Business establishements would go on their business as usual, and if they lost the $10 or $25 or whatever the cost of a meal was, due to a customer not being able to afford it due to homelessness or some similar reason, then the governemtn would have insured the cost of that meal, and the government would compensate the restaurants, hotels and motels.  Once a month the businesses would submit their paperwork right along with their GST and PST tax forms.

This solution is brand new.  It is very well thought out.  Ms. Shaw has published extensively on antipoverty law, has helped pass laws governing income assistance in Canada and has helped draft actual legilsation.  The 41 year old author and singer has been determined and devoted to end poverty since a child.  She has received recognition for her writing several times now by Nobel Prize and Pulitzer Prize authors.   Her goal has always been zero poverty for the world.  This solution runs right across Canada.  It is a final solution to homelessness.   The average salary in Canada is about $3,000 per month.  One dollar from each would give every single person $400, enough to pay for a hotel and buy a few things.  $10 would give each homeless person $4,000, enough to move or solve pretty much whatever problem they have.  Currently at least $300 to $600 per person is right now spent and lost on dead end solutions toward poverty, expenses of losses, and new buildings which house only for example 11 or 22 or 98 people out of 20,000 needing them, and where they have to live in one particular centre, with each other, not able to get married or move closer to their reletives or nearer to the mountains.  It would save 3.5 million lives and overnight.  Canada could be the first country without homelessness if the governement choses or adheres to this.  Zero homelessness.

The Mirren Principle

I think is a good principle. When you find out that the football that you bought the kids last Christmas was not in fact stitched together by the manufacturer's grandmother and a couple of her friends over afternoon tea, their hands being lovingly cared for by local children, but by kids of an age should be in school or with their mothers in cramped sweatshop, perhaps you would say to yourself, “well, if Helen can do it so can I”. So maybe in her own way she has done more for the cause of so-called Fair Trade than even Naomi Klein.

Maybe we should have a list. We have lists for everything else nowadays, from 101 Things to do Before you Turn on the TV Tonight 101 uses of a Toilet Roll. With that touch of originality we could even call it the Mirren List of Approved Manufacturers.

The Mirren List

Just think, do we really believe that sugarcane is cut by threshing machines or by 14-year-old with a machete? How ethical is your ethanol? Is that $100 T-shirt really $100 or a one dollar T-shirt put together by a young girl in a hot and sweaty factory with a $99 badge? Put them on the Mirren List!

What about human rights? Perhaps we could look at countries with a less than clean record with regard to human rights and put them on the Mirren List, countries that invade others; companies that sell products that just don't work while making billions; politicians supported by big business. The potential members of their Mirren List are endless. But wait, where would it all end if we all started to take a moral stand? The producers of smack would go out of business in a day, politicians would tell the truth. Welcome back Tinkerbell, we missed you.

Seriously

In all seriousness, the newspaper reports of Mirren's use of cocaine (ignoring her thoughts on date rape, upon which I do not comment) betray a certain amount of disbelief and perhaps irony on the part of the journalists that she actually took the stuff. But I was more surprised by her apparent naivete. Then I thought, am I not also guilty? Ask yourself whether you perhaps have something at home that should be on the Mirren List. Are we not all to some extent guilty of turning, if not a blind eye, a remarkably naïve one? We don't have to be saints, but maybe if we looked at one item on the shelves at home or in the kids' room with open eyes and refused to buy it, just said “no”, the world would be a little better off. 

When Senator Benigno Aquino of the Philippines was living in exile in the United States during his bitter political fight with the then President Ferdinand Marcos, he declared to the international community and to the millions of his followers in his own country and all over the world that indeed the Filipino is worth dying for. True enough, Ninoy, as he was fondly called by most Filipinos, gave his own life for the sake of his country and people. In his fight for freedom and democracy, Ninoy is loved and remembered today by all peace loving Filipinos who enjoy freedom and democracy that Ninoy paid dearly with his own life.

Anwar Ibrahim seems to replicate the life and political career of Ninoy. Because of Anwar's perceived human rights advocacy and his pro democratic stance, he earned the ire of his political mentors who tend to trample on the rights of its citizens in order to advance their own political agenda and perpetuate themselves in power.

For his youth, vigor and idealism and his adherence to the democratic processes and institutions of democracy, he paid dearly for his noble stance. At the height of his political career, he was herded by the Malaysian police into prison on trumped up charges of graft and corruption and sodomy that were apparently concocted to justify his continued detention, thereby isolating him from his constituents and supporters. He was then the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia.

