DAWN - Editorial; September 22, 2005
Is this parliamentary democracy?
PRESIDENT Pervez Musharraf’s observations on democracy in Pakistan should provide food for thought to many in this country as well as to the president himself. Given Pakistan’s experience with its military rulers, no one would question the president’s approval of a parliamentary system of government, which, according to him, has allowed the transfer of power to be smooth and constitutional. What is intriguing is that in spite of all the distortions that have been made in the 1973 Constitution, we are still considered to be living under a parliamentary system. Small wonder, then, the president feels that he has all the authority and doesn’t need any “crutches”.
The fact is that the system the president and his advisers have devised is a hybrid of sorts which gives the head of state substantial powers. And he obviously does not need more. His biggest crutch is the military uniform he had promised to shed last year but never did. As the army chief, his powers are as extensive as any of his military predecessors who came through a military coup and entrenched themselves in the presidency. The checks and balances supposedly provided by the National Security Council work in favour of a president in uniform. As has happened before in the case of Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan and Ziaul Haq, all powers have come to be concentrated in the hands of one man at the helm who has provided a political facade for himself by holding controlled elections and cobbling together a coalition of political parties which are willing to play to the army’s tune. President Musharraf has proved to be no different.
The general is correct in his assessment that in a presidential system it is more difficult to remove a president when such a step is considered necessary. But it should be remembered that Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were removed from office not by a parliamentary vote but with the help of a constitutional provision introduced by another army general. Article 58 (2) B, which gave the president the power to dismiss the prime minister, came in handy for getting rid of Ms Bhutto in 1990 and 1996 and Mr Sharif in 1993. Since the infamous article was not available in 1999, having been struck off the Constitution by Nawaz Sharif in his second term, General Musharraf had to resort to a coup to topple Mr Sharif’s government. Under the present system, it is known that the prime minister holds office at the pleasure of the president. Mr Jamali had to make his exit when he was asked to do so because it is the president who exercises real powers and is not the titular head that he should have been under a parliamentary system. It is the prime minister in his capacity as the head of government who should be playing the role the president has appropriated for himself. This would explain why the parliament enjoys no importance as an institution and its role is no more than that of a rubber stamp assembly. Instead of experimenting with a mish-mash system, the government would do well to restore the Constitution of 1973 to its original form — minus all the distortions which a succession of military rulers deemed it in their interest to introduce.
Iran’s nuclear imbroglio
AS confrontation with North Korea on the nuclear issue has been defused, the Iran front has begun to hot up. Since last month when Iran resumed uranium conversion, the IAEA, especially the EU-3 (Britain, France and Germany), has been attempting to bring Tehran back to the negotiating table. The much-awaited speech by President Ahmadinejad at the UN General Assembly last week set the tone for the current round of confrontation. With Iran adopting a tough line on its right to have a nuclear programme for energy generation, the EU-3 has also hardened its stance. It has prepared a draft resolution that has been circulated in the 35-member IAEA governing board asking the agency to report Iran’s case to the UN Security Council. Although this may not actually happen, given the composition of the board, this development marks a new turn in the simmering nuclear crisis between Iran and the West.
The Iranian case has been before the IAEA since 2003. The EU-3 managed to negotiate an agreement with President Khatami under which Iran suspended uranium enrichment and agreed to sign the additional protocol of the NPT which provides for stringent and surprise inspection of nuclear facilities. In return the EU-3 was to supply nuclear technology to Iran. By deciding to revoke the freeze, the new government in Tehran has reopened the issue. Believing that the Iranians were building bombs, the US has been demanding strong action against it which the EU-3’s moderating influence had neutralized. But this time the Europeans seem to have lost their cool. True, Iran has a number of powers on its side. Russia, China and the non-aligned members on the IAEA board believe that the matter can be settled within the IAEA framework without involving the Council where the approach is inevitably politicized. Hence, statesmanship demands that the EU-3 revive its diplomacy and also involve China and Russia in it. As for Iran, it would be in its own interest if President Ahmadinejad realized that his right to a nuclear programme has been recognized, but it is still expected to submit to inspections and keep its programme transparent. Confrontation will not pay; it will only exacerbate the crisis which will destabilize the region.
