L’affaire Rushdiesque and the Muslim Reaction to it
Salman Rushdie, the author who needs no introduction given the notoriety he achieved after writing a novel called,’ Satanic Verses’ is visiting India. This proposed visit has elicited anger and reaction from Indian Muslims who want the government to deny him a visa. This is a bit of a travesty for a variety of reasons. First, it accords inflated importance to a writer who may be brilliant but who has not learned to not to offend the sensibilities of peoples affected by some of his offensive writing. Second, it reflects the fact that notwithstanding the offensive material that he churned, Muslims have only issued fatwa’s in response. There has been no contrapuntal or an effort to rebut the offensive portions from a literary perspective. Or in other words, the author has not been taken on in an idiom that could constitute a sober and a refined literary response. Third, this reflects the abject conditions of Muslims in India at one level and it could be said at the corporate level. Or in other words, the whole affair and saga since the publication of the offensive novel and the permutations and combinations since then until now stands as a metaphor for the Muslim condition: poverty, lack of education, deprivation, and paucity of intellect and the attendant poverty of mind.
The torpor, the ferment and the anomie that defines much of the contemporary Muslim world –whether it be authoritarianism in the Arab Muslim world, the travails of Pakistan, or the structural deprivation of Indian Muslims-stems from this condition. From a corporate level or at the level of the ummah, it perhaps best approximates a condition which Francis Fukuyama , in his book,’ The Origins of Political Order’, calls political decay. That is, roughly speaking a condition where institutions fail to develop (or lag behind) along the lines of change-societal, political and economic. At the level of states where Muslims either constitute a majority like for instance Indonesia, this reflects jaundiced state formation, warped priorities of the state, and the inability of the Muslim state to find that golden mean wherein the state is in equipoise or is equidistant from the Church or established religion. In countries where Muslim’s constitute a significant minority or a simple minority like India, this reflects the disconnect between Muslims and the states they are citizens of. Germane to point out here also is also the structural discrimination they face.
Having said this, it is pertinent to point out or it could be said that most salient reason for the torpor and the decline lies within. That is, within our minds and spirits. Ossification of the once vigorous Muslim traditions and philosophies has naturally and inevitably led to the ossification and rigidity of Muslim societies and countries. This manifests itself in psychic conditions that border on denial, delusions of grandeur and the vain attempts to recover the pristine glory of Islam. Essentially Sysphean endeavors, they take us Muslims on the path of nihilistic violence and then self inflicted injuries on our corporate self. So the question that should be exercising the minds of all Muslims is how can this condition be remedied or even reversed. The answer again lies within. It is exigent that we introspect and look deep within. This introspection needs to be followed by a vigorous attempt at Ijtihad or reform. Reform of our psyches, systems, and especially those ossified bits of some of our traditions that constitute a drag on us. This does not mean challenging the core premises of Islam but challenging and questioning those aspects that are either the work of those who had a vested interest in promoting those aspects of the faith that were essentially gratuitous or superfluous but have over time become mainstream. The reference here is to the mullahs who usually in Islamic history were in thrall to power or in the least were in the same bed. Or other aspects that are apocryphal. This kind and type of reform is eminently possible and even desirable. What is needed is will and determination on part of both lay Muslims and sincere scholars to bring this condition about.
This acquires salience at a time when the Arab Muslim world is waking out of self imposed torpor and is awakening. The need of the hour is to reformulate the idiom in which the Islamic world has perceived and defined itself and engaged with the outside world. A fresh formulation that smells of roses would enable Muslims to reformulate some paradigms and begin looking itself and the world in an idiom that redounds positively for Islam, Muslims and the world. This would be an idiom where Rushdie’s ramblings would be seen just as ramblings and Rushdie be seen as a non entity or a persona non grata across the length and breadth of the Muslim world. Or even better, if there is substantive critique of Islam and Muslims, it be met on the same domain and level. That is, the literary level. Till then, all those who are concerned about the Muslim condition have reasons to be even more concerned. It is about time that we-Muslims of all stripes and hues-make a concerted attempt and align our consciousness to a harmonious, bold and beautiful world and start making, de nouveau, contributions in the world of philosophy, science and technology that would make our forbears proud.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Will the West Survive the Challenge of the Non West?
Why the West will continue to Triumph?
