Thursday, August 7, 2008
Summer sales see inflation rate dip to 4.4%
Inflation dropped to a four-month low in July as falls in the price of clothing and household goods during the summer sales offset rises in fuel and housing costs.
The annual rate of inflation declined to 4.4 per cent from 5 per cent in June, the Central Statistics Office (CSO) said today.Continue reading here
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Monday, August 4, 2008
Direct Democracy and Judicial Activism
The recent referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland has produced a bizarre marriage of convenience in the rhetoric used by those campaigning against Lisbon. Cries of the success of direct democracy are fused with a firm commitment to the very antithesis of direct democracy, a Supreme Court ruling. The particular ruling, which has become the darling of the ‘no’ campaign, is the Crotty judgment that saw the Supreme Court rule that in the event of any major change within the European Union (EU) that would impact upon the Irish constitution, the government would be obliged to seek the approval of the Irish people for that change.
Ireland was the only country in the EU whose citizens were given the opportunity to vote on the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty. Subsequently, many of those on the ‘no’ campaign have used the fact that the rest of Europe denied their citizens the right to express their opinion through referendum to discredit their ratification of Lisbon as nothing other than ‘undemocratic’. They argue that three million freedom-loving Irish were thus voting on behalf of 500 million European Union citizens who were denied their rights!?
Of course, what this ill-informed position does is argue that there is only one way for democracy to operate: Direct Democracy.
The reality is that there are many forms of democratic political system. One major difference is that which exists between Presidential and Parliamentary systems, with executive and legislature separated in one and fused in the other. There are also many forms of electoral system and these can be discussed in terms of (i) Electoral Formula, (ii) District Magnitude and (iii) Threshold. Please allow me a short explanation of the differing types of electoral system, which I believe is necessary as many believe that their system is the one universal standard. For instance, Ireland, which employs the Proportional Representation – Single Transferable Vote system is joined in doing so only by Malta. If you would rather skip Politics 101 then please feel free to skip on a little bit but if you do not know that other systems do exist or how they do then I would advise just persevering on for a few paragraphs.
Electoral Formula:
There are three types of electoral formula used: (i) Plurality, (ii) Majority, (iii) Proportional Representation (PR). In a plurality (first-past-the-post) system a candidate needs only to have more votes than any other candidate to be deemed elected. This system is perhaps the simplest but it is found to be lacking in certain respects. While plurality can be used in multi-member districts, the norm is for plurality to be associated with single-member districts. The plurality system tends to punish small parties and generally leads to a two party system as the only seat in the district will go to the candidate with the largest vote, who generally is the candidate of a large party. As I will discuss later this can often lead to unfavourable results in a highly divided society. The majority system, as is implied in the name, requires that any candidate gains at least fifty percent of the vote. If this does not happen on the first count then a runoff election can be held, usually between the top two candidates or those who have gained a certain percent of the vote in the first election. There are certain systems that negate the need for a runoff election such as the alternative vote system, in which candidates are rank ordered. If no candidate reaches the critical 50% share then the second preference votes are tallied. Majority systems seek consensus and thus they tend to elect those politicians of the centre, often as a compromise when voters are forced to choose the ‘lesser of two evils’. PR seeks to address the imbalances in transferring votes to seats that are created by both the plurality and majority systems. By definition, PR can be used only in multimember districts, for it is obviously impossible to distribute a single seat among many parties. The two major types of PR are the List system and the Single Transferable Vote (STV). The List system is the predominant type of PR system while the STV is used only in Ireland for legislative elections and Malta. The List system provides the voter with a ballot on which they indicate their preference for a certain party but usually not for particular candidates. There are certain countries in which the voter may indicate a preference for a certain candidate but this rarely affects the parties proposed list ranking. This system has been criticised because it takes power from the voter and leaves it with the parties as they decide the order that candidates are placed on the list. The STV on the other hand gives the voter the power to rank candidates irrespective of party. The system has been criticised for creating intra-party competition, thus the argument that it leads to clientelism.
District Magnitude:
Most studies of electoral systems find that the district magnitude (M), the number of seats to be filled in a constituency, is an important aspect to any election. Single member districts (SMD) are usually associated with plurality and majority systems. The basic concept behind the SMD is that it provides a representative who is easily recognisable to constituents and a high degree of accountability exists. If the electorate is unhappy with the performance of the government, or their politician, the choice of who to punish is simple as there was only one candidate representing the constituency. The problem when M=1 is that an election outcome can result in the possibility of a large percentage of the population being unrepresented. An extreme example in a SMD in a plurality system with five candidates yields the following results: A=25%, B=20%, C=18%, D=20%, E=17%. Candidate A wins the only seat in the constituency with 25% of the vote. The remaining 75% of voters remain unrepresented. The highly disproportional results of such a system can be devastating for the legitimacy of democracy in an ethnically divided society such as that of Kenya, for instance.
