February, 20 2014, 01:02pm EDT
Women's Representation in Government Still Low
New Worldwatch Institute study examines the number of women active in national legislatures
WASHINGTON
In late 2013, women accounted for slightly more than 21 percent of the representatives in the lower or popular chambers of national legislatures worldwide, according to the Geneva-based Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU). Filling one in five seats of national legislative bodies represents progress for women, but it is hardly rapid progress: 15 years ago, slightly more than 13 percent of the seats were held by women,write Atlas Corps Fellow Janice Pratt and Worldwatch President Robert Engelman in the Institute's latest Vital Signs Online trend (www.worldwatch.org).
Low levels of female participation in parliaments undoubtedly reflect similarly low levels of participation in other political institutions as well as in social, educational, and economic spheres generally. Data on gender gaps in these areas are less uniform and authoritative. The number of women in top national executive offices-including German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf-may reflect changeable political scenes in the world's 193 United Nations member states more than actual trends in women's influence in governance.
There are great regional variations in the average percentages of women in parliaments. As of November 2013, representation was as follows: Nordic countries, 42 percent; the Americas, 24 percent; Europe (exclusive of Nordic countries), 24 percent; sub-Saharan Africa, 22 percent; Asia, 18.5 percent; the Middle East and North Africa, 16 percent; and the Pacific, 16 percent. Where national legislatures have two houses, women tend to be better represented in the lower than the higher house-the one that in many countries has a less influential role in legislative action.
Six of the 10 parliaments with the highest share of female representation are in developing countries. African nations ranked impressively among the top 25 nations, with the parliaments of Angola, Mozambique, Rwanda, the Seychelles, South Africa, Tanzania, and Uganda having strong female representation. Andorra (50 percent), Sweden (45 percent), Finland (42 percent), and Iceland (40 percent)-the four industrial countries on the list of the top 10 parliaments with greatest female representation-were a huge contrast to other industrial countries, including France (25 percent), the United Kingdom (22.5 percent), Greece (21 percent), and the United States (18 percent), where female representation is still surprisingly low.
Despite the slow progress, the world today has the first-ever example of a woman-dominated national legislature: Rwanda, with almost 56 percent representation since 2008 and 57.5 percent in 2013. The post-civil war constitution of this small central African country specified that 30 percent of legislators must be women (by reserving seats, for example, that only women can contest). Rwandans are now within range of doubling that constitutionally mandated percentage, easily surpassing Cuba (49 percent) and Sweden (45 percent) in women's parliamentary representation.
"Although most countries now allow women to vote and stand for election, there is still a long way to go to achieve equal political participation," said Robert Engelman. "Trends show that at the current rate at which women enter parliament annually, gender equality in national legislatures may not be realized until 2068."
Several international decisions have helped legitimize the political involvement of women. Relevant treaties include the 1952 Convention on the Political Rights of Women and the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1979 and entered into force two years later. All but 7 of the UN's 193 member countries have ratified CEDAW; the holdouts are the United States, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Iran, and the two small Pacific Island nations of Palau and Tonga.
In 1995, the United Nations sponsored the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, China. With 189 governments and 2,600 nongovernmental groups in attendance, this was one of the largest UN conferences ever. Delegates agreed to a set of strategic objectives and actions, including efforts to advance the role of women in politics and environmental stewardship. The year 2015, the target year for achievement of the UN's Millennium Development Goals, will also mark the 20th anniversary of the Beijing Conference, potentially renewing attention to global efforts to empower women-not just in the world's legislative bodies but in every sphere of human activity.
Further highlights from the report:
- Thirty-five countries, including 9 in Africa, have so far managed to obtain 30 percent female representation in their parliaments. Twenty-nine out of the 35 have in place a quota system meant to enhance women's participation in politics.
- Other countries with some form of quota system (in some cases, simply commitments by political parties fielding candidates) include Argentina, Finland, Germany, Mexico, South Africa, and Spain.
- As late as 2000, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates continued to bar women from political participation. Since then, each country has offered openings to women's participation, including the right to vote and run in political elections.
The Worldwatch Institute was a globally focused environmental research organization based in Washington, D.C., founded by Lester R. Brown. Worldwatch was named as one of the top ten sustainable development research organizations by Globescan Survey of Sustainability Experts. Brown left to found the Earth Policy Institute in 2000. The Institute was wound up in 2017, after publication of its last State of the World Report. Worldwatch.org was unreachable from mid-2019.
LATEST NEWS
'Barbaric': Whistleblowers Further Expose Israel's Torture of Detained Palestinians
"What we know about Gaza is only tip of atrocity iceberg."
May 10, 2024
Three Israeli whistleblowers who worked at the notorious Sde Teiman prison camp in the Negev desert offered horrifying accounts of the treatment of Palestinians held there, tellingCNN that the facility's doctors have amputated limbs due to handcuffing injuries, allowed detainees' wounds to rot, and carried out vicious beatings.
