Desicritics Category: Politics: Elections

Why Do Political Dynasties Flourish?

Sandeep Bansal — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:19:02 EDT

I came across a nice article on the Political Dynasties around the world. While in India, we may sulk about how our Politics has been captured by a few dynasties who continue to rule us, this isn't a unique phenomenon in India alone.

George W. Bush got elected as president eight years after his father left the White House. This is the second instance of American history of a father-son presidency. Kennedys remain as the most famous Western political dynasty.
Former U.S. vice president Al Gore’s father was a senator, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's son was a Cabinet official under Clinton and campaign manager for Gore. Teamsters Union president Jimmy Hoffa's son is now filling his father's shoes in the same slot.
Makiko Tanaka inducted as Japan's foreign minister some 25 years after her father was premier.
In North Korea after the death of President Kim Il-Sung, his son Kim Jong-Il became his successor in 1994, thereby creating the communist world's first dynasty.
After the death of Syria's President Hafez al Assad, his son Bashar became his successor.
South Asia has proved the most fertile ground for political dynasties. Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal all have a resilient tradition of electing dynasties to the top office. Take Nepal, for instance. After the recent massacre of the entire royal family, the king's brother took over. Prime Minister G.P. Koirala's two other brothers were prime ministers as well — the only instance of three brothers serving in such high elective office. Sri Lanka started its tradition in 1960 when Prime Minister Solomon Bandranaike's widow, Sirimavo Bandranaike, became prime minister. Now her daughter, Chandrika Kumaratunga, is president. Bangladesh will see the coming electoral contest between two iron-willed women, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, daughter of President Mujibur Rahman, and Khaleda Zia, widow of President Ziaur Rahman.
India's Nehru family is probably the world's oldest democratic dynasty, now spanning four generations, producing the only team of grandfather-daughter-grandson prime ministers, ruling for 37 of India's 53 years as an independent state.
In Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was prime minister during 1971- 1977, and his daughter Benazir was elected for two stints as prime minister during the 1990s, the first woman from a Muslim state to head a government.
In the Philippines too, dynastic politics is quite widespread -- President Gloria Macapagal is daughter of a president, and political dynasties dominate local politics so much that there have been demands for laws against these dynasties.

Even in India, its not just the Congress that has been indulging in dynastic politics. Omar Abdullah is just 38 but he became the Chief Minister even though there are many senior leaders in the party. Similarly, elsewhere Karunanidhi has been grooming his younger son Stalin, the Patnnaiks in Orissa, Shiv Sena, Dev Gowda's JD(S), RJD in Bihar are no different. Even in BJP, son's and daughters of several leaders like Jaswant Singh, Vasundhra Raje Scindhia, Yedurappa and Pramod Mahajan are being promoted. In Congress, besides the Gandhi dynasty there is the Sandeep Dikshit, son of Shiela Dikshit; Ashok Chavan, son of late SB Chavan;Deepender Singh Hooda son of Bhupinder Singh Hooda. The list goes on.

The three reasons for this that were given in the article were:

Money
Political connections
Public recognition and thus easy Acceptability from the public

Access to the political system in most countries is costly in terms of money and only those who can afford the time, money, resources and have the requisite connections find an entry into what is often an exclusive if not closed club. Political lineage buttressed by money helps facilitate that entry.Bush, Gore, Tanaka, Macapagal-Arroyo fit the bill for what can be termed as politicians from Establishment families, with enough credentials due to a famous political surname to ensure a place on the political pedestal.

Then there are those who are respected for rendering services to their country during crucial periods, such as an independence struggle — hence, their legitimacy is unquestioned and widely accepted. The Nehru family in India, Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma, Megawati Sukarnoputri in Indonesia, Hafez al Assad in Syria, Kim Il-Sung are some examples from this genre. Finally, there are those whose leadership is etched in the popular imagination, and for people to identify with such a charismatic leader comes almost automatically.

Bhutto, Bandranaike, Peron of Argentina, Ziaur Rahman and Mujibur Rahman in Bangladesh, the Kennedys in the United States all were populists with charisma, which is then sometimes "transferred" to their scions and close relatives.

By and large, these reasons are logical. Moreover, these reasons not only explain why such a large number of political dynasties exist, but also explains why such a large number film stars and sport stars have made it to political offices. They satisfy two of the three conditions - Money and Public recognition.

South India is famous for its film stars turning into politicians and Chiru is the latest one to join that list. In north India, we have Shatrughan Sinha, Vinod Khanna. Rajesh Khanna, Dhamendra, Amitabh Bachan, Govinda, Sidhu, etc. Even in the US, we have Arnold who is now the Governor of California.

