As Bush’s ratings drop

EVEN though the polls are more than 15 months away, Washington D.C. is witnessing the first stirrings of election fever. Seeking to gain an early advantage over their rivals, presidential candidates are inclined to start winning over voters as early as possible.

Neither the incumbent president nor the vice-president will contest, leaving the field open to new faces in both parties. An interesting feature is that the Republican candidates cannot take advantage of their party’s control of the White House to promote their own candidate. In fact, with President Bush’s approval ratings hitting rock bottom, most Republicans don’t want the voters to associate them in any way with the current leadership’s failed policies.

One would have presumed that with the Bush presidency being held responsible for a disastrous war and its inevitable fallout, all that the Democrats needed to do was to pick a candidate who would then trounce his or her Republican opponent. But presidential elections in the US are determined by factors that have little to do with the agendas and manifestos of political parties.

They have more to do with the programmes and personalities of the candidates, because large numbers of Americans have no problem voting across party lines. In fact, no person has been able to win a presidential election by appealing to only his party faithful.

This is what makes elections in the US fascinating. The candidates remain visibly loyal to the party’s core principles, so they can get the party faithful to vote for them in the primaries. But once they have gained the party’s nomination they backpedal and fine-tune their efforts to move towards the centre to enhance their appeal to neutrals and even supporters of the other party.

In other words, Republican candidates have to be archconservatives to gain the nomination and the Democrats have to be liberals for a similar purpose. But both have to become centrists to win the national elections.

The best example of this was Bill Clinton, who realised early on that his party’s liberal agenda would never win him the presidency. So he had to develop the concept of the “New Democrat”.

Similarly, the goal of the Democrats now is to battle for the soul of the undecided. They are being nudged towards the centrist agenda in order to convince the broad middle of the country that the Democrats can be trusted on national security, family values and fiscal responsibility.

Al From, a Democratic Party veteran, is of the view that the stakes in the coming elections are huge and that the public’s unease over the war, healthcare and the economy has given for the “first time in modern political history” his party an opportunity to “build an enduring majority in the progressive centre.”

The danger for the Democrats lies in the hatred that its far left faction has for George Bush. This could lead them to think that they can win the elections without moderating their views. But history should caution them against such expectations: extremist agendas never win you elections. This is what party veterans are worried about and this is what the Republicans are hoping for — that their opponents will self-destruct on extremist platforms.

This is so even though many social scientists are of the view that the conservative movement is in danger of losing its attraction. Conservative domination of the country for the past 30 years had been such that it brought the Republicans remarkable success: five out of seven presidential elections and a dramatic seizure of the House in 1994 after 40 years of Democratic rule.

Political analysts believe that the US may now be the only western country to have a vibrant conservative movement in virtually every hamlet. The movement is proud of its support for guns and remains opposed to taxes and abortion. It can also count on the strong backing of the churches, which remain extremely influential. But for the first time in many decades, the movement appears to be facing a real crisis. The veterans are in a state of gloom, with Richard Viguerie, a conservative stalwart, admitting, “I have never seen conservatives so downright fed up.”

The latest evidence of growing disarray among the Republicans is the announcement that Karl Rove, President Bush’s political guru, credited with creating many winning coalitions, is quitting to devote more time to his family. No one is willing to buy this excuse, and suspect that he is “abandoning ship”.

The departure of the most influential and controversial presidential strategist of this generation is bound to send a distress signal to the party faithful. The White House did make a valiant effort to dismiss the impression that Rove’s departure signals the advent of what is known in this country as the “lame duck phase” of the presidency. But that is how most will view the Bush administration.

It is also a sign that during the last 17 months in office, Bush’s domestic agenda will consist of trying “to preserve programmes enacted in his first term, finding opportunities for discreet victories and engaging in veto battles with the Democratic-controlled Congress over spending and taxes.”

While the elections are still more than a year away and the primaries have not even begun, all indications point to the Democrats capturing the White House, which has led the media to state that the Republicans can win only if the other side “self-destructs”.

Senator John McCain, the early favourite of the Republicans, is short of money and big name supporters and his campaign has failed to catch fire, leaving many to believe that he will eventually drop out of the race. That would leave the field to Rudy Guiliani, the former mayor of New York. A “big tent” Republican, he arouses a lot of admiration among neutrals, but his liberal views on issues such as abortion and gay marriage have not gone down well with many conservatives in the party.

The other strong candidate is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, who has the looks and the money to promote his candidature, but whose Mormon faith arouses considerable hostility among many Republicans.

All this has combined to give added confidence and assurance to the Democrats. This phenomenon is best reflected in recent polls showing that 40 per cent of Republicans believe that the Democrats will win the White House; but only 12 per cent of Democrats believe that the Republicans will win. This view is also reflected in the campaign contributions received by the candidates, which is always a powerful indicator of the direction in which the wind is blowing.

