adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Politics

The exclusion of women in Myanmar politics helped fuel the military coup – The Conversation CA

Published

 on


On Feb. 1, 2021, Myanmar’s military seized power. While a dramatic event, the coup was a continuation of old power structures.

Myanmar’s decade-long period of political transition, peace-building and democratic elections fell short of freeing the country from military control. Despite its female leader, the exclusion of women throughout the failed transition to democracy is partly why Myanmar was unable to create deep institutional change.

Aung San Suu Kyi’s image as “mother of the nation” depicted her as a caring matriarch. This image stood in contrast with the harsh patriarchy of military rule. But politics in Myanmar defy stereotypes and simple classifications.

300x250x1

Suu Kyi may have been the face of the era of democratic reforms, but in reality, the transition was initiated and controlled by the military. Suu Kyi’s legacy as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate was permanently stained by her handling of the Rohingya genocide, and her projected femininity and democratic idealism should not be confused for feminism or inclusive democracy.

Aung San Suu Kyi addresses judges of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands, in December 2019. She was defending Myanmar against allegations of genocide in its campaign against the Rohingya Muslim minority.
(AP Photo/Peter Dejong)

Gender can still help us understand politics in Myanmar, however — just not along these lines. Instead, a different story emerges by looking at the exclusion of women in key stages of the transition process. It is a tale of the persistence of patriarchal power throughout the decade of democratization.

Constitution kept men in charge

The governing patriarchy is on full display in the 2008 constitution that spurred Myanmar’s decade of democracy. According to one provision of the constitution, certain positions are suitable for men only. Women are excluded from key ministerial positions, and a major government agency, the Union Civil Service Board, regularly uses this clause of the constitution to block applications from women for both mid- and junior-level positions. This caps decades of extreme repression of women.

The Myanmar army is infamous for its systematic targeting of ethnic minority women and girls for sexual violence, and the militarization of the country has contributed to widespread discriminatory practices.




Read more:
Internet blackouts in Myanmar allow the military to retain control


The peace process (2011-15) between the Tatmadaw — Myanmar’s military — and ethnic armed groups that have long challenged its hold on the country was a deal involving men. Only four women served inconsistently on senior negotiation delegations (less than six per cent). Women were also largely excluded from ceasefire structures and monitoring teams.

Other important institutions also failed to modernize during the transition. Instead, they generally mirrored conservative and traditional attitudes. Women’s representation in parliament gained roughly five per cent in both the 2015 and 2020 elections, growing from less than five per cent in 2014 to just over 15 per cent in November’s contested election. Important as this progress was, equality was ultimately handcuffed by the embedded patriarchy of the military.

The military orchestrated the democratic transition according to rules designed to give them continued influence. In so doing, they hamstrung women’s political inclusion.

A row of police in riot gear stand behind barbed wire.
Police stand guard behind barbed wire as they attempt to stop protesters outside Union Election Commission office in November 2020, in Naypyitaw, Myanmar after the military said it did not accept the election results.
(AP Photo/Aung Shine Oo)

The Tatmadaw also retained the right to appoint 25 per cent of legislative seats. A military background is required for certain ministerial positions. Since women were only recently allowed to serve in the military, the requirement effectively makes them ineligible to hold these offices.

There were only two women among the 166 military appointees following the 2015 elections. The military appointed only 10 per cent of women to national, state and regional legislative chambers in 2020. The military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) only elected one woman to both the 2015 and 2020 parliaments. The military quota makes reform unlikely because any constitutional amendment to address discrimination requires 75 per cent approval.

The patriarchy of the military is reflected in the non-military political parties, notwithstanding Suu Kyi’s leadership. The parties are gatekeepers to women’s representation. But they have generally not taken steps to improve women’s political participation.

No quick fix

We are not arguing more women in Myanmar politics would have prevented the coup. There is no such thing as a quick fix to eliminate the country’s history of militarization.

But we do suggest that women’s relative absence from positions of influence helped enable the military to maintain its grip on power.

Women in masks carry placards as they sit in a boat.
Ethnic Entha women display placards during a protest against the military coup in Inle Lake, Taunggyi, Myanmar, on Feb. 11, 2021.
(AP Photo/Aung Ko San)

Understanding this connection is important for three reasons. First, giving women a seat at the table makes a difference. Research shows that equality and inclusion foster sustainable peace, meaning that the attitudes of the participating men are also required. Rather than just armed organizations, civil society groups and women’s organizations should be included in transitions from war to peace.

