Internet access is 'a fundamental right'

Image via Wikipedia

Almost four in five people around the world believe that access to the internet is a fundamental right, a poll for the BBC World Service suggests.

The survey - of more than 27,000 adults across 26 countries - found strong support for net access on both sides of the digital divide.

Countries such as Finland and Estonia have already ruled that access is a human right for their citizens.

International bodies such as the UN are also pushing for universal net access.

INTERNET POLL The findings in detail [477 KB] Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader Download the reader here

"The right to communicate cannot be ignored," Dr Hamadoun Toure, secretary-general of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), told BBC News.

"The internet is the most powerful potential source of enlightenment ever created."

He said that governments must "regard the internet as basic infrastructure - just like roads, waste and water".

"We have entered the knowledge society and everyone must have access to participate."

The survey, conducted by GlobeScan for the BBC, also revealed divisions on the question of government oversight of some aspects of the net.

Web users questioned in South Korea and Nigeria felt strongly that governments should never be involved in regulation of the internet. However, a majority of those in China and the many European countries disagreed.

In the UK, for example, 55% believed that there was a case for some government regulation of the internet.

Rural retreat

The finding comes as the UK government tries to push through its controversial Digital Economy Bill.

As well as promising to deliver universal broadband in the UK by 2012, the bill could also see a so-called "three strikes rule" become law.

This rule would give regulators new powers to disconnect or slow down the net connections of persistent illegal file-sharers. Other countries, such as France, are also considering similar laws.

A season of reports from 8-19 March 2010 exploring the extraordinary power of the internet, including: Digital giants - top thinkers in the business on the future of the web Mapping the internet - a visual representation of the spread of the web over the last 20 years Global Voices - the BBC links up with an online community of bloggers around the world BBC SuperPower season Send us your comments

Recently, the EU adopted an internet freedom provision, stating that any measures taken by member states that may affect citizen's access to or use of the internet "must respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens".

In particular, it states that EU citizens are entitled to a "fair and impartial procedure" before any measures can be taken to limit their net access.

The EU is also committed to providing universal access to broadband. However, like many areas around the world the region is grappling with how to deliver high-speed net access to rural areas where the market is reluctant to go.

Analysts say that is a problem many countries will increasingly have to deal with as citizens demand access to the net.

The BBC survey found that 87% of internet users felt internet access should be the "fundamental right of all people".

More than 70% of non-users felt that they should have access to the net.

Overall, almost 79% of those questioned said they either strongly agreed or somewhat agreed with the description of the internet as a fundamental right - whether they currently had access or not.

Free speech

Countries such as Mexico, Brazil and Turkey most strongly support the idea of net access as a right, the survey found.

More than 90% of those surveyed in Turkey, for example, stated that internet access is a fundamental right - more than those in any other European Country.

Facebook has become a lightning rod for causes of all types

South Korea - the most wired country on Earth - had the greatest majority of people (96%) who believed that net access was a fundamental right. Nearly all of the country's citizens already enjoy high-speed net access.

The survey also revealed that the internet is rapidly becoming a vital part of many people's lives in a diverse range of nations.

In Japan, Mexico and Russia around three-quarters of respondents said they could not cope without it.

Most of those questioned also said that they believed the web had a positive impact, with nearly four in five saying it had brought them greater freedom.

However, many web users also expressed concerns. The dangers of fraud, the ease of access to violent and explicit content and worries over privacy were the most concerning aspects for those questioned.

A majority of users in Japan, South Korea and Germany felt that they could not express their opinions safely online, although in Nigeria, India and Ghana there was much more confidence about speaking out.

Muslims Widely Seen As Facing Discrimination - Pew Research Center

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1336/perceptions-of-islam-religious-similarities-differences

Plus --

Note - For some (not all) images or tables which don't quite fit the blog template properly,

you get a full view by right-clicking on them and open in a new tab. For those which don't

open up fully this way, go to the original site by hitting the title of the posting.

_All_ Zemanta add-on images (in other postings) can also be handled the right-click,

open-in-new-tab way

and usually yield additional info about the images' meanings. - John

Here is the URL for the fuller summary of the Pew survey just below --

http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=437

Sept. 9, 2009

Overview
Views of Religious Similarities and Differences
Views of Islam and Muslims
About the Survey

PDF version (24 pgs.)
Topline questionnaire (9 pgs.)

Religious Similarities and Differences

When asked how much various religions resemble their own, the public cites Protestantism and Catholicism as the faiths most like theirs. Overall, more than four-in-ten non-Protestants in the survey (44%) say that the Protestant religion and their own faith are similar (including 12% saying they are very similar), slightly more than say Protestantism and their own faith are somewhat or very different (38%). Of non-Catholics, 43% see mostly similarities between Catholicism and their own faith, while roughly half (49%) see mostly differences. More than one-third of non-Jews say Judaism is somewhat or very similar to their own faith (35%), while 47% say it is somewhat or very different.

By comparison, the public is even more likely to see differences rather than similarities between their own religion and Mormonism, Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism. In fact, majorities say that each of these faiths is different from their own religion, with sizeable numbers saying that these religions are very different from their own (37% say this about Mormonism, 40% about Hinduism, 44% about Buddhism and 45% about Islam).

Protestants see Catholicism as the religion most like their own, followed by Judaism. Among Protestants in the survey, white evangelicals (49%) and white mainline Protestants (50%) are somewhat more likely than black Protestants (39%) to see their religion as similar to Catholicism. But all three groups have roughly the same impression of Judaism's similarity with their own faith (39% similar among white evangelicals, 34% among both white mainline Protestants and black Protestants). Fewer Protestants see Mormonism (22%), Islam (15%), Hinduism (9%) or Buddhism (7%) as similar to their own faith.

Catholics, especially white, non-Hispanic Catholics, name Protestantism as the faith that is most similar to Catholicism. Interestingly, Catholics see greater similarities between Catholicism and Protestantism than do Protestants. After Protestantism, Catholics see Judaism as most like their faith. Indeed, Catholics are slightly more likely than Protestants to say their faith is similar to Judaism. Less than a quarter of Catholics (22%) see Mormonism as similar to their religion, 19% see Islam as similar, 16% see Buddhism as similar, and 12% see Hinduism as similar.

Compared with other groups, fewer of the religiously unaffiliated see their own beliefs as similar to Catholicism, Protestantism and Judaism. However, the religiously unaffiliated are more likely than any other group in the survey to see their own beliefs as similar to Buddhism (26%).

