the POLITIK PRESS 2/10/14
FEBURARY 10th, 2014
the
POLITIK PRESS
Volume XV, Issue II
Volume XV, Issue II 1
Volume XV, Issue II
the
POLITIK PRESS
the
FEBURARY 10th, 2014
POLITIK PRESS A publication of
JHU POLITIK jhupolitik.org
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Rachel Cohen MANAGING EDITOR Colette Andrei ASSISTANT EDITORS Katie Botto Sarallah Salehi Christine Server CREATIVE DIRECTOR Victoria Scordato MARKETING & PUBLICITY Rebecca Grenham Audrey Moss WEBMASTER Sihao Lu FACULTY ADVISOR Steven R. David
HEAD WRITER Julia Allen MARYLAND EDITOR Adam Roberts POLICY DESK EDITOR Michael Bodner COPY EDITOR Peter Lee STAFF WRITERS Eliza Schultz Dylan Etzel Abigail Sia Adrian Carney Geordan Williams Chris Winer Akshai Bhatnagar Rosellen Grant
VOLUME XV, ISSUE II FEBURARY 10th, 2014 2
Volume XV, Issue II
the
POLITIK PRESS
FEBURARY 10th, 2014
INSIDE THIS ISSUE THE MARYLAND DESK
Restrict Shackling of Pregnant Inmates in Maryland
......................................
Page 4
Eliza Schultz ’15 & Lidiana Economou ‘14
THE FARM BILL AND THE CONTINUAL EROSION OF THE SOCIAL SAFETY NET .............................................................. Page 5 Rachel Cohen ’14
THE POLICY DESK
Mandella’s Passing Accentuates the Problems Plaguing Post-Apartheid South Africa ...... Page 6 Sarallah Salehi ’16
REMOVING RELIGION FROM GOVERNMENT: A RETURN TO A “CHRISTIAN NATION” ................................................
Page 8
Arpan Ghosh ’17
MENTAL HEALTH: SEEKING NEW APPROACHES AND CHANGES
......................................
Page 9
Benjamin Barsky ’15
NICARAGUA’S NEEDS:
DEMOCRACY, DEVELOPMENT, OR DANIEL ORTEGA? ............................ Page 10 Rebecca Grenham ’16
3
Volume XV, Issue II
the
POLITIK PRESS
FEBURARY 10th, 2014
MARYLAND DESK By Eliza Schultz ’15, Staff Writer & Lidiana Economou ‘14, Contributing Writer
A
Restrict Shackling of Pregnant Inmates in Maryland
s if childbirth were not already physically unpleasant, it is apparently acceptable in the state of Maryland to shackle incarcerated women before, during, and after labor.
The physical restraints to which these inmates might be subjected include handcuffs and leg chains and, most alarmingly, chains to the waist. As a result, additional pain is inflicted upon these women as their ability to move freely and give birth in a position of their choosing is compromised. Indeed, the practice carries various health implications: women are put at a greater risk of failing and clinicians are often unable to appropriately monitor their patients. Furthermore, shackling could also obstruct lifesaving interventions in emergency situations such as maternal hemorrhage. In addition, the use of physical restraints also has the potential to harm the fetus, perhaps even causing the mother to miscarry. Furthermore, given that many of these inmates have endured sexual assault or domestic violence, the practice can be particularly traumatizing. Jacqui Robarge, director of a Baltimore organization that serves survivors of rape and domestic violence, notes that shackling shares many similarities with the experience of abuse, and that some women who were chained during pregnancy exhibit signs of trauma that endure long past the incident. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, eighteen states have passed laws to restrict the practice. While Delegate Mary Washington (D-Baltimore) has recently introduced a bill to regulate shackling in state jails and correctional facilities, a similar one failed to gain traction last year. The current version of the bill better delineates the proper protocols for using physical restraints and is written in clearer language, says Washington. Specifically, the bill would interdict all physical restraints during labor, and would almost entirely prohibit their use after the first trimester. In the case of an inmate who poses a security threat or has demonstrated significant flight risk, shackling would be permitted in the second and third
