AHS Comparative Government

In 2011, hundreds of residents of Allende, Coahuila, a small Mexican city less than 40 miles from the Texas border, were kidnapped and presumably murdered by the Zetas, the most infamous of Mexico's drug gangs.  The massacre, and the reluctance of local residents to discuss the tragedy with outsiders, stand as grim reminders of the reality of life in the parts of Mexico affected by the country's war on narco-trafficking:

http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21604162-many-thousands-disappeared-mexicos-drug-war-government-should-do-more-find

Over the past thirty years, millions of people have moved from China's countryside to the country's cities; at the same time, living standards in China have improved dramatically.  As a result, millions of Chinese are eating richer diets (i.e., more fats and refined grains) while leading more sedentary lives.  This has led to an increase in overweight, obesity, diabetes and heart disease:

http://www.economist.com/news/china/21604221-why-china-under-and-over-nourished-same-time-chubby-little-emperors

At the same time, inadequate nutrition remains a serious problem in rural China.  Poor children in rural Chinese villages are particularly likely to suffer from malnutrition:

http://www.economist.com/news/china/21604220-growth-has-helped-millions-avoid-malnutrition-it-still-threatens-hold-back-generation

Should Scotland be an independent country?  This is the question that Scottish voters will decide this September, in the first referendum on independence ever conducted in a part of the United Kingdom.

In the late 1990s, the British Government -- then led by the center-left Labour Party -- created elected legislatures in Scotland and Wales, reestablished an elected legislature in Northern Ireland, and devolved significant powers of self-government to all three bodies.  Although many British Conservatives privately supported the creation of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales, the British Government established the two bodies over the formal opposition of the British Conservative Party, Britain's center-right party.  (The reestablishment of the Northern Ireland Assembly was part of a negotiated agreement to end thirty years of "Troubles" in Northern Ireland and had the support of almost the entire British political establishment).

Over the past fifteen years, the British Government has devolved further powers to the three bodies (though the Welsh Assembly continues to have fewer powers than either the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Irish Assembly).  According to The Economist, even if Scotland votes to remain part of the UK, the British Government will almost certainly expand the powers of the Scottish Parliament; indeed, the Conservative Party has pledged to introduce legislation expanding those powers if Scotland remains part of the UK and if the Conservatives are returned to power in next May's British general election.  The Economist also notes that, if the Scottish Parliament secures a further expansion of its powers, the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies -- and even local government bodies in large English cities -- will likely seek expanded powers as well.  In short, a far less centralized system of government might emerge in Britain, even if Scotland stays in the UK:

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21603479-their-attempts-persuade-scots-stick-britain-unionist-politicians-are-stretching

Last January, Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan signed the Same Sex Marriage Prohibition Act.  The Act did not change Nigerian marriage law: Nigerian law has always limited marriage to opposite-sex couples.  (Indeed, homosexual conduct is illegal throughout Nigeria; in northern Nigerian states under Shari'a law, the maximum punishment faced by Muslims for homosexual conduct is death).  Instead, the Act made it a crime, punishable by 14 years in prison, to enter into a same-sex marriage or civil union.  The Act also made it a crime, punishable by 10 years in prison, to operate or participate in a gay club, society or organization, or to make a public show of a "same-sex amorous relationship."

In short, the Act (popularly known as the "Jail the Gays" law) made it a crime to start or join a gay rights organization; indeed, starting or joining an organization that advocates repealing the Act would likely violate the Act.

In the past six months, police in northern Nigeria have enforced the Act by arresting, jailing, beating and torturing dozens of men suspected of being gay.  The Act has also made it much more difficult for HIV-positive gay Nigerian men to find treatment, since Nigerian health care providers fear that they will be prosecuted under the Act if they assist gay patients.  This, in turn, threatens to complicate HIV prevention efforts in the country:

http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21603506-homosexuals-hiv-aids-are-struggling-survive-almost-nobody-wants-help

Nigeria's Same Sex Marriage Prohibition Act, and similar laws enacted or under consideration in other sub-Saharan African countries, result in large measure from the missionary and political activities conducted in those countries by several American organizations.  See, e.g., Kayoma, Kapya John. Colonizing African Values: How the U.S. Christian Right is Transforming Sexual Politics in Africa. Somerville: Political Research Associates, 2012. PDF.

