,

Dilma Rousseff’s Impeachment: An Effort to Reduce Spending

How Dilma Rousseff's Impeachment Impacts People Living in Poverty and What Can Be Done to Help
Dilma Rousseff, president of Brazil since 2011, has been impeached after breaking rules surrounding manipulation of the federal budget. More specifically, it is believed that she masked the full extent of Brazil’s economic crisis when she ran for re-election in 2014.

Prior to Rousseff’s impeachment, she argued that if she were to be impeached, Brazil’s economic troubles would only worsen. This is because a governmental change this big is felt most strongly by the poorest in society, who are most dependent on the federal government.

Rousseff’s successor, Michel Temer, stated that he hopes to reduce public spending by increasing taxes on the lower and middle classes. He also stated that social programs aiding the poor will not be immune from budget cuts.

One example of a social program helping Brazil’s poor is Bolsa Familia. During her tenure, Rousseff was an advocate for this program, which gives stipends averaging $50 per month to 47 million Brazilian citizens — nearly 25 percent of the country’s population. Dilma Rousseff had recently increased spending toward this program by 9 percent and had also reworked the definition of poverty in order to allow more people to qualify for benefits.

The only conditions for citizens to receive Bolsa Familia’s benefits are that their children be vaccinated and regularly attend school. Despite the fact that the funds help lift people out of poverty and improve community infrastructures, the social program still requires public spending.  According to Temer, this kind of program will not be immune from spending cuts, which could seriously impact the millions of citizens who rely on government assistance for survival.

On a more hopeful note, Temer is confident that he can help Brazil make an economic recovery, despite the ramifications the poor may face. He intends to reform Brazil’s costly pension system, possibly by defining a minimum age of retirement.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with Temer’s ideologies and proposed policies, it is reasonable to believe that major policy changes are the only way to get out of an economic depression. Temer has been vocal about his preparedness to make these major policy changes. While they may negatively impact Brazil’s poorest citizens in the short run, the country’s economy may ultimately recover, resulting in a better quality of life for all.

– Nathaniel Siegel

Photo: Flickr

,

Three Points to Take Away from United Nations Week 2016

3 Points to Take Away from United Nations Week 2016
The following are three of the highlights during the United Nations Week 2016:

1. The United Nations bids its farewell to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

As the end of the year approaches, so does the second and final term for the current secretary-general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon. The decorated diplomat began his political career following his graduation from John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University when he then entered the South Korean Foreign Service. Following a career of various diplomatic posts, Ban accepted the position after collecting 14 approval votes out of 15 voting members with a platform that emphasized ending violence against women.

Ten years later the secretary-general addresses the United Nation General Assembly for the last time. During his farewell speech at the United Nations Week 2016, Secretary-General Ki-moon reflected on accomplishments undertaken during his tenure (prioritizing the curbing of climate change), but also addressed issues still looming over the international community. “Gulfs of mistrust divide citizens from their leaders. Extremists push people into camps of “us” and “them”. The Earth assails us with rising seas, record heat and extreme storms. And danger defines the days of many.”

Change evokes excitement along with fresh ideas; however, departing with the compassion, intellect and efforts of the United Nations under Ki-moon brings a feeling of saudade. Mr. secretary-general, the international community will reflect fondly on your actions to support the impoverished.

2. The Paris Accord shows early signs of success.

December 2015 marked a fundamental pivot in the course of the world’s contribution to greenhouse gases. Efforts undertaken by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change eliminated the contrast of developed and developing nations in the fight to thwart the effects of climate change. The international community will now operate under a common framework: limit the global temperature increase beyond 2 degrees Celsius, increase nationally determined contributions and ensure regular reports of emission and implementation efforts.

The Paris Accord, however, is not fully implemented until “thirty days after the date on which at least 55 Parties to the Convention accounting in total for at least an estimated 55 percent of the total global greenhouse gas emission […]” have ratified the agreement. According to the Office of the Spokesperson for the U.N. secretary-general, over 60 countries have joined the agreement, but they only account for 47.5 percent of the global greenhouse gasses.

Secretary-General Ki-moon notes that the progress made thus far is laudable and he is confident the threshold will be surpassed as soon as significant contributors (Canada, the European Union and Australia) ratify the agreement.

