Thursday, 25 July 2013
British Academy for the humanities and social sciences
Carole Spary has been awarded £7705 by the British Academy for a research project on 'Performing representation: women parliamentarians and political participation in India'. The research will investigate women’s political participation as elected representatives in the national parliament of India. It will focus on selected parliamentary debates as well as the Committee for the Empowerment of Women. The research aims to understand the dynamics of participating in debates, how women MPs are enabled or constrained by institutional norms and practices, and the representational claims they make as women MPs. The research is part of a larger project examining women’s participation as a minority group (less than 11%) in the Indian parliament. The grant will enable research trips to India to conduct elite interviews with MPs and to collect contemporary and archival documentary data from the national parliament.
Institutions must develop strategies to tackle online abuse aimed at female academics
Audra Mitchell argues that universities, funding councils and other academic bodies need to play a more supportive role in addressing online bullying aimed at women. Writing after a recent conference panel exploring the challenges and risks associated with being a female public intellectual in an era of widespread online sexual harassment, she argues that we need to think carefully about making an individual online presence a necessity for academic success.
Tuesday, 23 July 2013
Indifference and disillusionment in the Holy Land, despite John Kerry's efforts
Reflecting on his field research in the Middle East, Jacob Eriksson argues that, despite John Kerry's recent efforts, indifference and pessimism are pervading the latest chapter in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
With mistrust between the parties as high as ever, is it possible for the two sides to make progress?
Jerusalem, 21 July 2013:
"You’ve got to
hand it to John Kerry, he’s a tenacious operator. He’s managed to overcome the
formidable impasse in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and has done well
to get the parties back to the table. The respective teams are due in
Washington some time next week for an initial meeting. However, this is just the
tip of the iceberg. As analyst David Makovsky put it, ‘Right now
they’re in the very shallow end, and they’re going to have to swim in deeper
waters — and they can be treacherous.’
After my many
conversations over the last two weeks, it seems that Israeli public opinion
regarding peace with the Palestinians is as divergent as it’s always been.
Israel needs to withdraw from the occupied territories as soon as possible;
yes, we need peace, but it’s hard and will tear the country apart; Israel is
nice to those who are nice to us, and we are ready give up the West Bank and
East Jerusalem for a Palestinian state if they prove they accept our Jewish
state; all of Jerusalem, East and West, is Israeli, no doubt about it, and the
Arabs (note: not Palestinians, but Arabs) can’t have it.
This, in
itself, is nothing new. Opinion on peace and the Palestinians has always been
divergent. What is remarkable, however, is the overwhelming feeling of
indifference. Though this was present when I was last here in 2009, it now
seems far more pervasive. Despite Kerry’s continuous efforts and the renewed
commitment he’s managed to get, people remain very pessimistic. Mistrust
between the parties is as high as ever, and questions to Israelis about what is
required to change this are either greeted with a shrug, or the suggestion that
the ball is in the Palestinians’ court. They need to make the first move to
break the formidable psychological barrier, like Egyptian President Anwar Sadat
did when he visited Jerusalem in 1977 and addressed the Knesset, the Israeli
parliament.
Perhaps this
opinion is also informed by the fact that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin ‘Bibi’
Netanyahu is unlikely to initiate any substantial moves towards the Palestinians.
The man’s politics can be described in one hyphenated word: risk-averse. He is
not a man whose unwavering conviction leads to big, bold decisions. Like many
politicians, his main priority appears to be staying in power, navigating the political
waters and keeping his head just above the surface. During his first period in
office (1996-1999), he did it badly. Torn between the liberal left – who wanted
to see progress in the peace process – and the conservative and religious right
– who were against any territorial concessions to the Palestinians and in
favour of settlement expansion – Bibi swung from one to the other and managed
to alienate everyone. Too accommodating for the right and not accommodating
enough for the left.
Given that
his current government leans even more towards the right, it does not augur
well, and he will no doubt try very hard to avoid a similar situation by
standing his ground. There is an agreement to release a number of Palestinian
prisoners, but that is all Kerry could get – there is apparently no Israeli
acceptance of Palestinian pre-conditions, including using the 1967 Green Line
as a basis for negotiations, and a settlement freeze which includes East
Jerusalem.
The
occupation of the West Bank is not palatable or pretty, nor does it reflect
well on the Israelis, as the security experts I have spoken with admit, but
they cannot realistically envisage an alternative at this
stage. It is the best of a bad set of options. The firm conviction on my part
that Israel needs to withdraw from all of the West Bank in order to ensure its
long-term security is greeted with polite scepticism, and either a ‘OK, but how
can that happen now?’ or ‘No, you don’t understand the Palestinians.’ Either
way, it’s not particularly encouraging. The effective security cooperation that
does exist with the Palestinian Authority (PA) and has been working for
Israel’s benefit over the last four or five years is given short shrift.
