Tuesday, November 13, 2012

A Way of Looking at the World: the Secret of the West's Success

It is quite fashionable these days to assert that the West is losing its ascendance and the ‘East’ is reclaiming its glory and ascendance in world politics and economics. It is posited that the ‘East’s’ trajectory and progress was halted by western imperialism and colonialism and that the East has now mastered the game and is beating the west at its own game. Support for this view is adduced from the alleged shift of the centre of gravity of economic affairs to the east. While the merits of these assertions and analyses are debatable and the emphasis on the east-west dichotomy over emphasized and a tad rich, there is indubitably some change going on in world affairs-political and economic. It would be more sober and prudent to view this change not in zero sum terms and occurring in a competitive idiom between the so called East and the west but in terms of overall civilizational progress.
This progress can occur neither by blindly mimicking and imitating the west nor can it come about if the west sees the east as a monolithic civilizational construct in competitive terms. It can, however, occur through a process of mutual learning and osmosis. The ‘East’, not in any way, a monolithic bloc or region may need to introspect and integrate the best of what the west has to offer with its own traditions. This means understanding and putting into perspective the nature of the western philosophy and integrating it with the East’s very own set of philosophies- the Islamic, Indic and the Sinic ones. The question is what is the summum bonum and the essence of the West’s philosophy?
It is reason and its corollary that informs the West’s core. This is not meant to imply that the non-west or the ‘East’ is unreasonable or irrational but that the East inherits a legacy that views the world, at times, with a certain approach and reason that militates against reason. Reason forms the bedrock upon which the western edifice is built upon. This imbues the western imagination with a certain approach and the western imagination is then freed from encumbrances. If there is such a thing as the west, it is those peoples that view the world in a certain way. This is a problem solving approach and a view that sees and views no limits and limitations on human potential. Consequently, it allows the western mind to explore new possibilities and push limitations imposed by nature to the extent these can be pushed.
From the invention of the aircraft by the Wright brothers to the invention of the light bulb by Edison , the discovery of the atom or the contemporary developments in information, communications and technology(ICT), it is the West that pioneers , discovers and invents. The non -west just follows or imitates. This will always be the case unless the non- west imbibes, inculcates and accepts reason as the sine qua non of progress. (Progress here is broadly defined). Even though I am loath to identify myself with any civilization, and cosmopolitanism as a world view and approach to life and the world is my choice, I cannot deny nor disavow my origins and roots. As such, I will align myself with the non-west.
Orientalist tropes which cast and depict the East (or the non-west)as unchanging in its essence are just that: tropes. We are a capable and intelligent people and historically we have contributed immensely in almost all domains of existence. However, we have lagged now because we have chosen to abdicate reason and accord other stuff precedence over reason. It is exigent that we realign our world view and approach and integrate reason with our rich traditional and cultural legacy. This will allow us to attain and reach efflorescence. The benefits will be obvious and varied.
A word of caution is warranted here. We should synthesize reason with our own traditions and culture. Our cultures are not inherently regressive or an impediment to progress. They are fine and are in the domain of high culture. At the same time, we should never, (not even for a moment) view our trajectory in contradistinction with the west. Civilizational conflict, as history testifies, regresses the human condition and is bad for all. No one emerges victorious. It leads to the ‘banality of evil’. Our endeavour, always should be to work for and towards a world wherein civilizations learn from each other and work mutually for the progress of civilization. Let us work together toward this goal and let the west and the east rewrite history together and create a new world.

Monday, November 12, 2012

How the Republicans helped Obama attain Victory?

Barack Hussein Obama has been re-elected. The man’s dismal performance in office which was at odds with his inflated rhetoric of change and hope, in the final analysis, was not a major factor in voter calculations. In more senses than one the man owes his victory to his opponents. This confidence in this assertion is premised upon the major omission and lacunae in the Republican campaign and strategy. The Republicans chose to focus on white America which, while still being the dominant cultural force in the country, does not reflect the contemporary United States.
 
 
The United States now is a mosaic of different cultures, ethnicities and cultural and value groupings-all jostling for space in the American firmament. Any politician or party worth its salt has to connect to this diverse voter base. The Democrats and Obama did; the Republicans did not. The results of this election would have been a foregone conclusion if the Republican Party would have expanded its tent and made it more inclusive. This would have entailed a slight tinkering or alteration of the core Republican philosophy and aligned it with the diversity that defines contemporary America. The results of the election and the victory of the damp squib Obama is then a travesty accruing not from the man’s inherent appeal or the Democrats’ winning strategy and formula but from a major and costly omission by the Republicans.
 
Now it’s all over. However, the nature of democracy as it is allows for power rotation. The Republicans will have another chance in four years. What should be the Republican team thinking now? What should be its future approach and strategy be?
 
 
Vigorous introspection and self-criticism should be what the Republicans should be doing now. They look analyse the premises of their campaign strategy, philosophy and approach and understand what went wrong, where it went wrong and how this can be remedied. However, their gaze should be fixed and oriented to the future. So what would the introspection and review reveal?
 
