
Very interesting. We (members of IRIE - Initiative and Referendum Institute Europe which specialises in direct democracy) were discussing this very issue last weekend in Marburg.
The discussion became quite heated - especially between two Swiss members: one who lives in Switzerland, the other now living in Finland. The first was defending the pure principle of popular sovereignty on which the Swiss system is supposed to be based i.e. a local direct-democratic decision by simple majority in a referendum has the highest level of legitimacy and should not take second place, even to the national constitution or the Constitutional Court.
The second believes that there must be some limitations on popular sovereignty - that it cannot be allowed to infringe fundamental human rights and that in this case the Constitutional Court was right to ban the practice of deciding on applications for naturalisation by secret ballot.
It's important to remember the precise circumstances which led the court to make its decision. On 12th March 2000, 56 applications for naturalisation were decided on by referendum in the Emmen local authority (commune) are of the canton of Lugano.
48 of the 56 were rejected. The 8 people accepted were all Italian, the others Jugoslavian, Hungarian, Turkish and Polish-Dutch. One of the initiators of a popular initiative to allow these decisions to be made by local referendum stated: "The voters [in Emmen] made the right decision by rejecting all the applications of those people who are not in harmony with our central-European way of thinking".
The court decided that this was a clear case of discrimination based on ethnicity and was therefore unconstitutional.
Tony Curzon Price takes an easy route by setting the (in principle admirable and enviable) direct-democratic rights of the Swiss against the centralised, opaque and undemocratic decision-making by Whitehall we have to suffer here.
But surely the issue deserves a more in-depth consideration. It forces us to face up to one of the limitations of democracy - even in the best-case scenario of Swiss direct democracy. To repeat: can popular sovereignty come before fundamental human rights?
It's an important question, because a decision in favour of local democracy opens the door to other potential 'breaches' of human rights. It also forces us to confront the dilemma of the "tyranny of the majority" and ask: is Swiss-style direct democracy the ultimate, the gold standard - or must we not find an even better solution?
It should also make us think about the need for such rituals and such tokens of 'belonging' - and whether we must not move beyond the nation-state and the identity it claims to confer. Why not plan for European citizenship - or ultimately global citizenship and an end to all forms of discrimination?
Paul Carline (Initiative & Referendum Institute Europe)
Anthony Barnett said:
Tue, 2008-05-27 10:24
Tks Paul - this discussion is now touching one of the most basic and familiar issues but is now all the more important thanks to President Bush's attempt to impose 'democracy' by force.
The key, surely, is that we favour "rights based democracy" (see an earlier discussions about this in OurKingdom; for example, here.
This means that the majority do not have a tyrannical sovereignty and cannot remove the fundamental rights of minorities (eg to liberty or freedom of speech).
The issue becomes more complicated here as the issue is who should be allowed into the political community. Is this a political question that the majority has got the right to decide (whether you like it or not)? Or is it a question of fundamental human rights that has to be decided according to universal rules however inadequately interpreted by human judges?
I think Tony has it right: if the issue is asylum, ie flight from torture and violent repression, it must be decided by human rights law whatever the views of the majority. But if the issue is economic and practical then long live politics.
But what, will come back the objection, if the majority acts in a way that is discriminatory? Well, this needs a longer debate but can here be life without any discrimination?
MarkZ said:
Tue, 2008-05-27 11:34
@opendemocracy:
It depends. Some communal rights are, some not. However, in the case of naturalization, the law (as far as I know) didn't state explicitly whether it was subordinated or not. The federal court simply made clear that the communes had to give a reason for a rejection.["Voted down" is not a reason in my opinion. It should be more along the lines of: "You've never had more than a temporary job, and we feel that you're not trying enough, so we believe that you'd be a burden to our social security."] If the commune did not give a reason, the court would force them to go over it. So all the court can do, is to tell the communes that their decision as it is now doesn't count. The court CANNOT naturalize someone on its own. The commune can reject someone several times. If the court doesn't accept it the first time, they just have to explain why they decided on a "no" and say so the second time.
The court did not ban the practice! It simply made an amendment (I think that's the most appropriate word) to it, namely, the need for an explanation. Additionally it stated that the right to complain applies also to the decision about naturalization. (I hope this is understandable, I'm Swiss and English isn't my mother tongue...)
Germany: Germans Discover Direct Democracy
Germans Discover Direct Democracy
By Markus Deggerich
Source: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,549794,00.html
While political parties are losing members and voter turnout is sinking, Germans are discovering direct democracy. Their referendums, such as this Sunday's on Tempelhof Airport, are beginning to make life difficult for politicians and the business community alike.
