GroundReport.com

Why I'm Voting NO Against the 2014 Budget for the Dobbs Ferry Free Union School

Mon, 20 May 2013 08:34:05 -0500

For the first time ever, I am voting against the proposed $40M budget of the Dobbs Ferry Free Union School District. My NO vote is a protest against rising benefit costs, especially pension costs. I understand that pension policy is set in Albany, not in Dobbs Ferry, but I have run out of ways to express my frustration.

The only really significant increase in the the school budget this year is pension costs. They increased in one year by $1M of 37% or $800 per student.

Our elected officials in Albany, Andrea Stewart-Cousins and Tom Abinanti, will point to Tier VI pension reform which was passed in 2012. But Tier VI doesn't solve the pension cost explosion. Instead, It perpetuates a failed concept: defined benefit plans as an entitlement. Our Democratic representatives need to change the political dialogue from entitlements to social nets. Defined pension plans should only provide a pension floor -- an income stream that protects the participant from living below the median income of the surrounding community. Everything above that floor should be provided as a defined contrbution plan paid with current cash, not accruals and assumptions. That is the way Social Security works in combination with an IRA.

The current system of defined pension plans was designed by corporate executives to shift employee costs from the present to the future. Better to give a pension promise than a cash wage increase. Defined pension plans increased near-term executive bonuses at the expense of the long-term viability of the corporation. Since most businesses survive less than the term of the pension promise, executive reasoned that a significant potion of the defined pension promise would not be paid. The General Motors bankruptcy is a case in point. In the GM bankruptcy executives lost their pensions in excess of median income or about $50,000 per year. This is because ERISA, a 1974 Federal law that protects private defined benefit plans, has as its guiding principal a Federal guarantee of defined pension payments only up to the median income level, and no more. This is an example of a social net, in juxtaposition to an entitlement.

The other problem with define benefit plans is that the future benefit obligations are costed at the time of grant based on faulty assumptions. And the professionals validating the assumptions know that the assumptions are fudged at the time, but they are paid to confirm them.

For example, life expectancy assumptions that underestimate longevity because they are based on backward looking data. Investment assumptions as high was 10% per year based on academic studies instead of real investment return data. Salary and inflation escalators that are low-balled. All of these faulty assumption lead to chronic underfunding. Private defined benefit plans are said to be underfunded by $500B and public sector funds somewhere between $1T and $3T.

Whether the underfunding is private or public, filling the gap will always fall back on the taxpayer. And that is why taxpayers have to vote NO and force a change in pension policy.

In the case of New York, it is time to take decisive action, We need to collapse all the current pension tiers in a new TIER VII that caps defined pension benefits at median income. All benefits above the median income level would need to be handled by cash contribution to plans like 401K's and IRA's. We need to change defined benefit pension promises from an entitlement to a social net.

Collapsing the current pension tier into a new tier will require the State to pay cash lump sums to current beneficiaries to make up the value difference between the old tiers and the new tier. These cash payments would be significant but they would be a one-time event that could be managed.

It is also likely that collapsing the old pension tiers into a new tier would violate the Contract Clause of Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution, "No State shall enter into any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts". But a constitutional challenge to such a contractual reset/retrade would be positive because in the process the public would be educated about the failing of the current pension system.

The US economy is currently being held back by excessive and unaffordable pension obligations related to defined benefit plans. Public pension costs are undermining real estate values because property taxes are increasing faster than incomes. Escalating property taxes are destroying wealth by marginalizing real estate as a store of value.

The country has a choice. Fix the problem one painful bankruptcy at a time or make a major policy change.

That is why I am going to vote against a school budget for the first time in my life.

Philippine Senators-elect Proclamation Invalid-Constitutionalist

Sun, 19 May 2013 06:32:11 -0500

The senators-elect, as proclaimed by the Commission on Elections or COMELEC, is invalid according to a lawyer and constitutionalist.

In an interview with Bombo Radyo, Atty Edgar Avila, a constitutionalist and former Dean of the SLU College of Law, said proclaiming winners when the vote count is incomplete is a violation to a 1968 Supreme Court ruling. "It is invalid and unconstitutional," he noted. The rule stated incomplete vote count "is illegal and cant be a basis of subsequent proclamation." Avila added that vote count must be complete 100 percent before a proclamation can be done since the number of votes the candidate garnered will appear on the certificate of proclamation. The certificates given the the proclaimed winners don't have the number of votes obtained.

The COMELEC, who now serve as the National Board of Canvassers or NBOC, has only tallied 113, not even half of the 304 certificates of canvass when the office made the proclamation.

Though the top six, who were already proclaimed and eventually followed by another three, may not change, Avila explained the election result may change especially to those candidates who have narrow gaps as the tally continues. He also added the office is just pressured since they were unable to complete the tally in two days as they promised before the election commenced.

COMELEC chief Sixto Brillantes may not face charges in court but Avila noted it is a valid ground for impeachment as it violates the law, the constitution and the public servants' code of ethics.

Govt believes holistic development, political emancipation of the people: Sagar

Sat, 18 May 2013 08:43:15 -0500

Srinagar, May 18 (Scoop News)- Maintaining that the government believes in holistic development of the State, the Minister for Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Ali Mohammad Sagar has said that several welfare programmes have been launched in this regard and the people at the grass root level have been involved in day-to-day governance.

The Minister was interacting with scores of deputations at Nawai-Subh here today as a part of the programme whereby several ministers and leaders would be meeting deputations from different parts of the state to solve and redress the grievances of the people.

MLA, Amira Kadal and Provincial President, Kashmir, Nasir Aslam Wani and several MLAs and senior functionaries of the party were present.

