Ghana: Leading A New Era of African Democracy

Take a look at the reported news around Africa: In President Obama’s ancestral country of Kenya, violence ripped through the country after the ruling party proclaimed a dubious electoral victor.  President Zuma of South Africa, having survived corruption and rape allegations to recently assume the presidency, had to grapple with the mystery of which of his several wives would join the rarefied ranks of first ladies of the world.  In oil-rich Nigeria there is elusive peace as the insurgency grows fiercer each day, not to mention the recent flawed elections that brought President Umaru Yar’ Adua to power. Millions in Zimbabwe suffer at the hands President Mugabe under a sham power sharing agreement with his opponent in the last election after the ruling party refused to relinquish power.  Army tanks recently stormed the presidential palace in Madagascar to chase out an elected president.  The president of Guinea Bissau was assassinated hours after an army general was blown into pieces by a bomb. Islamic insurgents are currently battling impotent governments within Somalia. And all of this is does not mention the genocide in Darfur, of which we are all too familiar.

Based on such stories, it is hard for anyone outside Africa to imagine the existence of anything resembling civil society and good governance on the continent.  It is very easy to fall into the ranks of those who see Africa as a “disaster” because of a myopic and ignorant worldview that does not see Africa as having anything good to offer the world.  Yet amidst the strife, unrest, corruption, and starvation that never escape the lenses of the CNNs of the world, there are many encouraging success stories.  In this piece, I would like to share one of these stories with the readers of Demockracy. I hope to share many similar such stories in a new collaboration between Demockracy and CediPost, a Web site focused on the policy and politics of Ghana and the misunderstood continent Africa. Yes, democracy (not demockracy) is still making progress in Africa, and there have been recent successful elections in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Senegal, Zambia, and the subject of this piece – Ghana.

In fact, democracy is actually flourishing in the West African country of Ghana. Ghana’s burgeoning democracy is a positive drumbeat on a volatile continent where the barrel of the gun still rules in many countries. It is important to trumpet this success story with the hope that other African countries will emulate Ghana’s shining example. In addition, it is important to show as an example to the western world that civil societies and good governance do exist in sub-Saharan Africa.

Fifty-two years ago, Ghana, led by the charismatic and over-ambitious Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, became the first country in the sub-Saharan to emerge from the subjugation of colonial rule. Ghana’s independence spurred on the African liberation movement, and by the mid-1960s, 30 African countries had become independent. Ghana became the beacon of HOPE for the rest of Africa in the freedom movement.

It is difficult to believe now, but at independence, Ghana was richer and better developed than countries like Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea. However, corruption and mismanagement, two of Africa’s most ravaging diseases, soon drained Ghana’s national coffers and debt started to pile up. To make matters worse,  in Ghana, like many African countries, civilian rule was toppled repeatedly by a series of military takeovers.

The Birth of Democracy

This cycle stopped when former President Jerry John Rawlings shed his military uniform through some international arm twisting and reluctantly adopted democratic rule in 1992.  Since then, Ghana has been on a seemingly unstoppable march to entrench its democracy.

Traditionally,  many African countries have been gripped by violence following disputed polls. While the capacity for violence exists in Ghana as it does in any society, Ghana has deviated from the cycle of bad news that has been making the headlines throughout Africa. In 2000 when the world’s oldest democracy was in court squabbling over the winner of the presidential election, the famous Bush v. Gore case, Ghana held its second successful election after adopting democratic rule. Jerry Rawlings, a former coup leader who had metamorphosed into a democratically elected president, stood down quietly after eight years in power and peacefully handed over the reigns to a successor from the main opposition party. A rare occurrence in African politics! To this day, it is unthinkable for an incumbent party to lose an election to an opposition party in many African countries, not to mention peacefully relinquishing power. If you don’t believe me, ask Mr. Odinga of Kenya and the puppet Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, Mr. Tsvangirai.

After the peaceful transition of 2000, many in Ghana were determined to chart a new era in African democracy. Eight years later, in 2008, when the whole world’s attention was focused on Ghana as it went to the polls against a backdrop of sham elections in Kenya, Zimbabwe, and Nigeria, Ghana trounced the cycle of bad news to conduct successful elections and a peaceful transfer of power, again, from a losing incumbent to an opposition successor. The stakes were even higher in this past election as the winner stood to lead Ghana in an oil-boom era.

Notwithstanding the contentious nature leading to isolated skirmishes and the usual mudslinging between the leading political parties, Ghanaians collectively displayed the kind of political maturity and tolerance that is unheard of in many African countries.  Overall, since embracing democratic rule in the early 1990s, Ghana has  now held four successive peaceful elections, making it the only country in sub-Sahara to have had two peaceful and smooth back-to-back transfers of power from democratically elected incumbents to democratically elected successors. That is a commendable achievement by all measures in a volatile region.

A Beacon of Hope

Ghana has set an example for African democracy and has the potential to become the poster nation of true leadership on a continent so much in need of effective leadership and direction. Ghana is rapidly reclaiming its historical status as the shining star illuminating Africa. If the “wind of change” in the 1950s was for political freedom and self-determination, this time the “wind of change” is for true democracy in Africa. And once again, Ghana has the capacity and potential to lead the way as the POSTER NATION for true leadership in Africa. From the dawn of self-determination to the rise of democracy, Ghana has led the way in Africa and will continue to be a repository of hope to end the cycle of underachievement on the continent.

Ghana’s march to usher the continent into a new era of African democracy and responsible leadership is refreshing and assuring and should be highlighted by all who have the interest of Africa at heart. Therefore, it is befitting that the first Black President of the United States of America, in keeping faith with America’s foreign policy to support democratic and civil societies around the world, has chosen Ghana for his maiden trip to Africa since becoming president. A statement released by the White House in announcing the July 10 trip to Ghana stated:

[T]he president and Mrs. Obama look forward to strengthening the U.S. relationship with one of our most trusted partners in sub-Saharan Africa, and to highlighting the critical role that sound governance and civil society play in promoting lasting development.

In choosing Ghana as the first country to visit in sub-Saharan Africa, the Obama administration is recognizing and rewarding the country for the remarkable progress it has made toward achieving sustainable peace and stability, and most importantly, validating Ghana’s newly carved status as a beacon of hope for a new era of African democracy.

Despite the encouraging progress and all the enthusiasm of recent years, there is no doubt that the challenges Ghana faces are enormous. I will be addressing some of the issues in my conversations to follow.

George Aduhene is the Co-founder and Editor of CediPost.com , a news and blog site on Ghana.

Sotomayor ‘Unpredictable’? Only If You Don’t Read the Court Decisions

One of the things are media are not good at is covering nuance. Once you add a couple conjunctions and independent clauses to a sentence, people’s eyes glaze over. There’s no better example of this than “mainstream media” reporting of court cases. Take this article from The New York Times about Sonia Sotomayor’s “unpredictable” legal opinions:

In a 2006 property rights case, she upheld a town’s effort to take private property for redevelopment. But in 2002, she supported property rights in a case involving impounded cars.

With only that information, it sure sounds like she’s crazy. But appellate court opinions regularly exceed 50 pages for a reason: there’s a lot to talk about, there are details to pay attention to, and the distinctions being made are incredibly fine — finer than a 750-word newspaper article can go into, either by design (it’s only 750 words, after all) or accident (does the person writing the story know about the law?).

Well, it’s a good thing they’re hopeless, because that gives me something to write about.

The “2006 property rights case,” Didden v. Village of Port Chester, came directly after the Supreme Court’s abominable 2005 decision in Kelo v. New London, in which the court’s liberal wing was actually the stupid group and where Justice Clarence Thomas wrote something worthy of praise. (I wrote about this case back in 2005.) First of all, the 2006 opinion isn’t even an opinion! It is properly called an “order.” Second, Sotomayor was part of the three-judge panel that heard the case, but that means nothing. The order, since it was nothing more than an order from the court, was signed by the clerk and not by any individual judge. Guilt by association, perhaps?

But getting to the substantive issue, the circuit court would have been hard-pressed to make a ruling that directly contradicted a Supreme Court decision. The case would have been appealed, and the Supreme Court would have decided the same way again. Blame the Supreme Court for such a terrible decision, not the Second Circuit for upholding it (this is the doctrine of stare decisis that the Senate Judiciary Committee brought up so often during the Roberts confirmation).

The Wall Street Journal Law Blog published an article titled “Will Didden v. Port Chester Be Judge Sotomayor’s Kelo Decision?” The short answer is “Yes, it will,” but only because, as a circuit court judge, Sotomayor is bound — again, by stare decisis — to uphold a decision that is both prior and from a higher court. What do conservatives want? If she had decided to overturn the precedent set by Kelo, then that would have been true “judicial activism,” to use the Right’s own empty language. But now they’re upset that she didn’t overturn the decision? Perhaps if she had been a member of the Supreme Court, she would have had a different opinion, but as a member of the Second Circuit, she was required to uphold the Supreme Court’s decision, something that the Second Circuit explicitly stated in its order: “the recent Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London [...] obliges us to conclude that [plaintiffs] have articulated no basis upon which relief can be granted.” But then again, the entire issue is moot because (1) there was no opinion issued; and (2) Sotomayor cannot be given exclusive ownership of the order, no matter how much her critics (or even misunderstanding journalists) would like to give it to her.

