May 23

What about the Women? -The Issue of Female Prisoners

When most people think about incarceration, they typically imagine a place filled with men in orange jumpsuits. Though this does represent a large portion of the prison population, it ignores the fastest growing population: women, which has increased by 757% since 1977. With statistics like this you would think that women in the penal system would receive at least as much attention as men if not more so, however that is not the case. Women have been largely ignored as a population when it comes to services, protections, and reforms because they still make up a very small proportion of the overall population at a little less than 10%. Just because women do not represent a large portion of the penal system does not mean they do not need as much help and support as the male population. Groups like the Correctional Association of New York, with their Women in Prison Project (WIPP) understand this. They represent the voices of women in prison when others would ignore them and make their needs heard. We need more groups like these nation-wide in order to address prison problems specific to women.

Women have special needs in prison distinct from men, but these needs are not always met because they reside in a penal system created by men for men. Because the female prison population is relatively small there are fewer female prisons, most of which are maximum security. This means women can be forced into supermax prisons for very minor crimes, often taking them further away from their homes than men would be for a similar crime. Fewer prisons also leads to overcrowding, which increases health problems in an already at risk population. Many women have special health needs beyond what men typically require. They can experience pregnancy, motherhood, and have a higher likelihood for mental illness than men. I am not saying that men have an easier experience in jail or that it is less traumatizing for them, but it is true that their experience in prison receives more media attention and more attention from activists than women typically do. Because of this fewer reforms are made in female prisons to help the women.
The people who work with WIPP are trying to change this standard one step at a time. They spread awareness through advocacy campaigns, regularly visit women’s prisons in order to hold prison employees accountable for their actions, and regularly send reports to government officials, keeping them up to date on key issues. These are practices that many advocacy groups use but WIPP focuses all its efforts on prison reform for women only. This is an important distinction from other groups who focus on changing the entire prison system. When groups take this approach extra money or studies will almost definitely focus on the male prison population and simply gloss over or ignore the differences in the female population. WIPP avoids this fallacy by focusing solely on making changes to the female prison system. This decision has translated into many successful campaigns, most notably in the banning of shackling during labor. New York is one of only 14 states that have stopped this inhumane practice and WIPP was an important part of the advocacy movement that included groups like the ACLU and NOW that helped make this happen. Successes like this demonstrate the importance and power of a group like WIPP in voicing concerns about female prisoners and addressing issues directly related to women.

Many groups surrounding female prison reform do most of their work by telling the stories of incarcerated women. While this is an important aspect to awareness raising and advocacy, it cannot be the only part. By going beyond storytelling and initiating and supporting specific initiatives, WIPP sets an example for other groups around the country. If more groups could mimic the progress made in New York, conditions in prisons all over the country could be fixed and a broader movement could form to bring change on the national level, not just the state level. There are many different spheres in the overall prison reform movement and groups like WIPP demonstrate the importance and potential influence that smaller groups can have on the entire effort.

Share

May 22

Problems with Alabama’s New Immigration Law

Immigration has been a hot button issue throughout the Southern United States for years now. With an undocumented population of approximately 11.5 million, state and federal governments have proposed a multitude of ideas on how best to manage the situation. The most extreme responses have come from Arizona and Alabama with the Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act and the Hammon-Beason Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act. The authors of these acts hope to punish and remove all undocumented residents from our society through whatever means necessary. However, these newest measures go too far because they infringe on citizens’ rights in the process.

Alabama had the broadest and harshest legislation regarding undocumented immigrants even before adding the addendums last Friday. The original law restricted the benefits undocumented residents could get from the state and allowed police to question and demand proof of people’s legal residence if they had “reasonable suspicion” to do so during a legal stop or detention and detain them if they do not have the necessary paperwork. This provides a lot of leeway for police, meaning almost anyone could be asked to prove their citizenship at some time or another. The new law retains all these same provisions but now includes laws that increase the state’s ability to locate, criminalize, and remove undocumented immigrants. Businesses will now faces harsher fines if they are found to employ undocumented individuals placing the responsibility of finding undocumented immigrants on regular citizens and not the government. School officials will be required to ask students about their legal status when they register for classes, while still mandating that the school keep records of students they think might be in the country undocumented. A person’s legal status should not be challenged on a daily basis and furthermore, people, even if they are of questionable status, should not be kept on list and monitored by the government based on suspicion alone. An individual should have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such circumstances and the state should not have the ability to single them out in this manner.