Sagar said that the people should understand that the National Conference (NC) has always projected the cause of the people of the state without giving preference to the personal interests. He said that history stands testimony to the fact that the party has rendered enumerable sacrifices for the interest of the state and the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

Asking the people not to pay heed to the divisive and malicious propaganda of certain political parties, the Minister said that it is evident to everybody that these parties have always acted against the interests of the people giving preference to their personal gains. He said that the people should understand the nefarious designs and ulterior motives of them and rally behind NC which stands for the proper political and social emancipation of the state.

The Minister said that the government in order to involve the people in day-to-day governance and policy implementation has introduced several landmark Acts like Right to Information, Public Services Guarantee which have ensured transparency and effective service delivery to the people. “These have ensured that the common man can get the requisite information and delivery of essential services like PHE, PDD, Revenue etc within the stipulated time frame and the officer / officials trying to create delay in the same would be penalize”, he maintained.

Sagar said that by holding Panchayat elections and putting in place a vibrant Panchayati Raj System the democratic decentralization of powers has been ensured. He said we have fully empowered the PRIs with the powers of 14 vital departments which is a watershed in the political emancipation of the people and they can now effectively contribute their bit in day-to-day governance, policy implementation and formulation as well.

'LEGITIMATE' TARGET?- THE KILLIING FIELDS OF KASHMIR

Fri, 17 May 2013 22:26:21 -0500

‘LEGITIMATE’ TARGET?

Though married to a Policeman, the wife of Farooq Ahmad Sheikh was never worried about the safety of her husband. And, she had good reasons not to worry- because even though an ASI in the J&K Police, her husband was serving in the traffic department and was not involved in fighting militants. Thus, she was convinced that Sheikh was in no danger of coming to harm in encounters or becoming a potential target of militant reprisals directed against the ‘anti- militant operation’ group of the Police.

But she was wrong - for on May 10, an unarmed Sheikh who was on ‘law and order’ duty of regulating traffic at Rajpora Chowk in Pulwama, was shot in the back at point blank range and killed by two motorcycle borne militants in broad daylight . Killings in Kashmir have become commonplace with the people having got used to the ever looming threat to life and limb. And taking life in its stride, they have learnt how to move on. However, this tragic incident begs attention as it once again brings into focus the fundamental issue relating to the use of violence by armed groups against their own people. How has the ‘gun culture’ helped the ongoing movement for the ‘right to self determination’ in Kashmir is a debatable question. But, one thing is certain- it is certainly causing considerable physical harm and mental anguish to the people by creating an atmosphere of fear.

Ever since militancy erupted in Kashmir, armed groups have often been accused of killing their own people. Readers will recall the era when eminent personalities belonging to different walks of life were gunned down by “unidentified gunmen”. While the allegations made by militant groups that the Indian security forces and intelligence agencies were responsible for these incidents may be true, the militants could not conceal the fact that their hands too were stained with the blood of innocents. And even as the militants believed that their complicity in such killings was a well guarded secret, the truth was soon out in the open and was being discussed in hushed tones in every town and village of Kashmir.

Remember, it was during this very month twenty-three years ago, when ‘unidentified gunmen’ barged into the house of Mirwaiz Maulvi Farooq shot him dead. And twelve years ago, it was on this very day that Abdul Gani Lone too was gunned down during a commemorative rally for the Late Mirwaiz Farooq - once again by ‘unknown gunmen’. Though the militants accused the Indian ‘agencies’ for these dastardly acts, the identity of those behind these attacks soon became public knowledge. So, when former Hurriyat Conference chairman Abdul Gani Bhat admitted in 2011 that "Lone sahib, Mirwaiz Farooq and Professor Wani were not killed by the army or the police-they were targeted by our own people,” many welcomed this frank admission. And while some members of the civil society and the intelligentsia saw this as a positive development, a few even felt that this new trend of exposing ‘secret killings’ would stop the vicious cycle of senseless violence as any misdeeds of militant groups would henceforth be exposed.

However, this was not to be and the killing of ASI Farooq Ahmad Sheikh (for which the Hizbul Mujahideen has accepted responsibility), is a grim reminder of the fact that there is still no clear definition of what a ‘legitimate target’ is. And, it is inconceivable that an indigenous militant group, committed to ‘liberate’ its enslaved brethren from the ‘oppression’ of an ‘occupational force’ should itself be indulging in acts of violence against its own people and that too against those who are in no way involved in fighting the militants or opposing the movement for the ‘right to self determination’.

What has been done cannot be undone - but perhaps, a few words of condolence to the bereaved family of ASI Sheikh and a general apology by the Hizb would certainly help reduce public angst. The Hizb should realise that absence of any objection to its acts by the people is not necessarily an automatic endorsement of public approval. Moreover, when people observe that the Hizb has no qualms in killing an unarmed traffic policeman, the public opts to maintain a stoic silence since it can ill afford to do or say anything which could incur the wrath of militant outfits.

Reflecting on the ‘armed movement’ in Kashmir, Hurriyat (G) chairman SAS Geelani in his autobiography “Wullar Ke Kinaray” has remarked, “When (the) gun lost control, militant groups lost the moral standing” and this observation of the venerable octogenarian has profound wisdom. To pick up a gun is easy and so is it to kill people when one has a gun in his hand with no one to question him. But to ‘control’ the gun is what is difficult and once this gun becomes an instrument of oppression and intimidation, then militancy degenerates into terrorism. And this could prove disasterous.

The Hizb needs to guard against the general tendency that often creeps into armed groups of singularly playing- out the roles of investigator, advocate, judge and executioner. The Hizb must also realise that New Delhi has conveniently used the excuse of ‘militancy’ to promulgate draconian laws like the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, the brunt of which is being borne by the people in Kashmir. So, continued acts of violence by militant groups against civilians just serves to strengthen its hands. And while the people of Kashmir have bravely stood up against atrocities orchestrated by New Delhi for over two decades, I am not very sure if they can withstand simultaneous repression from militant groups.