Analysis of the survey reveals that perceptions of similarity with religious groups are linked with more favorable views of these groups. For instance, non-Catholics who see mostly similarities between their own faith and Catholicism are much more likely than those who see mostly differences to view Catholicism favorably (76% vs. 54%). And two-thirds of those who see mostly similarities between their own faith and Islam have a favorable view of Muslims (65%), compared with fewer than half of those who see mostly differences with Islam (37%).

Discrimination and Religious Minorities

Americans are more likely to say there is a lot of discrimination against Muslims than against any other religious group asked about in the survey. Most people say there is not a lot of discrimination against Jews, atheists, Mormons and evangelical Christians in the U.S., while nearly six-in-ten (58%) say there is a lot of discrimination against Muslims.

The only group that Americans perceive as subject to more discrimination than Muslims is homosexuals; nearly two-thirds of adults (64%) say gays and lesbians face a lot of discrimination. About half say blacks (49%) and Hispanics (52%) suffer from a lot of discrimination, and more than a third (37%) say there is a lot of discrimination against women in the U.S. today.

Young people (ages 18-29) are especially likely to say there is a lot of discrimination against Muslims, with nearly three-quarters (73%) expressing this view. Among those older than age 65, by contrast, only 45% say that Muslims face a lot of discrimination.

Across the political spectrum, most people agree that there is a lot of discrimination against Muslims. But this perception is most common among liberal Democrats, with eight-in-ten saying there is a lot of discrimination against Muslims. This is significantly higher than among all other partisan and ideological groups.

There are only minor differences of opinion between members of the major religious traditions on this question. Black Protestants are most likely to say there is a lot of discrimination against Muslims (65%), but majorities of all religious groups say Muslims face a lot of discrimination.

Few Feel Like Part of a Religious Minority

When asked about their own religious status, one-in-five Americans (19%) say they think of themselves as belonging to a minority because of their religious beliefs while 78% do not, numbers that are unchanged since early 2001. Though white evangelicals constitute the single largest religious group in the country, roughly a quarter (24%) identify themselves as part of a religious minority, much more than the 11% of white mainline Protestants and 13% of Catholics who do so. In this regard, evangelicals resemble black Protestants, among whom 22% regard themselves as part of a religious minority. Among the religiously unaffiliated, 18% see themselves as part of a religious minority, a figure significantly higher than among mainline Protestants or white Catholics.

Frequent attendance at religious services is associated with a higher tendency to feel like part of a religious minority. Overall, one-quarter of those who attend religious services at least once a week say they are a minority because of their beliefs, compared with 16% of those who attend less often. And among white evangelicals, nearly three-in-ten regular churchgoers (29%) see themselves as part of a religious minority. Likewise, 23% of those who say religion is very important in their lives think of themselves as minorities, compared with 14% of those who say religion is less important in their lives.

Politically, those in the middle of the ideological spectrum are less likely to consider themselves part of a religious minority. Just 13% of moderates identify as religious minorities, compared with 22% of conservatives and 21% of liberals.

Overview
Views of Religious Similarities and Differences
Views of Islam and Muslims
About the Survey

PDF version (24 pgs.)
Topline questionnaire (9 pgs.)

---

More Resources

---

Pew Forum Dec. 18, 2008 Survey: Many Americans Say Other Faiths Can Lead to Eternal Life June 23, 2008 U.S. Religious Landscape Survey May 22, 2007 Survey: Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream

News Sept. 2, 2009 Students must learn about other religions: judge National Post Aug. 16, 2009 Muslims divided on other faiths The News & Observer Aug. 15, 2009 We Are All Hindus Now Newsweek

Pew Research Center May 21, 2009 Social and Political Attitudes About Race Pew Research Center for the People & the Press Jan. 7, 2009 Gains Seen On Minority Discrimination - But Little Else Pew Research Center for the People & the Press Jun 20, 2008 Data and Insights on Minority Populations Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project

Related articles by Zemanta

• Fewer Americans see Islam as violent, poll finds (network.nationalpost.com)
• Students must learn about other religions: judge (nationalpost.com)
• Religion is Not about Tolerance (endhereditaryreligion.com)
• Otty Sanchez: Mother Says Devil Made Her Kill Son (huffingtonpost.com)
• Jewish aid to Pakistan breaks down barriers (thejc.com)

Forget Politics and Just Make New Ministers Professional, Survey Says - The Jakarta Globe

Image via Wikipedia

It is often said that politics and religion are subjects to avoid at all costs. And it seems that most believe the two should also be avoided in government, according to the results of a poll by the Indonesian Survey Institute released on Thursday.

Upon being asked which were the most important criteria for selecting ministers in President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s new government, respondents overwhelmingly avoided politicians and religious figures.

In the poll of 1,270 people, 78.3 percent of respondents said professional qualifications were the most important factor for selecting ministers, rather than their political, religious, ethnic or regional affiliations.

Only 22.7 percent of respondents said they believed ministers should be selected based
on their political leanings, according to Dodi Ambardi, the director of the institute, also known as the LSI. The survey was conducted from July 18 to 28 among respondents selected using multistage random sampling techniques. The margin of error was 2.8 percentage points.

Nearly 74 percent of respondents who live in provincial villages and 85.2 percent of residents in urban areas and cities wanted professionals to sit in the next cabinet. Only 11.5 percent of respondents said it was acceptable if ministers came from certain political parties or religious groups.

“This has proven that the people of Indonesia expect Yudhoyono to choose qualified professionals in forming his cabinet,” Dodi said.

He said that even respondents from Java, home to about half of the country’s population, viewed professional qualifications as more important than adhering to the traditional model, which has seen proportional numbers of Javanese and non-Javanese ministers appointed.

J Kristiadi, a political analyst from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said candidates should have expertise in the government ministry they were nominated for, strong ethics and social responsibility.

He said that even if cabinet seats had to be divided among political parties that were part of Yudhoyono’s coalition, the candidates should still have professional skills in their nominated field.

“We demand Yudhoyono, who won more than 60 percent of the vote in the election, use his [mandate] to choose the right people,” Kristiadi said.

Ichsan Mojo, an economist from the Institute for the Development of Economics and Finance, said it would be virtually impossible for the president to choose a cabinet without having representatives from political parties.

However, he said he hoped that two key ministerial posts, industry and agriculture, would be given to qualified, apolitical professionals.