The point of the new Alabama law is to make life so difficult for undocumented immigrants that they “deport themselves”. The law certainly makes life more difficult for those without proper documentation, but it negatively affects other citizens as well. Is it fair for a citizen or new immigrant to have to demonstrate proof of the citizenship on a regular basis? Can you imagine having to do that when you or your child register for school, when you are stopped for a traffic violation, or when you are accused of a crime? What if someone in your family ended up on a list of people of questionable citizenship because they lost their birth certificate or if you faced heavy fines because you unintentionally hired someone who was here without the proper visas or other documentation? These are the things that many citizens must now face as a result of this Alabama law. It does not seem right that people should have their rights removed in this way, so that the state can more easily locate those residents who lack documentation. The rights of citizens, immigrants included, should be protected at all costs. They should not have to give up their right to privacy and protection, so that the state can pursue a particular mission. The goal of removing all undocumented individuals from Alabama should not and does not supercede the right of all Americans to go about their daily lives with their constitutional rights intact.

The US government obviously cannot ignore an undocumented population as large as the one that currently resides in America, but there are better ways to manage the problem. Rather than spend resources hunting these people down, the government should create pathways toward legal citizenship through legislation such as the DREAM Act, which would provide provisional citizenship if an undocumented immigrant meets certain requirements, proving they are positive, contributing members of society. Providing a pathway to legal citizenship would protect immigrants with documentation from discrimination and help positively reduce the large undocumented population at the same time.

Share

May 22

Students Turn Science Project into Reality

“Organic” is in. Same goes for “all natural”. “Fresh”. “Healthy”. Welcome to food marketing in the 21st century. Food buzzwords are everywhere these days, which leaves you wondering… what is real?

A recent trend is community supported agriculture (CSA), in which you pay a local farmer at the beginning of a farming season and in turn receive weekly installments of fruits or vegetables for the remainder of the season. It’s an intriguing alternative for all those who are sick of the big-name grocery stores and their flashy advertising. It provides individuals with the guarantee of farm fresh food, as well as the knowledge of where exactly your food is coming from (a very foreign concept in this day in age). And while you lose the freedom of being able to choose your own groceries since the farm provides crops on a seasonal basis, there’s something to be said for participating in a CSA. You’re able to take back your food rights, and take control of what exactly you’re eating. There are too many big farms out there, that are putting all of the smaller ones out of business day by day. CSA’s provide an alternative to all the food chaos. It guarantees that your carrots, lettuce, peppers, potatoes, and even cabbage all came from the same local farm, only a few miles down the road rather than from five different farms from all over the country, or maybe even the world.

Many say CSA’s are a great idea, but do they work in practice? Five Villanova students found out that they can, in overwhelming fashion, last year. Last spring, Villanova undergraduates Chris Nicoletta, Josh Meekins, Julie Joyce, Kara Chatham, and Kristen Stankiewicz were assigned to work together on a group project for an environmental science class. However, they couldn’t figure out what to use as the topic of their project. While other groups pushed on with research and information, the group struggled, unsure of which direction to head. But it turns out that a little procrastination went a long way for this group. Other groups ended with a nice environmental science project. However, this group’s work just started when the semester ended.

Starting in April 2011, the group’s project was put into reality as the group members worked together to create the first ever CSA program in Villanova history. They took to social media platforms, creating a Facebook group named Villanova’s CSA program to raise awareness on the internet about their campaign. They collaborated with Villanova University Dining Services to start the program which offered weekly shares of fresh, certified organic produce from the Lancaster Farm Fresh Cooperative on a weekly basis starting last fall. Participants could sign up online with the Villanova University CSA Membership Application, in which they could choose if they wanted a full vegetable share, half vegetable share, fruit share, or flower share for the semester. This program was directed towards Villanova faculty, staff, and upperclassmen. While Villanova sophomores and freshmen are still on a meal plan, upperclassmen often are not because they live in apartments or off campus. Therefore, this partnership provided a convenient and affordable way for upperclassmen to receive weekly installments of fruits or vegetables from a convenient location.

Five university students were able to turn a simple science project into a campus-changing campaign. And it’s still growing. This coming fall, there are seven different options for students, faculty, and staff to choose from including full and half shares of fruits or vegetables, a flower share, and even a cheese share. All it took was a science project, a little student initiative, and some willing participants. If it was done so quickly in one university’s Dining Services, why not expand the concept across the country? Why not start similar programs in universities all over the United States?

