Good Governance: Between the State and Markets;

Years ago, when I was in Scandinavia, I was struck by the nature of Scandinavia’s political economy, the social peace that obtained there and the attendant fantastic living standards that people enjoyed. Being an amateur economist, curious and wondering if the Scandinavian model could be replicated in non- western societies, I delved into the nature of Scandinavia’s political economy. The reasons for Scandinavian success disappointed me: their model was premised on social democracy wherein the state, among other things, deemed itself responsible for the comprehensive welfare of its citizens. The state essentially took care of its citizens from the cradle to the grave. It nannied its people and was paternalistic in nature.

My disappointment may sound counterintuitive and bizarre given that it would seem outlandish to argue against state benevolence and generosity. However, there was (and is) a dark side to Scandinavian social democracy: its paternalism, for one, denies people the freedoms that people in liberal democracies take for granted. The state was coercive and the social contract that bound the state with society was oppressive in many senses. The other dark and glaring feature of this was that Scandinavia was homogenous , frowned upon and excluded the outsider or the foreigner. The bounty of the place was only to be for Scandinavians. It could be shared only under exceptional circumstances-say, for instance, refugees fleeing to Scandinavia could be given some succour and relief. Barring this, Scandinavia was a closed system and fortress like.

Anyhow, this is not the core contention of the piece. I was and continue to be concerned with the welfare gains and economic and political freedoms for/of the peoples of the subcontinent. I realized that Scandinavia could afford to be generous and benevolent because of a high rate of taxation. (The high price of even cappuccino’s and lattes and my favourite fruit, bananas, and my indulgence, cigarettes , fell into perspective). The base of taxation was wide and deep and a middle class sizable enough to generate taxes that the state could then redistribute through transfers.( The other flip side of this was that this discouraged entrepreneurship and wealth creation). This was well nigh impossible in poor, non- western countries like India where the size, poverty and structure of the country militated against this.

Aghast, I probed into the nature and premises of the political economy of India. It was then that I discovered that India too was a welfare state of sorts. The welfare function was provided by the state into the form of the massive and huge public sector. Non- farm labour was absorbed by the public sector and this provided a safety net for millions across the country. This could be attributed to Nehru and the mood of the times in decolonized countries: socialism.

While this is all well and good, over time, however, the public sector has become bloated and I daresay inefficient. This has affected the quality of governance. Both the demand and supply side of governance have been affected. This is coupled by the intense pressure on the public sector where most people in India clamour for the security of a government job. The sector can absorb only so much of the labour force and this then leaves many high and dry.

The question is how can the public sector be made more efficient, the quality of governance improved and at the same time sating the welfare needs of the people? This is a bit of a poser. All three are related. Before hazarding an answer, it bears mention here that India or for that matter no non-western country should go whole hog with free market capitalism or market fundamentalism. It is social Darwinist and ruthless. The appropriate solution is a balance between the markets and the state and a mixed economy. At the same time, socialist shibboleths and autarky are non-starters in today’s world.

Having established the philosophical context, I now turn to attempt to answer the question I posed. It would appear that the prudent approach to be adopted by the state would be to streamline the public sector and make it more efficient and hence more productive. This would entail job losses but this should be taken up by the private sector and market forces. For this to happen, the state has to enter the picture again. The state should and must vigorously and seriously made education as a priority in its list of functions.

It must ensure that education is provided to all so that equality of opportunity is accorded to all and sundry. This would not only mean an enlightened and empowered citizenry but also a skilled citizenry ready and equipped with the skills that the markets need and want. The logic of choice and freedom would ensue and people with increased and improved capabilities can embark on ventures and careers that correspond to their potential and talent. It would relieve pressure on the public sector and the private sector would be only too happy to take on board educated, skilled people.