The centre of gravity of economic activity, it is held, is moving to Asia and in turn Asia is recovering its power and glory that it lost to the West following the west’s renaissance. The confluence of renaissance ideas and capitalism created conditions that were propitious for the west’s rise and concomitantly the decline of the non west (a disaggregated and a heterogeneous category). This state of affairs, it is held, is changing as the non west, especially Asia, discovers the magic of capitalism and adopts in a curious case of mimesis some of the salient attributes of western rationality and renaissance ideas. While this mimetic process may take place in an idiom and the institutional setting formulated and crystallized by the west, the non west is bound to overtake the west in almost all indices. As a corollary, the west is doomed and its ‘supremacy’-institutional, ideational, and economic- will give away to different civilizational forces that constitute the non west. This assessment gaining currency and some sort of acceptance in many intellectual and lay circles begs a set of questions the foremost of which is: Is this alleged decline of the west correct? Is the west really losing its vitality and vigor to the non west? Or is this just a figment of the imagination lent credence by some processes of globalization that are dispersing economic power and activity? What really constitutes the west? What are the animating ideas of the west? What is its gravamen and core? And is this core or core set of ideas under challenge from a different but compelling paradigm?
The answer to the core question, around which the rest of the questions revolve, is a firm NO. The west is not in decline and will not decline. The reason for the confidence in this assertion goes to the heart of the nature of the west. The west is not a geographical zone. It is instead an idea or a set of ideas from which assumptions about the individual, the state, society, and economics flows. It needs to be pointed out here the west in contention here is the Anglophone and the Anglo-Saxon west. Renaissance may have originated in Europe or Western Europe but it’s thrust-ideationally and in practice- has long since migrated elsewhere. The core of the west or the idea of the west revolves around what Thomas Paine called the Rights of Man. That is, a set of rights which accrue to human beings purely on account of being human. This revolutionary idea which placed the individual and his/her rights at the centre is purely a western idea. The rest is mere commentary.
This elevation or putting on the pedestal the rights of man blends into what Francis Fukuyama in his magnus opus, the controversial and much commented upon tome, The End of History and the Last Man’ into thymos or thymotic pride. That is, an innate sense of justice among individuals and the related belief that they have a certain worth. And that this worth is recognized by others.Human rights and thymos- a greek term- together mean that every individual has and values dignity and individual human rights, both in theory and practice give meaning to existence. Again, to repeat, while human dignity may be a concept that every culture puts some value on, human rights and their associated corollaries are a purely western idea. These sets of rights too all and sundry give an individual a sense of worth, reach efflorescence and aspire for the ‘good life’. The non west, unfortunately, has a rather dismal record on these aspects.
Human rights, along with the development of capitalism, to iterate the cliché, and the concomitant development of institutions and ideas like democracy, constitute the west’s gravamen and give it an edge. Other cultures can but only replicate or imitate these paradigms and ideas. None can pioneer or even challenge the west on these core ideas. This then constitutes the west’s strength and the idea of the west can thus not be displaced.
The non west can only imitate. It cannot offer either a sustained challenge or even assault the west on these formidable ideas. Or offer an alternate and compelling paradigm. And therein is dispelled the notion that the west is in decline. The non west first is a disaggregated mass and cannot come up as homogenous entity challenging the west. More importantly, whatever challenge can this disaggregated mass throw up will be formulated in the idiom formulated and defined by the west. That is, with some mutation and change, the challenge if it does take place, will be formulated in the principles delineated in this piece. This axiomatically means victory neither for the non west nor the west conventionally defines. It would constitute a victor for the ideas of the west. The world then becomes the west at large. The question of a zero sum victory for a civilization or a culture does not arise.
These principles are so interwoven and integral to the concept and idea of the west that a fear of backsliding is impossible. What needs to be done is to help spread these ideas and principles to other peoples. This would not be the so called civilizing mission of the west but the nudging of ideas whose power has only proved to be structurally immense and appealing. It is there fore about time that western countries get their act together and display to the world the immense soft power of ideas. The question is decline is moot. Good ideas never die. They however need constant nurturing.