The 2002 case “involving impounded cars” — Krimstock v. Kelly – was another U.S. Second Circuit Court opinion of a three-judge panel, but at least an opinion was issued for this one. At issue was New York City’s authority to seize property used in the commission of a crime; to whit, vehicles driven by people arrested for DWI. Felony complaints required that the accused be afforded a “prompt” hearing to determine the legitimacy of the seizure; misdemeanors, which included DWI charges, had no such requirement. DWI defendants could challenge the seizure only after the city sought something called civil forfeiture, which, in the case of the six plaintiffs in this case, ranged from three months to a year after their DWI arrests. But even then the vehicle’s return is not ensured:

Upon seizing the vehicle, the police issue the arrestee a voucher for the vehicle and any other seized property. If a claimant makes a formal demand for the return of the vehicle, the City has twenty-five days in which either to initiate a civil forfeiture proceeding under the City’s Administrative Code or to release the vehicle. Even if the City chooses to commence a civil forfeiture proceeding within the twenty-five day period, however, the proceeding is commonly stayed until the criminal proceeding concludes. In a forfeiture proceeding, the City “bear[s] the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that [it] is legally justified to continue to retain the property.” [Citations removed]

Sotomayor and the two other judges who heard the case found that this policy was ridiculous because an individual should not be denied the use of his or her property while a case is pending, especially given that “[a] car or truck is often central to a person’s livelihood or daily activities,” and given that “such possession may ultimately prove improper.”

Makes sense to me. Especially since some of the plaintiffs were making car payments on a vehicle they couldn’t use because it was impounded! Sotomayor, writing the opinion, acknowledged the legitimacy of seizing the vehicle in the first place (upon arrest for DWI), but then wondered why the police needed to continue to hold the vehicle pending trial. The court’s ultimate concern in this case was that there was no pre-emptive method for the accused to contest the continued holding of the vehicle, especially when it could take months or years for it to be returned.

The moral? Don’t believe what you read about court cases. As I’ve demonstrated here, two seemingly conflicting rulings on a “2002 property case” and a “2006 property case” turn out not to be so conflicting, or even rulings. Judge Sotomayor is not only smart, but eminently qualified, and makes her rulings based on the law, while giving the benefit of the doubt — where the law permits such benefit to be given! — to plaintiffs. What good does it do to err on the side of harshness, as Justices Roberts and Scalia do?

What’s at Stake in Cairo: A Conversation with Former Presidential Speechwriter, Troy Senik

On June 4, a very popular President Obama will deliver a much-anticipated speech to the Arab world in one of Islam’s most culturally and historically rich epicenters — Cairo — a location that is at the same time symbolic and strategic. Symbolic in that, despite its less than perfect record on human rights protection, Egypt has long been seen by American diplomats as a potential bellwether reform state in the Middle East. Whether through Anwar El Sadat’s bold overtures toward peace with Israel in the 1980s (that led to his brutal assassination) or Hosni Mubarak’s early 21st century assurances of democratization — however hollow — Egypt has expressed at least passing interest in leading the Arab world into modernity. This fact has not been lost on those who believe a lasting Middle Eastern peace will only result from a systemic and attitudinal sea change that is sparked by open-minded Arab leaders. Strategically, setting the stage for Obama’s speech in Egypt’s capital city also serves the purpose of inviting the least vitriol from our friends and enemies; though it goes without saying, of course, that the diplomatic anthill of Arab politics would’ve burdened any choice with at least some scrutiny.

As complicated as the mere choice of venue can be for a politically- and emotionally-charged speech, consider also the debate raging on our own soil currently over the administration’s near-total embrace (astutely noted by Charles Krauthammer) of Bush-era detainee and citizen surveillance policies. Despite Obama’s euphoric relationship with large swaths of the American public throughout the campaign and into his first 100 days as Commander-in-Chief, the cold, hard facts of a post-9/11 security reality have put the administration at odds with the very people who regarded the man as saint and savior less than six months ago. Throw in a growing concern with our Israeli allies over the Likud party’s unwillingness to move toward a two-state solution and one can undoubtedly bet that our domestic and diplomatic tensions are being taken in and poured over with deliberant intent by the Arab audience Obama means to engage, and influence, in early June.

With so much at stake for the administration and U.S. foreign policy, generally, the task of penning the Cairo speech is most certainly a daunting one. And, though no one doubts the speech will be given with the president’s usual degree of bold eloquence, the process of defining the message and the words that will carry it is often one that involves an incalculable mixture of research, meditation and sheer epiphany.

Troy Senik, former presidential speechwriter for George W. Bush and current contributor to Real Clear Politics and the Center for Individual Freedom, knows this dynamic very well. Following is a conversation between Mr. Senik and myself, where he discusses presidential speechwriting, what’s at stake in Cairo, and how – while most of us were sliding comfortably into bed for the evening, during his tenure in the Bush administration – he was just hitting his stride, pouring himself another steaming cup of coffee as he walked the hallowed halls of the White House with a legal pad.

RB: Ben Rhodes, foreign policy speechwriter for President Obama, has outlined the upcoming speech in Cairo as a next step in the process of building positive relationships and dialogue with the Muslim World. He has referred to Obama’s overture to Iran in January as the start of that process. However, many of Obama’s critics are wary of missing an opportunity not to meet the frequent human rights missteps and looming security threats of most Arab governments head-on. Do you see his upcoming speech as a chance to facilitate more engagement with the Arab world, or to deliver a tough message on nuclear non-proliferation and human rights protection?

TS: It will probably be a little bit of both. One of the dangers of White House speechwriting is that every speech goes through what’s called the “staffing process.” That means that all of the relevant folks in the Executive Office of the President and the bureaucracy get their hands on the speech and try to insert their own points of view and their own policy agendas. I’m sure there will be talk about non-proliferation, but it will probably be just that: talk. President Obama has waved his finger at regimes like North Korea and Iran already, and they’ve cheerfully ignored him because they’re confident that there’s no penalty for ignoring him.

As for human rights and democracy promotion, it will be interesting to see if he takes that message abroad. Those were both big parts of the Bush Administration: the “Freedom Agenda” and the Bush Doctrine, respectively. But, Obama has basically kept quiet on both of those issues thus far in his presidency.

I think the upshot is that the Administration desperately wants to convey the message that America is not at war with the entire Arab world. That’s a noble goal, but it’s also something that we’ve been trying since 9/11. I don’t think it necessarily makes the president look weak, but I think it does make him look like he doesn’t have much of an idea of how to deal with the Arab street beyond giving a speech.

RB: The choice of Cairo has been panned by some in the West because of Mubarak’s backsliding on human rights protection in recent years, and by the Arab world, due to Cairo’s pseudo-alliance with Israel, in which Egyptian police have safeguarded the tunnels into Gaza, among other reasons. How important is choosing the location in giving a speech of this magnitude?

TS: It’s important. Egypt may not be an ideal choice, but it’s the Obama Administration’s least worst option. Obama promised a speech in the Muslim world. He can’t do Saudi Arabia, because it’s a cradle of radicalism, a state that we support primarily because of our need for its petroleum, and a totally atavistic society. He could go to Indonesia, which has the world’s largest Muslim population, but it looks incoherent to give a speech in Southeast Asia when everyone knows your real audience is the Middle East. Jordan is not an option because their relationship with the U.S. has historically been close enough that it would look like Obama was looking for a sycophantic venue. Turkey has been too politically aligned with Israel and would lead to the speech being rejected out of hand by Arabs. So, Egypt certainly has stains, but if you’re looking to reach out to the Arab world, all of your options are states with pretty pockmarked records.

RB:And, obviously, Israel would have been a security nightmare, in addition to presenting a situation closely paralleling the Jordanian dynamic you mentioned.

TS: Right. And going to Israel to talk about the Islamic world would be suicidal. It would be the best possible way for Obama to simultaneously alienate the world’s Jewish and Muslim populations.

RB: Which brings up the issue of how far Obama is willing to go to obtain the first fruits of a peace accord with the Muslim world. The build-up to Netanyahu’s recent visit to Washington was primed with shots across the bow from Obama and the Israeli PM, both seemingly frustrated with the other’s perceived next steps in the realm of Arab diplomacy. Obama, and Bush before him, in addition to countless scholars and former diplomats, have advocated a two-state solution. Does Obama have enough political leverage, at home and abroad, to alienate (even if slightly) Israel to achieve better relationships in the Arab world?

TS: Well, that question really gets to the heart of one of the biggest fallacies in the world of diplomacy, which I know for a fact is embraced by a huge swath of the people working in the State Department. The idea is that you make the Arab world like us more by sticking it to Israel. And I think that’s absolutely untrue.

Can Obama put some sunlight between himself and Israel? Sure. But will the Arab states like us as a result? No. They’ll be happy that they’ll have marginally less difficulty in trying to eradicate Israel, but they won’t be carrying American flags through the street anytime soon — at least not unlit ones. The reality is that all the Arab governments really want from us is to keep buying their oil, stop defending Israel, and stay out of their part of the world. So, the only way you can make them happy is by being a supplicant for their cartel, turning your back on the only long-standing democracy in the region, and pretending that Islamic extremism, terrorism, and their routine violations of human rights aren’t a problem. And by any rational standard, that is way too high of a price to pay.

RB: Does the debate over Guantanamo, in which Obama swears to reengage American detainee policy with jurisprudence and constitutional reverence, contribute to how Obama’s speech will be received in Cairo?

TS: Probably more on the domestic side than the international side. The foreign audience might be mindful of the fact that he’s ending up much closer to the Bush Administration’s policies on some war measures than was initially expected, but they know that Obama is a different kind of guy at his core than President Bush was.

