Editorial
Govt itself stands in the way of
positive changes in politics
It is nice to know that the military-controlled interim government has become sceptical about the fate of its agenda to bring about ‘qualitative changes’ in politics before the general elections, scheduled for December. Such scepticism, we hope, will dissuade the incumbents from further tinkering with the political process in general and the political parties in particular. When articulating the government’s scepticism on Thursday, the commerce adviser made a point that the politically conscious and democratically oriented sections of society have been hammering on since the incumbents came to power, i.e. the important stakeholders in bringing about qualitative changes in politics are the people and the political parties. Regrettably, the interim government has thus far sought to keep these two stakeholders out of the process to bring about a qualitative change in politics.
For the political process to undergo a positive change it is of paramount importance that the people have the right to partake in the requisite debate and discussion. However, under a state of emergency, this government has denied the people of even their fundamental rights to the freedom of thought and expression, to bring out processions and stage rallies to voice their grievances, to move the court for democratic justice, etc. At the same time, the incumbents have launched a campaign to malign and harass the politicians and the political parties through arbitrary actions. All along, the interim government has appeared relentless in their efforts to antagonise the people and the political parties alike.
Within the first few weeks of its assumption of office, the interim government virtually negated the economic gains that the country had made in the 30-odd years since its independence. Its arbitrary drive against unauthorised structures on government lands and makeshift shops on roadsides and pavements left tens of thousands of people homeless and jobless almost overnight. Its anti-corruption drive induced a climate of fear in the business community, resulting in a virtual standstill in trade and investment. Its unquestioning compliance to the prescriptions of the multilateral lending agencies led to the closure of one state-owned enterprise after the other. All this while, as unemployment rose and people’s income dwindled, the price of essentials embarked on a relentless climb upward. The net result of its numerous arbitrary actions has been the loss of livelihood for a significant section of the populace, drastic decline in the nation’s average protein intake, complete breakdown of informal economy and overall stagnation in the economy.
The interim government needs to realise that it has itself become the single-most formidable barrier to the nation’s overall well-being. Of course, the political parties in particular and the political process in general need to undergo a positive change; however, for that to take place, the people and the politicians, who, by the commerce adviser’s own admission, are the important stakeholders in this regard, have to be afforded the freedom to engage freely. Therefore, if the interim government is really committed to bringing about a qualitative change in politics, it should immediately withdraw the state of emergency and arrange for the general elections to be held, so that the primary stakeholders can once again take over the reins of the political process. We admit that there is the possibility of the political parties going back to their old ways. However, we believe if the intelligentsia lives up to its expected role of maintaining pressure on the political parties to desert their old habits and the political workers sustain the demand for programme-based activities, instead of hollow rhetoric, of their leaders, politics will be on its way to undergoing positive changes.
Yet another instance of deceived
migrant workers
WE ARE concerned at yet another instance of Bangladeshi migrant workers being put in peril in West Asia. According to a report in New Age on Friday, some 500 workers have been left without jobs or food in the Saudi capital of Riyadh for the last several days since their employer has refused to accept them on the ground that the Bangladesh recruiting agent sent all the workers at once instead of in separate groups, as agreed earlier.
The officials concerned both in Bangladesh and in Saudi Arabia have indicated that they have directed the recruiting agency and the employer to resolve the standoff, while the recruiting agent in Bangladesh has claimed that the Saudi employer was merely playing a blame game. It is perhaps where Bangladeshi diplomats concerned could play a more active role and mediate between the employer and the local recruiting agent and resolve the stalemate as soon as possible, more so because the migrant workers in question obviously have little resources of their own to cope with their current predicament.
Crucially still, this instance points to the fact that Bangladesh’s regulations and the government’s monitoring system as far expatriates’ welfare is concerned is far from adequate. The facilities and provisions needed to ensure a smooth journey of the expatriates and their welfare abroad are evidently lacking. Last week there were reports in the media that delayed flights had caused expatriate workers to go on the rampage at Dhaka’s international airport as they risked losing their jobs if they could not fly on time. Although there have been a number facilities given to large remitters, the government has made no effective provisions directing authorities to prioritise passage of expatriates by the national flag carrier.
This instance, once again, brings up the point of the government’s monitoring system of the recruiting agencies and manpower agents operating in the country. There are reports of these agencies and companies charging exorbitant rates for necessary papers and documents to take up employment abroad. Reports also indicate that such agencies often exploit the gullibility of thousands of people appropriating large sums of money on false promises of sending them abroad. There has yet to be any significant or exemplary initiative or penalty of such parties.
Successive governments have remained apathetic to the woes of the workers and labourers abroad and merely keep their actions restricted to lip-service which we must point out is not acceptable.
History made at Denver!
While 'history is made' by these elections in America, for the world beyond America, does it really matter which of the two contenders win? I daresay
it does not, or if at all, it matters little,
writes Dr Zakir Husain
THE US Democratic Party Convention at Denver nominated Barack Obama, an African-American, to seek election to the post of president. This is the first time ever in the history of the United States. It took over 200 years to find a black American to be nominated by a major political party. History was made. But what sort of history?