Tailpiece: One has often heard that the security forces indulge in ‘false encounters’ for awards and pecuniary benefits. Newspaper reports tell us that Hizbul Mujahideen has announced a monetary reward of five lac rupees for their cadres who attacked and killed four Policemen at Hygam. If this report is true, then it is indeed very disturbing news- because until now, we always thought that ideology and not economics motivates our ‘freedom fighters’. So, if the Hizb introduces a system of ‘cash awards’ for successful attacks, then a very disturbing thought comes to the mind. Isn’t it possible that the lure of money could inculcate a mercenary psyche within their ranks and motivate some cash- hungry militants to choose an easy victim (like an unarmed traffic cop) and converting him into a ‘legitimate target’ (by accusing him of being an ‘informer’ or a ‘collaborator’) kill him just for the bounty?

Infamous Argentine Dictator Dies in Jail

Fri, 17 May 2013 19:19:25 -0500

Written by Laura Schneider · Translated by Elizabeth

Jorge Rafael Videla ^[1], Argentina's former president, died on May 17, 2013, at the age of 87 in a jail cell where he was imprisoned.

Videla ruled between 1976 and 1981, during Argentina's military dictatorship, a period marked by death that left thousands of people missing ^[2] [es].

In 1983 the former dictator was judged and condemned to life-prison for crimes against humanity. In 2010 Videla was sentenced ^[3] [es] to life in prison for the torture and shooting of 31 political prisoners, and in 2012 he was sentenced to another 50 years in jail for the kidnapping ^[4] [es] of newborns during the dictatorship.

An obituary ^[5] [es] by BBC World says: “He was one of the most controversial and hated men in Argentina, under his regime close to 30,000 people died or disappeared according to human rights organizations.”

Jose Alejandro Godoy of website Desde el Tercer Piso (From the Third Floor) wrote ^[6] [es] about the events that took place during the years Videla ruled Argentina:

Secuestro sistemático de menores de edad, torturas, uso del mundial de fútbol para fines de propaganda (a pocas cuadras de los estadios donde se jugaba, había centros de tortura), un ajuste económico mal aplicado, exilio de cientos de argentinos, cierre de sindicatos. El penoso legado de una dictadura que se inició con él y que se liquidó el día que algún alucinado militar argentino pretendió que hacer una guerra en las Malvinas sería la mejor forma de prolongar la estancia castrense en el poder.

Systematic kidnapping of underage kids, tortures, use of the football world cup for propaganda (a few blocks away from the stadiums, there were torture centers), a badly executed economic adjustment, hundreds of Argentineans in exile, closing of unions. The shameful legacy of a dictatorship that started with him and ended the day that some hallucinated Argentinean officer thought that starting a war in the Falklands was the best way to extend military rule.

And regarding Videla's death, he concluded:

Hoy Videla murió en una cárcel común sin privilegios. Condenado a cadena perpetua. Será enterrado en una tumba, a diferencia de muchas de sus víctimas, arrojadas al mar desde un avión. Repudiado por la sociedad argentina. Con un juicio histórico que lo remite a las páginas más infames de América Latina.

Today, Videla died in a common jail without benefits. Convicted to life-sentece. He will be buried in a tomb unlike many of his victims who were thrown to the sea from an airplane. Disowned by the Argentinean society. He was judged in a historic trial that puts him in the darkest pages of Latin America.

On the other hand, LSO wrote a small entry in his blog ^[7] [es] where he refers to Videla as a “dignified official and soldier who [...] fulfilled a mission that granted him honor.”

Under the hashtag #MurioVidela ^[8] [Videla Died] thousands of Argentineans have reacted to the news, like user @Cami-cotarelo ^[9][es]:

@Cami_Cotarelo ^[10]: No se festeja que #MurioVidela ^[8], pero hoy despues de casi 40 años descansan en paz mas de 30.000 personas

@Cami_Cotarelo ^[10]: There's no celebration for #MurioVidela ^[8], but today after almost 40 years more than 30,000 people rest in peace

Cecilia Saia (@Cecisaia ^[11]) [es] also expressed the feelings shared by many Argentineans:

@Cecisaia: ^[12] Hoy hay un monstruo menos en el mundo. Si hay algo después de la muerte, que le vuelva por mil todo lo que hizo #muriovidela ^[13]

@Cecisaia: ^[12]: Today there's one less monster in the world. If there's something after death, may it give him back all he did a thousand times #muriovidela ^[13]

Nobel Peace laureate Adolfo Perez Esquivel ^[14] (@PrensaPEsquivel ^[15]) [es] wrote on his Twitter account:

@PrensaPEsquivel ^[16]: #MurióVidela ^[17], un hombre que ha hecho mucho daño al país y a la humanidad. No se ha cerrado un ciclo, hay [que] buscar más #verdad ^[18] y #justicia ^[19].

@PrensaPEsquivel ^[16]: #MurióVidela ^[17], a man that has hurt the country and humanity deeply. A cycle hasn't closed; we need to find more #verdad ^[18] (truth) and #justicia ^[19] (justicia).

Infobae published a Storify post ^[20] [es] with more reaction on Twitter.

Article printed from Global Voices: http://globalvoicesonline.org

URL to article: http://globalvoicesonline.org/2013/05/17/jorge-videla-argentinas-ex-military-leader-dies-in-jail/

Tbilisi: Anti-Gay Riot

Fri, 17 May 2013 19:11:36 -0500

Embarrassment for government after police struggle to protect anti-homophobia march.