semester, as long as the legs and waist are not constrained. The bill states that, under these circumstances, all restraints employed must be the least restrictive options. Under the bill, if a clinician so orders, the removal of shackles would be required. Furthermore, medical professionals would be given full discretion in deciding when it is safe for an inmate to return to her correctional facility. The bill would also require that all cases of shackling be reported to the Governor and General Assembly, thereby providing authorities with information as to how frequently and where the practice is being employed. While the fight to end shackling has widespread support on a national level, and the Maryland bill has been endorsed by a number of local organizations, opponents argue that its proscriptions are too broad. The rationale of physical restraints, they argue, is twofold: to prevent inmates from fleeing the premises, and to ensure that the women cannot commit any acts of violence against those in their immediate vicinity. These claims are largely unfounded, especially in the case of someone who is in the process of giving birth. It is unlikely that someone whose water has just broken would be able to orchestrate a hasty retreat. Furthermore, many of these inmates are serving for nonviolent offenses. As comfortable as it might be to presume that everyone in the criminal justice system is violent in nature, this assumption is not only baseless, it also strips inmates of their identities and it dehumanizes them. Of all the grievances that one might have against the criminal justice system, this practice is particularly and unnecessarily callous. During childbirth, a process and experience that is profoundly human, such inhumane treatment is not only deeply paradoxical, it is cruel. This legislative session, it is imperative that the Maryland General Assembly vote to end this flagrant violation of human rights, and take a step toward protecting members of its most vulnerable populations. PP
4
Volume XV, Issue II
the
POLITIK PRESS
FEBURARY 10th, 2014
THE FARM BILL AND THE CONTINUAL EROSION OF THE SOCIAL SAFETY NET by Rachel Cohen ’14, Editor-in-Chief
L
ast Tuesday the U.S. Senate voted on a new bill that authorized nearly $1 trillion to be spent on nutrition programs and farm subsidies over the next decade. NPR lauded Congress for their “rare display of bipartisanship” and The Washington Post praised the Farm Bill as “a rare bipartisan accomplishment.” If you can get past the banal Newspeak of national political coverage for just a moment, you can see this bill for what it really is. The $8.7 billion in cuts to food stamps, while certainly marketed as “a necessary compromise” and a “tough choice during tough times” has been, and always will be, just a bargaining chip for lawmakers. In a period where millions of Americans are struggling to pay for housing, healthcare, food and energy, the selfcongratulatory rhetoric coming out of Congress is truly repugnant. Make no mistake. Our wealthy nation can afford to distribute food stamps. Though not as severe as the original $40 billion in cuts proposed by House Republicans in September, these cuts are still, nonetheless, wholly avoidable. These fiscal choices are reflections of our society’s current priorities. That’s why the bill neither includes a means-testing provision that would reduce insurance subsidies for the wealthiest farmers nor even guarantees the significant savings it purports to bring. (While Congress touts that this bill cuts $16.5 billion from the deficit over the next decade, 2/3 of those cuts wouldn’t take place until 2019, after the bill has expired and the political circumstances have likely changed.) The cuts to food stamps in the Farm Bill come from changing a program known as “Heat and Eat” which allows states to coordinate the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) with SNAP benefits. It was designed to help the poorest Americans avoid needing to make the hard choice between paying for food and paying to heat their homes. The Heat and Eat program is used in sixteen states, and while these states distribute about 36.5% of all SNAP benefits nationwide, they will bear 100% of the food stamp cuts.