The centre of gravity of economic activity, it is held, is moving to Asia and in turn Asia is recovering its power and glory that it lost to the West following the west’s renaissance. The confluence of renaissance ideas and capitalism created conditions that were propitious for the west’s rise and concomitantly the decline of the non west (a disaggregated and a heterogeneous category). This state of affairs, it is held, is changing as the non west, especially Asia, discovers the magic of capitalism and adopts in a curious case of mimesis some of the salient attributes of western rationality and renaissance ideas. While this mimetic process may take place in an idiom and the institutional setting formulated and crystallized by the west, the non west is bound to overtake the west in almost all indices. As a corollary, the west is doomed and its ‘supremacy’-institutional, ideational, and economic- will give away to different civilizational forces that constitute the non west. This assessment gaining currency and some sort of acceptance in many intellectual and lay circles begs a set of questions the foremost of which is: Is this alleged decline of the west correct? Is the west really losing its vitality and vigor to the non west? Or is this just a figment of the imagination lent credence by some processes of globalization that are dispersing economic power and activity? What really constitutes the west? What are the animating ideas of the west? What is its gravamen and core? And is this core or core set of ideas under challenge from a different but compelling paradigm?
The answer to the core question, around which the rest of the questions revolve, is a firm NO. The west is not in decline and will not decline. The reason for the confidence in this assertion goes to the heart of the nature of the west. The west is not a geographical zone. It is instead an idea or a set of ideas from which assumptions about the individual, the state, society, and economics flows. It needs to be pointed out here the west in contention here is the Anglophone and the Anglo-Saxon west. Renaissance may have originated in Europe or Western Europe but it’s thrust-ideationally and in practice- has long since migrated elsewhere. The core of the west or the idea of the west revolves around what Thomas Paine called the Rights of Man. That is, a set of rights which accrue to human beings purely on account of being human. This revolutionary idea which placed the individual and his/her rights at the centre is purely a western idea. The rest is mere commentary.
This elevation or putting on the pedestal the rights of man blends into what Francis Fukuyama in his magnus opus, the controversial and much commented upon tome, The End of History and the Last Man’ into thymos or thymotic pride. That is, an innate sense of justice among individuals and the related belief that they have a certain worth. And that this worth is recognized by others.Human rights and thymos- a greek term- together mean that every individual has and values dignity and individual human rights, both in theory and practice give meaning to existence. Again, to repeat, while human dignity may be a concept that every culture puts some value on, human rights and their associated corollaries are a purely western idea. These sets of rights too all and sundry give an individual a sense of worth, reach efflorescence and aspire for the ‘good life’. The non west, unfortunately, has a rather dismal record on these aspects.
Human rights, along with the development of capitalism, to iterate the cliché, and the concomitant development of institutions and ideas like democracy, constitute the west’s gravamen and give it an edge. Other cultures can but only replicate or imitate these paradigms and ideas. None can pioneer or even challenge the west on these core ideas. This then constitutes the west’s strength and the idea of the west can thus not be displaced.
The non west can only imitate. It cannot offer either a sustained challenge or even assault the west on these formidable ideas. Or offer an alternate and compelling paradigm. And therein is dispelled the notion that the west is in decline. The non west first is a disaggregated mass and cannot come up as homogenous entity challenging the west. More importantly, whatever challenge can this disaggregated mass throw up will be formulated in the idiom formulated and defined by the west. That is, with some mutation and change, the challenge if it does take place, will be formulated in the principles delineated in this piece. This axiomatically means victory neither for the non west nor the west conventionally defines. It would constitute a victor for the ideas of the west. The world then becomes the west at large. The question of a zero sum victory for a civilization or a culture does not arise.
These principles are so interwoven and integral to the concept and idea of the west that a fear of backsliding is impossible. What needs to be done is to help spread these ideas and principles to other peoples. This would not be the so called civilizing mission of the west but the nudging of ideas whose power has only proved to be structurally immense and appealing. It is there fore about time that western countries get their act together and display to the world the immense soft power of ideas. The question is decline is moot. Good ideas never die. They however need constant nurturing.
Middle East Blues: Will the Assassination of Israeli Diplomats Lead to War in the Middle East?
Israel has blamed Iran for the attack on the Israeli diplomat’s car in New Delhi. There may be merit to this accusation given that Iran has accused Israel for orchestrating attacks and assassinating its nuclear scientists. Iran may be attempting to pay in kind or return the favor to Israel. In this tit for tat game of needling each other, neither country smells of roses. And more importantly, the assassinations, redolent of the Cold war era, do not appear to serve any purpose.