By Tina Zhvania - Caucasus

An attempt to hold a march against homophobia in the Georgian Tbilisi ended in rioting as hostile protesters attacked participants and police lines crumbled.

Dozens of people were injured, including journalists and police officers trying to escort people away from the trouble.

Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili condemned the May 17 violence, saying, “The right to gather peacefully and to freely express one's opinion is fundamental to our democracy.“

Opponents of the march against homophobia were already gathering on the capital’s central Rustaveli Avenue the previous day, and they numbered several thousand by the time it was due to begin.

Police cordoned off a section of Freedom Square for the few dozen people who were still determined to take part. But when they were due to begin, an aggressive crowd surged towards the square, and police evacuated most of the anti-homophobia marchers on buses before their opponents could reach them.

Accompanied by Orthodox priests, and armed with stones, poles and other weapons, the protesters attacked a minibus containing some of the participants, smashing windows and pelting those inside with stones.

Flushed with victory, some took control of the square to celebrate, while others fanned out into the city.

The anti-gay protesters had been spurred on by a statement issued by the head of the Georgian Orthodox church, Patriarch Ilia II, who compared homosexuality to a disease and called on the city mayor to ban the march.

In response, the city authorities pointed out that demonstrations do not require prior permission, and that organisers merely have to inform officials of their plans.

In an earlier press briefing, Ivanishvili had promised protection for the anti-homophobia march, whatever others thought of it.

“There are people who can’t accept this, but we will do everything to protect the rights of any minority. That is what is going to happen in this case,” he said.

Afterwards, he said that the perpetrators of violence would be dealt with, and defended the action taken by the police. He said more than 2,000 police had been deployed to prevent trouble, but they were “overwhelmed” by several thousand anti-gay demonstrators.

His government nevertheless faced accusations of failing to ensure an adequate police response.

“Some Georgian citizens were not given a chance to exercise their constitutional rights. The state was unable to create conditions for holding the action or to prevent violence,” Georgia’s human rights ombudsman Ucha Nanuashvili said when he arrived on the scene of the clashes.

Aleko Tskitishvili, director of the Human Rights Centre in Tbilisi, said most people had assumed the anti-homophobia march would go off peacefully after the prime minister’s pledge to protect participants.

“There were calm and clear statements that the government would maintain order. But sadly, a tragedy occurred and people suffered,” he said, adding that eyewitness accounts suggested that the police did have the resources needed to stop the riot.

“I believe questions must be raised about the responsibility of the interior minister and the police officers who were in charge,” Tskitishvili added.

Other rights groups and opposition groups agreed that both government and police had been discredited by their failure to maintain control.

“We need a state that is ready to respond to aggression,” Chiora Taktakishvili, a member of parliament from the opposition United National Movement, said.

More generally, the ugly scenes in Tbilisi left many Georgians fearing an upsurge in religious intolerance, and saddened that their country’s reputation had been dented.

“It’s very hard to watch members of the priesthood taking part and unashamedly allowing children to take part in their violence,” opposition politician Taktakishvili said.

Tskitishvili, from the Human Rights Centre, said, “Sadly, because of what has happened the government’s reputation has been seriously damaged and, what’s worse, the reputation of the whole country has, too.

“All those who are to blame for this tragedy must be identified and punished. Neither the priest’s cassock, nor the king’s crown nor the presidential chair should guarantee impunity.”

Tina Zhvania is a freelance journalist in Tbilisi.

Source: IWPR

Link:iwpr.net/report-news/anti-gay-riot-georgian-capital

Bolivia: Central Workers Union Demand Better Pensions

Thu, 16 May 2013 12:57:47 -0500

Written by Pablo Andres Rivero

Tension is growing in Bolivia as miners, teachers, health service workers and public university staff -all affiliated to the Central Workers Union (Central Obrera Boliviana, COB, in Spanish)- are on strike ^[1] demanding an increase in their retirement pension scheme.

A number of strategic streets remain blockaded in La Paz and neighbouring El Alto, with limited public transport circulating their usual routes. Road blockades also impede the normal transit to other regions.

As protests escalate, on May 14 teachers and miners detonated dynamite in the streets of La Paz during demonstrations.

COB representatives demand an increase in their retirement pensions from the current 70 percent to 100 percent of the their salary. They are asking that the increase of 30 to 50 percent in their compensation come from public funds saved in the Solidarity Fund (Fondo Solidario in Spanish). Government officials rejected this demand as they consider that it compromises the sustainability of the “Fondo Solidario”.

Negotiations are intermittent as the Government requests COB representatives to suspend demonstrations and blockades. Moreover, low-rank Police Unionists and their wives have threatened to join the general strike ^[2] [es] demanding better pension schemes, arguing the same conditions that Army officers enjoy: retirement with 100 percent of their contributions.

Clashes between police and demonstrators were reported via Twitter under the hashtag #ConflictosBo ^[3]. In spite of the conflictive climate, and although blockades and demonstrations continue, dialogue between Unionist and Government representatives is expected to resume.

Blogger and Analyst Raúl Prada comments on his blog Horizontes Nómadas ^[4] [es] (Nomad Horizons):

La COB se encuentra movilizada por reivindicaciones salariales, en defensa de una jubilación digna, que no es otra cosa que salario diferido, en contra los métodos monetaristas de transferir la solidaridad a los trabajadores, desentendiéndose el Estado de apoyar con un fondo adecuado en la perspectiva de una jubilación digna para todos.

The COB is mobilized for wage demands in defence of a dignified retirement, which is nothing but deferred salary, they are against monetarist methods of transferring Solidarity Fund responsibility to workers, while the state avoids providing support with an appropriate fund to provide a dignified retirement for everyone.

