22nd May 2009
The Malta Independent - Friday Wisdom
Today is the feast of St Rita to whom many faithful refer with prayers for needs or wishes which appear quite impossible to realise. St Rita is thus known as the saint of the impossible.
Something many considered impossible has happened this week in the world largest democracy. The results of the general elections held in India over a time period spanning more than one month, left many observers dumbfounded, capable of simply whispering awesomely: Incredible India (which is indeed the motto of their tourism sales pitch).
Indian voters have delivered a humbling lesson in democratic wisdom that could be just what their barely governable country essentially needs. Faced with the fall-out from the financial crisis, a massive backlog of structural reforms which were impeded by fractionalised government coalitions that left little room for manoeuvring without destroying itself, a string of home-grown insurgencies, a tense stand-off with arch-rival Pakistan, and bruised by a terrorist attack from Pakistani based forces on its main commercial centre in Mumbai last October, the country badly needed a strong government to manoeuvre these challenges. Yet there was more hope than conviction that this could come from such a complicated democratic process involving 420 million voters.
The Indian electorate has chosen decisively in giving a strong mandate to incumbent Prime Minister Manmohan Singh beyond the wildest expectations of his Congress Party – the Party of Nehru, Indira Ghandi and Rajiv Ghandi. To replace the outgoing coalition of 13 parties Mr Singh now has a more concentrated manageable majority that can drive the restructuring needed to make India more competitive, a respected international player, a strong economic force which addresses its internal poverty and a balancing force to China’s ascension.
India’s democracy is a lesson of maturity overriding strong forces such as caste-based populism, sectarian Hindu revivalism, and regional parties with a habit of holding national interest hostage. It is not yet clear whether the Indian electorate also managed to cleanse its parliament from its hitherto criminal dabs. In the last parliament 128 out of 543 members had faced criminal charges or investigations, including 83 cases related to murders. In a poor society, gangsters can and do use their muscle and money to get elected.
It is incredible how such a large and relatively poor country can manage such a peaceful democratic transition. Presumably poverty is a relative value. The fact that many Indians are today less poor than they used to be, even though still very poor in comparative terms, prodded the electorate to elect a strong government that can persist on the road to development.
China would do well to look at the Indian experience and mull whether it is better to embark on a process leading to democratisation; otherwise, the process will have a tendency to snap itself into being with one devastating sharp effect.
I don’t know if St Rita has had anything to do with the Indian miracle but it would be nice if she were to put in her bit in the Middle East peace process which started in earnest this week when the new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made his first call on President Obama.
It is clear that if progress has to be made on this long festering issue, Obama has to maintain and enhance his role as an honest broker and distance himself from the role of protégé of the status quo in favour of Israel as adopted by past US presidents.
Obama has committed himself to pursuing a peace package that is based on a two state solution and curtailment of further expansion of Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory. Prime Minister Netanyahu has been elected to government in a fragile coalition which negates both these conditions. In Netanyahu’s first term as Prime Minister during the Clinton presidency, he had tried to force the hand of the US president by using the Israeli lobby in Congress, an act which practically rendered Netanyahu a persona non grata in the White House and kept him for a decade out of Israel’s government.
One has to see whether Netanyahu mark 2 is more pragmatic and has the political capital to bring his coalition along with him to do the necessary compromises to reach peace or whether such flexibility would effectively cause his government coalition to disintegrate, forcing Israel back to the polling booths.
Obama has a great hand to play. Strangely this hand comes from a most unlikely source: Iran. Obama and Netanyahu both agree that Iran’s nuclear ambitions present an existential threat to Israel and the whole Middle East. But whilst Netanyahu seems to favour a pre-emptive military solution, Obama maintains that the solution to the problem of Tehran passes through Jerusalem.
Obama maintains that Iran’s intransigence could be broken by forming strong alliances with Arab neighbours in the region rather than by consolidating Arab support for Iran through military strikes, pre-emptive or otherwise. Iran’s isolation by its Arab neighbours is only possible through effective compromises for a permanent solution to the Palestinian issue.
Obama has a lot of political capital to spend and in spite of the horrendous economic problems on the domestic front, he seems determined to tackle the Middle East issue in full force at a time when he has strong moral authority to kick bottoms and knock heads.
St Rita needs to work overtime.