But there is a major difference between India and US. US has a presidential form of Govt. and hence the president is directly elected by the people. Moreover, his term is restricted to two. Also, there is complete inner party democracy in US. In India, the leader is elected by the elected representatives and there is no limit on the number of terms. This ensures the hold of dynasties. And if someone tries to raise the issue of dynasties, he/she is instantly thrown out. For example, Sharad Pawar was shown the door in Congress. Maran was also recalled as a Union minister by the Karunanidhi.

So unlike popular belief, dynastic politics isn't the real issue. The real issue is lack of inner party democracy. Dynasty and Movie/Sports stars shall continue to play major part in democracy everywhere, whether we like it or not.

This is Not Cricket

temporal — Tue, 3 Mar 2009 22:19:19 EST

The Sri Lankan cricket team was attacked in Lahore yesterday by terrorists. SSS terms this a "shift". I think it is a "deterioration" or "escalation" of lawlessness. If Pakistan is to retain its independence this tide will not be curbed easily by a solitary act (like the restoration of the judiciary) nor by the efforts of one individual or one institution. Both Zardari led government and the Army under Kayani have appeared ineffective to stem this.

More pertinent is to view Tuesday's attack in the context of the peace deals in the Swat Valley and the tribal areas .. Prior to the signing of the deals, the matter of the release of militants who did not belong to the Swat area was raised, that is, non-Pashtun militants... However, after deciding on the level of compensation packages for the families of militants killed or injured by the security forces and other matters related to Swat and the tribal areas, the matter of non-Pashtun militants was deferred and the peace agreements were signed. In effect, non-Pashtun militants have been ignored and the attack in Lahore could be a bloody message to the government that the "Punjabi militants" have the capacity to cripple urban centers at any time and place of their choosing. Syed Saleem Shahzad

So what should the ordinary citizen do? Packing up and leaving is NOT an option. Burying their heads in the sand? More prayers to Allah? Joining the orthodox fringe? Or if not joining, then fighting them for their rights?

If the citizenry continues to be uninvolved, then by default the grounds will be left for a battle royale between forces of status quo and those of orthodoxy.

There is no dearth of external players who want to nudge and support these dark forces.

The Saudi Wahabi sponsorship of the fringe groups in Pakistan is hushed up or swept under the rug. Their role should be examined more closely. They have supported the orthodox fringe in the past (Afghanistan-Mujahideen nexus) and continue to do so to date.

Right now, collectively, (media, bloggers, political parties and government) all search for escape goats elsewhere - primarily the focus of their diatribes (not in any order) is the US Administration, the Talibans, the Indians (Raw...if you hear Hamid Gul croaking after the CID report was released) and the euphemistically termed Agencies.

But the blame game should be exposed for its fallacies.

If the ordinary citizen remains detached and uninvolved, then the march into disarray would continue unabated till it reaches the edge of the precipice - a rather uncomfortable and disturbing thought for all the players in the region.

And the world.

India's Post-Independence Fight For Freedom

Aditi Nadkarni — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:55:37 EST

Let me cut right to the chase here. This is unacceptable. Let me say it again for emphasis. It is not just bothersome or even upsetting. It is unacceptable. In the 21st century, in a democratic, secular nation, what has been going on, festering like a recurrent lesion, sprouting in every part of India, is just, simply unacceptable and will not do.

In case you are wondering who it is that's going to stand up to it: we are. We will not allow our freedom to be violated and we will make sure we protect the independence we fought long and hard to get the first time around. We have come a long way. We have seen the change and been the change. So who better than our pioneering, hot-blooded breed to stand up to the revolting and shockingly regressive acts of a few who feel threatened by progress.

They are just acting out of fear. It is obvious, isn't it? They attack in packs, afraid to be the lone ones incriminated. They target women and assault safely from behind the vague curtains of culture. But we all know that it isn't their culture that is in grave danger. Their position, their power and the extent of their bullying is in great peril. The places where they once ruled the roost are now turning into big, bustling cities making them feel like small, insignificant fish in a big sea.

Institutions and companies have transported the educated, smart crowd into the vacuum in which these bullies once enjoyed unfettered omnipotence. Now, in place of the void, there is a young, vivacious bunch of professionals, men and women who work hard and party hard and do so shoulder to shoulder. These people are harder to manipulate. This crowd has not just taken over, they threaten to pull into their growing ilk, the younger ones too. Business are bending over backwards to accommodate the needs of this new species and everything that once belonged to the bullies is now up for grabs. So they are retaliating. They are like petulant little children who couldn't have all that they demanded, hated sharing and so now are acting up. Therefore it is up to us, the educated class to teach these spoiled little brats to grow up and stop reacting so bizarrely to change. We must do it in a manner that is as different from theirs as is humanly possible.

