No honeymoon period for EU's new chief

Newly-appointed government leaders traditionally get a three month "honeymoon" with the press, public and opposition before plunging into the rough-and-ready of domestic politics.

Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission since Nov 22, is an exception to the rule, however. The former centre-right Portuguese premier has just feted 100 days in office as head of the European Union's most powerful institution. But it has been a difficult, shaky, debut.

Over the last three months, Mr Barroso has faced the wrath of the European Parliament over at least five members of his executive team, fought back socialist critics who say his growth and jobs plan is too business-friendly and struggled to ensure that his motley crew of 25 commissioners does not go off in separate - sometimes even opposing _ policy directions.

The commission chief is in the firing line for kowtowing to the bloc's larger member states, Germany and France.

Critics say he has also broken a cardinal rule of EU politics by jeopardizing his impartiality and forging too-close links with Europe's conservative parties.

Aides to Mr Barroso insist, however, that the 49-year old head of the commission is a pragmatic politician. His only ambition, they say, is to make Europe work efficiently and effectively.

Mr Barroso has certainly won kudos from Berlin and Paris for his determination to put Europe's ramshackle economic house in order, take measures to revive the bloc's flagging finances and fight competition not only from the United States and Japan but also from emerging Asian giants, China and India.

The commission chief's economic priorities are a reflection of the concerns of the proverbial 'man in the street', says a close aide. Others warn against being too quick to judge Mr Barroso on his achievements over a short, three-month period.

This commission will be in charge for 2,000 days," says an EU official, adding: "This is a marathon, not a sprint." The truth is, however, that Mr Barroso appears to be running an ever more difficult obstacle course.

His troubles started even before he took over the reins of command at the EU executive following the Italian government's decision to name controversial conservative politician Rocco Buttiglione to the post of justice affairs commissioner.

Buttiglione never got the job because he outraged socialists in the European Parliament by describing homosexuality as a sin and making demeaning remarks about women.

Italy's mercurial premier Silvio Berlusconi finally agreed to name former foreign minister Franco Frattini to the post. But by then Mr Barroso had damaged his credentials by voicing total faith in Mr Buttiglione.

More controversy lay ahead. Just as he was stepping through the doors of the refurbished multi-million euro Berlaymont headquarters of the commission, Mr Barroso was hit by another crisis: his French transport chief, Jacques Barrot, was found to have concealed a suspended prison sentence over an alleged party political funding scandal.

The furore died down after the European Parliament's legal service said that Mr Barrot had not been 'legally required' to disclose the presidential amnesty that wiped out the condemnation from his personal records. However, other members of the commission continue to create waves. Anti-cartel chief Neely Kruse, a former high-flying Dutch businesswoman, has vowed not to deal with any cases involving companies with which she has been linked in the past. So far, she has had to step aside from eight such cases.

Commissioners Margot Maelstrom from Sweden and Poland's Danita Huber have said they believe Ukraine will probably be in the EU in the not-too-distant future, breaking with Mr Barresi's official line that membership is not on the cards for Kiev.

Mr Barresi's officials put such gaffes down to teething problems of politicians not used to being in the EU spotlight. "We've 25 nationalities and many different political colours in the team .. it's natural that people voice their personal opinions," says an aide. But the resulting chaos has cast doubts on Mr Barroso's ability to manage his crew.

Turf battles between commissioners appear to be another chronic problem. Belgium's Louis Michel, currently development commissioner, and Austria's Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the external relations chief, initially crossed swords several years ago when the government in Vienna accepted the far-right party of Jorg Haider as a member of the coalition.

Mr Michel, formerly the Belgian foreign minister, spearheaded the EU move to isolate Austria for a few months. The crisis with Vienna has been over for several years, but the feud between the two commissioners is still raging, say EU insiders. But, it's not just about personalities. Mr Barroso's policies are also in question. Critics say he is too cautious about taking initiatives and is endangering the reputation and clout of the commission by bowing to pressure from the EU's bigger member states, including Germany, on key issues like industrial policy and liberalizing Europe's services sector.

Mr Barroso has signalled that he is amending the services regulation, drafted in January last year by the former commission, led by Italy's Romano Prodi, because it was not going to fly without a revamp of key areas.

"It is critical we get the legislation right," EU internal market chief Charlie McCreevy told reporters recently.

Significantly, the draft legislation is going to be readjusted to meet French government demands that public services should be excluded and German insistence that the health sector must not be liberalized.

Berlin has also voiced fears that the directive, if implemented in its current version, will allow companies based in eastern Europe to promote cheap labour elsewhere in the bloc.

In contrast to former commission chief Prodi, Mr Barroso is careful not to expose himself to too many unscripted question-and-answer sessions with the 800 or so reporters based in Brussels.

His press appearances are brief, carefully staged and often in the company of foreign leaders. In fact, Mr Barroso did not hold a press conference to mark his 100 days in power. Aides suggest he was too modest to mark the event. But shyness appears to be the least of Mr Barroso's problems.

A huge poster of the new EU executive set to go up at the Berlaymont building shows a smiling and confident-looking commission chief surrounded by his 24 team members announcing to all officials, visitors and reporters that this is the era of the Barroso commission.

Chaotic assembly sessions- ignoring people?

