This morning, Australian news was abuzz with excitement over a caucus meeting of the Australian Labor Party that was set to vote on ousting current Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in favour of his Deputy PM, Julia Gillard. And in a piece of Australian political history, Rudd did indeed step down, leaving Gillard Australia’s first female prime minister.

Everyone seems pretty excited about it – the morning ‘news’ broadcasts aired into overtime in order to cover the meeting and change of leadership. However, without missing a beat, wouldn’t you know, Sunrise anchor Melissa Doyle announces that tomorrow we’ll discuss whether or not Australia “is ready for a female prime minister”?

I’m going to set my outrage aside for a moment. I accept that these sorts of sensationalist morning programs require “provocation,” if you want to call it that, to engage viewers in their thirty-second discussions of salient news issues. But it’s cheap media. It’s a cheap trick, and a tired one. Worst of all, though, it’s insidious for two reasons. Firstly, by questioning whether or not Australia is ready for a female prime minister, Sunrise implies that the country is not, that a female leader is something to be feared or approached cautiously, or as anything but what it really is, which is LONG OVERDUE. The question legitimizes chauvenism by opening the door to arguments that women shouldn’t be Prime Minister. Secondly, the question represents exactly the barriers faced by women in politics. Were it a male challenger, no one would be asking if Australia were ready for him. The media is notoriously bad for getting stuck in the gender angle when reporting on female politicians, so all we ever hear about is their childbearing/rearing capabilities, their fashion sense, or their bitchiness (which is very interesting to contrast with the forms of confrontation expressed by their male counterparts).

I suppose, Mel, you’ll be asking your “expert” guests to comment on whether Gillard’s ascension to Prime Minister means the end of the feminist struggle, or somehow proves that Australia isn’t a sexist country. You’ll be wrong.

That Gillard was ever made deputy was probably the biggest step for women in Australian politics. Honestly, there was no alternative for leadership if the party had decided Rudd couldn’t win them another election. And before we applaud ourselves too much, by my count, Australia is now the 54th country in the world to elect a female leader. Surely, Mel, we deserve our spot among the ranks of:

• Trinidad and Tobago
• Lithuania
• Moldova
• South Korea
• Liberia
• Ukraine
• Sao Tome and Principe
• Senegal
• Latvia
• Mongolia
• Guyana

Surely we won’t suggest that there’s something particularly progressive about the 53 other countries in the world who have had female leaders that Australia may yet be lacking. In terms of Australia’s representation of women, just 13 per cent of the current ministry are female, putting us in the company of countries such as Oman, Qatar. Bahrain, Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo – all of whom have less than 20 per cent women in ministerial positions. Only Australia, Israel and the US among the developed democracies have such small numbers of women political leaders.

I think the media plays an important role in maintaining negative perceptions of female politicians. Voters have shown themselves to be willing to vote for a female representative, with women comprising 25-35% of seats in parliaments across the country. It is not from the public that the majority of criticisms of female politicians come – it is from the media. Journalists trivialise women publicly, focusing narrowly on their hair and clothes, assessing her worth by her maternal and domestic prowess. Gillard has been criticised in the media not only for lacking children, but for having a kitchen that is “too clean.”

What more would it take for Australia to be “ready” for Gillard? She already wears the standard uniform of dark suits, and has appropriated the required mimicking of men to speak in ‘polliespeak’. She demurs from confrontation lest she be called a ‘bitch.’ She knows not to show any originality and difference, because the media will make her pay if she does otherwise.

No, it’s rather unhelpful to question the ‘readiness’ of Australia for a female prime minister. As twitterer benpobjie so accurately responded to the question: “if not, a pro-Gillard vote may well tear the space-time continuum.”

Bookmark It

Somewhat good news story of the week: small and stable Central American country, Costa Rica, has elected its first female president and apparently she won by an overwhelming majority, more than 20-points ahead of her nearest contender. The new president, Laura Chinchilla, apparently won on a campaign of continuing economic liberalisation that analysts believe is responsible for the stability of the country that has relatively high standard of living and the longest life expectancy of any country in Latin America.

The 50-year-old protege of the current president, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Oscar Arias, promised to pursue the same economic policies that recently brought the country into a trade pact with the U.S. and opened commerce with China.

“Today we are making history,” said Chinchilla, who will be the fifth Latin American woman to be elected president when she takes office in May. “The Costa Rican people have given me their confidence, and I will not betray it.”

