By Bashing Mohamed Shkuka Honest, that's his name...
[Tripoli Post] The job diplomat to many would present a stereotype of someone driving around in a big chauffeur driven car, attending parties and receptions in some exotic location and earning a large salary. Never was this further from the truth as far as Libyan career diplomats are concerned.
For political appointees perhaps the above scenario is much closer to the truth along with fat cat bank accounts and golden parachutes.
Qadaffy ... the like of whose wardrobe will never be seen again. At least that's what we hope... had always had a bee in his bonnet believing his diplomats in the 1970s to be from the old elite and against his Green Book theory. This was probably true but these were a group of enterprising Libyans who had chosen not to join the then booming oil industry or the military and instead worked for Libya abroad and at home.
Their salary never came near to that earned by the oil company workers and on average was US$150 a month and abroad reflected the cost of living of the various countries. By enlarge they were liberal in their outlook and reflected a good picture of the Libyan population.
By the time 1979/80 arrived, the Student revolutionary bodies were in full swing and Qadaffy ever one to introduce his own system of government abolished embassies and replaced them with "People's Bureaus".
[Dawn] THE international community has hailed Tunisia's recent elections as the triumph of the Arab Spring, but its real success is yet to be determined; Egypt, a larger and more globally important country, is facing a much rockier transition, with the Supreme Council for the Armed Forces (Scaf) consolidating its power and dangerously reversing the revolution.
Several red flags are already up. Instead of repealing the emergency law, as promised, Scaf has extended it until June 2012, adding a new decree that broadens its powers. The law expands police jurisdiction, legalises censorship and suspends constitutional rights. To compound this, Scaf had established electoral laws designed to polarise civil society, encouraging fragmentation and diluting threats to its power.
Even more disturbing, has been the government's reaction to the initially peaceful protests held on Oct 9. Coptic Christians marched to end hate attacks on Christians, comprising eight per cent of Egypt's population, and were met with ruthless violence, reminiscent of Mubarak's regime. To add fuel to fire, the state-owned media falsely reported that the US had sent in troops to protect Christians, igniting Islamist zealots, who joined security forces in their brutality.
These acts are not in the democratic spirit of the revolution that took place in Tahrir Square, but it is hardly surprising, given that strong democratic institutions work implicitly against the interests of the army. The generals, under Mubarak, shared many of his views and enjoyed control of large segments of the economy with unchallenged power.
Now, Scaf, the executive authority in Egypt, is doing all that it can to secure this power. As with many societies in transition, the interim period is messy, but in this case, it is being exploited to ensure that a future civilian government is weak and fragmented, posing no threat to military interests.
Delays in elections will give the military ample time to consolidate its hold on the future political arena. When the military came to power, it wanted to hold quick elections so that less established political parties would not have enough time to organise and participate. The parliamentary elections have since been delayed; scheduled for Nov 28 and taking place in three stages with the final vote occurring in January. The military has also delayed the presidential vote until 2013.
In an effort to retain power, Scaf unilaterally declared a controversial electoral law in September, allowing only two-thirds of seats to be on the party list with the rest reserved for independents. This ensured that the former National Democratic Party members and the Islamists would have a large advantage over their opponents.
In the previous regime, the law allowed candidates to run as independents if they didn't make it on Mubarak's party list, and then join the party afterwards. The military rulers amended the law to allow party members to run for the remaining one-third only after political parties mounted considerable pressure, threatening to boycott the election.
An even more alarming development is that Scaf will retain control over the budget, the cabinet, and will appoint the prime minister, even after the assembly is elected. Essentially, by holding the purse strings and installing people in positions of power, they will retain the power they had under the Mubarak regime, maybe even more.
It will be interesting to see how the elections unfold. The Moslem Brüderbund, is expected to win the plurality of votes in parliament with the rest divided among a variety of political groups. It is playing an interesting game. There are many who suspect that the Moslem Brüderbund had struck a deal with Scaf.
Although there is no concrete evidence backing this claim, there are events that have fuelled these suspicions. The Moslem Brüderbund was the only political force in a committee formed by Scaf to amend the constitution shortly after assuming power. Despite opposition from almost all other political forces, the party supported Scaf's decision to draft a constitution after elections, rather than before. It even kept quiet over military trials for civilians, refusing to participate in the million-man march protesting this practice, further infuriating the public.