It is a common knowledge in Malaysia and in the international community that Anwar is a political detainee rather than a criminal prisoner. Obviously his being kept in prison until lately would somehow make the political heat to subside, with Anwar's inability to communicate his thoughts and ideology to his own constituents and political supporters which are mostly made up of young and freedom loving citizens of Malaysia.

Anwar Ibrahim's meteoric rise to political supremacy in Malaysia's politics may be traced to his youth and idealism. Anwar was born on August 10, 1947 and received his early education in his hometown before gaining admission to the prestigious Malay College in Kuala Kangsar. He continued his studies at the University of Malaya for his college degree. While in college he witnessed and eventually joined the street riots denouncing graft and corruption in government, and the issue of poverty in the marginalized sector of the Malaysian society. In recognition of his leadership, he was appointed into the advisory group of the youth affairs in 1973. His involvement in youth affairs and his concern for the poor farmers of rural Malaysia have endeared him to the youth as well as the elder electorate of the country. This was the beginning of his meteoric political career.

In government, Anwar was invited to join the ruling political party, the UMNO by Prime Minister Mahatir Mohammad. He was elected in 1984 and since then he held various cabinet positions such as Minister of Youth, Agriculture, Education and Finance. He eventually became the Deputy Prime Minister. In 1997, he served as the Acting Prime Minister when Mahatir asked him to lead the country in his absence.

What endeared Anwar Ibrahim to the people of Malaysia was his unrelenting campaigns to minimize if not eradicate the occurrence of graft and corruption in government. He made commitments to the ideals of empowerment, justice and equity for all. His contribution to the Malaysian economy was hailed by international financial institutions, citing his achievements in leading Malaysia into continued prosperity and economic growth.

When Prime Minister Mahatir fired him as Deputy Prime Minister, his subsequent trial and conviction on what was believed to be trumped up charges, was widely disputed by the international community. Many world leaders called for his release from prison, citing a pattern of political manipulation.

After his painful experiences in solitary confinement and for having been treated as a hard core criminal while in prison despite his having served as the second highest ranked official in the land. Anwar continues his journey in politics and governance with a noble intention to serve his people especially the poor and marginalized sector of Malaysian society.

What is in store for Anwar Ibrahim? I believe that Anwar will one day lead the people of Malaysia in their journey to peace and prosperity as their Prime Minister. It is possible that Anwar will get elected into the political mainstream by his own constituents which his wife Dr. Azizah have served as their leader and representative while Anwar was in solitary confinement.

What exactly went on the day of his enforced and involuntary disappearance, on 17th January 2007?

PhD Fouladvand known as one of the worlds finest man, World Award Winner in two Film Festivals Cane and Alexandria , film title Lions of Sinai, Egypt 1983-1984, and a man with a great number of admirers around the world. His enormous work included protection of Human Right which was widely mentioned in his Constitutional Book, letters to World Leaders, and in all of his figure films.

On 17th January 2007 the agents of the Mullahs' secret police arrested and smuggled Frood Fouladvand British resident, Nazzen Schmitt US citizen and Alexander Valizadeh German citizen into Iran, where they were imprisoned and subjected to torture.

It is somehow unclear as to why after a year and a half this is being announced by Nourizadeh in Keyhan of London newspaper dated 23 May 2008, a man who has closed ties with the Islamic Regime of Iran and other foreign intelligence. "How involved has he been behind the Dr. Fouladvand's disappearance and what pleasure has this given to him?" was a question asked by many Iranian dissidents in abroad lately.

There are a lot of grief and despair for those who love Dr. Fouladvand.

Moreover, strongly think this limbo needs undoing?!

Few things are known about their rented car of Hertz Car Rental found damaged at a geographical location told as Hakkari, East Turkey, close to the border with Iran. Car rental company in Turkey told us that the car was given to Turkish police by the Adana Military Service on 24th January 2007 and back to Hertz on the 7th February 2007. Asked, if there an accident has happened and how are the conditions of the people who were traveling on that car they replied : " The car did not have a crash in any kind of road accident, but was left and found there unattended, the windows were broken, no number plates left on the car, no belongings, no car documentation, and wires were cut off. In addition, continued :" They are believed to have crossed the border to Iran??!!!."