The mayor seemed flexible on the evening of his greatest defeat to date. The outcome of the referendum represented "a clear commitment" by residents in the eastern German city of Leipzig to city-owned businesses, said Leipzig Mayor Burkhard Jung, a member of the Social Democratic Party (SPD). "Ultimately, the citizens delivered a resounding no to all unscrupulous privatizers," said Jung, whose comments came as a surprise to his rivals. It was Jung himself who had wanted to sell a 49.9-percent minority share of the city's public utility company to the French company Gaz de France.
In Leipzig's first-ever referendum, 149,000 people, or about 87 percent of votes cast, voted in late January to block the partial privatization. In Leipzig, a city known for its trade shows, the controversy brought 40,000 more people to the voting booths than for the mayoral election two years earlier. Mike Nagler, 28, was one of those who organized the citizens' initiative called "Stop Them from Selling Off our City," and he still gushes over the day the referendum triumphed. "It was a great success for democracy," he says.
The Leipzig citizens' uprising is part of a trend. While parties are losing members and voter turnout is declining, citizens all across Germany are taking matters into their own hands with petitions and referendums. Next Sunday, the will of the people could cause problems for Berlin Mayor Klaus Wowereit, a Social Democrat, when Berlin residents vote in a referendum on the closing of the city's Tempelhof Airport. Close to 200,000 Berliners have already ordered letter ballots.
Are the complaints of many pollsters about political apathy unfounded? And what is suddenly driving so many people to the polls?
Citizens' Participation and Direct Democracy, a research group at the University of Marburg, has studied the phenomenon and come up with statistics to corroborate the trend toward citizens taking matters into their own hands. In the mid-1990s there were fewer than 100 referendums a year in Germany. Last year there were about 300, with half of them ending in victory for the rebels.
The Appeal of David-versus-Goliath
The Marburg researchers also examined the issues behind the protests, and discovered a noticeable shift. For a long time, people collected signatures mainly to protest mobile phone towers, bypasses and parking meters. Nowadays, however, the goal of most petitions for referendums is to secure general public services. One in three citizens' efforts today involves privatization plans, major transportation projects or the basic supply of water and energy. In the southwestern city of Freiburg, for example, citizens blocked a proposal to sell public housing. In Meissen, in the former East Germany, a decision to privatize the city's municipal hospitals had to be revoked. And in the western state of Hesse, citizens flexed their muscles to stop energy giant E.on from building a new power plant.
This David-versus-Goliath pattern is not only effective, but also seems to hold great appeal for many citizens, fascinated by the notion that getting their own back at the authorities is easier than they had believed. The people are saying a big "No," and yet they are not the ones left dealing with the consequences or having to search for alternatives. Leipzig Mayor Jung has now been forced to severely tighten his administration's belt. Because of the referendum, his proposed budget, which was to be approved in early February, is no longer worth the paper it is printed on. And the next time Leipzig citizens go to the polls, they could very well be voting against the cost-cutting measures that resulted from the first decision.
Captains of industry often -- or at least more often than politicians -- complain about the annoying intervention from below. "We have noted this growing resistance with concern," says Michael Feist, the president of the Federal Association of Energy and Water Industry (BDEW). Citizens' initiatives directed against energy providers seeking to build new power plants or just power lines are currently underway in seven cities. Energy conglomerate RWE had planned to build a coal-burning power plant in Ensdorf in the western state of Saarland, at a cost of more than €2 billion ($3.2 billion), but a referendum forced it to scrap the project. Stories like these explain why the German Institute for Economic Research is calling the referendums part of a "citizens' wave" that could hurt German economically in the long run.
All kinds of tricks are being devised to put citizens back in their place. In Stuttgart, for example, city officials decided to stand up to a popular movement intended to prevent a planned expansion of the main train station, a project that would cost billions. A meeting of the Stuttgart city council has rarely been as chaotic as the one held shortly before Christmas, when officials were forced to call in security. "We are the people," the audience shouted from the overfilled visitors' gallery. Boos and whistles accompanied a heated, two-hour debate among council members. Nevertheless, a clear majority of the council used a legal loophole to reject a referendum on the controversial project. The right to a referendum, opponents argued, had already expired in this case.
The options for referendums are quietly being restricted in some German states. Saarland and Thuringia have set the bar for the conditions of approval so high that very few citizens' initiatives stand a chance of collecting enough signatures. In some states, there are so-called off-limits issues. For instance, if a project relates to urban land use planning or government budgets, citizens are not permitted to have their say. And the Federalism Commission is quietly trying to bury the voices of citizens in another respect: In the future, when states decide to merge, it would no longer be necessary to poll their citizens first...
Click HERE to read full article....
A Little Bit of So Much Truth.
The following clip is an interview with Filmmaker Jill Friedberg regarding her award-winning docu-drama "Un Poquito de Tanta Verdad". The film covers the popular uprisings of Oaxaca and the peoples' successful take-over of the media in the face of an oppressive government clampdown. The film is certainly recommended and the following interview provides a preview and background information that is sure to intrigue. - Editor
