DURING the weeks preceding the Indiana and North Carolina primaries on May 6, Senator Barack Obama’s campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination seemed to be floundering.

In the wake of his defeat in Pennsylvania, questions were being raised about whether he could win against the Republican nominee John McCain, whether he was tough enough to endure the rigours of the presidency or could draw the support of working class white voters who were sceptical of his patriotism.

The candidate himself looked exhausted, appearing less than self-assured in various television appearances. Some political commentators thought that he had been irreparably damaged by his past association with his firebrand former pastor in Chicago, Jeremiah Wright.

However, it all changed unceremoniously on May 6 when, exceeding all predictions, Obama overwhelmed Clinton with a 14 percentage points lead in North Carolina, while losing to her in Indiana by only a narrow margin. He has now amassed an impressive lead in pledged delegates, which is virtually insurmountable. Although the final numbers are likely to change, Obama has 1,847 pledged delegates as opposed to Clinton’s 1,686; a total of 2,025 delegates are required to win the party’s nomination. Obama needs fewer than 200 delegates to reach this magic number. There are only six remaining states where primaries are yet to take place, but none of them is rich in delegates. Even if Clinton received a lion’s share of their delegates, it still would not alter the final outcome.

In his victory speech, following the elections in North Carolina, Obama, brimming with new-found confidence and poise, redirected his sights to the upcoming contest with Senator McCain in November. He was gracious to Hillary Clinton and had only complimentary words for her, praising her tenacity and resilience. He will need all her support and goodwill in November’s general elections. Two days later, he made a triumphant visit to the US Congress, to be greeted by his Senate colleagues as the veritable nominee.

Clinton, however, is not yet ready to concede. Unfazed by a barrage of newspaper editorials and political commentaries that are pronouncing her quest for nomination as over, she has vowed that she will stay in the race until the end.

Nevertheless, the indicators are not encouraging. There are reports that her campaign is running out of money, and that she has had to loan more than $10m of her own money to keep it afloat. Realistically, it is difficult to see how she can resist for long the mounting pressure from Democratic Party leaders, urging her to withdraw in the interest of party unity, so as not to imperil the chances of success in the November election.

Regardless, Clinton and her staff are pursuing some new strategies, pinning their hopes on the results of two disputed elections in Florida and Michigan, where she won a majority. Both states were disqualified from sending their delegates to the Democratic Convention for violating the party rules about the dates they set for their primaries.

Initially, both candidates agreed to refrain from campaigning in either state. Lately, Clinton has been arguing for the legitimisation of delegates from both states which, if accepted, would put her in an advantageous position. In addition, she is attempting to enlist the support of the Super Delegates, a cohort of voters who are accorded this status by virtue of the political offices they hold, such as members of Congress and state governors. Some 270 of them are still uncommitted.

Unlike the Democrats, the Republican contest has been much more sedate. In early March, Senator John McCain vanquished his opponents, securing a commanding lead in the number of delegates, thus becoming the presumed nominee of his party.

Neither his age — he is 71 years old — his reputed fiery temper nor press reports of his alleged political favours to a female lobbyist, nor his embracing of many unpopular Bush policies seem to have placed him at a disadvantage. Meanwhile, he has been spending time raising money, preparing himself for the final match against the Democratic nominee.

From now until Nov 4, Obama has to overcome a number of obstacles. Clinton’s unremitting and withering attacks during the campaign may not be the only problem. The media continues to assail him for his past association with church pastor, Jeremiah Wright. The cleric has achieved undeserved fame for his vitriolic anti-American Sunday sermons which were widely disseminated on the internet. Obama initially dissociated himself from this toxic rhetoric, and was later forced to renounce both Wright and his comments.

An unrepentant Wright, capitalising on his new-found fame, eagerly appeared on various TV talk shows and lecture circuits in Washington recently, reminding the public of his past nexus to Obama. While the issue seemingly did not have a major impact on the last two primaries, it is bound to resurface in November.

Potentially more damaging than Obama’s past association with Wright, is the recent emergence of some ominous voting trends which might spell trouble for him if he becomes the Democratic nominee.

There seems to be a developing split of voters across racial lines, something that was not evident in earlier contests when Obama had rooted his candidacy in the transcendent theme of national cohesion. While drawing increasingly large majorities from African-Americans, Obama has been losing support of the white working class voters, especially those with lower incomes and level of education. Educated at Columbia University and Harvard Law School, he has been painted by his opponents as an elitist, remote from the concerns of ordinary Americans.

While the country is faced with problems such as an economic slump, the war in Iraq and a severe energy crisis, it is hard to imagine that people would vote for a Republican candidate again. However, presidential elections in America have often been decided based on the personalities of the contestants rather than party manifestos.