Today, another light is being put to this and the article of Mr. Ali Reza Nourizadeh who highlights in details the fact Fouladvand was kidnapped in Turkey by Iranian government intelligence with the help of the Turkish intelligence. Lately, even Turkey has not denied that exchange of Intelligence with Iran has always been practiced . As is always the case the kidnapping happens for exchange of hostages and in this particular abduction 4 Kurdish were given to Turkey so Iran could have PhD. Fouladvand and his two colleagues. The light that has been put on this so far is darker than the night, as the Iranian government has not yet replied officially to this, neither are they denying that Dr. Fouladvand is being held along with his colleagues in an Iranian Ministry of Intelligence prison.

In the broad opinion and previous experiences Iran is expected to not reply, but will the news be forwarded to their levers and will another writing to appear on Keyhan paper ? Let wait and see. On the other hand, the mystery to

Dr. Fouladvand British resident and his two aide Nazzen Schmit US citizen and Alexander Valizadeh German citizen continue.

More updates will be available in the next article.

I write to you from the diaspora. I am sure you will find gratification in the fact that another one of your citizens has fled from the country. I on the other hand, would like to inform you that i never ran away from Zimbabwe and have every intention of returning. You have instilled a fear into the nation - people are more scared of you than they are of Satan.

But I find peace in the fact that I doubt you sleep at night.I will be back- with many Zimbabweans following me. Operation Marabstivina? what were you thinking? I understand your logic of pushing people into the rural areas- but by burning them out of their homes? how do you sleep at night knowing that more people have died in your country than world famous pol-pot or the Rwandan genocide? How does it feel to be compared to hitler? You are not viewed by the world as a human being anymore. You are now fitting into the category of one of the worlds most hated. Zimbabwean death squad? is this how you want to be remembered? brainwashing, torturing, murdering your own people?

You were respected through out africa for opening the doors of independence to the rest of Africa- why did you have to tarnish your legacy? We had the 5th literacy rate in the world- now 85% of your Zimbabwe is unemployed. Women have the shortest mortality rate in the world. I am a Zimbabwean women. You are killing us.25% of all Zimbabweans are in political or economic exile – the biggest proportional mass movement of a population in peacetime ever in modern history. Zimbabwe now has the highest number of orphans per capita in the world – in excess of 1.6 million.

1 in 10 people in Matabeleland over the age of 30 are survivors of torture. 1 in 10 Zimbabweans now need psychological help. The victimization of MDC leaders and activists has been ongoing and has intensified since 11 March 2007, with provincial and local activists affiliated to the MDC being specifically targeted. Victims of torture are being detained, denied access to medical attention and access to their lawyers because of their political affiliation and are afraid to seek medical attention for fear of further beatings.

There is no food on the shelves, communications a joke, inflation is a joke, your government is a joke and you Mr President are an even bigger joke. Ordering weapons for war from china- why do you want to kill us? Can you not see how patiently we are waiting for the results? We are peaceful people- you have destroyed what could have been good lives for us. You have raped us of every opportunity that life could have granted us. You have burnt our homes, killed our families and stripped our pride time and time again.

We have not once stood up in defense. So now why are you preparing to kill us? Stand down take your fortunes and run for the hills. Are you not bored yet? We are tired. Tired of the struggle. I am sure immunity for you and your cronies can be arranged. Go live somewhere else in luxury just let Zimbabwe become a home again. A home where teachers can be teachers, writers can be writers, musicians can be be musicians children can go to good schools, farms are productive, there is fuel in the station, there is freedom of speech, food on the shelves, no inflation, children grow up climbing trees and watching the elephants on their school fields, riding horses. We are all employed and free of you, your curse, your insensitive evil regime- give us a chance to be alive again.

From the Diaspora

John McCain supports the Second Amendment. He supports it so much that he supports not banning any kind of assault rifle. I mean, by God, it is every American's RIGHT to own and use an AK-47, especially with a high capacity magazine which John McCain also supports.

He also doesn't think that if Crazy Joe's Machinegun Store, Inc. designs, builds and sells a weapons that is advertised in the company's literature as, “The Perfect Weapon for Killing People” and then some nut goes out and kills twenty people with it that anyone should be able to sue Crazy Joe's. After all, it isn't as if Crazy Joe's knew that someone was going to use their weapon to kill people.

