When contemplating the question Fareed Zakaria’s headline poses: Is this the start of India’s ‘Arab Spring’?  other questions immediate ensue: is this a relevant question to be asking? Moreover, do we even want an Indian ‘Arab Spring’? For many of its onlookers the Arab Spring has devolved from being idealistically perpetuated as a possible ‘fourth wave of  democratization’ to nothing more than a ‘false start.’ (Diamond, Larry. 2011 May 22. Foreign Affairs) Given its problematic status in the terminology of political science, I do not appreciate Zakaria’s phrasing of the issue at hand, but the substantive value of the implications he proffers pertaining to it is enough for me to overlook his semantic choices.

By now, I am sure the widespread protests waged throughout India in the weeks following the rape and subsequent death of a 23-year-old unnamed New Delhi woman is old news to most of you. What this story lacks in currency, however, it makes up for in the expediency of its subject matter. I hope that most of you have encountered, at some point in your studies, the topic of gender equality and the related challenges it presents, both historically, and in contemporary times. More disturbing than the well publicized New Delhi gang rape itself is the systemic problem it is representative of. In India, there were more than 24,000 registered rapes in 2011, probably  a gross underestimate when factoring in the number of unregistered rapes that undoubtedly occur. Rape is unfortunately only one symptom, albeit a horrifying one, of a much larger problem in the general attitudes of men and women alike throughout India and many of its Asian neighbour: the subjugation of the female gender.

When Zakaria writes “Now it’s asking for basic rights for women. In a way, this is India’s Arab Spring,” it brings to mind particular feminist strands of political thought. Those like Pateman have characterized gender equality as being not only indicative of democratic health, but also a necessary prerequisite for a true liberal democracy to exist. Normatively,  this makes sense to me: the exclusion and oppression of any members of a collective entity is enough to make that entity essentially non-democratic. Is a change in attitudes towards women a necessary precursor for democratic transitions or for the proper establishment of democratic institutions? In the Indian context, the answer appears to be a definitive yes. What do you think?

Mass civil unrest following the rape and subsequent death of a 23-year-old paramedical student in New Delhi

I was reading my morning paper while consuming a cup of the only substance that gets me through early mornings (coffee, obviously) when I came across this headline in the National Post:

Quebec to legalize assisted suicide;

Death a medical issue, health

minister says

It’s a headline that immediately caught my interest; ever since my preliminary studies of dystopian novels, along the veins of 1984, Brave New World, etc., in high school literature, the subject of euthanasia has become this eerie kind of fascination for me. I love getting into debates about the slippery slope that human morality supposedly starts to descend when we start making judgements like those related to a persons right to life or death. My take on assisted suicide, like my take on abortion, has always been a more pro-choice approach with a libertarian leaning. In this sense, I do not criticize those who are pro-life, but I do think that they should not be able to limit others’ rights to make their own decision on the matter, which, often, pro-life policies do. Thus, I view Quebec’s impending legalization of assisted suicide as a progressive move on the part of their provincial legislature, although it brings to the foreground questions concerning Canadian federalism that I am sure not all of you will find very exciting to address. In the well known Sue Rodriquez case (1993), wherein the aforementioned fought to have the ‘right to die’ via assisted suicide after being diagnosed with ALS, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled 5-4 against her. More recently, in 2010, when the topic was brought to the Canadian legislature, the ruling was upheld.

However, despite the federal government’s decisive opposition to legalizing assisted suicide, Quebec’s provincial legislature has done so. While this is not a policy matter that would, say, be a determinant in measuring the democracy, I cannot help but wonder what it says about the dynamics of Canadian federalism if Quebec, as a province, is unilaterally able to make a decision that violates a previous decision made by the federal Supreme Court. While I understand that health care has historically been under provincial jurisdiction, should exceptions not arise when the federal Supreme Court has set forth a legal precedent declaring the unconstiuttionality of this particular aspect of health care (if it can even be considered as such)? Any thoughts?