The Maldives is made up of over 1,000 tiny islands, all of which sit only several feet above sea level. Photo: Megan Thompson

Megan Thompson, a Worldfocus producer, is traveling around the world to report on climate change’s effects on small islands. Read her post about Grenada and Antigua here.

President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives has made a lot of international headlines lately. While on a global crusade to call the world’s attention to the effects of climate change on his low-lying island nation of 103,000 people, Nasheed has delivered impassioned speeches at the UN and held a cabinet meeting back at home – underwater.

But what many people may not know is that behind President Nasheed’s emotional pleas and publicity stunts is an incredible story of his rise to power here.

Almost exactly one year ago, the Maldives held its first democratic election. For 30 years, the country was ruled by the autocratic regime of President Maumoon Abdul Gayoon, who repressed the opposition by banning political parties and jailing anyone who challenged him.

President Nasheed was one of those challengers. A journalist and human rights activist, he was imprisoned repeatedly, and allegedly tortured, for his constant criticism of the government. But then in 2005, the People’s Majlis (the Maldivian Parliament) voted to allow opposition parties. And after years of agitation, detention and exile, Nasheed and vice presidential candidate Dr. Mohammed Waheed Hassan, himself in exile for 16 years, ran and won in 2008 - finally bringing democracy to the Maldives.

“Male” — The Maldivian capital of Malé sits about six feet above sea level.

It’s truly one of the newest democracies in the world, and you get the sense that people here are still getting used to it, or don’t quite believe it’s actually happened at all. Most Maldivians we approached were hesitant to talk politics. But some expressed great support for the new government and its work on human rights, good governance and climate change. The locals we spoke to on Guraidhoo Island – a tiny island 40 minutes by speedboat but a world away from the capital of Malé – were more skeptical. Many still support the former president and told us they weren’t convinced that anything had really changed.

That’s not what some on the outside think. Just last week came the news that the Maldives jumped an incredible 53 places to number 51 in the Reporters Without Borders’ Worldwide Press Freedom Index. So today’s pesky Maldivian reporters – as President Nasheed once was – should now be able to write without the threat of being tossed in prison.

While in Malé, we were lucky to meet with Vice President Hassan. Conversation about climate change strayed briefly to his nation’s new democracy. Dr. Hassan’s joy was palpable as he spoke about his transformed nation and he pointed out that before the transition, he wouldn’t have been able to sit down with a group of journalists like us without getting into big trouble. He said that the greatest thing that has come from the change is the “freedom from fear.”

Dr. Hassan and President Nasheed have made climate change a central priority, and will convene an international summit next month in the Maldives to discuss the issue in the run-up to the important Copenhagen talks in December. Their predecessor, President Gayoom, does deserve credit for sounding the warning bell many years ago on the issue. But there’s a big difference now. When President Nasheed talks, the world knows they are listening not just to his voice, but to the voices, and the will, of the Maldivian people who elected him.

- Megan Thompson

With public support of the war in Afghanistan decreasing as the conflict intensifies, more than half of Americans in a poll by the Washington Post and ABC News now say it’s not worth fighting.

Should the United States commit even more troops to the war, as some in the military are now suggesting? Tell us what you think in the comments section below.

Eric Bjornlund, the co-founder of Democracy International, recently returned from monitoring the vote in Afghanistan. He joins Martin Savidge to discuss reports of fraud, the potential for a runoff and the status of women in Afghanistan.

Aquino led the pro-democracy People Power revolution in the 1980s and was president of the Philippines for six years.

Worldfocus partner Al Jazeera English reports on the funeral and what the future holds for politics in the Philippines.

Filipina blogger Aileen Siroy describes what Aquino meant to her and the country:

Why I cried buckets when Cory died and while watching the necrological service and requiem mass was because I was sad at the passing of an amazing woman who sacrificed a lot to bring back democracy and freedom to this country. She has given us these amazing gifts which we are enjoying now, and I feel like I’ve lost someone very close to me.