Share

May 17

A Step in the Right Direction

Homelessness is a very evident, and very visible problem in the United States. It is not unusual to pass by a homeless man sitting on the side of the street on your way to work, or to see a whole crowd of sleeping men while running through the park. The hard truth is that after a while, the homelessness that surrounds you becomes routine. It stings every time you pass somebody by, but the image is soon forgotten in the course of everyday life. At least that goes for most people. However, Villanova history professor Stephanie Sena isn’t just anybody.Just a year ago, an NPR report caught Sena’s attention, and never let go. It was about the Harvard Square Homeless Shelter, which was profiled in the 2010 book Shelter: Where Harvard Meets Homeless. The shelter first opened its doors in 1983, and had been serving twenty men and women every night between the months of November and April ever since at the Lutheran Church in Harvard Square. The goal of the shelter was to provide the homeless men and women with a temporary place to stay, one that encouraged an atmosphere of dignity and respect as they made the transition to permanent housing.

Sena is a professor known for her passion and enthusiasm among the Villanova community, and she was determined to start a similar project in Philadelphia. She began contacting churches, lawyers, and all those in charge of the Harvard shelter for advice and support. Then, she turned to her students. Sena expected a few to show up for the first meeting last spring. What she didn’t expect what the room to be jam-packed, standing room only. Less than a year after hearing the initial NPR Report, the Student-Run Emergency Housing Unit of Philadelphia (SREHUP) was up and running. The shelter has just completed its first winter season, and is already planning for the next.

Similar to the Harvard Square Homeless Shelter, SREHUP is focused on instilling a sense of dignity and respect in their guests. However, unlike Harvard’s Shelter which runs on a two-week lottery basis (beds are offered for two weeks at a time through a lottery system), the same 30 guests are guaranteed the security of a safe place to stay for the entire winter. This provides them with the needed stability to look for permanent housing and a stable job.

If nothing else, Sena wants to emphasize one central point- “It’s not a band-aid, and it’s not a destination”. And to some degree, I agree. SREHUP works as emergency housing shelter at night, while concentrating on employment and housing opportunities for its guests during the day. The ultimate goal is for all residents to achieve permanent housing and stable employment in the immediate future. Therefore, their stay is supplemented with a variety of holistic programs including job training, SAT prep, tutoring, and computer literacy. Programs ranging from art and yoga lessons to money management classes are also run at the facility. In addition, students learn to advocate for legislation in issues concerning homelessness such as education reform, job creation, and fair housing initiatives. Some have already taken to Washinton D.C. And as the shelter is almost 100% student run, the main emphasis is on student education concerning the issues of  homelessness and homelessness prevention.

With any social change, information gathering is a necessary first step. Education is next. With a board of 20 directors, and over 300 Philadelphia area college students from schools such as Villanova, Temple, Swarthmore, Penn, and Drexel involved in SREHUP, the message is spreading. Students are involved in all aspects of running the shelter- from fundraising, to media relations, to volunteer recruitment. The success of the first season is a testament to the student’s personal commitment to the cause.

It’s safe to say that SREHUP is not a band-aid for those living in the shelter. Not if the shelter truly provides their guests with the opportunity to receive permanent housing and employment in the future. However, it is yet another band-aid, an ever so small band-aid on the vast problem of homelessness, which is bursting at its seams.

Will SREHUP make a difference in the lives of 30 men, every single winter season? Undoubtedly. However, the stinging reality is that 30 more men will be lined up in the next winter season. What do you think would be a way to increase the impact of SREHUP and similar programs? What additional collaborative or collective efforts might assist in truly solving the issue of homelessness?

Share

May 17

The Pitfalls of Voluntourism

When I started writing for the Not Enough Good Blog exactly a year ago a quick Google search of the term “voluntourism” (a combination of volunteering and tourism) returned very few hits, but now voluntourism is becoming something of a buzzword.  In fact, it’s so popular now that last month Groupon offered a voluntourism trip in Zambia as part of its Groupon Grassroots initiative, which I never would’ve predicted 12 months ago.  Voluntourism, though still not entirely mainstream or by any means well known, is gaining speed.  So with the summer coming up (or, for us college kids, already here) I thought I would write about some of the positives and negatives of voluntourism in case you’re considering planning a trip for yourself in the coming months.  I’ve written a couple posts on this topic in the past—I even gave a webinar presentation on the subject, which you can watch here—but a refresher is always good.