On the other hand, Minister of Economy Luis Arce stated ^[5][es] that the government does contribute to the Solidarity Fund and “guarantees the payment of the 70 percent in regards to wages.” He added that the government's proposal ensures the sustainability of the Solidarity Fund for about 30 years and supports payments to current and future pensioners”.

According to Government radio station Patria Nueva ^[6] [es], “the [same] authority explained that COB representatives are pursuing a ‘political decision’ rather than a technical one in order to increase pensions, which is not possible because it would jeopardize the income of all pensioners”.

In his blog ^[7] [es] Boris Bernal shares the analysis made by the Centre for the Study of Labour and Agrarian Development (“Centro de Estudios para el Desarrollo Laboral y Agrario” in Spanish, or CEDLA ^[8][es]):

El actual sistema integral de pensiones no garantiza el pago de rentas de jubilación dignas que
alcance a los trabajadores para cubrir sus necesidades básicas cuando pasen a ser trabajadores pasivos y las fuerzas físicas y el mercado de trabajo no les permita continuar trabajando

The current Pension System does not ensure a decent retirement income for workers to satisfy their basic needs when they become passive workers, and when physical strength as well as the labour market does not allow them to continue working.

Further down, the same analysis predicts harder conditions for young workers in the future:

El panorama para los jóvenes trabajadores y para todos aquellos que vienen aportando al actual sistema así como al que estuvo vigente hasta el 2010 (sistema administrado por las AFP) es más crítico, porque a diferencia de los aportantes antiguos [...] dispondrán de una sola fuente, sus aportes, que hará aun más insuficiente el monto requerido para jubilarse.

The scenario for young workers and for those who are contributing to the current system, and the one that was in force until 2010 (administered by the AFP system) is more critical, because unlike older contributors [...] they will have a single source, their own contributions, that will make it even harder to reach the amount required to retire.

Article printed from Global Voices: http://globalvoicesonline.org

URL to article: http://globalvoicesonline.org/2013/05/16/bolivian-workers-protest-seeking-better-pensions/

Kazakstan Ignores Human Rights Concerns

Thu, 16 May 2013 12:41:11 -0500

Economics count for more than rights, and western governments have little leverage anyway.

By Gaziza Baituova

Despite harsh words from the United States and European Union about Kazakstan’s worsening human rights record, the country’s leaders are unlikely to modify their behaviour, local analysts say. It is a simple equation – placed in the balance against economic and security cooperation with the oil-rich state, human rights count for little.

The US State Department’s annual human rights report issued on April 19 spoke of severe limits “on citizens’ rights to change their government” and “restrictions on freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion, and association” in Kazakstan.

The report dated the crackdown on opposition members and media to the police shootings in the western oil town of Janaozen in December 2011, in which 16 people died.

The day before the US report came out, the European Parliament passed a resolution expressing concern at the “dramatic worsening” of the human rights situation in Kazakstan. The resolution urged the government to revise a clause in the criminal code that outlaws actions intended to “incite social, ethnic, clan, racial or religious enmity or animosity” – a catch-all offence that rights activists say is being used to silence critics of the government.

The European Parliament report listed issues of concern over the last 12 months including the imprisonment in November of Alga party leader Vladimir Kozlov and the subsequent closure of his party, the jailing of 13 oil workers, the imprisonment of human rights defender Vadim Kuramshin, the arrest of anti-corruption campaigner Alexander Kharlamov, and the introduction of repressive law on national security.

The resolution called for talks on a new Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and Kazakstan to be suspended until the country’s human rights record improved.

Similar criticisms of the post-Janaozen environment have been voiced by international rights groups. The New York-based Human Rights Watch also noted that Kazakstan’s human rights record “seriously deteriorated in 2012”. In its annual Freedom in the World 2013 report, published in January, the US group Freedom House listed Kazakstan among countries showing “a notable decline” in their human rights record, in this case because of the use of legislation, harassment, licensing regulations, and internet curbs to control the media and limit freedom of expression.

Ludmila Kozlovska of the Open Dialogue Foundation in Poland argues that the European Parliament resolution is its strongest statement to date.

“Whereas Kazakstan used to serve as a model for the Central Asia region, in every line of this resolution – the third in the last two years – the European Parliament now cites a deterioration in human rights and freedom of expression,” Kozlovska said. “Europe’s message is simple – the West condemns repression and will engage in economic cooperation only if there is progress in liberalising politics.”

At the same time, Kozlovska noted that the resolution was inconsistent with the actions of individual European Union member states, which remained keen to engage with Kazakstan. She pointed to a November 2012 visit to Kazakstan by Catherine Ashton, the EU’s foreign affairs emissary, who failed to raise issues about human rights and political prisoners to the extent that rights groups were expecting.

Kozlov’s wife Alia Turusbekova is still hopeful that European criticism will prompt a response from the Kazak authorities.

“For us, for our family, this is an important document. We hope the Kazak authorities will heed the recommendations set out in the resolution,” she said.

Turusbekova recalled that trade union lawyer Natalia Sokolova, jailed on “incitement to social strife” charges similar to those brought against her husband, was freed in March 2012 shortly after the last resolution from the European Parliament.

In Kazakstan, there is little expectation that strongly-worded criticism even from big players like Washington and Brussels will deter the government from doing what it wants, especially when statements are not backed up by sanctions.

Tolgonai Umbetalieva, director of the Central Asia Foundation for Democracy Development, said the government was unresponsive to criticism alone, and all the more so when it “was not vocal and not from the top echelons of power”.

“The Kazak authorities won’t panic or worry about this,” she added.

Amangeldy Shormanbaev, a lawyer with the Charter for Human Rights group, said reports detailing concerns about Kazakstan without any threat of consequences were now routine.