A medic who worked at Sde Teiman's field hospital said that Palestinian detainees there are stripped "of anything that resembles human beings" and that the harassment and torture are done not to "gather intelligence" but "out of revenge" for the October 7 attacks.
Israel has detained thousands of Gaza residents since October, with many of them held under a recently amended law that empowers Israeli authorities to imprison people indefinitely without charge or due process. Human rights organizations have documented Israeli forces' brutal and degrading treatment of Palestinian detainees, including women and children.
At the field hospital, CNN reported, "wounded detainees are strapped to their beds, wearing diapers and fed through straws."
One Israeli whistleblower took a photograph of a room at the facility, which the person said was filled with a "putrid stench" and the sound of "men's murmurs" as they were "forbidden from speaking to each other."
"We were told they were not allowed to move," the whistleblower said. "They should sit upright. They're not allowed to talk. Not allowed to peek under their blindfold."
CNN finally sheds light on Israel's shocking and barbaric torture chambers: thousands of people, detained for months:
Strapped down, blindfolded, held in diapers: Israeli whistleblowers detail abuse of Palestinians in shadowy detention centerhttps://t.co/XuOL4IaFQS
— Nimer Sultany (@NimerSultany) May 10, 2024
The whistleblower accounts, according to CNN, "paint a picture of a facility where doctors sometimes amputated prisoners' limbs due to injuries sustained from constant handcuffing; of medical procedures sometimes performed by underqualified medics earning it a reputation for being 'a paradise for interns'; and where the air is filled with the smell of neglected wounds left to rot."
The testimony provided to CNN is consistent with details that a doctor at the camp's field hospital included in a recent letter to top Israeli officials. The doctor described unlawful and inhumane conditions; in a single week, the person said, "two prisoners had their legs amputated due to handcuff injuries, which unfortunately is a routine event."
A report published last month by Al Mezan, a Palestinian human rights organization, also documented "harrowing accounts of torture and inhumane treatment" of people detained by the Israeli military.
"A 19-year-old detainee told an Al Mezan lawyer that he was tortured from the moment he was arrested," the group said. "He described how three of his fingernails were removed with pliers during interrogation. He also stated that investigators unleashed a dog on him and subjected him to shabeh—a form of torture which involves detainees being handcuffed and bound in stress positions for long periods—three times over three days of interrogation. He was then placed in a cell for 70 days, where he experienced starvation and extreme fatigue."
Mohammed Al-Ran, a Palestinian doctor who was arrested by Israeli forces in December, told CNN that he was "stripped down to his underwear, blindfolded and his wrists tied, then dumped in the back of a truck where... the near-naked detainees were piled on top of one another as they were shuttled to a detention camp in the middle of the desert."
Al-Ran was held by Israeli forces for 44 days. Just before his release, he told CNN, "a fellow prisoner had called out to him, his voice barely rising above a whisper."
According to CNN: "He asked the doctor to find his wife and kids in Gaza. 'He asked me to tell them that it is better for them to be martyrs,' said al-Ran. 'It is better for them to die than to be captured and held here.'"
Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director of Human Rights Watch, said in response to the new reporting that "what we know about Gaza is only tip of the atrocity iceberg."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Climate Movement Cheers Michigan AG's Plans to Sue Big Oil
"Pursuing this litigation will allow us to recoup our costs and hold those responsible for jeopardizing Michigan's economic future and way of life accountable," said the state attorney general
May 09, 2024
Advocates of holding fossil fuel giants accountable for their significant contributions to the climate emergency welcomed Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel's Thursday announcement that she intends to sue the polluting industry.
"Big Oil knew decades ago that their products would cause catastrophic climate change, but instead of doing the right thing they lied about it," declared Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity. "The people of Michigan deserve their day in court to make these companies pay for the massive harm they knowingly caused."
Dozens of municipalities and attorneys general for the District of Columbia and eight states—California, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont—have already filed climate liability suits against Big Oil in recent years.
"Our 'Pure Michigan' identity is under threat from the effects of climate change," said Nessel, whose state was praised last year for passing clean energy legislation. "Warmer temperatures are shrinking ski seasons in the UP and disrupting the wonderful blooms of Holland's Tulip Time Festival. Severe weather events are on the rise."
"These impacts threaten not only our way of life but also our economy and pose long-term risks to Michigan's thriving agribusiness," she continued. "The fossil fuel industry, despite knowing about these consequences, prioritized profits over people and the environment. Pursuing this litigation will allow us to recoup our costs and hold those responsible for jeopardizing Michigan's economic future and way of life accountable."
The Democratic attorney general's office explained that she is "seeking proposals from attorneys and law firms to serve as special assistant attorneys general to pursue litigation related to the climate change impacts caused by the fossil fuel industry on behalf of the state of Michigan."
The Detroit Newsnoted that "Nessel took a similar tact in suing drugmakers for the opioid crisis, farming out much of the work to outside law firms in Michigan, Texas, and Florida."