The first thing to keep in mind when planning a voluntourism trip is that voluntourism companies are a business, and so have other objectives besides helping the host community.  I’m not saying this is bad, but only that it is something to be aware of.  To increase business voluntourism companies may offer trips in areas that are popular vacation destinations—Costa Rica, for example—but that don’t necessarily need volunteers.  After all, if people want to go to Costa Rica and build a school, and are willing to pay a good deal of money to do so, why would a company not offer a trip for people to do just that, regardless of whether or not a school is needed.  This leads to unnecessary and unwanted projects that leave the volunteers unsatisfied, as they often realize that what they are doing is not needed, and do little for the destination community.

The best thing you can do to avoid this pitfall is call local volunteer organizations in the community you intend to visit and ask them directly if they would appreciate you coming and volunteering for a week.  If this isn’t a task you feel up to then look for voluntourism companies that are based in the destination community, as they will likely have a better idea of which projects are most important and which are unnecessary.

Another thing to keep in mind is your own strengths and weaknesses.  If you’re not good with kids and have no desire to be around them, don’t sign up for a voluntourism trip that involves dealing with children.  If you wouldn’t feel comfortable staying with a host family choose a trip that includes a hotel.  Pretty basic, right?  It’s still important to consider these things, however, as if you choose a voluntourism trip that is way outside of your skill set or comfort zone you won’t be as useful and you won’t have a good time, and so no one wins.

The most important thing to consider, though, is that in many ways voluntourism is a product of our own hubris.  We assume that other communities need us to donate our time and appreciate the work we do, but that is not always the case.  Imagine, for example, if a group of Brazilian tourists came to New York and were so shocked by the number of homeless people they decided to start their own homeless shelter in the city, staffed by other Brazilian voluntourists.  New Yorkers would be very unhappy, and rightly so, as there are already dozens of established organizations to help the homeless, yet we often still assume that our desired destination community desperately needs our volunteer assistance.  Often a monetary donation to an existing organization may be much more beneficial and wanted than a voluntourist.

Voluntourism is not necessarily a bad thing, but it’s a relatively new concept that still has some kinks to work out, and so I hope you will keep the issues I’ve pointed out in mind and make an informed decision about where you volunteer, which organization you go through, and even whether or not to voluntour.  And now I’ll leave you with a few questions: have you ever gone on a voluntourism trip, or are you planning one for the future?  What did you/would you like to do?

Share

May 16

Economic Argument on Prison Population: A Quick Fix?

Jails, prisons, and criminals used to be taboo topics associated with the worst of the worst of the population, but now with the sheer volume of people sent prison, mass incarceration is an issue that people can no longer ignore. It has finally become a topic of conversation nationwide and a problem that politicians and social groups alike hope to address. The most politically popular movement right now bases its rationale on economics rather than on a more traditional human rights ideology but at a cost. Economic motivations gain supporters now but such a focused approach will not bring about broad enough societal changes to reduce the prison population for good.

A bipartisan coalition, consisting of current and former Congressmen, including Newt Gingrich, and the NAACP, has formed with the proclaimed goal of reducing the prison population for economic purposes. They base their argument on the idea that the United States cannot afford to continue spending large portions of the nation’s budget on prisons, especially with the current recession. In order to spend less on prisons, there would have to be fewer prisoners, so this group has begun supporting legislation that would gradually begin reducing the size of correctional facilities and departments. The Criminal Justice Reinvestment Act, for example, would try to analyze correctional spending in order allocate funds for effectively and provide data on how to best redesign the prison system. Their reasoning for reducing the prison population is purely economic. They do not deny human rights claims or argue against other groups, but they do believe that the most compelling argument for change stems from economic motivations.