If Iran is building or has built a nuclear program clandestinely, it stretches reason to believe that it would not have a tiered ring of scientists working on the project. Assassinating an odd nuclear scientist would not throw a spanner or roll back Iran’s nuclear program. Similarly, Iran’s alleged attempts to assassinate Israel’s official’s amount to mere riling or needling Israel. However, portentously, this series of tit for tat assassinations (or assassination attempts) reflects a failure of diplomacy and more ominously could be a prelude to war between Israel and Iran.
This scenario and possibility would throw the entire Middle East, Afghanistan and even the Arab Spring into disarray and pour cold water over the gains made in the Middle East over the past few years. The first casualty would, naturally, be overall peace in the region and war between Israel and Iran even if Israel opts for a limited strike against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Iran will likely retaliate with both its armed forces and its proxies like Hezbollah. This full fledged escalation and confrontation will render the Middle East into a battle ground and is likely to draw in the United States into the confrontation as well. The costs in civilian lives lost, men and material would be immense and a new dark age would dawn in the Middle East. This naturally would have implications on the Arab Spring and it would be nipped in the bud as regimes in the Middle East would divert the attention of the masses and rally them around war preparations.
The rather inevitable entry of the United States into the war besides causing a stir in American domestic politics would have far reaching implications. An Israeli strike on Iran or its nuclear infrastructure, would not, come into play without the blessings of the United States and it stands to reason that the US would throw its weight around Israel in the event of a confrontation. This would validate the stereotype of the US-Israeli alliance as the ‘Zionist-Crusader neo imperialist alliance’ bent on thwarting and stifling the Arab Muslim Middle East. Concomitantly, anti Americanism, already rife in the Islamic world, would run amok. Al –Qaeda-an organization or a network on the run-, may be given a new lease of life and international terrorism may , de noueveau, may make a comeback and leave an imprimatur on international relations and politics.
The moribund peace process between the Israeli’s and the Palestinians will die and there will be breaches in Israel’s security. This will have a long lasting impact and even the half hearted attempts at peacemaking will or may never fructify in the future.
Another casualty would be the fragile peace in Iraq where the skewed power sharing arrangements favor the Shi’ites and given the linkages between the Iranian and Iraqi clergy, problems of a structural nature may arise. These would throw the post exit American plans and the international community into a tizzy. Iraq may favor or take sides with Iran and create problems for the United States. This may even impact the exit plans from Afghanistan which, in turn, could potentially impact the politics, orientation and approach of Pakistan and concomitantly the calculations of the Taliban.
All in all, the potential confrontation would throw international politics into a tizzy and the gravamen of world politics would be turned upside down. This alarming state of affairs then needs to be nipped in the bud. The nagging and all important question is:how?
There are no easy answers to this and the best of minds have grappled with this question with no success. Pretending to know the answer and posit a definitive framework that obviates the need for war in the region would amount is a non starter. The region and its politics are too complex for such an exercise. However, common sense and prudence dictates that while the nuclear question may be a difficult one, the prospects of war and confrontation can be obviated. This becomes exigent for the reasons delineated in this piece. So what does a common sense approach tell us?
Again, the role of the United States becomes important here. It is time that the US takes a serious view of the situation. First, it should lean upon Israel and ask it to exercise restraint. This should be followed by making re –entry into the politics of the Middle East, assess the situation and then vigorously employ astute diplomacy as a means to an end. The end in contention here is to stop war. Period. It could re start negotiations with Iran and attempt to talk Iran out of building the bomb. Perhaps, the quid pro quo that the US could offer Iran is the prospect of some sort of regional hegemony where Iran’s aspirations could be sated without Iran being the regional bully and throwing the nature and form of alliances in the region into disarray. Another carrot that the US could offer Iran is/are security guarantees and underscore to Iran that its sovereignty woul be respected in any case if it gives up the nuclear program.
In sum and in essence, the need of the hour is astute diplomacy. The US can dig deep into its resources and can potentially come up with a diplomatic formula that obviates the drift into war. It is time that it does so. Millions of lives and world peace is at stake and it is, to repeat, none other than the United States that can thwart this gory outcome.