Without an Israeli presence, security is not guaranteed, and that’s the bottom
line.
And what of
the Palestinians? Disarray seems to be the word of the day. President Mahmoud
Abbas (commonly known as Abu Mazen) is currently trying to shore up the
Palestinian Authority (PA), which has come under severe criticism over the past
year. Street protests over mounting economic problems were prevalent in
September 2012, and quickly spread to broader political grievances over the Israeli
occupation and the PA’s inability to improve their lives. A political battle
between President Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, the politically
independent economist much loved in the West, was played out in all this, with
Fayyad resigning in April this year. His successor, Hami Ramdallah, was in post
for two weeks before submitting his resignation due to a disagreement over Abbas’
appointment of two deputy ministers. The composition of a new government is not
yet clear. Meanwhile, reconciliation and the formation of a national unity
government between Abbas’ main Fatah group in the West Bank and Hamas in the
Gaza Strip doesn’t appear to be on the cards either. The Muslim Brotherhood’s
fall from grace in Egypt has weakened Hamas, and they won’t be keen to
negotiate from such a position.
Predictions
that a third intifada would erupt in
2013 have thus far proved incorrect. The Palestinian street is full of cynicism
and mistrust towards all things political, but the prevailing opinion appears
to be that political reform, not violence, is the key to their problems. Memories
of the tremendous damage wrought by the second intifada are still fresh enough to deter them, not to mention the
civil war between Fatah and Hamas in 2007. But how long will this last without
progress in the political process and improved quality of life? One can only
hope that continued disillusionment and frustration does not make violence seem
attractive.
As a result
of this, the process will have to be extremely carefully managed, as it may
well be the last roll of the dice for Abu Mazen and the PA. Another failure to
move decisively towards proper statehood may be too much for the Palestinians
to bear. Kerry needs to study the lessons of previous failures very carefully,
and use the six to nine months the parties have committed to – reports vary –
wisely. He must try to manage expectations clearly from the outset, maintain
secrecy, and try to officially establish the by now well known parameters of a
two-state solution.
Despite
Kerry’s initial achievement, scepticism remains the word of the day. We have
seen this story many times before; at best it has ended in disappointment, and
at worst, violence. Ultimately, there are two classic Middle Eastern
negotiating positions that need to be overcome: ‘I’m weak, how can I
negotiate?’ and ‘I’m strong, why should I negotiate?’ Let’s hope they can break
this Gordian knot".
Thursday, 18 July 2013
Crunch time on Trident for Miliband and his party
In an article published yesterday with the Guardian, Nick Ritchie argues that as political parties prepare for the run up to the next general election, Miliband has a chance to break with Blairite and Tory nuclear business as usual - and show some real leadership
"Ed Miliband confirmed at last year’s party conference that Labour policy on Trident replacement would be reviewed after the publication of the Trident Alternatives Review and the Basic Trident Commission report. With the former now published and he latter due soon, Miliband will face a difficult choice: stick with the Blair and Tory plan of nuclear business as usual; or demonstrate international leadership by ending permanent deployments and further reducing our nuclear arsenal..."
"Ed Miliband confirmed at last year’s party conference that Labour policy on Trident replacement would be reviewed after the publication of the Trident Alternatives Review and the Basic Trident Commission report. With the former now published and he latter due soon, Miliband will face a difficult choice: stick with the Blair and Tory plan of nuclear business as usual; or demonstrate international leadership by ending permanent deployments and further reducing our nuclear arsenal..."
Read the full article here.
Wednesday, 10 July 2013
Gender, Liberalism and Financial Crisis - Call for Participation
Gender, Neoliberalism, and Financial Crisis Postgraduate Conference
University
of York, 27 September 2013
Keynotes:
Diane Elson (Essex), Ruth Pearson (Leeds), Sylvia Walby (Lancaster)
Call for participants:
This
is an invitation for University of York students and staff to attend the
Gender, Neoliberalism, and Financial Crisis Postgraduate Conference this
September.
It is one-day conference bringing together presentations from MA, PhD, and
post-doc researchers from the UK and beyond. The conference examines the
connections between gender, political economy, and development, with a special
focus on the impact of financial crisis.
This
conference will be of special interest to students studying politics,
economics, gender studies, sociology, development, and philosophy and to
students who are members of political clubs. Undergraduates and postgraduates
are encouraged to attend, to see presentations from engaging young researchers,
to see the keynote speakers, and to get a better idea of what postgraduate
research is like. We really encourage student to attend the conference and join
in the discussions!
Please
see the website for more information on the day's events. Tickets (£10 each,
including lunch) can also be purchased from the site. Tickets will go on sale
from 1 June 2013.
Please see more info at genderconferenceyork.wordpress.com or
contact Sydney Calkin (sac525@york.ac.uk), the conference
convenor.