850,000 households will effectively lose an average of $90 per month in food stamps. Elderly and disabled Americans will be disproportionately impacted by the cuts, as shown by the Food Research and Action Center, a national anti-hunger organization. And according to Census data released this past September, the overall poverty rate for disabled Americans stands at 21.4% and for African-Americans an incredible 36%. At a time when more than 1/5 of Americans, and 1/3 of AfricanAmericans living in poverty suffer from a disability, we are moving to cut funds for programs specifically beneficial for those vulnerable citizens. President Barack Obama has been quiet throughout this congressional fight. While there was once a time, way back in June, when the White House threatened a presidential veto over the House GOP’s proposal for food stamp cuts, those days are long gone. Obama quickly signed this bill, and the cuts, into law. Representative Frank D. Lucas (R-OH) remarked that the Farm Bill “ is legislation we can all be proud of because it fulfills the expectations the American people have of us.” It certainly doesn’t fulfill my expectations. Obama even goes so far as to say that the bill will “protect the most vulnerable Americans” and we have fortunately avoided “gutting the vital assistance programs” millions depend on. Is “not gutting” our new standard for success? There are more than 46 million Americans currently living in poverty. If the President is serious about reversing the deepening social inequities in this country then he’ll need to make stronger defenses for anti-poverty programs, particularly when their future is threatened. And the Democratic Party, a party that paints itself as bulwarks of the social safety net, should be ashamed. 46 Democratic senators and 166 Democratic congressional representatives voted yes to cutting food stamps, despite their frequent stump speeches about inequality and economic struggle. PP
5
Volume XV, Issue II
the
POLITIK PRESS
FEBURARY 10th, 2014
POLICY DESK By Sarallah Salehi ’16, Assistant Editor
T
Mandela’s Passing Accentuates the Deep Problems Plaguing Post-Apartheid South Africa
he tragic passing of Nelson Mandela on December 5th provided a brief moment of respite to ponder the life and tribulations of one of the greatest men in modern history. Known colloquially as “Madiba”, Nelson Mandela dedicated most of his adult life to fighting the entrenched system of racial segregation that dominated his homeland. Born into the yoke of an apartheid regime adamantly set on denying equal opportunity and consideration to the majority black population, Mandela knew first hand the immense obstacles many black South Africans faced in obtaining even a meager living. In spite of the vast odds against bringing about substantive reform to South Africa, Mandela never for a moment relinquished his dream of witnessing a “free and equal South Africa for all its citizens.” But how far has South Africa as a nation progressed since the end of the apartheid regime in 1994 and to what extent has the life of poor black South Africans kept up with such advancement two decades on? To understand the present condition of South Africa, it’s vitally important to identify the centers of power that existed under the apartheid regime, which subjected vast swaths of the population to destitution while benefiting immensely off the rich natural resources of the country. Attracted by some of the largest reserves of gold, platinum and diamonds in the world, the waves of British colonizers arriving in the country near the end of 19th century established a codified system of racial separation that ensured a social and economic splintering of the overwhelming majority of native Africans. Under the Group Areas Act passed by the South African government during the 1950’s, more than 87% of the land was allocated to the minority white population, much of it consisting of the highly fertile regions that comprised South Africa’s agricultural industry. Moreover, the structured attack by the Afrikaner government after 1948 on the state’s mine unions, which served as one of the few bulwarks of protection against outright domination by the apartheid regime, further eroded the
already negligible political leverage the working class black population possessed. Against this backdrop of the bleak social status facing black South Africans prior to the national ascendance of the African National Congress (ANC) political party, the achievements of Mandela’s long struggle for social parity are quite significant. Over the last two decades, South Africa as a whole has seen a thirty-three percent increase in per capita GDP, lifting millions of black South Africans out of dire poverty. Simultaneously, the public works projects enacted by Mandela and the ANC after they assumed office further built on this gradual progress by investing billions towards the construction of homes, stable water treatment systems, and greater educational resources for poor communities. For the first time, significant portions of the black South African population obtained access to basic amenities such as electricity