In the second quarter of this year, the two leading Democrats raised $60 million as against only $32 million by the two leading Republicans. Even more significantly, 61 per cent of Democratic primary voters are happy with their choice of candidates, compared to only 36 per cent of Republicans.

What about elections for the two Houses of Congress? The news for the Republicans is not very encouraging. In the 2006 elections, the Democrats picked up 31 House seats and six Senate seats, along with six governorships and 321 state legislature seats. This trend is still very much there and maybe getting stronger.

Moreover, the Republicans will be defending more vulnerable Senate seats than the Democrats in 2008. No wonder, a well-known Republican activist told me that the party is facing “disaster” in 2008.

Another interesting statistic relates to the numbers that identify themselves with one or the other party. In 2002, the American electorate was equally divided between the Democrats and the Republicans, with both sides hovering around 43 per cent. This year, only 35 per cent identified themselves as Republicans, while 50 per cent are proud to call themselves Democrats.

Even worse for the Republicans is the news that the young are moving away from the conservative philosophy. The proportion of 18- to 25-year-olds who identify with the Republican Party has declined from 55 per cent in 1991 to 35 per cent in 2006, according to the Pew Research Centre.

Moreover, the Republicans have alienated the country’s fastest growing ethnic group, the Hispanics, primarily because of their opposition to immigration reform. This is evident from the massive turnout of Hispanics in favour of Democrats in 2006 — estimated to be over 70 per cent.

What explains this slide in Republican fortunes? The most important is Bush’s track record. He has the worst approval ratings since Jimmy Carter — 29 per cent according to Newsweek and 31 per cent according to NBC.

An amazing 45 per cent, including 13 per cent of Republicans support impeaching Bush, according to the American Research Group. The obvious reason is the disaster in Iraq. A recent New York Times poll found that only 25 per cent of the population approved of Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq.

But it is not the Iraq war alone that explains the Republicans’ low approval ratings. Many of the party faithful are deeply annoyed at what they allege is Bush’s betrayal of the core principles of the conservatives, namely to reduce government and take it out of your daily life.

Bush has presided over the largest expansion in government since the Johnson administration’s Great Society programmes. His prescription drug benefit was the largest expansion of government entitlements in 40 years. He has increased federal education spending by about 60 per cent and added 7,000 pages of federal regulations. William Buckley, the high priest of the conservative movement, charges that had Bush been the leader in a parliamentary system, he would have had to resign.

This is not necessarily the whole story. In fact, Bush has bent over backwards in his desire to please the conservatives. He gave in to the demand of the neoconservatives to invade Iraq. He supported tax cuts for business and restricted federal funding for stem-cell research, preferred conservatives for judicial appointments and appointed people for their ideological purity rather than for their competence.

What does all this mean in the long term? There is nothing permanent in American politics. In the past, too, many social scientists were inclined to read the obituary of the conservatives. After all, the movement was born in the wake of the liberals’ glory days — the landslide victory of Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 elections — and was at its most combative when battling Clinton, especially when pushing for his impeachment.

It is not unlikely that Hillary Clinton’s nomination could re-energise the movement. In any case, this country remains staunchly conservative, deeply rooted as it is in its growing number of churchgoers, anti-tax groups and pro-gun activists. Nevertheless, if the current trend holds, the next incumbent of the White House should be a Democrat. What this will mean for Pakistan is what I intend to focus on next week.

The writer is a former ambassador.

Secularism has a long way to go

IT is a straight question which should have been addressed long ago. If the accused in the Mumbai blasts could be tried and punished, even after 15 years, why not those who rioted and killed hundreds in Mumbai in the wake of the Babri Masjid demolition in December 1992? The rioting, as the Justice B.N. Sri Krishna Inquiry Commission put it, was a “cause and effect” happening.

The Shiv Sena has threatened to organise a “Hindu backlash” if the government reopens the rioting cases. The Maharashtra chief minister at the time, Manohar Joshi, has warned that communal amity in the state would be torn asunder on religious lines if the past was looked into. But how does one explain that out of 13,000 cases, only 800 odd were taken up? Obviously, they were not pursued because of communal considerations. If things are left as they are, the government will be seen to be coddling communal elements.

The Sena’s hysterical outcry is understandable because the commission has held its men guilty. The report, now nine years old, has said: “There is no doubt that the Shiv Sena and the Shiv Sainiks took the lead in organising attacks on Muslims and their properties under the guidance of several bodies of the Shiv Sena.” Justice Krishna has specifically mentioned Sena chief Bal Thackeray “who, like a veteran general, commanded the loyal Shiv Sainiks to retaliate by organising attacks against Muslims.”

When the riots took place, the Sena-BJP combine was ruling Maharashtra. Atal Behari Vajpayee led the BJP coalition at the centre. Both rejected the report, the Sena characterising it as “pro-Muslim”. Today, the Congress leads the state and central governments. They have been in power for more than three years. The question that arises is why (seeing the BJP inaction) they did not move against the politicians and police officials indicted in the report?