On the domestic side, however, it may actually be a problem. With Guantanamo, the interrogation memos, the Pentagon photos, etc., Obama has reached his first real impasse with the public. This week, people started realizing that the administration has no plan for how to close Guantanamo and what to do with the people being detained there. And when you talk about putting these people on American soil, and you learn that 1 out of every 7 we’ve released in the past have gone back on the battlefield, you realize that this isn’t the law school hypothetical that everyone’s been treating it as for the past few years. So I think the public’s had their first widespread dose of skepticism towards Obama, and if he goes to Egypt and gives a speech that looks overly deferential to people who don’t like us, it’s going to compound that concern, especially since that’s starting to look like a pattern for him.

RB: Right. And, this comes at a time when he’s enjoying 64% approval ratings on national security – an undoubtedly pleasing fact to Democrats who’ve struggled against Republicans in this area for years, though just as likely a campaign-resilient and unsustainable number.

Your point also brings to mind a recent piece by Jacob Weisburg at Slate, “What we’ve learned so far about President Obama,” in which the author “continues to suspect him of harboring deeper convictions.” He references reversals on torture and “Don’t ask, Don’t tell.” In light of this possibility, that Obama hasn’t quite found his footing in the Oval Office with regards to where political philosophy and the real-world meet, is this speech pre-mature, or is it absolutely necessary given Iran and North Korea’s recent belligerency, in addition to the constant tension elsewhere in the Arab World with Western ideals?

TS: I suspect that in the long view it’s simply irrelevant. Obama is fond of talking about “game changers.” This isn’t one. He’ll go and give the speech and capture the media cycle for a day or two, but that will be it. Unless he has some unanticipated “Let them come to Berlin” or “tear down this wall” moment, it will probably be forgettable. And I see no indication that there’s anything that bold brewing in the White House. So in the end, this probably gets him nowhere.

RB: Referencing his overture to the Iranian people, again, who were celebrating Nowruz — the Persian New Year — during his address in January (a fact he used to link our shared humanity with the Iranian people), would the impact of the Cairo speech be any more or less significant by speaking to the citizens of Arab nations versus the leaders?

TS: It would be much more significant if Obama chose to speak to the Arab people instead of their governments. There is a long tradition of American presidents speaking directly to the populations of nations with whom we have strong disagreements because the American view has traditionally — and rightly — been that we oppose governments, not peoples. That being said, I don’t think Obama will do that for two reasons. One, something that dramatic would indicate that we think of the entire Arab world as essentially hostile dictatorships. Two, you have to be very careful about stirring up the populations in those countries, because in some cases, mass movements would actually yield even worse regimes than the current one (that’s certainly the case with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt).

Also, an important note about the New Year message to the Iranians. While it was addressed directly to the people, it made clear reference to the “Islamic Republic of Iran.” That is Obama’s way of legitimizing the current government there and telegraphing that the U.S. is not seeking regime change. And that’s about as dispiriting a sign as you can get if you’re an Iranian citizen who hopes to live in a freer society.

RB: Do you think he missed an opportunity in the January address?

TS: Yes, but that error was fathered by the policy. The mistake was saying you’re going to basically endorse a dictatorship. Sometimes, reasonable constraints may force you to tolerate a dictatorship, but you never endorse one.

RB: Earlier, you mentioned the complex nature of vetting a presidential speech, especially when it comes to speeches of this magnitude – the “staffing process.” Before a speech gets to this point, though, what were the first steps you took when preparing a speech for President Bush?

TS: You would get a description of the speech and the goals a few weeks in advance, then have the research team gather background material. Depending on the magnitude of the speech, you’d then usually get some guidance from senior staff or the president himself. From there, you’d try to hammer out an outline and/or a rough draft, which for me often consisted of walking the halls of the White House at 11 PM with a cup of coffee and a legal pad. In the Bush White House, the writers would then edit the first draft and send it into the staffing process.

RB: Was Bush the kind of president that poured over every word and turn of phrase, or was he concerned less with specifics and more that his central thesis be present?

TS: President Bush was relentlessly focused on the logic of his remarks. Sometimes that would translate into a focus on minutiae, sometimes it wouldn’t. But often times how much he dove into the details of a speech would be determined by how passionate he was about the topic. The most important thing was that he could see a coherent structure and feel like every point logically flowed into the next one. Like his father, I think he was a little distrustful of high-flying rhetoric. He certainly wouldn’t have attempted a lot of the fireworks that Obama does.

RB: It isn’t surprising that Bush differs in this respect from Obama. David Axelrod, senior advisor to the president, was quoted in a recent Politico piece as saying, “Everyone here sort of lives with the reality that the president is the best speechwriter in the group,” a sentiment also captured in Weisburg’s piece, noting Obama’s penchant for wanting to run the business of the Oval with a high degree of personal oversight.

TS: Yes, and that has to be intimidating. Given Obama’s talents as a writer and a speaker, I’m sure he’s much more intimately involved with the process than most presidents.

RB: What’s the most that Obama, and his speechwriting team, should expect out of a speech to the Muslim world that comes while the U.S. wages two wars in the Middle East? What would you like to see him say?

TS: They are probably expecting some softening in the Arab world’s attitude towards the U.S., but I’m deeply skeptical of that. Speeches can change the hearts of the people, but they almost never change the interests of governments.

I’d like to see him come out strong in favor of universal values instead of doing a multicultural soft-shoe. I’d like to hear him say that peaceful and benevolent religion is an incalculable gift in every corner of the world that it inhabits, just as radicalism is a scourge that must be defeated no matter where and why it takes root. If the nations of the Middle East really crave the international legitimacy they always talk about, they have to be willing to play by the rules of civilized nations and stop using their past and their real and imagined grievances as excuses for violence and tyranny.

Pakistan: Caught in the Crossfire, Part 2

This is the second of my two part series dealing with Pakistan through the eyes of  Naveed, a lecturer at an Islamabad University. Please see Part 1 for more context.

After being enlightened about Pakistan’s history and foreign interference, I was desperate to find out his views about the insurgency in his native tribal areas. We were out in the open air, and Naveed was in a calm mood.

“So you asked me about the insurgency in the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan?,” he uttered after taking a deep breath. As I nodded, he said: “To understand the present insurgency, you have to go back to the British Empire era when Pashtun tribal areas had their own tribal administrators called ‘Walis’.”

ISOLATION AND INDIFFERENCE

“The British did little to interfere in our lives and gave us the freedom to have our own code which we call the ‘jirga’ (assembly of tribal elders) that defines laws, regulations, and policies. Soon after the independence, we joined Pakistan on certain preconditions. One of them was to have our own jirga system,” Naveed said, adding that Pakistani courts and law enforcement have no jurisdiction over the tribal areas known as Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA).

FATA is an interesting region of Pakistan. It covers an area of 27,220 sq. km and has an estimated population of 3.5 million. Pashtuns comprise the overwhelming majority of the population with a few ethnic Hazaras, Sikhs, and Punjabis living alongside. The literacy rate is hardly 10%, well below the national average of 40%. It is an underdeveloped area with few metalled roads and limited gas and electricity supply. The locals do not pay tax to the state. With only seven percent of the land area cultivatable, people make a livelihood by smuggling custom-free goods from Afghanistan, operating car theft rackets, drug trafficking, and selling locally produced illegal small and heavy arms.

The Pakistani government seldom intervenes in the tribal affairs. A government appointed political agent called “Malik” represents the federation with few executive powers. FATA is however represented in the National Assembly in Islamabad. Unelected tribal elders represented the region until the system was changed in 1997 to introduce mandatory elections. However, little has changed as the elections are contested on tribal rather than on political lines. Therefore, although there are now elections, most individuals vote solely along tribal lines. This is in contrast to the rest of the country where political parties cut across tribal identities.

“This whole region is in a limbo. It is part of Pakistan, but at the same time it is not. Confused aren’t you?” a sarcastic Naveed remarked at my puzzled face. “Thanks to our tribal elders’ wishes, the government never incorporated us into mainstream Pakistan. There always remained a divide between the settled and tribal areas that local leaders as well as Islamabad exploited for their own gains. We are the Pakistani version of America’s Wild West,” he joked in his patent ironic tone.

The dynamics of this tribal society are now unraveling. Due to the fact that this region never became part of the mainstream Pakistani society, the allegiance of the people is toward their tribes or clans rather than to their country. The idea of a shared cultural identity has remained confined to the boundaries of the tribal regions spread across Pakistan and Afghanistan. Therefore, although they are counted as part of the Pakistani population and their areas are shown on the map as part of federal Pakistan, the state has failed to win the Pashtun hearts and minds in order to fully include them in the wider Pakistani cultural society.

“The people in the province, especially in the tribal areas, felt the isolation. Politicians, time and again, made promises to bring them into the mainstream and grant a comprehensive political and judicial system. From Bhutto to his daughter Benazir and from General Zia-ul-Haq to his stalwart Nawaz Sharif, everyone made promises. Empty promises. Things hardly changed on the ground,” Naveed remarked. “Does a promise remain a promise if unfulfilled?,” he argued while referring to an Urdu proverb with a similar connotation.

RETURNS OF THE HOLY ALLIANCE

The outbreak of a guerrilla war in Afghanistan is a turning point in the history of Pakistan. In 1980, Pakistani military dictator General Zia-ul-Haq setup an alliance with the United States to send fighters across the border to aid the Afghan resistance against the Soviet-backed government in Kabul. The joint Pakistani-US investment of arms and fighters radically altered the course of war in Afghanistan, drawing Soviet troops into a long, bloody conflict that ultimately left them defeated and contributed to the disintegration of the USSR.

But the Pakistan-US alliance also brought a host of problems to the region, especially Pakistan. The tribal areas, acting as a launching pad for anti-Soviet fighters known as the “mujahideen,” became a den of illegal arms, drugs, and smuggling. Millions of people from Afghanistan sought refuge in Pakistan, straining the already limited resources of their hosts. The impoverished refugees from Afghanistan, at times, clashed with more modern and well-off Pakistanis due to cultural, religious, and lifestyle differences. People still resent the military government of General Zia over his handling of the Afghan crisis.

The area that was touched most by the conflict was the Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP) of Pakistan. Naveed described the post-war situation. “The mujahideen returned to their homes. The government had no rehabilitation plan for them. Frustration rose tremendously and their warfare experience gave them the confidence to lift their arms and fight for their rights.” He added that veterans of the Afghan war returned to Pakistan along with their comrades from the Middle East, Central Asia, and North Africa.

“Most of the non-Afghan fighters were exiles from their home countries who could no longer return to their states. Many of their home governments feared a rebellion from their ranks and labeled them as unwanted elements. The only people who welcomed them were the Pashtuns as we have an ancient code of hospitality and generosity for someone who asks for protection and refuge,” Naveed explained, pride for his culture and traditions evident in his tone.

While the USSR left Afghanistan humiliated and defeated, the US reveled with joy. Afghanistan was abandoned, as the US interest was limited to the defeat of its nuclear rival rather than rebuilding of the nation. Former mujahideen turned their guns on each other and a full-scale civil war ensued. Thousands of people died during the conflict from 1992-1996. The only forces that stopped the civil war were the Taliban, who drove the warring former mujahideen factions from power and seized control of 90% of the country.

HOSTILITIES AT HOME

“The former mujahideen who returned from Afghanistan demanded a judicial system based on Islamic law and Pashtun culture and traditions. This was their own version of Shariah. It was a simple demand that was raised to deal with the complex law and order situation in their region,” the young academic described, adding that the local people were very enthusiastic about such demands. “Everybody including the former mujahideen wanted it. The government, instead of principally agreeing to their demand and holding a referendum to decide the issue, sent troops and tanks to the region. People did not get what they really wanted,” he remarked with bitterness replacing his usually soft tone.

In 1994, a bloody conflict erupted in the Malakand division of NWFP province. Veterans of the Afghan war formed a militia called “Tehrik Nifaz Shariat Muhammadi” (Movement for the Imposition of Muhammad’s Shariah law) and started an armed uprising in the region. Government buildings in the region were attacked and occupied in November 1994. The Islamabad government led by the late Benazir Bhutto, initially signing a peace agreement with the militants, backed off under international pressure and waged a military operation. The TNSM militants were flushed out to the hills, and calm was restored. However, the situation on the ground remained the same, and no general judicial system reforms were introduced to speed up the delivery of justice. The demand for a time saving and cost-effective judicial system in the national courts remained unheard, further infuriating the masses.

Hundreds of people lost their lives in the bloody conflict between the TNSM militants and Pakistani armed forces from November 1994 until early 1996. Thousands of people also left their homes in the region due to the conflict.

“The government’s short-sighted and half-baked measures exacerbated the situation. It waged an armed operation against the group but forged an alliance with the leadership. The head of TNSM, Maulana Sufi Muhammad, was captured by the army, but was released without any charges. I do not understand the logic of a military operation that ends up with the signing of a peace deal and distribution of sweets,” the 26 year-old said while mentioning the local practice of distributing sweets on the eve of a festive ceremony. “They sit side-by-side adorning each other with garlands while people mourn over their losses and bury their dead. Is this justice?”

According to a statement issued on May 3, 2001 by the then-NWFP provincial governor Owais Ghani, criminals and assorted illegal arms, timber, and drugs mafias provided financial support to the TNSM and flourished under their rule. TNSM strictly denies the allegations. The Shariah movement returned to the political scene in the region with a vengeance soon after the 9/11 attacks in the USA. While the then-US President George W. Bush was envisioning plans to invade Afghanistan and topple the Taliban government in Kabul, the former mujahideen in Pakistan were renewing their vows for a jihad and promising a new war against the USA along the same lines of struggle against the USSR.

Soon after the US forces invaded Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, TNSM was the first pro-Taliban group to send its forces to fight alongside the Taliban. Thousands of fighters crossed into Afghanistan along with their leader Maulana Sufi Muhammad. The TNSM fighters returned to their bases after Taliban retreated from urban Afghanistan to their rural strongholds to initiate a guerrilla war against the occupying US and NATO forces. Leaders of TNSM were arrested by Islamabad after their return in 2002 and imprisoned on charges of incitement of violence and violation of state laws. President General Pervez Musharraf outlawed the organization in 2002.

Naveed stopped all of a sudden in the middle of the conversation. Something was clearly bugging him as his face turned red. “The cat and mouse game between TNSM and Pakistani military continued. The Pakistani government enjoyed the support of Washington while TNSM were bolstered by the inclusion of al-Qaeda elements in its ranks. The government signed a peace deal on one day and initiated an armed operation against the opposite side the very next day,” Naveed uttered angrily.

His outburst continued: “Nothing changed on the ground except that the situation got out of control and the militants got bolder with their tactics. Pakistani military attacked militant positions on the ground. They also hit their hideouts from the air with the help of Cobra gunship helicopters given by the US.”

“As if this was not enough to wreak havoc, the US drones unleashed hell from the skies, allegedly killing hundreds of innocent civilians. Thousands of people have been caught in the crossfire with no place to run and nowhere to hide. I’ve seen the carnage myself. Was this all for peace?”

Stocky-built Naveed came to an abrupt halt. His voice was shaky, and he didn’t want to continue anymore. Having lived for more than a year with him I never saw Naveed so silent before. He silenced himself. The aggression was in his hands, but he unclenched his fists and stood still. What else can he do?

As we were having this chat on a rainy spring evening, thousands of internally displaced refugees in Swat valley in northwest Pakistan were lying in the open without any shelter. There is an acute shortage of food in the refugee camps, I’m told. But one thing is very certain. There is no shortage of ammunition on either side.

The radical Islamists impose their style of governance in the name of religion and carry out their harsh sentences against poor and powerless people. In the opinion of many in Pakistan, the Islamabad government with the aid of the US government bombs and maims its own people by using tanks and fighter planes. The poor and powerless people, suppressed by the militants and oppressed by the government, run to save their lives. Where is the democratic promise of liberty, fraternity, and equality? Why don’t I see the Islamic spirit of forgiveness, compassion, and justice? Perhaps, both the sides are interested in furthering their agenda and exploiting their subjects in the name of their ideologies.

California Supreme Court Upholds Prop 8; Rules Against Same-Sex Marriage

Well, it could be worse.

The California Supreme Court ruled today that Proposition 8, last November’s ballot initiative amending the California Constitution to forbid same-sex marriage, is legal. It also affirmed that marriages conducted between May 2008 (when the same court ruled that same-sex marriage was constitutional) and November were legal. Supporters of Prop. 8 had hoped for a one-two punch that included invalidation of the 18,000 so-called Rainbow Window marriages.

Prop. 8 opponents rested on the argument that Prop. 8’s stripping of extant rights from a “protected class” of people was such a gross alteration to the state Constitution that it constituted a revision, not an amendment, to the Constitution. Revisions require a completely separate process to be passed.

Does the “fundamental right” of the people to go to the polls and enact law by referendum supersede the “fundamental right” of a protected class to marry? Does the right of the people permit a majority of the electorate to remove rights from a minority? The ruling today suggests that, yes, a majority of the people can remove or limit the rights of a minority group. More on this later.

Let’s be clear: this is not a normal ballot initiative. The ballot measures we voted on last week? Those were standard-issue: permit the legislature to save more money; permit the legislature to redirect money. Prop. 8 was unlike any ballot initiative that California had seen before. It allowed a majority of voters to strip a minority of a right that majority already had. With today’s ruling, a dangerous precedent has been created: the referendum process and the right of the majority to make law through the ballot is officially more important than the rights of the minorities that the majority would seek to take away using the initiative process.

The court’s ruling is 185 pages long. Here’s a summary:

• The scope of the decision is limited to the question of whether or not Proposition 8 was an “amendment” or “revision” of California’s Constitution. The court did not rule on the legal legitimacy of same-sex marriage; that issue was decided last May.
• The marriages that occurred between last May and last November are still valid, since retroactively invalidating a lawfully-performed marriage would require due process and not merely the approval of voters.
• What is at stake here is not the fundamental rights of same-sex couples; the court affirmed that the rights are the same, but under Prop. 8, same-sex couples cannot have the word “marriage.”

That minority had better have a lot of money, because in order to get their rights back, they’ll have to mount a campaign to get another proposition on the ballot amending the Constitution to remove the previous amendment. Fortunately, that’s what they plan to do: Prop. 8 opponents plan to have another initiative on the ballot in 2010, this time repealing the amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Let’s be equally clear what the California Supreme Court is not saying. The court is not suggesting that same-sex marriage itself is inherently unconstitutional; it also is not suggesting that same-sex marriage itself is inherently constitutional. (Interestingly, the May 2008 decision already ruled that the language contained in Prop. 8 is discriminatory under the law; the statute in question contained exactly the same language found in Prop. 8, and back then, when it wasn’t an amendment, it was unconstitutional.) The court has merely adjudicated two issues: does Prop. 8 constitute an amendment, and does Prop. 8 apply retroactively? The majority opinion concluded by noting that, if Prop. 8 opponents are unhappy with today’s ruling, “if there is to be a change to the state constitutional rule embodied in that measure, it must ‘find its expression at the ballot box.’” The court has certainly not suggested that same-sex marriage can never be the law. In finding that Prop. 8 was an amendment, the court has said that the only proper way to invalidate an amendment is with another amendment; i.e., another ballot measure repealing the Prop. 8 amendment.

Only one judge dissented from the opinion. Judge Moreno expressed concern that a simple majority vote could unilaterally strip a minority group of its rights:

The rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry that this court recognized in the Marriage Cases, it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities. It weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority.

Judge Moreno calls the Equal Protection Clause “inherently countermajoritarian,” meaning that its purpose is not to accede to the will of the majority, but rather to ensure that anything the majority does allows for the protection of minority groups. The Clause prevents what John Stuart Mill called “the tyranny of the majority,” one of the dangers inherent in democracy. Under a democratic system, the majority — by its sheer size — is presumed to be correct. As we have seen with Prop. 8, the fact that a majority believes something does not necessarily make that thing true.

There has been some talk of amending the state constitution to alter the amendment process. This would be a good step in the direction of eliminating the back-and-forth that we will see with ballot initiatives for the next few years. Here’s an idea: making a distinction between amendments that due mundane things like alter the budget process and amendments that alter the status of individual liberties.

Breaking News: A very odd couple — former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson (who argued for Bush in 2000’s Bush v. Gore) and David Boies (who argued for Gore in Bush v. Gore) have agreed to join forces and take up a federal court case challenging Prop. 8 under the Fourteenth Amendment’s “equal protection” clause. What else is interesting about this? Any case that adjudicates this issue would necessarily adjudicate both any other state law banning same-sex marriage and the federal ban on same-sex marriage. (The U.S. government currently does not recognize same-sex marriage as “marriage” for federal purposes.)

Health Care Reform: A Lesson From the Big 3

US health care reform is the biggest domestic issue facing America today, and action is needed to fix it. But as I was reading about Chrysler’s bankruptcy the other day, it got me thinking about the similarities and differences between the auto industry and the health care industry. As the rhetoric and furor over health care reform gets more and more heated, it might help the debate if we step back and take a look at the failed auto industry and try to learn some lessons about what to do and what not do when reform is needed.

To use an oxymoron, American health care is sick. As many reports have stated, Americans spend twice as much on health care as similar western countries. Half of this cost is paid thanks to the American taxpayer (or the American taxpayer’s children and grandchildren, thanks to budget deficits). But even with all that spending, objective impartial statistics rank America’s health care near the bottom when compared with those same western countries. (See Demockracy article from February 16, 2009, “Health Care in America – A Time for Change” for a full discussion of this issue.) However, even with the groundswell of support from many different corners, this is not a problem which will be fixed at the flip of political switch. This is a problem which has been forty years in the making and will probably be forty years in the fixing.

So, as we watch the plight of the Big 3 automakers, I can’t help but compare their plight to the current situation of the health care industry and compare the position of the auto companies of 1960s to the health care providers of today. For many, many years, the Big 3 automakers were the most celebrated and profitable companies in the world. CEOs, executives, shareholders, unions, and car salesmen all got rich and fat on the profits from the US auto industry. They were the “Masters of the Universe” in the mid 20th century. A national infrastructure was built to support the industry. “What’s good for General Motors is good for America” was the oft-quoted refrain.

GM, Ford, and Chrysler made cars that were the shiniest, biggest, boldest, and the envy of the world. Even if you didn’t need or want rear fins or white side wall tires or big V-8 engines,  you got them because it was the American way to do things. Cars got bigger, more expensive, and more inefficient, and the industry run by the three big oligarchs with almost no other meaningful competition slowly lost touch with the consumer.

And then in the 1970s the car industry had a hiccup. The Japanese (and others) devised a cheaper, more sensible way to make cars which fit the needs of the consumer. These cars were cheaper and on objective criteria, better (sound familiar to an industry we know?). Detroit of course tried to react in the 1970s and 1980s. The industry went through thirty years of pain – a government bailout here, a merger there, a few concessions from the unions. They pared down their product lines to sell mostly SUVs and big cars (cars which people really didn’t need, but old habits die hard). Salesman and marketing programs claimed that the quality statistics comparing the Japanese cars were flawed, and anyway, who wants to drive a small little Japanese car (“I don’t care what the statistics say, the American made car is better”).  And now thirty years later, the Big 3 are on the critical list. Their infrastructures were just too cumbersome to change in the radical ways that were necessary to survive. Chrysler has now died, and GM and Ford are gasping their last breath. It is sort of ironic that one of the biggest problems of the auto industry is the escalating health care costs of the labor force that simply cannot be reduced under the current system.

Saying all that, and even with the Big 3 in their current sad state, I don’t think I know one American who is not a lot happier with the car they drive now compared to what they drove thirty years ago (OK, maybe we need to exclude owners of ’57 Chevys or ’64 Mustangs). All of the trauma and gut-wrenching decisions and layoffs and closures, although obviously difficult for those directly involved, were part of the process required to allow the American consumer to buy the product that was best for him.

So the similarities to the health care industries today and the auto industry of thirty years ago are obvious. The health care infrastructure is bloated and inefficient – it is providing products and services which are too big, expensive, and inefficient to many US citizens. It is more expensive and has less quality than other countries’ health care systems. A huge and complex national infrastructure has been built to support the entire industry. CEOs, executives, and shareholders, along with many powerful physician specialties, are all getting rich on the profits of the health care industry. These constituents do not want to stop the gravy train – but stop it will and stop it must – someday. In the long run, the American consumer will force the change – and it will most likely lead to trauma in the industry. It might take thirty years or longer – but the health care industry will change. In fact, I will make a bold and a rather pessimistic prediction: We will know that health care is “fixed” when one or more of the health care giants of today go bankrupt. The trauma that is necessary to change the system will almost certainly lead to the bankruptcy of a major player in the industry. Just like the Big 3, one or several major health care players will not be able to adapt to changes in the industry, and the result will be predictable. The somewhat tricky issue here is that the bankruptcy that occurs could well be the US Government, which foots nearly 50% of the health care bill in the U.S. – the bankruptcy in the health care industry which occurs might be US.

CHANGING HEALTH CARE IS DIFFERENT – IT’S HARDER

Although there are similarities in the predicaments of the auto and health care industries, there are three major differences worth noting, none of which are going to make reform any easier.

First, there is limited foreign competition to replace and offer alternatives to an inefficient industry. Health care, especially in- patient and primary health care is almost inherently a domestic industry. Japan, India, or China cannot easily begin a strategy of exporting health care to America and provide a competitive hammer to the industry. But this trend can be hard to predict.  If a consultant would have advised the CEOs of the Big 3 in 1960 that they would be brought to their knees by Japanese companies exporting two ton cars from Japan across the Pacific Ocean, he would have been laughed out of the board room. In the high technology world of internet, ipods, blackberrys, and instant data transmission, it is not inconceivable that a cheaper, more efficient health care model could be imported into the US and provide consumers with an alternative. If this does happen, you can be sure the first persons to cry foul will be the doctors, US health care companies, and their lobbyists who, predictably, will complain about low quality, “non-approved” health care, cheaper replacements, job losses, un-American competition, etc. – the mantra that car companies have moaned about for years.

Second, the US government does not just regulate or support the health care industry – it is the health care industry – as mentioned before, approximately 50% of health care spending is through Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs. Moreover, the rules, regulations, and reimbursement programs developed and administered by the government are incredibly complicated when compared to other private industries. So when we speak of infrastructures that need to change, we are not speaking of a board room in Detroit; we are speaking of the mother of all infrastructures – the US Government. Needless to say, changing the direction of this US battleship will not be an easy task.

Third, the health care industry by its very nature involves life and death situations. The auto industry had to deal with issues like increasing miles per gallon, faster times for 0-60 mph, and how many grocery bags could fit in the trunk. Health care involves more serious issues – which cancer drug is likely to cure a sick child, kidney transplants, strokes, and heart attacks. Health care is emotional and stressful. To affect change within this emotional environment will be much more difficult given the potential side effects if a particular policy is in error.

If anything, then, these three major differences of the health care industry, as compared to the auto industry, will make change harder not easier. The lack of  foreign competition to drive changes and to lower costs, the gargantuan bureaucracy of the US government, and the emotional issues involved all are roadblocks to change. Change will not be easy.

LESSONS TO BE LEARNED

It has been said that he who fails to learn from history will be destined to repeat it. So what can the health care industry learn from the plight of the auto industry?  In my opinion,  there are several important things.

First, what is required to fix the health care system is major surgery. The cost structure and system is fatally flawed. The auto companies cost structure was fatally flawed thirty years ago. Tweaks here and there allowed thirty years of survival for the Big 3, but they did not fix the problem. The health care companies, the insurance companies, and the US government cannot keep forcing their “SUV” solutions when what the consumer needs is a reliable, efficient, quality health care system. If rich people want to pay for big SUVs, then let them, but the average person needs good and efficient, not excessive and gaudy.

We will need to accept that this major surgery to the health care system will be painful and it will take a long time. There will be winners and losers. Jobs will be lost, salaries may be lowered, and mistakes will be made. And given the emotion and seriousness of health care, the mistakes may lead to serious consequences. Let us be prepared for these mistakes and issues. These issues that change brings about cannot reduce our desire and drive to change the system for the better. And as we are going through these painful changes, let’s not let lawyers and tort laws allow even more money to be sucked out of the system by legal confrontation. Tort reform is needed to limit damages and to let providers make the decisions necessary to cut the waste out of the system without worrying about multimillion dollar lawsuits that ultimately just add more costs to an already inefficient system.

Second, good old fashioned competition will ultimately serve the needs of the health care consumer best. Whatever the system looks like in twenty years, it must be a competitive system where individual consumers choose what is best for them. This does not mean that government cannot be involved, but government needs to develop and nurture a system which promotes competition. However, it must be noted that just introducing competition into a system which is broken is not just a cure all. The private and public health care system does have competition now, but it takes place at the wrong levels and on the wrong things. This dysfunctional competition does not focus on delivering value for money to customers, but instead motivates providers to capture more revenue, shift costs to the deep pocket, and restrict services to those who cannot pay. The competition is more about profit and revenues and less about providing value to the patient. Flawed model – flawed competition. The industry needs to develop new business models that reward quality and efficiency, not simply a fee-for-service mentality. Reform should focus on creating a system whereby providers compete directly on the six overarching “Aims for Improvement” (as identified by the Institute of Medicine) for health care. These aims are:

• Safe: Avoid injuries to patients from the care that is intended to help them.
• Effective: Match care to science; avoid overuse of ineffective care and under-use of effective care.
• Patient-Centered: Honor the individual and respect choice.
• Timely: Reduce waiting for both patients and those who give care.
• Efficient: Reduce waste.
• Equitable: Close racial and ethnic gaps in health status.

If competition is refocused along these parameters rather than just on profit and revenue, then the competition will bring value to the customer. The book Redefining Health Care: Creating Value Based Competition on Results by Michael Porter and Elizabeth Teisburg is an excellent treatise on how competition can be implemented into health care systems to drive the most efficient solutions to the consumer.

Regarding competition, it would be interesting, indeed, if a foreign competitor could begin importing health care services into the US.  I have traveled and lived extensively overseas and experienced health care in many foreign countries.  I can testify that many, many overseas providers would be more than willing to provide health care to US citizens at a fraction of the cost that is paid in the US (and this is from persons living in Western Europe – the opportunities from a low cost country like India or China must be staggering). And remember, before you get protectionist, these other countries’ health care statistics are better than ours – don’t be fooled like the automakers who claimed that your 1972 Ford Galaxy is really better than the Toyota Corolla.

Finally, the leaders of the health care industry, public and private, must focus on what Detroit did not – the needs of the consumer – what does the average citizen want and how much will he pay for it.  In too many cases, the health care industry has lost touch with its customer – the patient.  Instead, the dysfunctional system we have now has redefined the customer as the payer, which usually is Medicare, Medicaid, or a large insurance company. As a simple illustration of this, let’s assume there are two viable, equally effective procedures available to cure a patient: Medicare pays $100 for Procedure A and $1000 for Procedure B. Guess which procedure will be recommended by the Provider – the Provider will choose the one giving him more revenue (assuming more revenue generally leads to more profit). The patient won’t argue, he just wants the best treatment, and there will be an implied view that the more expensive treatment is the “better” treatment. No one is worse off except the government, and they have lots of money – right? This is a simple example, but this is how it works. There are scores of accountants, lawyers, and clinicians who are employed not to provide better care to patients, but to maximize revenue from the “customer” (Medicare, Medicaid, et al.).

The current system and structures are designed to maximize revenue and profit from the intermediaries – they are not focusing on the needs of the customer. The average person does not need the “Cadillac” of health care; the average person does not need the Mayo Clinic. The average person does not need a multimillion dollar tort settlement. The average person needs and wants good, reliable, quality health care at a reasonable cost. The average consumer knows in his heart that health care bills are too large, but that there are currently no viable alternatives for the average citizen. (There are no inexpensive imports he can turn to!) The industry leaders cannot let their existing infrastructures, inefficient practices of the past, or bloated costs and salaries be the drivers of the decision-making process. The industry cannot survive with a “if we build it, they will come” attitude. The health care industry must give the consumers what they want.

Other countries have health care systems (public and/or private) that give the same or better health care results to its citizens for about half the cost of the US. The Big 3 automakers did not survive such inefficiencies, and neither will the health care industry. Change must come or the health care industry will ultimately face the same crisis as the Big 3. Change is imperative; failure is not an option.

Copernicus and the Search for God

I started my search with hope, but in the end there was nothing, but that’s OK. My search spanned many years, many books, and many miles traveled. It is a journey made in some way by all of humankind, an effort to correlate religious belief within the parameters of authenticated history and science. While I was never a regular Church goer, after a brush with cancer, I decided to explore the options.

Just as man has developed over the centuries, so have religions evolved and developed to mirror man’s progress. In the very beginnings were the worship of the sun, natural phenomena, and the spirits of the animals. With the establishment of city states, so came the idea of King/Gods to give strength and courage to their soldiers in battle, by convincing them that the sacrifice, even of their lives, would be rewarded by their God/Kings. [This theory is explained by Jared Diamond in his best seller Guns, Germs and Steel.] The Gods were depicted as enhanced versions of themselves, living in improved versions of our cities, suspended above us in the sky.

From those early beginnings, education, philosophy, and the sciences emerged. With more knowledge of the known world, the old City Gods seemed primitive, and all encompassing religions with one God became the norm. The first of these monotheist religions that grew around the Indus valley in India was Hinduism. The beginnings of Hinduism in India occurred around 2,000 B.C.E. Much of its beliefs were imported with the Dravidians, who entered India from the North already with many of the basic beliefs of what was to become Hinduism. It retained the old Gods at a base level, but assumed the belief that at a higher level, God was one, but man was too lowly to comprehend the higher complexities. Buddhism, which in many ways is more of a philosophy, was then born with the Buddha in 563 B.C.E . Many devout Hindus claim to this day that Buddhism is really just an offshoot of Hinduism.

The area where all our western monotheisms or one-God beliefs started was the Middle East. There Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all arose with very similar and overlapping histories. Jerusalem is of course central to all of those faiths. It is intriguing that some of the main beliefs of our Abrahamic faiths are taken directly from the pre-Abrahamic Gods.

Validation of the Faith

For as far back as faith has been around, humankind has attempted to validate that faith through the scientific philosophical approach. [Here I am indebted to Karen Armstrong for her amazing book, A History of God.] Thousands have sought over the ages to prove the existence of God. Indeed, probably all of us have at some point. The Greeks were probably the earliest recognizable true philosophers. They rejected mythological answers to solve the basics questions of heaven and earth. Probably the most intense and prolonged questioning occurred in Iberia during the 700 years it was under Arab rule, while Europe was still deeply mired in the Medieval mud. It was there that the sharpest religious minds from Judaism and Islam cooperated closely to try to reach a proof, any proof. From all of this evolved the most elaborate theories, doctrines, and suppositions, all as improvable as the original question. The mystic approach, where students look deeply within their own being, has proven more successful to its adherents. Christian Mystics, Muslim Sufis, and Hindu Sadhus have all turned their focus inward through a variety of modes of contemplation. Sufis whirl in concentric circles; Sadhus contemplate, often in poses for hours or days on end in positions that would be extremely uncomfortable for most of us for even a few seconds. Some Monks go without speaking for years on end in an attempt to hear the small inner voice. Even hippies have tried this approach, perhaps the easy way with Mescaline, LSD, Magic Mushrooms, and other mediums. Unfortunately, these approaches probably reveal more about the complexity of the human neurology than the nature of God.

Religious opinions change almost on a daily basis in an attempt to remain pertinent to societies own changes. For right or wrong, it has been essential to keeping stability in many societies by helping keep a promise of a better life after death for those who live indigent livelihoods and as a mechanism for keeping a people united under a common tribal identity against a common enemy with supposed lesser beliefs.

Should Have Religion Died in 1543?

In 1543 Copernicus’s seminal work, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres), posited that the heavens did not revolve around the earth, but the other way around. Arab and Indian scholars had of course knew that for centuries, but this was the first time it was proven to the Christian world. Before this, everything was about us and our planet. Our earth was the center of the universe, all things revolved around us, and, of course, our God overlooked us, judged us, rewarded us, and helped us out in times of trouble. After 1543 we were an immeasurably tiny part of billions of galaxies that extend outward for millions of light years.

The End of My Journey

So is this the end of this journey that I strangely found very satisfying?  The question then is what drives us to religion, and how it is sometimes used to manipulate us. It is a truism that all of us, from the age where we first have a brush with death, be it the death of a relative, friend, or pet, feel the need for a power that makes it alright. The need for religion makes talented salesmen of religion rich, powerful, and influential in every society around the globe. In areas where religion is strongest, it is essential that our leaders adhere to the true faith. Barack Obama would have stood no chance of election if he had declared himself agnostic, yet reading his autobiographical book Dreams From My Father suggests that he valued the works of the church in their help to the poor in Chicago and the dedication of some of the ministers. However, nowhere is there any statement of his own faith. Although I have no doubt that is he a Christian, the fact that he doesn’t seem to wear it on his sleeve, but rather seems to live it through shared values is probably one of his greatest strengths.

Once we accept that belief can transcend evidence, we are programmed to accept without question what those good Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and Hindu leaders tell us. That is why religion has caused so many conflicts over the ages. Today, of course, medieval tortures have been reinvented to use on those lured into battle by their own deluded religious teachers and leaders.

Religion in one form or another has been with us from the beginning of time and will probably be with us until the end. Einstein himself believed in no formal religion, but thought that their must be some master equation which could be used to harmonize all things. It was this equation which he saw as God’s design. He did not believe that humankind played any role, above being a tiny part in “the equation.” Alas Quantum mechanics, whose theories Einstein opposed vehemently throughout the latter part of his life, with its basis being a lack of any order, has moved physics further from any such unifying equation.

The final question then must be: Has mankind benefited from religion, or has all of it been a chain around our necks. Clearly, as mentioned before, it has been a necessity for stability in many societies. Without this stability, the conditions for economic growth and progress may not have been sufficient. Also, it has been a solace to many in times of great stress or sorrow. It has helped countless people through times of intolerable hardship, famine, plague, and wars. Religion left alone and not seized upon by power hungry individuals, states, or countries, can and has been a power for good. I look on the Dalai Llama, Mahatma Gandhi, and the Aga Khan as shining lights in that respect.

Unfortunately, where religions have evolved into powerful advocacy groups on their own behalf, with their leaders’ power-hungry egos inflated by their own sense of gravitas, they inevitably do more to divide and deride than to resolve, pacify, and heal. Religion will continue to hold sway for many more millennia, so it essential for us to understand in an historical rational way the damage that can be caused by the lack of separation between state and religion. In the end, that was the main lesson of my personal journey.

You Can Indefinitely Detain Some of the People Some of the Time

One of the larger problems in my life is that, whenever I want to write about a civil liberties issue, Glenn Greenwald has already beaten me to it. And written it better than I could have. Greenwald is a former civil liberties attorney and number one defender of The Constitution. He is not a Democratic apologist. He heavily criticized President Bush. And he is now heavily criticizing President Obama. In Greenwald’s opinion, suggesting that enforcing our laws is “radical” or “extreme” or “left-wing” is disgusting. When did enforcing the law become a partisan issue? He also writes about the media and how he believes that the media are beholden to the political class in a horrible, symbiotic relationship that ensures that the Fourth Estate will never actually hold our leaders accountable for anything.

And I agree with him on all of it. Absolutely all of it. Darn him! Darn him to heck!

For example, Glenn and I were furious this last week when Sen. Harry Reid kept using a verb that could just as easily have been crafted by Karl Rove. The verb was “release,” as in, “Terrorists from Guantanamo Bay will be released into the U.S.” Many pundits, and even Obama himself, used the verb “release” to describe what the government will do to detainees in Guantanamo Bay now that the administration has re-iterated its desire to close the prison there. “Release” evokes images of terrorists approaching the shore on boats and then merrily skipping off, free of shackles and permitted to wander throughout the country, blowing up whatever they please.

Let it be known: terrorists will not be released into anything. They will be shackled, they will be monitored, they will be in our custody and under guard as they are transported from Cuba to the mainland. And once on the mainland, they will continue to be monitored and under guard as they are moved to whatever prison they will occupy next. Those who believe that terrorists will be “released” in the United States are either negligently ignorant, willfully stupid, or maliciously misrepresentative. One guess as to which one describes Harry Reid.

Prior to September 11, 2001, we believed in something called “due process.” It’s a Fifth Amendment guarantee:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. [Emphasis mine.]

The Supreme Court has ruled before that, since the Constitution uses the word “person” and not “citizen”; and since it would have been very easy to use the word citizen, but person was used instead; and since the author of the Bill of Rights, James Madison, was a lawyer by trade and a very smart man and probably not prone to misusing words; that it therefore follows that the Bill of Rights was intended to apply not only to U.S. citizens, but anyone in the United States. This is affirmed in the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits a state to “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Again, note the use of the word person where citizen could have been used, but wasn’t.

In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by a group of terrorists led by Omar Abdel-Rahman, better known as The Blind Sheik. The bomb damaged a parking garage and did kill some people, but it didn’t come close to bringing the building down. Abdel-Rahman and three other accomplices were indicted by civilian prosecutors, accused of breaking publicly-accessible laws, tried in open court inside the United States, under the guidelines of the Constitution and the rules of U.S. civil procedure, and sentenced to U.S. civilian prisons. After 1993, the nation was not less safe because Abdel-Rahman and his accomplices were being imprisoned inside the United States. Abdel-Rahman is housed at the federal Supermax prison in Florence, Colorado.

In 1995, Timothy McVeigh and his accomplice Terry Nichols parked a rental truck containing a homemade fertilizer bomb in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The bomb exploded, killing 168 people, injuring 800 others, and destroying the building. Nichols and McVeigh were indicted, again by civilian prosecutors, accused of breaking publicly-accessible (that is, not secret) laws, tried in open court, and sentenced to U.S. civilian prisons. McVeigh was given the death penalty. The nation is not less safe because Terry Nichols is housed inside the United States.

I think you get the point. Eric Rudolph, the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bomber; Wadih el-Hage, accused of involvement in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings; Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber; Richard Reid, the “shoe bomber”; Jose Padilla, the “dirty bomber.” All of these people are being held inside the United States right now, and no one — no one! — is arguing that the United States is less safe because of it. To suggest that allowing Dangerous Criminals inside our borders is silly; there are already more dangerous criminals here!

It’s also worth noting that, with the exception of Reid and Padilla, all of the above criminals were convicted using the 200-year-old, civilian due process proscribed by the Constitution. Reid and Padilla were held incommunicado in U.S. navy brigs. The government eventually dropped its terrorism charge against Padilla, who was alleged to be making a “dirty bomb” (a traditional bomb filled with radioactive material; it would not cause a nuclear explosion, but it would spread radiation). Since the government didn’t have enough evidence to prosecute the terrorism charge, the charge was dropped. Padilla, nevertheless, was sentenced because even though terrorism is a crime, all the things that terrorists do are already illegal, anyway! Blowing up a building is no more illegal because it was done with a political agenda in mind.

The assertion that Terrorists need to be tried in a special, extra-Constitutional way, held without charge, subjected to torture, and perhaps never afforded a trial is ludicrous. In the paragraphs above, we have ample evidence proving that trying terrorists in civilian courts, using civilian rules, does work. The United States is not less safe. And furthermore, housing convicted terrorists in civilian prisons does work. And furthermore, charging them and trying them does work. For people like Vice President Cheney to suggest that using due process makes us less safe just goes to show us how out of his mind the man is. He would probably be happier living in Iran, where the executive has unlimited power to imprison people for made-up reasons, or no reason at all. Here in the United States, we do not convict people merely on the confidential say-so of the executive branch; that’s the way dictatorships (you know, those countries that we purport to be fighting against — unless your name is “Saudi Arabia”) behave. Here in the United States, it is up to the executive to prove that the accused is guilty. Guilt is never assumed — unless, apparently, you committed a terrorism-related crime after September 11, 2001. Or you were linked to terrorism, no matter how specious the link or how questionable the evidence. Or you associated with terrorists, even if you didn’t know they were terrorists. Or you were planning on committing a terrorism-related crime, even if “terror” wasn’t your goal. Or, as Obama articulated yesterday, the government is afraid you might commit terrorist crimes in the future. Yes, the possibility of future law-breaking is now grounds not only for detaining someone, but for never giving them a trial or even a preliminary hearing to prove that they did what they were accused of doing. As long as the government says “Terrorist,” an individual’s guilt is implicit and that person will never, ever be released. (More likely, as Greenwald observed, you will be imprisoned indefinitely if the government can’t guarantee that it will win a trial. Do show trials sound like the hallmark of a vibrant democracy or a repressive despotism?)

Obama’s plan is definitely a step in the right direction, but it’s not nearly enough. In order to restore the rule of law to this out-of-control country, he must admit that there is no situation in which a person should be held indefinitely; habeas corpus is a right guaranteed to anyone in U.S. custody, and the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed as much. Obama apologists have used exactly the same rhetoric President Bush used to support Obama’s case; namely, “we are at war.” And these prisoners are prisoners of war; therefore, they do not have the right to contest their detention, and they may be detained until the end of the conflict. Seeing as how we’re waging a war on an abstract idea, it’s hard to see exactly when (or if) this war will be over.

Are we now in the business of imprisoning people indefinitely? What does that say about us as a nation? What will historians say fifty years from now? Today, we regard the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II as deplorable and appalling, but at the time, it made sense to our political leaders. We have the ability to stop lawlessness right now instead of musing, decades later, about the mistakes we made, and saying, “We’re so sorry. We’ll do better next time.” Unfortunately, every time “next time” comes up, we fail again (we began failing as early as the John Adams administration, with the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts). Obama offers the promise of actually living up to our ideals as a country. Rather than fumble to attempt to explain and excuse his actions, we must ask, “Is what he is doing right? Is it legal?” And, as Glenn Greenwald wonders, “What would I have said if George Bush and Dick Cheney advocated a law vesting them with the power to preventively imprison people indefinitely and with no charges?”

Please do read Glenn’s article. It is a thorough, lucid, and amazing analysis of Obama’s position on these detainees, with some very tough questions and conclusions that must necessarily follow from that position. I do not believe they are questions that Obama and his supporters want to ask, because they lead to the very same places formerly occupied by previous administrations. At the end of the day, Obama & Co. are saying, “Yes, it is okay to detain some people indefinitely, without the government ever having to prove that they committed a crime.” Not only is that assertion illegal, it’s un-American, and if we continue down that road, it makes this country not only less safe, but less worth defending.

Indian Elections: Good News for India’s Future

It’s over. India’s marathon national assembly elections, after five phases of voting spread out over the past month, have finally been completed. And, as usual, the Indian electorate has surprised the experts, pundits, and commentators once again. The common knowledge was that this was anyone’s election – the Congress-led UPA coalition, the Bharatiya Janata Party’s NDA coalition, and even the Third Front, a motley collection of communist and regional parties, all had a chance to win. There was a feeling that the UPA held the edge, but no one expected a clear winner.

After the votes were tallied on March 16, the UPA did emerge victorious. And by much more than anyone had thought. To form a government in India, a party or coalition must win 272 seats to claim a majority in the Lok Sabha, the lower house of Parliament. The Congress won 206 seats on its own, and its five pre-poll allies won an additional 52 seats, putting the UPA within reach of 272, needing to pick up only a few more independent and smaller party representatives. To American ears, this may sound like less than a mandate. However, in most national elections, only about half of Indian voters vote for the two parties with a national presence – the Congress and the BJP. The last time any single Indian party won over 200 seats was in 1991. And the most optimistic Congress members predicted 180 seats at the most. The BJP finished a distant second, claiming 116 seats, and no other party gained more than 23 seats. The last UPA government didn’t even have 272 members and had to rely on support “from the outside” from India’s communist parties – known as the Left. When the Left withdrew its support over the Indo-US nuclear deal, the Congress was forced to enlist the support of an on-again off-again ally, the Samajwadi Party, who also supported the UPA from the outside. So the fact that the Congress was able to nearly cross 272 with its rather small pre-poll alliance was definitely a surprise. It also means that it will not need to coddle temperamental allies while governing.

So, why the outpouring of support for the UPA? There are a number of early theories. Many commentators have asserted that voters chose the harmony and stability of another five years of UPA rule. Electing the NDA or the Third Front would certainly have brought policy changes and more unpredictable relations with other countries. Yet a mere desire for stability does not convincingly explain the results in my mind. Indian voters are notorious for kicking incumbents out of office. Indeed, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is the first PM to be reelected since India’s first PM, Jawaharlal Nehru, nearly 50 years ago.

Other commentators give more positive reasons for the UPA’s success. Many credit Dr. Singh’s honest, able, deliberate, and understated style of governing as an asset that appealed to voters in a time of regional instability and rapid economic change within India. This seems plausible, especially since the NDA decided to attack Singh as a weak PM beholden to the Nehru-Gandhi family dynasty, while projecting their PM candidate, LK Advani as stronger and better able to respond to the threats India faces. This macho saber-rattling may have worried voters who perhaps appreciated Dr. Singh’s thoughtfulness and restraint in response to events like the terrorist attacks in Mumbai last November.

Others give credit to the political blossoming of handsome, young Nehru-Gandhi heir Rahul Gandhi, who was a tireless campaigner and who spearheaded Congress’ campaign strategy in India’s largest state, Uttar Pradesh (UP), where the Congress recorded its best showing in two decades. Rahul worked hard for the Congress campaign and began to show some political savvy while presenting a fresh, young face to voters – in contrast to the elderly leadership in other political parties. Given the Indian media’s obsession with glamour, celebrity, and the Nehru-Gandhi family, Rahul’s influence may be overblown, but it does seem to have made a positive difference in the way voters – especially young ones – view the Congress. And his bold political strategy in UP was indeed a success.

The last major reason for the UPA’s success was voter support for its unprecedented and substantial welfare policies that poured billions of rupees into programs to improve rural development, agriculture, health, and education. The NDA’s 2004 campaign slogan – “India Shining” – backfired on them spectacularly when voters reminded them that most Indians had not joined the hallowed ranks of the middle class. It appears the UPA learned from the NDA’s mistake. India is changing fast, but not everyone has gained from the country’s new found prosperity. The UPA’s programs targeted the country’s poorest and most disadvantaged, aiming to improve lives, the country, and their election chances. And it worked.

In my previous article about the Indian elections, I stressed the importance of coalitions. With the Congress’ spectacular showing, coalition politics will be less significant than in the past. This hardly marks the end of coalition politics, however. The Congress was fortunate that its coalition partners did very well, particularly in West Bengal and Tamil Nadu. It also seems significant that most of the UPA’s support came in states that were also fielding Third Front parties. Perhaps the voters’ rejection of this anarchic hodge-podge brought voters to the UPA in greater numbers. In others, it is entirely possible that Congress benefited from voters’ rejection of a new, untested coalition.

Confused? Well, that’s how it goes with Indian elections. The question is: What will happen now? With the Congress’ strong showing, there are now high expectations for significant improvements in India’s governance and policies, some of them wildly unrealistic. Will the UPA be able to deliver? Does their win herald a new direction for Indian politics? Don’t expect dramatic changes, though the UPA may now act more boldly in pursuing certain favored policies. For example, there is frequent speculation that without needing to rely on support from the Left, the UPA will accelerate India’s economic liberalization (even though some are making the argument that India’s protected markets and regulated banks have saved it from the worst of global economic implosion). The neighborhood is also changing quickly. Worries about Pakistan’s stability have risen dramatically. The Obama administration is scaling up the war in Afghanistan. Rebuilding society after a long civil war in Sri Lanka presents a new challenge. These changes may compel the UPA to make some new foreign policy choices.

However, barring a political catastrophe, the UPA’s reelection will provide 10 years of relative political stability at the national level. At this point in time, when India is being touted as an emerging global superpower, this stability should only help legitimize its global ambitions, particularly in the able hands of Manmohan Singh. Despite the UPA’s shortcomings, their reelection gives India the political opportunity to take the next steps toward being a global leader.

This is the second of two articles about this year’s Indian national elections and the second in a series of pieces about major elections in Asia this year.

Sri Lanka: Winning the War, But What About the Peace?

A dozen years ago, while in India, I became intrigued by the civil war raging in Sri Lanka. Encouraged by my Sri Lankan meditation teacher and an Australian Buddhist monk who had resided for years in Sri Lanka, I planned a research trip to the small tropical island nation. With a book full of good contacts and a head full of warnings about being careful what I ask, how I ask it, and who I ask it of, I eagerly prepared for my trip. But just two weeks before my departure, Tamil rebels detonated a series of bombs in the Sri Lankan capital, and I was advised to cancel my trip. I wavered, but the monk’s argument won me over. Who wanted to be worried about being killed every time they got on a bus or went to the market or left their hotel room? Reluctantly, I canceled the trip, but over the years continued to follow developments there.

This week, the Sri Lankan military has finally defeated the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) after over 30 years of armed conflict, killing the LTTE’s leader Vellupillai Prabhakaran and wiping out most of the LTTE leadership. In the early 1980s the LTTE emerged as the strongest and most ruthless of the Tamil separatist groups, upset with the discrimination and violence directed against the island’s Tamil-speaking Hindu minority by the Sinhala-speaking Buddhist majority. Sri Lanka’s Buddhist clergy rabidly supported the war despite its high cost, heavy civilian casualties, and questionable effectiveness. The LTTE (and other armed and unarmed Tamil groups), fighting for a Tamil homeland in the north and east of Sri Lanka, was supported from abroad and from the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu despite being labeled a terrorist organization by the US and other nations. For decades the conflict dragged on without an end in sight, and was presumed to be unwinnable by either side. Up to 100,000 people died. But in the last few years, Sri Lanka’s government launched an all-out assault on the LTTE, and the LTTE was split by infighting. The Sri Lankan military’s final push in the last few weeks precipitated a humanitarian crisis in which hundreds of thousands of terrified Tamil civilians were caught in the crossfire between the Sri Lankan military and the LTTE, and 7,000 were killed. But Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa won his war.

Now that the Sri Lankan military has emerged victorious, it remains to be seen how well the government secures the peace. The struggle for a Tamil homeland has perhaps been dealt a final blow and Sri Lankans are undoubtedly weary of war. But if, in the wake of the war, the Sri Lankan government treats Tamils as conquered subjects and fails to address the conflict’s root causes, resistance may again grow. This week’s national holiday celebrating the government’s victory over the LTTE must have seemed like insensitive gloating to many of the country’s Tamils, and it makes one wonder if the Sri Lankan government truly grasps what needs to happen next.

The challenge facing the Sri Lankan government is complex and substantial – to heal the wounds inflicted over the past three decades of war, to substantively address Tamil grievances against the Sri Lankan government, and to build a new inclusive Sri Lankan state and society. Can a government that has been on a war footing for so long accomplish these delicate tasks? Can a government that has for so long demonized, distrusted, and assaulted nearly three million of its own people move towards a just and peaceful future? I fear that it will not. Without doing this, the island’s Tamils will continue to flee Sri Lanka and those left will become increasingly marginalized. This may or may not result in renewed violence on the part of Tamils against the Sri Lankan state. Either way, the future for the country’s Tamil population looks bleak unless the Sri Lankan government is pushed to rebuild their war-torn country in a manner that includes those who once rejected its legitimacy.

Next Page »