that had long been available only to the white communities of South Africa. Despite these achievements, Mandela never addressed the deep structural problems in the critical transition years after apartheid rule, namely the appropriation of most land in the hands of a few elite and the strict monopoly of the mining sector in a similarly small group of people. In fact, the continuance of an extremely unequal balance of power where a small minority of the population maintains effective control of the valuable sources of economic gain has, ironically, reverted South Africa to levels of societal inequality unseen even during the apartheid years. This can partly be attributed to the intense international pressure that Mandela and the ANC felt from powerful Western-backed organizations like the IMF and World Bank. With South Africa on the brink of not only civil collapse but also financial catastrophe, Mandela was forced to accept the restrictive contingencies that accompanied the structural adjustment programs instituted to resuscitate South Africa’s ailing economy. For example, the requirement that South Africa become a signatory to the General Agreement on Tariffs and
6
Volume XV, Issue II
the
POLITIK PRESS
of domestic industries precipitated the closure of numerous auto manufacturers and textile plants. Most disastrous, however, were the agreements forcing the new ANC to inherit the debt burdens of the apartheid government, which had maintained large annually budget deficits in order to benefit the ultra-wealthy with reduced taxes. Instead of being able to invest the national income in sectors that would generate true economic gains for the majority of the population, the ANC government confronted a massive debt that neither they, nor the population, had much hand in creating. In fact, it can be argued that the majority of black South Africans today have scarcely benefited economically from the fall of the apartheid regime. Overall unemployment stands at an astounding forty percent, with almost eighty percent of these unemployed being black citizens. Even bleaker is the lack of job prospects for the millions of discontented black college-age South Africans who wholly believed the promises of betterment through education. Concurrently a limited black middle class, which was originally welcomed by the white apartheid leaders as a sign of equality, has further alienated the poorest communities in major cities like Pretoria and Johannesburg. Here, the illusion of a meritocratic system hides the deep cronyism that the ANC and its supporters utilized to reward close friends and associates, at the cost of more qualified candidates. Underscoring this broad failure to make good on the wide-ranging set of social reforms promised in the monumental drafting of the “Freedom Charter” has been the salient corruption plaguing the main leadership of the African National Congress. While Mandela valiantly decided to step down from the presidential role after only his first five-year term in office—unlike his revolutionary counterpart, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe—his successor Thabo Mbeki failed to carry forward the plaque of unity that Mandela diligently forged during his time as the undisputed leader of the ANC. Rather than embracing the inclusive attitude espoused by Mandela, Mbeki sadly resorted to brute manipulation to wrest power from the hands of his main ANC political rival, Jacob Zuma. So divisive was Mbeki’s presence within the ANC that the South Africa’s ruling political organization actually gave him a vote of no confidence and urged him to resign. Unfortunately, Mbeki’s ignominious departure from office in 2008 opened the door for the current leader, Jacob Zuma, to inherit the reigns.
FEBURARY 10th, 2014
Under Zuma’s watch, South Africa has sadly become one of the most economically unequal country in the entire world. Surveys in 2010 revealed that almost forty-four percent of South Africans live on less than ten Rand per day, which is roughly enough money to purchase a loaf of bread. More worrying is the fact that an entire half of the population is responsible for a miniscule eight percent of the GDP.. However, rather than addressing these appalling levels of inequality with increased social stimulus spending and public works projects, the Jacob Zuma and the ANC have instead chosen to implement austerity measures coupled with greater incentives for foreign capital investment. While these misguided steps certainly continue to deliver substantial growth in profits for key industrial sectors, the poor South African workers laboring in these sectors have failed to see any improvements in their living conditions. This inequality dramatically manifested itself in August of 2012, when a large group of platinum miners in the Markina region of Rustenberg decided to protest their meager wages in the face of record profits by their managers. With the ANC unwilling to assist in the brokering of a peace deal that would increase the income of the poor mine workers to levels commensurate with the arduous labor involved, the protest eventually took a turn for the worst when