If Iran is building or has built a nuclear program clandestinely, it stretches reason to believe that it would not have a tiered ring of scientists working on the project. Assassinating an odd nuclear scientist would not throw a spanner or roll back Iran’s nuclear program. Similarly, Iran’s alleged attempts to assassinate Israel’s official’s amount to mere riling or needling Israel. However, portentously, this series of tit for tat assassinations (or assassination attempts) reflects a failure of diplomacy and more ominously could be a prelude to war between Israel and Iran.
This scenario and possibility would throw the entire Middle East, Afghanistan and even the Arab Spring into disarray and pour cold water over the gains made in the Middle East over the past few years. The first casualty would, naturally, be overall peace in the region and war between Israel and Iran even if Israel opts for a limited strike against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Iran will likely retaliate with both its armed forces and its proxies like Hezbollah. This full fledged escalation and confrontation will render the Middle East into a battle ground and is likely to draw in the United States into the confrontation as well. The costs in civilian lives lost, men and material would be immense and a new dark age would dawn in the Middle East. This naturally would have implications on the Arab Spring and it would be nipped in the bud as regimes in the Middle East would divert the attention of the masses and rally them around war preparations.
The rather inevitable entry of the United States into the war besides causing a stir in American domestic politics would have far reaching implications. An Israeli strike on Iran or its nuclear infrastructure, would not, come into play without the blessings of the United States and it stands to reason that the US would throw its weight around Israel in the event of a confrontation. This would validate the stereotype of the US-Israeli alliance as the ‘Zionist-Crusader neo imperialist alliance’ bent on thwarting and stifling the Arab Muslim Middle East. Concomitantly, anti Americanism, already rife in the Islamic world, would run amok. Al –Qaeda-an organization or a network on the run-, may be given a new lease of life and international terrorism may , de noueveau, may make a comeback and leave an imprimatur on international relations and politics.
The moribund peace process between the Israeli’s and the Palestinians will die and there will be breaches in Israel’s security. This will have a long lasting impact and even the half hearted attempts at peacemaking will or may never fructify in the future.
Another casualty would be the fragile peace in Iraq where the skewed power sharing arrangements favor the Shi’ites and given the linkages between the Iranian and Iraqi clergy, problems of a structural nature may arise. These would throw the post exit American plans and the international community into a tizzy. Iraq may favor or take sides with Iran and create problems for the United States. This may even impact the exit plans from Afghanistan which, in turn, could potentially impact the politics, orientation and approach of Pakistan and concomitantly the calculations of the Taliban.
All in all, the potential confrontation would throw international politics into a tizzy and the gravamen of world politics would be turned upside down. This alarming state of affairs then needs to be nipped in the bud. The nagging and all important question is:how?
There are no easy answers to this and the best of minds have grappled with this question with no success. Pretending to know the answer and posit a definitive framework that obviates the need for war in the region would amount is a non starter. The region and its politics are too complex for such an exercise. However, common sense and prudence dictates that while the nuclear question may be a difficult one, the prospects of war and confrontation can be obviated. This becomes exigent for the reasons delineated in this piece. So what does a common sense approach tell us?
Again, the role of the United States becomes important here. It is time that the US takes a serious view of the situation. First, it should lean upon Israel and ask it to exercise restraint. This should be followed by making re –entry into the politics of the Middle East, assess the situation and then vigorously employ astute diplomacy as a means to an end. The end in contention here is to stop war. Period. It could re start negotiations with Iran and attempt to talk Iran out of building the bomb. Perhaps, the quid pro quo that the US could offer Iran is the prospect of some sort of regional hegemony where Iran’s aspirations could be sated without Iran being the regional bully and throwing the nature and form of alliances in the region into disarray. Another carrot that the US could offer Iran is/are security guarantees and underscore to Iran that its sovereignty woul be respected in any case if it gives up the nuclear program.
In sum and in essence, the need of the hour is astute diplomacy. The US can dig deep into its resources and can potentially come up with a diplomatic formula that obviates the drift into war. It is time that it does so. Millions of lives and world peace is at stake and it is, to repeat, none other than the United States that can thwart this gory outcome.
Rudd Gillard Joust: Beginning of the End for Labor?
The dramatic resignation of Kevin Rudd as the foreign minister of Australia, the attendant joust between him and the triumph of Julia Gillard stands as a metaphor for intraparty intrigue and the ultimate arbiter of power in multi party democracies. It is clear that Rudd’s tactics –reaching out to the voters over those who hold real power in the Labor caucus- in an attempt to wean the leadership of the Labor party and seize prime ministership failed. Chastened, the ex prime minister has perhaps no choice but to retreat in the shadows of the Labor party. And , Julia Gillard can preen in smug satisfaction.