Recently, relations seem to have soured on the surface, beginning with Scaf's intention of forming a constitutional declaration that would work against the interests of the Moslem Brüderbund. Only, after this happened, did the latter condemn military trials for civilians and deplore the emergency law.
For the military, the best-case scenario would be a government dominated by a Moslem Brüderbund that is compliant to its wishes. So far, there seems to be an understanding between the two, though lately rifts have formed in the relationship.
Alternatively, the Moslem Brüderbund may not be easily influenced. Parliament's mandate will be to elect a 100-member constitutional committee that will have six months to draft a new constitution. Given, the recent disagreements over the proposed constitutional declaration, there may be more festivities to come.
Whatever government comes out of future elections, the key to its success will be extricating itself from the shadows of the military and protesting for basic rights, such as those infringed upon by the emergency law. Scaf's control over the budget will enable it to retain its privileges and will greatly diminish the power of the future elected government. In the ensuing months, Egyptians will have to continue to push for the ideals they had demanded in Tahrir Square or they might find themselves back where they started, with 'democratic' figureheads, but with the same people pulling the strings.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/02/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
When President Obama announced changes to rules on repaying college student loans, he said his goal was to ease the financial burden of getting a degree.
"We've made it a priority to make college more affordable, reduce your student loan debt," he told students in Denver, unveiling his plans to make it easier for college graduates to get out from under their debt obligations.
But if the history of college financial aid (and other government attempts to protect consumers from costs) is any guide, Obama's plan will likely backfire.
Over the past three decades, financial aid has rocketed up 438% after inflation, says the College Board. That's largely due to huge hikes in more than a dozen federal grant and loan programs.
"By providing aid and subsidized loans, the government is trying to protect students, but the effect is perverse," said Jane Shaw, president of the John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy in Raleigh, N.C. "They increase demand and enable colleges to hike tuitions virtually without restraint."
An increase in the average student loan of $1 was associated with net tuition that's 93 cents higher at public schools and 55 cents higher at private schools, according to Andrew Gillen of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity.
A 2007 study by University of Oregon economists concluded that colleges "tend to absorb most federal student aid by increasing their tuition revenue," according to the Chronicle of Higher Education.
That doesnt necessarily mean students are getting a better education. From 1993 to 2007, per-student spending on administration climbed twice as fast as spending on instruction, a Goldwater Institute study found.
The same phenomenon has occurred in health care, where government for decades has worked to shield consumers from direct costs, fueling health care cost inflation by encouraging demand and giving doctors and hospitals greater license to raise prices.
Today, the government pays directly for over 44% of care, according to data compiled by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
And federal tax policy encourages generous employer-provided insurance by deducting premium costs from taxable income, a $100 billion-plus annual subsidy, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. The 2,156 state benefit mandates further insulate consumers from the direct costs.
Consumers now pay just 12% of the nation's health care tab out of pocket vs. nearly half in 1960, fueling much of the nation's health care inflationary spiral.
"Providers aren't competing for business based on price," said John Goodman, president of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. "And if they're not competing on price, they have no reason to lower cost."
And education and health care fixes almost always add to these existing subsidies, providing still more inflationary fuel.
ObamaCare will further cut out-of-pocket spending by expanding insurance coverage and requiring more generous benefits.
When it comes to college education, the last three presidents all passed huge increases in aid,with each boasting that theirs was the biggest investment in college "since the G.I. Bill."
Shaw said, "Government will keep doing what it's doing until there's a broad understanding by the public of the adverse effects produced by these attempts to shield consumers from costs."
#2
"By providing aid and subsidized loans, the government is trying to protect students, but the effect is perverse," said Jane Shaw, president of the John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy in Raleigh, N.C. "They increase demand and enable colleges to hike tuitions virtually without restraint."
I've been telling people this for several years now. Same thing happened in the housing market which drove the 2008 financial crisis. Same thing will happen to healthcare or already is. Government steps in under the guise of "helping" or "the common good" and totally distorts the market things go out of whack. It's not rocket science and it doesn't take a genius to understand how it happens. Which can only mean one thing: the politicians (Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, et al.) who promote this "well-intentioned" but ultimately harmful programs are either felony stupid or are simply buying votes to stay in power. I can't decide which is worse.
#3
Just keep handing out OPM, Obean. As the experts predicted long ago, people tend to accept free money.
College used to be relatively affordable. Why can't the tuition from a class size of 40 kids or so pay for the professor and a whole heck of a lot more?
#4
My first reaction about the possibility that our government would be the agent for student loans was the following:
"No, you can't get the loan unless you take the specific courses we've laid out for you. Gender Studies, White Guilt, American Imperialism,..."
Add whatever lefty course list you may have.
Still feel the same way as I did at first.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
11/02/2011 15:13 Comments ||
Top||
#5
IIRC, the plan was that a potential student had to serve two years in a federal civil service role, the civic version of the military, to qualify for that student loan and/or gift.
I think the current form is to get the fed loan and pay it back at low rate, cheaper rates if working at a fed approved, remaining balance waived after x years. Not sure how that would work, garnish paycheck I guess.
#6
"We know that, they know that. So why do they lie?"
They can't help it, BP - it's as natural to them as breathing. And just as important. >:-(
Posted by: Barbara ||
11/02/2011 16:15 Comments ||
Top||
#7
"From 1993 to 2007, per-student spending on administration climbed twice as fast as spending on instruction, a Goldwater Institute study found."
That is why our schools, both college and primary are so bloody expensive and don't produce any higher grades or quality learning than they did 20 years ago.
Cut out most of the administrative costs (see regulation) and maybe we could get more education for our buck.
#9
Plus the subsidies have created an army of unemployables with junk degrees.
For me as a university professor, that's the worst part about this. Yes, I dislike excessive numbers of administrators, and I despair sometimes of what the academy does to enforce orthodoxy.
But to encourage young people to borrow large amounts of money to study subjects that won't help them into a productive career is madness. And it can't be excused by saying that it's all about 'self enlightenment' or 'personal fulfillment'. Those you do with your own money, not with someone else's.
These are the excesses that will turn the public against us.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/02/2011 18:04 Comments ||
Top||
#10
And some of those with junk degrees will make it onto future faculties.
#11
The same phenomenon has occurred in health care, where government for decades has worked to shield consumers from direct costs, fueling health care cost inflation by encouraging demand and giving doctors and hospitals greater license to raise prices.
They've left out regulation. Imagine a health care plan trying to comply with all fifty states, plus federal.
#12
My firm is encouraging enrollment in high-deductible health care savings account plans this year. I've been in one since the gummint started allowing regular employees to do so.
I have a large deductible, so pay for any healthcare and/or medicines I need, and have the fall-back insurance (with a limit of what I would have to pay out-of-pocket) for hospitalization. Besides the deduction for the insurance and for the medical savings account (from which I can be reimbursed for health care costs) from each paycheck, I also put aside a little bit of money each paycheck to pay for medical care.
I've put in for reimbursement once - when I had a checkup, eye doctor visit and new glasses (mine have to be pretty expensive), and a shingles vaccination in one year, all of which (along with bufferin and some other OTC stuff) came to around $800. Other than that, I'm letting the medical savings account build up in case I need it later.
That's how it's supposed to work. I pay for it, and know what it actually costs (surprise! it's not $20), so I don't run to the doctor (or the hospital) every time I have a hangnail.
Posted by: Barbara ||
11/02/2011 22:49 Comments ||
Top||
[Dawn] In October 2008 at an event marking General Musharraf's 1999 coup, Shahbaz Sharif was addressing a gathering of his supporters. PML-N had just capped a phenomenally successful year which saw them go from the wilderness of exile to the corridors of power. They had ousted their arch-nemesis Musharraf and there was an air of redemption to the rally.
As Shahbaz Sharif wrapped up his speech he broke into verse and began eloquently reciting Habib Jalib's Dastoor (popularly known as Main Nahee Manta) from memory; the crowd went berserk. With every verse, the crowd numbering only a few hundred worked itself into a frenzy. It was as if the poem had been written for this day. Watching on my computer screen thousands of miles away, I was moved.