“If this had exerted any influence over the last 20 years, we’d be living in a different country now,” he said. “For such resolutions to work, they have to include sanctions of various kinds. Only then will the intentions of those who pass them get taken seriously.”

Kazakstan’s economic value to the West as an producer of oil and metals and increasingly as a market blunts the effect of tough talk on human rights.

“Irrespective of the violations, EU countries continue to pursue their own economic interests. Over this period [covered by the reports], France and Germany have signed numerous advantageous contracts with Kazakstan,” Shormanbaev said.

Because the Kazak authorities are aware of this, any message the European Parliament resolution was meant to send was “ignored”, said Zamir Karajanov, a political analyst in Almaty.

For one thing, he said, neither European not US actors were in good enough economic shape to place human rights values above economic self-interest. For another, western governments fear that pressuring Kazakstan will simply drive it towards Russia and China, neither of which cares much about how it deals with human rights.

Karajanov drew a comparison with Uzbekistan, which fell out with the US after being criticised for mass shootings in Andijan on May 13, 2005.

“This led to the Uzbek government engaging more actively with China and returning to the [Moscow-led] Collective Security Treaty Organisation,” he said. “The same thing would happen with Kazakstan. Pressure from the US or Europe would result in Astana becoming more involved with these countries. The question is whether the West would want to see China or Russia increasing their influence in our region.”

Umbetalieva agrees that increased pressure will not force the Kazak government to mend its ways. She believes this would only happen if officials felt they had tamed domestic opposition and could afford to ease up.

“But given the high level of [social] tensions in the country, the authorities are unlikely to take a softer stance either at the moment or in the foreseeable future,” she added.

Umbetalieva argues that although the criticism is ignored, it has nonetheless been noted by Kazakstan’s leaders.

“Astana talks less about relations with European states these days. The president [Nursultan Nazarbaev] realises that his reputation has suffered as a result of Janaozen,” she said. “Whatever he says, he has to shoulder political responsibility for his own people being shot, even though he’s said he was unaware of it.”

Gaziza Baituova is an IWPR contributor in Kazakstan.

Source: IWPR

Link:iwpr.net/report-news/kazakstan-shrugs-human-rights-concerns

India's Parliamentary Democracy - The Way Forward

Thu, 16 May 2013 09:58:45 -0500

Recently MP Shashi Tharoor commented on the need for India to adopt a Presidential system of democracy in order to bring stability in the system. He further urged Indians to rekindle the debate on the kind of democracy we should have in India. I must say and clear at the very outset that I don’t agree with him. I feel that the parliamentary system of democracy which India has just now is best suited for it. I will support my stand with many reasoned arguments but before that we need to have a look on the arguments given by Mr Shashi Tharoor and on the contemporary system of governance.

All of us know that over the last few years, more precisely the last one decade, the amount of business transacted in the Union Parliament and the various State Legislatures has gone down. This has been because of the frequent adjournments which seem to have become an intrinsic part of our parliamentary proceedings. Terms like disruption, ruckus and pandemonium are quite often linked to the Parliament. A number of dissenting MP’s all of a sudden erupt, start speaking out of turn, resort to sloganeering, wave placards, march into the well of the House and ultimately force the Speaker to adjourn the House. This has become a very common scene nowadays. In some State Legislatures we have even seen MLA’s indulging in physical brawls, making use of filthy language and throwing shoes on one another. On one occasion we even saw a chair being flung on the Speaker. Thankfully the more violent scenes of House disruption have remained relegated to the State Assemblies and haven’t been seen in the Union Parliament till now.

Mr Tharoor argues that a Parliamentary form of democracy makes the Executive more responsible but doesn’t provide it with stability. He says that only a Presidential form of democracy can provide the highly pulsating Indian Polity with much needed stability but he doesn’t shy away once from saying that in a Presidential form of democracy there is stability but less of responsibility. When President Pranab Mukherjee was the Union Finance Minister, he said in a statement issued on the floor of the House, “Political instability leads to economic instability.” It is possible that Mr Shashi Tharoor wants to see India quickly get back on the road to recovery and therefore he is stressing on the need for political stability. Mr Tharoor writes in his article titled ‘Shall we call the President’ that in the era of coalition governments, governments stay in office not to govern but to ensure that they remain in office during the remainder of their term and are not forced into a premature exit. Mr Tharoor even elaborated on the fractured state of ideology in the political arena. He says that political parties in India keep changing ideologies and don’t stick to one. I do agree with him on this particular issue. I honestly feel that apart from the Left, I haven’t even seen a single political party which has stuck to its ideology all along. Mr Tharoor further added that it is because of no concrete political ideology that at all times individuals fighting elections become far more important than parties and the caste-communal factor seeps in and now it becomes important to know whether a person is a Dalit or a Muslim. Mr Tharoor believes that Parliamentary form of democracy has serious limitations because it doesn’t allow the Government to facilitate talent. In the sense that a Government cannot make any expert a minister until and unless he gets elected to either House of the Parliament thus making it imperative for an expert or a technocrat to be a politician whereas in a Presidential form of democracy one can develop a Cabinet independently as it does not require Ministers serving in the Cabinet to be Members of Parliament.

Mr Tharoor even stresses on the fact that the large size of the electorate in India makes it undesirable for India to have such sort of a democracy. He feels that the growing number of regional parties will worsen the situation and a Presidential system will give the Indian Executive much required stability and independence from the Legislature. In the longer run it will also help India in evolving as a mature democracy as Presidential systems usually yield a strong bi-party system where only the two fittest political parties vie for public offices. Mr Tharoor did not fail to mention that his idea wasn’t received with much anticipation by his counterparts as they are familiar with the current system and know how to make it work.