So now comes the big question: how do we do it? How do we make our presence known? The answer may seem too simplistic because it sits smack in front of our faces. Think about it: we travel through these cities like one stream of blood, flowing steadily, keeping the city alive, stuffed in trains, piled into buses, walking along the teeming streets. Even partying and a trip to the movie theater is all the more fun with a group. We work in teams and are all the more effective for that. We discuss films, fashion, clothes, the economy, the job market and even our health problems. Yet this fear of walking out on the streets of a free country seems like a personal problem, like we were alone in that walk, like when a bully arrived with his little gang and punched us in the face, we would be all by ourselves and the world around us would just suddenly go blind. What we forget is that in this lonely fear too, we are still together. In this anger against the unfairness of the situation, we are together. We can if we decided, be together in the one resolute determination of not letting a handful of insecure men undo all that we have put into making our cities. So the answer is simple. Whatever it is we do, we do it together.

We celebrated Valentine's Day battling fear and took the threats in our stride defanging the demons with the pink disarming humor of our proud underwear. With the International Women's Day approaching, it is time to get serious. In our busy, routine lives we have underestimated the power of silent, non-violent protests. All it takes is for people to stand at a side-walk with banners to get word around. Some major struggles were won with this strategy and somewhere along the line we just shrugged and rolled our eyes at the quiet potential of public demonstrations and satyagrahas. Maybe we started taking our precious freedom for granted and needed to be reminded that we simply cannot. We have to earn it and when someone tries to snatch it, we fight for it.

It is important, I feel, in today's world to use media smartly. Instead of constantly criticizing media's inadequacies, we could use it as a tool. Find a niche and throw yourself into the swift current of this ever growing medium. Find a female leader in your area who is looking to make an arrival on the political scene. Do a little research. If one political party is making your life difficult for wearing jeans and celebrating Valentine's Day and there damn well must be another party that will fight for your votes, or can be persuaded to do so.

Find a celebrity who is willing to make your cause their own or give your movement their support and voice. Find a television network, a newspaper or a magazine that will run your story and provide your opinions with a voice. Find an artist who will put your thoughts into a slogan or a creative, riveting poster. Write to your city officials, your ministers and drown their offices in letters of your indignant protest. Just remember that one or two voices are easy to be ignored. If you are fuming over a coffee mug at your kitchen table, take that rage to a medium that will express it in the most noticeable manner possible.

Haven't we whined about a dysfunctional system for too long? When has this "system" ever worked? Maybe we just don't realize that we are one of the appendages of this faulty system. If the system is not working, we, as a group could propel in into motion. What will it take for us to get off our bums and make a placard with a strong message on it? This is not a women's liberation movement at all. Genders cannot be fighting alone in a battle such as this one. It could be your sister wearing jeans, coming home from work. It could be your teenage daughter walking back from school or college, the neighborhood aunty who brought you food when you were sick, a dear friend or your colleague. Most importantly, it is them today and it could be you next.

Let us review what the odds are of your being targeted next. You have a very high chance of being next on the hit-list if you answer 'Yes' for any of the following questions. Are you considered an "outsider" in Bangalore or a non-Maharashtrian in Maharashtra? Do you party? Do you meet up with friends at pubs? Do you wear jeans or clothing that may not be considered "Indian"? Do you eat pizza or meat? Do you drink alcoholic beverages? Does your religious persuasion always match that of the political party currently raging a mini-war in the nation you know of as secular? Do you send children to convent or English medium schools? Do you have a spouse of a different religious persuasion than yours? Do you have friends of the opposite sex? Are you married to the girl you are driving home from work or who you happen to be having dinner with? Are you non-conversant in Marathi in Mumbai or in Kannada in Bangalore? Are you a blogger or a journalist who expresses their opinions about politics, culture, media and religion? In spite of your qualifications and the six figure salary, do you have no clout with the local law enforcement or political activists? Before you fall asleep at night you should take a moment to wonder which one of these labels will be tagged onto your identity and turned into a vice or a disqualification; which one of these labels will plant nagging fear into your routine as you go about working to make a living, partying to rid your stress and walking on the streets of a country whose freedom you celebrate once a year on a public holiday. India did fight a freedom struggle years ago and it is high time that yet another quest for independence begins.

As a civilized society, we must remember that curbed freedom is a disease, an epidemic that does not spare a gender or a certain religion. It has uprooted saplings of modern, free thinking from Afghanistan and left it barren under the regime of the Taliban school of thought. This disease feeds on your fear and on the social inertia that has settled over our generation. An active, proud and independent public cannot let this inertia set in. Let it be known that this disease feeds most of all on the little disabling voice in your head which tells you that this is not your struggle, that it isn't your battle to fight. Sadly, this malady spreads, swallowing in its wake our hard-earned progress, until the feeble voice in your head is one day replaced with the grim realization that your own struggle has arrived. The assailant and his prejudice have changed form and you are the next prey. And there is nobody left to fight for you or with you.

Hugo Chavez Removes Term Limits - The Right to Keep on Going

DeeptiA — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:26:26 EST

Hugo Chavez just keeps on going. He is the most important face of the anti-American resentment in South America, and has inspired many people to react against American policies. He allies with Iran and Cuba, both states that are an anathema to the US. Inside Venezuela, he is a strong figure, who inspires strong feelings both for and against. Ever since becoming President, Chaves has got strong support from the poor and the downtrodden (enough support that he gets re-elected easily, and has been able to push for the changes he wants). At the same time, because of him being a polarizing figure, he has been actively opposed by the richer and more affluent section of society who cannot stand his policies.

It is not that Chavez is a do-gooder who is opposed by richer sections because he is a true democrat; Chavez is for all practical purposes a strongman who will push for getting his policies in place, and will take actions when he deems them sufficient. However, term limits for the Presidential post were an important impediment for him being able to continue with his policies, and hence the push by him to change the policy so that he could continue to keep on standing for the post of President. He was rebuffed by the voters the last time he tried, but this time, he has managed enough support to get the change passed:

Without a constitutional change he would have had to stand down when his term expires in 2013; instead he had secured the right to stand again for office in the next elections due in 2012, and elections beyond. "I am ready!" He told them. "With today's victory we start the third historical cycle of the Bolivarian revolution, from 2009 to 2019." This has been a crucial victory for Venezuela's president. He had a lot riding on the outcome, both personally and politically.

While Venezuelans have shown with this vote that President Chavez still has more than enough support to win another presidential election, a lot can happen in four years and the road to the 2012 election may well be rocky.

A lot of what Chavez did earlier was due to the high price of oil for the past many years, providing him revenues that enabled him to dole out huge sums of money to his supporters (while kicking out foreign oil companies). However, with oil prices down to the $40 level from the $140 level of just some time back, it is difficult for Chavez to provide the same amount of largesse. It would be interesting to watch his policies for the next several years to see what he can achieve.

Will the Communist Party of India Be Banned?

Suresh Naig — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:40:10 EST

The Kerala High Court has admitted a petition, arguing that the Communist Party of India (Marxist) be banned for promoting "dictatorship of proletariat" and challenging democracy. The petition filed by a lawyer of the court was admitted and posted it for further hearing on February 16.

The petitioner pointed out from documents submitted by the CPI(M) itself, that the party strived for establishing a proletarian dictatorship based on socialism and communism, which was against the fundamentals of democracy. As per the petitioner Sethunath, the documents were furnished by the party to the Election Commission while registering as a political party.

The Communist Party is full of intellectuals and their intellectual capabilities are unfathomable for ordinary citizens. Their methodology is unique, and what is unattainable for others, is attained with ease by the CPI(M). When the Supreme Court declared Bandhs and strikes by political parties as illegal, they called a nationwide strike to denounce it, and one of the leaders proclaimed "strike" is a fundamental right. At the same time they have also taught a lesson for all, that the right to strike and protest is applicable only in other states, where CPM is not a ruling party, by their deft handling of protesters in Nandigram.

Communists are good at euphemisms. NAM - Non-Aligned Movement had never lived up to its name, but had a leaning towards Soviet Russia, of which India was a prominent member till the disintegration of USSR. Instead of honestly calling the group of nations as AAM - Anti American Movement, it was named NAM. Now CPM wants to uphold democracy in India, by striving to establish a "proletarian dictatorship".

Good as they are in confusing than convincing, I presume they may argue in the court of law, that what has been conveyed in their document is only a wish and not an intention. In plain language it means, "We don't mean, what we say".

I shudder to foresee the preamble to our constitution read as "Socialist, Secular, Sovereign, Proletarian Dictatorship, Democratic Republic. The Kerala High Court has to its credit many far reaching judgements in the past, aimed at removing social evils, such as smoking in trains and strikes by political parties. Can we expect another one?

Negative Voting is Positive for India

Sandeep Bansal — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:02:51 EST

With a plethora of happenings in last week that included the Republic Day celebrations and Mangalore attacks on women, the Indian media has hardly covered the issue of negative voting. Considering that the general elections are just round the corner, it is both surprising and shameful that media hasn’t given the issue its due importance so far and has instead been concentrating on issues like moral policing. This is not to suggest that issue is not important but a 'negative vote' can bring about much larger changes in our society.

Govt. of India has dismissed the recent suggestion of the Election commission of India as a part of the proposed electoral reforms, to give a negative voting option in the Electronic voting machines. There is a petition filed by the People's Union for Civil Liberties(PUCL) in 2005, before the Supreme Court seeking implementation of the proposed reforms of ECI. Opposing this PIL, the Govt. has argued that unlike freedom of speech and expression, voting is just a statutory right. Govt. even goes on to say that such an option is not healthy for democracy. (Source)

What is negative voting?

Negative voting is a privilege that allows the voters to reject all the candidates that are in fray. As per the present provisions of the Indian Constitution, a voter who seeks vote for none any of the candidates has give this in writing to the presiding officer giving in the reasons for doing so. The problem with this is that it is against the concept of secret ballot. Moreover it is a little cumbersome. Hence, most of the educated youth disgruntled with the political system, prefer to enjoy a holiday at home on the Election Day.

In a way they are right. The falling standards of the politicians of India hardly offer any hope and option. We have the likes of Pappu Yadav, , Taslimuddin , Mohd. Shahbuddin and many more representing the electrorate. Sanjay Dutt, who has been convicted in the 1993 Mumbai Blasts, is going to fight election from Lucknow. He may have done a lot for poor; he may have become popular particularly after the Munnabhai, but the fact remains that he is responsible for the loss of several hundred lives.

In the just concluded in Kashmir, the voter turnout was over 60%. Is this an indication of the rejection of the demand of azaadi? If experts are to be believed, the answer is a blunt no. People of the state need electricity, jobs and water and that’s what they have voted. If there was an election that included a negative voting option, surely a large number of people would have used this option. The story of the rest of the country isn’t too much different with people hardly having any confidence in the system. Some of my friends from UP say tell me how every elections they have to decide who is the lesser evil between SP and the BSP.

In such a scenario, the negative voting option has the potential to bring about large scale changes to the overall political system just like the way RTI is bringing about changes in our bureaucracy. But Governments stand on this issue is pretty much on expected lines. All political parties have resisted any major electoral reforms. For example, there is no institutional method of political funding. The recent case where over 2 crores Rs. was missing from the BJP office. Yet, there wasn’t any police complaint registered by the party. It will be naive to suggest that BJP is the only party which uses unfair means to get political funding.

Entities around the world that include "None of the Above" on ballots as standard procedure include the U.S. state of Nevada (None of These Candidates), Ukraine (Against all), Spain (voto en blanco), France (vote blanc), Colombia (voto en blanco), the United States Libertarian Party, the Green Party, the Florida affiliate of the American Patriot Party, and the Debian Project.Russia had such an option on its ballots (Against all) until it was abolished in 2006. (Source)

Our politicians may take great pride in calling India as the largest democracy; the same pride is however missing from the electorate. Please join me in signing of the online petition.

Searching for the Indian Obama

BangaloreGuy — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:04:49 EST

One of the many welcome factors in Barack Obama's rise has been that the rest of the world, their elite is looking for their own Obama. In doing so, various conclusions have come up, but one thing has remained largely on the radar.

And that has been his race. Barack Obama is being seen as a black man who's become the President of the United States of America. But that's the most superficial - and make no mistake - racist view of the event. Barack Obama has become the President not because, or in spite of being black. He's become the PotUS after establishing that he was the better candidate in terms of views, in terms of Vision - not only winning over the formidable Hillary Clinton machine but also the Republican war Machine. And to top it all, he's made Hillary his Sec. of State. How many people can claim to win over their opponents?

To credit this to his race, and race only, is stupid. Hence the comparisons to Mayawati should stop. Mayawati represents everything that is corrupt about our politics - criminals running the roost, black money, identity politics, cult worship. Barack Obama represents a clean (more or less) break from such politics.

To find the Indian Barack Obama, look elsewhere - look to a competent, clean, inspirational politician, irrespective of his identity - racial, class or otherwise.

Shalom, Salam and Hello

temporal — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 03:50:46 EST

"Why ... should I not dream and hope? For is not revolution the making real of dreams and hopes? So let us work together that my dream may be fulfilled, that I may return with my people out of exile to live in one democratic state where Christian, Jew and Muslim live in justice, equality, fraternity and progress...Today I have come bearing an olive branch and a freedom fighter’s gun. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat: do not let the olive branch fall from my hand.” Nobel Peace Laureate Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, UN Address November 13, 1974.

Shalom

Last week rumors floated suggesting Tzipi Livni, the Israeli Foreign Minister might be arrested to face war crimes, if she attended the Summit of European Foreign Ministers in Brussels.

Mounting fear in Israel that the country's leaders face war crimes charges over their involvement in the recent Gaza offensive pushed officials into a frenzy of activity at the weekend to forestall legal actions abroad.

According to Menachem Mazuz, Israel will soon face "a wave of international lawsuits".

In response, the government is setting up a special task force to work on legal defenses, has barred the media from naming or photographing army officers involved in the Gaza attack, and has placed restrictions on overseas visits. Today, ministers were expected to approve an aid package to help soldiers fight warrants abroad for their arrest.

The concern about war crimes trials follows a series of pronouncements by Richard Falk, the United Nations' special rapporteur on the occupied territories and a professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University in the United States.

He has accused Israel of gravely violating the laws of war during its three-week offensive, which killed more than 1,300 Gazans, most of them civilians, and wounded thousands more.

There is a well-grounded view that both the initial attacks on Gaza and the tactics being used by Israel are serious violations of the UN charter, the Geneva conventions, international law and international humanitarian law," he said during the final stages of fighting. Jonathan CookIn an attempt to make life more difficult for Israeli leaders, anonymous activists in Israel launched this website -- "outing" those it accused of war crimes, including Ehud Barak, the defence minister, Ehud Olmert, the prime minister, and Ms Livni. It also identified most of the senior military command.

This link in Hebrew could also have the support of the former, tainted politician Bibi Netanyahu and his party of right wing Likudniks in the hope of making gains in the forthcoming Israeli elections.

Israel is the non NPT Signatory nuclear power in the region and it behooves it to extend to its neighbours, including those in the occupied territories, the same dignity, rights and respects that it demands from them. all the states, and occupied territories should also learn that force is not the solution to solve their problems, however rudderless they may appear at times.

Salam

In a frank blunt assessment, unusual for the usually taciturn Saudis, Prince Turki al Faisal, former head of the Saudi Intelligence and then ambassador to UK, Ireland and the US, warned the Obama Administration that "the US-Saudi relationship and the stability of the region are at risk."

First he speaks candidly about the Bush Administration:

America is not innocent in this calamity. Not only has the Bush administration left a sickening legacy in the region, but it has also, through an arrogant attitude about the butchery in Gaza, contributed to the slaughter of innocents. If the US wants to continue playing a leadership role in the Middle East and keep its strategic alliances intact - especially its "special relationship" with Saudi Arabia - it will have to revise drastically its policies vis a vis Israel and Palestine.

And then he proffers advise to Obama Administration without mincing words:

First, President Barack Obama must address the disaster in Gaza and its causes. Inevitably, he will condemn Hamas's firing of rockets at Israel. When he does that, he should also condemn Israel's atrocities against the Palestinians and support a UN resolution to that effect; condemn the Israeli actions that led to this conflict, from settlement building in the West Bank to the blockade of Gaza and the targeted killings and arbitrary arrests of Palestinians; declare America's intention to work for a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, with a security umbrella for countries that sign up and sanctions for those that do not; call for an immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from Shab'ah Farms in Lebanon; encourage Israeli-Syrian negotiations for peace; and support a UN resolution guaranteeing Iraq's territorial integrity.

The Saudis believe in quiet diplomacy and almost never speak out like this. The royal family rules with consensus and these words from Turki reflect their current exasperation and fears. At stake is not only the fate of the warring factions in the the mid-east, but one can sense their own insecurities. Nobody can predict what may happen to their rule if the Kingdon's citizens rebel.

(I owe an apology to readers of Baithak, where I had linked this article by Prince Turki and dismissed it derisively, bracketing him with the double speak that emanates from the usual suspects in the region and alluding a collusion of interests bandying the Saudis, the Mubaraks and the Abdullahs with the Olmerts.)

Hello

Barak Obama in the first interview granted to a major network chose Al Arabiya. As every move by the his administration is keenly observed and analysed this first interview to Hisham Melhem when compared with his first phone call to a foreign leader (President Mahmud UncleTom Abbas of the near defunct and puppet PA) gave out mixed signals.

He spoke of instructing Mitchell to "listen" lamenting that in the past the US started off by "dictating". He was careful to mention "Syria or Iran or Lebanon or Afghanistan and Pakistan. These things are interrelated" while skirting around India.

Obama reiterated the US support for Israel in no uncertain terms to his Arab and Muslim audience ..."... Israel is a strong ally of the United States. They will not stop being a strong ally of the United States. And I will continue to believe that Israel's security is paramount." But almost in the same breath he spoke to a increasing lobby within Israel that has had enough of the mayhem and violence..."But I also believe that there are Israelis who recognize that it is important to achieve peace." and added these encouraging words, "They will be willing to make sacrifices if the time is appropriate and if there is serious partnership on the other side."

I want to communicate is the fact that in all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I've come to understand is that regardless of your faith -- and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers -- regardless of your faith, people all have certain common hopes and common dreams. And my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives. My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect.

Steve Clemons of the The Washington Note notes that Obama's "first moves have been utterly brilliant." He also connected his Al Arbia interview with what he called "Prince Turki al-Faisal's warning in the Financial Times this week" that the Arab Peace Proposal offered by King Abdullah would not remain on the table indefinitely, and that the window could be closing in the wake of the Gaza crisis."

After the previous administration's my way or the highway attitude, Obama's respect's for "words" was evident in this interview. He used "respect" four times in his interview which ran over from the initial 6-7 minutes to over 25 minutes. While ostensibly speaking to the Arabs and Muslims he also provided a parameter that his Secretary of State, Defense and National Security Adviser would find illuminating and illustrating of Obama's approach, beyond which they would venture at their peril.

The sense that IDF and Israeli politicians could be hauled for War Crimes, the loathing and impotence felt in the Arab/Muslim Main Street articulated by a reticent Saudi Prince Turki al Faisal - and responding to them as well as the haughty disregard of the Bush era - Obama's reach out to the Muslims - will prove to be the seminal events that will cast their shadows for long.

This Obama interview reminds one of Yasser Arafat's maiden speech at the UN. Now that the neoconzix era is over, let us hope this olive branch is cherished.

Change Has Come to America. What About India?

Ruchi — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:17:02 EST

Two million braved sub-freezing temperature to watch Obama's inauguration"

Can we imagine this scene in India? This kind of national euphoria over the swearing-in ceremony of the head of state? What a joke! In a country riven by regional politics, overt power-broking, and endemic political apathy. Of course, had this been Shahrukh Khan (an actor who once danced in his underpants at a wedding on a paid appearance) running a contest for one week at his house, the Indian public would have trumped these numbers and more.

Sure, Obama owes, at least in part, the almost religious fervor for his leadership, to Bush. For the indisputable screw-ups that created the the kind of perfect storm national emergency that made many overlook Obama’s color (democratic party: blue; his race: black). But the fall from grace and the growing economic insecurity that spurred Americans towards change are still aspirational goals in India. We hit bottom a while ago, and are now digging ourselves into a hole. The poorest amongst us are living like animals, debased to their lowest physiological and safety needs, and the financially secure Indians overwhelmingly lack sophistication, choosing peripheral self-interest over basic common good, consumption over creation, and frivolous entertainment over real culture.

India *is* in a crisis. Just cause our economy grew at nine percent (or six percent in recession) doesn’t mean that we can continue living in our la la land. Disproportionate growth came through unproductive bubbles¹,²: of passive, uneducated fat men and women sitting on vast tracts of land that suddenly became worth more than the cumulative income of their entire generation; of sensex (bombay stock exchange) going from 15000 to over 21000 in a span of six months (July 07 - Jan 08); of investment banks and private equity firms bringing pay scales hitherto unheard of in India.

There is heartbreak everywhere we turn. Collectively as a country, we have dehumanized the poor. Men dirty, disheveled, with matted hair and vacant eyes line up for handouts, of coarse rice and dal in Chandni Chowk, next to a large open dump. Little children are on the streets everywhere, begging, picking up trash, their innocence discarded, potential trivialized. Old and young men in urban markets lug heavy burden like cattle. To become old on the sidewalks of urban India, away from family for lifetime, saddled with weight - can anything be more sad? And we sit in a stupor, nary an uprising in sight.

We bypass the government, treating it as irrelevant or worse, a hindrance. And it is. Our government is corrupt, and filled with partisan and uneducated criminals. But we the people of India are doing nothing about it! The whole concept of the government is to pool resources for development projects too big for individuals/organizations. But in India, we don’t even seem to know what the govt should do, let alone debate on the how and where. Or we are too busy safeguarding our own narrow interests to care. The ideals of common good are so routinely flaunted, the flaunting itself a cliche. And no, the market economy will not save us. Capitalism is first and foremost self-interest. And a country without an underlying base of equal opportunity (or something approaching it) can’t claw out of the morass of overpopulation, poverty, and pollution through uncoordinated, and discrete vested interests alone.