Threshold:
Some electoral systems introduce the notion of thresholds which must be attained in order to be considered for a seat so as to prevent the advent of small and perhaps extremist parties. Thresholds really only apply to PR systems and in particular to those with high magnitude districts, which produce highly proportional results. In order not to make it too easy for small parties to win election all countries that use large or nationwide districts have instituted minimum thresholds for representation, defined in terms of a minimum number of seats won in the lower-tier districts and/or a minimum percentage of the total national vote. It is not in the interest of proportionality for a very high tier to be established. If such thresholds exist, a higher tier can serve to give a bonus to larger parties.
Returning to the question that this post sets out to address, we must question the contradiction that exists between fighting for direct democracy on the one hand and for judicial activism on the other. The Supreme Court exists to monitor and ensure that legislation is consistent with the constitution but it should keep out of the political realm and defer to the political branches or public opinion. If the Court begins to delve into highly controversial areas such as abortion it is in danger of deepening divisions in society. Ultimately it may lose its legitimacy. We must remember that the Supreme Court is comprised of unelected officials, which is in stark contrast to those elected officials who occupy positions in parliament. The very essence of representative democracy is the idea that we are electing individuals to make decisions on our behalf and to govern in our interests. We may not be in favour of those politicians that we have elected but the option is there to punish them by removing them in the next election.
The argument will of course be given that our politicians are not in tune with the electorate but I am not arguing against direct democracy. Instead, what I am pointing out here is the bizarre contradiction of direct democracy and judicial activism working hand-in-hand.
Ultimately, the arrogance displayed by certain persons by labeling as ‘undemocratic’ the decisions by other states in the EU to ratify the Lisbon Treaty through their democratic processes is truly laughable given their ironic appreciation for their own unelected officials' power.
Of course, those caught in this situation will argue that they are not in favour of unelected officials interfering with their right to direct democracy. Only in situations where it suits them. The double standards on display are reprehensible. But then could anyone expect any better?
Ireland was the only country in the EU whose citizens were given the opportunity to vote on the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty. Subsequently, many of those on the ‘no’ campaign have used the fact that the rest of Europe denied their citizens the right to express their opinion through referendum to discredit their ratification of Lisbon as nothing other than ‘undemocratic’. They argue that three million freedom-loving Irish were thus voting on behalf of 500 million European Union citizens who were denied their rights!?
Of course, what this ill-informed position does is argue that there is only one way for democracy to operate: Direct Democracy.
The reality is that there are many forms of democratic political system. One major difference is that which exists between Presidential and Parliamentary systems, with executive and legislature separated in one and fused in the other. There are also many forms of electoral system and these can be discussed in terms of (i) Electoral Formula, (ii) District Magnitude and (iii) Threshold. Please allow me a short explanation of the differing types of electoral system, which I believe is necessary as many believe that their system is the one universal standard. For instance, Ireland, which employs the Proportional Representation – Single Transferable Vote system is joined in doing so only by Malta. If you would rather skip Politics 101 then please feel free to skip on a little bit but if you do not know that other systems do exist or how they do then I would advise just persevering on for a few paragraphs.
Electoral Formula:
There are three types of electoral formula used: (i) Plurality, (ii) Majority, (iii) Proportional Representation (PR). In a plurality (first-past-the-post) system a candidate needs only to have more votes than any other candidate to be deemed elected. This system is perhaps the simplest but it is found to be lacking in certain respects. While plurality can be used in multi-member districts, the norm is for plurality to be associated with single-member districts. The plurality system tends to punish small parties and generally leads to a two party system as the only seat in the district will go to the candidate with the largest vote, who generally is the candidate of a large party. As I will discuss later this can often lead to unfavourable results in a highly divided society. The majority system, as is implied in the name, requires that any candidate gains at least fifty percent of the vote. If this does not happen on the first count then a runoff election can be held, usually between the top two candidates or those who have gained a certain percent of the vote in the first election. There are certain systems that negate the need for a runoff election such as the alternative vote system, in which candidates are rank ordered. If no candidate reaches the critical 50% share then the second preference votes are tallied. Majority systems seek consensus and thus they tend to elect those politicians of the centre, often as a compromise when voters are forced to choose the ‘lesser of two evils’. PR seeks to address the imbalances in transferring votes to seats that are created by both the plurality and majority systems. By definition, PR can be used only in multimember districts, for it is obviously impossible to distribute a single seat among many parties. The two major types of PR are the List system and the Single Transferable Vote (STV). The List system is the predominant type of PR system while the STV is used only in Ireland for legislative elections and Malta. The List system provides the voter with a ballot on which they indicate their preference for a certain party but usually not for particular candidates. There are certain countries in which the voter may indicate a preference for a certain candidate but this rarely affects the parties proposed list ranking. This system has been criticised because it takes power from the voter and leaves it with the parties as they decide the order that candidates are placed on the list. The STV on the other hand gives the voter the power to rank candidates irrespective of party. The system has been criticised for creating intra-party competition, thus the argument that it leads to clientelism.