3. What issues are on the docket for the next secretary-general?

As the search for the next secretary-general continues, member-states alike and the world more broadly are left with many daunting crises to combat.

The most arresting issue will be how the international community equitably and efficiently addresses the unprecedented number of refugees. Following a series of civil wars and acts of ethnic cleansing, member-states have yet to demonstrate its full commitment to offer a viable alternative for those fleeing a hostile environment.

The High Commissioner for Human Rights noted on Sep. 19, 2016 during his speech to the General Assembly, that “it is shameful that the victims of abominable crimes should be made to suffer further by our failures to give them protection.”

In addition to matters of human rights violations, the global community is projected to undergo a health crisis that undermines the ability for immune systems to defeat infections by bacteria, parasites, viruses and fungi.

Antimicrobial resistance happens from the overexposure to treatment (antibiotics). As a result, the bacteria evolve into a “superbug” with the capacity to defeat current forms of medication.

Consequences of the proliferation of antimicrobial resistance could result in increased health care costs, in the inability to treat common infectious diseases, in the destruction of gains made with the millennium development goals, as well as in the inhibition of the aspirations of the sustainable development goals.

The United Nations has demonstrated, time and time again, that it is one of the most effective, existing, regulatory and cooperative international bodies. Regardless of the secretary-general, the United Nations will have to continue, if not increase, its presence and efforts as the resources to combating global poverty have never been so plentiful.

– Adam George

Photo: Flickr

Paraguay’s Political Future

Paraguay's Political Future
Recently, thousands of Paraguay’s working class, or Campesinos, marched on Asuncion in protest of President Horacio Cartes. Many in Paraguay believe his presidential policy has become too similar to the dictatorships of the past. Campesinos cite an inability to provide debt relief to the small farmers of Paraguay as a fundamental cause of the protest.

Extreme inequality in land ownership has long been a central issue for Campesinos with only two percent of the population owning 80 percent of the land. This almost-monopoly over land has created a powerful and influential agricultural group.

The Campesinos demand a more liberal approach to the issue and elected former President Fernando Lugo for just that reason. Following Lugo’s election, a now notorious massacre occurred, when 60 Campesinos occupying land in Curuguaty encountered a violent struggle with the local police. This incident resulted in the deaths of 11 Campesinos as well as six police officers.

Shortly after, in June 2012, the course of Paraguay’s political future was changed when Congress suddenly impeached former President Fernando Lugo during what many believe was a planned coup d’état. The other members of both Mercosur and UNASUR skeptically considered suspending Paraguay’s membership as a result.

Lugo was replaced by his vice president, Federico Franco, who almost immediately began dialing back many of Lugo’s efforts at aiding the Campesinos in favor of big agriculture. Many believe the massacre at Curuguaty gave parliament the opportunity to scapegoat Lugo as the cause of the conflict. Shortly after Lugo’s impeachment, new President Franco closed all investigation of the massacre at Curuguaty, raising the suspicion of many across Paraguay.

Now Cartes will be expected to answer the plight of the Campesinos in light of several land evictions to occur merely weeks before the march on Asuncion. Despite many bold promises including job creation, new roads and mass transits, the former businessman has not been able to deliver politically. Many countries around the world took note of the transparency laws Cartes introduced, up until they revealed extreme corruption on public payrolls that incited more protests.

While some, like the Campesinos, question Cartes for his policy and odd behavior, it is worth noting that he was able to push through two key changes upon entering the office. The first was a law focused on fiscal responsibility that limited the national debt to 1.5 percent GDP, while the second effort focused on improving Paraguay’s failing infrastructure through a public-private partnership program.

Paraguay’s political future is undergoing rapid and expansive change with each passing year and 2016 is looking to keep things moving forward. Currently, the World Bank predicts the Paraguayan economy to grow three percent this year, making it the second fastest growing nation in South America.

Even with such unrest, Paraguay’s political future is on a path towards entering the rightful hands of the people. Now, maybe more than ever, groups in Paraguay like the Campesinos are making their voices heard loud and clear.