the South African police force fired upon and killed forty-four of the strikers. Tragically, this bloodshed could have easily been avoided had the ANC government not selected to deny the rights of South African citizens to a decent living standard. Today, the same discontent that fueled the Marikina strikers have inspired more than one hundred thousand platinum mine workers from the largest mine union to take a firm stand in the face of unjust economic standards. Whether government officials will finally realize that it is impossible to perpetually sustain a population on substandard living conditions while the wealthy owners of capital reap unheralded profits remains to be seen. Luckily, with a majority of South Africans finally realizing that the once staunchly progressive African National Congress has devolved into a stagnant bureaucratic machine working for the interests of a narrow few, the prospects of an alternative political party assuming the helm in 2014 are highly conceivable, if not inevitable. In turn, the world might finally see a South Africa on the path of improvement that brings benefits to the people most deserving— the South Africans. PP
7
Volume XV, Issue II
the
POLITIK PRESS
FEBURARY 10th, 2014
REMOVING RELIGION FROM GOVERNMENT: A RETURN TO A “CHRISTIAN NATION” by Arpan Ghosh ‘17, Contributing Writer
I
n today’s antagonistic political climate, many rightwing politicians like Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, John McCain, and Rick Santorum proudly proclaim the United States to be a “Christian nation.” The right is not completely to blame in spreading this falsehood. Hillary Clinton once said in response to an Appeals Court argument regarding the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance that “…we should never forget the blessings of Divine Providence that undergird our nation.” If the right is trying to gain votes from ill-informed voters, they’re doing the right thing. According to a poll conducted by the First Amendment Center, 51% of Americans believe the United States Constitution firmly established a Christian nation. But the irony is that our nation was never founded on Christian ideology, and more importantly, our nation was never designated by the Constitution or any political provisions thereafter to be a Christian nation. When our founding fathers constructed the pillars of our nation, secular ideology and separation of church and state were branded a fundamental key in the successful governance of what they knew to be a heterogeneous population. The founding fathers all publically claimed to be of different Christian denominations, yet they never used the word “God” nor claimed a “Creator” as the basis of our country’s government when writing the Constitution. But their objective was quite clear: to govern a nation where a single religion is not held in higher reverence than others; to progress political ideology based on free-thinking and not on the basis of a religious doctrine or a certain dogmatic perspective. James Madison, a Christian Federalist who became the 4th President of the United States, was a key figure in drafting the Constitution. Despite being Anglican, Madison fought extensively for the rights of the religious minority and enacted several laws that established government to be impartial on issues of faith. One of his key achievements was blocking Patrick Henry’s legislation that allocated tax funds to support Church based schools that promoted the teaching of Christianity to children of Virginia. In Madison’s opinion, governments should not have the authority to use
doctrine from one dominant religion to dictate policy that interfere with services that help the public. And perhaps the most vocal of all, Thomas Paine heavily criticized Christianity in many of his books and publications, specifically in his best-selling pamphlet “The Age of Reason; Being an Investigation of True and Fabulous Theology.” Paine laments extensively on how Christianity influences and corrupts politics and citizens, instead encouraging politicians and citizens to craft their belief system on natural theology rather than scripture. Paine writes, “Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty,… more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity…I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church…My mind is my own church.” Paine’s secular humanistic ideology resonated so profoundly in American theist sentiment that Theodore Roosevelt, over a 100 years later, referred to Paine as a “filthy little atheist,” while still acknowledging Paine’s contributions in creating a highly motivated faction of pro-Revolution, autonomous Americans. Madison’s and Paine’s contributions to securing secularism in the government played a significant part in the establishment of the United States. This is why the implications of the belief that the United States is a “Christian nation” are profound: they only continue to foster the assumption that our policies and laws are dependent on the Christian dogma. This isn’t to say that a lawmaker’s stance on an issue that is guided through religious philosophy is inherently incorrect; however, his/her stance needs to be developed through reason and inquiry rather than from blind acceptance. There’s nothing wrong with having faith. Religion, if used correctly, can be a powerful instrument for individuals to find hope and strength, as well as to refine one’s values and morals. But a problem arises when one’s personal, dogmatic belief intertwines with public policy, and policy makers in the United States should attempt to reconfigure how much religion truly influences their facility in implementing policy that affects all Americans. PP