I cannot imagine living in fear. I cannot imagine waking up realizing I have been or any of my loved ones kidnapped, murdered, or disappeared without a trace.

I cannot imagine a life without freedom to express my opinions and thoughts. I cannot imagine even basic rights being suppressed. If Ninoy and Cory did not choose to give their lives, I might have already been a prisoner (or worse killed) for rebellion. Rebelde ra ba gyud kaau ko.

I don’t think another leader will have another funeral procession like this.

View a slideshow of mourners in the Philippines from Flickr user thepocnet under a Creative Commons license.

Vince Celeste attended the mass on Wednesday and provides an account of the experience:

It really feels different to be there near the casket of Cory who was lying in state just few meters away than watching it on the television just like yesterday. I contently stood up at the right aisle of the Cathedral near the choir’s place until I went out. Walking together with the people going out from the Cathedral up to the main street made me feel proud to be in solidarity with those who were not able to get inside during the requiem mass. It worth the presence.

This attendance completed my sense of being a Filipino, and made me proud being part of the crowd admiring Cory Aquino’s legacy. In solidarity with all the Filipino people, I must say, “Mabuhay ka, Tita Cory!”

Watch a video from a gathering earlier in the week, when Aquino’s casket was transferred to the Manila Cathedral:

Blogger Ryan Ericson Canla describes the leader’s legacy:

I was born during the time that the martial law was still in effect. I was a toddler when Ninoy Aquino was assassinated. I saw his funeral and his coffin was placed in a truck as well same as his wife Cory Aquino’s funeral march. I grew up to know and admire President Cory Aquino. I will long to treasure and cherish these memories for as long as I live. We only get to pass this life once and we only get to have a Cory Aquino once in a lifetime. We are lucky to have witnessed her life until the very last day that she remained faithful and hopeful to God, to the Nation and to the Filipino People. Besides, she is too blessed after all to be forgotten… Thank you President Cory Aquino!

A blogger at the “Pinoy Sounding Board” argues that Aquino’s death will have political ramifications:

There will be elections next year; a legacy that Mrs. Aquino has certainly affirmed with her death.  People will certainly not permit another abuse against democracy and freedom and the masses of people gathering these past days to give their final respect to Mrs. Aquino is only a glimpse of the millions of people who will certainly proceed to voting precincts to cast their votes.

Goodbye dear President.  In your death, you have revived the slumber of a nation and had sent the proud to their knees.

Blogger James Perez takes a more skeptical tone, writing that the mass mourning for Aquino will not translate into real change for the Philippines:

right at this very moment, most Filipino people are being overwhelmed by the death of former president aquino, well not me. one thing that Ive noticed for the past several days, may it be from the media or any random people i met, is that they see this “event” as an “awakening” a “democratic cry” or for exaggeration purposes, “rebirth.” surely her death caused thousands and thousands of people to gather but it doesn’t mean that life will change after this. of course, i have high hopes for our country,in fact, i really don’t want to go abroad to work, but we’ve seen this instance a lot of times, people gathering around from all walks of life trying to compensate for their irresponsible behavior by participating on such. yes, i understand that, standing for three hours or more under the rain just to see the woman behind the yellow persona, is such an amazing experience but how would that bring about change, if after which, we’re going to again, be the same old Filipino’s, mrs. aquino prays for. i feel for the aquino family, my lolo passed away weeks ago and i also feel for my fellow countrymen, you mourn, you grief, you pray and you pray really hard but still those are not enough for change. only one thing is for sure, life goes on, with or without the color yellow.

Local politics — a source of debate in Pakistan.

In 2001, Pakistan introduced a system under which local organizers — “nazims” — would be chosen by elected village representatives and receive government money to develop their districts.

But with no new elections planned after their terms expire, nazims – whose role is roughly equivalent to that of mayors in the U.S. — will soon be replaced by appointed government administrators. This has led some in Pakistan to worry that power will become too centralized.

Worldfocus contributing blogger Bilal Qureshi describes the controversy over Pakistan’s system of local politics.