– Aaron Walsh

Photo: Flickr

, ,

It Only Takes ONE to Make a Difference

It Only Takes ONE To Make A Difference
According to Nelson Mandela, overcoming poverty is not a gesture of charity. It is the protection of a fundamental human right, the right to dignity and a decent life. The fight against poverty is not solely related to a person’s income, it also involves things such as access to water, health care, education, housing and security, and it only takes one to make a difference.

Over the past decades, numerous organizations have come together to help tackle global poverty. Through joint efforts, the world poverty rate has fallen dramatically in most areas. However, in African countries, the percentage has essentially remained the same.

The continent of Africa consists of many countries which have their own historical contributions to this issue. Many are skeptical when discussing poverty in Africa because they sense the continent’s political corruption has played a significant role in this devastation.

In the sub-Saharan Africa, over 40 percent of people are living in poverty. Though some African countries are able to sustain their society through oil and other trades, others are simply unable to do so. Most African economies are dependent almost entirely on the proceeds from natural resources and commodes that thrive on the patronage of markets in the developed world.

These economic structures are weak and their survival and sustainability are reliant on foreign support. It is believed in order to be successful in diminishing poverty in Africa, there needs to be a joint effort from different parts of society.

One organization which has taken notice of the continent’s problem and has pledged to take a stance against it is ONE. The ONE campaign was co-founded by Bono and other activists. It was created to help diminish extreme poverty and treatable diseases in Africa. The organization believes the fight against poverty is not just about charity and donations, but that it also is related to social justice and gender equality, echoing the idea that it only takes one to make a difference.

Members of the organization come from different walks of life. Members include artists, activists, business leaders, students and more. It is beneficial for the organization to have a diverse group because they will be able to bring varying viewpoints and they will be able to touch those in needs more effectively.

ONE has branches all over the world which include Washington, D.C., New York, London, Johannesburg, Brussels, Berlin and Paris. There are various volunteer opportunities with ONE in which volunteers are able to reach out to governmental officials to ask them to assist them in fighting against “diseases that affect the poor, to expand access to energy and to combat corruption so governments are accountable to their citizens.” Volunteers can also help recruit members by hosting group meetings, planning community events and seminars events.

Over the past decade, the organization has grown and made substantial headway. They have testified before Congress on HIV/AIDS development and poverty. They were also successful in enabling the passage of the Electrify Act, which will help bring electricity to 50 million people in Africa for the first time.

It is essential to remember we are all a part of one race which is the human race and it is commendable that organizations as such can come together for the greater good of humanity. People do not have to wait to be directly affected by an issue before they help with the resolution of it. Just remember you only need ONE to make a difference.

– Needum Lekia

Photo: Flickr

The Kurdish Democracy Model

The Kurdish Democracy Model
In Northern Syria, the Kurdish communities have established three administrative and autonomous regions. These regions are called cantons and each enjoys their own legislative, administrative and legal bodies. Although these cantons are part of the Syrian territory, the Kurdish communities enjoyed autonomy in the wake of the Syrian crisis and oppression from the Islamic State fighters. These three cantons are named Afrin, Jezira and Kobani.

The Kurdish democracy model is an outcome of the Rojava movement, which seeks autonomy for Kurdish communities in Syria. The model is manifested in the Rojava constitution, which is also known as the social contract. It was approved on Jan. 6, 2016.

The preamble of the constitution reads as: “We the peoples of the democratic autonomous regions…by our free will have announced this contract to establish justice, freedom and democracy … without discrimination on the basis of religion, language, faith sect or gender.”

This Kurdish democracy model does not accept any imposed ideas of nation-state, centralized, military or religious state. It solemnly believes in human rights, democracy, free will and strives to protect those goals no matter what the cost is.

In every canton, there is a Legislative Assembly, an Executive Assembly, a High Election Commission, a Constitutional Assembly and Regional Assemblies. The Rojava Movement resembles historic acts of resistance such as the Algerian war against France and the Warsaw battle against invading Germany.

The Rojava cantons are remarkable examples of beacons of hope emerging from the Syrian civil war. Rojava maintained its independence and created its own democracy. In the Kurdish democracy model, the top three officials have to be from Arab, Kurdish and an Assyrian/Armenian Christian. One of these has to be women. In this phase of the Kurdish struggle, the Kurdish democracy model could start a global movement towards a better implementation of democracy and a cooperative socioeconomic model.