The European Parliament is one of the three principal governing bodies of the European Union (EU).  It is directly elected by universal suffrage every five years, though only about 43% of Europe's voters turned out to vote in last month's elections.  The results of those elections have been described as a political "earthquake:" in most European countries, center-left and center-right parties lost ground to far-left, far-right, and ultra-nationalist parties.  When the new European Parliament meets in Strasbourg, France, a third of its members will represent parties that are skeptical of, or even hostile to, the very idea of the EU.

The results of the election held in the United Kingdom for the European Parliament followed this trend: the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), which favors British withdrawal from the EU, won 27.9% of the vote -- a greater share than won by either the center-right Conservative Party or the center-left Labour Party.  UKIP also dramatically increased the number of elected positions it holds in British local government bodies, in local elections conducted the same day.

It's not clear whether UKIP's increased popularity will affect the next British general election (i.e., the next election in which voters will choose the British government), which is scheduled for 7 May 2015.  Some analysts have suggested that UKIP poses a threat to continued Conservative rule (Prime Minister David Cameron is a Conservative, and presides over a coalition government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats), since most of the Britons who voted for UKIP in the UK's European Parliamentary election normally vote Conservative.  In this analysis, if there is a large enough swing from the Conservatives to UKIP in the next general election, the Labour Party could win a majority of the seats in the new Parliament; this would make Labour Party leader Ed Miliband the Prime Minister.

On the other hand, it's easy to read too much into the results of the UK's European Parliamentary election.  Turnout for that election was only 36% (as opposed to a turnout of 65% in the last British general election, held in 2010).  British voters, moreover, tend to be more pragmatic when they vote for their national government than when they vote for the far less powerful European Parliament: a Conservative voter is far less likely to cast a protest vote for UKIP in a British general election than in a European Parliamentary election:

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21603050-can-ukip-keep-coming-answer-could-decide-next-election-peoples-army

Finally, Scotland is holding a referendum this September on declaring independence from the United Kingdom.  A vote in favor of Scottish independence would create an unprecedented political crisis, and would completely reorder the British political landscape.

Before the 1979 Revolution, when Shah Mohammad Reza ruled the country, Iran had a family planning program; it was not particularly successful in reducing Iran's high birth rate.  After the revolution, the new Islamic regime discontinued the family planning program and encouraged Iranians to have large families.  Iran's new leaders argued that contraception is un-Islamic.  Iran, moreover, was at war with Iraq; Iranians were told that having children was their patriotic duty.  The birthrate soared.

In the late 1980s, the Islamic regime became concerned about the country's high birthrate.  Iran's leaders were especially concerned that the rapid growth in the country's population would doom their efforts to provide adequate education, health care and housing, and to make the country self-sufficient in food production.  The regime began a new campaign to persuade Iranians to limit the size of their families, and began to provide free contraceptives and sterilization services to Iranians who wanted them.  Young couples were even required to attend birth control classes before they married.  The program succeeded dramatically: in a dozen years, the birthrate in Iran fell to levels typical of much wealthier countries.

Iran's leaders are now concerned that the country's family planning program has been too successful: the Iranian population may cease growing in another 20 years.  The Islamic regime has reversed many of its anti-population growth policies, and has begun a new campaign urging Iranians to have larger families.  But Iranians, confronted by soaring prices and stagnant economic growth, and pessimistic about the country's political future, are extremely reluctant to have more children:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/08/world/middleeast/iran-tehran-offers-incentives-to-middle-class-families-to-have-more-children-as-population-declines.html?ref=world&_r=0