Baghdad’s so-called “Green Zone” is both a metaphorical and literal barrier between the Iraqi People and their government. Created by US-led Coalition Forces at the onset of the Iraq War, the Green Zone is a war relic that was never dismantled, because Iraq has never been governed as a nation of the People, for the People, or by the People. The Green Zone is literally a security bubble made of gates and check points that isolates Iraq’s political elites from the realities of their self-serving, unresponsive, and thoroughly dysfunctional governance. As Iraqi’s issues are far from unique, the Green Zone is also symbol for poor governance around the globe.
Protesters breached Green Zone defenses for a second time on the Twentieth of May, 2016. Unlike the previous breach, which occurred three weeks earlier, security forces responded with the use of teargas and live ammunition, which resulted in numerous causalities. Where security forces had refused to engage angry protesters, even as many vandalized public property, the choice to confront protesters is analogous to the government’s response. Like security forces, the government hesitated to crackdown on protesters out of fear. The government has now chosen to crackdown on protests instead of resolving grievances as they must.
Comments
Political Polarization and Emotion Driven Reactions: Defining “Liberal” and “Conservative”5/18/2016 Politics has a way of dividing people. This is certainly true in South America with the Rousseff Impeachment Controversy where diehard supporters of Brazil President Dilma Rousseff reject any criticism of her while opponents feel compelled to throughout demonize her in order to push her out of power. It is tempting to blame the civil discontent of developing countries like Brazil on immature nature of their democracies, but the same is seen in the United States. The 2016 Presidential Election campaign between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is further polarizing the United States to the point emotional responses suppress meaningful debate. For democracy to function properly, the People must be represented and their interests must be translated into viable policies. Political polarization, which pressures voters “to pick a side,” even if neither extreme serves their interests, hinders representation. Meanwhile, policies rooted in extremist ideologies cannot be sustained or properly implemented. Donald Trump’s supporters, for example, have grown so averse to dissent that they resist questioning whether Trump is an agent for change or simply saying whatever it takes to become President. President Barack Obama has escalated the controversy, and culture clash, surrounding the North Carolina transgender bathroom law that requires people to use public restrooms based for their “gender at birth.” By issuing guidelines that require public schools to allow transgender students to use the bathroom associated with their gender identity, President Obama is responding to a law intended to bar transgendered individuals from using restrooms of the sex they associated with. In turn, North Carolina is responding to privacy concerns and ambiguity in the Law, which fails to address issues surrounding an increasingly assertive transgendered subculture.
For President Obama and other transgender advocates, transgender bathroom laws are an issue of civil rights and fairness. They see the actions of North Carolina as purely discriminator, because advocates frame all transgender legal and social issues in the same light as those faced by women and minorities. In other words, transgender advocates view their fight as a continuation of the Civil Rights movement. The Obama Administration’s threats to cut federal funding and financially overwhelm schools with lawsuits, unless they cater to transgender interests, is what has placed the White House in the middle of a culture clash. The Dilma Rousseff impeachment controversy continues to rock Brazil as the newly installed President Michel Temer moves forward with what is viewed to be a Right-wing, economically liberal agenda that goes against the democratic outcome of the 2014 Election. Clearly, corruption from the Rousseff administration cannot be tolerated. Using corruption as an excuse to seize control of government in order to pursue policies, which favor the affluent and align with the expectations of Wall Street, is a form of corruption that has longed undermined Brazil’s economy and civil society while it is certain to invite even greater destabilizing civil unrest.
Corruption is a form of abuse by government. Consequently, it can be discussed and addressed by tackling all forms of abuse committed by government. The difficulty in dealing with abuse is that abusers tend to learn how to avoid punitive measures designed to discourage them from engaging in abusive behaviors. Politicians tend to be fairly well-liked by their peers, which is often the reason they are elected, and this favoritism shields them from outside criticism. With a solid base of support, politicians are able to abuse their positions to pursue their own interests often at the expense of the People, because their abuse does not threaten their power. The Dilma Rousseff impeachment controversy, along with the underlying Petrobras scandal, has forced Brazil and corruption into the international spotlight. Although the President joins 60% of Brazil’s Congressmen facing accusations of corruption, Dilma contends that she is innocent of any wrongdoing over her alleged role in transferring money from state-owned oil company Petrobras to hide a Dudget deficit during her reelection campaign, in funding her campaign, and in shielding her predecessor Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva from prosecution. Given competing narratives, this case raises the question of what actually qualified as corruption.
Hordes of Iraqis reminded the world why the Arab Spring Revolutions happened in late April by storming the secure “Green Zone” in response to government corruption. Ahead of the Global Anti-Corruption Summit, British Prime Minister David Cameron managed to spark controversy when he declared Nigeria and Afghanistan “fantastically corrupt.” Where the US annually spends hundreds of billions of dollars to fund “waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement,” Russia’s plutocratic leadership has basically made their political influence into Russia’s unofficial currency. Clearly, corruption is a global issue that needs addressed. |
Read old posts
April 2020
|