Financial Times describes the Kurdish democratic model as a power to people model. It is a radical experiment in narrow stretches of Northern Syria. In Rojava, which is hard to access due to Turkish blockade, the authority rests in the communal level (the village). In the villages, every social group has a say in decision making. The communities enjoy self-governing measures.

Furthermore, all minorities are included and everyone gets a chance to speak and participate in governing matters. This might seem radical to even the old-established democracies. But for the Kurds, after decades of oppression, this is one thing to look forward upon with eyes full of hope.

– Noman Ahmed

Photo: Flickr

, ,

Possible Female Leadership at the United Nations

Possible Female Leadership at the United Nations
Recently, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said it was time for women to lead the United Nations. As elections are approaching the end of the year, there are eleven candidates among which six are women. This could be a historic first time for female leadership at the United Nations since the organization was created 70 years ago.

Ki-moon said that it was high time now for a female leader. He further elaborated: “We have many distinguished and eminent women leaders in national governments or other organizations or even business communities, political communities, and cultural and every aspect of our life. […] There’s no reason why not in the United Nations.”

Generally, there are strong voices that call for a woman leader. There is an impatient demand, which is higher than ever, for women to lead the United Nations. The female candidates definitely have their chances and it’s now their time to shine.

People are excited to see how a female leader would continue using soft power and coalition tactics to pursue U.N. goals. The new leader will set the tone and vision of the organization for the next decade. A female leader could definitely bring a much-needed change.

Furthermore, the women aspiring to a leadership role in the United Nations demonstrate interesting qualifications and well-experienced cadres. Many have worked in their respective governments but also in handling many projects related to the United Nations. Each woman candidate can bring a whole lot of shift in the U.N. with their diverse practical experience.

Women have been underrepresented in the United Nations. A new female chief will certainly address this critical issue. This is part of achieving gender equality on a global, leadership level. A female U.N. chief will also shed the light on women groups and issues related to feminism, education and equality that would otherwise be overshadowed by superpowers in favor of other issues.

Another interesting fact is that women make up almost half of the population of the world. However, they only hold 25 percent of the U.N.’s highest positions. Thus, having female leadership at the United Nations would significantly change the view of women worldwide. The world would see women leaders as equally capable of handling international crises with high qualifications and potential.

– Noman Ahmed

Photo: Flickr

, ,

Jill Stein Equates NAFTA to Global Poverty

Presidential Candidate Jill Stein Equates NAFTA to Global Poverty
Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein has not shied away from criticizing U.S. foreign policies, which directly spawn global poverty and migration. In her presidential platform, Stein underscores the dangers of trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

“People ask me ‘what are you going to do about immigration?’ I say we’re going to stop causing it…through wars and NAFTA, the war on drugs, coups and military interventions…We need to connect the dots,” on U.S. policy, free trade, global poverty, and migration, “People are not stupid. They can and will get it when you make the connections,” voiced Stein.

According to research by the Economic Policy Institute, NAFTA led to a loss of jobs in Mexico, particularly in their agricultural sector, consequently increasing the rate of poverty and illegal immigration to the U.S.

The governments of Canada, Mexico and the U.S. negotiated NAFTA in 1994. Arranged by President George H.W. Bush and implemented under Bill Clinton, the deal created a trilateral trade bloc in North America — barriers to trade investment were gradually eliminated, and as a result, tariffs became inapplicable.

Governments sought to integrate and liberalize trade between the North American countries. U.S. officials promised a growing trade surplus with Mexico, creating hundreds of thousands of American jobs. Yet, more than 20 years later, NAFTA has proved to have the opposite effect; studies show it led to a growing trade deficit owing to the growth of U.S. exports which vastly surpassed imports to Mexico.

Since barriers to trade investment were eliminated, U.S. investments in Mexico escalated; corporate executives could easily cut their expenses by moving their factories to Mexico and paying Mexican workers at a much lower wage, fueling a flood of outsourcing.

