San Francisco Gets an Antiwar Congresswoman

The recent 226-202 House of Representatives approval of the supplemental budget was a particular disappointment to antiwar activists.  At one point they’d thought it might be possible to block the bill and its $79.9 billion Department of Defense appropriation earmarked largely for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, – at least temporarily.   Nonetheless, San Francisco antiwar voters might take some consolation in one thing anyhow – it appears that the city now has an antiwar Congresswoman.  And no, it’s not House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, but Jackie Speier, elected just last year to represent the less liberal western part of the city and several towns on the Peninsula to the south.

Not only was Speier one of but sixty votes (fifty-one of them Democrat) against the budget in its first trip through the House, but she also made a second, tougher vote against it.  When House Republicans took umbrage at the addition of a $5 billion International Monetary Fund loan guarantee, they announced they would switch sides and vote against the bill upon its return from the Senate, raising the possibility of its defeat should the antiwar Democrat votes hold firm.

Predictably, they did not.  This time even Pelosi herself – who did not vote the first time as is common practice for a Speaker – was recorded in favor, presumably to demonstrate how much the House leadership really wanted the votes.  And yet, despite a San Francisco Chronicle report that “the White House has threatened to pull support from Democratic freshmen who vote no,” Speier did just that, one of only six freshmen – among thirty-two total Democrats – to do so.  Arguably, Speier was doing nothing but what San Francisco voters had directed her to do last November when 59 percent of them supported Proposition U which stated that the city’s Congressional representatives “should vote against any further funding for the deployment of United States Armed Forces in Iraq.”

But realistically speaking, although the ballot question’s only exception concerned “funds specifically earmarked to provide for their [American troops in Iraq] safe and orderly withdrawal” and did not exempt funding requests from Democratic Presidents, the fact that George Bush had negotiated a troop withdrawal agreement before leaving office seems to have made most House Democrats feel they have a pass to fund that war right through 2011. And certainly Pelosi has never given any indication of paying the proposition any heed despite the fact that 61 percent of her district backed it.

On the contrary, she’s made it clear that she views it as a Democratic Speaker’s duty to ensure the funding of what a Democratic President has now taken on as his wars.  Her spokesman, Brendan Daly, told the Chronicle that Pelosi was telling members “we need to do this, this is President Obama’s plan for both Iraq and Afghanistan. He’s got a plan to end the war in Iraq.  He’s got a plan to refocus our efforts in Afghanistan, and we need to support the president in that, and this is the right way to go.”

And yet when Representative Jim McGovern (D-MA) proposed adding language calling for the Secretary of Defense to “submit to Congress a report outlining the United States exit strategy for United States military forces in Afghanistan” by December 31, 2009, it was no dice.  Pelosi’s view is apparently that the President shall give us his plan in his own good time. (McGovern has since filed his amendment as a free-standing bill with 84 co-sponsors.)

Her San Francisco colleague Speier, on the other hand, said she had “serious problems with the current wars” and didn’t believe that “escalating the conflicts make America or the world safer.”  Speier’s viewpoint is particularly welcome in that it differs so markedly from that of her predecessor, the late Tom Lantos, who voted for the first House resolution for the Iraq War (which Pelosi did not.)

Moreover, in her ascent to her new position, Speier had betrayed no particular maverick tendencies.  She gained it not through any kind of insurgent antiwar campaign but more of a vetting process of the area’s political establishment.  A former state legislator forced to leave office due to term limits, she had failed in a prior bid for the Democratic nomination for Lieutenant Governor. But when she announced her interest in the Lantos seat, it soon became clear that she would have the endorsements deemed to matter – and presumably the attendant campaign financing.  At this point, other potential candidates backed off and the insider consensus choice was presented to the voters for their ratification.  Speier then won 90 percent of the Democratic vote in a special primary after a campaign that seemed to involve less of telling people what she stood for than reminding them that they already knew her – and that her ultimate victory was inevitable.

So, at a point when the country’s antiwar movements are largely stalled, Bay Area antiwar voters can at least cheer the pleasant surprise of having a new Congresswoman willing to buck both the White House and the House leadership.

Let’s Talk About Sonia Sotomayor Like Grown-Ups

During his confirmation hearing in 2005, John Roberts likened the job of a Supreme Court justice to that of a baseball umpire:

Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.