 
It would reveal the obvious: the United States has changed and is changing. It is no longer the country of only white anglo saxon protestants(WASPs) but a melange of cultures and people constitute the contemporary American firmament and electorate. Keeping this in mind, the Republicans should devise and craft a voter targeting and segmentation strategy that reflects this America. This would naturally entail tweaking some of the philosophical premises of the Republican Party, jettisoning some of its rusty shibboleths and finally making the Republican tent more inclusive.
 
 
This is a need now and becomes exigent if the Party wants to return to power. America also needs it. The country does not need rhetoric and loquacious figures like Obama to play the pied pipers game. It needs substance and substantive leaders to guide it through the shoals of the 21stcentury. Hackneyed rhetoric and a feel good oratory by the loquacious Obama would mean more of the same. America does not need this.
 
 
The Republicans had a plan for America. However, aspects of this plan and philosophy like a very pro Israeli and anti -Palestinian tilt , warmongering insofar as Iran was concerned and its economic philosophy were jaundiced. This needs to be remedied. The Republicans should in the future be more balanced and nuanced in their approach and philosophy. This can happen when they cast their net, so to speak, far and wide and become more inclusive, and tolerant and supportive of diversity. This has to be the summum bonum of the new Republican approach, philosophy and has to be integrated into their strategy.
 
 
Obama got lucky the second time. He did not deserve the presidency initially and does not deserve it now. Projected and promoted as an example of America’s social engineering and race relations and its evolving ‘dynamic, Obama became the beneficiary of America’s affirmative action program in a convoluted way. He did not earn the presidency. However, he is a very lucky man and the stars, so to speak, were aligned for him. He neither has a vision for the country; nor is he competent. This has to change. It is about time that the Republicans reorient their philosophy , orientation and strategy. Let them align the party with the nature of contemporary America. It is essentially vital and important that they do so and do it soon. Otherwise they will invariable be on the losing side and on the other side of the fence.

Saturday, November 10, 2012

General Kayani's Riposte: Is the Pakistan Army on the Defensive?

General Ashfaq Kayani – the chief of the Army staff of Pakistan- has gone public and responded strongly to critics. The immediate catalyst that has made General Kayani react is the Asgar Khan case which brought to public attention the nature of Pakistan’s premier spy agency, the IS’s , funding and the attendant manipulation of politicians. General Kayani has, in his riposte, warned critics not to undermine the institutions of the state, the national interest and not to be the sole arbiters of Pakistan’s national interest.
This raises an interesting and intriguing set of questions: What institutions of the state is the General referring to? What really constitutes the Pakistani state? Who decides Pakistan’s national interest? Is the cacophony of criticism levelled against the Army a good thing? Is this the harbinger of change that will ultimately bring about the democratization of Pakistan? And, concomitantly, would this lead to a paradigm shift in Pakistan’s foreign policy orientation?
Pakistan’s power structure has over the years morphed into what may be called semi authoritarianism. This structure is dominated by what the eminent scholar, the late Samuel Huntington, has called the ‘praetorian oligarchical’ elite. This elite is comprised of the Army, the intelligence agencies, the feudals and the bureaucracy. Stephen Cohen-the eminent South Asia expert- calls the Establishment. This praetorian oligarchical elite or the Establishment calls the shots in Pakistan and constitutes Pakistan’s real power. It sees and views itself as the guardian of Pakistan’s ideology and the promoter of its national interest. A very powerful clique, it could be said to be Pakistan’s most enduring institution.
Returning to General Kayani’s assertions, it would appear that it is this institution that the General has in mind and is referring to. Over a period of time, this establishment and its role in Pakistani state has come under scrutiny and criticism. Some view this as an augury of Pakistan’s opening up and democratization. This view, however, is plain wrong and fallacious. Why?
The reasons are prosaic: the path dependence of Pakistan’s institutions and their self perpetuation over the course of its independent history means the Establishment is not only a powerful institution but also has deep roots in Pakistan’s power structure. It has almost Kafkaesque connotations and power. Nothing can happen without the consent of the Establishment of the praetorian oligarchical structure. If Pakistan is to change and move along more salubrious directions, it is only if and when the Establishment takes a view on Pakistan’s future and decides to embark on the path of change.
Any diplomatic or political effort to crystallize change in Pakistan has to take the nature and perspective of this praetorian oligarchical elite into consideration. Such is the hold and power of this power structure on the Pakistani state and polity. All in all, the indications are that this power structure is waking up to the new realities of power and politics-global, regional and local- girding itself for change. Be it the normalization of relations with India, or adopting or in the least pretending to adopt a hands off approach in Afghanistan and reorienting the state to a new relational dynamic with the United States, it appears that some change is afoot in the Pakistani power structure. This can and will have foreign policy implications given the influence that the Establishment wields in all dimensions and facets of Pakistan.
In the final analysis, it is the direction and ideological thrust of Pakistan’s praetorian oligarchical elite that will determine the trajectory and nature of the Pakistani state. It is neither the politicians, nor the press nor any other power political actor that will impact the trajectory of the Pakistani state. General Kayani’s remarks must then be seen as asserting this power structure. Nothing more; nothing less. All else is sound and fury.