Sadly, most news out of Punjab, India relates to warlike activity and attitudes between India and Pakistan. However, I write to spread the word that Punjab is taking a step forward in the legal literacy and human rights fight by establishing student legal literacy clubs in all government and government-aided colleges.
These clubs will be oversought by the Punjab Legal Services Authority. They will engage in artistic activies, such as presenting posters, street plays, and presenting intellectual debates, all with the design to educate themselves and fellow residents about their rights.
The rights to be presented include: (1) the rights of women with regard to property; (2) rights of women against cruelty, abuse, and domestic violence; (3) consumer rights; (4) rights against forced labor; (5)rights of senior citizens; (5)rights of children to education; and (6)information about access to legal aid.
This list tells an important story about the values intended by the legal literacy clubs, namely to assure that the most vulnerable members of the members Punjab communities become aware of their rights and how to act on them.
The structure of these clubs also tells a story. The clubs are made of up small number of college students who meet regularly with members of the local legal community to learn about local laws designed to protect the most vulnerable individuals.
Students will also be encouraged to keep their eyes out for those in need of legal protection, and trained to inform those individuals about their rights to seek legal help.
To advance this, the Punjab Legal Services Authority is even giving cash awards to clubs based on their success in outreach, along with issuing various certificates recognizing certain successes.
In a number of blog posts, I have commented about these legal literacy clubs. I have also begun drafting posts that I chose not to publish due to the repetitive nature of them. However, this seems like a unique development. Additionally, this news seems particularly worthy of publication, given the extent to which news of terrorism and conflict seems to control the western news media's interest in the region.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Funding Civil Society in Pakistan -- And What It Means for American Civil Society
When we speak about foreign policy, we are usually focused on speaking about military activities and ignoring civilian foreign aid administered by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), much of which focuses on disaster relief and assistance in economic development.
As I have discussed previously in this blog , USAID has played a role advancing civics education in certain developing countries, encouraging civil society.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)has just developed a new Citizens' Voice Project in Pakistan. The objective, according to the USAID itself, is to "build a new generation of programs that strengthen local governments and legislative institutions, support the rule of law, and encourage a credible and transparent electoral system capable of producing leaders and policy makers who can help Pakistan achieve its Millennium Development Goals."
It appears as if USAID's role, through this program will be to provide finaicial assistance, to the tune of $100 million over the next four years, to local civic and social organizations within Pakistan. USAID says its design is to award money to organizations providing citizen oversight to municipal services, energy sector reforms, and water rights.
USAID's role in Pakistan is not brand-new. During the past few years, USAID has funded an anti-fraud hotline, trained representatives, supported election cycles, and provided technical assistance to municipalities to improve their delivery of local services.
When Americans think about increasing citizen engagement, we often think about voting and relations between neighbors. We don't sufficiently consider things like the delivery of local services, which is actually a fundamental aspect of any existing social contract.
It is also intriguing that we are funding USAID to assist the Pakistanis with accomplishing results we sometimes struggle with here, namely making our local governments more accountable and making our vote-counting system fair and transparent.
Perhaps the conclusion is for us as Americans to learn from our assistance in Pakistan to see what works and what doesn't work in terms of advancing citizaen engagement in society.
As I have discussed previously in this blog , USAID has played a role advancing civics education in certain developing countries, encouraging civil society.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)has just developed a new Citizens' Voice Project in Pakistan. The objective, according to the USAID itself, is to "build a new generation of programs that strengthen local governments and legislative institutions, support the rule of law, and encourage a credible and transparent electoral system capable of producing leaders and policy makers who can help Pakistan achieve its Millennium Development Goals."
It appears as if USAID's role, through this program will be to provide finaicial assistance, to the tune of $100 million over the next four years, to local civic and social organizations within Pakistan. USAID says its design is to award money to organizations providing citizen oversight to municipal services, energy sector reforms, and water rights.
USAID's role in Pakistan is not brand-new. During the past few years, USAID has funded an anti-fraud hotline, trained representatives, supported election cycles, and provided technical assistance to municipalities to improve their delivery of local services.
When Americans think about increasing citizen engagement, we often think about voting and relations between neighbors. We don't sufficiently consider things like the delivery of local services, which is actually a fundamental aspect of any existing social contract.
It is also intriguing that we are funding USAID to assist the Pakistanis with accomplishing results we sometimes struggle with here, namely making our local governments more accountable and making our vote-counting system fair and transparent.
Perhaps the conclusion is for us as Americans to learn from our assistance in Pakistan to see what works and what doesn't work in terms of advancing citizaen engagement in society.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Access to Justice discussed in West Virginia
Good to read in the West Virginia State Journal that West Virginia Supreme Court officials are thinking about access to courthouse issues, especially for litigants of emotionally challenging issues like domestic violence, elder law, children's issues, and workers compensation, legal issues that often feature litigants not familiar with their rights.