Second, the women’s movement in Myanmar offers new models for collaborative governance. Relegated to the shadows, women’s groups nonetheless organized to contribute to the peace process through informal channels, including back-channel negotiation. They have shown a path for bridging ethnic differences to work towards common goals.

Finally, by tracing the path of patriarchy in Myanmar, we can better understand what brought about the coup. As we grapple with why the military staged a coup at this particular moment in time, it should be seen in light of the country’s militarized recent history and the power dynamics of the transition. Women’s rights organizations are currently mobilizing and are putting it out there quite simply: a militarized Myanmar is a threat for women.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Politics

GOP strategist reacts to Trump’s ‘unconventional’ request – CNN

Published

 on


GOP strategist reacts to Trump’s ‘unconventional’ request

Donald Trump’s campaign is asking Republican candidates and committees using the former president’s name and likeness to fundraise to give at least 5% of what they raise to the campaign, according to a letter obtained by CNN. CNN’s Steve Contorno and Republican strategist Rina Shah weigh in.


03:00

– Source:
CNN

Adblock test (Why?)

300x250x1

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Anger toward federal government at 6-year high: Nanos survey – CTV News

Published

 on


Most Canadians in March reported feeling angry or pessimistic towards the federal government than at any point in the last six years, according to a survey by Nanos Research.

Nanos has been measuring Canadians’ feelings of optimism, satisfaction, disinterest, anger, pessimism and uncertainty toward the federal government since November 2018.

The latest survey found that optimism had crept up slightly to 10 per cent since hitting an all-time low of eight per cent in September 2023.

300x250x1

However, 62 per cent of Canadians said they feel either pessimistic or angry, with respondents equally split between the two sentiments.

(Nanos Research)

“What we’ve seen is the anger quotient has hit a new record,” Nik Nanos, CTV’s official pollster and Nanos Research founder, said in an interview with CTV News’ Trend Line on Wednesday.

Only 11 per cent of Canadians felt satisfied, while another 11 per cent said they were disinterested.

Past survey results show anger toward the federal government has increased or held steady across the country since March 2023, while satisfaction has gradually declined.

Will the budget move the needle?

Since the survey was conducted before the federal government released its 2024 budget, there’s a chance the anger and pessimism of March could subside a little by the time Nanos takes the public’s temperature again. They could also stick.

The five most important issues to Canadians right now that would influence votes, according to another recent Nanos survey conducted for Bloomberg, include inflation and the cost of living, health care, climate change and the environment, housing affordability and taxes.

(Nanos Research)

With this year’s budget, the federal government pledged $52.9 billion in new spending while promising to maintain the 2023-24 federal deficit at $40.1 billion. The federal deficit is projected to be $39.8 billion in 2024-25.

The budget includes plans to boost new housing stock, roll out a national disability benefit, introduce carbon rebates for small businesses and increase taxes on Canada’s top-earners.

However, advocacy groups have complained it doesn’t do enough to address climate change, or support First Nations communities and Canadians with disabilities.

“Canada is poised for another disastrous wildfire season, but this budget fails to give the climate crisis the attention it urgently deserves,” Keith Brooks, program director for Environmental Defence, wrote in a statement on the organization’s website.

Meanwhile, when it comes to a promise to close what the Assembly of First Nations says is a sprawling Indigenous infrastructure gap, the budget falls short by more than $420 billion. And while advocacy groups have praised the impending roll-out of the Canada Disability Benefit, organizations like March of Dimes Canada and Daily Bread Food Bank say the estimated maximum benefit of $200 per month per recipient won’t be enough to lift Canadians with disabilities out of poverty.

According to Nanos, if Wednesday’s budget announcement isn’t enough to restore the federal government’s favour, no amount of spending will do the trick.

“If the Liberal numbers don’t move up after this, perhaps the listening lesson for the Liberals will be (that) spending is not the political solution for them to break this trend line,” Nanos said. “It’ll have to be something else.”

Conservatives in ‘majority territory’

While the Liberal party waits to see what kind of effect its budget will have on voters, the Conservatives are enjoying a clear lead when it comes to ballot tracking.

(Nanos Research)

“Any way you cut it right now, the Conservatives are in the driver’s seat,” Nanos said. “They’re in majority territory.”

According to Nanos Research ballot tracking from the week ending April 12, the Conservatives are the top choice for 40 per cent of respondents, the Liberals for 23.7 per cent and the NDP for 20.6 per cent.

Whether the Liberals or the Conservatives form the next government will come down, partly, to whether voters believe more government spending is, or isn’t, the key to helping working Canadians, Nanos said.