In order to become the first African-American president, Barack Obama will have to persuade the electorate to overcome their hidden racial and ethnic prejudices. Incredibly, a small, uninformed minority in this country continue to believe that he is a Muslim.

ADDRESSING a ceremony at the Bahauddin Zakaria University on May 4, Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani announced the setting up of a new medical college and a foreign engineering college in affiliation with the university.

This was quite expected as Multan is the birthplace of the prime minister and is renowned for having been the centre of scholarship in philosophy, literature and mysticism for a good part of the contemporary history of South Asia.

The prime minister also distributed a large number of cheques amounting to Rs90m from the state Baitul Maal for the welfare of the needy in health, education and small businesses. He also announced a mega development package for Multan and approved a grant of one million rupees for the Lawyers’ Welfare Trust. All this is good news for the people of Multan. As for the rest of the country, this generosity shown by the prime minister for the people of Multan gives rise to a number of assumptions which may or may not be correct but need serious reflection nevertheless.

First, this course of action is no different from what has been happening in Pakistan since independence. Leaders come and make big announcements to keep the goodwill of the people who elect them. Almost all the previous leaders of our country, including non-elected public figures, have followed this political tradition faithfully. Instead of building on the projects initiated by its predecessor, a new government comes up with its own projects. Sometimes, old projects are abandoned if their association with the new rulers is hard to establish. It does not matter if these are halfway into completion.

Having set this precedent, the prime minister has raised the expectation of other impoverished regions. They are now eagerly awaiting his arrival to give out Baitul Maal cheques worth millions of rupees to the poor and needy in their areas.

Second, it is a reflection of how a feudal mind works when it is in a giving mood. A feudal lord can be as generous as he can be ruthless. If his servants show total loyalty to the feudal lord, they deserve the best treatment from their master. In the absence of a state-managed social welfare system, this is a blessing in disguise. However, we have seen how a social welfare system of sorts operated by the madressahs for providing free education to poor children has backfired on society and is crying out for reform.

Although there is a lot to write in favour of the feudal system in an impoverished society, there is a fundamental difference between personal and state expenditure. The feudal lord does not mind if the largesse he is distributing comes from his own pocket. However, with the politician, the problem is that such largesse is not a burden on his purse because it is paid from the taxpayers’ money.

Third, it shows that perhaps the new government is so efficient that in just over a month it has come up with development plans for all parts of the country. Thus the mega project announced for Multan is the beginning of a great development era for the rest of the country. But this seems too good a performance by our civil service to be believed. The more plausible explanation is that the government has no planning process in place and is relying, as usual, on the whims of the elected leaders to show the way in setting up ad hoc priorities without any planning process.

Fourth, it shows that the prime minister has chosen to care for Multan first before any other region or province. In mature democracies, prime ministers preside over a fairly complex and sophisticated planning process for economic and social development but do not travel far and wide to announce the details of such projects in the country, let alone their home constituency. The government machinery is there to implement plans. In due course people can see for themselves what their leaders have done for them and where they have fallen short on their electoral promises.

Finally, we are back to square one on the question of institutions taking precedence over individuals. It is not any particular president or prime minister the people of Pakistan need to remember as their hero, but the institutions that represent them. It is ironic that whenever there is a new project to be launched, it is always associated with the personal initiative of the president or prime minister in office.

This gives rise to a false sense of the leaders’ infallibility. When their term comes to an end, they try to hang on to power in the mistaken belief that if they went, the country would go downhill with them. The prime minister should not fall prey to this well-rehearsed tradition, otherwise five years later, he will start seeing himself as irreplaceable — a familiar spectacle repeatedly witnessed in Pakistan and in other developing countries.

The fact is that giving out small amounts of money on high-level visits cannot change the lot of the poor. If our politicians are sincere about reducing poverty, they need to focus on development projects in rural areas which are self-sustainable and use local resources to add value to the GDP of the country. In many developing countries, governments have lost elections on this important matter — because the electorate did not benefit from their grand policies which had little relevance to the people and their needs.

In Pakistan, very often civil servants have been chasing tall promises made by politicians in different provinces and constituencies. That way the treasury is never able to keep pace with the ad hoc expenditure incurred to fulfill unimaginative pledges, with the result that the rupee has to be devalued to make up for the shortfall of liquidity.

In a democracy, it is very difficult to cut jobs, administrative expenses and welfare schemes in order to find money for development projects. This funding should be part of a well-prepared development plan arrived at after extensive public consultation with all key stakeholders.

The immediate need is to keep the economy running in full steam so that jobs are created and those households which are standing on the threshold of poverty are drawn back into the expanding middle class. With the celebrations of an astounding popular victory coming to an end, let the hard work of rebuilding the economy begin with less impulse and more think-tanking.

The writer is chief executive of Commonwealth Consulting and Risk Analysis Ltd in the UK.

sharfuddin@commonwealthconnsultants.co.uk