As I wrote a few weeks ago, if there’s anything the media love when reporting on the law, it’s simplicity, either because they don’t understand or don’t have the column-inches for thorough understanding. The umpire analogy was well-received by the mainstream media: “We’re Americans, we understand baseball, but we don’t understand the federal judiciary. Judges make rulings; umpires make rulings. Therefore, umpires are like baseball judges, right?”

Not so much. The baseball analogy fails because appellate court judges, and Supreme Court justices in particular, can re-write the rules of the game, provided they believe those rules to be wrong in the first place. Umpires are not at liberty to “interpret” anything; theirs are facile rulings. They may rule that a particular pitch was a strike, but they may never re-define what constitutes a “strike.” If we really must reason by analogy (which we shouldn’t), then umpires are most like trial court judges. They deal with the object of the law, whereas appellate court judges deal with the law itself. This is why appeals of a trial court ruling do not bring with them any new evidence or new substantive hearings; as far as the appellate court is concerned, the issue of what happened has been settled, but the issue of how the law applies to what happened has not. By the way, this is basic stuff that everyone should know. It’s important to know, since it defines how our judicial system works.

Courts hear a few different kinds of cases. They hear criminal cases, in which someone has violated a law and the plaintiff to the suit is the executive branch of the government, which is charged with enforcing the law. They hear civil cases, in which two parties have a dispute and request the mediation of a neutral decision-maker. Sometimes, in a civil case, the law itself is the subject under discussion, as in, “I think this law violates the Constitution,” or, “I think that thing you did is unconstitutional.” The Constitution is sacrosanct; no law may conflict with it, and when there is a conflict, the Constitution must always win. For this reason, we have tried to imbue the Constitution with what we believe to be the best principles of good governance. When those principles are in the Constitution, then we may say that we are not adjudicating based on just a document, but we are adjudicating against our values, since the ideal Constitution would be synonymous with our values.

The vast majority of judges are really smart people, and Supreme Court justices are the best of the best. I mean that even for the justices I don’t care for, like Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas. (This is probably why the nation was outraged when President Bush selected Harriet Miers, a true intellectual lightweight, to occupy the nation’s highest bench. It was painfully, painfully obvious that she was nowhere close to qualified to occupy the position. Even conservative commentator George Will said that she was not among the 10,000 most qualified people in the country.) Judges are learned people who make thought-out, reasoned arguments. What it boils down to is whose arguments are most convincing. Ideally, the arguments that best address the law should be most convincing. But law isn’t the only thing that goes into legal opinions, as we shall discover.

For one thing, the law can be vague. When is a government activity a “public benefit” and when is it “general welfare”? The Supreme Court disagreed over these definitions in Kelo v. New London. The court decided (wrongly, in my opinion) that the unsecured promise of future economic revitalization was “public benefit” enough to allow the city of New London, Connecticut to turn over private property for development to Pfizer. The Supreme Court has spent many years deciding what is “necessary and proper” and when an action interferes with “interstate commerce.”

In his book The Invisible Constitution, law professor Laurence Tribe argues that the Constitution is just as much composed of unwritten rules as written ones (kind of like how the universe is composed of both matter we can see and “dark matter.” Hey, analogies are fun!). Roe v. Wade was decided based on legal principles that weren’t necessarily written down, but that must be inferred to exist based on the tone of the rest of the Constitution. Add up amendments 1, 4, 10, and 14, and you get a right to privacy that, while not explicit, is clearly lurking beneath the surface. Appellate courts tend to examine intent more than trial courts, and rightly so, since their rulings will have effects that reach much further than the individual case. (More on that later.)

Were you aware? The Constitution contains no explicit language permitting federal appellate courts to decide the constitutionality of statutes, but Chief Justice John Marshall, in Marbury v. Madison, suggested that judicial review was a necessity for proper enforcement of those things that were written down in the Constitution. No one would argue that, because there is no explicit permission granted to the judiciary to engage in judicial review, the courts should not engage in the practice. If someone did argue that, then the next question would be, “So who will tell us what is constitutional or not?” Chief Justice Marshall had the answer already prepared: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.” This rule has served us well for over 206 years.

Where is this going? Sonia Sotomayor has been criticized for suggesting that judges “make law.” Here is a transcript of the relevant portion of her comments, in context this time:

All of the legal defense funds out there, um, they’re looking for people with court of appeals experience, because it is– court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know this is on tape and I should never say that, because we don’t “make law,” I know. I know. I’m not promoting it and I’m not advocating it, I’m– you know. Having said that, the court of appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. It’s interpretation, it’s application, and Judge Ocero’s right. I often explain to people, when you’re on the district court, you’re looking to do justice in the individual case, so you are looking much more to the facts of the case than you are to the application of the law, because the application of the law is not precedential. So the facts control. On the court of appeals, you’re looking to how the law is developing so that it will be applied to a broad class of cases.

Appellate courts exist because the other branches of government (including the judiciary) make mistakes. No one would suggest (hopefully) that the legislation that comes out of Congress is perfect. Judges are there to correct errors; this is called “relief.” Sometimes, the relief comes in the form of an outright overruling of legislation that Congress has passed. Other times, the court doesn’t, as in the case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear. While the Supreme Court certainly did not endorse pay discrimination, the majority ruled that the Supreme Court did not have the power to grant Ledbetter the relief she sought due to the language of the legislation. Appropriate relief, they said, would be for Congress to amend the law, which it did earlier this year. This is an example of the government working correctly, as much as some people believe that the court should have immediately overturned the legislation.

Judges do not make law, but they do make policy, which Sotomayor also said. Sometimes they have to, because Congress has made incorrect policy, for whatever reason. But anyone who suggests that judges do not sometimes engage in policymaking is being either ignorant or disingenuous. Each branch of government makes policy using the tools at its disposal. Note the use of the word “policy” and not “legislation”; “policy” is a much broader term that encompasses the many kinds of enforceable legal principles that exist in government. Every branch makes “policy,” whether through executive orders, statutes, judicial opinions, public referenda, and constitutional amendments. Not all policy is of the strictly legislative variety.

Sotomayor has also been criticized for suggesting that Latinas make better judicial decisions than white men. The New York Times recently published a transcript of the 2001 Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture at Berkeley Law School, during which the comments were made. Her lecture was, among other things, about the lack of diversity in the federal court system, and how that impacts judicial opinions. “Diversity” is important, she said, because “in any group of human beings there is a diversity of opinion because there is both a diversity of experiences and of thought.” But why is that diversity of opinion important? It goes back to the wiggle room that all judges have when interpreting the law and potentially making policy. That wiggle room allows for a range of options, all of which are perfectly legal and perfectly defensible. Judges’ backgrounds and experiences influence where they fall within that range. They can, for example, lean toward the side of punishment, or they can lean toward the side of rehabilitation. Both fall within the range of legal possibilities, but judges with different experiences will necessarily have different opinions on which solution is most appropriate. (Or, to bring this outside the realm of race, let’s talk about technical savviness as another kind of diversity of opinion: a judge who understands technology might rule that a minor who “sexts” another minor should not be prosecuted as a sex offender.)

Even Justice Clarence Thomas, who is among the most conservative of the Supreme Court justices, may have brought his experience as a black person to bear on the issue of whether or not cross-burning was protected by the First Amendment. In 2002, Justice Thomas took a break from being famously quiet during oral arguments to declare, “This was a reign of terror, and the [burning] cross was a symbol of that reign of terror. [...] It is unlike any symbol in our society. [...] There was no other purpose to the [burning] cross. There was no communication of a particular message. It was intended to cause fear and to terrorize a population.” Was this an example of someone’s experience informing his interpretation of the law? Potentially. (By the way, in the case, Virginia v. Black, the Supreme Court ruled that a Virginia statute prohibiting cross-burning was unconstitutional. Justice Thomas dissented, writing, “A conclusion that the statute prohibiting cross burning with intent to intimidate sweeps beyond a prohibition on certain conduct into the zone of expression overlooks not only the words of the statute but also reality.”)

Here’s the money quote that some people are upset about:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

Sounds pretty bad, doesn’t it? After that, she says:

I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. [...] However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

Unfortunately for the people who would like to attack her comments, Sotomayor was not talking about all cases, but rather sex and racial discrimination cases specifically, suggesting that a woman who has had to experience sex discrimination herself is more capable of understanding the reality of sex discrimination than a man who has never experienced it, or studied it only in the abstract. I refer to the Justice Thomas paragraph above.

So no, Sonia Sotomayor is not a racist. And no, she will not legislate from the bench. These two arguments are ridiculous, and it’s shameful that people (like me!) should have to spend so much time refuting them. But as her confirmation hearing looms, the arguments will appear again. It’s important to keep in mind the qualities that make a good Supreme Court justice. Should a justice follow the legal model of applying the law based on pure legal reasoning? Should a justice follow the attitudinal model of using his attitude and values to decide a case? Lawrence Wrightsman, in The Psychology of the Supreme Court, suggests that both must be melded into a human model of what it means to be a justice, since “[t]he legal model bleaches the decision-making process of its colorful human ingredients; it can be portrayed as an ultralogical, if not mechanical, analysis of applications of relevant statutes and decisions.” The attitudinal model, “taken to its extreme, fails to recognize the constraints upon the judge as a professional person.” Melding the two approaches creates a justice who applies the law using reason and logic, but also understands that her opinions will have real consequences for real people.

Judge Sotomayor is definitely a human judge. But then again, all judges are human. While we all acknowledge that judges must use reason to decide their cases, we are loathe admit that, as humans, they have biases that also influence those decisions. Even Justice Scalia, champion of “originalism,” has biases. At least Judge Sotomayor is up front about those biases. And in being up front about those biases, she can be held accountable to them. In her 2001 speech, she said, “I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”

Her opinions are sound (if a little conservative, actually), her experience unquestionable. Her judicial philosophy is, actually, no different from that of other justices, judges, lawyers, and professors around the country and the world. There’s no reason why she shouldn’t succeed Justice Souter and do an excellent job.

Reactions to China’s Tiananmen Blackout: Can’t Live With Them, Can’t Live Without Them

This June fourth marked the twentieth anniversary of pro-democracy protests in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square. These protests were violently put down by China’s government, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of (usually nonviolent) protesters and iconic photos and videos showcasing the inhumanity and intolerance of Chinese communism in the midst of the Cold War. The so-called Free World howled with outrage about China’s brutal violation of its citizens’ human rights.

While the Cold War has ended and China has become a capitalist powerhouse, China’s government has retained its iron grip. Strikingly, any acknowledgment of this week’s historic anniversary was blotted out in China (with, for legal reasons, the exception of Hong Kong where over 100,000 people gathered to mark the occasion). Any news of the event – via television, internet, radio, press, even Twitter! – was blacked out and any demonstrations commemorating the event and its victims were forbidden. And this has not been the beginning of Tiananmen Square’s erasure from public memory. Many of China’s under-20 generation know nothing about what happened there in 1989, and students do not learn anything about the incident in their classes.

Many in China and the outside world remember, however. And although world leaders and citizens spoke out this week to condemn the 1989 crackdown as well as China’s silencing recognition of the event, these words were uttered in a different context, in a different world. China and the world are so different from 1989 that these words, coming from the mouths leaders who have become increasingly friendly with China, ring somewhat hollow. For example, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested that China “should examine openly the darker events of its past and provide a public accounting of those killed, detained or missing, both to learn and to heal.” To which Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang responded, “We urge the U.S. to put aside its political prejudice and correct its wrongdoing and refrain from disrupting or undermining bilateral relations.” It is hard to see Clinton’s statement as anything besides political rhetoric. This is the same Secretary of State who visited China just this spring and refused to discuss “marginal issues” like human rights in favor of issues like the economic crisis and environmental concerns.

I’m sure that Clinton, Obama, and other outspoken world leaders and heads of state are uncomfortable with China’s lackluster human rights record. Who isn’t? But now China doesn’t fit quite so easily into the box that it used to. It was easy to condemn its human rights shortcomings and to demonize China as a godless commie dictatorship when it didn’t supply most of the cheap consumer products that we are so addicted to in the US. Or when it didn’t finance much of our ballooning national debt. It is still easy to condemn Burma’s similar 1988 and 2007 pro-democracy crackdowns because Burma still remains politically and economically insignificant on the global stage. China now occupies center stage.

These days, words condemning China are generally just that – words. Discomfort with China’s disregard for democratic values and basic human rights will not stop our businesses – or US consumers – from buying cheap goods from China. It will not stop businesses from moving factories there. Nor will it stop the US government from stepping up diplomatic and economic engagement with China, an important rising global superpower. Barring a shockingly egregious misstep on the part of China’s political leadership, relatively small issues like the Tiananmen Square blackout and even bigger concerns such as Chinese policies regarding Tibet, the rest of the world will be eager to be a part of China’s stunning rise.

Really, China is a new manifestation of an old dilemma for US foreign policy. We (and here I use “we” to stand in for the US government) claim to stand for democracy, freedom, liberty, human rights, the right to free speech, freedom of religion, etc., etc. And sometimes we do, but often we don’t. We support a Saudi monarchy/dictatorship because they ensure our access to oil. We supported the mujahaddin in Soviet-era Afghanistan because it was anti-Soviet. Then we supported a military dictatorship in Pakistan because it was anti-mujahaddin (kind of). We supported South Africa’s apartheid government for years. We armed, trained, and funded death squads and dictatorships throughout Central and South America during the 1980s and beyond (and before too). This list goes on.

China is just the latest challenge to applying lofty American ideals to the nitty-gritty of national foreign policy and bilateral relations. Perhaps one day, China’s government will give in (willingly or unwillingly) to global and domestic concerns about human rights and political freedom in China. It doesn’t look likely to happen soon however. And neither the US nor other countries have the political will to really stand up to China on such issues. In fact, conflicts with China over such issues could very well undermine the material benefits we enjoy thanks to our growing relationship with China. And, in all honesty, the compromises that the US and China are compelled to make to maintain a working, if imperfect, relationship are certainly better than another Cold War. Diplomacy and relationship building are always more complex, muddled, and morally ambiguous than outright hostility.

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.

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.)

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.

Pakistan: Caught in the Crossfire, Part 1

“Yes, Pakistan may be a failed state. So what?” said Naveed.  “I don’t care if my country is a failed state or not, but I do care who is behind its failures. They’re the ones I blame for failing my country.”

It’s been more than a year since I last saw my friend, Naveed, a 26-year-old marketing and finance graduate who is now a lecturer at an Islamabad University. He went back to his country soon after completing his Masters degree in Business Administration. When leaving for home, his mood was an eerie mixture of optimism and caution. “I’m confident that things will finally change in my country,” he said before boarding the flight. I remember his confident words but can’t forget the empty smile on his face.  It seems to require more than confident words and smiles to live in a country where optimism and pessimism on any given day are as predictable as the flip of a coin.

Pakistan is  a country where failure is rewarded. We like to live in a state of denial.  We often believe that we have never been wrong or can be wrong.  In the process we make many excuses to justify our actions.

LAMENTABLE HISTORY

“Moign, to understand my ‘lecture,’ as you put it, you have to understand the history of the country,” Naveed said jokingly. It seemed that he was once again enjoying the argumentative chats that we used to have in our free time while living together in student accommodation. Nothing seems to have changed since then.

Pakistan has a long history of foreign interference before there was any lawlessness, unemployment, corruption, civil mismanagement, or army intervention in the country. Soon after its birth in 1947 as a result of blood-strewn partition carried out by the imperial British, the infant state had to pick a master that would act as a caretaker of the country’s policies and safeguard its interests. The choices at that time were the USSR and the USA. The country’s first Prime Minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, embraced the latter. And the results of this “embrace,”  as promised, were magical.

During the 1950s and 1960s, the new Pakistani master taught its new satellite state to be wary of two things — communism and grass-roots democracy. As a result, the rulers of Pakistan always kept these two “viruses” in check. Thousands of workers suspected of communist sympathies were put behind the bars and a general election was ruled out in favor of a “sustained democracy” that was “compatible with the country’s Islamic and social values.” Both of these decisions had a devastating effect on the country’s democratic identity and politico-economic activities.

Washington, the “torch-bearer of democracy” and “leader of the free world,” never raised an eyebrow when a military coup in 1958 overthrew the civilian administration in the then Pakistani capital city of Karachi. Instead, new accords of friendship and military partnership were signed that gave the Americans access to the Soviet’s backyard for the first time. The US military soon stationed U2 bombers in the country to keep an eye on Soviet activities in Central Asia.  (One of these U2’s launched from Pakistan would of course be shot down by USSR surface-to-air missiles over Soviet skies on May 1, 1960.)

“This was the first time we pleased our masters and had bit of a misadventure,” a bitter Naveed remarked.

OBSESSION OF THE SOCIETY

“Islam, it seems to me, is a blanket term that defines our ambitions and justifies each and every deed performed in our political and social life. From politicians to common man, everyone has his or her own idea of Islam and chart their plans accordingly.”

Pakistan was created in the name of Islam with the founding leaders promising no room for ethnic partisanship and discrimination. But that’s not what really happened. The country witnessed its first bout of instability in 1952 when Bengal was stripped of its national language status despite the fact that it was spoken by more than half of the country’s population. The imposition of Urdu as the sole national language was seen as an imperial move that triggered riots across the eastern half of the newborn geographically disjointed state. This was the first time when the seeds of ethnic divide were sown in the newly cultivated fields of Pakistan.

The Pakistani army fought the Indian army in 1965 when its misadventures (which included covert military operations in Indian controlled Kashmir) backfired in occupied Jammu & Kashmir. New Delhi [India] then invaded our country to teach us a lesson. For the first time we raised the flag of Jihad against an occupying power and the then (military) rulers drummed up massive support – all in the name of Islam.

Naveed added that this is the official textbook version of Pakistani history, and not necessarily his.

From this time on, we have never looked back on the idea of our army as the vanguard of Islam, and we, as a nation, as the righteous people.

HEADS & TAILS

The situation got more interesting in 1970 after the first ever free and fair general elections for a parliament were held in both wings of Pakistan–East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and West Pakistan (now Pakistan).

The Bengali separatist movement in 1971 complained that the majority Bengali ethnic group was being sidelined by the minority Punjabis that dominated the civil service and the military. They also accused West Pakistan of usurping the resources of East Pakistan and exploiting them. Statistically, they weren’t wrong as exporting jute produced in East Pakistan generated most of Pakistan’s revenues, while East Pakistanis suffered under grinding poverty.

“I think that was the first time we said: ‘Heads or tails, both flips of the coin are ours, hence we win the toss,” Naveed said while referring to an Urdu proverb that has a similar connotation.

A military operation was waged against Awami League, the party that was demanding more autonomy for the Bengali-dominated East Pakistan and a fair distribution of resources between both entities of  the Pakistani federation. Though winning a clear majority in 1970 elections, Awami League’s leader, Sheikh Mujib-ur-Rehman, was denied the transfer of power and was instead arrested and tried for treason.

Disgruntled East Pakistanis took up arms against the powerful Punjabi-dominated Pakistani Army. A bloody civil war broke out in the eastern wing of Pakistan that saw the army, along with its pro-Islamic paramilitary groups, attempting to crush the separatist movement. Bengali separatists, thanks to the active support from India, soon weakened the grip of the Pakistani army in the eastern territory. The nine month long bloody movement witnessed countless massacres of innocent people and wanton destruction of property and infrastructure. The people’s power superseded the military’s might, and the Pakistani army surrendered to Bengali insurgents and their principal backers – the Indian army.

This is how we learnt the lesson. Or shall I say, this is how we are taught at school. We are told: This all happened due to some miscreants that created mistrust between us (Pakistanis) and Bengalis (Bangladeshis). India wanted to extract revenge and dismember us. But thanks to our valiant Islamic army we did not let that happen. We succeeded in keeping our western flank intact while giving our Bengali brothers the right to freedom.

Naveed’s tone while quoting his history textbook didn’t seem convincing to me, but I let him continue rather than dispute the textbook version.

HAPPY MASTER

Pakistan’s chief ally, the United States of America, of course did not practically intervene in the conflict. However, Islamabad enjoyed its tacit approval throughout the conflict. The USS Enterprise was dispatched to the Bay of Bengal in 1971 to boost the morale of its ally in the region. The hue and cry raised by human rights groups over genocides committed by the Pakistani army were ignored, and a steady supply of military hardware and ammunition flowed from the US.

The public was in shock when they found that the Pakistani army has surrendered to the Indian army and the Bengali separatists. No one could believe their eyes. Their army, strengthened by the spirit of Jihad, was defeated by the Indian army and their “mercenaries.” At least this is what was fed to them during the 1971 conflict.

Naveed insisted that people for the first time became wary of the Pakistani army’s alliance with the US army and lost their faith in the military as an institution.

“The surrender of 94,000 Pakistani military and paramilitary personnel was not a joke,” he added while referring to the fall of Dhaka on December 16, 1971. “All the architects of this humiliation got away with their crimes and were never brought to justice. The public felt betrayed by their own guardians,” he said while referring to the fact that though a formal inquiry of the war was conducted, the main players of the debacle were never punished.

HOLY ALLIANCE

After a brief interval of civilian rule from 1972 to 1977, a military regime returned from the barracks to instigate a coup d’état. Under an alleged agreement with the US, Pakistani military chief General Zia-ul-Haq overthrew Pakistan’s first democratically elected civilian leader, Zulfiqar Bhutto. Bhutto was later hanged to death on charges of treason and murder.

While other murder cases drag on for years and years, Mr. Bhutto was executed within five months. Lawlessness, vigilantism, police heavy handedness, extra-judicial murders, and many other problems stem from the dilapidated justice system of Pakistan.

Afghanistan was invaded by the USSR in December 1979, soon after General Zia took the reigns of the government. The Soviet invasion not only rang bells in Islamabad, but it also stirred unease in Washington, DC. With the Vietnam War’s humiliation in mind, the Americans seized on the opportunity to drag the Soviets into a long, bloody war that would deplete their power and leave them economically and militarily drained and exhausted.

Bureaucrats under the command of the then US Secretary of State Zbigniew Brzezinski initiated a plan that started the training of Afghan insurgents by the CIA months before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan itself.

The US struck a holy alliance with the anti-Soviet insurgents who called themselves “mujahideen” – the ones waging Jihad in the name of God – to bleed the USSR army to death in Afghanistan and seek revenge for role in the Vietnam defeat. To me this was the height of hypocrisy demonstrated by both sides. While the capitalist Americans and Islamists in the Middle East and South Asia seldom saw eye to eye on any issue and often regarded one another as adversaries, they struck an alliance against communism. What a historic alliance it was!”

ARMY, INC.

While the world’s attention was set on the war in Afghanistan, General Zia-ul-Haq’s autocratic regime throttled the voices of reform and democracy in the country at the behest of his “Islamic agenda.”  During his 11 years in power, the country never had free and fair democratic elections and the army, in connivance with the so-called Islamist forces, ruled with an iron fist. At this time, all important civil institutions like the judiciary, election commission, press, bureaucracy, and foreign service came under direct military control, and the army’s role in the country’s day-to-day affairs changed from an institution to a corporation.

The army initiated schemes for banking, insurance, heavy industries, housing, aviation, education, security firms, farms, and food production and soon became the country’s biggest enterprise. This in turn weakened private businesses, which  stood no chance of competing with the military backed businesses due to their growing political and economic clout. Civil institutions also suffered a direct blow and languished due to deliberate neglect and apathy, partly due to political strife in the country.

General Zia-ul-Haq died in a mysterious plane crash along with many of his top generals and the US Ambassador on August 17, 1988. The country then returned to civilian rule after 11 years of military in power, but little changed on the ground. The army, instead of returning to the barracks, realigned itself and started interfering in politics by supporting its favorite candidates.

Naveed agrees with the view that Pakistan’s problems are not the result of a few years of mismanagement and chaos. “The crises have been brewing since the military eclipsed the civilian institutions and democracy was wound up in favor of a martial law in 1958,” the young Pakistani graduate said lamenting the fact that army’s role was only strengthened by the Americans. “We have never seen them (Americans) flaying military intervention in our politics. This is a mockery of democracy by any standards.”

“So what are the reasons behind the insurgency in the tribal regions of Pakistan including the latest bloodshed in Swat valley? What went so wrong that led the country to the brink of failure and to be labeled as a failed state?” I asked Naveed impromptu. Naveed, totally baffled by the complex nature of my questions, took me out for a walk. “Is it OK if I answer your questions in the open air? I need to breathe some fresh air,” he asked. I nodded and made a quick exit with him.

Why is the insurgency raging in many parts of Pakistan? Born in the tribal areas, whom will he blame for the deaths of innocent lives and suffering of millions of people? I kept on walking in the chilly evening wondering what he was going to say about the ground realities.

I will explore the answer to this and more in Part 2 of this two part series.

Indian Elections – A Multiparty Masala

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

The largest democracy on Earth is presently in the middle of national elections. In India, three out of five phases of voting have been completed, and in only two weeks the final results will be known. Indian elections are always rambunctious. The democratic process itself is chaotic, accommodating dozens of political parties, thousands of candidates, and around 700 million voters who live in the world’s biggest cities and most remote villages, speak dozens of languages, and represent thousands of castes across a shockingly wide socioeconomic spectrum. Corruption, violence, and outlandish campaigning are a part of elections in any given year. Newspapers and news channels flood the cities and countryside with relentless election news and gossip while politicians crisscross the country in frenetic campaigning that can draw crowds of hundreds of thousands of people. The frequent involvement of cricket and film stars lends an air of celebrity and glamour to the proceedings. Hindi-speakers frequently use the word tamasha to describe elections and politics – a word meaning a “spectacle” and “amusement.” It also connotes rowdiness and a sense of being outside of normal life.

This year’s national elections are no different. But last November’s terrorist attacks in Mumbai have raised concerns about serious violence interfering with the elections. Indeed, after a right-wing Hindu nationalist candidate made inflammatory anti-Muslim remarks in public speeches, a Muslim mafia don allegedly threatened to kill him. But, this is really just par for the course. So far, the press has said little about (presumably Pakistani-based) Muslim militants planning any attacks during the elections. The larger threat – during the first two phases of polling at least – were Maoist guerrillas known as Naxalites, active in many of India’s poorest rural regions, who called for an election boycott and carried out murderous attacks on police forces, detonated bombs, and hijacked a train, leading to the deaths of over two dozen people.

With that said, the chance that India’s elections will be derailed by any violent organization or event is exceedingly small. Barring an unprecedented attack in India, this year’s National Assembly (Lok Sabha) elections will be completed relatively smoothly and on time. With the counting of votes on May 16, the election will come to a climax, and it is difficult at this point for anyone to imagine what is likely to happen. By all accounts, this election is a toss up, and the Election Commission’s ruling that exit polls and post-poll surveys be banned have made it even more difficult to predict what may happen. Complex coalition politics, which have dominated national politics in India since the 1990s, makes this election more unpredictable than the typical close US election, and this year’s addition of a third and an even smaller fourth coalition of regional parties makes these 2009 elections more jumbled than the last national elections five years ago. The stunning emergence of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) since 2004 has also complicated matters.

Consider: The ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA), led by the secular, centrist Congress Party, is currently a coalition of 16 parties. The UPA has ruled since 2004 and can claim a rather ho-hum record that is neither impressive nor a failure. The alliance that ruled from 1999-2004, and which has sat in opposition since, is the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), led by the right-wing Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which has recently been beset by serious infighting and an unclear message for voters. It now contains 10 parties. Until now, these two alliances were the only ones to wield enough power to gain control at the center. The Congress and the BJP have been the largest parties since the 1990s, but their support has gradually been chipped away by communist, regional, and caste-based parties. Until recently, these smaller parties had no choice but to ally themselves with the Congress or the BJP if they wanted to play a part in national politics. However, this year a Third Front has emerged, gambling that a coalition of such parties can perhaps capture as many seats as the UPA and the NDA. This would enable these parties to take power without bowing down to the two parties that have dominated national politics for the past two decades.

With this development, parties are jockeying for power and weighing their options before and after the elections. While some parties have committed to one alliance or another, other parties are waiting until after the votes are counted to pick a side. And whichever alliance is asked to form a government will, with some serious political wrangling, likely attract new parties to its side – whether they have committed to another or not.

In this day and age, this is how elections in India are won and lost. The mathematics and the political sticks and carrots necessary for building a winning coalition have all but drowned out issues, personalities, and ideologies. For evidence of this, just follow the Indian news. The vast majority of election coverage is currently speculation about likely alliances or defections, not about issues. Of course, certain events and issues may shape an election, but they must be extraordinary. Though this is a national election, voters are choosing local candidates (in India’s parliamentary democracy, the party or coalition with the most candidates elected forms the central government). And these local candidates must address local issues – issues which often don’t change a great deal in much of India. Who can ensure electricity, drinkable water, better roads, better health care facilities, and better schools? And with such a plethora of political parties catering to specific caste and religious sensibilities, many voters will simply vote their caste or religious identity. For this reason, I doubt that, aside from Mumbai and maybe other large Indian cities, the issue of terrorism will be important. Nor will the global economic crisis. What will be most important in these elections are the alliances that are negotiated. For now, those alliances have yet to cohere. And there are enough wild cards in the deck that the final outcome is anyone’s guess.

Next Page »