8
Volume XV, Issue II
the
POLITIK PRESS
FEBURARY 10th, 2014
MENTAL HEALTH: SEEKING NEW APPROACHES AND CHANGES by Benjamin Barsky ’15, Contributing Writer
L
ast summer, at the World Health Organization’s head office in Geneva where I was interning in the Mental Health Division, a leading economist presented findings from a report published by The World Economic Forum and the Harvard School of Public Health in 2011 entitled “The Global Economic Burden of Noncommunicable Diseases.” The authors suggested that the global economic burden of mental health issues costs an estimated US$ 2.5 trillion in 2010, a figure that is expected to rise to an astonishing US$ 6 trillion by 2030. Another American report released by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality notes expenditures of US$ 57.5 billion in 2006 for mental health care, an amount equivalent to the aggregate cost of cancer care. At some level, huge expenditures for mental health are unsurprising in the US considering that that an estimated one out of five American adults has suffered or will suffer from a mental illness in their lifetime. But resources don’t translate into treatment if there is inadequate organization and cooperation amongst mental health service providers and institutions. For example, a number of psychiatrists misdiagnose on the basis of faulty information. Some psychologists fail to deploy the legal tools at their disposition, such as guardianship proceedings that offer financial and personal support for incapacitated individuals. On the patient or client side, many individuals suffering from mental illnesses are often unwilling or afraid to consult mental health professionals because of the stigma surrounding mental health treatment. I would argue that these examples are symptoms rather than irregularities, instances that draw attention not to the lack of resources, but to the systematic misallocation of resources in terms of need.
public awareness; but there are new tools now at our disposition that are offered by internet portals that can publicize and link existing resources. For instance, while at the World Health Organization, I worked on the WHO MiNDbank, an online platform bringing together country and international resources, covering mental health, substance abuse, disability, general health, human rights and development. It is described as being a “part of WHO’s QualityRights campaign to end violations against people with mental disabilities.” Another example of linking resources, but on the legislative side, is the reinforcement of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008, which requires health insurance to provide equal financial and treatment support for mental health illnesses as physical illnesses, brought about by an Affordable Care Act that has been at the heart of political conversations since its enactment. My approach then, as a young student who has been raised in the generation of generalized availability of resources, would be to harness these tools that have been built in order to break down the walls, link the fragmented mental health system, and publicize the remarkable efforts currently being made in the vacuums of each treatment circumstance. Our generation, accustomed to using the broad array of internet and academic tools to address vast issues, is uniquely situated to undertake this effort. PP
One way of addressing this issue is to focus on opening up the channels of communication amongst existing mental health service providers, and at the same time disseminating information about the need for, and the availability of, treatments for mental illness. We often speak of bringing together key actors in such situations as a means of attaining appropriate policy implementation, legislative transparency and
9
Volume XV, Issue II
the
POLITIK PRESS
FEBURARY 10th, 2014
NICARAGUA’S NEEDS: DEMOCRACY, DEVELOPMENT, OR DANIEL ORTEGA? by Rebecca Grenham ’16, Marketing and Publicity Co-Chair
L
