Main Page «
Front Page «
Metro «
Business «
International «
Sports «
National «
Editorial «
Op-Ed «
Home «
Timeout «
Letters «

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

Dr Yunus’s comments about politicians have no originality. This is a favourite topic in every tea-stall, market or drawing room gossip. If I am not wrong, many politicians of other countries, including the developing and developed, are looked upon as corrupt elements out to earn more money through political influence. In our country, it is known that a successful businessman with ambition to become a social magnet ‘invests’ to become a member of the parliament. Which party? Doesn’t matter really when he foots the bill. Similarly, a retired bureaucrat while still on job and desires (may replace with ‘greed’) for immense amount of wealth will bargain with political parties to offer his experience and skill (mainly of corruption).
   But are they really politicians dedicated to people’s welfare? A world-acclaimed intellect like Dr Yunus is expected to point out the way-out for us. Most probably he has done that. But I have not come across the full text of his interview in question. We expect him to show us how to prevent the entry of undesirables like businessmen and bureaucrats of no outstanding achievement into politics and parliament to accumulate more wealth and how he (Dr Yunus) can convince the parties not to give nomination to those opportunists over their qualified workers unable to get nomination for the fault of not having enough money to spend in election. I am not sure if Dr Yunus showed us that way. I do not have any special liking for many of our politicians but I wouldn’t call them corrupt in general.
   Haq
   Dhaka

Your headline news about the inordinate delay in approval by the president of Anti-Corruption Commission rules has come as no surprise for the knowledgeable circles. Because they know very well that the ACC was deliberately kept or made dysfunctional or powerless by the machinations of the last government in power. At one time it was described as a joke by no less a person than a visiting World Bank vice-president sometimes last year. Just as the ministry of law under the shrewd and clever guidance of its minister managed to delay the separation of the judiciary from the executive on various lame excuses, similarly the framing of rules for the ACC was kept in abeyance on procedural dilly-dallying. They knew very well that if it was made effectively operational, many big whales and sharks in the form of ruling political bigwigs had every chance of being caught in the dragnet. Besides, like most other vital organs of the state it was kept under leash by planting at least one well-known BNP sympathiser in the commission’s hierarchy.
   Because of that and other transparent and translucent factors, the ACC from its birth was a stillborn baby. So the question of its growing up was made redundant and irrelevant right from its birth. So it is no wonder that the rules that had been sent for presidential approval last November would gather dust. Now under changed circumstances, the president can redeem himself a lot by sending back that vital file after his immediate approval. He has nothing to lose but everything to gain simply by approving this file. This will surely nullify all his past mistakes and make him somebody to remember — not condemn.
   Anwarul Haque
   Dhanmondi, Dhaka

When in 1776, a group of American men signed a statement proclaiming that all men are created equal with inalienable rights, they chose to deny those rights to slaves (all African-Americans), native Americans and women, while not explaining why they thought God gave those rights only to the males of their own race. In this respect, American democracy was similar to the world’s first democracy — Greece — where slaves and women were excluded from the democratic process.
   However, the Athenians had serious doubts about excluding slaves and women from government. Plato, in his Republic, argued that there were no difference in reality between men and women that would justify keeping women out of government. Aristophanes had even imagined women taking charge of government, for the better, in his play, Lysistrata. He thought women would be better because they are prone to compromise and tolerance — key elements of any democratic government.
   As for slaves, Plato thought that slavery violates the natural equality of human beings. Comic poets and playwrights even showed how easy it was to imagine slaves being more capable than their masters.
   No such thoughts disturbed the founders of the American republic. It took a bloody civil war to liberate the slaves and it took a protracted civil rights movement to give the African-Americans the rights enjoyed by their white compatriots. It also took long for America to allow women to vote. And these rights will remain incomplete until an African American and a female American are elected for the highest offices of the nation.
   Senator Barack Obama has announced that he is creating an exploratory committee to examine the depth of his support for a bid for the presidency. Obama, a little more than two years into his Senate term, is the Democratic Party’s fastest rising star. If he decides to run, he will be the first African-American (son of a Kenyan father and a Kansas mother) trying to win his party’s nomination for the top political office. In the meantime, Senator Hillary Clinton has also announced her candidacy.
   Barack Obama as president and Hillary Clinton as vice president or vice versa will provide a unique opportunity for America to right two historical wrongs by one stroke. My preference is for Obama because he also offers an opportunity to move away from the politics of confrontation and extreme partisanism as evidenced under President George W Bush. Hilary Clinton is seen by many a highly polarising figure. Many Democrats fear she carries too much political baggage from her husband’s presidency. On the other hand, Obama’s presumed weakness — his lack of experience in politics — may be an asset. Clearly, most Americans are disgusted by the way career politicians have been running the country and Obama offers them a fresh personality which sets him apart from more seasoned politicians.
   With President Barack Obama and vice president Hillary Clinton (or vice versa), America will be set for a generational change.
   Mahmood Elahi
   Ottawa, Canada