Now this was not the first time that citizens in town read the news that the Sindh Assembly session had been "abruptly adjourned amid chaos". But I am sure they do wonder what is happening.

People in Karachi, Hyderabad, Sukkur, Nawabshah, Larkana, Thatta and elsewhere in Sindh, even in other parts of Pakistan, must be thinking on why there is "chaos" in the Sindh Assembly. I am not linking this to the Arbab-Imtiaz row, and crisis. That's recent, really. There is always room and reason to contemplate about what the common man in the country thinks and perceives about the Parliaments we have had, the political process, the polls, the political leaders, and the democratic dreams that are pursued, one way or another. That being so, and keeping in mind the frustrations of the people when it comes to the quality of life, and the reality that he is chased by all his life, it is easy to comprehend the cynicism and the pessimism that his worldview typify. He will not just believe.

Having said this what is the relationship between the Sindh Assembly and the business of daily living that we encounter? Is there any symbolism between the reported "chaos and pandemonium" in last week's adjourned session, and the impatience, restlessness, doubt, anger, sense of deprivation and neglect, (to name a few of them) that appear to characterize the mood of the man on the street?

Have a look at the details of the session that we are referring to here. It was reported on 2nd March that "Pandemonium prevailed in the House over exchange of remarks between the members of the treasury and opposition benches, and the Speaker had to expunge certain unpleasant remarks". When you read this there is a natural curiosity about what could the remarks be between the opposition and the treasury benches? And what were the unpleasant remarks like? It is all left to our imagination, and that is a vast territory.

I have in mind other such occasions when the assembly sessions have been chaotic and unruly, and these relate to the National Assembly too when we have seen angry walkouts and militant protest by the members, some of which has been telecast live.

That makes one understand the way the country works. And the state of the conflicts and confrontation that cuts across the land at times - the division and the disunity that tears apart the need to harmonise. Isn't it a kind of bitter divide?

The report discloses that "although the order of the day contained eight private bills, five resolutions, two adjournment motions and two motions, no legislative business could be conducted, except the question hour which last about a little more than an hour."

Take into account the fact at the time when this assembly met and adjourned abruptly, the people were facing many problems that were crying for attention. No solution perhaps, as these come seldom now. But at least the hope that there would be a fair mention of the way prices have been raised in the case of milk, and sugar, and atta, and petrol, and the list is long. The subject of prices, which seems to hit the headlines very frequently now, is one that people were expecting to hear the Sindh assembly members, who would at least give the impression of sharing the common man's price rise miseries. Do they realize what milk at Rs28 a litre means? asks a mother of five kids.

The Dawn report said that even in that short duration, the House witnessed chaos twice. When you read such reports, a thought does go out to the disorder and indiscipline that takes places in the typical school classroom. Admittedly there will be such voices heard on this subject contending that dissent and disagreement in the assembly is "the essence of parliamentary democracy" and they will point to other Parliaments in the East and the West. But what needs to be understood and emphasized is that in addition to the debate and the argument, the dissent and the heat of politics that surfaces on the floors of the Parliament, there is solid, if not massive evidence of work and service that is attributed to the elected representatives in those societies.

"Elected representatives" is the point that I have heard even the most politically disinterested individuals stressing whenever they feel that there is far too much of politics and rhetoric than attention being paid to the problems of the people. Elected representatives need to focus on the "burning issues of the day," remarked one Karachiite who argued that the Assembly members did not appear to be seized with the frustrations of the people, and were even unavailable to the constituencies they had come from.

This was the kind of impression that was conveyed in a candid current affairs programme that was telecast on a private Sindhi language channel on Friday morning. With compere Imran Hussain, the English language programme's participants were Illahi Baksh Soomro, a former Speaker of the National Assembly and Fariha Razak Haroon, MPA, Sindh Assembly. And as current affairs programmes are generally very bold, outspoken and realistic, this one was also like that. One of the themes that came through in this was the fact the Sindh government, unlike the Punjab government was not functioning as well as it should. That a reason for this was that Punjab was responding well to the wishes of Islamabad, which evidently, for instance Sindh was not. And it was Mr Soomro who observed that the NWFP government was demonstrating good governance as it had been to stand up to the "dictates" of the federal government.

The compere repeatedly asked the MPA about why the Sindh assembly wasn't doing as much and as well for the people, to which she answered that this was the responsibility of the treasury benches and that the opposition was in a minority and could do little. Other observations made by her only helped to reinforce the perception that what the assembly had been doing was yet to be conveyed to the people. What is one to do if the average Karachiite, for example, believes that his day to day problems would find place in the debate on the floors of the assembly.

I have heard some citizens suggesting that some of the debate and the disorder should be telecast live, at times, perhaps that would improve the performance of the assembly. It would also educate the public. The Federal Information Minister said over a private Urdu channel during the week that the days of the public meeting were over, and now it was the day of the TV debate. Makes you think whether this is the way it is really.

Is there enough of a contact and communication between the official platforms and general public to make the bond meaningful. Or are the decision makers and the power groups circumscribed by their own compulsions limited by their own worlds that do not weave beyond the vested interest?

Let me tell you what one hears often at this point in time. For instance, the prices of petrol and milk which should have engaged the highest attention of the Sindh government has been dwarfed by the focus that has instead gone to the Sindh government's other priorities.