I do agree with Mr Tharoor that comfort lies in familiarity and MP’s or MLA’s will not be willing to tamper with the existing set up or system. I feel that there is no need for India to move towards a Presidential system because India’s strength is its pluralistic form of Parliamentary democracy but I don’t hesitate from saying that we need to revamp the existing system up to a considerable extent to make our Parliamentary system of democracy an ideal one. The first problem is in relation to House disruptions. Why does that happen? The answer to the question is that we are not electing the right individuals as MP’s or MLA’s. Now this in itself is based on another thing. Mr Tharoor says that in India during elections individuals take precedence over the party because of lack of political ideology. I differ with him. I think that in India, politics is party oriented instead of being individual centric. It is actually party affiliation which matters as all parties have a trademark trump card of theirs. For the BJP it’s the Hindutva agenda, for the Congress its Minority Appeasement and for regional parties like SP, BSP and RJD it’s the formula of Social Engineering. Voters choose parties and not candidates. They align with a particular party and vote for that party’s candidate, many a times voting without even knowing the name of the candidate they are voting for. It is this mentality and practice which we need to overcome. Parties do need to have ideologies but they need to be flexible on them. They cannot be caught up in the web of ideologies. Look at CPM, today they are forced to oppose many good policies just because of their ideological alignment. Even a sensible capitalist venture doesn’t make sense to them. So the important thing is to understand that ideologies are necessary but not paramount. The only necessary ideology is the one which is ‘pro-people’. A party can have an ideology at the national level and individual candidates do need to express them during election rallies as to what will his party strive to do if it comes to power but along with it they also need to elaborate on their personal ideologies and development agendas. What kind of plan of action do they have for the constituency which they may represent in the future? Where are the problems and how will they be overcome? Politics has to be centered on individuals. Elections have to be won by candidates not parties.

We have added a flavour of ‘president like leadership’ in our elections where we have star campaigners and party presidents coming and campaigning for their party’s candidates. Let’s take an example to understand this. Once Aamir Khan asked his fans on Twitter to vote for his sister in a competition. He was accused of using his influence to make his sister benefit and ultimately he withdrew his comments following the outcry. Isn’t this what we are doing in the political arena? A very famous party leader whom the people know may come and persuade them to vote for their party’s third class candidate who may win just because of that star campaigning and may eclipse past sincere candidates fighting as independents, who may have a better vision for the constituency but may lose out to him just because they could not get political stalwarts to campaign for them. So the Election Commission needs to take cognizance of such kind of things. Individuals should speak for themselves and not get political heavyweights to endorse their candidacy. This will lead to the election of better individuals to State Assemblies and the Union Parliament. Now inside Parliament when we’ll have better individuals as MP’s then we’ll have lesser disruptions or maybe even no disruptions. To deal with disruptions the Speaker needs to react very strictly and comply with the code of conduct in the hardest possible manner. Misbehaving MP’s and the ones who speak out of turn need to be thrown out by the guards present, immediately on the instruction of the Speaker and they should be suspended. No apologies should be accepted from them. The Parliament is not an agitating forum or a demonstration spot.

The second issue which needs to be dealt with is stability. It’s true that Executives in India are purposely destabilized to score political points. It’s because of opportunistic and competitive politics. All parties intend to come to power desperately and indulge in power politics. The Opposition parties in India feel that opposing all the policies of the Government and thwarting all their legislations will help them politically. It will give them an opportunity to accuse the Government of inaction or misgovernance. Because of frequent or rather never ending opposition from the Opposition we are already witnessing a policy freeze or a policy paralysis, more famously referred to as governance deficit. I think that the solution to this problem lies in further fusion of the Executive and the Legislature, not in a clear demarcation between the two as in Presidential systems. A Presidential system is not the solution to the problem of instability. If the Opposition hijacks the Parliament (just like the Republicans in the US Congress) then they will resort to blocking every initiative of the President for the sake of their political fortunes. So what do we do? We need to empower the Parliament and at the same time take away some of its powers. In India the problem is that when a draft bill is prepared (usually by bureaucrats, politicians are involved only in a partial way) it is passed without even five minutes of debate. The Opposition has only two options, either to support the bill or to oppose it and in most of the cases they resort to opposing. The only constructive process that the bill goes through is the one relating to the Standing Committees but even their recommendations are not binding on the Cabinet. So what happens is that the Cabinet prepares the bill and gets it passed by means of its majority inside Parliament. Thus the Executive (having a majority in the Parliament) acts both as the Legislature and the Executive. We need to get the Opposition actively involved in the process of legislating but in order to bring about stability in the system we need to take away from the House the right to kill a bill. How do we do that? This can be done by empowering the Standing Committees. The Standing Committees should be constituted by members of various political parties and the representation of members from each party should be in proportionality to their representation in the Parliament. What does the Standing Committee do now? It examines the bill right from head to toe. Calls experts, intellectuals, stakeholders, MP’s and has everybody’s opinion on it. Then it needs to exercise power. It will decide whether the provisions of the proposed law are in consonance with the existing law or not. After this the Standing Committee decides whether to forward the Bill to the House or to kill it thereby sending it back to the Cabinet for redrafting. In order to give a nod to an ordinary bill or money bill a simple majority of the Standing Committee’s members shall be required and in case of a Constitution Amendment Bill the required majority shall be 2/3^rd of the members of the Committee. Once the bill is cleared it’ll be sent to the House. Now the Standing Committee will not prepare a final draft but send a list of recommendations. Like in case of every clause, it will forward to the Parliament a number of alternatives and different approaches. The task of preparing the final draft shall be left to the Parliament. How does the Parliament do that? Remember the right to kill the bill has already been taken away from the Parliament. There are debates on each and every clause of the proposal in both the Houses. At the time of voting both Houses are summoned together. In case of money bill only members of the Lok Sabha shall vote. Now voting will not be in favour of or against the bill as the final draft bill doesn’t even exist till now. Voting will be on each and everyone clause. Suppose if provision 1 of a proposed legislation has four options then MP’s will have to vote for one of the four options. The option which will receive the maximum number of votes will be included in the draft bill. Similarly all provisions will be put to vote and the same exercise will be followed. The process will continue and finally we will arrive at a result. No party shall be allowed to issue whips. Each MP shall act independently. By doing so we will make the Opposition members as active participants in the process of legislating and the draft bill in the real sense will be prepared by the Legislature and not the Executive. After that it will be sent to the President for his assent. Such proactive participation from the Opposition in the process of legislating will help in strengthening parliamentary form of democracy and the Opposition term will cease to exist as they will be active stakeholders in the process of legislating.