The not so good news? Chincilla is a social conservative who opposes abortion and gay marriage. She’s not a woman who represents women or women’s rights. She’s a continuation of the same-old same-old power structures entrenched in Costa Rican society. The Christian Science Monitor mistakenly calls this election evidence of women’s rise in Latin America. But is it really the case if women are only electorally viable if they espouse more conservative values than their male counterparts?

Though there is a growing trend across Latin America of increased representation of women, largely due to affirmative action quotas implemented in more than a dozen countries in the region, I can’t help but feel that if it were up to these women, there would be no quotas or affirmative action. These women sound to me like the Sarah Palins of the Latin region. Is it really progress if, although she’s a woman, she supports and implements more socially conservative laws than we might get from a progressive like Morales or Chavez?

Bookmark It

In what has to be described as one of the most authoritarian moves of the decade, the South Australian government has passed a new law requires anyone making an online comment about next month’s state election to publish their real name and postcode. This blanket law applies to any website in which anyone posts a comment relating to the election, including online news sources, Facebook, and Twitter. It could also be applied to talkback radio shows.

The law, one of many amendments to the Electoral Act, also requires media organisations to keep a person’s real name and full address on file for six months, and they face fines of $5000 if they do not hand over this information to the Electoral Commissioner.

According to Attorney-General Michael Atkinson, this new law is not an attack on free speech:

“The AdelaideNow website is not just a sewer of criminal defamation, it is a sewer of identity theft and fraud,” Mr Atkinson said.

“There is no impinging on freedom of speech, people are free to say what they wish as themselves, not as somebody else.”

Mr Atkinson also said he expected The Advertiser to target him for sponsoring the law.

“I am also certain that Advertiser Newspapers and News Limited will punish me personally, viciously for being the attorney-general responsible for this law,” he said.

“You will publish false stories about me, invent things about me to punish me.”

Right, sounds like a case of someone with serious insecurity issues. Really, one shouldn’t be in public office if one cannot handle public criticism. What is the reason that Mr. Atkinson would insist on getting the full names and addresses of anyone writing shit about the election, if not to track them down and threaten them in some way? From his quotation above, it would seem he plans on filing defamation suits against anyone with an opinion.

This South Australian law differs from federal legislation, which preserves the right of internet users to blog under a pseudonym. Apparently the law expires at 6pm on polling day, but its brevity is not the issue. The precedent is the issue. That Australia lacks constitutionally entrenched rights, such as the right to free speech, is the issue, as there is apparently no legal footing by which to challenge this ridiculous restriction of freedoms.

Bookmark It

I thought the news today that President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan has stated that he would not oppose the secession of southern Sudan if the region held a referendum. At a ceremony marking the five year anniversary of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between north and south Sudan, Bashir affected a conciliatory tone, stating his National Congress Party did not want to see the south secede, but promised that if the referendum to be held next year eventuates in a “yes” vote, the north would act as “good neighbours” to the south.

The referendum is scheduled for 2011, at which time souther Sudanese will take to the polls to decide the future of the region. Al-Dardiri Mohamed Ahmed, a leading figure at the NCP, was quoted by local press as saying that the separation of the south from the north became the “reality and inevitable”:

“We should be realistic and talk about what is current and what should be. We in the NCP were keener than anyone else on unity, but the SPLM blocked that option for us, and we missed the opportunity” he said.

However, an ex-SPLM (Sudan People’s Liberation Movement) member, Lam Akol, believes secession would be “suicidal” for southern Sudan, turning the region into another Somalia, which has suffered from general lawlessness and political instability for the past decade.

“At the moment, with the state of hostility in the South, with the state of tribal conflicts, intra-tribal conflicts, any call for secession at this moment will be a call for the ‘Somalisation’ of southern Sudan,” said Akol, who heads the breakaway SPL-Democratic Change

Apparently the SPLM had banned Akol’s group from political activities in souther Sudan, accusing the SPL-Democratic Change of being not a political party, but an armed guerilla group exacerbating the violence in the region.

The international community awaits the national elections later this year and the January 2011 referendum with caution. According to a joint Oxfam-IRC-and-eight-others report released January 9, “Two landmark events — April 2010 national elections and a January 2011 referendum where Southerners will vote on whether to remain part of a united Sudan or secede — could well result in further instability if all actors are not well-prepared.”