Monday, 8 July 2013
Legislative Protest as Democratic Practice
Carole Spary discusses the phenomenon of legislative protest and its significance as
a form of democratic practice. She discusses two high profile examples that have been making the headlines, and draws on insights from a recently published special issue of the journal
Democratization on the topic of ‘Disruptive Democracy: Analysing Legislative Protest’.
The Texas Senate recently witnessed an important and spectacular ten hour filibuster by Democrat Senator Wendy Davis, designed to block a
controversial abortion bill which would restrict abortion rights and access in
Texas. The filibuster, the purpose of which is to speak extensively on a bill
with the deliberate purpose of delaying or preventing a vote, fell just short
of the midnight deadline. However, it was followed by a passionately supportive
public gallery protest which successfully disrupted the final vote on the bill.
In another recent but unconnected incident, a parliamentary debate in
Westminster witnessed a more muted but still noteworthy protest against media
sexism by Caroline Lucas MP. Wearing a t-shirt with the slogan ‘No More
Page Three’ in reference to the on-going
campaign to remove pictures of topless models from selected newspapers,
Lucas stood up and spoke in the debate but was shortly told by the debate chair
that she was in breach of the Westminster dress code. Lucas complied with the
chair’s order to cover up by putting on and buttoning up her jacket. Whilst
doing so, she commented on the irony of being told to comply with the dress
code when the same newspapers targeted by the campaign were available to
purchase in retail outlets on the Westminster estate. She held up a copy of one
such newspaper open at page three but was called to order by the chair.
These two examples suggest how protests by legislators
within legislative contexts are important not just for the immediate impact they
make on legislative debates and outcomes, but for what they signify in terms of
democratic practice. Legislative protests can offer insights into the meaning
and functioning of legislative institutions, actors and their behaviour beyond
aggregate votes or routine deliberation in debates. Analysing the protest
behaviour of legislators and the regulatory role of presiding officers can help
us to better understand the significance of how elected representatives perform
representation and how legislative institutions manage disagreement and
conflict.
For example, the two examples of legislative protest above
illustrate contrasting modes of compliance, yet official rules of procedure
often need to be interpreted by
legislative actors such as presiding officers and legislators. Some modes of legislative
protest such as Sen. Wendy Davis’ filibuster are part of established though
rarely performed modes of legislative performance and comply with official
legislative rules and procedure. Others, such as the one recently enacted by
Caroline Lucas MP, may bend or break official rules in order to communicate a
key message. The Texas filibuster by Sen. Wendy Davis, however, fell short of
the vote deadline because Davis accumulated three violations of the filibustering
procedure which raised as points of order by legislators and upheld by the
chair, despite being contested. This suggests that legislative protest is
contingent and that interpretive work can often have important consequences for
the success or failure of legislative protest acts.
Also, the manner in which rules are interpreted and applied
may also be strongly influenced by informal institutional norms and conventions.
Some forms of disobedience might be tolerated more in some legislative contexts
compared to others for reasons of pragmatism, such as the repeated disruptions
to debate in the Parliament of India. Also, the frequency and intensity of
protest may change over time, for example as a result of changes in the
relative strength of the government and the opposition in the legislature and
the quality of communication between them. This interpretive work means that legislative
protest and regulatory responses will differ across and within legislative
institutions and over time.
Finally, both examples illustrate how performance and its
embodiment are key elements of legislative protest. The filibuster involved
intense and protracted physical labour. Sen. Wendy Davis deliberately wore
running shoes and swayed from side to side while she was on her feet and
talking for ten hours and 45 minutes. During this time she could not take meals
or bathroom breaks or sit down. Assistance from another legislator in adjusting
her back brace was the basis of a point of order raised by Republican senators and
sustained against her (for ‘aiding’ the filibuster). The final vote on the bill
was disrupted in part by the loud volume of the public gallery protestors
including many who were physically
and forcibly removed. In the protest by Caroline Lucas MP, her physical embodiment
as a female MP, her physical wearing of a protest message, as well as her
display of the page three of a newspaper provided visual layers of protest simultaneous
to her speech. While her T-shirt and display of the newspaper was reprimanded
by the presiding officer, he emphasised that he was not curtailing Lucas’
speech. These examples remind us of how
legislative protest in particular and representation more broadly involves
embodied performances.
These ideas about legislative protest and democratic
practice are just some of those explored in a recently published special issue
of the journal Democratization called
‘Disruptive Democracy:
Analysing Legislative Protest’. The special issue includes articles which
discuss legislative protest both theoretically and conceptually such as in
relation to deliberation, representation, performativity, and democratic space,
as well as empirically with case study analysis of national legislatures of the
UK, South Africa, Sweden, and India. The theme of this special issue is linked
to a research programme on ‘Gendered Ceremony and Ritual in Parliament’ which
was funded by the Leverhulme Trust from 2007-2011. For further details about
the programme please visit the GCRP website.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)