Mr Tharoor said that Parliamentary form of democracy doesn’t allow the Government to facilitate talent as it is imperative to be a Member of Parliament to be a Minister in the Government. Such sort of a handicap can also be overcome. It is not always necessary for the Government to facilitate talent by making them Ministers as in Presidential systems. We can set up extra constitutional bodies like the National Advisory Council and undertake extra constitutional initiatives and exercises thus making use of the talent pool and facilitating it. Hectic consultations can be held with NGO’s, think tanks, independent organizations and corporations. They will emerge as partners to the Government and help them in effective governance. The ruling party can also make an offer to certain opposition members to serve as Ministers in their cabinet. This will further erase the line of demarcation between the Government and the Opposition and India will move towards a truly National Government. The last thing that I want to talk about is related to regional parties and bi-party system. I think that in a country as huge as India, in a country where you have such different kinds of people having different languages and cultures, you can’t have just two parties. The growth of regional parties can be viewed constructively as well. We have parties solely concentrating on certain areas. They’ll be far more aware of the ground realities than a party looking after the entire country. It is not necessary that we need to have a bi-party system in order to have stability. We can have that in the era of coalition governments and a multi-party system as well. We just need to put things into order. If we’ll do that then we’ll surely get stability. Elect the right people and you get the right results. Again I would like to mention that elect individuals not parties. Forget about the permutations and combinations inside Parliament while voting. The party which will field the best set of candidates will eventually come to power and this is what is required. Multiple-partners in the ruling coalition signify decentralization in the true sense. We don’t need an Executive President as it is hard to believe that a demi-god will all of a sudden fix all the problematic things in our country. The present pluralistic form of Parliamentary democracy is ideal, it just needs a bit of revamping. That’s all!

Syama Prasad Mukherjee & The Delhi Pact of 1950

Thu, 16 May 2013 09:43:28 -0500

Politics is a paradoxical business. Some months back on NDTV’s show ‘The Buck Stops Here’, Senior BJP leader Chandan Mitra was repeatedly citing the exodus of Pakistani Hindus as a complete violation of the 1950 Delhi Pact between Jawaharlal Nehru and Liaqat Ali Khan. It’s true that Pakistan’s track record in terms of religious autonomy and freedom towards its minorities is pathetic enough to be labelled as horrendous but what amazed me was the hypocrisy surrounding Mitra’s arguments.

Syama Prasad Mukherjee, the founder of the Bhartiya Jana Sangh (BJP’s First Avtar) supported the partition of Bengal in 1946 and sabotaged Sarat Bose and Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy’s bid for an undivided but independent Bengal. This ultimately culminated into widespread dispersals and bloodshed. Later on, Mukherjee went on to become a Union Minister in the Interim Central Government but he resigned from the cabinet when Pandit Nehru invited Liaqat Ali Khan to sign a pact which would lead to the establishment of minority commissions and safeguarding of minority rights in both the countries as he was opposed to both the pact as well as the invitation extended to Liaqat Ali Khan since he felt it was nothing but an appeasement ploy and held East Pakistan directly responsible for the large number of Hindu refugees. It’s strange that he did not see this coming when he jolted the idea of an autonomous Bengal and stressed upon its partitioning on religious lines.

Today, the very same Delhi Pact of 1950 which Mukherjee opposed tooth and nail and led him into establishing the Bhartiya Jana Sangh is being heavily quoted by BJP leaders to hold Pakistan accountable. They are citing a document the opposition to which brought them into existence. BJP’s website has an article titled Subhas Chandra Bose : A Mascot of Hindutva, the same Subhas Bose whose brother Sarat Bose’s bid for an independent Bengal was jeopardized by Syama Prasad Mukherjee. You never know what might happen in politics. Foes become friends and friends become foes. Coming back to the crux issue of Pakistani Hindus and other minorities, I would unequivocally condemn the step motherly treatment meted out by Pakistan towards Hindus which is a matter of utter disgrace. Such things would go on happening until and unless three substantial things are not realized, first, a secular polity, second, debunking of historical mistakes and third, getting over the sickness of indigenous people (Every legal citizen is an indigenous citizen in my opinion irrespective of the first historical appearance of his/her tribe in the concerned area) and dismissing superstitious claims of a God-given holy land. However, I would be quite blunt in my submission that Pakistani Hindus willing to migrate into India should fulfil all our citizenship requirements and no special privileges should be extended to them because in the event of such a scenario, there would be a direct comparison of Muslim Bangladeshi immigrants with Hindu Pakistani immigrants. One is being treated as a threat to the demographic pattern and national security whereas the other group is being welcomed with open arms. It’s more of a case of human rights and we should see to it whether we are in a position to sustain the influx of migrants be them Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Christians or anything else.