It is perhaps only this-the development of human capital- that can speak to the conditions that obtain in the 21^stcentury. Socialism was a passing fad and given structural limitations India cannot be a social democracy.( Social Democracy’s future in Europe-its birthplace- is a moot point). The state has to ensure that there is a balance between the state and markets and position itself in a way that it becomes a facilitator and enabler. It cannot and should not nanny; nor should it abdicate its responsibilities and functions. It is with this in mind that non - western states should craft and design policies. We live in a different world and this world demands a review of old shibboleths and hallowed policies. Continuing on the same old path would be a disaster: we’d be left as road kill. So let’s dust our clothes and face this brave new world with vigour

The Color of Wisdom: An ode to a Dialogue between Civilizations;

Wisdom can come from anywhere. These were the concluding remarks of the conversation I had with a new friend of mine- an intellectual from Jammu and very typical of his genre: abstract airs about him and lost in the mists of thought and history. As the clouds of smoke from our cigarettes wafted upwards, my new friend talked about the origins of species, the common ancestry of mankind, the branching out of peoples through migrations, and then the reconnection between these sets of people. He talked about learning, synthesis and wisdom and how various civilizations entered into dialogues and mutual learning. This got me thinking. And I basically agree with the implication of my friend’s remarks: ‘wisdom is universal and has no colour, class orientation or nationality’. Understanding and appreciating this may be the beginning of wisdom.

This has special salience in the contemporary world wherein competing truths jostle for supremacy and the condition that obtains contemporarily perhaps best corresponds to what James Rosenau calls ,’fragmegration’ Or , in other words , a condition wherein a dialectic is occurring between the forces of fragmentation and integration. In this fragmegrating world, there are some who posit that the world is going to be divided along the lines of civilizations and others who point out to the resilience of the nation state and its primacy. Others point out to the supremacy, superiority and universality of the western ideals of liberalism and its concomitant democracy. All these are partial truths expanded into theories and theoretical constructs. The reality perhaps stands somewhere in between. The parable of the ‘ six blind men and the elephant’ best explains these divergent and diverging understanding of the contemporary world.

The question is what is the nature of the world we live in? Should this world defined by heightened and intense movement and contact of different peoples be a world of conflict and chaos? Should it be defined by civilizational conflict or dialogue? Should ethnocentric views and philosophies take centre stage? Or should there be mutual learning and a quest for wisdom (whatever its source) and genesis through osmosis?

Wisdom, as my friend posited, is universal. And it can be acquired anywhere and at any place. Every civilization and culture has something unique to offer. Therefore, wisdom lies in synthesis and osmosis. That is, wisdom can be attained by being open minded and receptive to what civilizations and cultures offer. Historically, this may even be said to constitute a norm and even have been standard practice. However, it is with the advent of particularisms like the nation state –hitherto a closed cultural and political container- that ethnocentric approaches to knowledge, learning and wisdom began to acquire narrow, partilcularistic and ethno centric connotations.

Thus, the nature of the world that we inhabit, is more or less defined by fluidity and uncertainty accruing from the current phase of globalization and overlain by a narrow superstructure of beliefs, views and philosophies that each culture and society claims to be its own. This potentially carries the seeds of conflict and chaos unless it is tempered by an approach and philosophy that sees each culture and society as unique in terms of its contribution to civilization, knowledge, progress and wisdom.

What does this mean? This means that we rewind the clock a little and then take the approach and world view of our forebears as the starting point for viewing the world. Yes: our forebears fought wars and entered into conflict. This, however, was tempered by a natural curiosity and a mutual learning approach. It may, at times, have been the needs of imperium and empire that made them do so. But done it was. In the final analysis, it was civilization that emerged the winner.

How can this approach be inculcated? This approach can be best inculcated by a more open world where different peoples get into contact with each other , an intellectual curiosity about others and openness and receptivity. All this needs to be overlain with humility. Arrogance, of any kind , is a recipe for disaster and conflict. In this melting pot world, peoples would then see that we are all humans and an essential humanness defines us all. Yes: difference too is a defining feature of societies and peoples. However, these differences are induced by culture, customs and traditions. And these or some of these can and should be appreciated and savoured. Essentially, this means a cosmopolitan approach and orientation. And it is this orientation that can improve the human condition and lead to world where progress is not viewed and seen in ethnocentric terms but in holistic ones. In the process, much of the gratuitous conflict will be obviated and civilization rather than civilizations elevated to a pedestal. Let us gird out loins , make haste slowly and do our bit in bringing about this world. We owe it to future generations.

Morsi, Democracy an Islam: Is the Arab Spring doomed?

Protests have flared across Egypt- the focal point and crucible of the Arab Spring-after the Egyptian president Muhammad Morsi gave new and sweeping powers to himself. This is ominous and dangerous: the Arab Spring-now stalled-is in danger of turning into an Arab Winter. That is, strengthening the presidency and donning the mantle of what may be called neo presidentialism, Morsi runs the risk of turning the gains of the Arab Spring and reverting to what is fallaciously held to be the character of the Arab Muslim peoples: authoritarianism. This stereotype has been trotted out by Orientalists and is widely believed –so much so that most people were cynical about the real import and significance of the Arab Spring.

The real question and import of the Arab Spring was and is whether Islam is compatible with democracy. It is this delicate, sensitive question and idea of great import that Morsi with his ill thought decree is giving short shrift to. The question of Islam’s compatibility with democracy goes beyond elections, sharing and wielding of political power in accord with the tenets of democracy. It is also, and perhaps more importantly, about Islam’s compatibility with political freedom and human rights. Whilst there can be no pure democracy in Islamic lands given that the philosophical premises of both Islam and democracy are different, it stands to reason that some sort of synthesis is eminently possible.

A word on the nature of Islam and democracy is warranted here. The latter holds and believes in the absolute sovereignty of God and the Prophet to be supreme and in this schema reason is not be discarded but is held to be subservient to God and faith. The latter holds man and his/her reason to be supreme. As a corollary then, Islam holds that all laws flow from God and His Prophet while democracy gives primacy to man and reason. Prima facie, these profound philosophical differences imply that Islam and democracy can never be reconciled. This , however, is a very flimsy and flawed understanding.

Both , Islam and democracy hold the dignity of man to be paramount and , it may be said that both hold that man is born free. As such, both sets of philosophies , accord primacy to rights. And rights have a clear cut relation with political freedom. This , then, can be the starting point for a synthesis between Islam and democracy. Moreover, procedurally, there does not appear to be a tension between procedural democracy and Islam.

Having established that while there are important and profound differences between Islam and democracy but at the same time , some scope for a common meeting ground, let us turn to the Arab Spring, Morsi’s decision and the question of Islam and democracy.

The Arab Spring set in motion a series of events of world historical significance: the Arabs , it appeared had had enough and began to question and challenge the status quo in the Middle East: that of authoritarianism. The idiom that the Arab Spring was articulated in was that of freedom, rights and Islam. This gave rise to the notion that the Arab Muslim Middle East was finally unshackling itself and rooting for a future that synthesized Islam with democracy and that a new efflorescence and order was shaping up in the Arab Muslim Middle East.

In essence then, this was an eloquent rejoinder and response by Arabs themselves to the detractors of Arab culture and Islam. They were proving that the Arab Muslim peoples had a role in the design and pattern if history and that Islam could be compatible with aspects of democracy.

It is this bold and beautiful design and march of history that Morsi with his decree is giving short shrift to and pouring cold water over. This gives grist to the mill of assertions that Islam is incompatible with democracy, political freedom and rights and vindicates Orientalist tropes about Islam and the Arab peoples. By arrogating power and concentrating it in the office of the presidency, Morsi then not only is giving ammunition to the detractors of Islam but also doing his bit to stall the course and direction of history.

The Arab Spring is a grand historical process. No one can really stop it. However, actions like the one taken by Morsi dull its momentum. It would be prudent if instead of being an obstructionist force, Morsi be a facilitator and enabler. Democracy and Islam, to repeat, may not be entirely compatible but a synthesis of sorts is eminently possible and this synthesis is owed to the peoples of the Arab Muslim Middle East. Let it not be thwarted or obstructed.

Long Live Europe; Europe is Dead

 

Europe or more accurately Western Europe had a decisive, profound and long lasting impact on the world. The intellectual, political and cultural ferment called the Renaissance shaped Europe’s understanding of itself, imbued it with confidence and vigour. This new self-understanding led Europe to embark on crusading adventures which went under the name of Imperialism and colonialism. The post Enlightenment Europe saw, came and conquered, so to speak. The non-western world came under the European onslaught and could not even fight a rear guard action.

The resistance to European rule which ensued after Imperialism had become firmly ensconced and institutionalized was framed in the idiom of Europe: nationalism. Such was the power of Europe or the European idea. Nativist reaction happened when Europeanized native elites internalized the ideas of freedom, liberty, equality and nationalism and used these against the respective imperial metropoles. The European ideas were taken up by people as diverse as the Japanese, the Chinese, the Turks and even the Arabs. To be modern was to be European. (Muslim modernists aimed and aspired for a synthesis between Islam and Western ideas; the Japanese Meiji Restoration successfully did the same).

Europe was held to be the apogee of success and modernity. Everything was articulated in the European idiom. The rest was mere corollary and reaction. In a curious twist of fate or less fatalistically, this Europe is dead. It no longer exists. To quote the American strategist, Donald Rumsfeld, what we have now is ‘Old Europe’.

Contemporary Europe is a pale shadow and husk of its former self. It is a sulking, brooding and inward looking entity that is at best an obstructionist force in world politics and at worst a squabbling entity that cannot get its act together. It broods and its ire is directed either against the immigrant or the United States. It cannot figure out who or what force is its other: Islam or the United States? It is a fortress like entity that is afraid of new and foreign influences. It excludes foreign influences literally and figuratively. The former happens when it looks down upon and excludes the foreigner and the latter when Europe collectively shuts itself to foreign ideas.

What does this tell us about a once great civilization and history? It tells us that civilizational vigour and vitality is not contingent upon place, location or race but rather accrues from receptivity to ideas, bold thinking and cultural efflorescence. And it also tells us that unless a civilization or a society remains true and wedded to these principles, history brutally tramples it.

Is the West dead then? No. The west or the western idea is very much alive. It has, however, migrated. The western idea lives on in the doyen of the contemporary west- the United States and other Anglophone and Anglosaxon countries like Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. It is here that the western idea thrives and even radiates.

The question then is what does this mean and imply for non-western cultures and societies? Where should we, to invert an expression and phrase , turn our gaze to?

By turning the gaze, it is not implied that the non-west should enter into a confrontation with the west. What is meant here is where and who should the non west engage in? First, we must get rid of the colonial baggage that lurks in our collective unconscious. Colonialism or imperialism no longer exists. What exists is a world which is defined by massive and unprecedented contact of peoples , nations and societies. To stave off conflict, it is imperative that engagement rather than friction and confrontation define our approach.

In this fluid world, what is needed is mutual learning and understanding and this can happen when the west and the east enter into a dialogue. This means being curious about each other and absorbing the best that either has to offer. In this sense, when we direct our gaze toward the west, we should engage with the Anglophone and Anglosaxon west. It is here that a meeting point between civilizations can be found and a new synthesis forged that van redound positively to civilization.

Europe died in 1914. Gavrillo Princip fired the first shot into the carcass of Europe and its obituary was read by Hitler. It cannot be recuperated or resuscitated. Europe is even not on a ventilator. It is therefore about time that we, no-westerners throw off our colonial hangovers, let these die with Europe and engage anew with the Neo west. If we do so, and engage in a dialogue with this neo West in an idiom defined by mutual learning, respect and osmosis, the world will be a better place. We owe this to our future generations.

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.

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 21^stcentury. 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.

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.