The sheer audacity of an African-American (of Kenyan origin) to seek and secure nomination is awesome. Seen in the context of a history of very tortured and tyrannical race relations in America for centuries it is a significant event, but just that.
Federal law had abolished slavery; civil rights movement struggled hard and long to establish the rights of the black minority. Yet, racial divide and discrimination remain alive and well. Minority communities are tolerated benignly or grudgingly; their struggle to secure equal rights continues. There are poor whites but being the majority community, whites take rights for granted; the blacks cannot. Few blacks managed to rise above the race divide but most others remain below. Racial divide is a fact of life in America. That similar situation prevails in many other parts of the world does not minimise the misfortune.
Minorities are officially given hyphenated identity but the whites are seldom called Anglo-Saxon or European Americans. The middle-class and blue collar whites find it hard to reconcile with equal rights for blacks. Doubts are deep if America is ready for an African-American to occupy the White House. Obama is an African-American; he has a 'funny' name. In many minds, he remains a doubtful tenant of the White House.
Thus, in spite of the very low poll rating enjoyed by the Republican Party and the incumbent president, George W Bush, the lacklustre campaign by the Republican Party and candidate John McCain, according to polls, is running neck to neck with Barack Obama who led an inspiring campaign that energised and mobilised millions of young voters in Democratic primaries. Yet, against conventional prediction he is only parallel to his lacklustre rival; he could lose.
Now that Obama defeated Hillary Clinton in a bitterly fought nomination battle, those clear advantages with which Democrats started the campaign no longer seem to prevail. It is the skin colour, stupid.
No other election in a major democracy obliges the contenders to 'reveal' their past or makes them so vulnerable to any hint of moral lapse. So there are those proverbial slips between the cup and the lips that could ruin the slim margin.
Above all else, there are the rumblings within the Democrats following the failure of Hillary to clinch the nomination. Many in the Democratic Party, especially the women loyalists, find it hard to accept and find it harder to switch their support to the maverick African-American that Obama unmistakably is.
The 18 million strong Hillary supporters are not just unhappy; many of that huge number have second thoughts; many could abstain or do worse by switching to McCain. It does not matter if that switch is a kind of 'revenge in reverse'. A known 'devil' is better or safer than an unknown entity.
May I return to something that till now has been whispered rather than loudly talked of in polite and politically proper circles? That I am afraid is all about race. Race divides the American society like few other things. America stands today in the world as a major (not the largest) modern and secular democracy.
Why then the nomination of a citizen who happens to be an African-American 'makes history'? Or why for that matter nomination of Sarah Palin - a female as vice-presidential running mate by the Republican Party be making history? What history are we talking about?
India (the largest democracy) in the world had decades ago elected its president from the minority community (Muslim). Now the prime minister is from another minority community (Sikh). Did that make history for Indian polity or media?
Such expression would hurt the ethos and pride of secular India. Used glibly by political commentators in Washington and New York, such epithets insult the black community and patronise the female gender. That goes against the grain of a modern democratic polity. But does that sink into the elections extravaganza that the US showpieces?
Colour does not fade easy or well in spite of the appearance of a modern secular democracy America gives. Colour sells if and when peddled deftly or even crudely. Would colour eventually decide this election? Time will tell.
Obama's nomination is audacious indeed. But why should it be historic? His electoral victory remains in doubt. History has not been made, not yet.
Let me leave that issue of 'making history' aside. There is one other issue hugely important to America and the rest of the world.
Much has been talked about the 'image' of America in the world that presumably has been damaged by the Bush administration's foreign policy, particularly Bush's 'war on terror' and the manner in which that war is being conducted.
Leaving aside for a moment the moral or legal basis of a war that defies debate, the moot question is: does America (its government or the public) really care so much about the image abroad? My take is that the concern with image abroad is confined to the elite academia or the so-called 'liberal' media?
America adores its military heroes; mere service in the armed forces even decades ago (like McCain's in the current case) is a plus point in these elections. Military service has been advertised ad nauseam as proven fitness to be commander-in-chief. That is also projected as evidence of impeccable patriotism. But if anyone does, a battle hardened military hero knows better than most what patriotism is all about in a battlefield.
So why should Obama or McCain genuinely or overtly care about the US image abroad? Is that not factually immaterial as far as the electorate goes or cares about? Far more material is who could better project the might and military power of America; who will better snatch victory against a rogue or rough enemy instantly if possible or eventually if necessary. Or who will better be able to bribe or browbeat a reluctant ally to join the commander-in-chief, commit troops and 'pull the chestnuts out of fire' for a president if and when the going gets tough (see Afghanistan).
Recall the campaign speech by Obama before the AIPAC (short name for the very powerful Israeli lobby in the US). By rhetoric Obama sounded 'Holier than the Pope'. He outdid the present commander-in-chief George W Bush by his strident music-to-the-ears (of the Israel lobby) rhetoric. Alas, even that might not prove enough given the lurking suspicions about Obama originating from his ancestry.