“Both of the parties are fighting for working Canadians … and we have two competing visions for that. For the Liberals, it’s about putting government support into their hands and creating social programs to support Canadians,” he said.

“For the Conservatives, it’s very different. It’s about reducing the size of government (and) reducing taxes.”

Watch the full episode of Trend Line in our video player at the top of this article. You can also listen in our audio player below, or wherever you get your podcasts. The next episode comes out Wednesday, May 1.

Methodology

Nanos conducted an RDD dual frame (land- and cell-lines) hybrid telephone and online random survey of 1,069 Canadians, 18 years of age or older, between March 31 and April 1, 2024, as part of an omnibus survey. Participants were randomly recruited by telephone using live agents and administered a survey online. The sample included both land- and cell-lines across Canada. The results were statistically checked and weighted by age and gender using the latest census information and the sample is geographically stratified to be representative of Canada. The margin of error for this survey is ±3.0 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

With files from The Canadian Press, CTV News Senior Digital Parliamentary Reporter Rachel Aiello and CTV News Parliamentary Bureau Writer, Producer Spencer Van Dyke

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

The MAGA Right is Flirting With Political Violence – Vanity Fair

Published

 on


Tom Cotton is encouraging vigilantism, and Kari Lake is urging supporters to “strap on a Glock.”

April 17, 2024

300x250x1

Image may contain Tom Cotton Face Head Person Photography Portrait Adult Formal Wear Accessories Tie and People

Tom Cotton speaks at a press conference in December 2023.Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

The MAGA right exists in a perpetual state of overheated grievance. But as the November election nears, the temperature seems to be rising, getting dangerously high.

This week, following Gaza war protests that disrupted travel in major American cities Monday, Senator Tom Cotton explicitly called on Americans to “take matters into [their] own hands” to get demonstrators out of the way. Asked to clarify those comments Tuesday, Cotton stood by them, telling reporters he would “do it myself” if he were blocked in traffic by demonstrators: “It calls for getting out of your car and forcibly removing” protestors,” he said.

X content

This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

The right-wing senator’s comments came on the heels of Kari Lake, the GOP candidate for Senate in Arizona, suggesting supporters should arm themselves for the 2024 election season. “The next six months is going to be intense,” she said at a rally Sunday. “And we need to strap on our—let’s see, what do we want to strap on? We’re going to strap on our seat belt. We’re going to put on our helmet or your Kari Lake ballcap. We are going to put on the armor of God. And maybe strap on a Glock on the side of us, just in case.”

And those comments came a couple weeks after Donald Trump, who regularly invokes apocalyptic and violent rhetoric, shared an image on social media depicting President Joe Biden—his political rival—hog-tied in the back of a pick-up truck. “This image from Donald Trump is the type of crap you post when you’re calling for a bloodbath or when you tell the Proud Boys to ‘stand back and stand by,’” a Biden spokesperson told ABC News last month, referring to the former president’s dog-whistle to extremist groups during a 2020 debate and to cryptic remarks he’s made from rally stages this spring suggesting Biden’s reelection would mean a “bloodbath”—for the auto industry and for the border. This kind of thing is nothing new—not for Trump, not for his allies, and not in American history, which is what makes these flirtations with political violence all the more dangerous.

We’ve seen where this kind of reckless rhetoric can lead. Throughout Trump’s first campaign for president, it led to eruptions of violence at his rallies, which he openly encouraged: “Knock the crap out of ‘em, would you?” he told supporters of hecklers. It also inflamed tensions throughout his presidency, which culminated with his instigating a violent insurrection at the United States Capitol. According to a PBS Newshour/NPR/Marist poll this month, 20 percent of Americans believe violence may be necessary to get the country on track. A disturbing new study out of University of California-Davis found openness to political violence was even higher among gun owners, particularly those who own assault weapons, recently purchased their firearms, or carry them in public. And an October survey by the Public Religion Research Institute and the Brookings Institution suggested that support for political violence, while still limited, appears to be increasing, with nearly a quarter of respondents overall—and a third of Republicans—agreeing with the statement: “Patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.”

“It looks like the temperature has gone up across the board, but especially among Republicans,” Robert P. Jones, president and founder of PRRI, told Axios of the survey last fall. That’s no accident. It’s the kind of political climate you get when a sitting senator promotes vigilantism, a Senate candidate calls on supporters to take up arms, and a major party embraces or enables a demagogue. “Political violence,” as Biden campaign communications director Michael Tyler put it a couple weeks ago, “has been and continues to be central to Donald Trump’s brand of politics.”

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending