"" Welcome to my thoughts: Politics. Self-sacrifice
Showing posts with label Politics. Self-sacrifice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Self-sacrifice. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 8, 2011

International Women’s Day

When we celebrate International Women's Day on March 8, I wonder whether we have achieved anything in protecting the rights of women. It is common belief in our society that fighting for rights of women is western sponsored anti-Islamic ideology. In my opinion everyone must get equal chance to make living, education and participation in politics. No society will be developed if they had neglected the rights of women. Research shows that number of women hold white color job is dramatically increasing year after year. Since women are 50% of our society, why shouldn’t we engage them to boost our economy?

The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank encourage developing countries to use export-led growth to expand their economies. Such globalized economies require a labor force of a size that must include women. In many cases, cultural barriers, especially in the relationship between women and men within households and communities, impede increased economic participation, or undermine the quality of that participation. For example, even women who do work face differential treatment such as wage gaps and segregation into traditionally female industries. Women have historically borne the burden of non-monetized labor, such as child care and domestic work.

While significant advances have been made in advancing women’s political participation in recent years, women are still under-represented in governance structure and people’s Majlis (legislation assembly). In any given participating State, women’s political participation usually depends both on broad social, economic and cultural factors, and on the electoral and political systems, particularly the rules governing political parties.


Share/Bookmark

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Does loyalty really has a place in politics?

Having a loyal person by is everyone’s dream, retaining loyal members is every organization’s strategy, pushing loyalist for the frontline of political arena is a plan of every nasty regime.

Does loyalty really has a place in politics? Is it wise to believe that one who gives his time and commitment are loyalist? If yes, to whom should they be loyal? People of every constituency, the party he belongs to, the nation’s constitution or his own conviction?

Theoretically, “loyalty is appropriate in relationships that demand self-sacrifice without expectation of reward” Duska 2002. So if we could frame this theory to politics, we observe that politicians often expect or demand winning hearts and minds of party members. Therefore, loyalty does not exist in politics.

Nevertheless, researcher Corvino claims that “while loyalty requires a certain degree of tolerance of short comings, it does not require absolute or complete tolerance”. Thus it allows members to break their silence, if he could believe that the party’s decision involves twisted conspiracy. If he does, another issue is that “democratic verdict” – one must agree with the majority.

Last week, the biggest indictment surfaced in the Maldives was emergence of “rat” within Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party – DRP (main opposition party led by former President Maumoon). Alhan Fahmy has been lambasted by his fellow parliamentary members of DRP by casting his vote against party ruling in no-confidence motion against Dr.Shaheedh. He was suspended from party activities and investigations which are going on. So, is he loyal to DRP and its members? According to him that he himself investigated the issue from the scratch, and had not found anyways that he could agree with DRP ruling. In fact, its worth to note that he has also agreed and signed the letter before it was sent to Majlis regarding the no-confidence vote against Dr.Shaheed.

Last Friday, speaking to DhiFM 101 programme, he said that “till the very last moment I did not decide whether I should be voting for or against DRP. And very last moment I decided to vote against party’s decision”, that means he had “moral imagination” - what would happen if he could put party’s interest before his own convictions and belief. It’s obvious that in that situation any of his decisions would involve “dirty hand”- is a situation in which even when you do the morally right thing, you have also done something morally wrong.

Since he knew that he wasn’t be voting in favour of DRP, so why did he sign the document without reproving party’s stance at first?

Can we say that he signed it just to “save his face”, if not, can’t we argue that he changed his mind due to third party influence?

Since loyalty doesn’t require absolute tolerance, he has every right to justify his stance to DRP parliamentary group as well as ordinary members.


Share/Bookmark