The economic argument holds a lot of merit, with its broad political support and general appeal to people’s wallets. Anyone would support a movement that reduces state spending and at the same time addresses an important human rights issue, so what is the problem with building a movement around economics? Any policy changes would be focused on prisons specifically and reducing spending. This is not necessarily a bad idea in and of itself, but it does not address the real issues that led to so many people being imprisoned in the first place. Mass imprisonment is the result of a far bigger societal problem that can only be fixed by addressing the larger structural forces involved, which shrinking prisons does not do. The prison population would decrease in the immediate timeframe, but nothing would have been done to reduce the number of potential prisoners in the future. Reducing prison spending before decreasing the volume of people sent to jail could potentially result in even harsher prison conditions and thereby create more problems than their policies would fix. Furthermore, a problem as big as mass incarceration would take time to fix and unfortunately, a movement based on economics will only last as long as the economy continues to suffer. Once our economy recovers, which it inevitably will, there is no reason to believe an economic argument will continue to garner support. Prisons have cost this country billions of dollars each year but this has only been an issue for politicians since the recession began.

As I have said before, ending mass incarceration is not a one step process. Using economics as the basis for change does nothing to reach the real problem that massive prison populations represent. It is a quick fix that will not resolve any deeper issues and potentially even create more problems as budgets get cut, while prisoners remain. The movement is a classic example of people trying to do good and initiate change, just not in the right way. They are sacrificing a broader vision that would involve change at all levels of society so that they can gain supporters now. In order to actually solve the issue of mass incarceration, government must fix the environment that these people come from, the policies that allow so many people to be locked away, and the power structures that benefit from large prison systems.

Share

May 15

Linking the War on Drugs and Mass Incarceration

America’s effort to end drug trafficking and drug use with its War on Drugs has had a profound impact on the nation and our neighbors for the last 40 years. It has strained our relationship with many Latin American countries and put undue stress on their local populations, while hurting our people unnecessarily at the same time. The policies created to win the War on Drugs have led to a huge spike in arrest rates and a growing prison population, which has created an epidemic of mass incarceration.

With the declaration of the War on Drugs, the federal government took a larger role in local and state level police forces in order to increase arrest rates. Police departments are now granted federal money if they make a certain number of drug arrests, so departments often have quotas their officers must meet each month in order to increase their odds for receiving one of these grants. Along with funding, they can also receive military grade weapons and training once they prove to allot enough resources to the fight against drugs. As an added incentive to seek out drug offenders, police departments get to keep many of items confiscated in drug raids as forfeited property. By initiating these policies, the government encouraged the police force to make more drug arrests and make the War on Drugs a high priority in their mission.

These policies all increased arrest rates but the federal government took further steps to ensure drug offenders stayed off the streets once arrested through mandatory minimums for drug offenses. This meant that judges and juries had less discretion in cases and were forced to send convicted offenders to prison for a prolonged period of time. These were often harsher sentences than had been used in the past and resulted in more people staying in jail for longer. Because of these policies 60% of America’s prison population is now made up of drug offenders. I do not doubt that the inmates are in jail for a reason but it does not seem right or necessary that over half the prison population should consist of drug related offenders, but it does clearly highlight the importance police have given to drug arrests.

I am not arguing that the police are wrong or at fault for mass incarceration. They are simply acting on orders and fulfilling a federal initiative. They are not arresting innocent people (at least not intentionally) and are working effectively to remove criminals from the streets. The real problem with the War on Drugs is the way it shifts the focus of crime fighting to drug offenses at the cost of other issues. It forces police departments to focus too much of their energy on picking up drug offenders, lots of drug offenders, and not on other crimes. The current policy aim is to arrest as many people involved in with drugs as possible, regardless of their overall impact on the system. This is based on the belief that anyone involved in drugs is a danger to society, so any drug arrest is helpful in ending the drug trade. When lots of people are arrested they are good statistics for proving the supposed success of the War on Drugs, but a closer look clearly demonstrates the failure of President Nixon’s original vision.

The War on Drugs has failed and created more problems than it has solved. It has not succeeded in eradicating drug use in the US and its policies have led to the mass confinement of the American population. More people are locked up in prisons now since the drug war began then there have ever been in our past, but there has been limited success, if any, at removing drugs from American society. Given the obvious failure of this initiative, the federal government should end the War on Drugs and shift towards different drug policies aimed at helping the people affected by drugs. Drug addicts should receive treatment either in special treatment facilities or at least during their time in prison. Mandatory minimums should be eradicated and sentencing left at the discretion of judges. The incentives programs for police should end and that money should be redirected toward rehab centers. These steps would help addicts get the treatment they need to recover and at the same time stop encouraging the police to make mass arrests for drug crimes. Police time would be better spent keeping our streets safe, perhaps from drug offenders, but the choice should be theirs and they should not be constrained by quotas and distracted trying to qualify for government grants. Ending the War on Drugs will not end mass incarceration. However, it would be a step in the right direction and would help dramatically reduce the prison population.