Of course, under John McCain, it's unlikely that a nut would be able to do that because we'll live in the United States of Gunmerica or as I like to call it a gunocracy. What with the high capacity magazines, armor piercing ammunition and assault weapons we should be able to cut back on law enforcement to support another of John McCain's pet projects.

McCain on Iraq

Stay the course, stay the course, and stay the course even if it takes a hundred years. John McCain believes that we need to increase troop levels in Iraq, stop the silly rotation of senior officers and hand out more money by the truckload. And above all John McCain believes that we need to “win the home front”. I'm sure he knows all about that since he was already in one un-winnable and unpopular war. Sounds like he thinks we could have won Vietnam too, just as long as we were willing to stay there for a hundred years, hand out bucket-loads of money (inflation don't you know) and win the home front.

I guess my question is this: If we were still in Vietnam because we were “staying the course”, I wonder where we would get the money, troops and home front support for Iraq? And, heaven forbid that we actually have to fight a war against someone that attacks us. If the Canadians or the Mexicans get frisky, where exactly are we going to get the troops and money to protect the damn home front?

Guess I'll just have to trust John McCain. He must know what he's doing because somehow these truckloads of money for Iraq and more troops are going to come from a government that is also going to cut taxes.

McCain on Taxes

Not only is John McCain going to lower taxes for the middle class, he's also going to make it harder to raise taxes by changing the rules in Congress so that it takes a 3/5ths majority to do it. Further, he's going to lower taxes on corporations, lower barriers to trade, cut “growth” (read funding) on Medicare and reform Social Security by letting people invest their own money. Sounds GREAT!!! Yummy, I love this cake that I get to eat without having to do anything to get it.

Of course, every time we do stuff like this it just passes the buck farther down the road. But, you know that doesn't make much sense based on his stance on the environment.

McCain on the Environment

From his campaign web-site:

“By addressing this problem responsibly, John McCain believes we can meet our obligation to be proper caretakers of creation, in a manner of which we can be proud - by protecting our country, strengthening our economy, and addressing the challenges of our time, rather than leaving a much worse problem for our children.”

That also sounds great. But, I'm curious how he thinks that having our children live in a country that is environmentally sound, but broke is good for the environment? I mean, if our children have to live in a nation with a giant steaming pile of debt, worthless dollars and nothing but service industry jobs how does he expect that we'll pay to keep a decent environment?

McCain on Human Dignity

John McCain believes that Roe v Wade should be overturned. He believes that the pro-life movement is one that has “these armies of compassion”. Of course the compassion only goes so far, but so does John McCain's commitment to human dignity.

He believes that the basic human rights of homosexuals should be violated because they are not a part of the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society. From his campaign web-site:

“The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is only this definition that sufficiently recognizes the vital and unique role played by mothers and fathers in the raising of children, and the role of the family in shaping, stabilizing, and strengthening communities and our nation.”

Which is hilarious of course, since homosexuality was widely practiced in Rome, Egypt and Greece the three bed-rocks of Western Civilization. So, the support for human dignity doesn't extend to all you gays out there. But, that's right in line with his spiritual beliefs as well.

John McCain for President

Of course, this isn't all that John McCain believes. He believes in other things too. He believes in ending pork-barrel spending. He believes in stopping earmarks. He believes in fiscal responsibility (?) and he believes that America is the greatest nation on Earth. But, with all of the contradictions and confusion in his platform, how are we to know which John McCain we're getting? Are we getting pro-life, gun toting, Iraq forever, human dignity for some John McCain or are we getting the fiscally conservative, respecting all human dignity, let's talk about the abortion issue John McCain? Which one or is it both at the same time. Now that, my friends, is pretty frightening.

Shocking

Sky News has been reporting this week that it has obtained shocking CCTV footage showing a group of teenagers attacking firefighters with flaming planks of wood, after luring them to a bonfire.

Reports of this nature are not new but, the report goes on to explain that attacks on fire-crews are much more common than Government figures suggest and that they are becoming more frequent.

As a resident of a country that is recognised as one of the most advanced in the world, both economically and sociologically, I find it both sickening and disturbing that such events take place. The world we live in is, was, and never will be perfect but, good grief, we are supposed to be living in a civilised society; where respecting those that are employed to help us in times of need is surely the very least we can expect.

However, it seems not. Selfish, ignorant and arrogant attitudes are all too evident wherever we go, a general disrespect of anything and anyone in authority is prevalent and, imbecilic behaviour, of the type referred to above, is now common-place. It appears that normal is no longer normal.