As a result, the U.S. experienced a heavy loss in jobs. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that, as of 2010, displaced production could have supported 682,900 U.S. jobs, 60.8 percent of those jobs being in manufacturing industries. This also takes into account the additional jobs created by exports to Mexico.

NAFTA also promised Mexico a growing middle class, yet as a struggling third world country, it experienced a harder economic downfall, particularly in its agriculture sector.

Research backs Jill Stein’s claims that, prior to NAFTA being implemented, tariffs were still very high, helping to protect domestic businesses. For Mexico, corn was a crucial commodity that was protected by tariffs.

NAFTA gradually lifted the tariffs in a 14-year transition to an open market. By 2008, the last tariffs on corn were lifted, thus the U.S. was able to flood Mexico with cheap subsidized corn. As a result, 1.3 million jobs in Mexico’s agricultural sector were lost.

The U.S. has sold tons of cheap corn to Mexico for over a decade now, yet corn originated in Mexico and it’s also the predominant food source that most people depend on, especially for making tortillas. Small farmers made a living from the production of corn, a crucial component of the Mexican economy. Now, many feel helpless without a source of income and the rates of extreme rural poverty in Mexico have therefore increased.

The World Bank, in a 2005 study, found that extreme rural poverty rate was around 37 percent in 1992-4, prior to NAFTA, which jumped to about 52%in 1996-8 after NAFTA took effect.

This could be explained partly due to the 1995 peso crisis, which was set off by the Mexican Government’s sudden devaluation of the peso against the U.S. dollar. Even so, one expert has argued the crises was caused in part because of NAFTA from the wave of speculative foreign investment in Mexico following the agreement.

By 2010, 53 million Mexicans were living in poverty according to the Monterrey Institute of Technology — half the country’s population. This growth of rural poverty from NAFTA, in turn, led to an increase of migration to the U.S. Indigenous people made up 7 percent of Mexican migrants in 1991-3; in 2006-8, they made up 29 percent.

As president, Jill Stein plans to repeal NAFTA and replace it with trade laws that could better benefit local workers and communities. She is calling for an emergency transition of the economy to 100 percent clean renewable energy by 2030. In doing so, she expects to create 20 million good-wage jobs, that are locally controlled and community oriented, giving Americans greater control of their own economic affairs.

“We are creating a community process, so it’s not just a cookie-cutter from Washington D.C., but rather it’s national support for local control, over creating the jobs, the small businesses, workers cooperatives, that are needed in order to make this clean energy green economy transition,” said Stein.

– Marcelo Guadiana

Photo: Flickr

,

Congress’s Top Ten Global Poverty Champions

Global poverty champions

Recently, leadership is skyrocketing in congress on the subject of global poverty, especially highlighting several global poverty champions. But who are the people behind these victories? Here are Congress’s top ten global poverty champions:

1. Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA)

Rep. Smith leads as the Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee and Co-Chair of the Caucus for Effective Foreign Assistance. In addition, he holds a position on The Borgen Project’s Board of Directors. Having the opportunity to travel the developing world, Smith sought to change global poverty by sponsoring the Global Poverty Act until President Obama made the measure a central aspect of his foreign policy. Smith proves himself a true ally for the world’s poor by supporting key global poverty bills such as the recent Global Food Security Act (GFSA) as well as the Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability, M-CORE, Reach Every Mother and Child and Electrify Africa Acts.

2. Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA)

Rep. Reichert has served in the House since 2004 and sits on The Borgen Project’s Board of Directors alongside Rep. Smith. He also chairs the Subcommittee on Trade, co-chairs the Global Health Caucus, and has membership on the Caucuses on Hunger and Malaria. In 2010, he was appointed to the President’s Export Council to help guide U.S. international trade policy. In addition, he is the sponsor of the Reach Every Mother and Child Act, which will boost the U.S.’s involvement in ending maternal and child deaths in developing countries.

3. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA)

Senior member of the House, Rep. Lee, effectively uses her membership on the Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs to expand overseas assistance. As a result of her commitment, Lee twice served as the Democratic Congressional Representative to the United Nations. In 2011, Lee helped found the HIV/AIDS Caucus. Prior to the caucus’s formation, she sponsored or cosponsored every principal piece of HIV/AIDS legislation. Most recently, Lee put forth a resolution calling the eradication of childhood AIDS a global priority.

4. Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ)

With 35 years of congressional experience, Rep. Smith chairs the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organizations and co-chairs the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe as well as the Congressional-Executive Committee on China. In just this congressional session alone, he introduced legislation to end tropical diseases, increase exports to Africa and protect human rights in China. The Congressman also sponsored the successful GFSA which passed with bipartisan support.

5. Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY)

As the Ranking Member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, member of the Commission on Human Rights and the Tuberculosis Elimination and HIV/AIDS Caucuses, Rep. Engel is no stranger to the many concerns surrounding global poverty. He is especially interested in Latin America and the Caribbean. Not only did Engel lead the U.S. Delegation to the Summit of the Americas, he hopes to reduce poverty in the region through U.S. aid and economic development. In June, he presented a bill directing the State Department and USAID to boost free trade and economic diversity in marginalized Latin American and Caribbean communities.

6. Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA)

Named one of the most effective lawmakers in Congress by the Washington Post, Rep. Royce persistently defends the world’s poor. Prior to being the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, he presided over the Africa Subcommittee, where he established concern for the continent. Royce introduced the Electrify Africa Act to provide power to over 50 million Africans. In addition, he co-authored the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) that President Clinton signed into law in 2000 and Congress reauthorized for another 10 years.

7. Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD)

As the Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and 2009 recipient of UNESCO Center for Peace’s anti-poverty award, Sen. Cardin does not hold back when it comes to addressing global poverty. He spearheaded bills to expand the Millennium Challenge Corporation’s activity in Africa, increase USAID’s use of science and technology to find poverty solutions, develop a rescue plan in the aftermath of the Nepal earthquake, prevent genocide and end war crimes in Syria.

8. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN)

Sen. Corker, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, serves not only the people of Tennessee but also the people of the world. Beyond being the sponsor of the Senate version of Electrify Africa, Corker authored the Food for Peace Reform Act, the Global Gateways Trade Capacity Act and the End Modern Slavery Initiative Act. Great acts which earn him a place amongst these global poverty champions.

9. Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE)

A member of the Foreign Relations Committee, State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee and the Caucuses on India, AIDS and Malaria, Sen. Coons believes the U.S. should play a greater role in reducing global poverty. Coons strongly supported a number of important measures such as the GFSA, Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act and Reach Every Mother and Child Act. Furthermore, he introduced legislation to combat maternal and child deaths in Africa and to alleviate threats to security and human rights in Somalia. He was also the only member of Congress to visit Liberia during the Ebola epidemic two years ago.

10. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)

Sen. Collins is not as internationally-focused as her colleagues, but her commitment to global poverty initiatives is not lacking, earning her a place on this list of global poverty champions. Rated the most bipartisan member of Congress by Georgetown University and the Lugar Center, Collins received much support for her landmark Reach Every Mother and Child Act. Moreover, she initiated bills to develop a strategy to end Boko Haram’s terror and to partner the State Department with the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves.

The Borgen Project commends these global poverty champions for their long-lasting devotion to ending global poverty. Are these your representatives? Make sure to thank them for their hard work.

– Kristina Evans

Photo: Pixabay

, ,

Changes in Iran’s Parliament Create Economic

Iran_Economic

The 2016 parliamentary elections in Iran have resulted in a historical change from conservatives to moderate reformers in parliament. Many feel this change of leadership in Iran’s parliament will allow the economy to grow more freely and, as a result, reduce poverty levels throughout Iran.

When the first round of voting was completed in February, a quarter of the parliamentary candidates were unable to pass the vote threshold of 25 percent, and thus, a re-vote would be scheduled at a later date.

As the February votes were finalized it was noted that the moderate reformist wing of the government had gained momentum in their campaign and had the possibility to take the greater amount of seats in Iran’s parliament. This was particularly strange because Iran’s elections are not fully democratic, and reformists are often vetted out of campaigns.

These premonitions of change were confirmed on April 29 when the remaining 68 seats of parliament were voted upon, and results showed that moderates occupied 42 percent of the seats. Independents, many of whom are speculated to lean more towards moderate reformist views, won 30 percent, and conservative hardliners were left to gather what seats remained.