“Those posts are in the real sectors, so if it’s not a professional who holds the position, we can’t expect much from them in terms of handling problems like economic growth, poverty and unemployment,” he said.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Indonesia Elections: A Win For Democracy (time.com)
• Indonesia president wins second term (cnn.com)
• Police foil plot to kill Indonesian president after raid on top terror suspect (telegraph.co.uk)

Villar tops Pulse Asia poll in Philippines

Image by gmaresign via Flickr

Estrada in virtual tie,despite 2001 incident

By Rommel C. Lontayao, Reporter

If the presidential elections scheduled in May 2010 were held today, it would be a practically neck-and-neck race between Sen. Manuel Villar Jr. and former President Joseph Estrada, an opinion poll reported Tuesday.

In the latest Pulse Asia survey, one in four voters (25 percent) favored Villar as the country’s next head of state, and one in five voters (20 percent) chose Estrada as the country’s president despite his 2001 overthrow and conviction for corruption.

The nationwide survey of 1,800 adults was conducted between July 28 and August 10.

Only 6 percent of the respondents felt that the next president should not be corrupt, Pulse Asia said.

Villar also topped a survey made by Social Weather Stations in July when he received a 33-percent preference rating.

In the Pulse Asia survey, he and Estrada were followed by Vice President Noli de Castro (16 percent), Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero (12 percent) and Manuel “Mar” Roxas 2nd (11 percent).

“The other individuals included in the presidential probe obtained voter preferences of six percent or less,” Pulse Asia said.

It noted that “with less than nine months to go before the next elections, virtually every Filipino already has a preferred presidential candidate.”

Only significant change

Pulse Asia said that the only significant change in overall presidential voter preferences between May and August 2009 was recorded by Villar, with an increase of 11 percentage points in his favor.

Estrada also improved in his overall voter preference with 4 percentage points more.

Escudero experienced a slight decline in the level of public support for his presidential bid, with his rating down by 5 points.

Pulse Asia said that in the National Capital Region (Metro Manila), Villar was the most favored presidential candidate with 24 percent, followed by Escudero (22 percent) and Estrada (19 percent).

In the balance Luzon, Villar had 22 percent, Estrada (19 percent), de Castro (16 percent) and Escudero (15 percent). The balance of Luzon refers to all the regions on the main island except Metro Manila.

In the Visayas, Villar also recorded the highest voter preference with 30 percent, with de Castro behind him with 22 percent.

In Mindanao, he and Estrada and Villar tied, each with 26 percent.

Among the respondents belonging to the A, B and C socioeconomic classes, Escudero got 30 percent and Villar, 28 percent.

Cass D respondents also supported Villar (25 percent) and Estrada (19 percent).

In the Class E level, Villar and Estrada also tied (each with 23 percent), followed by de Castro (22 percent).

Presidential qualities

The Pulse Asia survey found that 25 percent of Filipinos vote based on the candidate’s accomplishments.

Also, about one in five Filipinos (20 percent) said that their candidate must be pro-poor.

Other qualities cited were the candidate’s being helpful to others (12 percent), especially overseas Filipino workers (8 percent); he or she not being corrupt (6 percent); proven capability in governance (four percent); goodness (4 percent); being principled (3 percent); and intelligence (3 percent).

The survey had a plus or minus 2 percent error margin at the national level, plus or minus 6 percent for Metro Manila, plus or minus 4 percent for the balance of Luzon, and plus or minus 5 percent for each of Visayas and Mindanao.

‘Vote of confidence’

Villar, in a statement, said that the Pulse Asia survey results reflected “the people’s vote of confidence” in him.

Despite the results, he added, he still expected his political rivals to continue with their “attacks” against him.

“But I am certain that the people are discerning and are not easily swayed by obvious demolition jobs against me,” Villar said.

He has been spending heavily on television advertising ahead of the November deadline for filing candidacies.

Fellow senators have accused Villar of using his influence to ensure road projects pass through his property projects.

Estrada, a former movie star, was convicted of corruption in 2007, six years after he was impeached and toppled in a bloodless coup.

The Philippine Constitution sets a single, six-year term for presidents but Estrada’s backers say that he is excluded from this since he did not finish his term, which was completed by the incumbent at present, Gloria Arroyo.

Estrada, who has announced he is willing to run for president again, was pardoned by President Arroyo after serving less than a month of a lifetime prison sentence.

In the Pulse Asia opinion poll, the respondents said that they favored Estrada because of his “pro-poor orientation.”

The former president, according to opposition leader and former Sen. Ernesto Maceda, would likely announce in the last week of September whether he would seek the presidency again by running in the 2010 elections.

Maceda, the spokesman for the United Opposition (UNO), in a statement also on Tuesday said that Estrada has met with Roxas and is in constant meetings with Sen. Loren Legarda and Makati City Mayor Jejomar Binay, as well as Villar, in his bid to unify the political opposition.

Despite the apparent consultation, Estrada’s wish for the opposition to field a single standard-bearer in 2010, the UNO spokesman said, looked “dim.”

Jamby won’t give way

If the former president ran, he possibly would not be able to convince Sen. Jamby Madrigal to slide down to Vice President or senator in next year’s polls

“Only my conscience can tell me to slide down and no one else,” Madrigal said also on Tuesday.

She reiterated her determination to run for president in 2010 but remained open to talks with Estrada, who had claimed that he wanted to unite the opposition behind a single opposition standard-bearer.

Among the opposition wannabes, it was only Madrigal whom Estrada had not met with.

Madrigal, however, said that Estrada might be calling her one of these days, adding that she did not expect Estrada to talk with her about unifying the opposition.

She disclosed that the last time that she and Estrada talked was at the burial of former President Corazon Aquino.

Madrigal said that she has not chosen her running mate.
-- With Reports From Efren L. Danao And AFP

Americans Return to Tougher Immigration Stance

by Lymari Morales

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- With some U.S. lawmakers and immigration rights activists stepping up calls for the Obama administration to pursue immigration reform, Gallup finds Americans less favorable toward immigration than they were a year ago. Half (50%) say immigration should be decreased, up from 39% last year. A third (32%) say immigration levels should be kept the same, down from 39%, and 14% say they should be increased, down from 18%.

The most recent results, from a Gallup survey conducted July 10-12, 2009, mark a return to the attitudes that prevailed in the first few years after 9/11; attitudes softened from 2006 to last year. The shift toward a tougher stance this time around may reflect the country's economic situation, as Americans tend to become less pro-immigration during difficult economic times.

A similar shift is evident when Americans are asked more broadly whether immigration is a good thing or a bad thing for the country. Currently, 58% say it is a good thing -- the lowest percentage saying so since 2003. The historical low for this measure, 52%, came in 2002, after the 9/11 attacks.

The latest Gallup findings preceded a letter that was circulated Monday by seven Illinois congressmen, aimed at urging the Obama administration to take up immigration reform this year. Immigrant activist groups have been eager for reform since a Bush administration bill was defeated in the Senate in 2007.