Understandably, both southern leaders and members of the international community are less than trusting that Bashir will provide the “free, fair, and transparent” national elections or referendum he’s promising. Southern politicians have accused Bashir of wanting to fix the referendum to ensure a “no” vote – to try to keep the south’s oil wealth to themselves. The national elections coming this April will be the first multi-party elections in 24 years. And as an indicted war criminal who has thus far evaded arrest over charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity for his complicity in the Darfuri genocide, Bashir perhaps has different standards for “transparency and credibility” than what may be expected from his opposition or international observers.

Because the situation involves such volatile elements that could quickly and easily destabilize, many are urging the southern Sudanese to reconsider secession. Egypt has voiced its opposition to secesson, with Egyptian foreign minister Ahmed Aboul-Gheit stating:

“We in Egypt believe that the separation [of South Sudan] will incur dangers on the people of the South and its relations with the North. There may be fighting or civil war and maybe both sides will not be happy with the outcome.”

As well, many southern Sudanese living in or near the north have expressed concerns over retaliatory attacks if the secession referendum is successful.

While many of the millions of southerners who fled the war to the north say they want to go back if the referendum results in secession as many expect, there are some born and educated in the north who say they should have the right to stay.

“North Sudan cannot ignore me,” said Keji Roman, a southerner born and bred in the capital. “Khartoum is my city — I don’t think Khartoum can close its door in my face.”

But she said if there was a return to war as many fear, southerners would not be able to stay in the north.

“Khartoum would be a dangerous place for me to stay because this war will be vicious,” she said.

And while political analysts all largely anticipate a “yes” vote in the referendum, no definitions of the citizenship of the new states have been set; it has not been negotiated where exactly the border would fall or what would be the fate of those living in the border region. As well, southern Sudan is among the poorest regions in the world, with very little infrastructure or development. Many analysts are concerned as to the effect of an influx of millions of exiled southern Sudanese back into the region. With so much uncertainty, it is feared chaos and violence could ensue as a result of the referendum.

But perhaps our concern is moot, when it seems highly unlikely that Omar al-Bashir would allow a fair and transparent referendum of the oil-rich region.

Bookmark It

Well, not to be too pessimistic, but I think we may be witnessing some history repeating itself with Venezuelans voting to abolish limits on Presidential terms at the urging of President Hugo Chavez. Generally, politically, this can be construed as the first step towards becoming a tyrannical dictator…

So Time asks, “What Does this Mean for Latin American Democracy?” With 54% of the population voting in favour of the constitutional reform, some are saying that the move will “strengthen democracy by allowing voters to decide how long a popular leader can stick around.”

People voting “yes” said Mr Chavez had given poor Venezuelans cheap food, free education and quality health care, and empowered them with a discourse of class struggle after decades of US-backed governments that favoured the rich. No successor has emerged, and voters said they were worried their gains would vanish if Mr Chavez left office.

“If Chavez loses, his social achievements will all disappear,” said Richard Mijares, a 40-year-old secretary.

However, it was only in December 2007 that Chavez posed the same referendum to the population of Venezuela whose majority at the time voted against the reform. And those opposed to the lack of term limits argue that:

Mr Chavez already had too much power, with the courts, the legislature and the election council all under his influence. Removing the 12-year presidential-term limit he pushed through in a 1999 referendum, they said, would make him unstoppable.

“If he wins, he’ll be unleashed and he’ll make us like Cuba, because that’s what he really wants,” said Adriana Hernandez, a 19-year-old student. “He’ll create laws by decree, and go after private property.”

However, most of this opposition appears to be coming from Venezuelan elites and their Western sympathizers, like John Walsh, a senior associate at the Washington Office on Latin America, who says:

Chavistas “are deluded if they think those institutions are working as they should right now in in Venezuela.”

Walsh says Ch�vez already has inordinate control over the nation’s legislative and judicial branches. If, as most expect, Ch�vez moves now to radicalize his socialist project, he could enervate them even more.

So far, the US State Department has stayed mum on the issue, calling it an internal matter for Venezuelans. And though Chavez has already said that Obama has the “same stench” as his predecessor, it is unlikely that anti-US rhetoric will provide as much bolster to Chavez’s popularity as it used to.

So I guess this is all to say that I’m cautious about my feelings on this recent referendum and will be taking what I read about it with a hefty grain of salt.

Though, maybe it’s a case of the pro-elite, capitalist media machine publicly disparaging a popular socialist leader.

