The schizophrenia of our politics

GLOBAL pressure on Pakistan to do yet more in the war against terror and the wages of high energy prices compound the crisis of expectations from democracy. The country’s current crises are not a creation of the five-month-old democratic order.

And while some issues could have been resolved in a snap under a more authoritarian set-up, democracy is messy.

Within months of the new government taking over, but before the exit of Pervez Musharraf, a favourite parlour game was guessing the date of the government’s demise. Not just because of Mr Musharraf’s being there, but also because of the pairing of unlikely partners in a coalition and price hikes that Pakistan had not experienced in almost a decade. It is our impatience with democratic politics and the due process that impels us to look, again and again, towards Rawalpindi.

Grand narratives of doom and gloom — whether to castigate the previous regime or to emasculate the present one — dutifully peppered by our excitable media and coarse members of the coalition government serve only to reinforce the ‘stigma’ of democracy as moored in the popular imagination.

Case in point: a former coalition minister’s drubbing of Pakistan’s economy in front of an audience abroad in order to highlight his professional challenges and to rubbish his predecessors won the knee-jerk reaction of investors on the local bourses and led them to repatriate foreign capital. As a result, the work got needlessly harder and the democratic order was damaged by a campaign mentality and verbal diarrhoea.

The goals and successes of the infant government — securing Saudi oil payments’ deferment worth $5.9bn, reconciliation, charting a plan of transfer payments via the Benazir Income Support Scheme, plans to commute death sentences to life imprisonment, facilitating privatisation and the liberalisation of the economy coupled with balancing, safety nets — were dwarfed by the judges’ drama and the pulling down of the president. Now that Mr Musharraf is gone and the damaged democrats seem both satisfied and chastened, can we start accepting and seeing Pakistan as a democracy? Can we reconcile our polity with functioning democracy?

If that seems incredulous, then the Pakistani naysayer should take a page from the Indian political tome which has seen 61 years of uninterrupted democracy, with the exception of Indira Gandhi’s emergency. By and large, continuity and commitment to the democratic tradition have healed India’s internal schisms and enfranchised millions of its marginalised and dispossessed.

In praise of democracy, however, its contradictions, limitations and predicaments cannot and must not be condoned. And nowhere are these more apparent than in India itself.

An analysis of the Indian democracy mystique dispels the romantic notions harboured by our intelligentsia. A telling tale is disclosed by an Indian editor in a western weekly wherein the writer suggests that an anonymous army chief threw a spanner in the peace overtures to Pakistan recently — even though from a Pakistani perspective it was for once reassuring to learn that the spoilers did not come from its range of oft-maligned officers.

But the notion that extra-parliamentary appendages overhang Indian parliamentary sovereignty raises questions regarding the efficacy of the government and parliament. The eventual success, though, of Indian foreign policy that let its hawkish elements peter out was evidenced in the hitherto successful India-Pakistan rapprochement. Parliamentary sovereignty superseded individual whims.

Likewise, the editor pointed to the dominant role of the Indian Department of Atomic Agency in determining the progress on his country’s nuclear negotiations with the US. The rumbling thunder of the Left in the Indian parliament almost brought the coalition government down on the matter of the nuclear deal.

In practice, infighting on this and other issues — ranging from the privatisation of airports to labour reforms to retail deregulation to international affairs — have made Indian parliamentary proceedings nettlesome; but at another level the factoring in of stakeholders of all hues and shades has mitigated undue haste in nuclear statecraft. That, in turn, guarantees policy sustainability as opposed to pretty assemblages of houses of cards as seen in Pakistan’s post-military bouts.

All too often, Pakistanis chide their politicians for alleged corruption. On that basis, democracy is spurned in favour of the seemingly simple, hierarchical army juntas. The overthrow of democratic governments in the past is attributed to their alleged spate of monetary indulgences and excesses. That the abuse of power occurs is unequivocally condemnable. But that it could trigger the overthrow of an elected government via extra-parliamentary trappings is inexcusable.