ast week, Nicaragua legalized unlimited presidential term limits. Many believe the legislation was passed to allow current president Daniel Ortega another reelection bid in 2016. While Ortega’s supporters argue that he brings political stability and economic growth, opponents contend that the legislation is disrespectful to democracy and harmful to the Nicaraguan people. As both sides argue over the new law, the question of what Nicaragua needs remains unanswered. So, what does Nicaragua need? The small Central American country is still recovering from the brutal rule of the Somoza family, who ruled by ignoring democratic processes and repressing dissent. In 1979, the Sandinista National Liberation Front (led by eventual President Ortega) overthrew the Somoza government, which led to the Contra War. As a result of this turbulent history, the nation has struggled to alleviate poverty. Nicaragua today is the second poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere with a per capita GDP of $1,350 (constant 2005 US dollar). According to the World Bank, 42.5% of the Nicaraguan population lives in poverty. The nation’s primary concern has been economic growth and development, which Daniel Ortega addressed through a state-planned economy in the 1980s. Since his reelection in 2007, Ortega has attempted to address economic troubles by welcoming foreign trade and direct investment. Among these investors are a Canadian company called B2Gold, which operates gold mines, and the Hong-Kong based enterprise HKND Group, which hopes to build an interoceanic canal. Foreign ventures such as B2Gold and the Interoceanic Canal project are not fully supported by the Nicaraguan people. B2Gold, a mining company, operates in La Libertad, Chontales (the birthplace of Mr. Ortega), and Limon, and has plans to enter other parts of Chontales and Matagalpa. The company uses open-pit mining techniques, which include using explosives to create large holes in the earth to facilitate mineral extraction. Such techniques are not only dangerous to workers
but also often cause heavy amounts of pollution while soiling the earth. The company’s plans to expand to other rural parts of Nicaragua were met with massive demonstrations in 2013. Protestors of B2Gold in Rancho Grande, Matagalpa received support from local church leaders and the municipal government, who all cited environmental concerns as their primary reason for protest. In a tropical country that fears global warming, these concerns are largely justified. Not only is the rural community protesting open-pit gold mining, but protesters from all over the country are rising up against the HKND venture. The venture not only includes a canal but also an oil pipeline, two free-trade zones, an airport, a railroad, and two deepwater ports. These projects hope to put routes through Lake Nicaragua, which supplies freshwater, and could seriously impede freshwater access. While Ortega claims that the project will generate economic growth by creating jobs, many fear that the economic benefits of the canal will not be shared with Nicaraguans, but rather foreign investors. In fact, though the Nicaraguan economy has experienced considerable growth as foreign investment increased in the past few years, most foreign investment has been going to free-trade zones, which are not accountable to government labor laws. Therefore, economic growth may not necessarily reduce poverty. Upon taking office in 1979, Ortega promised the poor political and economic inclusion with the intention of ending their historical exclusion. After an economic crisis and a brief hiatus from presidential responsibilities, Ortega returned to implement many liberal economic policies favoring free trade and foreign investment, often overlooking democratic processes. While his economic policies and disrespect for democracy may seem to starkly contrast, perhaps they instead show a commitment to his original goals as a Sandinista revolutionary: eradicating poverty. However, moving forward, Nicaragua needs to take into account democratic fairness, environmental concerns and how projects will directly help the poor when looking to economically expand. If not, the country will find it difficult to overcome its troubled past. PP
10
Volume XV, Issue II
the
POLITIK PRESS
FEBURARY 10th, 2014
The Politics of Art
Spring Special Issue 2014
Planning meeting, all are welcome
Sunday, Feb. 16th
4:30 pm in the Gilman Atrium
E-mail jhupolitik@gmail.com for more info 11
Volume XV, Issue II
the
POLITIK PRESS
FEBURARY 10th, 2014
WRITE FOR thePOLITIK PRESS
Photo Courtesy: United States Library of Congress’s Prints and Photographs Division
The Politik Press, originally founded in 2008 as JHU Politik, is a weekly publication of political opinion pieces. We proudly seek to provide the Johns Hopkins campus with student voices and perspectives about important issues of our time. Rather than hide within a cloistered academic bubble, we know we must critically engage with the world that surrounds us. That, we believe, is at the heart of what it means to be learning. We’re lucky to be situated in the city of Baltimore, a city with a rich history and an ever-changing politics. We aim to look at the politics of the Homewood campus, of the city of Baltimore, of the domestic landscape of the United States, and then of the international community as well. While we publish the Politik Press weekly, we work simultaneously on our special issues which come out once per semester. These magazines confront a single topic from multiple angles. We have run issues covering topics like the political nature of research, the Arab Spring, and our city Baltimore.
If interested e-mail us at
JHUPOLITIK@gmail.com Or find us online at
jhupolitik.org 12