District Magnitude:
Most studies of electoral systems find that the district magnitude (M), the number of seats to be filled in a constituency, is an important aspect to any election. Single member districts (SMD) are usually associated with plurality and majority systems. The basic concept behind the SMD is that it provides a representative who is easily recognisable to constituents and a high degree of accountability exists. If the electorate is unhappy with the performance of the government, or their politician, the choice of who to punish is simple as there was only one candidate representing the constituency. The problem when M=1 is that an election outcome can result in the possibility of a large percentage of the population being unrepresented. An extreme example in a SMD in a plurality system with five candidates yields the following results: A=25%, B=20%, C=18%, D=20%, E=17%. Candidate A wins the only seat in the constituency with 25% of the vote. The remaining 75% of voters remain unrepresented. The highly disproportional results of such a system can be devastating for the legitimacy of democracy in an ethnically divided society such as that of Kenya, for instance.
Threshold:
Some electoral systems introduce the notion of thresholds which must be attained in order to be considered for a seat so as to prevent the advent of small and perhaps extremist parties. Thresholds really only apply to PR systems and in particular to those with high magnitude districts, which produce highly proportional results. In order not to make it too easy for small parties to win election all countries that use large or nationwide districts have instituted minimum thresholds for representation, defined in terms of a minimum number of seats won in the lower-tier districts and/or a minimum percentage of the total national vote. It is not in the interest of proportionality for a very high tier to be established. If such thresholds exist, a higher tier can serve to give a bonus to larger parties.
Returning to the question that this post sets out to address, we must question the contradiction that exists between fighting for direct democracy on the one hand and for judicial activism on the other. The Supreme Court exists to monitor and ensure that legislation is consistent with the constitution but it should keep out of the political realm and defer to the political branches or public opinion. If the Court begins to delve into highly controversial areas such as abortion it is in danger of deepening divisions in society. Ultimately it may lose its legitimacy. We must remember that the Supreme Court is comprised of unelected officials, which is in stark contrast to those elected officials who occupy positions in parliament. The very essence of representative democracy is the idea that we are electing individuals to make decisions on our behalf and to govern in our interests. We may not be in favour of those politicians that we have elected but the option is there to punish them by removing them in the next election.
The argument will of course be given that our politicians are not in tune with the electorate but I am not arguing against direct democracy. Instead, what I am pointing out here is the bizarre contradiction of direct democracy and judicial activism working hand-in-hand.
Ultimately, the arrogance displayed by certain persons by labeling as ‘undemocratic’ the decisions by other states in the EU to ratify the Lisbon Treaty through their democratic processes is truly laughable given their ironic appreciation for their own unelected officials' power.
Of course, those caught in this situation will argue that they are not in favour of unelected officials interfering with their right to direct democracy. Only in situations where it suits them. The double standards on display are reprehensible. But then could anyone expect any better?
Friday, August 1, 2008
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Do We Really Care?
‘Compassion Fatigue’ is the popular concept that suggests that the compassion felt for victims of certain misfortunes (wars, famines, natural disasters, etc.) reduces over time as the media saturates the story to such an extent whereby the audience becomes numb to the emotional impact that these stories would have held at an earlier date.
This notion fosters the media’s infatuation with crisis journalism, which is used in an attempt to capture an audience believed to hold acutely short attention spans and little interest in international events with little or no impact on their own lives. News items, therefore, must be dramatic and this leads to sensationalistic and simplistic stories. As a result of the dramatisation process, each story must be seen to be more sensational than the last. A greater number of deaths, explosions, homes destroyed and ever more devastating pictures must follow to keep an audience tuned in. The spectre of ‘compassion fatigue’ thus acts as an impetus for the selection criteria of stories deemed newsworthy. This means that even if the event is not yet over news coverage of the story might come to an end prematurely if it is believed that story has become boring for an increasingly ADD-ridden public.