While these Gallup data do not specifically ask about proposals that might be included in comprehensive immigration reform, they do suggest that Americans of all political persuasions are taking a tougher stance toward immigration than they did a year ago. Republicans are more likely than Democrats to want immigration decreased, as has typically been the case, but more than 4 in 10 independents and Democrats share this view.

The 61% of Republicans who now say they would like to see immigration decreased is up from 46% in 2008. At the same time, the 46% of Democrats and 44% of independents who would like to see immigration decreased represent shifts in the same direction, up from the 39% and 37%, respectively, who said the same in 2008.

There are slight variations in views on immigration across the four major regions of the country. Americans in the South (54%) are the most likely to want immigration decreased, while those in the West (44%) are relatively less likely to say the same. Here again, each group has shifted toward a more anti-immigration stance.

Bottom Line

Americans have returned to a tougher stance on immigration than has been evident for the past few years. Republicans, in particular, have shifted most strongly toward decreasing immigration, with Democrats and independents moving in the same direction, but to a lesser degree. Thus, as lawmakers consider when and how to pursue immigration reform, they should do so mindful that Americans of all political persuasions are generally more resistant to immigration in broad measure than they were a year ago.

Author's note: While the views of Hispanics are important to debate and discussion about immigration, the sample size of Hispanics in the poll is not large enough to allow for meaningful interpretation.

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,018 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted July 10-12, 2009. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

Religion, Secularism Working in Tandem in Bangladesh

by Nicole Naurath

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Despite the return to power of Bangladesh's Awami League -- the political party that won in December 2008 on a platform of secularism, reform, and a suppression of radical Islamist groups -- religiosity is by no means waning in the world's seventh most populous country. A Gallup Poll of Bangladesh conducted this year finds practically all Bangladeshis saying that religion is an important part of their daily lives (100%) -- relatively unchanged from the three previous Gallup Polls of Bangladesh.

Religion has played a prominent role in Bangladesh's political history. After gaining independence from Pakistan in 1971, the Awami League founded Bangladesh under the guiding principle of secularism. However, power shifts between the Muslim Bangladesh Nationalist Party and the military throughout the 1980s and 1990s resulted in Islam being added to the constitution and declared the official state religion. Though still officially on the books today, the current government defines the country as "secular with a majority Muslim population," and not officially as a Muslim state.

It seems as though the general population is further defining the roles of politics and religion in their country by drawing a distinct line between the two. Support for the secular Awami League, according to Time magazine, is as high as it was when they won an overwhelming victory in the pivotal 1970 election that led to the war of independence from Pakistan. At the same time, religiosity remains strong in this country of nearly 90% Muslims: More people claim to have attended a religious service in 2009 than in years past, and confidence in religious organizations has increased over the years.

Simultaneous strong support of the secular Awami League and the near unanimous importance of religion in daily life suggests that while religion is vital in Bangladeshis' daily lives, they are appear comfortable with its lack of influence in government.

Confidence in the current government is strong: 87% of Bangladeshis approve of the job performance of the overall leadership of the country and 88% approve specifically of the job performance of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. If Hasina and the Awami League can fulfill campaign promises and maintain order in what has often been a tumultuous state, there is no reason to believe that support for the ruling party will wane in the near term.

For complete data sets or custom research from the more than 150 countries Gallup continually surveys, please contact worldpollpartners@gallup.com or call 202.715.3030.

Survey Methods

Results are based on face-to-face interviews with at least 1,000 adults, aged 15 and older, conducted in May 2006, May 2007, June 2008, and May 2009 in Bangladesh. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error ranged from a low of ±3.2 percentage points in May 2006 to a high of ±3.42 percentage points in May 2009. The margin of error reflects the influence of data weighting. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

Support Rate for LDP Falls to 20%

Public support for the ruling Liberal Democratic Party has fallen to 20 percent, its lowest level since April 2001 when the current method of gauging opinion started.

A weekend telephone poll of eligible voters chosen at random by The Asahi Shimbun produced 1,064 valid answers.

The survey was conducted ahead of Tuesday's dissolution of the Lower House for a snap election to be held Aug. 30.

The party had 24 percent support in the previous survey conducted July 4 and 5.

The latest poll found that support for the main opposition Minshuto (Democratic Party of Japan), which is widely expected to seize power in next month's election, rose to 31 percent from 25 percent.

Asked "Which party would you vote for in proportional representation constituencies if the Lower House election was held now," 42 percent cited Minshuto against 19 percent for the LDP.

The support rate for the Cabinet of Prime Minister Taro Aso stood at 17 percent, down from 20 percent.

The support rate for the LDP exceeded 40 percent for a while after the last Lower House election held in September 2005.

It then started to plummet, reaching what was then a historic low of 21 percent immediately after the July 2007 Upper House election.

The ruling party, which was then headed by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, suffered a major setback in that election.

Afterward, however, the support rate rose again. When the Aso Cabinet came into being in September 2008, it stood at 34 percent.

In July 1998, support for the LDP, which was formed in 1955, marked an all-time low of 19 percent in a poll using a different method of gauging public opinion. That poll was taken during the dying days of the Cabinet then headed by Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto.

The 31-percent support rate for Minshuto in the latest survey is the third-highest following 34 percent recorded in July 2007 and 32 percent a month later.

The latest survey asked respondents whether the LDP's internal bickering over calls to hold a party presidential election ahead of the Lower House ballot had changed their impression of the party. Fifty percent replied that their impression had worsened, while 43 percent said it had not changed.

Even among LDP supporters, 43 percent said their impression had worsened.

Asked whether they wanted an administration centered around the LDP to continue or one led by Minshuto, 49 percent cited the latter option. Only 22 percent favored an LDP-led administration. In the July 4-5 survey, the percentages were 47 percent and 24 percent, respectively.(IHT/Asahi: July 21,2009)

Obama's Domestic Agenda Teeters

By Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie
Sunday, July 19, 2009

Barely six months into his presidency, Barack Obama seems to be driving south into that political speed trap known as Carter Country: a sad-sack landscape in which every major initiative meets not just with failure but with scorn from political allies and foes alike. According to a July 13 CBS News poll, the once-unassailable president's approval rating now stands at 57 percent, down 11 points from April. Half of Americans think the recession will last an additional two years or more, 52 percent think Obama is trying to "accomplish too much," and 57 percent think the country is on the "wrong track."

From a lousy cap-and-trade bill awaiting death in the Senate to a health-care reform agenda already weak in the knees to the failure of the stimulus to deliver promised jobs and economic activity, what once looked like a hope-tastic juggernaut is showing all the horsepower of a Chevy Cobalt. "Give it to me!" the president egged on a Michigan audience last week, pledging to "solve problems" and not "gripe" about the economic hand he was dealt.

Despite such bravura, Obama must be furtively reviewing the history of recent Democratic administrations for some kind of road map out of his post-100-days ditch.

So far, he seems to be skipping the chapter on Bill Clinton and his generally free-market economic policies and instead flipping back to the themes and comportment of Jimmy Carter. Like the 39th president, Obama has inherited an awful economy, dizzying budget deficits and a geopolitical situation as promising as Kim Jong Il's health. Like Carter, Obama is smart, moralistic and enamored of alternative energy schemes that were nonstarters back when America's best-known peanut farmer was installing solar panels at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Like Carter, Obama faces as much effective opposition from his own party's left wing as he does from an ardent but diminished GOP.

And perhaps most important, as with Carter, his specific policies are genuinely unpopular. The auto bailout -- which, incidentally, is illegal, springing as it has from a fund specifically earmarked for financial institutions -- has been reviled from the get-go, with opposition consistently polling north of 60 percent. Majorities have said no to bank bailouts and to cap and trade if it would make electricity significantly more expensive.

According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, more than 80 percent are concerned that health-care reform will increase costs or diminish the quality of care. Even as two House committees passed a reform bill last week, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office warned that the proposal "significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs" and dramatically raises the cost "curve." This sort of voter and expert feedback can't be comforting to the president.

As writers who inveighed against last year's GOP candidate and called George W. Bush's presidency a "disaster," we're equal-opportunity critics. As taxpayers with children and hence some small, almost certainly unrecoverable stake in this country's future (not to mention that of General Motors, Chrysler and AIG), we write with skin in the game and the fear that our current leader will indeed start busting out the 1970s cardigans.

Of course, it's too early to write Obama off. Just a few years ago, Republicans and Democrats alike were puzzling over the "permanent" GOP majority. And less than two years ago, the smart set was buying advance tickets for Rudy vs. Hillary. Yet there's no question that Obama's massively ambitious domestic agenda is at a fork in the road: One route leads to Plains, Ga., and early retirement, the other to Hope, Ark., a second term and the revitalization of the American economy.

The key to understanding Obama's predicament is to realize that while he ran convincingly as a repudiation of Bush, he is in fact doubling down on his predecessor's big-government policies and perpetual crisis-mongering. From the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists to gays in the military to bailing out industries large and small, Obama has been little more than the keeper of the Bush flame. Indeed, it took the two of them to create the disaster that is the 2009 budget, racking up a deficit that has already crossed the historic $1 trillion mark with almost three months left in the fiscal year.

Beyond pushing the "emergency" $787 billion stimulus package (even while acknowledging that the vast majority of funds would be released in 2010 and beyond), Obama signed a $410 billion omnibus spending bill and a $106 billion supplemental spending bill to cover "emergency" expenses in Iraq and Afghanistan (and, improbably, a "cash for clunkers" program). Despite pledges to achieve a "net spending cut" by targeting earmarks and wasteful spending, Obama rubber-stamped more than 9,000 earmarks and asked government agencies to trim a paltry $100 million in spending this year, 0.003 percent of the federal budget.

In the same way that Bush claimed to be cutting government even while increasing real spending by more than 70 percent, Obama seems to believe that saying one thing, while doing another, somehow makes it so. His first budget was titled "A New Era of Fiscal Responsibility," even as his own projections showed a decade's worth of historically high deficits. He vowed no new taxes on 95 percent of Americans, then jacked up cigarette taxes and indicated a willingness to consider new health-care taxes as part of his reform package. He said he didn't want to take over General Motors on the day that he took over General Motors.

Such is the extent of Obama's magical realism that he can promise to post all bills on the Internet five days before signing them, serially break that promise and then, when announcing that he wouldn't even try anymore, have a spokesman present the move as yet another example of "providing the American people more transparency in government."

What the new president has not quite grasped is that the American people understand both irony and cognitive dissonance. Instead, Obama has mistaken his personal popularity for a national predilection toward emergency-driven central planning. He doesn't get that Americans prefer the slower process of building political consensus based on reality, and at least a semblance of rational deliberation rather than one sky-is-falling legislative session after another.

On this last point, Obama is a perfect extension of Bush's worst trait as president. In the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush administration pushed through the Patriot Act, a massive, transformative piece of legislation that plainly went unread even as Congress overwhelmingly voted aye. Bush whipped up an atmosphere of crisis every time he sensed a restive Congress or a dissatisfied electorate. And at the end of his tenure, he rammed through the TARP bailout at warp speed, arguing that the United States yet again faced catastrophe at the hands of an existential threat.

But contrary to the dreams of dystopians and paranoiacs everywhere, there simply is no outside threat to the American way of life. No country can challenge us militarily; no economic system stands to dislodge capitalism; no terrorist group can do anything more than land the occasional (if horrendous) blow. And as history has shown, the U.S. economy is resilient enough to overcome the worst-laid plans from the White House.

Bush learned the hard way that running government as a perpetual crisis machine leads to bad policy and public fatigue. Obama's insistence on taking advantage of a crisis to push through every item on the progressive checklist right now is threatening to complete that cycle within his first year.

What are his options? First, stop doing harm. Throwing money all over the economy (and especially to sectors that match up with Democratic interests) is the shortest path to what Margaret Thatcher described as the inherent flaw in socialism: Eventually you run out of other people's money.

No matter how many fantastical multipliers Obama ascribes to government spending, with each day comes refutation of the administration's promises on jobs and economic growth. Even his chief source on the topic, economic adviser Christina Romer, now grants that calculating jobs "created or saved" by Team Obama is simply impossible.

Which leads to the second point: Stop it with the magical realism already.

Save terms such as "fiscal responsibility" for policies that at least minimally resemble that notion. Don't pretend that a budget that doubles the national debt in five years and triples it in 10 is the work of politicians tackling "the difficult choices." Americans have a pretty good (if slow-to-activate) B.S. detector, and the more you mislead them now, the worse they'll punish you later. Toward that end, producing real transparency instead of broken promises is the first step toward building credibility.

That the administration is now spending millions of dollars to revamp its useless stimulus-tracking site Recovery.gov is one more indication that, post-Bush, the White House still thinks of citizens as marks to be rolled.

Finally, it's time to connect the poster boy for hope to the original Man From Hope. After Bill Clinton bit off more domestic policy than even he could chew, leading to a Republican rout in the midterm elections of 1994, the 42nd president refocused his political intelligence on keeping his ambitions and, as a result, the size of government growth, limited. Though there is much to complain about in his record, the broad prosperity and mostly sound economic policy under his watch aren't included.

This shouldn't be a difficult task for Obama. As a political animal, he has always resembled Clinton more than Carter. This might help him avoid the Carteresque pileup he's driving into. Far more important, it just might help the rest of us.

Nick Gillespie is the editor of Reason.com and Reason.tv. Matt Welch is editor of Reason magazine. They will discuss this article online at 11 a.m. on Monday at www.washingtonpost.com/liveonline.

Cell Phones Outpace Internet Access in Middle East

by Steve Crabtree

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Recent Gallup Polls in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) highlight the prevalence of wireless and Web-based communication among populations in that region.

Cellular phones are fairly ubiquitous in the MENA region; even in its most poverty-stricken areas such as Yemen and the Palestinian Territories, majorities of residents say they have cell phones. Home Internet access, on the other hand, is prevalent only among citizens of the oil-rich Persian Gulf states (it should be noted that non-Arab expatriates in these countries were not included in the survey) and Israel. However, in many countries, public Internet cafes can often be found in major cities.

Urban Internet cafes also reflect that in many countries, new information technologies are so far more accessible to city dwellers than to rural residents, who also tend to be less affluent on average. Three-fourths of urban Iranians, for example, said they have a cellular phone vs. two-thirds (66%) of those living in small towns and less than half (45%) of those living in rural areas or on farms. Similarly, almost half (48%) of Iranians in urban areas said they had home Internet access vs. 36% of those living in small towns and just 9% of rural residents. Sizable urban/rural divides are seen in several other MENA countries with substantial rural populations.

Bottom Line

New information technologies are creating or reshaping networks of social, economic, and political actors in most of the world, including the MENA region. Previously disconnected communities and interest groups now have more tools to work together in support of common interests.

However, the finding that wireless and Web technologies are often disproportionately accessible to urban populations sounds a cautionary note; in countries characterized by extreme income inequality, lack of access has the potential to further isolate those in poor, rural communities. It will be important to monitor the spread of such technologies, particularly in politically volatile regions and countries, to better understand the role they play in facilitating -- or undermining -- change.

Survey Methods

Results are based on face-to-face interviews with approximately 1,000 adults, aged 15 and older, in each country. Iranian data were collected in May 2008 and Israeli data in October 2008. Surveys in Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, Qatar, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen were conducted February-April, 2009. Non-Arabs were excluded from the sample in Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates; samples in these countries are nationally representative of Arab adults. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error ranged from a low of ±3.3 percentage points in Tunisia to a high of ±3.8 percentage points in Yemen. The margin of error reflects the influence of data weighting. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

Americans’ Worry About Terrorism Nears 5-Year Low

by Lymari Morales

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano this week said the issue of terrorism "is always with us" and that "we have to be ever vigilant." Americans, however, are less worried about terrorism than at any point since August 2004 -- with 36% saying they are very or somewhat worried that they or a family member will become a victim.

Americans' collective level of worry about terrorism measured in the USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted June 8-9, is the lowest recorded since August 2004 (34%) and down sharply from the all-time high of 59% recorded in October 2001, just after the Sept. 11 attacks. The latest poll finds 30% who say they are not too worried about being a victim of terrorism and 34% who say they are not at all worried.

In a separate Gallup Poll, conducted June 14-17, only 1% mentioned terrorism as the most important problem facing the United States, consistent with Americans' perceptions of this issue over the past year, and tied for the lowest percentage giving this answer since 9/11. Mentions have been in the single-digit range since November 2006, and are down from a peak of 46% in October 2001.

Currently, 73% of Americans say they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in the U.S. government to protect its citizens from future acts of terrorism -- unchanged from 2006, but down from 81% in 2004.

While most Americans are not personally worried that they or a family member will become a victim of terrorism, they do see a continued need for the post-Sept. 11 security measures aimed at preventing terrorist attacks. Most (83%) think those measures are still needed, while 14% think they could be dropped.

Bottom Line

Americans are for the most part not personally worried that they or a family member will become a victim of terrorism, and they have a fairly high level of confidence in the U.S. government to protect them. While most agree that security measures implemented after 9/11 are still necessary, calls for continued vigilance like the one articulated by Napolitano this week are likely a good tactic to keep Americans ever aware of the ongoing threat.

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with 995 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted June 8-9, 2009. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

Honduran Crisis Offers Venezuala's Chavez Some Domestic, International Openings

By Juan Forero
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, July 2, 2009

CARACAS, Venezuela, July 1 -- An ally was in trouble, toppled in a military coup. And the television cameras were rolling.

The ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya could not have been better scripted for another Latin American leader who has taken center stage: Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. The populist firebrand has been Zelaya's most forceful advocate and could win international accolades if the Honduran eventually succeeds in regaining power.

Ever since Zelaya was hustled into exile Sunday by the military, Chávez has been a whirlwind of activity. Using Venezuela's oil-fueled influence to organize summits at which he has been the central speaker, he is spreading his vision of Latin America and calling for Hondurans to rise up against those who deposed Zelaya.

"I just cannot stay here with my arms crossed," Chávez declared in one of many speeches calling for the new Honduran government to step aside.

Luis Vicente León, a pollster and political analyst in Caracas, said the crisis is "perfect" for Chávez "because he's not defending a tyrant; he's defending an elected president who was overthrown. It's showtime for the showman."

The extent of Chávez's influence on the Honduran crisis is unclear, many analysts said. But with Venezuelan state media publicizing his every pronouncement, some analysts say he is using the crisis to shift his countrymen's attention from domestic problems he has struggled with at a time when his popularity has been slipping.

Indeed, Zelaya, 56, is on the surface an unlikely benefactor of Venezuela's support. He is a rancher and logger from Honduras's upper classes who came late to Chávez's alliance of left-leaning nations, the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, which includes Nicaragua, Bolivia, Cuba and others.

But Chávez has characterized Zelaya as a leftist fighting for the poor and said those who overthrew him hail from an oligarchy intent on maintaining the status quo. Chávez has even taken to mockingly calling Roberto Micheletti, the lawmaker who replaced Zelaya as president, a "gorilla."

"I swear as president: We are going to make your life impossible," Chávez said in one speech, directing his ire at Micheletti.

Chávez has also said that the CIA could have had a hand in Zelaya's ouster. On Monday, Chávez gave a long speech to fellow Latin American leaders, recounting U.S. interference in the region and his survival of a brief coup in 2002. The speech was televised by government stations here and CNN's Spanish-language service.

Milos Alcalay, who was Venezuela's ambassador to the United Nations until breaking with Chávez in 2004, said the Venezuelan president has quickly taken advantage of the crisis to cast himself as the leader of progressive countries battling the dark forces of Latin America's establishment. Alcalay said that, for Chávez, there is no middle ground or nuance in his approach to the Honduran crisis -- nor recognition that Zelaya had erred by pushing a nonbinding constitutional referendum opposed by the courts and his own party.

"He is, in essence, defending his ideological project, and the rest of the countries follow along," Alcalay said, referring mainly to Venezuela's closest allies. "He is following the vision of leadership set by Simón Bolívar, a mantle that he believes he now carries. It's megalomania on the international stage."

With the United States, Europe and big regional players such as Brazil and Mexico condemning the coup, Chávez's role in propelling Zelaya's possible comeback may be peripheral, some political analysts said. Indeed, Carlos Sosa, Zelaya's ambassador at the Organization of American States, said the demands made on Micheletti by other Latin American leaders have been vital.

"Hugo Chávez's role is like that of other leaders," such as Mexico's Felipe Calderón, Chile's Michelle Bachelet, Argentina's Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and Obama, Sosa said in a telephone interview.

Mark Schneider of the International Crisis Group, a Washington-based policy organization that studies countries in crisis, said: "Chávez is clearly taking advantage of the opportunity, but he is not calling the shots."

Going by the Venezuelan state media, though, it would be hard to conclude that Chávez is not spearheading the effort. Nor is there any mention of the contradiction of Chávez demanding that the Hondurans adhere to democratic principles when his closest ally is communist Cuba. Although he labels Micheletti's government a military dictatorship, and decries the violence against protesters, state television makes no mention of a botched coup led by Chávez in 1992 in which dozens died.

León, the pollster, said the coverage is part of a larger strategy that helps the government deflect attention from grinding domestic problems it has been unable to address, including rampant crime and a troubled economy.

León said Chávez has been searching for a lift. The polling company León helps run, Datanalisis, said that more than 60 percent of Venezuelans supported Chávez in February, when he won a referendum on a constitutional amendment that permits him to run for reelection indefinitely.

But the popularity rating has slipped to slightly more than 50 percent in recent weeks, León said, as Venezuelans have become increasingly worried by what he called Chávez's "radicalization." Polls show that 75 percent oppose the government's expropriations targeting landholders and big companies. An additional 65 percent oppose the president's efforts to wrest power from local governments led by political opponents, León said.

"He is talking for the benefit of the local population because it allows him to put people's minds, for at least a while, on other issues and not their own problems," León said.

Still, Leon and other analysts said Chávez is often most formidable -- and effective -- on the international stage.

Larry Birns, director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, a policy group in Washington, said Chávez's attempts at leading his allies in an effort to reinstate a deposed friend dovetail effectively with his frequent invocation of images of coups against leftist leaders.

"He puts his money where his mouth is, and there's a grudging respect for that," Birns said.

Young Malay Malaysians Not Ready for Non-Malay, Non-Muslim or Woman PM

30 Jun 09 : 3.53PM

By Shanon Shah
shanonshah@thenutgraph.com

The prime minister's office in Putrajaya (Public domain; source: Wiki commons)

PETALING JAYA, 30 June 2009: Malay Malaysians are the group least ready to accept a non-male, non-Malay or non-Muslim as prime minister, a Merdeka Center for Opinion Research survey has found.

Of the 2,518 randomly selected Malaysian youths aged between 20 and 35 polled by the centre, only 32% of Malay Malaysians were ready to accept a woman prime minister.

More strikingly, only 7% were ready to accept a non-Malay, non-Muslim prime minister, while only 36% would accept a non-Malay but Muslim prime minister.

By contrast, more than 80% of Chinese, Indian and non-Muslim bumiputera Malaysians were ready to accept a woman, a non-Malay Muslim or a non-Malay, non-Muslim Malaysian as prime minister.

Merdeka Center program director Ibrahim Suffian said the poll was conducted between November and December 2008. He said the socio-political climate in Malaysia at that time was coloured by Barack Obama's election as US president, and the vacancy of the Kuala Terengganu parliamentary seat due to the death of the Umno incumbent.

"It is important to note that a survey is merely a snapshot, not a prediction of the future, even though a survey can pick up on certain trends," he said at a press conference today to launch the survey findings.

Survey question: How strongly would you accept a as prime minister in Malaysia?
Breakdown of 2,518 respondents. Click on image for bigger view (Source: Merderka Center)

Lower racial identification

The survey also found that 43% of its respondents identified themselves primarily as Malaysians first, while 38% identified themselves by religion first. Only 15% identified themselves by ethnic categories first.

The survey posed a question — "If you can only choose one identity, would you say that you are...?" — to all respondents.

More than 50% of East Malaysians identified themselves as Malaysian first, while only 34% of respondents in the peninsula identified similarly. From the ethnic breakdown, Malay Malaysians were the lowest number of respondents who identified as Malaysians first, at 29%.

"Young Malay [Malaysians] are moving away from ethnic identification, and Islam is playing an important role in supplanting this ethnic identification," Ibrahim said.

"More than 60% of Malay Malaysian respondents saw themselves as Muslim first, while only 10% saw themselves as Malay first," he added.

Ibrahim said, however, that with this increased identification with Islam came stronger demands for a clean government, better rule of law and democratic improvements.

Interestingly, among respondents who attended Chinese medium schools, 52% identified as Malaysians first. Conversely, only 39% of respondents who attended national schools identified as Malaysians first. Ibrahim said the lower percentage in national schools could be because more Malay Malaysians attend these schools, thus dragging the percentage down.

Survey question: If you could only choose one identity, would you say that you are...?
Breakdown of 1,083 respondents who provided "Malaysian" as their first choice.
Click on image for bigger view (Source: Merdeka Center)

Paradoxes in identity

Ibrahim also noted that younger Malay Malaysians seem to be more socially conservative.

"They might be more vocal about calling for the abolishment of the Internal Security Act, but they are also the same group that wants concerts to be gender segregated."

The paradox of this combination of political openness and religious conservatism could also be seen in young Malay Malaysians rejecting a woman as prime minister, Ibrahim explained.

"This [conservatism] could be the result of our education policies and political orientation over the past 20 to 30 years," Ibrahim said.

He added that their rejection of a non-Muslim Malay, or a non-Muslim non-Malay Malaysian as prime minister could also indicate that young Malay Malaysians have not entirely discarded ethnic identification.