The Malta Independent - Friday Wisdom
Today is the feast of St Rita to whom many faithful refer with prayers for needs or wishes which appear quite impossible to realise. St Rita is thus known as the saint of the impossible.
Something many considered impossible has happened this week in the world largest democracy. The results of the general elections held in India over a time period spanning more than one month, left many observers dumbfounded, capable of simply whispering awesomely: Incredible India (which is indeed the motto of their tourism sales pitch).
Indian voters have delivered a humbling lesson in democratic wisdom that could be just what their barely governable country essentially needs. Faced with the fall-out from the financial crisis, a massive backlog of structural reforms which were impeded by fractionalised government coalitions that left little room for manoeuvring without destroying itself, a string of home-grown insurgencies, a tense stand-off with arch-rival Pakistan, and bruised by a terrorist attack from Pakistani based forces on its main commercial centre in Mumbai last October, the country badly needed a strong government to manoeuvre these challenges. Yet there was more hope than conviction that this could come from such a complicated democratic process involving 420 million voters.
The Indian electorate has chosen decisively in giving a strong mandate to incumbent Prime Minister Manmohan Singh beyond the wildest expectations of his Congress Party – the Party of Nehru, Indira Ghandi and Rajiv Ghandi. To replace the outgoing coalition of 13 parties Mr Singh now has a more concentrated manageable majority that can drive the restructuring needed to make India more competitive, a respected international player, a strong economic force which addresses its internal poverty and a balancing force to China’s ascension.
India’s democracy is a lesson of maturity overriding strong forces such as caste-based populism, sectarian Hindu revivalism, and regional parties with a habit of holding national interest hostage. It is not yet clear whether the Indian electorate also managed to cleanse its parliament from its hitherto criminal dabs. In the last parliament 128 out of 543 members had faced criminal charges or investigations, including 83 cases related to murders. In a poor society, gangsters can and do use their muscle and money to get elected.
It is incredible how such a large and relatively poor country can manage such a peaceful democratic transition. Presumably poverty is a relative value. The fact that many Indians are today less poor than they used to be, even though still very poor in comparative terms, prodded the electorate to elect a strong government that can persist on the road to development.
China would do well to look at the Indian experience and mull whether it is better to embark on a process leading to democratisation; otherwise, the process will have a tendency to snap itself into being with one devastating sharp effect.
I don’t know if St Rita has had anything to do with the Indian miracle but it would be nice if she were to put in her bit in the Middle East peace process which started in earnest this week when the new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made his first call on President Obama.
It is clear that if progress has to be made on this long festering issue, Obama has to maintain and enhance his role as an honest broker and distance himself from the role of protégé of the status quo in favour of Israel as adopted by past US presidents.
Obama has committed himself to pursuing a peace package that is based on a two state solution and curtailment of further expansion of Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory. Prime Minister Netanyahu has been elected to government in a fragile coalition which negates both these conditions. In Netanyahu’s first term as Prime Minister during the Clinton presidency, he had tried to force the hand of the US president by using the Israeli lobby in Congress, an act which practically rendered Netanyahu a persona non grata in the White House and kept him for a decade out of Israel’s government.
One has to see whether Netanyahu mark 2 is more pragmatic and has the political capital to bring his coalition along with him to do the necessary compromises to reach peace or whether such flexibility would effectively cause his government coalition to disintegrate, forcing Israel back to the polling booths.
Obama has a great hand to play. Strangely this hand comes from a most unlikely source: Iran. Obama and Netanyahu both agree that Iran’s nuclear ambitions present an existential threat to Israel and the whole Middle East. But whilst Netanyahu seems to favour a pre-emptive military solution, Obama maintains that the solution to the problem of Tehran passes through Jerusalem.
Obama maintains that Iran’s intransigence could be broken by forming strong alliances with Arab neighbours in the region rather than by consolidating Arab support for Iran through military strikes, pre-emptive or otherwise. Iran’s isolation by its Arab neighbours is only possible through effective compromises for a permanent solution to the Palestinian issue.
Obama has a lot of political capital to spend and in spite of the horrendous economic problems on the domestic front, he seems determined to tackle the Middle East issue in full force at a time when he has strong moral authority to kick bottoms and knock heads.
St Rita needs to work overtime.
No comments:
Post a Comment