‘Compassion Fatigue’ presupposes that the public holds a short attention span. That certain stories may elicit a strong emotional response from the public despite the passage of time is argued by organisations such as Oxfam who have claimed that donations to their organisation in the aftermath of certain crisis have not slowed down as a result of the saturation of media images of suffering.
The reality is surely to be found somewhere in the middle. Many people will suffer from 'Compassion Fatigue' but not everyone. Some prefer to focus on issues closer to home, while others are distracted by abuses they see as more brutal that are taking place abroad. Ultimately, we must talk about degrees of compassion as to feel nothing for those that you see suffering greatly would truly make you nothing more than a machine.
This notion fosters the media’s infatuation with crisis journalism, which is used in an attempt to capture an audience believed to hold acutely short attention spans and little interest in international events with little or no impact on their own lives. News items, therefore, must be dramatic and this leads to sensationalistic and simplistic stories. As a result of the dramatisation process, each story must be seen to be more sensational than the last. A greater number of deaths, explosions, homes destroyed and ever more devastating pictures must follow to keep an audience tuned in. The spectre of ‘compassion fatigue’ thus acts as an impetus for the selection criteria of stories deemed newsworthy. This means that even if the event is not yet over news coverage of the story might come to an end prematurely if it is believed that story has become boring for an increasingly ADD-ridden public.
‘Compassion Fatigue’ presupposes that the public holds a short attention span. That certain stories may elicit a strong emotional response from the public despite the passage of time is argued by organisations such as Oxfam who have claimed that donations to their organisation in the aftermath of certain crisis have not slowed down as a result of the saturation of media images of suffering.
The reality is surely to be found somewhere in the middle. Many people will suffer from 'Compassion Fatigue' but not everyone. Some prefer to focus on issues closer to home, while others are distracted by abuses they see as more brutal that are taking place abroad. Ultimately, we must talk about degrees of compassion as to feel nothing for those that you see suffering greatly would truly make you nothing more than a machine.
Israeli Prime Minister to step down
'Dogged by corruption scandals, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced today he would resign after his ruling Kadima party chooses a new leader in a September 17 internal election.
Olmert's decision to step down throws Israeli politics into fresh turmoil and may cast into limbo peace talks that he launched with the Palestinians and Syria....'
Continue reading hereWednesday, July 30, 2008
Banning Political Donations
Below is a letter published in The Irish Times a few weeks ago. Vincent Browne wrote in Wednesday's Irish Times about the potential to ban private political donations. I have been somewhat busy of late but I will give you a taste of the arguments that will be added to this. Apologies to those of you who have already seen this.
Madam, - James Moran's suggestion (July 1st) that political donations should be outlawed in favour of a system whereby taxpayers fund election candidates seems sensible on the face of it, but is in fact highly undesirable.
I find it difficult to accept that a taxpayer who strongly disagrees with the political philosophy of a party or individual could be forced to fund their electoral ambitions. I would be loath to imagine any of the tax I pay being spent on politicians whom I consider extreme in their views, whether they be far-left or far-right, and there are certainly parties represented in Dáil Éireann that I could never contemplate funding. Extreme views can only be allowed a stronger voice if such a law were to come into force.
All citizens should have a right to donate to the political party or group of their choice given that a sensible limit is set for any donation. What is required is the proper enforcement of this limit. It should be mandatory for all political parties and political groups to produce a list of all contributors and the size of every donation. This scrutiny should be extended to all interest and lobby groups operating in this State. - Yours, etc,
Umar Ahmed
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Two Irish authors named on Booker longlist
'Two Irish authors have made it onto this year’s longlist for the prestigious Man Booker prize.
The 13-strong list includes Sebastian Barry’s The Secret Scripture and Joseph O’Neill’s Netherland .
Barry was shortlisted for the 2005 prize for his book A Long Long Way.
The 13-strong list includes Sebastian Barry’s The Secret Scripture and Joseph O’Neill’s Netherland .
Barry was shortlisted for the 2005 prize for his book A Long Long Way.
British author Salman Rushdie, who won the prize in 1981 for Midnight’s Children , is also nominated for his latest book The Enchantress of Florence .