While India is no exemplar of genuine democracy, nonetheless instances such as Rajiv Gandhi’s alleged role in the Bofors scandal, Tehelka’s riveting exposé on the BJP’s kickbacks, and government-sponsored horse-trading in the latest vote of no-confidence motion in the Indian parliament have not lured Indian generals to purge corruption or, for that matter, cleanse Indian democracy of cult figures such as Maharashtra’s Bal Thackeray, Gujarat’s Narendra Modi and Bihar’s Laloo Yadav.

Indeed, it feels odious to tolerate these thugs in the broader commitment to democracy. However, they are the unintended consequences of an empowered, enfranchised electorate. To suggest that pockets of the illiterate populace elect these morally hazardous, harlequin politicians is an orientalist statement. In the heart of enlightened Europe, Germany has elected rabid neo-Nazis and Italy has brought neo-fascists to the public realm. The saving grace of these countries’ political systems is the presence of checks and balances embedded in the democratic culture, minimising the risk to the ethos of the nation-state.

Our patience with democracy runs thin because of extra-democratic operatives ever willing to purge and sanitise the system. In an ironic hint of nostalgia for Gen Musharraf, one ex-PCO judge effusively, via an electronic channel, berated the present PPP-led government for allegedly being inimical to the idea of reinstatement of the judges (himself included). Such keen judicial harkening for the past cast doubts about democracy rooting itself in letter and spirit.

razi.razi@gmail.com

Gilani’s tough agenda

THE dénouement was swift and sudden. A man who had won his re-election less than a year ago resigned when faced with impeachment. Was it the absence of the ‘second skin’ that did him in?

Was it the studied neutrality of his handpicked successor as army chief? Was it the lack of US support? Historians will debate these issues for years to come and it is too early to say what their verdict will be.

What we do know is that a major sore point in the polity has been cleared up. It is time to move on. In the immediate future, a new president has to be selected. He or she should hold the titular position of head of state, not the executive position that Musharraf wielded. Even then, the choice is rich with symbolism and should be made with care.

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani is the man of the hour. He needs to announce his policy agenda. What should be on it? First and foremost is the unfinished business of restoring the judges. If this is not done, the political cauldron will stir again and Pakistan cannot afford more instability. Beyond this, several other issues loom large on the horizon. Some demand attention in the near-term, some in the mid-term and some in the long-term. All are ‘front burner’ issues.Depending on who you ask, you will get a different agenda. Mine comprises five points which, in order of priority, are security, economy, energy, polity and society.

Security: This subdivides into local, provincial, national and international dimensions. Local security means that individuals in a community or neighbourhood are free to go about their daily lives without fear of assault, robbery, kidnapping or murder and that businessman can operate without fear of being held hostage for ransom or being forced to bribe government officials.

Without local security, life comes to a standstill. But one cannot just have local security and function productively. The next level involves the ability to live and to do business at the provincial and national levels. Without this, the movement of people across different parts of the country is stymied and inter-regional commerce cannot be optimised.

Finally, there is the international dimension of security. Pakistan has to coexist with its neighbours, most notably Afghanistan and India. It also has to coexist with the Arab world, China and, most importantly, the United States. The most immediate manifestation of this concern is the need to resolve the problems in Fata and rein in the terrorists who are unleashing the biggest wave of suicide bombings in the country’s history.Economy: This subdivides into managing the budget and trade deficits, attracting foreign investment and raising the domestic savings rates. The budget deficit is spinning out of control and currently clocks in at over seven per cent of GDP. This, along with a global shortage of food and fuels, has pushed the rate of inflation above 25 per cent.

Putting bread on the table has become a Herculean task for the typical family man. Government spending has to be lowered but how does one do that when subsidies for food and fuel compromise a large portion of the budget?

Eliminating subsidies immediately will trigger a political backlash. The transition has to be managed by negotiating foreign aid on favourable terms from friendly countries and international banks.

In the long run, unproductive government expenditures have to be curtailed, including those on defence. The military needs to be reconfigured for its new mission, counter-insurgency operations. The war with India is over. There is no need to maintain a force in excess of 600,000 supported by a similar number of reservists.

Loopholes in the tax collection mechanism have to be closed off by bringing the black money into the mainstream economy, by extending the reach of the tax system to encompass agricultural incomes and by stringent enforcement of the existing tax code. Policies have to be formulated to raise the domestic savings rate. This is a long-term challenge.

On the trade front, imports are running far ahead of exports, and the imbalance on the current account is at nine per cent of GDP. This is causing serious pressure on the rupee. The dollar, which has taken a beating against the euro, looks like a hero when compared to the rupee, being worth around 75 now compared to 60 just last year.

As budget and trade balances are restored, and security is restored on the streets, the flight of capital that is in full swing right now will be arrested. The country will not only be able to keep its capital but attract new capital, both public and private. This would put ballast back in the stock market which has fallen by more than 40 per cent in dollar terms since the start of the year.

The US Congress is set to vote on a bipartisan resolution that would triple the amount of non-military aid flowing to Pakistan to $1.5bn a year. If this materialises, this should be of tremendous help.

Energy: A power shortage of some 20 per cent afflicts the electrical grid, causing load-shedding, brownouts and blackouts. These are very costly to businesses and demean the quality of life at home. What is required is a two-pronged approach which builds power plants to expand supply and rationalises prices to conserve demand.

Polity: All the deposed judges have to be restored and along with them the rule of law has to be brought back into the polity. There are three branches of government and each has to respect the rights of the other two. The checks and balances that are intrinsic to democratic government have to be institutionalised so that division of power and not unity of command becomes the operative paradigm. And under no conditions should the military be considered a fourth branch of government.

Society: A culture of tolerance and respect for diversity that cuts across ethnic, sectarian and gender lines has to be incubated. Emphasis has to be placed on educating the population, especially the children. And the tiger of population growth has to be tamed.

Even under the best of conditions, the five-point agenda constitutes a tall order, especially for a coalition government. However, it is difficult to see how Pakistan can survive its myriad challenges, let alone survive, unless the agenda is attended to.

The writer is the author of Musharraf’s Pakistan, Bush’s America and the Middle East (Vanguard Books, 2008).

faruqui@pacbell.net

McCain’s admission

ACCORDING to its marketing literature, The Residences at 2211 Camelback, an upmarket apartment building in Phoenix, Arizona, is “a dream within a dream environment,” where “life beyond the expected awaits your discovery”.

An “ambience of distinction embraces residents and their guests upon arrival and rewards them with soaring architecture [and] a bountiful treasure of luxury amenities that ensure personal comfort”. There’s a fitness centre, business facilities and a boardroom, a massage service, and a rooftop pool terrace with a sun deck and spa, offering “majestic mountain views,” all just yards away from “couture boutique shopping, exquisite dining [and] championship golf”.

If John McCain does not win the US presidency this November, his two combined units at 2211 Camelback might provide a consoling setting in which to reflect upon why. So might his ranch on the banks of a creek in Sedona, a couple of hours’ drive away, which has three houses on it, or his three-bedroom apartment in Virginia. Or one of a number of other hideaways — the exact number, of course, being precisely McCain’s biggest problem at the moment.

Whether or not it ends up proving decisive in the outcome of the election, McCain’s admission in an interview this week that he does not know how many homes he owns — “I’ll have my staff get to you,” he promised a reporter for the Washington-based website Politico — certainly had many of the qualities of the perfect political gaffe. Like the first president Bush acting stunned by a supermarket checkout scanner, or John Kerry going windsurfing, it threatened to demolish McCain’s man-of-the-people credentials — an especially awkward matter in a campaign in which charges of elitism have been flung about so energetically, and in which winning the votes of struggling lower-middleclass Americans in key swing states is seen as crucial to victory. (It didn’t help that McCain, days earlier, had suggested that only those with an income of GBP3m or more really counted as “rich”.)

Helpfully for Barack Obama, it also raised another theme, one that the Democratic candidate’s campaign team felt unable to broach in the attack advertisement they launched within hours: the idea that McCain, who will soon turn 72, is growing so forgetful that he can’t recall basic facts about himself.

To be fair, the truth about McCain’s homes, which are mainly owned by his heiress wife, Cindy, or by companies she controls, is complex. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, who arrived at the White House having never owned any home at all, it depends on what the meaning of the word “home” is. Do the knocked-together units at 2211 Camelback, worth about $1.7m, count as one or two?

Cindy McCain certainly owns a $1m condominium unit in La Jolla, California, overlooking the Pacific Ocean, but it’s reportedly occupied by an elderly aunt. A loft-style apartment in Phoenix features “a giant silver chimney” extending from the fireplace to ceiling “about 20ft above,” one reporter noted — but it was bought for McCain’s daughter Meghan. “The reality is they have some investment properties and stuff,” McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers told the Washington Post. “It’s not as if he lives in 10 houses. That’s just not the case. The reality is they have four that actually could be considered houses they could use.”

The McCain properties, worth an estimated $13m in total, demonstrate a striking homogeneity in their architecture and locations. Counting 2211 Camelback as a single residence, three of them are in Phoenix, or not too far away. Five are apartments in modern tower blocks, and three overlook the Pacific Ocean. Two are in Coronado, near San Diego in California. (Last year, Cindy McCain told San Diego Magazine she comes to the area “any time I get a chance to”.)

The most distinctive is probably the McCain ranch in Sedona, where McCain played host to several potential vice-presidential candidates earlier in the campaign, though the description of it as a “ranch” sometimes irritates his opponents. “McCain doesn’t graze cattle or sheep,” the liberal Arizona blogger David Safier wrote recently. “He doesn’t sell meat or wool. He has about 15 acres of land in Oak Creek near Sedona with a large vacation home ... and about six smaller guest houses... ‘Ranch’ evokes images of cowboys and horses and cattle roundups ... it makes McCain and [President George] Bush seem like virile, independent men of the land.”

In fact, Bush only purchased Prairie Chapel Ranch — his beloved “Western White House” in Crawford, Texas, where he entertains world leaders and relaxes by clearing brush — in 1999.

Nevertheless, accusations of housing-related elitism tend to work more effectively in US politics when levelled against Democrats: rightwing wealth, it’s implied, is the result of vigorous capitalist success, whereas liberal wealth is hypocritical, suggestive of out-of-touch elitism and feyness — and so it remains to be seen whether McCain’s remarks will hurt him to the degree that Kerry was damaged by attacks on his family’s home ownership in 2004.

In purely factual terms, the two cases are remarkably similar: Kerry, as Republicans took much delight in noting, had the use of at least five homes, again mostly owned by his heiress wife. One of them, notoriously, was a 1485 barn that had been shipped over piece-by-piece from England to Idaho — although not by Kerry but by his wife’s former husband, John Heinz III, a Republican.

Obama certainly does not live in penury, something upon which the McCain campaign was quick to try to capitalise in the wake of their candidate’s gaffe. Obama owns a large redbrick home in Kenwood, a neighbourhood of Chicago, which may or may not be “a frickin’ mansion” — as Rogers described it — but which does have four fireplaces and a wine cellar.

And purchasing it did involve Obama in dealings with the disgraced Chicago businessman Tony Rezko, a donor to his campaign, though the candidate has insisted that he paid well above market price and received no favours. (A McCain ad released on Thursday referred to the Rezko connection as Obama’s own “housing problem”.) Obama also rents a second-floor apartment in a townhouse in the Capitol Hill neighbourhood of Washington DC.

As so often in this election season, though, the McCain campaign response ended up sounding peevish, like a playground taunt hurriedly constructed in an attempt to turn Obama’s own words against him. “Does a guy who made more than $4m last year, just got back from a vacation on a private beach in Hawaii and bought his own million-dollar mansion with the help of a convicted felon really want to get into a debate about houses?” Rogers asked. McCain “is a guy who lived in one house for five and half years — in prison in Vietnam”.

Rezko was not a convicted felon at the time, of course (and, incidentally, there are no private beaches in Hawaii). On the other hand, some of the McCain family’s homes may have been smart investment decisions, and their total number really is a question of definition. But it’s perception that matters — and the appalling impression made by McCain left his campaign, last night, in the curious position of looking forward to the wall-to-wall media coverage that Obama’s vice-presidential announcement was bound to generate: at least it promised to change the subject.

— The Guardian, London

Nameless faces

I RECENTLY returned from the new centre of the world — Dubai. My accommodation had a vantage point with an unobstructed view of the planned Burj, the tallest building in the world currently under construction. It is hard to tear one’s gaze away from the tonnes of steel, glass and concrete building the new marvel for the world to see. But, drop your gaze, and you will see that all that glitters is not gold.

At 6am there is a flurry of activity in front of the construction sites as buses line up to drop off a load of migrant workers recognised by their uniform overalls. The silent masses put on their hard hats and head to construction sites, while an equal number are seen filing out finishing their 12-hour shift. The pattern will repeat itself at 6pm. The work must go on, and an incessant stream of workers, mostly Asian, line up to toil in the heat.

Life has dealt them a losing hand, a reality so harsh that they actually consider themselves fortunate to have work. Many have actually paid preying agents in their home countries, just for a chance to earn. They will labour and send their meagre earnings home, so their dependants can meet their basic needs. Their expectations for compensation are alien to the concepts of pension plans, healthcare, dental plan, disability life and unemployment insurance, overtime and the like — existence is about maximising the portion of the pay wired back home.

I cannot imagine what it would be like to walk a mile in their shoes, so I cannot ascertain whether they consider themselves lucky to be part of this migrant workforce. I suppose some might, but in reality, they are a destitute lot; to be precise, they are our destitute lot. So, one can easily choose to ignore their plight, or we can urge our government to make a few changes which improves the circumstances for these unappreciated heroes.

One of the first things the government can do is to undertake a programme which informs the labourers before they leave Pakistan. Many of those leaving do not know what to expect with regard to living and working conditions, cost of living, and are probably not aware of their rights or legal status in their host country. For the uneducated, the government can help provide a service to oversee contracts, and explain any hidden fees or conditions.

Once our workers decide to leave Pakistan, they can be given contact numbers in cases of emergency; most destinations for our labourers have embassies and consular services. We need to encourage our workers to report cases of abuse, especially for women who go overseas as domestic workers. It is difficult for Pakistan to even think about lodging a complaint about the extent of exploitation of its citizens, if the cases are not documented.

Beyond these basic steps, the government can do more to look after its citizens working overseas as unskilled labour and remitting foreign exchange home. It can sponsor, every few months, a team of healthcare workers who go overseas to Middle East countries, and attend to those who are not feeling well. Healthcare costs outside Pakistan are usually more expensive than costs within Pakistan. A great number of labourers are uninsured, and the provision of healthcare is dependent entirely on the sponsor. These regularly scheduled visits will go a long way in ensuring that the basic healthcare needs of our labourers are met.

Needless to state, there are many other initiatives which can be undertaken. We can make it easier for them to stay in touch with their families, as they will not be seeing them for a number of months. We can provide low-cost or free transfers of money to Pakistan. We can, we can, we can ... we must!Our overseas labour force is more valuable than the figure of foreign exchanges remittances. It is about time we stopped glancing past these faces, paused and looked them in the eye. It is time to reach out and offer an overdue helping hand.