According to the newspaper:
Nessel's office is working with other state departments to assess the costs associated with climate change, such as the cost of expanding storm water systems to handle flooding caused by stronger storms, responding to natural disasters, or supporting northern Michigan tourism economies dealing with dwindling ice and snow.
"This is going to be a massive discovery effort to find out exactly what our Michigan damages are now already and what can we expect to see in the future as a result of climate change," she said.
"I don't know that there's a bigger issue facing the state of Michigan than climate change," Nessel told the outlet. "We are talking about billions and billions of dollars in damages and we're already starting to see that on a day-to-day basis. We know this is only going to get worse."
The youth-led Sunrise Movement applauded Nessel's plans and asserted that U.S. President Joe Biden—who is seeking reelection in November—and the Department of Justice "must follow suit."
The group's call echoed similar demands that emerged last week in response to the U.S. Senate Budget Committee's hearing about a three-year investigation into "Big Oil's campaign of deception and distraction."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Compare Biden's Proposed Asylum Rule to 'Failed Trump-Era Policies'
"The Biden administration and Congress must not erect any more unjust barriers to asylum that will sow further disorder and result in irreparable harm," said one migrant rights advocate.
May 09, 2024
Immigrant rights advocates on Thursday slammed the Biden administration's proposal to fast-track the rejection of certain migrants seeking asylum in the United States.
On Thursday the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposed a rule that would empower immigration officials to disqualify certain asylum-seekers during their initial eligibility screening—called the credible fear interview (CFI)—using existing national security and terrorism-related criteria, or bars.
DHS said the rule would apply to noncitizens who have "engaged in certain criminal activity, persecuted others, or have been involved in terrorist activities."
"I urge President Biden to embrace our values as a nation of immigrants and use this opportunity to instead provide relief for the long-term immigrants of this nation."
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas called the proposed rule "yet another step in our ongoing efforts to ensure the safety of the American public by more quickly identifying and removing those individuals who present a security risk and have no legal basis to remain here."
However, Greg Chen, senior director of government relations for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, argued that while "bars are an important feature of our immigration laws to ensure that dangerous individuals are not allowed into the country," they must be "accurately applied where warranted."
"This change could make the process faster by excluding people who would not be entitled to stay," he noted. "However, due process will likely be eroded by accelerating what is a highly complex legal analysis needed for these bars and conducting them at the preliminary CFI screening."
As Chen explained:
At that early stage, few asylum seekers will have the opportunity to seek legal counsel or time to understand the consequences of a bar being applied. Under the current process, they have more time to seek legal advice, to prepare their case, and to appeal it or seek an exemption. Ultimately to establish a fair and orderly process at the border, Congress needs to provide the Department of Homeland Security with the resources to meet its mission and also ensure the truly vulnerable are not summarily denied protection without due process.
Democratic lawmakers—some of whom held a press conference Wednesday on protecting undocumented immigrants in the U.S.—also criticized the proposal.
"As the Biden administration considers executive actions on immigration, we must not return to failed Trump-era policies aimed at banning asylum and moving us backwards," said Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), referring to former Republican President Donald Trump, the presumptive 2024 GOP nominee to face President Joe Biden in November.
"I urge President Biden to embrace our values as a nation of immigrants and use this opportunity to instead provide relief for the long-term immigrants of this nation," he added.
One year ago, critics accused Biden of "finishing Trump's job" by implementing a crackdown on asylum-seekers upon the expiration of Title 42—a provision first invoked during Trump administration at the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic and continued by Biden to expel more than 1 million migrants under the pretext of public safety.
Earlier this week, the advocacy group Human Rights First released a report detailing the harms of the policy on its anniversary. The group held a press conference to unveil the report and warn of the dangers of further anti-migrant policies.
"The interviews with hundreds of asylum-seekers make clear that the asylum ban and related restrictions strands in danger children and adults seeking asylum, punishes people for seeking protection, leads to the return of refugees to persecution, spurs irregular crossings, and denies equal access to asylum to people facing the most dire risks," Human Rights First director of research and analysis of refugee protection Christina Asencio said during the press conference.
"The Biden administration and Congress must not erect any more unjust barriers to asylum that will sow further disorder and result in irreparable harm," Asencio added.
On Wednesday, three advocacy groups—Al Otro Lado, the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, and the Texas Civil Rights Project—sued the federal government on behalf of noncitizens with disabilities seeking more information regarding CBP One, the problem-plagued Customs and Border Protection app migrants must use to schedule asylum interviews at U.S. ports of entry.
"We have and continue to see migrants with disabilities facing unlawful discrimination and unequal access to the asylum process due to the inaccessibility of the app," said Laura Murchie, an attorney with the Civil Rights and Education Enforcement Center involved in the case.
"CBP needs to release these documents so we can advocate for and ensure compliance with the law so asylum-seekers with disabilities do not continue to be harmed by CBP's disregard for rights that are guaranteed by federal disability law," she added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular