csmonitor--2020-03-06--For climate action, lessons from the virus crisis

Two of the world ’ s biggest challenges – the coronavirus scare and climate change – differ in many ways .
Yet in one , the virus challenge , there may be lessons for the other .
Just three months ago the idea of a new virus spreading quickly across the globe was not in public thought .
Now countries have sprung into action .
Yet for decades the world has debated climate change with little to show in reduced carbon emissions .
How did concern for the coronavirus leapfrog over climate change in priority ?
The answer , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen as an immediate threat demanding immediate action .
Climate change is slow-moving , like the proverbial frog in the cooking pot .
The effects of rising temperatures are imperceptibly tolerated until it is too late to hop out .
Yet now as a result of the virus crisis , more people could be persuaded to act on the scientific predictions about global warming .
Both challenges are also reminders that problems in far corners of the planet – coal pollution , health crises , terrorism , etc .
– should not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in travel and technology , act as accelerators .
Humanity is linked like never before .
This forces people to work together to solve problems rather than going it alone .
With the coronavirus , countries are focused mainly on their own people .
Yet they are also cooperating at a pace and intensity rarely seen on a global scale .
Companies are speeding up production of needed goods and health-care supplies .
International aid groups are coordinating to beef up their response .
World bodies such as the International Monetary Fund have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the virus .
Central banks in the G-7 group of Western economies are consulting on lowering of interest rates to support financial markets .
And dozens of nations are working through the World Health Organization to share information and resources .
For Americans , there has been rare bipartisanship in Congress to work with President Donald Trump in providing an additional $ 8.3 billion to battle the virus .
The level and speed of such actions have not been lost on climate activists .
“ If we truly treat climate as an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic as an emergency , we have to have a similar level of international coordination , ” notes Jon Erickson , an ecological economist at the University of Vermont .
In response to the virus , billions of people have changed their habits in a matter of weeks .
They have welcomed tough action by government .
They see personal sacrifice as necessary for the public good .
Now they may be more willing to accept similar action to guard public health from climate change .
If the world can sing in tune @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easier to do the same for another .

Two of the world’s biggest challenges – the coronavirus scare and climate change – differ in many ways. Yet in one, the virus challenge, there may be lessons for the other.
Just three months ago the idea of a new virus spreading quickly across the globe was not in public thought. Now countries have sprung into action. Yet for decades the world has debated climate change with little to show in reduced carbon emissions. How did concern for the coronavirus leapfrog over climate change in priority?
The answer, of course, is that the virus is seen as an immediate threat demanding immediate action. Climate change is slow-moving, like the proverbial frog in the cooking pot. The effects of rising temperatures are imperceptibly tolerated until it is too late to hop out. Yet now as a result of the virus crisis, more people could be persuaded to act on the scientific predictions about global warming.
Both challenges are also reminders that problems in far corners of the planet – coal pollution, health crises, terrorism, etc. – should not be ignored. Advances in globalization, especially in travel and technology, act as accelerators. Humanity is linked like never before. This forces people to work together to solve problems rather than going it alone.
With the coronavirus, countries are focused mainly on their own people. Yet they are also cooperating at a pace and intensity rarely seen on a global scale. Companies are speeding up production of needed goods and health-care supplies. International aid groups are coordinating to beef up their response.
World bodies such as the International Monetary Fund have dispensed emergency money to help countries cope with the virus. Central banks in the G-7 group of Western economies are consulting on lowering of interest rates to support financial markets. And dozens of nations are working through the World Health Organization to share information and resources.
For Americans, there has been rare bipartisanship in Congress to work with President Donald Trump in providing an additional $8.3 billion to battle the virus.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
The level and speed of such actions have not been lost on climate activists. “If we truly treat climate as an emergency, as we are treating this pandemic as an emergency, we have to have a similar level of international coordination,” notes Jon Erickson, an ecological economist at the University of Vermont.
In response to the virus, billions of people have changed their habits in a matter of weeks. They have welcomed tough action by government. They see personal sacrifice as necessary for the public good. Now they may be more willing to accept similar action to guard public health from climate change. If the world can sing in tune on one crisis, it makes it easier to do the same for another.


Seeing China face-to-face

As journalists , we often refer to a country or capital as if it ’ s an individual – China is doing X , Washington demands Y .
Or we see the leader as the face of his or her entire nation .
It ’ s understandable .
Readers are busy people .
They want the big picture .
Journalists do , too , and this shorthand helps us get to the point quickly .
But there ’ s a danger in this .
The names become monoliths in our minds .
We forget that , behind the labels and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faces , lives , and daily struggles .
As I researched a story for the Monitor on how the pandemic began in China , I fell into an us-versus-them mentality without realizing it .
A single word snapped me out of it : Yunnan .
China ’ s lush southwestern province of Yunnan , famed for its terraced rice paddies , was apparently home to bats that carried one of the closest known cousins of the novel coronavirus .
( The pandemic itself began in Wuhan , in central China . )
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mosaic of humanity my husband and I had witnessed while accompanying Chinese friends on their vacation there several years ago .
I recalled brightly clad women fanning out into a rice field , armed with sickles , cutting sheaves for the men to beat , sift , and carry off in 55-pound bags .
I remembered the villagers we saw wading through knee-high water with nets for their annual fish harvest , as neighbors lined up to watch .
And then – at the end of a long drive to a guest house @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there was the family with no running water who took us in for the night , setting out more than a dozen dishes that rivaled the best restaurants we ’ d visited .
A year before , I could have counted on one hand the number of times I ’ d eaten Chinese food .
When we were first getting to know my Chinese colleague and his wife , they presented us with a slender box of wooden chopsticks .
I was touched , but wondered , “ What will I ever do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turned out to be about so much more than picking up rice .
They marked the beginning of a friendship that brought us elbow to elbow over steaming bowls of noodle soup in rural Yunnan , where I got a crash course in eating forkless and spoonless .
That evening , our impromptu hosts took us to see women practicing the singing and dancing for which their Yi ethnic group is famous .
In the morning , they dressed me up in their wedding finery with its brilliant reds , shocking pink , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – an honor , even if I looked ridiculous with my baggy hiking pants underneath .
From a poster on the wall , Chinese leader Xi Jinping and his wife looked on .
I have no idea what their politics were , but as I entered the one bathroom shared by 900 villagers , I knew for a fact that if I lived there I ’ d heartily support whichever party would bring in running water , clean those toilets , and get rid of the flies .
We drove for hours through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than Boston that I ’ d never heard of , encountering an extraordinary diversity of faces , experiences , livelihoods , and languages .
In some places , our friends – both native Mandarin speakers – couldn ’ t understand their countrymen .
They snapped instant photos of kids with shy smiles and handed them out as mementos .
After one such photo session , we descended a steep path where a man was leading three horses laden with sacks of stones to build a new road .
Nearby was a water trough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zedong – a testament to his far-reaching influence as the Chinese Communist Party , personified .
Likewise today , it ’ s easy to personify this vast country simply as “ China , ” a faceless monolith .
Throughout history , however , behind any leader , behind every country ’ s name , there is a sea of humanity .
And while Beijing may argue with Washington , I ’ ll never forget that family deep in the hinterlands of Yunnan who treated total strangers to a feast .

As journalists, we often refer to a country or capital as if it’s an individual – China is doing X, Washington demands Y. Or we see the leader as the face of his or her entire nation. It’s understandable. Readers are busy people. They want the big picture. Journalists do, too, and this shorthand helps us get to the point quickly.
But there’s a danger in this. The names become monoliths in our minds. We forget that, behind the labels and the leaders, stand a multitude of faces, lives, and daily struggles.
As I researched a story for the Monitor on how the pandemic began in China, I fell into an us-versus-them mentality without realizing it. A single word snapped me out of it: Yunnan.
China’s lush southwestern province of Yunnan, famed for its terraced rice paddies, was apparently home to bats that carried one of the closest known cousins of the novel coronavirus. (The pandemic itself began in Wuhan, in central China.) For me, Yunnan brought to mind the mosaic of humanity my husband and I had witnessed while accompanying Chinese friends on their vacation there several years ago.
I recalled brightly clad women fanning out into a rice field, armed with sickles, cutting sheaves for the men to beat, sift, and carry off in 55-pound bags. I remembered the villagers we saw wading through knee-high water with nets for their annual fish harvest, as neighbors lined up to watch.
And then – at the end of a long drive to a guest house that turned out not to exist – there was the family with no running water who took us in for the night, setting out more than a dozen dishes that rivaled the best restaurants we’d visited.
A year before, I could have counted on one hand the number of times I’d eaten Chinese food. When we were first getting to know my Chinese colleague and his wife, they presented us with a slender box of wooden chopsticks. I was touched, but wondered, “What will I ever do with these?” But those chopsticks turned out to be about so much more than picking up rice. They marked the beginning of a friendship that brought us elbow to elbow over steaming bowls of noodle soup in rural Yunnan, where I got a crash course in eating forkless and spoonless.
That evening, our impromptu hosts took us to see women practicing the singing and dancing for which their Yi ethnic group is famous. In the morning, they dressed me up in their wedding finery with its brilliant reds, shocking pink, and tinkling coins adorning the front zipper – an honor, even if I looked ridiculous with my baggy hiking pants underneath. From a poster on the wall, Chinese leader Xi Jinping and his wife looked on.
I have no idea what their politics were, but as I entered the one bathroom shared by 900 villagers, I knew for a fact that if I lived there I’d heartily support whichever party would bring in running water, clean those toilets, and get rid of the flies.
We drove for hours through the countryside and into cities far larger than Boston that I’d never heard of, encountering an extraordinary diversity of faces, experiences, livelihoods, and languages. In some places, our friends – both native Mandarin speakers – couldn’t understand their countrymen. They snapped instant photos of kids with shy smiles and handed them out as mementos.
After one such photo session, we descended a steep path where a man was leading three horses laden with sacks of stones to build a new road. Nearby was a water trough engraved with a tribute to Chairman Mao Zedong – a testament to his far-reaching influence as the Chinese Communist Party, personified.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
Likewise today, it’s easy to personify this vast country simply as “China,” a faceless monolith. Throughout history, however, behind any leader, behind every country’s name, there is a sea of humanity.
And while Beijing may argue with Washington, I’ll never forget that family deep in the hinterlands of Yunnan who treated total strangers to a feast.


csmonitor--2020-06-30--Principle over politics? Why Chief Justice Roberts upheld abortion rights.

Both rulings “ suggest that in some ways [ Chief Justice ] Roberts doesn ’ t like sloppiness , essentially , ” Professor Ziegler says .
“ This term more than any other has signaled that [ Chief Justice ] Roberts will determine the court ’ s future , and that that future will be hard to predict.
” The ruling mirrors the court ’ s DACA decision earlier in June , which preserved an Obama-era program protecting unauthorized immigrants brought to the U.S. as children from deportation , says Mary Ziegler , a Supreme Court abortion law expert at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Both cases were 5-4 decisions with Chief Justice Roberts , a philosophically conservative jurist , joining his four liberal colleagues in a narrow ruling .
In the long term , however , experts say the ruling lays the groundwork for the court to swing to the right on abortion .
Amid a fraught and polarizing election year , Monday ’ s ruling upholding abortion rights represents another example of legal principle outweighing legal politics .
That ’ s particularly true for Chief Justice John Roberts , the ideological center of a Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority .
In its sprint to release the last of its opinions this term , the U.S. Supreme Court provided another surprise ruling Monday in striking down a Louisiana abortion regulation .
The regulation in question , Act 620 , resembled “ almost word-for-word ” a Texas law the high court had declared unconstitutional only four years ago .
For the court ’ s four liberal justices , that precedent – along with factual details about the regulation determined by a federal district court in the Pelican state – was enough to rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ This case is similar to , nearly identical with Whole Woman ’ s Health , ” the 2016 Texas case , wrote Justice Stephen Breyer for that four-justice plurality .
“ The law must consequently reach a similar conclusion.
” That opinion , however , is not the controlling decision in the case .
Instead it is the concurrence written by Chief Justice John Roberts , who dissented from the 2016 ruling .
He still believes that case was wrongly decided , he wrote in the concurrence , but the doctrine of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must honor precedent – compelled him to agree with Justice Breyer ’ s opinion .
“ The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law , for the same reasons , ” he wrote .
“ Therefore Louisiana ’ s law can not stand under our precedents.
” In the short term , amid a fraught and polarizing election year , the ruling represents another example of legal principle outweighing legal politics – particularly for Chief Justice Roberts , the ideological center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deeply conservative majority .
In the long term , however , experts say the ruling lays the groundwork for the court to swing to the right on abortion in the future .
Yesterday ’ s ruling mirrors the court ’ s DACA decision earlier this month , which preserved an Obama-era program protecting unauthorized immigrants brought to the United States as children from deportation , says Mary Ziegler , a Supreme Court and abortion law expert at the Florida State University College of Law .
Both cases were 5-4 decisions with Chief Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ joining his four liberal colleagues in a narrow ruling .
“ The much vaunted conservative majority can evaporate depending on how cases are presented , ” says Professor Ziegler .
Those two rulings in particular “ suggest that in some ways [ Chief Justice ] Roberts doesn ’ t like sloppiness , essentially.
” “ This term more than any other has signaled that [ Chief Justice ] Roberts will determine the court ’ s future , and that that future will be hard to predict , ” she adds .
The decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Miller could have asked for .
Ms. Miller , the president and CEO of Whole Woman ’ s Health – the plaintiff in the 2016 case , Whole Woman ’ s Health v. Hellerstedt – now says she wants a T-shirt with “ stare decisis ” written on it .
“ We ’ re standing on each others ’ shoulders with each of these cases , ” she adds .
Back in 1992 , in Planned Parenthood v. Casey , the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the right to an abortion , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortion access so long as it didn ’ t place an “ undue burden ” on women seeking the procedure .
“ Casey opened the door for state restrictions , but Whole Woman 's Health closed that door , ” Ms. Miller .
The Louisiana case “ was the first real test and we passed with flying colors.
” After the ruling came out she texted Kathaleen Pittman , the clinic director of the Hope Medical Group for Women , which brought the challenge to Act 620 .
But while Ms. Pittman says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much , ” she ’ s under no illusion that court battles over abortion access are over .
“ We didn ’ t really advance anything .
We maintained the status quo , ” she says .
“ We won this battle .
We ’ ve not won the war.
” While Chief Justice Roberts is usually a reliably conservative jurist – and skeptical of abortion rights in particular – he also has a demonstrated interest in preserving the court ’ s institutional integrity and the perception that it ’ s ruled by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thus , faced with a case virtually identical to Whole Woman ’ s Health , with the only major difference the addition of two conservatives justices , Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh , in place of moderate conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy and the late Antonin Scalia , court watchers weren ’ t surprised to see the chief justice follow his institutionalist instincts .
That said , his conservative instincts are visible from the second paragraph of his concurrence , where he clarified that he still believes Whole Woman ’ s Health was wrongly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the 2016 ruling had misinterpreted the decision in Casey by holding that the undue burden standard requires courts to balance an abortion regulations ’ benefits against its burdens – burdens he described , quoting Casey , as a woman ’ s “ liberty interest in defining her ‘ own concept of existence , of meaning , of the universe , and of the mystery of human life.
’ ” “ There is no plausible sense in which anyone , let alone this Court , could objectively assign weight to such imponderable values @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if there were , ” wrote Chief Justice Roberts .
“ Pretending that we could pull that off would require us to act as legislators , not judges.
” Instead of trying to balance benefits and burdens , “ the only question for a court , ” he added , is whether an abortion regulation places “ a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.
” In his dissent Justice Gorsuch noted , “ today ’ s concurrence recognizes ” that the court has long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of benefits and burdens.
” “ It ’ s little more than the judicial version of a hunter ’ s stew : Throw in anything that looks interesting , stir , and season to taste , ” he added .
Opening the way for more restrictions The practical effects of his concurrence is to technically uphold Whole Woman ’ s Health while simultaneously gutting it .
The balancing test in that ruling heightened the scrutiny for abortion regulations beyond what Casey called for , but Chief Justice Roberts ’ concurrence yesterday says courts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do that , ” says Melissa Murray , a professor at New York University School of Law .
“ States will be emboldened to pass new [ restrictive ] laws , ” she adds .
“ There are definitely five votes on the court that are not receptive to abortion rights , and the Chief Justice is one of them.
” Supporters of strict regulations on abortion access – including Katrina Jackson , the Louisiana state senator who authored Act 620 – reacted to the ruling with disappointment and promises to continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the court , there was a lot of hope , ” says Alexandra Seghers , director of education for Louisiana Right To Life .
“ We view the unborn child and the woman as equally valuable .
And we continue to fight for the day that everyone recognizes this as well.
” The legal battle over abortion is now likely to follow two tracks : One track seeking to slowly and incrementally restrict access to abortion , and the other seeking a rapid overturn of the constitutional right to abortion itself .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ since the Whole Woman ’ s Health decision four years ago .
Last year lower courts blocked a half-dozen state “ heartbeat ” laws , which make abortion illegal as early as six weeks in a pregnancy .
Earlier this month the Tennessee state legislature passed a similar law , though it has not gone into effect due to legal challenges .
An Alabama law enacted last year , banning all abortions except those necessary to save a mother ’ s life , has been similarly delayed .
President Donald Trump has also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is likely to embolden more conservatives to take the second track .
There ’ s “ a clear rebellion against the ‘ death by a thousand cuts ’ approach , ” says Professor Ziegler .
“ We ’ ll continue to see a push for that even though it may backfire at the Supreme Court.
” While Chief Justice Roberts adhered to stare decisis in yesterday ’ s ruling , there is ample evidence of him also doing the opposite .
Justice Clarence Thomas , in his dissent , referenced three opinions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice ) from the past two terms .
Stare decisis “ is better understood as the judicial license to adhere or not adhere depending on what policy result is desired , ” wrote Andrew McCarthy , criticizing yesterday ’ s ruling , in the National Review .
Yet yesterday ’ s opinion , experts say , adds to a throughline in Chief Justice Roberts ’ jurisprudence – visible in his DACA opinion earlier this month , and his opinion last term blocking a citizenship question from the 2020 Census – indicating that while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , efforts to restrict or eliminate those rights will have to meet base legal standards .
“ You have to come at him with right case , argued in right way , and argue it seriously , ” says Professor Ziegler .
“ If you don ’ t do that , he won ’ t take it seriously .
”

Both rulings “suggest that in some ways [Chief Justice] Roberts doesn’t like sloppiness, essentially,” Professor Ziegler says. “This term more than any other has signaled that [Chief Justice] Roberts will determine the court’s future, and that that future will be hard to predict.”
The ruling mirrors the court’s DACA decision earlier in June, which preserved an Obama-era program protecting unauthorized immigrants brought to the U.S. as children from deportation, says Mary Ziegler, a Supreme Court abortion law expert at the Florida State University College of Law. Both cases were 5-4 decisions with Chief Justice Roberts, a philosophically conservative jurist, joining his four liberal colleagues in a narrow ruling.
Chief Justice Roberts is usually a reliably conservative jurist – and skeptical of abortion rights. But he also has a demonstrated interest in preserving the court’s institutional integrity and the perception that it’s ruled by law.
In the long term, however, experts say the ruling lays the groundwork for the court to swing to the right on abortion.
Amid a fraught and polarizing election year, Monday’s ruling upholding abortion rights represents another example of legal principle outweighing legal politics. That’s particularly true for Chief Justice John Roberts, the ideological center of a Supreme Court with a narrow but deeply conservative majority.
In its sprint to release the last of its opinions this term, the U.S. Supreme Court provided another surprise ruling Monday in striking down a Louisiana abortion regulation.
The regulation in question, Act 620, resembled “almost word-for-word” a Texas law the high court had declared unconstitutional only four years ago. For the court’s four liberal justices, that precedent – along with factual details about the regulation determined by a federal district court in the Pelican state – was enough to rule that Act 620 is also unconstitutional.
“This case is similar to, nearly identical with Whole Woman’s Health,” the 2016 Texas case, wrote Justice Stephen Breyer for that four-justice plurality. “The law must consequently reach a similar conclusion.”
Why We Wrote This Chief Justice Roberts is usually a reliably conservative jurist – and skeptical of abortion rights. But he also has a demonstrated interest in preserving the court’s institutional integrity and the perception that it’s ruled by law.
That opinion, however, is not the controlling decision in the case. Instead it is the concurrence written by Chief Justice John Roberts, who dissented from the 2016 ruling. He still believes that case was wrongly decided, he wrote in the concurrence, but the doctrine of stare decisis – which holds that courts must honor precedent – compelled him to agree with Justice Breyer’s opinion.
“The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons,” he wrote. “Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.”
In the short term, amid a fraught and polarizing election year, the ruling represents another example of legal principle outweighing legal politics – particularly for Chief Justice Roberts, the ideological center of a court with a narrow but deeply conservative majority.
In the long term, however, experts say the ruling lays the groundwork for the court to swing to the right on abortion in the future.
Yesterday’s ruling mirrors the court’s DACA decision earlier this month, which preserved an Obama-era program protecting unauthorized immigrants brought to the United States as children from deportation, says Mary Ziegler, a Supreme Court and abortion law expert at the Florida State University College of Law. Both cases were 5-4 decisions with Chief Justice Roberts, a philosophically conservative jurist, joining his four liberal colleagues in a narrow ruling.
“The much vaunted conservative majority can evaporate depending on how cases are presented,” says Professor Ziegler. Those two rulings in particular “suggest that in some ways [Chief Justice] Roberts doesn’t like sloppiness, essentially.”
“This term more than any other has signaled that [Chief Justice] Roberts will determine the court’s future, and that that future will be hard to predict,” she adds.
“We won this battle”
The decision was the best birthday present Amy Hagstrom Miller could have asked for. Ms. Miller, the president and CEO of Whole Woman’s Health – the plaintiff in the 2016 case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt – now says she wants a T-shirt with “stare decisis” written on it.
“We’re standing on each others’ shoulders with each of these cases,” she adds.
Back in 1992, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the right to an abortion, but gave states the right to regulate abortion access so long as it didn’t place an “undue burden” on women seeking the procedure.
“Casey opened the door for state restrictions, but Whole Woman's Health closed that door,” Ms. Miller. The Louisiana case “was the first real test and we passed with flying colors.”
After the ruling came out she texted Kathaleen Pittman, the clinic director of the Hope Medical Group for Women, which brought the challenge to Act 620. But while Ms. Pittman says her face “hurt from grinning so much,” she’s under no illusion that court battles over abortion access are over.
“We didn’t really advance anything. We maintained the status quo,” she says. “We won this battle. We’ve not won the war.”
While Chief Justice Roberts is usually a reliably conservative jurist – and skeptical of abortion rights in particular – he also has a demonstrated interest in preserving the court’s institutional integrity and the perception that it’s ruled by law, not politics or policy.
Thus, faced with a case virtually identical to Whole Woman’s Health, with the only major difference the addition of two conservatives justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, in place of moderate conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy and the late Antonin Scalia, court watchers weren’t surprised to see the chief justice follow his institutionalist instincts.
That said, his conservative instincts are visible from the second paragraph of his concurrence, where he clarified that he still believes Whole Woman’s Health was wrongly decided. Further in, he writes that the 2016 ruling had misinterpreted the decision in Casey by holding that the undue burden standard requires courts to balance an abortion regulations’ benefits against its burdens – burdens he described, quoting Casey, as a woman’s “liberty interest in defining her ‘own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.’ ”
“There is no plausible sense in which anyone, let alone this Court, could objectively assign weight to such imponderable values and no meaningful way to compare them if there were,” wrote Chief Justice Roberts. “Pretending that we could pull that off would require us to act as legislators, not judges.”
Instead of trying to balance benefits and burdens, “the only question for a court,” he added, is whether an abortion regulation places “a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.”
In his dissent Justice Gorsuch noted, “today’s concurrence recognizes” that the court has long rejected “the sort of all-things-considered balancing of benefits and burdens.”“It’s little more than the judicial version of a hunter’s stew: Throw in anything that looks interesting, stir, and season to taste,” he added.
Opening the way for more restrictions
The practical effects of his concurrence is to technically uphold Whole Woman’s Health while simultaneously gutting it. The balancing test in that ruling heightened the scrutiny for abortion regulations beyond what Casey called for, but Chief Justice Roberts’ concurrence yesterday says courts now “don’t actually have to do that,” says Melissa Murray, a professor at New York University School of Law.
“States will be emboldened to pass new [restrictive] laws,” she adds. “There are definitely five votes on the court that are not receptive to abortion rights, and the Chief Justice is one of them.”
Supporters of strict regulations on abortion access – including Katrina Jackson, the Louisiana state senator who authored Act 620 – reacted to the ruling with disappointment and promises to continue their work.
“Considering the landscape of the court, there was a lot of hope,” says Alexandra Seghers, director of education for Louisiana Right To Life. “We view the unborn child and the woman as equally valuable. And we continue to fight for the day that everyone recognizes this as well.”
The legal battle over abortion is now likely to follow two tracks: One track seeking to slowly and incrementally restrict access to abortion, and the other seeking a rapid overturn of the constitutional right to abortion itself.
Republican-led states have been pursuing both tracks since the Whole Woman’s Health decision four years ago. Last year lower courts blocked a half-dozen state “heartbeat” laws, which make abortion illegal as early as six weeks in a pregnancy. Earlier this month the Tennessee state legislature passed a similar law, though it has not gone into effect due to legal challenges. An Alabama law enacted last year, banning all abortions except those necessary to save a mother’s life, has been similarly delayed.
President Donald Trump has also filled lower courts with conservative judges, which is likely to embolden more conservatives to take the second track.
There’s “a clear rebellion against the ‘death by a thousand cuts’ approach,” says Professor Ziegler. “We’ll continue to see a push for that even though it may backfire at the Supreme Court.”
While Chief Justice Roberts adhered to stare decisis in yesterday’s ruling, there is ample evidence of him also doing the opposite. Justice Clarence Thomas, in his dissent, referenced three opinions (including one written by the chief justice) from the past two terms. Stare decisis “is better understood as the judicial license to adhere or not adhere depending on what policy result is desired,” wrote Andrew McCarthy, criticizing yesterday’s ruling, in the National Review.
Yet yesterday’s opinion, experts say, adds to a throughline in Chief Justice Roberts’ jurisprudence – visible in his DACA opinion earlier this month, and his opinion last term blocking a citizenship question from the 2020 Census – indicating that while he may be skeptical of abortion rights, efforts to restrict or eliminate those rights will have to meet base legal standards.
“You have to come at him with right case, argued in right way, and argue it seriously,” says Professor Ziegler. “If you don’t do that, he won’t take it seriously.”


csmonitor--2020-06-30--‘We’re invisible’: Peru’s moment of reckoning on informal workers

“ This population working informally , in a sense , they have finally been seen and recognized , ” Ms. Roca says .
Challenges in identifying who is in need won ’ t be resolved overnight , she says , but hopefully the pandemic will set priorities moving forward .
“ It ’ s like we decided poverty is almost over in [ Peruvian ] cities and we only need to focus on rural areas , ” says Carmen Roca of WIEGO , an international NGO advocating for informal workers .
The pandemic “ is exposing the fact that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poverty who we didn ’ t see before.
” Yet today , Peru has one of the world ’ s longest lockdowns , and many people have yet to receive any assistance .
What ’ s more , the country has the second-highest tally of COVID-19 cases in Latin America .
Where things went wrong , experts say , was in misunderstanding the dynamics of poverty in a country that has gained “ middle-income ” status over two decades of growth .
Particularly hidden are the 70 % of Peruvian workers who labor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whom lack bank accounts , too .
Early this spring , Peru was lauded for its quick action against COVID-19 – and not only in terms of health .
The government designed an economic relief package that included vital cash transfers for poor , vulnerable , and self-employed people .
When Luis David Arias Gutiérrez first learned of Peru ’ s strict coronavirus lockdown , the Lima-based street vendor supported it .
Sure , it would be tough .
Like the staggering 70 % of Peruvian workers that labor in the informal sector @ @ @ @ @ @ @ largely day to day , without much savings to fall back on .
But the government , it seemed , knew what it was asking of workers like him .
Peru set a global example of quick action in the face of COVID-19 , implementing a nationwide lockdown March 16 , soon after its first confirmed case .
The government invested in respirators and hospital beds , and offered bonuses to medical professionals .
It designed an economic relief package that not only offered low-interest loans to businesses and helped employers keep workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poor , vulnerable , and self-employed with vital cash transfers .
But today , more than three months later , Mr. Arias feels tricked .
“ The state hasn ’ t done anything to help me .
Not with cash transfers , not with food donations , ” says Mr. Arias , who previously earned about $ 14 a day .
Editor ’ s note : As a public service , all our coronavirus coverage is free .
No paywall .
He made it through one and a half months of lockdown before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and hundreds of other vendors on the block had their wares confiscated by municipal officials , and were told that to get them back , they would need to pay a set fine for breaking the lockdown , which , for some vendors , was double the value of the merchandise itself .
“ When the option is to die of hunger or hope that this illness doesn ’ t get you , of course you break quarantine to try and feed your family , ” he says .
As leader of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knows scores of vendors who have fallen ill. Public markets have become hot spots , with nearly 8 in 10 vendors testing positive in one fruit market alone .
Despite Peru ’ s lauded response efforts , it now has one of the world ’ s longest lockdowns , and the second-highest tally of COVID-19 cases in Latin America , with more than 264,000 cases and more than 8,000 people killed .
In the region , Peru ranks only behind Brazil , which has taken a decidedly less deliberate approach to halting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts say , was in misunderstanding the dynamics of poverty in a country that has gained “ middle-income ” status over two decades of growth .
“ It ’ s like we decided poverty is almost over in [ Peruvian ] cities and we only need to focus on rural areas , ” says Peru-based Carmen Roca , the Latin America regional advisor for WIEGO , an international nongovernmental organization advocating for informal workers .
The pandemic “ is exposing the fact that there are still a lot of people in poverty who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They are earning day to day and working in difficult conditions.
” In a region known for economic booms and busts , Peru has been a model of steady economic success , bolstered by commodity exports and conservative fiscal policies .
Millions have moved out of poverty .
But that progress may have given Peruvians a false sense of security .
“ For 20 years we ’ ve been a star country in terms of macroeconomics .
We ’ ve grown extraordinarily , had fiscal discipline , ” says Hugo Ñopo , an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tank in Lima .
“ But we ’ ve forgotten to invest in the people .
We ’ ve forgotten to invest in health and education.
” Peru ’ s $ 26 billion relief package is worth an estimated 12 % of the country ’ s gross domestic product .
( In comparison , the U.S. is spending about 14 % of its GDP . )
But reaching vulnerable households with the transfers of 380-760 soles ( $ 110- $ 220 ) has proved challenging – particularly given outdated information on who is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for poor people and informal workers , so many people were accidentally excluded that two new transfer programs were created , using information from other agencies .
It isn ’ t for lack of trying , observers say .
The government used various databases , but it became obvious early on that numbers on poverty were out of date , says Mr. Ñopo , who co-wrote a United Nations Development Program policy note on Peru ’ s relief package .
“ Errors are unavoidable .
But this is the moment when we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he says .
“ The government needs to adapt – see the error as a tool for excellence ” moving forward .
“ We can ’ t keep running on autopilot , ” Mr. Ñopo says .
The shortcomings of Peru ’ s ambitious package reflect the “ fragility of our safety nets , ” former finance minister Luis Miguel Castilla said in an April 15 online conference hosted by the Wilson Center .
“ Peru lacks the tools to reach vulnerable populations , ” including bank accounts – only 43 % of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WIEGO offered to create a roster of its own to share with the government , but Ms. Roca says they were rebuffed .
She suspects that , given high-profile corruption scandals in recent years , the government ’ s hands were tied on what kind of databases to use .
Corruption has also been to blame for some of the poor execution .
Food baskets , for example , were to be distributed at the municipal level , and the government has received hundreds of complaints of irregularities , like expired products or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says the challenges in identifying who is in need clearly won ’ t be resolved overnight , but hopefully the pandemic will set priorities moving forward .
“ This population working informally , in a sense , they have finally been seen and recognized , ” Ms. Roca says .
Before COVID-19 , Gloria Solórzano worked two informal jobs , starting around 4 a.m. each day .
She ’ d sell fresh fruit , bringing home roughly $ 10 , in the morning , and embroider in the afternoons .
But she ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to work is too risky .
She feels lucky that her adult children are helping her where they can , but they too are now without an income .
The day to day is grim : Ms. Solórzano eats one meal , down from two or three a day pre-pandemic .
“ The situation here is really critical , more so than in other countries , because the government isn ’ t taking us into account .
We ’ re invisible , ” she says of informal workers .
She ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Workers ( RENATTA ) , with roughly 2,000 members .
She knows of three who have received a government transfer .
Meanwhile , unemployment has exploded , growing to 13.1 % .
“ Informal workers will multiply , ” Ms. Solórzano predicts .
“ It will be really hard to subsist .
It ’ s not just me – it will be our reality at the national and international level .
How will we move ahead after this pandemic ?
” Editor ’ s note : As a public service , all our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

“This population working informally, in a sense, they have finally been seen and recognized,” Ms. Roca says.
Challenges in identifying who is in need won’t be resolved overnight, she says, but hopefully the pandemic will set priorities moving forward.
“It’s like we decided poverty is almost over in [Peruvian] cities and we only need to focus on rural areas,” says Carmen Roca of WIEGO, an international NGO advocating for informal workers. The pandemic “is exposing the fact that there are still a lot of people in poverty who we didn’t see before.”
For two decades, Peru charted its own success story, as millions joined the middle class. But challenges delivering lockdown relief are highlighting just how partial that success has truly been. Part 2 of “ One pandemic, many safety nets: A global series. ”
Yet today, Peru has one of the world’s longest lockdowns, and many people have yet to receive any assistance. What’s more, the country has the second-highest tally of COVID-19 cases in Latin America. Where things went wrong, experts say, was in misunderstanding the dynamics of poverty in a country that has gained “middle-income” status over two decades of growth. Particularly hidden are the 70% of Peruvian workers who labor in the informal sector – many of whom lack bank accounts, too.
Early this spring, Peru was lauded for its quick action against COVID-19 – and not only in terms of health. The government designed an economic relief package that included vital cash transfers for poor, vulnerable, and self-employed people.
When Luis David Arias Gutiérrez first learned of Peru’s strict coronavirus lockdown, the Lima-based street vendor supported it.
Sure, it would be tough. Like the staggering 70% of Peruvian workers that labor in the informal sector, the notebook and school-supply salesman lived largely day to day, without much savings to fall back on. But the government, it seemed, knew what it was asking of workers like him.
Peru set a global example of quick action in the face of COVID-19, implementing a nationwide lockdown March 16, soon after its first confirmed case. The government invested in respirators and hospital beds, and offered bonuses to medical professionals. It designed an economic relief package that not only offered low-interest loans to businesses and helped employers keep workers on payrolls, but also targeted the poor, vulnerable, and self-employed with vital cash transfers.
Why We Wrote This For two decades, Peru charted its own success story, as millions joined the middle class. But challenges delivering lockdown relief are highlighting just how partial that success has truly been. Part 2 of “One pandemic, many safety nets: A global series.”
But today, more than three months later, Mr. Arias feels tricked.
“The state hasn’t done anything to help me. Not with cash transfers, not with food donations,” says Mr. Arias, who previously earned about $14 a day.
Editor’s note: As a public service, all our coronavirus coverage is free. No paywall.
He made it through one and a half months of lockdown before heading back to the streets. He and hundreds of other vendors on the block had their wares confiscated by municipal officials, and were told that to get them back, they would need to pay a set fine for breaking the lockdown, which, for some vendors, was double the value of the merchandise itself.
“When the option is to die of hunger or hope that this illness doesn’t get you, of course you break quarantine to try and feed your family,” he says. As leader of a local informal street merchant association, he knows scores of vendors who have fallen ill. Public markets have become hot spots, with nearly 8 in 10 vendors testing positive in one fruit market alone.
Rodrigo Abd/AP View caption Hide caption Volunteers peel potatoes for a stew at a soup kitchen organized by residents in the Nueva Esperanza neighborhood of Lima, Peru, June 8, 2020, amid the country's economic shutdown.
Despite Peru’s lauded response efforts, it now has one of the world’s longest lockdowns, and the second-highest tally of COVID-19 cases in Latin America, with more than 264,000 cases and more than 8,000 people killed. In the region, Peru ranks only behind Brazil, which has taken a decidedly less deliberate approach to halting the pandemic. Where things went wrong, experts say, was in misunderstanding the dynamics of poverty in a country that has gained “middle-income” status over two decades of growth.
“It’s like we decided poverty is almost over in [Peruvian] cities and we only need to focus on rural areas,” says Peru-based Carmen Roca, the Latin America regional advisor for WIEGO, an international nongovernmental organization advocating for informal workers. The pandemic “is exposing the fact that there are still a lot of people in poverty who we didn’t see before: They are earning day to day and working in difficult conditions.”
Missing numbers
In a region known for economic booms and busts, Peru has been a model of steady economic success, bolstered by commodity exports and conservative fiscal policies. Millions have moved out of poverty. But that progress may have given Peruvians a false sense of security.
“For 20 years we’ve been a star country in terms of macroeconomics. We’ve grown extraordinarily, had fiscal discipline,” says Hugo Ñopo, an economist at Grade, a development think tank in Lima. “But we’ve forgotten to invest in the people. We’ve forgotten to invest in health and education.”
Peru’s $26 billion relief package is worth an estimated 12% of the country’s gross domestic product. (In comparison, the U.S. is spending about 14% of its GDP.) But reaching vulnerable households with the transfers of 380-760 soles ($110-$220) has proved challenging – particularly given outdated information on who is struggling. After Peru first announced subsidies for poor people and informal workers, so many people were accidentally excluded that two new transfer programs were created, using information from other agencies.
It isn’t for lack of trying, observers say. The government used various databases, but it became obvious early on that numbers on poverty were out of date, says Mr. Ñopo, who co-wrote a United Nations Development Program policy note on Peru’s relief package.
Rodrigo Abd/AP View caption Hide caption Patio umbrellas and tarps dot the landscape at La Parada market in La Victoria district in Lima, Peru, June 23, 2020, amid the coronavirus pandemic.
“Errors are unavoidable. But this is the moment when we have to learn from these mistakes,” he says. “The government needs to adapt – see the error as a tool for excellence” moving forward.
“We can’t keep running on autopilot,” Mr. Ñopo says.
The shortcomings of Peru’s ambitious package reflect the “fragility of our safety nets,” former finance minister Luis Miguel Castilla said in an April 15 online conference hosted by the Wilson Center. “Peru lacks the tools to reach vulnerable populations,” including bank accounts – only 43% of the population has one.
NGOs like WIEGO offered to create a roster of its own to share with the government, but Ms. Roca says they were rebuffed. She suspects that, given high-profile corruption scandals in recent years, the government’s hands were tied on what kind of databases to use.
Corruption has also been to blame for some of the poor execution. Food baskets, for example, were to be distributed at the municipal level, and the government has received hundreds of complaints of irregularities, like expired products or goods removed before delivery.
Ms. Roca says the challenges in identifying who is in need clearly won’t be resolved overnight, but hopefully the pandemic will set priorities moving forward.
“This population working informally, in a sense, they have finally been seen and recognized,” Ms. Roca says.
“We’re invisible”
Before COVID-19, Gloria Solórzano worked two informal jobs, starting around 4 a.m. each day. She’d sell fresh fruit, bringing home roughly $10, in the morning, and embroider in the afternoons. But she’s over 60 and says going out to work is too risky. She feels lucky that her adult children are helping her where they can, but they too are now without an income.
Jacob Turcotte/Staff
The day to day is grim: Ms. Solórzano eats one meal, down from two or three a day pre-pandemic. “The situation here is really critical, more so than in other countries, because the government isn’t taking us into account. We’re invisible,” she says of informal workers. She’s the leader of the National Network of Self-Employed Workers (RENATTA), with roughly 2,000 members. She knows of three who have received a government transfer.
Meanwhile, unemployment has exploded, growing to 13.1%.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
“Informal workers will multiply,” Ms. Solórzano predicts. “It will be really hard to subsist. It’s not just me – it will be our reality at the national and international level. How will we move ahead after this pandemic?”
Editor’s note: As a public service, all our coronavirus coverage is free. No paywall.


csmonitor--2020-06-30--Supreme Court rules public funds can go toward religious schools

The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it easier for religious schools to obtain public funds , upholding a Montana scholarship program that allows state tax credits for private schooling .
The court ’ s 5-4 ruling , with conservatives in the majority , came in a dispute over a Montana scholarship program for private K-12 education that also makes donors eligible for up to $ 150 in state tax credits .
The Legislature created the tax credit in 2015 for contributions made to certain scholarship programs for private education .
The state ’ s highest court had struck down the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Montana constitution 's ban on state aid to religious schools .
The scholarships can be used at both secular and religious schools , but almost all the recipients attend religious schools .
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion that said the state ruling violates the religious freedom of parents who want the scholarships to help pay for their children 's private education .
“ A state need not subsidize private education .
But once a state decides to do so , it can not disqualify some private schools solely because they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent that the high-court ruling “ is perverse .
Without any need or power to do so , the Court appears to require a State to reinstate a tax-credit program that the Constitution did not demand in the first place.
” Parents whose children attend religious schools sued to preserve the program .
Roughly three-dozen states have similar no-aid provisions in their constitutions .
Courts in some states have relied on those provisions to strike down religious-school funding .
Advocates for allowing state money to be used in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its decision that parents should not be penalized for sending their children to schools that are a better fit than the public schools .
“ This opinion will pave the way for more states to pass school choice programs that allow parents to choose a school that best meets their child ’ s individual needs , regardless of whether those schools are religious or nonreligious , ” said Erica Smith , a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice , which represented the parents in their court fight .
But the president of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which counts more than 12,000 teachers and other school workers as union members , called the decision “ a slap in the face '' to its members and the communities they serve .
“ Today ’ s decision violates Montana ’ s commitment to public education , our children , and our constitution .
Extremist special interests are manipulating our tax code to rob Montana children of quality education while padding the pockets of those who run exclusive , discriminatory private schools , ” union president Amanda Curtis said .
Justice Samuel Alito @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to evidence of anti-Catholic bigotry that he said motivated the original adoption of the Montana provision and others like it in the 1800s , although Montana ’ s constitution was redone in 1972 with the provision intact .
Justice Brett Kavanaugh , whose two daughters attend Catholic schools , made a similar point during arguments in January when he talked about the “ grotesque religious bigotry ” against Catholics that underlay the amendment .
The decision was the latest in a line of decisions from the Supreme Court , which now includes Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that have favored religion-based discrimination claims .
In 2014 , the justices allowed family-held , for-profit businesses with religious objections to get out from under a requirement to pay for contraceptives for women covered under their health insurance plans .
In 2017 , the court ruled for a Missouri church that had been excluded from state grants to put softer surfaces in playgrounds .
The high court also is weighing a Trump administration policy that would make it easier for employers to claim a religious or moral exemption and avoid paying for contraceptives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Still another case would shield religious institutions from more employment discrimination claims .
The Supreme Court also has upheld some school voucher programs and state courts have ratified others .
This story was reported by The Associated Press .
Editor ’ s note : As a public service , the Monitor has removed the paywall for all our coronavirus coverage .
It ’ s free .

The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it easier for religious schools to obtain public funds, upholding a Montana scholarship program that allows state tax credits for private schooling.
The court’s 5-4 ruling, with conservatives in the majority, came in a dispute over a Montana scholarship program for private K-12 education that also makes donors eligible for up to $150 in state tax credits.
The Legislature created the tax credit in 2015 for contributions made to certain scholarship programs for private education. The state’s highest court had struck down the tax credit as a violation of the Montana constitution's ban on state aid to religious schools. The scholarships can be used at both secular and religious schools, but almost all the recipients attend religious schools.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion that said the state ruling violates the religious freedom of parents who want the scholarships to help pay for their children's private education. “A state need not subsidize private education. But once a state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious,” Mr. Roberts wrote.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent that the high-court ruling “is perverse. Without any need or power to do so, the Court appears to require a State to reinstate a tax-credit program that the Constitution did not demand in the first place.”
Parents whose children attend religious schools sued to preserve the program.
Roughly three-dozen states have similar no-aid provisions in their constitutions. Courts in some states have relied on those provisions to strike down religious-school funding.
Advocates for allowing state money to be used in private schooling said the court recognized in its decision that parents should not be penalized for sending their children to schools that are a better fit than the public schools.
“This opinion will pave the way for more states to pass school choice programs that allow parents to choose a school that best meets their child’s individual needs, regardless of whether those schools are religious or nonreligious,” said Erica Smith, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represented the parents in their court fight.
But the president of the Montana Federation of Public Employees, which counts more than 12,000 teachers and other school workers as union members, called the decision “a slap in the face" to its members and the communities they serve.
“Today’s decision violates Montana’s commitment to public education, our children, and our constitution. Extremist special interests are manipulating our tax code to rob Montana children of quality education while padding the pockets of those who run exclusive, discriminatory private schools,” union president Amanda Curtis said.
Justice Samuel Alito pointed, in a separate opinion, to evidence of anti-Catholic bigotry that he said motivated the original adoption of the Montana provision and others like it in the 1800s, although Montana’s constitution was redone in 1972 with the provision intact. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, whose two daughters attend Catholic schools, made a similar point during arguments in January when he talked about the “grotesque religious bigotry” against Catholics that underlay the amendment.
The decision was the latest in a line of decisions from the Supreme Court, which now includes Trump appointees Neil Gorsuch and Mr. Kavanaugh, that have favored religion-based discrimination claims. In 2014, the justices allowed family-held, for-profit businesses with religious objections to get out from under a requirement to pay for contraceptives for women covered under their health insurance plans. In 2017, the court ruled for a Missouri church that had been excluded from state grants to put softer surfaces in playgrounds.
The high court also is weighing a Trump administration policy that would make it easier for employers to claim a religious or moral exemption and avoid paying for contraceptives for women covered by their health plans. Still another case would shield religious institutions from more employment discrimination claims.
The Supreme Court also has upheld some school voucher programs and state courts have ratified others.
This story was reported by The Associated Press.
Editor’s note: As a public service, the Monitor has removed the paywall for all our coronavirus coverage. It’s free.


csmonitor--2020-06-30--Putin set to get his new constitution. But Russians ask, ‘Why now?’

“ Why the rush to get the constitutional voting done ?
” asks Nikolai Svanidze , a historian and popular media commentator .
“ I guess our authorities are scared that if they wait a few months , people ’ s moods might change.
” Some argue that the official haste is down to fear that public disaffection will rise , making it much harder to complete the constitutional overhaul .
Mr. Putin ’ s personal approval ratings remain high , around 60 % .
But other polls suggest that trust in government institutions is declining , as the economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lockdown deepens .
That begins with questions about why these changes were needed and why the Kremlin has rushed them through with hardly any public debate .
Mr. Putin has often explicitly argued against devaluing the constitution by capriciously changing it .
Now he seems committed to getting this major revision done , and quickly .
Russians have been voting over the past week on a sweeping package of more than 100 amendments to the country ’ s 1993 charter .
Its best-known feature is a clause that will enable Vladimir Putin to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The measures are expected to pass handily , but the controversy the effort has kicked up seems unlikely to die down anytime soon .
Russia has had five different constitutions since the beginning of the 20th century .
All of them were linked to the fortunes of a particular leader , rather than being a permanent distillation of national principles .
If exit polls are correct , after voting ends this Wednesday , Russia is about to get its sixth new constitution – this one shaped around President Vladimir Putin .
Russians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , amid the still-raging coronavirus pandemic , on a sweeping package of more than 100 amendments to the country ’ s 1993 charter .
Unsurprisingly , its best-known feature is a clause that will enable Mr. Putin to evade past term limits and potentially remain in the Kremlin until 2036 .
The measures are expected to pass handily , but the controversy the effort has kicked up seems unlikely to die down anytime soon .
That begins with questions about why these changes were even needed in the first place , why the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any public debate , and why the voting couldn ’ t have been postponed at least until the ongoing pandemic has finally abated .
“ I really can ’ t understand why this is all being done in such a hurry , ” says Margarita Petrikova , a Moscow pensioner , voicing a common note of confusion .
“ They tell us it ’ s still risky to enter some closed premises , yet they urge us to come out and vote .
I know they say you can do it online , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t understand why the choice is just ‘ yes ’ or ‘ no ’ to the whole thing .
What if I like some amendments , but not others ?
” Mr. Putin has long resisted introducing major changes to Russia ’ s fundamental law , in part because he ’ s managed to rule perfectly well without doing so .
But he also has often explicitly argued against devaluing the constitution by capriciously changing it .
Now he seems committed to getting this major revision done , and quickly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is down to fear that the economy will deteriorate , or public disaffection will rise , making it much harder to complete the constitutional overhaul if it is put off for a few months .
Mr. Putin ’ s personal approval ratings remain high , around 60 % .
But other polls suggest that trust in government institutions is declining while protest moods are rising , as the economic recession brought on by months of coronavirus lockdown deepens .
“ Why the rush to get the constitutional voting done ?
I can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but I guess our authorities are scared that if they wait a few months , people ’ s moods might change , ” says Nikolai Svanidze , a historian and popular media commentator .
“ It ’ s summer , moods are positive , but by autumn maybe people will look in their refrigerators and think differently.
” Most countries only amend their basic charters after some national shock or a sea change in public opinion compels it .
It ’ s not clear what the Kremlin was thinking when it put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year .
Originally , it looked like a design for a more sustainable political system after Mr. Putin had left office in 2024 , even if it created a powerful sinecure that might enable him to retain influence for awhile .
A constitutional drafting committee then added a range of measures to replace the liberal tone of the 1993 document with socially conservative and nationalistic principles , like recognition of God , a ban on gay marriage , and placing Russian law above international obligations .
They also added populist measures , such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to inflation .
In March , as the coronavirus pandemic hit , the surprise amendment was added to reset the presidential clock , allowing Mr. Putin to run for two more terms .
Many analysts note that , while the entire exercise clearly revolves around Mr. Putin , he might surely have found a simpler solution if his only goal was to remain in office for life .
Andrei Kolesnikov , an analyst with the Carnegie Moscow Center , argues that the new constitution is a political project aimed at creating a fresh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he dubs “ Putin 3.0.
” Mr. Putin ’ s political longevity – he ’ s been in power , one way or another , for 20 years – has been based not so much on winning competitive elections , as a Western politician would .
Rather , Mr. Kolesnikov says , Mr. Putin has survived by using various tools to create the impression of popular majorities that support him .
The first iteration of Putinism was from 2000 to 2008 , when political stability combined with high oil prices and canny economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ popular living standards .
Mr. Putin ’ s enduring popularity is still rooted in the perception that he united the country after the disastrous 1990s and ushered in relative prosperity for most Russians .
Russia ’ s economic growth stalled after the global crash of 2008 , and Mr. Putin fashioned a new majority paradigm by successfully standing up to the West ’ s efforts to sanction and isolate Russia over the domestically popular 2014 annexation of Crimea .
That led to a wave of patriotism among average Russians , while the Kremlin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and asserting Russian influence on the world stage .
But those sources of political popularity are largely exhausted , and the new constitution is Mr. Putin ’ s way of reviving his momentum through popular mobilization , says Mr. Kolesnikov .
“ The basic message is continuity of the stability of the Putin era , ” he says .
“ People are being told that if we don ’ t defend our conservative-patriotic values , we will lose what we have .
Putin needs social mobilization , as demonstrated in this voting , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Putin may take up the option to run again for the presidency in 2024 .
But for now he is anxious to prevent Russia ’ s fractious elites from squabbling over the succession .
“ Putin is still the only figure who can unite all the elites .
No institutions or mechanisms exist to replace this , ” Mr. Kolesnikov says .
“ So , what Putin needs them to hear is , ‘ I am not a lame duck.
’ ” There is also a clear message for Russia ’ s dissenting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the still-powerful Communist Party .
About a quarter of Russians are expected to vote against the constitutional amendments .
“ Dissatisfied minorities will be made to understand through the outcome of this vote that Russia has a strong majority , and it supports Putin , ” says Mr. Kolesnikov .
“ Alternatives are not on the table .
”

“Why the rush to get the constitutional voting done?” asks Nikolai Svanidze, a historian and popular media commentator. “I guess our authorities are scared that if they wait a few months, people’s moods might change.”
Some argue that the official haste is down to fear that public disaffection will rise, making it much harder to complete the constitutional overhaul. Mr. Putin’s personal approval ratings remain high, around 60%. But other polls suggest that trust in government institutions is declining, as the economic recession brought on by months of coronavirus lockdown deepens.
Vladimir Putin had a plan to reform the Russian Constitution. Then the pandemic happened. Now he’s changed the plan and is rushing it through a referendum, to many Russians’ confusion. What’s going on?
That begins with questions about why these changes were needed and why the Kremlin has rushed them through with hardly any public debate. Mr. Putin has often explicitly argued against devaluing the constitution by capriciously changing it. Now he seems committed to getting this major revision done, and quickly.
Russians have been voting over the past week on a sweeping package of more than 100 amendments to the country’s 1993 charter. Its best-known feature is a clause that will enable Vladimir Putin to potentially remain in the Kremlin until 2036. The measures are expected to pass handily, but the controversy the effort has kicked up seems unlikely to die down anytime soon.
Russia has had five different constitutions since the beginning of the 20th century. All of them were linked to the fortunes of a particular leader, rather than being a permanent distillation of national principles.
If exit polls are correct, after voting ends this Wednesday, Russia is about to get its sixth new constitution – this one shaped around President Vladimir Putin.
Russians have been voting over the past week, amid the still-raging coronavirus pandemic, on a sweeping package of more than 100 amendments to the country’s 1993 charter. Unsurprisingly, its best-known feature is a clause that will enable Mr. Putin to evade past term limits and potentially remain in the Kremlin until 2036. The measures are expected to pass handily, but the controversy the effort has kicked up seems unlikely to die down anytime soon.
Why We Wrote This Vladimir Putin had a plan to reform the Russian Constitution. Then the pandemic happened. Now he’s changed the plan and is rushing it through a referendum, to many Russians’ confusion. What’s going on?
That begins with questions about why these changes were even needed in the first place, why the Kremlin has rushed them through with hardly any public debate, and why the voting couldn’t have been postponed at least until the ongoing pandemic has finally abated.
“I really can’t understand why this is all being done in such a hurry,” says Margarita Petrikova, a Moscow pensioner, voicing a common note of confusion. “They tell us it’s still risky to enter some closed premises, yet they urge us to come out and vote. I know they say you can do it online, but that seems too complicated. And I don’t understand why the choice is just ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the whole thing. What if I like some amendments, but not others?”
Reform in a hurry
Mr. Putin has long resisted introducing major changes to Russia’s fundamental law, in part because he’s managed to rule perfectly well without doing so. But he also has often explicitly argued against devaluing the constitution by capriciously changing it. Now he seems committed to getting this major revision done, and quickly.
Some argue that the official haste is down to fear that the economy will deteriorate, or public disaffection will rise, making it much harder to complete the constitutional overhaul if it is put off for a few months. Mr. Putin’s personal approval ratings remain high, around 60%. But other polls suggest that trust in government institutions is declining while protest moods are rising, as the economic recession brought on by months of coronavirus lockdown deepens.
“Why the rush to get the constitutional voting done? I can’t see any special reason for it, but I guess our authorities are scared that if they wait a few months, people’s moods might change,” says Nikolai Svanidze, a historian and popular media commentator. “It’s summer, moods are positive, but by autumn maybe people will look in their refrigerators and think differently.”
Most countries only amend their basic charters after some national shock or a sea change in public opinion compels it. It’s not clear what the Kremlin was thinking when it put forward a raft of amendments early this year.
Alexander Zemlianichenko/AP View caption Hide caption A voter wearing a face mask and gloves casts his ballot at Kazansky railway station in Moscow, June 30, 2020. The constitutional reform is expected to be approved, but urban liberals and members of the Communist Party are likely to vote against it.
Originally, it looked like a design for a more sustainable political system after Mr. Putin had left office in 2024, even if it created a powerful sinecure that might enable him to retain influence for awhile. A constitutional drafting committee then added a range of measures to replace the liberal tone of the 1993 document with socially conservative and nationalistic principles, like recognition of God, a ban on gay marriage, and placing Russian law above international obligations. They also added populist measures, such as indexing the minimum wage and pensions to inflation.
In March, as the coronavirus pandemic hit, the surprise amendment was added to reset the presidential clock, allowing Mr. Putin to run for two more terms. Many analysts note that, while the entire exercise clearly revolves around Mr. Putin, he might surely have found a simpler solution if his only goal was to remain in office for life.
Creating a consensus
Andrei Kolesnikov, an analyst with the Carnegie Moscow Center, argues that the new constitution is a political project aimed at creating a fresh pro-Kremlin social and political consensus, which he dubs “Putin 3.0.”
Mr. Putin’s political longevity – he’s been in power, one way or another, for 20 years – has been based not so much on winning competitive elections, as a Western politician would. Rather, Mr. Kolesnikov says, Mr. Putin has survived by using various tools to create the impression of popular majorities that support him.
The first iteration of Putinism was from 2000 to 2008, when political stability combined with high oil prices and canny economic policies led to rapid growth and rising popular living standards. Mr. Putin’s enduring popularity is still rooted in the perception that he united the country after the disastrous 1990s and ushered in relative prosperity for most Russians.
Russia’s economic growth stalled after the global crash of 2008, and Mr. Putin fashioned a new majority paradigm by successfully standing up to the West’s efforts to sanction and isolate Russia over the domestically popular 2014 annexation of Crimea. That led to a wave of patriotism among average Russians, while the Kremlin gained popularity by successfully resisting Western pressures and asserting Russian influence on the world stage.
But those sources of political popularity are largely exhausted, and the new constitution is Mr. Putin’s way of reviving his momentum through popular mobilization, says Mr. Kolesnikov.
“The basic message is continuity of the stability of the Putin era,” he says. “People are being told that if we don’t defend our conservative-patriotic values, we will lose what we have. Putin needs social mobilization, as demonstrated in this voting, to drive home this message.”
Sending messages
Mr. Putin may take up the option to run again for the presidency in 2024. But for now he is anxious to prevent Russia’s fractious elites from squabbling over the succession.
“Putin is still the only figure who can unite all the elites. No institutions or mechanisms exist to replace this,” Mr. Kolesnikov says. “So, what Putin needs them to hear is, ‘I am not a lame duck.’”
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
There is also a clear message for Russia’s dissenting minorities, including restive urban liberals and the still-powerful Communist Party. About a quarter of Russians are expected to vote against the constitutional amendments.
“Dissatisfied minorities will be made to understand through the outcome of this vote that Russia has a strong majority, and it supports Putin,” says Mr. Kolesnikov. “Alternatives are not on the table.”


csmonitor--2020-06-30--Pandemic pricing: Are Mideast markets losing the art of the deal?

But the measures can ’ t replace the intrigue and adrenaline rush of “ naming your price.
” “ No matter the amount of technology , once we return closer to normal life , people will be back in the street shopping and bargaining , ” predicts Bassam Arafeh , a scarf seller .
“ It ’ s not haggling ; it ’ s human nature.
” Entrepreneurial merchants have come up with a handful of stopgap solutions .
Some have opened WhatsApp groups updated by the hour where they can haggle with individual customers .
Others rely on Facebook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limited items .
“ No one is relaxed , no one is stopping to speak , no one is engaging , ” says Abu Mohammed , slumped over the counter at his empty store in downtown Amman , Jordan .
“ No matter if you have your best sales pitch , you can ’ t get people to stop and think about bartering and buying , ” he says .
In Arab countries , where vast swaths of the economy are vendors , market stalls , and mom-and-pop shops , the coronavirus pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ haggling .
With the gloves-disinfectant-face mask logistics of hygiene , and concern of close contact , shopping has struggled to evolve .
This has a mark on it .
How much will you take off ?
If I buy two , what price will you give me ?
Buy four , and there ’ s a special discount – just for you .
Such phrases are as much a part of the soundtrack of the souk as crashing waves are at the beach .
Haggling and bargaining – at times a blood-sport , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at others a carefully choreographed tango with each side refusing to verbalize their true desire – have been the lifeblood of Middle Eastern marketplaces for centuries ; some say millennia .
It is a sport of necessity .
Vendors move product , shoppers get what they think is a bargain , the circle of commerce is complete .
Haggling has continued as empires rose and fell , weathering natural disasters and war .
But now it faces its most difficult challenge yet : the coronavirus .
With curfews , social distancing , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beating sun , and concern of close contact , good old-fashioned marketplace shopping has struggled to evolve in the COVID-19 era .
In Arab countries , where vast swaths of the economy are vendors , market stalls , and mom-and-pop shops , the pandemic has taken a huge toll and disrupted an age-old shopping culture .
Despite most Arab countries having been opened for weeks with relaxed COVID-19 restrictions , Middle Eastern market traffic has slowed to a trickle in Amman , Cairo , and Tunis .
In Amman , a valley of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heart of the capital – usually thronged by crowds browsing everything from carpets to chickens – was deserted on a midday midweek .
Abu Mohammed , who normally could sell up to $ 150 worth of his shop ’ s nuts , spices , coffees , and herbal remedies to one customer , says he is now lucky to make $ 75 in sales in an entire day .
“ No one is relaxed , no one is stopping to speak , no one is engaging , ” he says , slumped over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , just below a government-issued decal on his shop window reading , “ Social distancing , stay two meters apart.
” “ No matter if you have your best sales pitch , you can ’ t get people to stop and think about bartering and buying , ” he says .
“ Only health is on their mind.
” Masked customers make hurried decisions from outside storefronts , or pass by without stopping , concerned about a sudden crowd gathering around them or another shopper sneezing in their face .
“ Before , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holding each dress or plate when I shopped , hunting for the perfect hidden gem that fits my style , ” Umm Khaled , a 37-year-old Amman resident , says outside a shop as she waits for a vendor to hand her a set of tea glasses .
Having phoned ahead , she grabs her items quickly .
“ Shopping is no longer browsing , ” she says , “ it ’ s like picking up a package .
I can ’ t wait to leave.
” Then there ’ s the psychological @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Deserted marketplaces in Amman , Cairo , or Tunisia ’ s seaside village gem , Sidi Bou Said , all send a message to shoppers : Shops are closed or something is terribly wrong .
Shopkeepers say they relied on the competition created by bustling crowds ; multiple customers holding up and eyeing the same items would create an incentive for shoppers to buy what they think is “ the last piece ” or make an impulse offer so as not to lose a good deal to another browser .
To want it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distancing means shop owners can ’ t physically handle an item to show customers its “ exquisite craftsmanship , ” or present a more expensive product for comparison .
“ It ’ s just not the same , ” Bassam Arafeh says in his shemagh stall in a nearly deserted downtown Amman , where for two decades he has relied on street traffic to sell hand-knitted checkered men ’ s headscarves .
“ Shopping is a tactile experience ; you have to see and feel the item in order to truly want it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the handwoven fluffy , white tassels dangling from a shemagh scarf hanging above him .
“ If you just see a photo of a product on Facebook or WhatsApp , you end up thinking more about the price than the item .
Rather than thinking about how nice the item is , you just think , ‘ Do I really want to spend this amount ?
’ ” Social distancing and pandemic concerns have also disrupted a delicate economic ecosystem for limited-income citizens who relied on haggling for day-old vegetables or worn clothes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ items .
“ We can ’ t afford to get sick .
Instead we buy new and buy less , ” says Umm Mohammed , a Syrian refugee and mother of five .
The loss of business travel and tourism has also had a ripple effect in the Arab marketplace .
“ If someone is visiting from another city or country and has limited time in Cairo , this will be the first , last , and only chance to purchase from your shop , ” says Khalil Muhanned , a coppersmith who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a side street in old Islamic Cairo .
Such a dynamic allowed shopkeepers to pile items onto a visitors ’ shopping list , offering discounts to encourage them to spend “ just a little bit more ” to get that extra carpet or lantern for their in-laws or co-worker .
“ But when no one is traveling from another country , there is no longer a sense of discovery or pressure to make a purchase , ” Mr. Muhanned says .
Entrepreneurial merchants have come up with a handful of solutions to bring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In Egypt and Jordan , shopkeepers have opened WhatsApp groups updated by the hour , posting their latest wares and encouraging side conversations where they haggle with individual customers ; others are relying on Facebook , posting images and encouraging bidding on limited items .
Many in Jordan and the Persian Gulf are starting to rely on a fleet of masked and gloved deliverymen and women working for ride-sharing apps , summoned at the whim of a customer , to complete a transaction without ever meeting the shopper .
But rather than replace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ naming your price , ” shopkeepers say the measures are a stopgap to help them survive the pandemic .
“ No matter the amount of technology , once we return closer to normal life , people will be back in the street shopping and bargaining , ” predicts Mr. Arafeh , the scarf seller , as he tapes up a handwritten sign reading “ 25 % off .
”

