| 13 March 2004 | Saturday | 21 Muharram 1425 |
It's poll time, show-time
Many people in this part of the world would like to see the exit of Mr. Bush after the November election and Mr. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential contender, installed in the White House. Yet most of us don't know much about the Massachusetts senator except that he is not George W. Bush.
How different would Kerry as president be from President Bush in the pursuit of US foreign policy goals , especially those relating to Iraq, Afghanistan, Middle East, Iran and Pakistan?
The 2004 race for the White House began with the Iowa caucuses on January 19 and the New Hampshire primary on January 27. After winning the primaries in nine out of ten states, spanning from California to Georgia to New York on March 2, John Kerry has all but won, in less than six weeks, the Democratic nomination and seems certain to face President Bush in the election.
Rarely have foreign policy issues been so central to a US presidential election as they have become in the Bush-Kerry contest. The last week's scathing exchanges between President Bush and his Democratic challenger signify that. With eight months still to go before the election, the campaign is going to be long, bitter and nasty. In his victory speech on March 2, Kerry accused Bush of running the "most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history."
Bush's response was equally hard-hitting. Ridiculing his rival for backtracking on issues, he said; the Democrats are " for tax cuts and against them, for NAFTA and against NAFTA, for the Patriot Act and against the Patriot Act, in favour of liberating Iraq and opposed to it. And that is just one senator from Massachusetts".
In the past disagreements between the Republicans and Democrats have usually been on domestic issues and US foreign policy has generally been bipartisan. But not this time. The first presidential election after 9/11 is going to be quite different since there are serious differences on some domestic and foreign issues.
The deep divisions in America's electorate have been reflected in the consistently high turn-out in the primaries, not a good omen for Mr. Bush if the trend carries over to the general election. He is already under attack for promoting the interests of his conservative and affluent supporters. He has bypassed the Senate to appoint conservative judges; before the Iraqi venture he branded the United Nations "irrelevant"; he has enforced massive tax cuts that will largely benefit the rich.
Mr. Kerry's Vietnam medals can shield him from the Republican attacks that his party (Democrats) is soft on terror and US security. Anticipating this, Kerry promises to spend more on defence than the Republicans and also more on homeland security. He has even called for increasing the size of US army in Iraq by 40,000 soldiers.
Mr. Kerry's real vulnerability comes not so much from his liberal ideas as from his inconsistencies. In recent years he has voted for many Republican-sponsored measures like the war in Iraq, the controversial Patriot Act which empowers the government to spy on citizens. Despite voting for the Iraq war, Mr. Kerry now criticizes Mr. Bush for misleading America over the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Similarly, having voted for NAFTA, he now promises to review all free trade agreements.
Some analysts believe that Mr. Kerry's liberal colours are too glaring for the Democrats. The National Journal ranks him the most liberal member of the current Senate on the basis of his votes last year. Also, the same pattern was followed in the previous years. For instance, in 1986, 1988, and 1990, in over 138 votes on the economy, social policy and foreign affairs, Mr. Kerry did not side even once with the conservatives.
On the domestic front, Mr. Kerry promises to restore in his first 500 days all the 2m-3m jobs lost under George Bush. Companies will lose their tax breaks if they send jobs offshore, and they must give workers notice of doing so. Manufacturing firms, especially, vulnerable will be given tax break for two years.
His left-wing and liberal colours are more obvious in giving relief to the middle classes and the poor and thus projecting himself as the champion of the little man. He wants to repeal Mr. Bush's tax cuts for households earning more than $200,000 a year. Also, he wants to restore a top tax rate and close tax loopholes for corporations. This will provide him with extra money for health care, roads and schools. His message to tax the rich and spend on the poor is selling.
Mr Kerry is, however, faced with some real dilemma in the field of foreign policy. At times, his stand on some of these issues is confusing, if not disconcerting. For instance, while he is a vehement supporter of multilateralism, he is also willing to support unilateral military adventures. This, in other words means that when the vital interests of the United States are on the line, allies are relevant only to the extent that they help.
After emerging as the Democratic presidential contender last week, Mr. Kerry launched a multi-frontal attack on President Bush's foreign policy and national security performance. On Iraq, he faulted the president for not acting multilaterally through the United Nations. But he made it clear that he would not precipitously withdraw US troops from Iraq if he wins the election.
"My exit strategy is success", he told Time magazine recently, "a viable, stable Iraq that can contribute to the stability and peace in the region." Interestingly, while he has faulted Bush administration for not acting multilaterally on Iraq, he criticizes Bush for following a multilateral approach on North Korea.
To sum up, the broad outlines of Mr Kerry's foreign policy agenda are the following: within weeks of his being elected, he would return to the United Nations and not only rejoin the community of nations but also turn over a proud new chapter in America's relations with the world. He will restart negotiations on the Kyoto anti-global-warming treaty; open bilateral talks with North Korea and Iran; appoint envoys to the Middle East and for nuclear proliferation; and aid- failed states. One of Kerry's main themes is that diplomatic indifference has let problems in the Middle East and North Korea fester unnecessarily.
One of Mr. Kerry's dilemmas is how to strike a balance between multilateralism and America's continued assertiveness in international affairs. If he wins the election, he may try to follow the "progressive internationalism" of Roosevelt and Truman that characterized the American foreign policy during the cold war. It will, however, be not easy to follow the cold war balancing act in an age of global terrorism. Mr. Kerry has often insisted that war against terror cannot be won only by military means. That is a significant and heartening departure from the thinking of neo-conservatives in the Bush administration.
The Indo-US strategic ties will continue to grow, be it a Republican or Democratic administration. There may be some changes of nuances in Pakistan-American relations if Kerry wins the election. But as long as the US remains engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, the importance of Pakistan as an ally in the war against terror will not diminish for Washington. However, the attitude of a Democratic administration towards Pakistan's nuclear programme and proliferation scandals may stiffen and lack the sympathy and understanding shown by President Bush.
If we go by past presidential elections, once the primaries are over, the candidates on both sides traditionally seek the middle ground so that they may attract the largest number of voters. Despite the radical thinking and demagogic talk, it is the middle ground which Mr. Kerry may ultimately occupy. Whether or not, Mr. Kerry succeeds in changing American foreign policy, the fact remains that he does represent an approach radically different from that of Mr. Bush.
The writer is a former ambassador.
It's poll time, show-time
I thought after 12 general elections we would have settled down to a steady, moderate and responsible way to choose our representatives. No political party is new to the exercise. Still, nearly all of them have reduced the polls to a tamasha, believing that all that they have to do is to bamboozle the voters.
Both the BJP and the Congress are not stopping at anything. It was disappointing to see their top leaders welcoming some jaded film stars and discarded cricketers in their midst as if a Solomon had walked in. The media, short of new ideas and hard news, over-reacted as usual. TV networks went on showing the 'spectacle' the whole day as if they were breaking a big story.
Democracy is not hullabaloo or a Christmas Eve. Nor is it a licence for hawking parochialism and sectarianism. The system demands a peaceful, thoughtful response to the issues tormenting people. It is a clash of ideas and ideologies. Elections give people an opportunity to choose a particular party or a combination for governance on what they have done or had promised to do. But the dust which most political parties have raised has covered up the real issues, making the ballot box exercise a farce. The whole thing looks like a 'nautanki', a gaudy display of meaningless rhetoric by leaders of different hues.
I imagined that the BJP would be more confident having completed the full stint of five years plus. But the party looks nervous and edgy. It is touching all points, not knowing what may sell. If it is so sure of its performance as it claims, why have the 'rath yatra'? Even if there is no communal riot, as happened in the wake of L.K. Advani's earlier 'yatra', the minorities will be hell scared till it ends.
Advani will get free publicity daily, particularly by the government-owned Doordarshan showing where his 'yatra' was. What a waste it is of taxpayers' money? The home ministry has also taken upon itself the responsibility of security which the deputy prime minister is entitled to. An official plane would have been cheaper. I am surprised that the election commission has stopped the use of plane but found no fault with the 'yatra' which would cost the government a packet. The comment by one former CEC was that if he had been there, he would not have allowed "such nonsense."
Advani compared the last 'yatra' which took a toll of hundreds of lives with Mahatma Gandhi's Dandi salt march. After completing the current one he would equate it to the entire national struggle for independence which RSS chief Golwalker had opposed. I hope Advani has no other 'yatra' in view because he is running out of instances for comparison.
Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee says that their agenda is development. But his party's chief, Venkaiah Naidu, says that the BJP has not given up the demand for raising the temple at the site where the Babri masjid stood before demolition.
Till a few days ago, the BJP talked of two options: the court's decision or the agreement between Hindus and Muslims. Suddenly, a third option has been added - an act by parliament. It should not come as a surprise because the RSS has been suggesting this for some time now. It appears that the idea has come after the BJP has convinced itself on the basis of several surveys that the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) will get a majority in the Lok Sabha.
When it comes to suggestions, Advani's is the most prolific. The latest is that he wants the people to vote either for the BJP or the Congress. He argues that the votes given to a regional party will be a waste. The regional parties he runs down are not a tiny setup that works from some back room. The Telugu Desam, for example, is a regional party in Andhra Pradesh which is bigger than Germany.
The point to ponder over is why the BJP is advocating the two-party system. Were this to happen, the BJP believes, it would get power at the centre automatically when the Congress would lose. Strange the BJP, which ran the combination of 24 regional parties so well, should ask for a two-party system.
I do not think that the elimination of regional parties is in the interest of Indian polity. They represent local aspirations. In the absence of decentralization of power, there is no other way for the state parties to have their say in New Delhi. A diverse society of ours is dependent on consensus. Jawaharlal Nehru's first government after independence had Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, a staunch Hindu Mahasabha leader, as a minister.
The different suggestions, however, underline that the BJP is trying to rub off its stigma of being anti-Muslim. It wants to give the impression that it is moving from right to centre, from saffronization to something more acceptable to the Muslims. This also explains why every third day a Muslim leader of sorts is presented from the BJP stage as if the Muslims are joining the party en masse.
The BJP's nervousness is understandable because the Muslims constitute 13 per cent of the electorate. But the touchstone for the community is Gujarat. If the party were to dismiss Narendra Modi from chief ministership for the massacre in the state, the Muslims might reverse their opinion about the BJP.
It was, however, heartening to read Advani's observation that good relations between India and Pakistan had a favourable effect on the equation between the Hindus and the Muslims in India. This is true because the anti-Pakistan feeling becomes the anti-Muslim feeling. But it has taken Advani almost all his life to appreciate this basic point. In Pakistan also, the anti-Indian bias means anti-Hindu bias. But their number is so small that it matters little at the polls. However, General Pervez Musharraf has amended the constitution to convert the separate electorate into a joint one.
Conditions in India will improve when the states become viable. Just as the future of any political party is dependent on UP and Bihar-- the two have some 120 seats in the Lok Sabha - India's tomorrow is dependent on the progress the two states make. From that point of view also, the regional parties are important.
It is a pity that Vajpayee did not convene a meeting of the national integration council even once during his tenure. Nehru had founded it in the fifties to enable all political parties to rise above their petty loyalty to concentrate on the country's problems relating to separatism and integration. Vajpayee has been reluctant even to call a meetings of the national development council which discusses all-India economic policies against the background of what the planning commission does. He has been closeting more with the Sangh parivar than the chief ministers.
This reflects a particular way of thinking - esoteric, narrow and biased. If all that the BJP is saying and suggesting comes true, the party may be able to get some credibility among the secular forces. But one fears that the BJP may go back on all its promises after the polls. The RSS has not changed. And all may turn into a mere tamasha.
The writer is a freelance columnist based in New Delhi.