The other authors on the list are: Aravind Adiga for The White Tiger , Gaynor Arnold for Girl in a Blue Dress , John Berger for From A to X , Michelle de Kretser for The Lost Dog , Amitav Ghosh for Sea of Poppies , Linda Grant for The Clothes on Their Backs , Mohammed Hanif for A Case of Exploding Mangoes , Philip Hensher for The Northern Clemency , Tom Rob Smith for Child 44 , Steve Toltz for A Fraction of the Whole .
A shortlist of six books for the £50,000 prize will announced in September.
The 13 books, announced today, were chosen from 112 entries, 103 were submitted for the prize and nine were called in by the judges.
Chair of this year’s judging panel former British MP Michael Portillo said: “With a notable degree of consensus, the five Man Booker judges decided on their longlist of 13 books.”
Mr Portillio said: "The judges are pleased with the geographical balance of the longlist with writers from Pakistan, India, Australia, Ireland and UK.
"We also are happy with the interesting mix of books, five first novels and two novels by former winners.
The list covers an extraordinary variety of writing. Still two qualities emerge this year: large scale narrative and the striking use of humour."
The judging panel for this year’s prize is: Michael Portillo, former MP and Cabinet Minister; Alex Clark, editor of Granta; Louise Doughty, novelist; James Heneage, founder of Ottakar’s bookshops and Hardeep Singh Kohli, TV and radio broadcaster.'
by EOIN BURKE-KENNEDY
from Irish Times.comMonday, July 28, 2008
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
UN-Able To Choose
The United Nations Human Rights Committee in Geneva has requested that the Irish government address current areas of inaction on human rights issues. In total, 19 recommendations have been included in the committee's concluding observations to ensure that Ireland is compliant with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Prominent among these was the call to introduce a regime controlling suspected rendition flights through Irish airports. While noting the establishment of the Crisis Pregnancy Agency, the Committee expressed concern with the highly restrictive circumstances under which women can have an abortion in the State.
While many might argue that the recommendations by the Committee are an attempt to interfere in the sovereignty of the State, by and large they were quite sensible. However, one recommendation that I still find difficulty wrapping my head around is the criticism that the State does not allow for revised birth certificates following a change of gender by transgender persons. The recommendation for a change would see a person born of either gender being given the right to change the gender recorded on their birth certificate, indicating that they had in fact been born of the opposite gender!
Surely, a birth certificate should never be modified as it records that individual as they are when born. A man may feel like a woman all his/her/their life but does not change the fact that he/she/they were born a man. It is, in essence, rewriting history! A transgender person has the opportunity to chart an unwritten future upon their gender transformation having left behind their previous gender. But to imagine the past has never existed is wishful thinking at best.
There are times when I feel that certain proponents of 'liberal' thinking are perhaps pushing the boundaries of sanity, at least 'sensible' thinking (whatever that might be!).
In a day of bizarre stories concerning childhood's one may wish to forget, Talula Does The Hula provides us with just one more story.
While many might argue that the recommendations by the Committee are an attempt to interfere in the sovereignty of the State, by and large they were quite sensible. However, one recommendation that I still find difficulty wrapping my head around is the criticism that the State does not allow for revised birth certificates following a change of gender by transgender persons. The recommendation for a change would see a person born of either gender being given the right to change the gender recorded on their birth certificate, indicating that they had in fact been born of the opposite gender!
Surely, a birth certificate should never be modified as it records that individual as they are when born. A man may feel like a woman all his/her/their life but does not change the fact that he/she/they were born a man. It is, in essence, rewriting history! A transgender person has the opportunity to chart an unwritten future upon their gender transformation having left behind their previous gender. But to imagine the past has never existed is wishful thinking at best.
There are times when I feel that certain proponents of 'liberal' thinking are perhaps pushing the boundaries of sanity, at least 'sensible' thinking (whatever that might be!).
In a day of bizarre stories concerning childhood's one may wish to forget, Talula Does The Hula provides us with just one more story.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Winning Votes The Left Way
In a bid to destroy the image of being a Muslim, as portrayed in a recent New Yorker cartoon, US Presidential candidate Barack Obama is pictured below on his current trip to Israel. Next month's New Yorker cover is expected to contain a caricature of Obama in Jewish clothes in a bid to win back vital votes that this month's New Yorker cartoon lost him. A recent poll revealed that 10% of the electorate believe Barack Obama to be Muslim, while some believe he was educated in a Madrassa (Islamic religious school). Mr Obama said the ties between Israel and the United States were unbreakable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