These reformist wins over the once-powerful conservative party in Iran’s Parliament follow in the wake of the recent revocations on economic sanctions which are credited to the cooperation of Iran’s moderate president, Hassan Rouhani, with the west. From the results of the elections, it is apparent that the people of Iran are eager to give breathing space to their economy, something that could not be anticipated in lack of international cooperation by a ‘hardliner’ parliament.

Andrew Simmons, reporting for Al-Jazeera observed, “International sanctions had limited effect on the rich while the poor became poorer.” Brutal inflation rates were one aspect that critically affected the impoverished as a result of the economic prohibitions. Sanctions were imposed in 2011 and 2012, and in one week’s time it was reported that chicken prices rose by 30 percent and the prices of vegetables by 100 percent.

Few question that Iran has the capability to develop and progress economically if it is allowed to trade freely on the international market. Ali Sanganian, an Iranian investment banker told Aljazeera, “We have the largest market in the region, and it’s a totally diversified industry. We have well-educated people, natural resources, and a very large market for consuming. Besides that, our market has been untapped for ten years.”

Though the elections and lifting of sanctions are favorable steps for Iran, there also are reasons to be wary about the true progress that has been made from the turnover in Iran’s Parliament. Suzanne Maloney of the Brookings Institute commented that this victory for reformists is not going to generate rapid change throughout the regime, rather it could be an indication of long-term improvements. There still exists an unelected portion of the government which holds tightly to the conservative approach of politics, and it has the power to veto the actions of a changing parliament.

Kathy Gilsinan of The Atlantic said, “We shouldn’t underestimate the Iranian people’s will for change, nor the Iranian regime’s will, and means, to crush those who seek change.” However, she too admits that the progress of these elections could develop in the long-term to be beneficial to Iran and the international community.

“The competition is over. It’s time to open a new chapter in Iran’s economic development based on domestic abilities and international opportunities,” said President Rouhani, speaking to the official Iran news agency, which BBC later noted. As mentioned by Rouhani, it is anticipated that these changes in Iran’s Parliament will open up the economy for more private ownership, better relations with the west, and ultimately an advancement from poverty for the estimated 7 million who still live in disadvantaged circumstances.

– Preston Rust

Photo: Flickr

,

How Many Senators Are There?

How Many Senators Are There
How many senators are there? The United States Senate is comprised of 100 Senators, two from each state.

While it may sound simple, developing this representative structure caused a lot of debate at the Constitutional Convention where the U.S. Constitution was drafted. Though only thirteen states existed at this point in 1787, the delegates from these thirteen would form the federal government whose authority would eventually span across fifty states.

These statesmen concluded that a body of elected representatives would be the best way to form laws for a country that was broken up into smaller entities. Delegates from larger states created dissension by arguing for representation based on population. The delegates from smaller states felt cheated and refused to agree to this proposed structure, known as the Virginia Plan.

A delegate from New Jersey, a small state, responded by introducing a plan that proposed equal representation for each state. This suggestion was called the New Jersey Plan and mirrored the structure outlined in the Articles of Confederation, the document acting as a sort of temporary constitution at that time. Both sides of the debate threatened to leave the convention if their plan wasn’t used, and the situation looked grim.

It was Roger Sherman, a delegate from Connecticut, who offered the Great Compromise as a solution. His bicameral (two-bodied) system would satisfy both large and small states: he proposed a House of Representatives that would represent states proportionally by population and a Senate that would represent all states equally. Thus began the representative system seen in the U.S. today.

As each new state was added to the union over time, two more senators were added to the Senate. In 1959, the present body of 100 senators was complete, with two senators representing each of the 50 states.

Each senator serves a six-year term with the chance of reelection at the end of this period. In order to be elected as a senator, an individual must be at least 30 years old and have been a U.S. citizen for nine years. Leading this body is the Vice President, who is elected alongside the President every four years.

Senators also belong to smaller bodies within the Senate called “committees” that handle specific tasks. These committees are usually composed of 7 to 15 members, each of whom has extensive power.

– Jacob Hess

Sources: FAIR.org, Senate.gov
Photo: Flickr