However, the significance and import of the ruckus goes beyond the ego joust of the politicians in contention. It reflects the fact that individuals appear to matter little in the politics of democracies and that real power is usually held by a cabal of men who determine the fortunes of those who are the ostensible face of power. And that, elections, while they do serve as a mechanism for power rotation, do not merely reflect the will of the people in the strict sense of the term. They are more or less mechanisms or in the nature of a beauty contest where the best pageants, preening on stage win while those who hold real power are in the background.
At another level, the whole saga is indicative of the demise the Labor party as a force in Australian politics. Trailing behind in opinion polls and popularity graphs, the party is set to perhaps eclipse in the coming elections. A trail blazing party, in some senses, and differentiating itself from its peers in the rest of the western world, Australia’s labor party, under the dynamic leadership of the intense and mercurial Paul Keating, pioneered Australia’s opening up to the world and embracing globalization- a bold and beautiful move that only enriched Australia. However, after this initial impetus, the party lost momentum and this paved the way for the Liberals to gain power and control of Australia’s politics.
The Australian Labor Party came to power again on a wave of disaffection and discontent on part of the Australian populace. They cobbled together a coalition with the Greens and some independents and managed an uneasy coalition. This coming to power of Labor and an assortment of others was not a vote for labor but more or less an anti incumbency vote and a general discontent and disaffection among the populace. Given the coalition dynamic and the fragmentary nature of politics, governance was impacted and legislation on key issues stalled. As a result, the Labor party was unable to capitalize on ins electoral victory and Australian politics became prosaic and rather boring. This registered with the voters and ratings and opinion polls reflect this abundantly with Labor performing dismally.
Now the question is whether this bodes good for Australia. Given Labor’s dismal performance, it would appear that the eclipse of the Labor party may not be a bad thing for Australia and its national interest. The ‘ New Left’ agenda adopted by the Labor party in some measure is not really reflective of the Left and ends up as a set of half hearted measures to embrace policy and political paradigms that are the need of the hour. This may , to an extent, explain Labor’s drift and the decrepitude that Australian politics has sunk into. A rejuvenated politics means showing the door to the Labor party and giving the Liberal’s another chance or in the Australian lexicon, ‘a fair go’. A majority by the Liberals would get rid of the coalition government and give them a free hand in connecting to voter aspirations and goading Australia in healthy and salubrious directions. A reformulated and rejuvenated Liberal party under youthful leadership may just be what Australia needs. It is therefore about time that the Australian electorate mulls hard and gives Tony Abbott the chance to prove his mettle. This , in the scheme of things , may be good for Australia, democracy in Australia and even the Labor party.
However, the significance and import of the ruckus goes beyond the ego joust of the politicians in contention. It reflects the fact that individuals appear to matter little in the politics of democracies and that real power is usually held by a cabal of men who determine the fortunes of those who are the ostensible face of power. And that, elections, while they do serve as a mechanism for power rotation, do not merely reflect the will of the people in the strict sense of the term. They are more or less mechanisms or in the nature of a beauty contest where the best pageants, preening on stage win while those who hold real power are in the background.
At another level, the whole saga is indicative of the demise the Labor party as a force in Australian politics. Trailing behind in opinion polls and popularity graphs, the party is set to perhaps eclipse in the coming elections. A trail blazing party, in some senses, and differentiating itself from its peers in the rest of the western world, Australia’s labor party, under the dynamic leadership of the intense and mercurial Paul Keating, pioneered Australia’s opening up to the world and embracing globalization- a bold and beautiful move that only enriched Australia. However, after this initial impetus, the party lost momentum and this paved the way for the Liberals to gain power and control of Australia’s politics.
The Australian Labor Party came to power again on a wave of disaffection and discontent on part of the Australian populace. They cobbled together a coalition with the Greens and some independents and managed an uneasy coalition. This coming to power of Labor and an assortment of others was not a vote for labor but more or less an anti incumbency vote and a general discontent and disaffection among the populace. Given the coalition dynamic and the fragmentary nature of politics, governance was impacted and legislation on key issues stalled. As a result, the Labor party was unable to capitalize on ins electoral victory and Australian politics became prosaic and rather boring. This registered with the voters and ratings and opinion polls reflect this abundantly with Labor performing dismally.
Now the question is whether this bodes good for Australia. Given Labor’s dismal performance, it would appear that the eclipse of the Labor party may not be a bad thing for Australia and its national interest. The ‘ New Left’ agenda adopted by the Labor party in some measure is not really reflective of the Left and ends up as a set of half hearted measures to embrace policy and political paradigms that are the need of the hour. This may , to an extent, explain Labor’s drift and the decrepitude that Australian politics has sunk into. A rejuvenated politics means showing the door to the Labor party and giving the Liberal’s another chance or in the Australian lexicon, ‘a fair go’. A majority by the Liberals would get rid of the coalition government and give them a free hand in connecting to voter aspirations and goading Australia in healthy and salubrious directions. A reformulated and rejuvenated Liberal party under youthful leadership may just be what Australia needs. It is therefore about time that the Australian electorate mulls hard and gives Tony Abbott the chance to prove his mettle. This , in the scheme of things , may be good for Australia, democracy in Australia and even the Labor party.
The Eclipse of the Indian National Congress and its Implications for India
The dismal electoral performance of the Congress party-once an indomitable force in Indian politics- in the Hindu heartland and other states points out towards an ineluctable trend in the political firmament of India: regionalization of politics and the hold of regional political parties over India’s politics. This trend has many implications at a range of levels- political, economic, governmental, governance and the nature of politicking in India. Potentially and cumulatively, it could either portend broader political instability, governance and policy paralysis at the Centre.
This naturally and inevitably bodes ill for India’s national interest and democracy as aggregation of interests by a plethora of political parties would lead to stresses and strains that the political system may not bear. The need of the hour perhaps is introspection by the Indian political class and the powers that be in the power structure of India to review, course correct and introspect over the nature of India’s political, federal and party structure. This is made exigent by the reasons delineated here.
All is not gloom and doom here. The disaggregation of the Indian political and party structure may also reflect the fact that Indian secularism is rather robust. And that the ‘creeping Hindutvization’ of the polity stands negated given that the Indian electorate save in some pockets has rejected the politics of Hindutva and has instead opted for parties that are either populist or have local and in some cases parochial interests on the agenda. As such, in a curious twist, the Idea of India stands validated.
What the elections may also reflect is a structural trend: the eclipse or in a more prosaic formulation the diminishing of the Congress party as a significant force in Indian politics. The party , once held to be synonymous with the power structure of India , so much so that India almost came to be recognized as a one party democracy, has indubitably lost momentum and its hold on Indian politics. This accrues from a set of reasons, the most salient of which may be the rise of regional political parties with local and localized agenda’s, the nature of Centre State relations in India and the disconnect of the Congress party from both Bharat, that is, the rural India and the aspirations of modern India.
This disconnect along with a party apparatus and structure that favored patronage over policy, cronyism, favoritism , lack of intra party democracy , ossification of the structure of leadership at a range of levels spawning a critical mass of yes men may constitute the real reasons for the party’s decline. Add to this taking for granted the Muslim vote and indulging in vote bank politics wherein Muslims felt used and abused, the decline is not only inevitable but also obvious to note. This is, in some senses, a travesty given that the Congress party was the torchbearer of Indian secularism, surely its vanguard and the upholder of the Idea of India. Moreover, its dominance of Indian politics ensured a reasonably less obstructionist governance process.
This trend is structural and more likely than not is unlikely to be reversed. The Congress party will probably never regain its luster and dominance of Indian politics. It may have to contend in an increasingly cluttered and chaotic structure or scene as one of the parties with some vote share of the Indian electorate. However, what the party could do, in the future is to course correct and review its assumptions about the Indian electorate in an attempt to gain mindshare of those who constitute the Indian electorate. This may allow it to regain momentum and reconnect, de nouveau, to both India’s.
What should be alarming and disconcerting to those forming the Indian political class and powers that be in India is the disaggregation of the political and party political structure of India. That is, an increasingly fragmented polity with regional parties having localized agenda’s most of the vote share of the Indian electorate. This would naturally and inevitably impact India’s governance, Centre State relations, India’s federalism and lead to policy paralysis perhaps both at the Centre and the State. These regional parties could hold the Centre at ransom and parliamentary democracy may be impacted negatively. As such, it becomes exigent to review and introspect on part of the Indian political class.
This class could attempt to revamp nature of power and wielding power in India and gradually and but inexorably work and direct India’s political system towards a presidential system. The French model may be germane for India and India could look towards France and other countries with a presidential system in place for pointers. Even the US model may be germane. This is naturally a long term process. However, given the drift in Indian politics, considering this option may be desirable. A powerful president curtailed and checked by balances could potentially restore equilibrium to Indian politics and set India onto a salubrious trajectory wherein the policy formation and process could be set free. Even intractable problems like Kashmir may be accorded some closure. The need of the hour therefore is to introspect and review and then gradually work towards a solution that overcomes the policy and political gridlock accruing from fragmentation of the political and party political scene. It is none other than the Idea of India that needs this.
This naturally and inevitably bodes ill for India’s national interest and democracy as aggregation of interests by a plethora of political parties would lead to stresses and strains that the political system may not bear. The need of the hour perhaps is introspection by the Indian political class and the powers that be in the power structure of India to review, course correct and introspect over the nature of India’s political, federal and party structure. This is made exigent by the reasons delineated here.
All is not gloom and doom here. The disaggregation of the Indian political and party structure may also reflect the fact that Indian secularism is rather robust. And that the ‘creeping Hindutvization’ of the polity stands negated given that the Indian electorate save in some pockets has rejected the politics of Hindutva and has instead opted for parties that are either populist or have local and in some cases parochial interests on the agenda. As such, in a curious twist, the Idea of India stands validated.
What the elections may also reflect is a structural trend: the eclipse or in a more prosaic formulation the diminishing of the Congress party as a significant force in Indian politics. The party , once held to be synonymous with the power structure of India , so much so that India almost came to be recognized as a one party democracy, has indubitably lost momentum and its hold on Indian politics. This accrues from a set of reasons, the most salient of which may be the rise of regional political parties with local and localized agenda’s, the nature of Centre State relations in India and the disconnect of the Congress party from both Bharat, that is, the rural India and the aspirations of modern India.
This disconnect along with a party apparatus and structure that favored patronage over policy, cronyism, favoritism , lack of intra party democracy , ossification of the structure of leadership at a range of levels spawning a critical mass of yes men may constitute the real reasons for the party’s decline. Add to this taking for granted the Muslim vote and indulging in vote bank politics wherein Muslims felt used and abused, the decline is not only inevitable but also obvious to note. This is, in some senses, a travesty given that the Congress party was the torchbearer of Indian secularism, surely its vanguard and the upholder of the Idea of India. Moreover, its dominance of Indian politics ensured a reasonably less obstructionist governance process.
This trend is structural and more likely than not is unlikely to be reversed. The Congress party will probably never regain its luster and dominance of Indian politics. It may have to contend in an increasingly cluttered and chaotic structure or scene as one of the parties with some vote share of the Indian electorate. However, what the party could do, in the future is to course correct and review its assumptions about the Indian electorate in an attempt to gain mindshare of those who constitute the Indian electorate. This may allow it to regain momentum and reconnect, de nouveau, to both India’s.
What should be alarming and disconcerting to those forming the Indian political class and powers that be in India is the disaggregation of the political and party political structure of India. That is, an increasingly fragmented polity with regional parties having localized agenda’s most of the vote share of the Indian electorate. This would naturally and inevitably impact India’s governance, Centre State relations, India’s federalism and lead to policy paralysis perhaps both at the Centre and the State. These regional parties could hold the Centre at ransom and parliamentary democracy may be impacted negatively. As such, it becomes exigent to review and introspect on part of the Indian political class.
This class could attempt to revamp nature of power and wielding power in India and gradually and but inexorably work and direct India’s political system towards a presidential system. The French model may be germane for India and India could look towards France and other countries with a presidential system in place for pointers. Even the US model may be germane. This is naturally a long term process. However, given the drift in Indian politics, considering this option may be desirable. A powerful president curtailed and checked by balances could potentially restore equilibrium to Indian politics and set India onto a salubrious trajectory wherein the policy formation and process could be set free. Even intractable problems like Kashmir may be accorded some closure. The need of the hour therefore is to introspect and review and then gradually work towards a solution that overcomes the policy and political gridlock accruing from fragmentation of the political and party political scene. It is none other than the Idea of India that needs this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)