As a society, we collectively legislate and uphold the need to contribute to the basic infrastructure of the economy. If I as an individual fail to pay my taxes, I can be prosecuted, even incarcerated. If mere resistance to contribution merits prosecution, then what of those who squander and embezzle our collective goodwill and resources? We all know that our politicians are corrupt, yet we repeatedly elect them by vote or default, legitimizing the illegitimate. We need to hold our public officials accountable, for every rupee wasted/stolen, every promise broken.

I propose a public audit of the government funds (state and center): from collection, to allocation, to disbursal. Down to the smallest municipal corporation and gram panchayat. With a complete list of those with spending authority, and authority limits. This information should be available to the public not as the fruits of an RTI (an onerous application process designed to disuade), but as a matter of course. When Amar Singh gives USD 1-5M to the Clinton Foundation, we should be able to identify the source of that money. When a public school is understaffed, the principal/parent should be able to verify the exact point where the money was misappropriated. When we see a Mercedes parked on the street with a GoI seal, we should be able to determine which account that money came from. A public audit will deincentivize those who enter the administration, vested in their own self-interest. Let’s get all the televsion networks, all the newspapers behind this idea, and and push through this change. It’s our money (literally!), and we have a right to know.

**********************************

Would you like to support this initiative? If yes, contact me via email or through my blog. Please state your preferred mode of contact (listserve, facebook, orkut etc) with relevant contact info. I will follow-up with more information once there is some critical mass. All comments are welcome. Your contact info will not be shared without your permission.

Thanks,
Ruchi.

1. Overall growth rate of 7.6% GDP over the Q2 of 2007-2008. Sector growth rate (selected sectors): manufacturing: 5%; construction: 9.7%; trade, hotels, transport and communication: at 10.8%; financing, insurance, real estate and business services: 9.2%; community, social and personal services: 7.6%; agriculture, forestry & fishing: 2.7%, Estimates for 2008-2009 Q2, The Central Statistical Organisation (CSO), Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation

2. Yes, there is slight fallacious reasoning here in my equating “construction” activity with skyrocketing real estate prices etc, incongruous pay scales in the finance industry etc. However, I feel the point holds.

California is Becoming the Pakistan of the USA

Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 02:49:11 EST

I read on a hedge fund report which said that California is the Pakistan of USA, the idea being that it is becoming seriously economically mismanaged and is in danger of imploding. This comparison with a country is not too far fetched, whatever you say. You hear statement after statement that California, if an independent country, would be the 6th or 8th biggest country in the world in terms of economic metrics. Since then, I have been keeping an eye on that state.

But this state is peculiarly badly governed. Its brand of democracy, the demographics of the state, the high reliance on income taxes, the way the political parties have carved up the state with the constituency units, all combine to make it a fascinatingly amazing place. Because of the fact that the boundaries of the electoral seats are carved out in such a way that they appeal to the extremist wings of the two political parties, the idea of appealing to the centre and doing bi-partisan work is strangely missing. Consequently, the parties are not willing to compromise. Add the "proposition" business and what you end up with is a stream of dollars which are tied ruthlessly to single spending streams. And let us not forget the public sector which is, simultaneously pathetic in terms of efficiency and horribly expensive.

So when faced with a huge economic slowdown, the republicans are refusing to let the governor raise taxes while the democrats are refusing to cut spending. And the credit crunch means that trying to raise money from the markets is nearly impossible because the markets fear the state will not be able to honour its rapidly rising debt. Result? Deadlock. Let me quote some results of this stupid set of circumstances:

California’s state controller said he won’t make $3.7 billion of payments due next month, cutting off income-tax refunds and money for welfare programs amid a record budget shortfall battering the most-populous U.S. state

And from here,

To conserve cash, Schwarzenegger has ordered state offices shut for two days a month and all workers to take two days of unpaid leave each month. The impasse forced a state panel on Dec. 18 to halt funding for $3.8 billion of construction on schools, roads and other public works, a decision officials said might cost tens of thousands of jobs.

And here:

The governor also said he and lawmakers should go without pay for every day they fail to enact a budget past its due date.

(Which might not be such a bad idea).

Schwarzenegger, a multimillionaire, has declined his $212,179 a year salary since he was elected. Lawmakers each make at least $116,208 a year plus $162 per day per diem; legislative leaders make more depending upon their position.

So the bunch of girly men and manly women have effectively driven the state to near fiscal disaster. Some say that people get the leaders they deserve, but surely this isn't the case here? Not sure what is the future of this problem nor the solution, but I can see muchas problemo's in this fiscal train crash of a state.

What do the resident Californians think?

Technorati Tags: USA, Economics