But the measures can’t replace the intrigue and adrenaline rush of “naming your price.” “No matter the amount of technology, once we return closer to normal life, people will be back in the street shopping and bargaining,” predicts Bassam Arafeh, a scarf seller. “It’s not haggling; it’s human nature.”
Entrepreneurial merchants have come up with a handful of stopgap solutions. Some have opened WhatsApp groups updated by the hour where they can haggle with individual customers. Others rely on Facebook, posting images and encouraging bidding on limited items.
In Middle East markets, haggling is a sport, or perhaps a dance. If you’re agile enough to get a bargain, you win. Amid the pandemic, some shoppers are ordering items remotely. But what fun is that?
“No one is relaxed, no one is stopping to speak, no one is engaging,” says Abu Mohammed, slumped over the counter at his empty store in downtown Amman, Jordan. “No matter if you have your best sales pitch, you can’t get people to stop and think about bartering and buying,” he says.
In Arab countries, where vast swaths of the economy are vendors, market stalls, and mom-and-pop shops, the coronavirus pandemic has disrupted an age-old culture of marketplace haggling. With the gloves-disinfectant-face mask logistics of hygiene, and concern of close contact, shopping has struggled to evolve.
This has a mark on it. How much will you take off?
If I buy two, what price will you give me?
Buy four, and there’s a special discount – just for you.
Why We Wrote This In Middle East markets, haggling is a sport, or perhaps a dance. If you’re agile enough to get a bargain, you win. Amid the pandemic, some shoppers are ordering items remotely. But what fun is that?
Such phrases are as much a part of the soundtrack of the souk as crashing waves are at the beach.
Haggling and bargaining – at times a blood-sport, at times a game of poker, at others a carefully choreographed tango with each side refusing to verbalize their true desire – have been the lifeblood of Middle Eastern marketplaces for centuries; some say millennia.
It is a sport of necessity. Vendors move product, shoppers get what they think is a bargain, the circle of commerce is complete.
Haggling has continued as empires rose and fell, weathering natural disasters and war. But now it faces its most difficult challenge yet: the coronavirus.
With curfews, social distancing, the gloves-disinfectant-face mask logistics of hygiene in the beating sun, and concern of close contact, good old-fashioned marketplace shopping has struggled to evolve in the COVID-19 era.
In Arab countries, where vast swaths of the economy are vendors, market stalls, and mom-and-pop shops, the pandemic has taken a huge toll and disrupted an age-old shopping culture.
“No one is engaging”
Despite most Arab countries having been opened for weeks with relaxed COVID-19 restrictions, Middle Eastern market traffic has slowed to a trickle in Amman, Cairo, and Tunis.
In Amman, a valley of shops and street vendors running through the heart of the capital – usually thronged by crowds browsing everything from carpets to chickens – was deserted on a midday midweek.
Abu Mohammed, who normally could sell up to $150 worth of his shop’s nuts, spices, coffees, and herbal remedies to one customer, says he is now lucky to make $75 in sales in an entire day.
“No one is relaxed, no one is stopping to speak, no one is engaging,” he says, slumped over the counter at his empty downtown store, just below a government-issued decal on his shop window reading, “Social distancing, stay two meters apart.”
“No matter if you have your best sales pitch, you can’t get people to stop and think about bartering and buying,” he says. “Only health is on their mind.”
Masked customers make hurried decisions from outside storefronts, or pass by without stopping, concerned about a sudden crowd gathering around them or another shopper sneezing in their face.
“Before, I would just spend hours browsing and holding each dress or plate when I shopped, hunting for the perfect hidden gem that fits my style,” Umm Khaled, a 37-year-old Amman resident, says outside a shop as she waits for a vendor to hand her a set of tea glasses.
Having phoned ahead, she grabs her items quickly.
“Shopping is no longer browsing,” she says, “it’s like picking up a package. I can’t wait to leave.”
Then there’s the psychological impact of the lack of crowds. Deserted marketplaces in Amman, Cairo, or Tunisia’s seaside village gem, Sidi Bou Said, all send a message to shoppers: Shops are closed or something is terribly wrong.
Shopkeepers say they relied on the competition created by bustling crowds; multiple customers holding up and eyeing the same items would create an incentive for shoppers to buy what they think is “the last piece” or make an impulse offer so as not to lose a good deal to another browser.
Taylor Luck View caption Hide caption Shemagh scarf salesman Bassam Arafeh stands at his unusually quiet stall in downtown Amman, June 17, 2020.
To want it, you need to touch it
Social distancing means shop owners can’t physically handle an item to show customers its “exquisite craftsmanship,” or present a more expensive product for comparison.
“It’s just not the same,” Bassam Arafeh says in his shemagh stall in a nearly deserted downtown Amman, where for two decades he has relied on street traffic to sell hand-knitted checkered men’s headscarves.
“Shopping is a tactile experience; you have to see and feel the item in order to truly want it,” he says, holding up the handwoven fluffy, white tassels dangling from a shemagh scarf hanging above him.
“If you just see a photo of a product on Facebook or WhatsApp, you end up thinking more about the price than the item. Rather than thinking about how nice the item is, you just think, ‘Do I really want to spend this amount?’”
Social distancing and pandemic concerns have also disrupted a delicate economic ecosystem for limited-income citizens who relied on haggling for day-old vegetables or worn clothes and who are now wary of used items.
“We can’t afford to get sick. Instead we buy new and buy less,” says Umm Mohammed, a Syrian refugee and mother of five.
The loss of business travel and tourism has also had a ripple effect in the Arab marketplace.
“If someone is visiting from another city or country and has limited time in Cairo, this will be the first, last, and only chance to purchase from your shop,” says Khalil Muhanned, a coppersmith who sells decorative brass and stained-glass lanterns on a side street in old Islamic Cairo.
Such a dynamic allowed shopkeepers to pile items onto a visitors’ shopping list, offering discounts to encourage them to spend “just a little bit more” to get that extra carpet or lantern for their in-laws or co-worker.
“But when no one is traveling from another country, there is no longer a sense of discovery or pressure to make a purchase,” Mr. Muhanned says.
Stopgap measures
Entrepreneurial merchants have come up with a handful of solutions to bring bartering back into the shopping experience.
In Egypt and Jordan, shopkeepers have opened WhatsApp groups updated by the hour, posting their latest wares and encouraging side conversations where they haggle with individual customers; others are relying on Facebook, posting images and encouraging bidding on limited items.
Many in Jordan and the Persian Gulf are starting to rely on a fleet of masked and gloved deliverymen and women working for ride-sharing apps, summoned at the whim of a customer, to complete a transaction without ever meeting the shopper.
But rather than replace the intrigue and adrenaline rush of “naming your price,” shopkeepers say the measures are a stopgap to help them survive the pandemic.
Get stories that
empower and uplift daily. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.
“No matter the amount of technology, once we return closer to normal life, people will be back in the street shopping and bargaining,” predicts Mr. Arafeh, the scarf seller, as he tapes up a handwritten sign reading “25% off.”
“It’s not haggling; it’s human nature.”