Firecracker hazards
THE government’s failure implementing the ban on firecrackers during Shab-i-Barat celebrations resulted in numerous injuries across the country, including 75 in Gujranwala. It is all too common to see people violate official prohibitions, whether on firecrackers or serving food at weddings, though the latter does not pose a threat to life as the use of firecrackers does. Time and again we have learnt how reckless use of firecrackers or firearms has resulted in injuries, even fatalities. Yet their sale and use continues — much to the horror and disgust of residents whose prayers, peace of mind and sleep are disturbed well into the night. Infants and the elderly bear the brunt of this menace. While no one is against the celebratory aspect of Shab-i-Barat, perhaps it would be a good idea to find an alternative — more agreeable and less offensive — mode of celebration than the present one. At any rate, the present practice of banning the manufacture and use of firecrackers has not worked and is unlikely to prove effective in the future as well.
It is equally important to monitor the manufacture of firecrackers to ensure that safety rules are followed. Often, faulty firecrackers have caused fires and explosions while their improper use has caused much injury to people, and sometimes even caused deaths. An awareness campaign in this regard is sorely required to teach people the risks involved in allowing children to use firecrackers.
IF we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man’s life, sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility.
—Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
Unsettled, not unstable
If two plus two equals 272 then there is no reason on earth, or in heaven, for anyone to ruin the distribution of office that constitutes a coalition government. All you have to do is keep adding some very flexible chips till the pile crosses the magic majority number in the Lok Sabha. And it will be as stable as a pile of chips at a casino, as long as you don’t gamble. Don’t risk anything for big rewards and you can always remain ahead of the game.
Flexibility is a far better glue than ideology, as the BJP’s partners in the NDA repeatedly proved, particularly when they became flexible over the gruesome Gujarat riots. The BJP returned the compliment, like a good, rubbery partner. Three core issues catapulted the BJP from relative obscurity to comparative prosperity: the demand for the construction of a temple to Lord Rama at Ayodhya; the passage of a bill in parliament ensuring a uniform civil code; and the abolition of Article 370, the statute by which Jammu and Kashmir is constitutionally a part of the Union of India. All three were jettisoned the moment BJP ministers took the oath of office.
No comparable fissures afflict the United Progressive Alliance now in power. It may not be very progressive, but it is an alliance. Or, more accurately, the principal partners may have radically different views on the definition of “progress” but they have consciously abstained from the tug of war that can split the fabric. (How did fabric, a solid, virtuous word, evolve towards fabrication, with all its salacious implications? Could it be because of the spin put in the weave? There may be clues here for prime ministers who now cannot survive without plonking a spin-master’s face in front of television cameras on their behalf. They insist on doing so even when the chap is spinning at 78rpm instead of the required 33.)
There are only two political blocs that can threaten the Manmohan Singh government’s stability. The first, unsurprisingly, is the Left. But what could the Left gain from such adventurism? The Left has never been as powerful as it is now, dining off the high table in Delhi, master of the kitchen in Bengal and heady with the aroma of five fulfilling years of power in Kerala after the next election. The Congress has been eager to sacrifice its version of economic reform at the drop of any red flag to keep the Left on its right side. So where’s the problem, comrade?
The other group that could do Dr Singh in is, of course, the Congress. Its motivation would be logical: it would thereby force a general election in which it could significantly improve upon its numbers, which are only as good as P.V. Narasimha Rao and Sitaram Kesri delivered. There is enough disarray within the BJP to tempt Congress calculators.
A general election would have the additional merit of not only depleting the enemy but also clearing the air of dubious friends, Laloo Yadav being among the latter. But, as the old and wise proverb tells it, a bird in hand is worth two in the bush. Why tempt fate in this casino when you can enjoy power placidly for four more years? And who knows which way the chips will turn then.
Then why should the government be unsettled? Because the parts do not quite add up to the whole. Any tremor exposes a mismatch, and tremors are inevitable in the governance of a nation as complex as India. Candour can be seismic. One rumble was heard this week, and is doing the subterranean rounds.
I don’t know how right Rahul Gandhi was in his belief that he could have been prime minister of India at the age of 25, but he was spot-on when he said that there was no governance in Bihar. This has been an obvious fact for far too long. However, in conventional politics, such truths are reserved only for opponents. You don’t dish them out to friends, particularly an ally to whom you have declared undying fealty on the eve of a crucial election.
Bihar will return to the polls in less than four weeks, and Rahul Gandhi’s verdict on his ally Laloo Yadav’s government will echo through the thicket as Yadav fights desperately for survival. It may be difficult for Rahul Gandhi to campaign now for the alliance, because doubtless his opponents will remind him of his remarks at every campaign stop.