There is a new controversy brewing in Pakistan about the local governments. Musharraf government had introduced a system under which local body elections were held and Nazims (a Nazim is like a mayor) were directly elected. However, the problem is that Nazims had very little authority to begin with and now that the current government, both at federal and provincial (a province is like a state) level decided to appoint administrators to replace the current Nazims, it seems that the remnants of Musharraf regime are not happy about it.

The Nazims wanted to remain in control and it was their desire to have the elections under their supervision so that they could influence the outcome. Naturally, this was not acceptable to the government.  Therefore,  the governments in center and in the provinces thought it would be wise to have administrators administer the up coming local body elections. To me, and to a large majority of Pakistanis, it makes complete sense, but hey, this is Pakistan we are talking about. Here, nothing is without controversy.

Amusingly, if the Nazims and their backers decided to take legal action, and more importantly if this issue ended up in the Supreme Court of Pakistan, government is going to win because there is hardly any sympathy for Musharraf or his supporters or the set up that Musharraf left behind him.

There is no question that Pakistan needs a very strong and comprehensive local body system because the overall infrastructure in the country is, well, dilapidated, if one has to be honest about it. And, only dedicated people with power, authority and funds can honestly asses the needs across the country and based on their assessment conceive programs that are not going to build a very strong and permanent set up that would directly benefit Pakistanis, but also create jobs that would help local communities and stabilize the country. At this point, I want to make sure that I am clear about one thing — only neutral, honest, and dedicated people will be able to effectively change and improve anything. Furthermore, these people, who should be directly elected, should be free of political pressure, outside meddling and, they should also be held accountable for their actions, or inaction.

Believe me, one of the surest ways to bring positive [change] to Pakistan is through local politics and this is a great opportunity for Pakistan to recover from decades of neglect. If the country can manage to have honest people develop and where necessary repair the infrastructure, bring communities together for common good, have people understand that strengthening communal relationships to overcome poverty, lawlessness, disease, and so on, it can be assumed, quite accurately that Pakistan can become what all of us want it to be — a free, democratic, and prosperous country in the region.

To read more, see the original post.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user opendemocracy under a Creative Commons license.

Indonesia’s election is its second after 60 years of dictatorial governments.

On Wednesday, Indonesia – the world’s third-largest democracy – went to the polls in its second direct election.

Indonesia had long suffered at the hands of dictators, from founding leader Sukarno to his successor, General Suharto, who was plagued by allegations of corruption and political oppression.

But since the country’s first direct election in 2004, Indonesia has set an example of stability in an otherwise chaotic region, due in large part to ethnic harmony and its dynamic open-party system.

So far, preliminary results from the election suggest that incumbent President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is leading with 54 percent of the vote.

Dr. Sandra Hamid is a senior director at The Asia Foundation and wrote on election day to describe the mood in Indonesia.

Televised debates have been held, the campaigning has concluded, and Indonesians will vote for their president today. [...]After a year of on-going legislative and presidential campaigning, many voters would prefer this election to be won in one round. “Let’s get this over with, and move on,” a friend told me yesterday. Another friend’s Facebook status read, “I want Election Day to come soon so we won’t have to hear about it anymore.” Many Indonesians have expressed a sense of election fatigue, having recently been through the tumult of local elections, April’s national legislative elections, and now the presidential campaign. The campaigns, debates, and constant news coverage – and, for those of us living in cities and urban centers, the traffic caused by street campaigning – have become almost unbearable. SBY’s supporters are capitalizing on this sentiment, and are pushing it even further by suggesting that one round is more economical. “Vote for the incumbent, and the country will save some money” his supporters say.

Not everyone agrees, of course. This issue was directly taken up by one of SBY’s challengers, Jusuf Kalla, who is currently the president’s own vice-president, during the final televised debate. The claim by the incumbent’s team that they will only need one round to secure a victory is perceived as arrogant by many.

But most Indonesians feel that SBY’s likely victory is not about arrogance, election fatigue, or being economical. Instead, it’s about the high approval rating Indonesians have given the government for over six months. SBY’s numbers are nothing short of robust. Various polls have shown him to be in the lead since late 2008, and most Indonesians surveyed think that whether this election goes to one round or two, SBY will remain in office.