The article in the Journal mentioned handicapped access discussed, since there are a lack of elevators, and thus access to courtrooms on floors other than the first. This is pretty crucial, as those with limited physical abilities are less likely to pursue their rights if it is physically impractical. In my experience, this problem arises less when litigants are already in the midst of litigation, and thus committed to see it through, but physical access affects witnesses' willingness to participate, and potential litigants' willingness to avail themselves of courthouse remedies.
I was pleased to read that the discussion got around to education for both courthouse personnel and the public. One of the most stressful experiences when pursuing one's rights is to go into a courthouse and have difficulty figuring out with whom to speak concerning one's rights and procedures. As a lawyer, I have been particularly shocked and the lack of willingness of many court personnel to give instructions concerning their court's own procedures. Not only am I directed to study the court's rules and interpret them myself, but the clerk's offices that I have seen generally do not have courtesy copies of the rulebooks displayed for use by the public. (Admittedly my experience is only in the Distict of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. I make no comment about West Virginia.) Thus, courthouses could make their own procedures more accessible and could assure than all or most personnel are familiar with the procedures and rules of the court.
The article mentioned an idea floated by Supreme Court Administrative Director Steve Canterbury, namely, that every lawyer donate a certain number of hours to pro bono work, including legal aid -- and to fine attorneys failing to do this. If you read this blog regularly, you will find this suggestion has been floated about in a number diverse places, so I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes the norm in the next 25 years.
He also suggested making continuing legal education for attorneys willing to learn a new field for the purpose of helping those withou financial ability to pay for legal help. I notice that this practice is alive and well in Maryland, such as in programs that assist military personnel obtain wills.
The purpose of this blog entry, and others like it, is to advance and encourage the discussion of how courts and lawyers can make the justice system more readily available to those for whom access is somewhat limited. Thus, although this entry may appear to repeat ideas of some past entries, we should certainly be encouraged by the increased dialogue in increased numbers of locations.
The article in the Journal mentioned handicapped access discussed, since there are a lack of elevators, and thus access to courtrooms on floors other than the first. This is pretty crucial, as those with limited physical abilities are less likely to pursue their rights if it is physically impractical. In my experience, this problem arises less when litigants are already in the midst of litigation, and thus committed to see it through, but physical access affects witnesses' willingness to participate, and potential litigants' willingness to avail themselves of courthouse remedies.
I was pleased to read that the discussion got around to education for both courthouse personnel and the public. One of the most stressful experiences when pursuing one's rights is to go into a courthouse and have difficulty figuring out with whom to speak concerning one's rights and procedures. As a lawyer, I have been particularly shocked and the lack of willingness of many court personnel to give instructions concerning their court's own procedures. Not only am I directed to study the court's rules and interpret them myself, but the clerk's offices that I have seen generally do not have courtesy copies of the rulebooks displayed for use by the public. (Admittedly my experience is only in the Distict of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. I make no comment about West Virginia.) Thus, courthouses could make their own procedures more accessible and could assure than all or most personnel are familiar with the procedures and rules of the court.
The article mentioned an idea floated by Supreme Court Administrative Director Steve Canterbury, namely, that every lawyer donate a certain number of hours to pro bono work, including legal aid -- and to fine attorneys failing to do this. If you read this blog regularly, you will find this suggestion has been floated about in a number diverse places, so I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes the norm in the next 25 years.
He also suggested making continuing legal education for attorneys willing to learn a new field for the purpose of helping those withou financial ability to pay for legal help. I notice that this practice is alive and well in Maryland, such as in programs that assist military personnel obtain wills.
The purpose of this blog entry, and others like it, is to advance and encourage the discussion of how courts and lawyers can make the justice system more readily available to those for whom access is somewhat limited. Thus, although this entry may appear to repeat ideas of some past entries, we should certainly be encouraged by the increased dialogue in increased numbers of locations.
Monday, November 21, 2011
What Kind of Citizen Are You?
In April 2004, Joel Westeimer (University of Ottowa) and Joseph Kahne (Mills College) published an article entitled, "Educating the 'Good' Citizen: Political Choices and Pedagogical Goals." In the article, they describe three types of citizens: (1) the Personally Responsible Citizen; (2) the Participatory Citizen; and (3) the Justice-Oriented Citizen.
(1)The Personally Responsible Citizen is the citizen that is primarily known for complying with any citizenship obligations he may have such as paying taxes and serving on a jury. He will likely pick up litter, give blood, and other do other forms of community service. The authors point out that this is the type of citizenship advocated by most school based service-learning programs, where the student is expected to find an existing service program and volunteer a certain number of hours per month or term. On one hand this type of citizen is honest loyal and committed to his fellow man. On the other hand, he may not be encouraged to engage in the critical reflection necessary for an engaged democratic society.