To give you an example of that, my partner and I recently had some work done at our house and we were not only pleased with the quality but, liked the guy that had carried it out. So, we invited him around for a drink and a bite to eat. Now that we have won his trust, we have since discovered that he wasn't too sure whether to accept our invite at first, because he was afraid that we might be the type to tie him up and, well, do "who knows what" with him. Is this what we have degenerated to?

Cowardly

I don't blame him, though. You only have to listen to the news and read the papers to get the feeling that unless you are addicted to computer games, or are into paedophilia or swinging, you must be weird!

Just for the record, I am perfectly comfortable with the fact that none of those apply to me. However, what I am not comfortable with is the fact that society seems to observe many examples of inappropriate behaviour, of the type where groups of inadequate, cowardly yobs (because that is exactly what they are) attack our fire-fighters, and then it (society) blames the Government for not doing something about it.

No, I'm sorry. The Government may be to blame for a lot of things but, not this. The blame lies fairly and squarely at the door of the parents. I am prepared to bet that the vast majority, if not all, have set either a poor, or non-existent example to their off-spring. As a result, we get to hear of these unruly and outrageous acts of violence.

Dramatic

To be honest, I don't see the situation improving, for a while anyway, given that we live in a culture where everyone seems to blame everyone else for the problems. The answer to this particular problem, I would suggest, is that we must take strong action. It is time that we only permit people to have children when they have obtained a licence. Dramatic? Oh, yes! But, there are so many examples of "inadequates" giving birth to "inadequates" that it is frightening.

Now, no doubt there will be plenty of people screaming, “You can't do that. That's an infringement of human rights.” Well, is it not an infringement of human rights for someone to be attacked at work, when all they are doing is undertaking a duty to help someone? Bloody right it is! And I, for one, am fed up of all the do-good bleating that goes on. Human rights laws apply equally to victims as they do to perpetrators.

You have to have a licence to drive, a licence for your television, a licence for your dog, a licence to get married, a licence to fish certain waters and so on. So, why on earth is it tolerated that a person can bring a child into this world and then take no responsibility for developing it into an acceptable member of a civilised society? Surely that is much more serious than fishing the wrong stretch of river?

Radical

In order to give birth, I believe that you should have to go through a rigorous examination as to your suitability to be a parent. This would include looking at your own upbringing, your education, your ability to find work, whether you have a criminal record etc. etc. As I said earlier, the world is not perfect and mistakes will still be made but, there will be a higher success rate than we have at present, that is for sure!

In fact, I'd go further than mere licensing. I think that every male baby should have a vasectomy at birth and, this should only be reversed when the individual has proven their suitability for parenthood. Therefore, when hormonal hoody decides he wants a thrill and to test his manhood with girlie behind the bike shed, society is not left to pick up the pieces when "Vicky Pollard" is born some nine months later or, worse still, her twin brother ASBO Pollard is brought into the world.

These children are the type that will follow the crowd, unable to think for themselves - brilliantly mocked by the Kaiser Chiefs in their track "The Angry Mob" - and end up throwing bricks at fire-crews. They are the type that thinks it amusing to be brought before the courts for the umpteenth time before their 16th birthday, smugly grinning as they stick their middle finger up at the television cameras. In my society, we would be able to smugly grin to ourselves, in the knowledge that such displays would prevent them from ever becoming a father.

So, much fewer "inadequates" breeding "inadequates". Yes, I am calling on Government to help but, I do not blame them. Society is to blame so, society has to resolve it. As an up-standing member of that society, I hope you will join me in calling for this very radical but, much needed course of action.

If you are one of those do-gooders, who are going to play the human rights card; well, do us all some good this time, please, and just keep it shut!

Since Indonesia achieved Independence in 1945, military self-financing has become a firmly entrenched practice in Indonesia. The Indonesian military has relied on money-making ventures outside the government budget through a wide network of legal and illegal businesses, informal security alliances with entrepreneurs, and through corruption such as ‘mark ups in military purchases.’ A flawed response to budget constraints and corruption has resulted in the spread of these businesses beyond the control of the military’s central command.

There are many obstacles to reform. A distinct lack of transparency and accountability regarding military finance issues, and unreliable and incomplete data concerning military budgets and expenditure, continue to thwart efforts, however flawed, to reform the military.