To grasp the significance of this, one should understand the context of Indonesia’s elections, where people are unlikely to vote for incumbents. In the recent local elections for governors and mayors, more than 40 percent of incumbents had to pack their bags and leave office after one term. And in the April 2009 legislative elections, more than 60 percent of legislators were voted out of office. Indonesians have clearly used elections to reward, and punish, politicians. We may not always end up with better leaders, but the underlying message is clear: if we do not think you deliver, you will be voted out.

If the opinion polls prove correct, Indonesian voters will have sent a strong message to the incumbent that they want to see more of the same. The linkages between approval ratings and the government’s pro-poor policies are clear. For example, in response to increased fuel prices last year, the government provided aid for the poor. Following this the president’s ratings improved, reflecting widespread approval of the policy. It may not be too far-fetched to say that voters credited the president for the benefit they have received from the government’s policies. It seems that, contrary to the views of many political pundits who portray Indonesian voters as being traditional and primordial, the SBY phenomenon may demonstrate that Indonesian voters do in fact make rational decisions based on what they perceive the government has done for them.

In that context, if SBY wins his second term, his victory will show the amazing levels of support the Indonesian people have for their president. The next question is: how will SBY use his popularity to make tough decisions in the challenging times ahead? During his campaign, he promised he would lead this complex and diverse country through the current global economic crisis. But what exactly does this mean? Will Indonesia see more – and faster – reform? SBY’s choices for cabinet positions will provide hints to some of these questions but, for now, let us see if indeed Indonesians make history in today’s presidential election.

To read more, see the original post.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user isa e under a Creative Commons license.

A woman holds a copy of the Honduran constitution and flag at a protest.

While governments around the hemisphere (including Cuba and the United States) support the return of Honduras’ ousted president, José Manuel Zelaya, we have an opportunity to focus on a country rarely mentioned in the news.

In the 1980s, the United States was deeply involved in Honduran military and political affairs — the Reagan administration saw the country as the frontline in fighting a supposed communist march through Central America that would end up at the Texas border.

While the United States mounted counterinsurgencies against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and looked the other way when death squads marauded in El Salvador, Honduras was an American base camp.

There are those who mistakenly claim that the United States — billions of dollars spent, tens of thousands of deaths later — somehow helped “win” the Central American wars. In fact, the nations settled their differences themselves after the United States backed off.

The United States backed far off in fact, and Honduras was left poor as ever — one of the poorest of the poor in Latin America. A majority of the country’s seven million people live on far less than $100 a month; illiteracy, hunger and disease are endemic. A report by the World Bank in 2006 said that despite economic growth, a majority of Hondurans received no benefit.

My then-colleague at the Washington Post, Marcela Sanchez, reported two years ago that corruption was a major factor:

According to a U.S.-funded public opinion poll, the percentage of Hondurans who believe the government is combating corruption declined from 40 percent in 2004 to 26.6 percent in 2006.
Juan Ferrera, coordinator for Honduras’ National Anti-Corruption Council, said in an interview from Tegucigalpa that corruption is creating such public disenchantment that Hondurans may even “put aside democratic options.”

In a cauldron like that, are elections enough? A Honduran friend of mine said this week that left-wing or right-wing, it hasn’t seemed to matter. “They kind of just keep themselves in power and steal some more!”

- Peter Eisner

Photo courtesy of Flickr user giggey under a Creative Commons license.

Worldfocus correspondent Kristen Gillespie reports from a college campus that promotes a radical idea in the Middle East: free speech and democracy.

John Atta Mills of the opposition National Democratic Congress party narrowly won a runoff election in Ghana.

Recently, Ghanaians returned to the polls for a runoff election after both major presidential candidates failed to gain a majority in last month’s vote. John Atta Mills of the opposition National Democratic Congress party narrowly defeated Nana Akufo-Addo of the ruling New Patriotic Party.