(2)The Participatory Citizen is engaged in community affairs and takes responsibility for planning the activities that engage the personally responsibile citizen. The participatory citizen is also familar with the workings of government, as he likely will cooperate with particular government agencies in his or her planning.
(3)The Justice Oriented Citizen is the citizen most driven by issues of injustice, and is most driven towards motivating others to actively address the injustice, along with seeking to address the root causes of whatever problem is being addressed.
Westeimer and Kahne stress ways in which young citizens are effectively taught that being patriotic means singing patriotic songs, saying the pledge of allegience, being nice to neighbors, and being personal responsible. Social movements, government policy and political engagement are simply ignored. In other words, citizens are encouraged to be highly active as engaged citizens, but only as Personally Responsible Citizen and occassionally as Participatory Citizens, whereas a truely fully engaged citizen is the Justice Oriented Citizen.
What kind of citizen am I? And more importantly, at what moment in time am I being asked this question?
Althouh Westeimer and Kahne did not say so directly, although I am sure they meant it, the fully engaged citizen plays all three roles at various stages of their life. For instance, in certain areas of my life I am the Justice Oriented Citizen, and in other areas of my life, I am the Personally Responsible Citizen. One simply does not have the ability to call out every form of injustice available.
More importantly, though, the fully engaged citizen exhibits all of these traits at various times of the week, and thus is really a balanced citizen. Thus, Westeimber and Kahne correctly point out that many young people are effectively discouraged from being fully active balanced citizens, and are encouraged to be only Personally Responsible Citizens.
As pointed out by the authors, this result is very problematic for a democracy. A democracy requires all three types of citizens, or requires all citizens to play each role in different occassions. If the population as a whole were to fail to produce any of these three types of citizens, I believe it would fail to exist, and would certainly fail to have any right to claim itself a democracy.
In fact, I believe that the strongest societies are those where all citizens take up the mantle of each citizen type depending on the situation, and that the diversity of skills and interests in society at large means that for the most part, people balance between differing roles based on their interests and skills. And thus, in a true democracy, almost all play all three roles throughout their lives.
(1)The Personally Responsible Citizen is the citizen that is primarily known for complying with any citizenship obligations he may have such as paying taxes and serving on a jury. He will likely pick up litter, give blood, and other do other forms of community service. The authors point out that this is the type of citizenship advocated by most school based service-learning programs, where the student is expected to find an existing service program and volunteer a certain number of hours per month or term. On one hand this type of citizen is honest loyal and committed to his fellow man. On the other hand, he may not be encouraged to engage in the critical reflection necessary for an engaged democratic society.
(2)The Participatory Citizen is engaged in community affairs and takes responsibility for planning the activities that engage the personally responsibile citizen. The participatory citizen is also familar with the workings of government, as he likely will cooperate with particular government agencies in his or her planning.
(3)The Justice Oriented Citizen is the citizen most driven by issues of injustice, and is most driven towards motivating others to actively address the injustice, along with seeking to address the root causes of whatever problem is being addressed.
Westeimer and Kahne stress ways in which young citizens are effectively taught that being patriotic means singing patriotic songs, saying the pledge of allegience, being nice to neighbors, and being personal responsible. Social movements, government policy and political engagement are simply ignored. In other words, citizens are encouraged to be highly active as engaged citizens, but only as Personally Responsible Citizen and occassionally as Participatory Citizens, whereas a truely fully engaged citizen is the Justice Oriented Citizen.
What kind of citizen am I? And more importantly, at what moment in time am I being asked this question?
Althouh Westeimer and Kahne did not say so directly, although I am sure they meant it, the fully engaged citizen plays all three roles at various stages of their life. For instance, in certain areas of my life I am the Justice Oriented Citizen, and in other areas of my life, I am the Personally Responsible Citizen. One simply does not have the ability to call out every form of injustice available.
More importantly, though, the fully engaged citizen exhibits all of these traits at various times of the week, and thus is really a balanced citizen. Thus, Westeimber and Kahne correctly point out that many young people are effectively discouraged from being fully active balanced citizens, and are encouraged to be only Personally Responsible Citizens.
As pointed out by the authors, this result is very problematic for a democracy. A democracy requires all three types of citizens, or requires all citizens to play each role in different occassions. If the population as a whole were to fail to produce any of these three types of citizens, I believe it would fail to exist, and would certainly fail to have any right to claim itself a democracy.
In fact, I believe that the strongest societies are those where all citizens take up the mantle of each citizen type depending on the situation, and that the diversity of skills and interests in society at large means that for the most part, people balance between differing roles based on their interests and skills. And thus, in a true democracy, almost all play all three roles throughout their lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)