Even now, the action taken is cursory because of the Sena threats. The Mumbai police are establishing a cell to re-examine the closed cases. When the police have done little so far and when the force itself is involved, how can a fair probe be possible? By not taking action, what the government would prove is that there is no rule of law and no constitutional right of equal citizenship.

The guilty, whatever their religion, have to be punished. However wayward India’s democratic system may be, there has to be justice. Instances like the non-compliance of the Krishna report give the impression that when it comes to taking action against the Muslims, the government is firm but lax in the case of Hindus.

This reading is confirmed when one goes through the recommendations of various commissions after Independence. Seldom have their steps been implemented. Action is still awaited on reports on the riots at Jabalpur (1961), Ranchi (1967), Bhiwandi (1970), Jamshedpur (1979), Meerut (1982) and Bhagalpur (1989). These were major riots where the names of politicians and police officials were mentioned because they were involved.

In all the riot reports, Hindu extremists were found to be the instigators. The police were blamed in every riot for their connivance. Muslim fundamentalists, too, were involved in some cases. But politicians of both communities remained behind the scenes. None of them were punished. The action against the police and other officials was a simple departmental inquiry which ended with a warning, censure or demotion.

Unfortunately, politicians and criminals have become so intertwined that when it comes to prosecution or punishment, it depends on political convenience, not legal advice. Invariably, those who get away are Hindus.

Take Gujarat. It is a standing shame. No action has been taken against Chief Minister Narendra Modi in view of political considerations. Around 20,000 Muslims are still refugees with no means of livelihood and no future. Even the belated action against those responsible for the massacre can mollify opinion in the country and abroad. But it is a prestige issue for the BJP. Or, is Gujarat a dress rehearsal for the party’s hidden agenda?

One is, however, stumped when one sees that Muslim fundamentalists are tearing a leaf from the BJP’s book of hatred and hostility. Their number is small. But when they are able to get a fatwa (cheaper by the dozen these days) in favour of a wrong action, they cause serious concern.

The recent instance is that of an attack on the Bangladesh novelist, Taslima Nasreen, in Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh. Members of the Majlis-i-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) who came to her book launch attacked her. The organisers protected her at the risk of their lives. The MIM gets a fatwa in its favour in no time as if it was ready beforehand.

Still, criticising any religion is not in order because its followers feel hurt. But one cannot stop writers who enjoy freedom of expression. I was sorry to watch on TV Chief Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad of Jammu and Kashmir and UP Congress chief Salman Khursheed advocating that authors should avoid writing on religion. This is, in fact, defending the MIM — and both are Congress leaders. What the MIM members did (attacking Taslima Nasreen physically) smacks of fascism. One does not have to agree with the author, but she must have her right to expression.

This is what differentiates a democratic setup from a theocratic or dictatorial state. What the MIM members exhibited was a deep-rooted religious prejudice. I hope it is not spreading among Muslims.

The extremists among Hindus and Muslims have failed to realise that our tryst with destiny is to build a secular state. This is not dependent on whether Pakistan is an Islamic state or not. The ethos of the freedom struggle was to build a secular state. And that is what Jawaharlal Nehru did.

I feel disappointed that even after 60 years of independence the Hindu-Muslim question has not been sorted out. I imagined it would be within a few years of Independence and that the pluralism which the British had methodically destroyed would reassert itself. It is clear that this is not taking place. The nation must undergo introspection to find out why.

When organisations like the Shiv Sena feeding on hatred continue to attack the Muslims and when even the elected MLAs in Hyderabad are not willing to apologise for their action, it is clear that our society has been thickly coated with the grime of faith. It cannot be wiped away easily. What the government can ensure is that at least the parties do not have the name of Hindu, Muslim or Sikh appended to them.

The writer is a senior columnist based in New Delhi.

Inexcusable killings

ONE reason the debate over Iraq can seem so perplexing at times is that the nature of the violence can be so horrendous as to be nearly unfathomable. The inexcusable killing of civilians by insurgents and militias is so common as to go almost unremarked upon. But four simultaneous truck-bomb explosions in one small community in northwestern Iraq on Tuesday night, all directed against defenceless civilians, provided a savage and jarring reminder.

The suicide bombers targeted members of the ancient religious sect known as the Yazidis. Women were killed at market; children were buried as clay and mud houses collapsed. At least 250 people were killed and hundreds more wounded, according to Iraqi officials, which would make the attack the deadliest of the war. Gen. David H. Petraeus, US military commander in Iraq, blamed Al Qaeda in Iraq for the "horrific and indiscriminate attacks."

Another US general called the bombings "an act of ethnic cleansing, if you will, almost genocide." Extremist Sunni elements have been targeting the Yazidis at least since the spring, when a cellphone video was widely circulated on the Internet showing — also unfathomable to most Americans — a 17-year-old Yazidi girl being stoned to death because she had fallen in love with a Sunni man.

The bombings came as Gen. Petraeus and others claimed to be making progress in their campaign against Al Qaeda in Iraq.

––The Washington Post