Leaders from the United Nations and several countries around the globe congratulated Ghana on the peaceful elections, the country’s second transfer of power between parties since restoring democratic elections in 1992. Some consider Ghana’s elections a model for African democracy, given election-related conflict in other African nations like Kenya and Zimbabwe.

Ayo Johnson is a journalist of African heritage working in the United Kingdom. He writes at “Africa speaks to you” about the significance of Ghana’s peaceful elections.

Ghana elections

Ghana is the blue-eyed boy of the African continent. One of Africa’s brightest-known democracies; from the famous Kwame Nkrumah for his revolutionary and progressive views and aspiration for a united Africa. To a chequered past was with that of infamous Jerry Rawlings – (NDC); who came to power repeatedly via the barrel of a gun. Rawlings finally adopted self-governing values with elections that eventually saw him crowned as president.

Election today in Ghana is a stark reminder of how far the nation have come since it’s independence 51 years ago. Ghana is a mature democracy having grown as a nation with decent economic growth forecasts that have cemented their position globally as a major producer of cocoa, gold and now new found wealth of high grade oil.

No wonder the John Atta-Mills of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and Nana Akufo-Addo of the ruling party New Patriotic Party (NPP) are prepared to fight tooth and nail to the bitter end; to get what must be a lucrative opportunity for high office in Ghana.

A win for John Atta-Mills of (NDC) will be dogged by counter claims and further appeals by (NPP) to the electoral commission of vote rigging and election irregularities. Both parties must use the judiciary in line with the constitution and take their grievance to the courts.

Both the (NDC) and (NPP) must respect the courts decision as final, failure to adhere could lead to increased tensions that could lead to chaos and anarchy.

To read more, see the original post.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user bbcworldservice under a Creative Commons license.

Protesters crowded the streets of Bangkok this week.

The Suvarnabhumi airport in Thailand halted departing flights in response to anti-government protesters.

Thousands of anti-government protesters continue to occupy Bangkok’s international airport, clamoring for Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat to resign. Protesters took over the airport on Wednesday and have refused to leave. The protesters have also called for new elections.

The airport is evacuating stranded travelers and halted departing flights.

The halts come as a blow to Thailand’s tourism industry, which has already suffered from the effects of the global financial crisis.

Blogger “Surawat” was at the airport picking up a friend when the protesters arrived and describes the siege.

Blogger and tourist “PJM” is trapped in Thailand due to flight cancellations, while blogger “Storynature” contemplates canceling a trip to the country because of the unrest.

The anti-government People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) is campaigning against Wongsawat, contesting that he is a puppet for his brother-in-law and ousted Thai leader, Thaksin Shinawatra.

Blogger “Mackensie” writes from Uttaradit, Thailand to provide a background of the conflict, arguing that the airport siege will have massive economic repercussions.

The protesters used open firearms for the first time on Tuesday during street rallies, and some have labeled this the PAD’s “final battle.”

Twitter user “kofty” in Bangkok posts updates about the situation.

A recent announcement from the PAD apologizes for the inconvenience created by the airport closure, but calls the siege “crucial.”

The “ThaiXpatWriter” blog calls for Prime Minister  Wongsawat to step down, proclaiming “Fight on yellowshirts!” ( a reference to the PAD’s yellow garb).

The “Aventures d’un métis” blog says the PAD should change their title to TAD — “Thais Against Democracy.”

The “Meaw & More” blog argues that by not preventing the airport siege, the government has allowed the PAD to self-destruct by creating negative public sentiment.

A blogger at “Our Thailand Adventure” writes about possible end-game scenarios to the airport siege and other protests.

Listen to Patrick Winn’s report from Bangkok about the airport siege and Simon Montlak’s report on the impact of protests on the Thai tourism industry.

Photos courtesy of nicolas and LookatLao under a Creative Commons license.

Here is a timeline of the power shifts in Iraq over the last five years.

David Andelman, the editor of World Policy Journal, speaks with Martin Savidge about the role of democracy in the Middle East and Iran’s role in the war in Iraq. They also discuss the future of American involvement in Iraq.