This is not just another election: it is literally do-or-die for Laloo Yadav, because if he loses power in Patna the ground beneath his feet will cave in. This was why Laloo Yadav virtually forced a nullification of the last assembly election. If he is defeated, his bitterness will extract consequences.
Candour is a rare tactic in Indian politics, and a refreshing one. Rahul Gandhi’s straight-from-the-shoulder stuff will appeal to his core constituency, the young, who are fed up of the saccharine hypocrisy that sustains so much of political rhetoric. But in order to exercise such candour, Rahul Gandhi needs a Congress majority as big as his grandmother’s in 1971, if not his father’s in 1984. Ideology is not a problem among politicians, but they still want to win elections. Laloo Yadav knows that votes get trapped in mud, and he is always watchful about the direction from which mud is being slung.
There are other parts, smaller, that do not fit. Shibu Soren in Jharkhand does not suit the cleanliness standards that Dr Manmohan Singh correctly demands and the Telangana separatists have an agenda that is a direct challenge to the Congress ethos and conviction. The Congress will not divide Andhra Pradesh and hand over Hyderabad to a parochial group that in any case is too weak to bring down the Union government by itself. Mrs Sonia Gandhi hands out an irregular jar of honey each time the Telangana child begins to bawl. However, that bawl is threatening to become a brawl. And little brawls grow up to become a skirmish.
There is a way to calm the simmering unease. Dr Manmohan Singh and Mrs Sonia Gandhi should send out an invitation to all the UPA partners for a quiet, friendly weekend by the sea. They should then bring out the common minimum programme, tear it up into tiny bits and throw it into the sea. That programme was drawn up, in a bit of a hurry, last year after the election results: a new dawn was lighting up the horizon, and the sky was flush with the rosy tint of great promise in which everything seemed possible.
The government is now entering the noon of its life (time does not pass evenly in power). The sun is harsher, reality more visible, and sweat can be discerned on more than one brow. The group should sit together and write a second minimum programme. If the first was of minimum proportions, then this should be minimalist. There should be about a dozen essentials rather than a hundred wannabes.
There must be detailed and honest analysis of where the government, as well as each of its constituents, has reached since coming to power in Delhi. They should then discuss where they should, or can, go. There should be a political section as well as an economic agenda. The partners must define their territories on the political map, and shake hands against poaching. Dozens of bridges have to be planned to cover the innumerable pitfalls lying ahead.
They should then pull out a three-year calendar and measure options against a timetable. The reinvention or rebirth of the Dr Manmohan Singh government can be celebrated from that weekend.
Just now, the great sin is a sense of ad hoc-ism. The Left discovers what has happened in Washington after it has happened in Washington. Others are bystanders while politics erodes a bulwark in Bihar or Andhra Pradesh. Some compulsions become too regional for the national interest, which must be the principal interest of a Union government.
Dr Manmohan Singh is a great believer in economic transparency, and probably induced more corrections into the economy than any finance minister before or after. He has to now lead the way in political transparency. Indian politics is not very holy, but it is Biblical in one sense: it does not live by bread alone.
The writer is editor-in-chief of Asian Age, New Delhi.
The foreign aid gap
DID the spirit of Bono somehow possess the body of President Bush last week? How else to explain the president’s speech before the United Nations? He sounded more like a crusading anti-poverty rocker — or, worse on the bleeding-heart scale, a European president - than the man whose ambassador to the UN has been working behind the scenes to sabotage the world’s most important anti-poverty initiative.
“To spread a vision of hope, the United States is determined to help nations that are struggling with poverty,” Bush told more than 160 world leaders at the UN summit, which runs through Friday. “We are committed to the Millennium Development Goals... We have a moral obligation to help others - and a moral duty to make sure our actions are effective.”
But not, apparently, a moral obligation to live up to our commitments, or even tell the truth about them.
The Millennium Development Goals were approved by the UN in 2000. They constitute a revolutionary document, setting out objectives such as halving extreme poverty, reducing disease and child mortality and boosting education in the world’s poorest nations by 2015.
To make them a reality, UN members, including the United States, agreed in 2002 at a summit in Monterrey, Mexico, that wealthy nations would “make concrete efforts” to contribute 0.7 per cent of their national income toward foreign aid by 2015.
—Los Angeles Times