Share

May 15

TIPS Project: When Attitudes Affect Actions

In the United States, schizophrenia is something that we fear. Ignore. Avoid. When we think of schizophrenia, our first thought jumps to an image of Jack Nicholson in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. Time and time again, the media portrays individuals with schizophrenia as crazy, violent, and dangerous. But it doesn’t have to be like that. Ask any American kid about cancer, and they can give you a response. But asking them what they know about schizophrenia? That’s another story. Psychology classes notwithstanding, schizophrenia is not a subject that is taught in American schools. The only information that the average American gains about schizophrenia is through media portrayals that can be found in books, movies, and on the television. One country decided to change the ways in which they viewed schizophrenia, and got it right.
The TIPS Project started in Norway in 1997. The main goal of the project was to address issues of

schizophrenia awareness in Norway, and to make the general population more comfortable with the notion of mental disorders. Their tool? The media. Especially printed media. A massive information campaign was started in the country. Brochures were distributed to every household, leaflets listing the symptoms of schizophrenia were given to educators and general practitioners, and public awareness advertisements were placed in popular newspapers and magazines.

 

The TIPS Project addressed two major issues regarding schizophrenia, that we in the United States have been ignoring for years. First, is the idea of stigma. Stigma is not simply a social concept, but rather an influential entity that has very real, and very visible consequences. In most countries in the world, the United States included, schizophrenia is often thought to be an unacceptable medical condition. Close family members and friends will ignore the warning signs (if they even know them in the first place) and instead say that the individual “was born like this”, or “will just snap out of it”.  Due to both ignorance and stigma, help is not received in time.  The problem with schizophrenia, like most other medical conditions, is that with increased time before diagnosis comes a worse prognosis. In the words of a UCLA psychiatrist, Tyrone Cannon, “We just don’t have the cures for these illnesses once they’ve fully ?taken hold.” Acting promptly is key for the patient, the family, and society as a whole.


Next, the TIPS Project combated the problem of simple ignorance concerning schizophrenia. The media campaign was run country-wide in Norway, educating the general population how to spot schizophrenia in a family member, friend, or coworker. The project worked with those who often came in contact with individuals in the risk group such as general practitioners, specialists, teachers, coaches, and religious figures. Children were educated about the mental illness through a school campaign that ran every year.What got me thinking about all of this was in my Mental Health Psychology class while studying abroad in Milan, Italy last semester. Upon teaching us about the TIPS Project, my teacher asked us if we had any similar programs run in the United States. No one answered. Then, she asked what we were taught back in elementary or high school concerning schizophrenia. No one answered once again. She looked slowly around the classroom, shocked by the response.Only with a change in attitudes can there be a change in actions. When the general public gains an increased knowledge of mental illness, early detection becomes a tangible possibility. With early detection, there are fewer lasting hospitalizations, which lead to lower healthcare costs and increased clinical benefits. Schizophrenia is one of the most difficult mental illnesses to detect and treat in the entire world. On average, the worldwide DUP (duration of untreated psychosis) for an individual is around 2 years due to lack of knowledge and stigma. Following the TIPS Project, Norway’s decreased to 6 months.It’s about de-stigmatization. It’s about attention. It’s about awareness.It’s about time that we learned that a little awareness goes a long way.

To view an example of the information shared through the TIPS Project please use this link.
Share

May 10

Egypt: Islamic Democracy?

For those of you that don’t know, the Pew Research Center conducts surveys on public opinion (among other things) with the goal of providing information on the issues, attitudes, and trends shaping America and the world.  One of their most recent publications as part of their Global Attitudes Project, the branch of the center that conducts worldwide public opinion surveys, focuses on public opinion in Egypt one year after the Arab Spring began, and the results were pretty interesting.

The study found that two out of every three Egyptians wants democracy in their country, and 61% think democracy is best-suited for solving the country’s problems, though a significant percentage would prefer a leader with a strong hand.  What makes these findings more interesting, however, is that 66% want Islam and the Quran to be the basis for the country’s laws, and 61% would prefer Egypt model its new government after Saudi Arabia rather than Turkey (the Saudi Arabian government system is rooted in Islam, whereas Turkey is secular).  The Muslim Brotherhood is viewed very positively by the majority of Egyptians, as is the Brotherhood-affiliated Freedom and Justice Party, which is the largest party in the new parliament.  Though there is a strong emphasis on Islamic government and implementing law based on the Quran, however, most Egyptians also endorse specific democratic rights that do not exist in Saudi Arabia, including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and equal rights for women.