In doing so, Obama did not sound anything like turning a new leaf in US foreign policy; he failed to give even a small hint of reinventing a policy that moves towards where America's ultimate interest lies. That address had very little to do with restoring the image of America abroad.
So much for image issue. So much about the compulsions of electioneering. Unique to a modern democracy, presidential elections in America obliges candidates to reveal their private lives, parade wife and children before the camera, and claim clean family and personal background. America is a country deeply enamoured with moral character of men and women seeking public office. Thus, both Obama and McCain are obliged to 'come clean' and admit their follies, if any. After all, candidates are mere humans too; they could be forgiven.
Experience has been another recurrent theme. Obama claimed judgement above experience yet he succumbed by choosing Joe Biden with long - perhaps too long - Washington experience. Obama gambled by choosing Biden that weakened or at least diluted his 'change' theme. McCain gambled too; he chose Sarah Palin without experience as if he did not need that because of his own experience. Also, in a dour and dull campaign a bit of glamour never hurts. He might have calculated that playing a gender card (after the defeat of Hillary) might pay dividend by wooing female voters.
With 18 million supporters (presumably many women) during the primaries, Hillary created a formidable vote bank. The Alaska governor might be untested but still worth a gamble. McCain took it and yet again made history. Will the Hillary supporters take 'revenge' by voting for Obama's opponent?
While 'history is made' by these elections in America, for the world beyond America, does it really matter which of the two contenders win? I daresay it does not, or if at all, it matters little.
For one, American electorate, barring a few academics and ex-diplomats, have little reason to be interested or informed about the world outside their shores. Iraq war had been an issue but it no longer is except for the families of dead soldiers or returned veterans with deep physical and mental wounds.
The working class Americans are concerned with the economy, with jobs with good pay, with cheap consumer goods produced in poorer countries, abundant gasoline flowing from rest of the world. An occasional war in faraway lands would be a diversion to be enjoyed on TV screens in the safety of warm living rooms (remember the 'shock and awe' spectacle of Iraq invasion).
Average American hardly knows what and how their government does the things it does outside home. Few of them are clear about how the tax paid money is spent on war or war like activities that fatten the few military contractors and mega corporations (oil and gas); they are the ones who profit enormously by perpetual war and conflicts. Iraq and Afghanistan are good examples never mind these bankrupted the economy. And there is Iran on the radar screen. Who knows may be other prospects are beaconing for instance the Caucasus or even Ukraine! Imperial ambitions breed impossible enterprises.
What changed except the rhetoric about war and experience? Notice how Obama (the agent for change) did not change when it came to Afghanistan in his acceptance speech. He played the prospective commander-in-chief; he promised to shift troops from Iraq, a failed enterprise, to redouble military presence in Afghanistan. The Afghans lie devastated and desperate to survive; they are not itching for war; their only crime is to resist foreign troops occupying their country and killing their men, women and children with impunity. Obama elected to destroy an entire country to kill one fugitive. What a waste! What juvenile arrogance! So what and where is that 'change we can believe in'?
Of course, it is the American electorate who elects the president, not Europe or rest of the world. Indeed, because American presence is all too wide and felt across all continents (military, economic, political, and strategic) it matters to the world who is elected to lead America.
Indeed, after eight years of George W Bush, after the mayhem in Iraq and total destruction of Afghanistan, after the malignant fall out of America's 'war on terror', the world and presumably America too is looking forward to change. That might well be true and deserved.
But as days and weeks went by in the current presidential campaign the exact outlines of that much publicised and expected change are becoming blurred and mixed.
Obama is wooing the conservatives and middle-class whites and trying to play a 'macho' military card by committing fresh troops and possibly going into Afghanistan-Pakistan border belt; he is talking way tougher on Iran, and even promising use of nukes to protect Israel should the opportunity arise though extremely unlikely to arise. And he has enlisted Washington veteran Joseph Biden as his running mate to compensate as it were his lack of (establishment) experience - something which he had so volubly dismissed earlier.
McCain hardly needs introduction about his foreign policy. Four more Bush years might not break the camel's back. Sarah Palin's teenage daughter is pregnant out of wedlock. But that little furore will pass and Sara could come out of the scandal triumphant with her 'pro-life' card. Such is the drama; such are the compulsions of contesting to win elections.
I had been an ardent enthusiast. But allow me now to be cynical if you could.
History is not made by any one individual be in fighting a war or an elections. Colour of skin matters though that should not make history. Only empires made history; and empires rose and fell. The American empire could enjoy a short half-life since other powers are rising and forcing a multi-polar world.
What could redeem the 'other' world of weaker nations with hopes for a better and more just world order is adherence to a path of democracy and avoid making hay out of big player rivalry. Let not the expectations from the US president-elect, be it McCain or Obama, be overblown. Let realism reign.
MAIN PAGE | TOP
|
|