Bookmark It

Now that the election is over, news media are free to run stories about the in-fighting in the McCain-Palin camps, largely over Palin’s unsuitability as head of state (or next in line). In this Fox News clip, we’re told both that Palin did not know which countries were part of the North American Free Trade Agreement, nor did she understand the concept that Africa is a continent, not a country.

Other revelations were revealed in Newsweek’s “How He Did It 2008″:

Palin’s shopping spree at high-end department stores was more extensive than previously reported. While publicly supporting Palin, McCain’s top advisers privately fumed at what they regarded as her outrageous profligacy….An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as “Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast,” and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books.

Palin launched her attack on Obama’s association with William Ayers, the former Weather Underground bomber, before the campaign had finalized a plan to raise the issue. McCain’s advisers were working on a strategy that they hoped to unveil the following week, but McCain had not signed off on it, and top adviser Mark Salter was resisting.

At the GOP convention in St. Paul, Palin was completely unfazed by the boys’ club fraternity she had just joined. One night, Steve Schmidt and Mark Salter went to her hotel room to brief her. After a minute, Palin sailed into the room wearing nothing but a towel, with another on her wet hair. She told them to chat with her laconic husband, Todd. “I’ll be just a minute,” she said.

This last point I think is completely ridiculous to include in any media coverage of Palin and her competency as a political leader, but I think is interesting in illuminating her personality. She does really seem just down to earth, normal, every day Alaskan woman. That’s probably what made the veteran political aides so frustrated.

Bookmark It

Clearly a bid to cash in on the popularity of Tina Fey and the SNL skits parodying the VP-hopeful, Sarah Palin appeared on this weekend’s Saturday Night Live amidst jokes of her uncanny resemblance to doppleganger Tina Fey and references to “Caribou Barbie.”

However, I don’t think appealling to her celebrity will gain the McCain-Palin ticket any votes in the face of serious Republicans like Colin Powellendorsing Barack Obama, by default:

Mr. Powell expressed disappointment in the negative tone of Mr. McCain’s campaign, his choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as a running mate and Mr. McCain’s and Ms. Palin’s decision to focus in the closing weeks of the contest on Mr. Obama’s ties to 1960s-era radical William Ayers. A co-founder of the Weather Underground, which claimed responsibility for nonfatal bombings during the Vietnam War-era, Mr. Ayers is now a college professor who lives in Mr. Obama’s Chicago neighbourhood. He and Mr. Obama also served together on civic boards in Chicago.

God, is it November 4th yet?

Bookmark It

Slate posted this minorly offensive video, imagining a way the Canadian government may attempt to capitalize on liberal Americans’ anxiety over a potential McCain-Palin win. Gosh, makes me wonder where my welcome basket is…

Minorly offensive because I thought it was condescending toward Canadians. Maybe that’s because I suffer from a bit of over-sensitive, younger-brother syndrome.

What makes you think we want liberal Americans? They’re probably too conservative for us…

Bookmark It

I hope her popularity portraying Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live doesn’t delay the premiere of Tina Fey’s ridiculously hilarious sitcom, 30 Rock. When I heard that for the third week in a row, she reprised her role as Palin to spoof last week’s VP Debate, I couldn’t resist looking up the video:

In her closing statement, Fey, as Palin, says:

I liked being here tonight, answering these tough questions without the filter of the mainstream ‘gotcha’ media, with their follow-up questions and fact-checking, or incessant need to figure out what your words mean and why you put them in that order. I am happy to be speaking directly to the American people, to let them know if you want an outsider who doesn’t like politics-as-usual, or pronouncing the ‘g’ at the end of the words she’s sayin’, I think you know who to vote for. Oh, for those Joe Sixpacks playing a drinking game at home: maverick.

Bookmark It

So the election is fast approaching and I’m told by my American counterparts that all sorts of mechanisms are being used to prevent people from having their vote counted (if you’re a Chicagoan, Brie has some advice on ensuring you get to vote). Apparently Matt Groening is hoping not to repeat the butterfly ballot and “hanging chads” debacle:

I did watch some of the BBC’s live stream of the Biden-Palin debate, and don’t feel much like commenting on it except to say:

Safe and environmentally friendly offshore drilling? �Drill baby drill�? Are these words coming out of her mouth?
“I�m so pleased we both love Israel.” What a strange statement.
“We�re going to fight for America. Fight for the middle class, average, everyday American family like mine.” Yeeessssss because that’s whose interests rich white politicians represent

Apparently, there are many Republicans afraid of Sarah Palin.

Bookmark It