The Median Voter on Civil Rights and Equality

According to the Hoteling-Downs model of spatial/political competition, in their quest to gain the greatest number of seats, political parties will align their party platforms to the views of the median voters. They base this theory on the assumption that each voter will vote for the candidate of party that is closest to his or her political position. Thus, to maximize their votes the candidates' and political parties' position of most utility would be that of the median voter’s.

While this theory has some merit, it has time and again been proven wrong. However, it is interesting to note that this model does play out in national races with respect to certain, highly volatile issues. The recently released Quinnipiac University Poll gave some intriguing insights into the views of the median American voter. A poll of 2,041 nationwide registered voters showed that 38% would support and 55% would oppose a state-imposed law permitting same-sex marriage. These numbers were almost reversed with 58% supporting a law allowing civil unions and 38% opposing. In a separate question, when faced with a number of choices, 33% supported same-sex marriage, 26% supported civil unions and 34% opposed any legal recognition. However, the most striking response came to the question that asked if preventing marriage for same-sex couples counted as discrimination. To this 45% responded affirmatively and 51% responded in a negative manner.

According to the latest data, almost half of America supports some form of legal recognition for same-sex couples. As such, we should see more and more politicians coming out in favor of gay rights and at the very least, civil unions. As the median voter opinion increases further in support of same-sex marriage and civil unions, as it has been the past few years, it is my hope that Congress will soon have a majority in the House and Senate that supports the legalization of civil unions and same-sex marriages. While this issue is still one delegated to the states, a majority on the Hill could result in legislation that repeals Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and other such discriminatory measures.

It is our hope that the voices of the people will reach those who have the power, both at the state and the national level, and that equality for all American citizens does not remain a dream.

Sources:

1. http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/downs.htm
2. http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

Food or Sex-- Must we Choose?

“It’s like if you are sick, you go to a doctor, not some amateur.”

- Mohammed Hussein Jafaari, a senior cleric commenting on the difference of Koranic interpretation between the madrasa-educated scholars v. women, in general.

Last month, Hamid Karzai, president of Afghanistan, signed a bill into law that effectively legalized marital rape. The three main statutes are as follows: a) a man may deny his wife food for refusing sex, b) women must obtain their husbands permission in order to work or go to school, and c) denies women the right to use makeup or dress in any way that is contrary to her husband’s desires. Mr. Karzai's main motivation in legalizing this bill was to appease the Muslim Shiite clergy since this law only applies in Shiite dominated regions. Many proponents state that this law is much more lenient than the restrictions imposed by the predominantly Sunni Taliban; however, the Taliban are no longer in power. Comparing laws created under a democratically elected government to those created under the authoritarian rule of the tyrannical regime is hardly justified: any comparison that highlights a similarity between the two is simply intolerable.

While this law apparently reflects the written words of the Koran; no cleric interviewed could point out the religious underpinnings. Like many laws in Middle Eastern countries, it instead codifies traditional practices as religious decrees, subjugating one voting demographic and effectively creating second class citizens. Women are already denied various social services like education and health-care (the male literacy rate is almost four times higher at 42%). By restricting the freedoms of even a small segment of the population under the guise of religion, Mr. Karzai is allowing for a dangerous precedent to once again take shape.

Even scarier than the establishment of such a precedence is the support the law has with the male population. When some three-hundred young women tried to peacefully walk to the Parliament in protest of the law, they were met by a mob of almost a thousand men who tried to prevent them from reaching their destination. They were aided in this matter by the Afghan police who kept the two groups separate through the use of force and physical barriers. The passage of this law highlights the inherent reason for the existence of separate legislative and executive branches and the failure in Afghanistan of the checks and balances so carefully crafted into the new constitution. Karzai, by neglecting his ability to veto, he has effectively legalized the tyranny of the female minority by the male majority.

Due to the international outcry, the law is currently under review by Mr. Karzai’s government. However, by initially bowing to the wishes of the clergy, Mr. Karzai has lessened the power that the executive post should hold, both in perception and practice. It is reminiscent of Pakistan’s current imposition of Islamic law in the Swat region to restore peace to the Taliban stronghold leading to numerous women’s rights violations. By allowing fundamental extremists to rule the region, they have left women without the support of a government that will fight for their rights. While Afghanistan is not at this point yet, the religious clerics who lead the madrasas – known for being breeding grounds for terrorist activity - are extremely active within the new government and are a compelling force in leading male public opinion. In such an atmosphere, it is absolutely imperative that the position of the executive not be lessened; Mr. Karzai must command his strength and hold his own in the face of adversity to support every one of his constituents.

Sources:

• Dexter Filkins’ Article: Afghan Women Protest New Law on Home Life