Improving law and order is one of the top priorities for Egyptians, with six-in-ten considering it very important, while eight-in-ten consider improving the economy to be a top priority.   Only 27% of people described the country’s economic situation as “good,” compared with 34% in 2011, though 50% do expect the economy to improve in the next year.  Overall, Egyptians are mostly optimistic about the future, with 52% saying they believe conditions will improve.

So what does all this information mean?  Well, it’s very interesting that most Egyptians would prefer a democratic government system with democratic institutions like freedom of speech and equal rights that is rooted in Islamic values and traditions, as those two systems have not historically gone together.  The two systems are not incompatible, as many scholars have argued, but in practice there are few truly Islamic democracies.  In the 2011 Democracy Index, for example, no Islamic democracies are considered “full democracies,” but at best “flawed democracies” or “hybrid regimes.”

Whatever the form of government may be and whether or not Egypt can implement a true Islamic democracy, however, the country is facing a lot of difficult issues.  The economy has deteriorated since the beginning of the Arab Spring, and the population has been suffering.  At this point millions survive on bread and fuel subsidies, and the number of Egyptians classified as impoverished has increased by 4.2% since 2009.  The military controls a large portion of Egypt’s GDP, and any attempts to reform the economy or transfer control over to the private or public sector could result in conflict. Also, the new government will have to ensure that the benefits of economic growth reach all segments of the population, lest another revolution spring up and unseat the new government.

What do you think will happen in Egypt?  Can there be a true Islamic democracy?  What can the government to do improve stability and economic conditions?  Let me know in the comments box!

Share

May 09

Why Haitian Women are Living in Fear

Two years after a devastating earthquake tore Haiti apart, the damage is still widespread. Hundreds of tent communities cover miles of land and the Haitians living in them suffer from the stresses of day to day living. Of the one and a half million people who were displaced by the earthquake, about five hundred thousand still live in these makeshift communities. The conditions are worse than poor, there is no electricity, and people essentially sleep in the open since locks and security in general are both nonexistent. One subgroup of the displaced population lives in a more constant fear than any other, though: women.

Sexual abuse and rape was not uncommon in Haiti before the earthquake happened. Now, however, it is a daily occurrence. The government and police officials do not take much action to stop rapes from happening, and they never have. The problem is more severe now, though, since safety at this point is an issue for everyone. Women have no secure place to sleep, and their husbands or fathers, or other “would-be protectors”, might have been taken away by the earthquake. What too many women are left with is an unprotected “home,” children to care for, and a police force that accuses them of being promiscuous.

To put it into perspective- Alina, a 58 year old woman who was living in the Port-au-Prince camp, was out one day, when she witnessed a girl being raped by a group of men. When Alina tried to help the girl, the men turned on her instead, beating and raping her nearly to death. The youngest rape victim reported in this same camp was a 17 month old little girl. Since 2009, a mere 18 rape cases were brought before a judge, even though they happen every single day. Nobody has been convicted, and what’s worse- when the earthquake happened, prison cell doors were opened, freeing murders and rapists alike.

Haiti is struggling to gain assistance in improving the current conditions; international aid is lacking. One local group, KOFAVIV, which translates to Commission of Women Victims for Victims, is trying to make the best with what they have. The organization was started by Haitian victims of rape and is assisted by a broad range of people whom have all somehow been affected by sexual violence. KOFAVIV is making an effort to
provide help to victims, to take more cases to court and gain legal support, and to provide security in the tent camps. Both physical and psychological support is provided to women in need of it, and better conditions are being pushed for. To date, about 4,000 women have been helped by the group. Unfortunately, KOFAVIV does not receive enough support to provide help and security in all of the camps. With over 1000 tent communities in total, only a very limited number are able to be staffed by two organization security guards. The number is not satisfying.

In a different situation, I would say that this organization is not doing enough or that they aren’t going about it in the right way. The problem is that there aren’t that many other options. KOFAVIV is doing the best they can with what they have, which is unfortunately not much. What these women really need is to be out of the tents, Continue reading

Share