Consequently, the Indonesian military has maintained its notorious reputation as being able to act with impunity as it commits acts of abuse and corruption throughout the Indonesian archipelago.

The Jakarta government justifies these evictions, claiming that it is trying to maintain ‘public order, remove trespassers from private or state land, or clear land for infrastructure projects.’ At the same time, however, the government has failed to provide alternative housing options and assistance for these victims, effectively consigning them to a life of abject poverty on the streets of Jakarta.

Perversely, however, the government’s efforts have done little to maintain ‘public order’ and have effectively transferred the problem to another part of the city and succeeded in stirring up public unrest.

Yet again, Indonesia continues to flout national and international law, and fails to live up to its international commitments as it continues to aggressively pursue international investors with little or no regard for human rights (hrw.org).

Several discrepancies emerge throughout this article. Although a convincing argument is ultimately presented, it is evident that Boudreau utilises information in a markedly biased and frequently incorrect manner. He presents a strong argument, however it is flawed and somewhat discredited due to data inaccuracies and omissions. I mention this because it is important to seek to identify and distinguish fact from fiction in order to analyse information effectively and formulate rational conclusions. In short, the Philippine case is favoured over the Indonesian case, with the democracy movement in the Philippines portrayed as a success, while that in Indonesia is largely portrayed as a failure. A major problem emerges regarding Boudreau’s description of the use of power by Marcos and Suharto throughout the article. Boudreau states that Marcos held periodic elections and allowed brief periods of liberalisation. Suharto is portrayed as feeling compelled to do neither. In actual fact, both leaders relaxed restrictions on the press and dressed up their administrations in democratic garb. From the late 1980s to the mid-1990s, Indonesia experienced the longest period of ‘openness’, tolerance, and political debate during Suharto’s reign, albeit within the confines of New Order orthodoxy (Elson, 2001). I will now explore further the rationale behind the decision of a regime to allow periods of ‘openness’.

Some scholars state that mass political culture has certain influences over the political process, but maintain that democratic culture is not a prerequisite for democracy. They argue that democratic political culture emerges at the elite level. It is also argued that elites select democracy because they believe the costs outweigh the benefits in trying to suppress political opposition. However, application of such arguments can prove problematic. In Indonesia and the Philippines, neither of which are genuine democracies, rulers maintain and legitimate authoritarian rule under the guise of democratic practices. Thus, prospects for genuine and meaningful elite-instigated democratisation are slim. Openings for democracy come from above, although genuine democratic reform is not necessarily intended by these hollow gestures, in response to pressure from below. This is evident in Indonesia and the Philippines.

In Indonesia, Suharto only allowed a more open political atmosphere after many years of repressing and depoliticising society. By the end of the 1980s, Suharto ruled a rapidly changing society due to social and economic changes. A nascent civil society was emerging which clamoured for more direct and transparent political participation. Thus, Indonesia’s increased prosperity created a more sophisticated society increasingly difficult to repress (Elson, 2001).

In the Philippines, Marcos’ “short-term strategy to derail an opposition alliance produced over time more movement vehicles against the state. Each election, plebiscite, or liberalising measure enticed new (as well as established) oppositionists to speak and act against the regime” (Boudreau, 1999: 5). Thus, “the anti-dictatorship movement accumulated increasingly broad and established movement institutions…this accumulation both forced Marcos’s periodic liberalising gestures and produced such protest during these open moments as to compel the regime to resort to violence and cheating that…further polarised society and hastened the regime’s demise” (Boudreau, 1999: 6).

In concluding this essay, I maintain that initial openings for democracy, whether genuine or not, may be initiated by a ruling elite in response to pressure from below. However, despite the downfall of both Suharto and Marcos, no real democratic reform has occurred in Indonesia or the Philippines. The succeeding leaders have proved reluctant to upset the status quo, and the consolidation of democracy appears to have stalled in both countries. Thus, theories espousing the importance of the initiation of democratic political culture at the elite level are convincing.

REFERENCES:

Boudreau, V. 1999. ‘Diffusing democracy? People power in Indonesia and the Philippines?’, Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, 31 (4): 3-18, Cedar, Michigan

Elson, R. E. 2001. Suharto – A Political Biography, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom

Shi, T. 2000. “Political culture: A prerequisite for democracy?”, American Asian Review, 18 (2): 53-83, Queens