Ibrahim said these findings would probably colour the agendas of the various political parties in getting Malay Malaysian support in the future, as young Malay Malaysians would set new standards of ethics in governance and public life.

The survey concluded that "ethnicity and religion [remain] an important factor in influencing views on whether women or minorities can hold top positions in the country".

It also polled respondents on other areas such as media consumption, lifestyle choices, political efficacy, electoral participation and general issues of interest.

The survey was conducted with funding support from the Asia Foundation

**

Full report of survey available here.

Tren Elektibilitas Capres-Cawapres Menjelang Pilpres 2009

Pemilihan Presiden 2009 memasuki fase genting dan menentukan bagi ketiga pasang capres dan cawapres. Waktu yang tersisa menjelang tanggal 8 Juli 2009 menjadi ajang menaikkan elektabilitas kandidat. Hampir semua cara telah dicoba, mulai dengan memaksimalkan “perang udara” dan “perang darat”. Strategi pencitraan dengan memoles kandidat juga telah dilakukan masing-masing tim sukses dan konsultan. Isu-isu panas dan menyengat juga sudah ditebar, saling rebutan klaim keberhasilan, hingga deretan isu-isu kampanye negatif dan black campaign telah mewarnai peta politik sebulan terakhir.

Dalam survei LSI 15-20 Juni 2009, SBY-Boediono dipilih oleh 67%, Mega-Pro 16%, dan JK-Win 9%. Keunggulan jauh yang sedikit menurun ini konsisten dengan sejumlah indikator makro, terutama kepuasan pada JK yang sedikit naik, dan pada SBY yang sedikit turun. SBY-Boediono mengalami penurunan sekitar 3% (dari70%) dalam 20 hari. Bila penurunan ini dibaca secara konservatif, SBY-Boediono sekarang berada pada posisi 64%. Berarti mengalami penurunan sebanyak 4%bila survei sebelumnya juga dibaca secara konservatif (68%, bukan 70%).

Bila penurunan ini linear dan dibaca secara konservatif SBY-Boediono kemungkinan akan turun lagi sebanyak 4% pada hari H, sehingga perolehan suara pada hari H kemungkinan 60%. Penurunan linear ini mungkin terjadi karena tekanan dari lawannya kurang kuat. Mega-Pro cenderung stabil atau bahkan menurun, sedangkan kemajuan JK-Win kurang kuat, hanya sekitar 5% dalam 20 hari bila dibaca secara optimis untuk JK-Win.

Kalau tidak ada peristiwa luar biasa, dan tak terkendali, kemungkinan JK akan naik, secara optimis, menjadi 20%.

Download RILIS SURVEI LSI : RELEASE SURVEI LSI 24 JUNI 2009.pdf

The Gallup Coexist Index 2009: A Global Study of Interfaith Relations

• Print
• E-mail

The Gallup Coexist Index 2009

A Global Study of Interfaith Relations

The Gallup Coexist Index 2009: A Global Study of Interfaith Relations offers insight into the state of relations between people of different religions around the world. Created in partnership with the Coexist Foundation, it marks Gallup's first report of public perceptions concerning people of different faiths. In addition, the report provides an in-depth analysis of attitudes regarding integration among Muslims and the general public in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom.

Click here to download a PDF of the full report.

Click here to download a PDF of the press release.

Who Speaks for Islam?

What a Billion Muslims Really ThinkBased on the largest and most in-depth study of its kind, this book presents the remarkable findings of the Gallup Poll of the Muslim World.
Learn More

Related Items

More Religious Countries, More Perceived Ethnic Intolerance

April 7, 2009

Despite Recession, No Uptick in Americans’ Religiosity

March 23, 2009

Religiosity and Perceived Intolerance of Gays and Lesbians

March 10, 2009

Religion Provides Emotional Boost to World’s Poor

March 6, 2009

Gallup Center for Muslim Studies

Gallup source page at http://www.gallup.com/consulting/worldpoll/26410/gallup-center-muslim-studies.aspx but see also closely related Muslim West Facts Project at http://www.muslimwestfacts.com/MWFHOMEPAGE/home.aspx

***

The Gallup Center for Muslim Studies is a nonpartisan research center dedicated to providing data-driven analysis, advice, and education on the views of Muslim populations around the world. It will draw upon Gallup's unprecedented global research initiative, the Gallup World Poll and the Gallup Poll of the Muslim World*, to enable global leaders, institutions, and the public to make more informed decisions.

At the heart of its business, the Center for Muslim Studies will make its research available through educational and consulting services, as well as through written publications. Its groundbreaking course based on findings from the Gallup Poll of the Muslim World will examine evidence-based analysis of contemporary trends addressed by the poll of Muslim populations. For the general public, the Center will release highlights from its study by hosting discussion forums and through special reports and articles available on Gallup's Web site or in the mass media.

Core Learnings From the Muslim World

Gallup's Poll of the Muslim World asks Muslims about their beliefs regarding education, religion, democracy, culture, financial prosperity, and the media. Poll findings include insights into what Muslims think the West can do to improve relations with the world's Muslim populations, and what they think Muslims can do to improve relations with the West.

• Ordinary Muslims (view PDF) العربية
• Islam and Democracy (view PDF) العربية
• Muslims and Americans: The Way Forward (view PDF) العربية
• Moderate vs. Extremist Views in the Muslim World (view PDF) العربية
• Perspectives of Women in the Muslim World (view PDF) العربية
• Muslims in Europe
  
  • Muslims in Berlin, London, and Paris (view PDF)
  • Basis for Greater Understanding (view PDF)
  • Religious and National Identities (view PDF)
  • Values Questions (view PDF)
  • London Muslims (view PDF) العربية

Learn more about an intensive course based on the Gallup Poll of the Muslim World.

Learn more about Gallup's collaborative effort with the Coexist Foundation.

Bios

• Dalia Mogahed, Executive Director, the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies
• John Esposito, Senior Scientist
• Richard Burkholder, Director of International Polling
• Ahmed Younis, Senior Analyst, Gallup Center for Muslim Studies; Senior Consultant, Gallup
• Eric Nielsen, Senior Director, Media Strategies

* Gallup's self-funded Poll of the Muslim World is conducted in 40 predominantly Muslim nations and among significant Muslim populations in the West. It is the first set of unified and scientifically representative views from 1.3 billion Muslims globally, and will provide the basis for the Center's unique analytical perspective.

The Poll of the Muslim World is part of Gallup's larger World Poll, a self-funded effort aimed at consistently measuring the well-being of 6 billion world citizens (a sample representing 95% of the Earth's population) on a wide range of topics for the next 100 years.