On Friday, we witnessed an encore performance. In front of a much larger crowd gathered for the PML-N rally in Lahore, Sharif again broke into verse. In an attempt to breathe life into a dull, diatribe-laced speech he fell back on to a trick that hard worked for him previously. It was a more melodious rendition of the poem but it failed to get the desired response. As he recited "Wo jo saye main har maslihat kay palay", the irony was inescapable. It was as if he was rebelling against himself. It was a desperate attempt to sell himself as a revolutionary, but no one was buying it. Three years of alignment with the status quo had taken its toll. Shahbaz Sharif had lost his mojo, sacrificed at the altar of expediency.
Shahbaz Sharif and PML-N's transformation from champions of change to symbols of the status quo did not happen overnight. It began perhaps as far back as late 2007 when PML-N broke ranks with the APDM and decided to contest the general elections held in 2008. Amidst the election fever and the pining for change in the Pak public, PML-N got a pass from the public for betraying the APDM. The electorate collectively shrugged as APDM sans PML-N sat out the election. PML-N ended up bagging the votes of all parties that were part of APDM.
Once in power in Punjab, it continued a half-hearted struggle for the restoration of the judiciary. Only when the PML-N government in Punjab was removed in February 2009 did the Sharif brothers throw caution to the wind and begin an all-out, no-holds-barred struggle to restore the judiciary. Had the PCO judiciary not taken that drastic step, the judiciary may never have been restored.
When the Supreme Court declared the NRO unconstitutional, PML-N's response befuddled many. The credibility of the 2008 elections had been called into question and fresh elections should have been the next logical step. But when PML-N refused to call for fresh elections, it lost the last shreds of its credibility.
If there were any doubts that PML-N had become a pillar of the status quo, the 18th Amendment removed them. By handing 'party heads' the authority to declare dissenters as 'defectors' and initiate proceedings to unseat a sitting parliamentarian, the 18th Amendment effectively recognised the major political parties as personal fiefdoms. By bringing judicial appointments under a parliamentary commission, the independence of judiciary was curtailed. These two clauses of the 18th Amendment are the clearest evidence of the confluence of interests of the two major political parties. Had the media not been as strong as it has become, it surely would have been gagged in the 18th Amendment as well.
PML-N had vociferously campaigned to reverse Musharraf's anti-terror policies. Yet they remained silent as the government dragged its feet on implementing the unanimous parliamentary resolution advocating dialogue to resolve terrorism. It watched from the sidelines as Pakistain descended into blood-curdling chaos. If negligence and inaction were declared crimes, PML-N would be the biggest offender. At a critical juncture in Pakistain's history, PML-N was in a position to arrest the slide into anarchy. Yet they chose not to.
With elections approaching fast, Shahbaz Sharif has made a desperate attempt to arrest his party's slide. Unfortunately for him, his and his party's transformation from champions of change to symbols of the status quo has happened in plain sight. It has cost him his Mojo and come election time, seems like it will cost him his government too.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/02/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[Dawn] THERE are legitimate ways to oppose another political party, and then there are destructive options that should have no place in any properly functioning democracy. The irony of the MQM calling a rally to support the PPP is not lost on anyone, but at least it was a justifiable response. On Saturday and Sunday, however, PML-N offices in a number of towns of Sindh were also ransacked and, in most instances, burned. In one case an innocent watchman at a Hyderabad office was assaulted. Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif's remarks at his anti-PPP rally on Friday did cross the boundaries of civilised political discourse, especially in their very personal attack on the president. But it is entirely unclear what torching the PML-N's offices in retaliation will achieve, aside from reflecting badly on the ruling party. There does not seem to be evidence of direct instruction from the PPP, but the fact that these offices were not better protected -- even though the attacks did not occur simultaneously -- raises concerns about potentially deliberate negligence on the part of local law-enforcement. There are also troublesome reports from PML-N supporters about having received threats in advance from PPP workers and about the police failing to register cases.
The PML-N has said it will not answer with similar behaviour. But it has urged the Sindh government to take action against those responsible, and the provincial home minister has promised a judicial inquiry. This should be carried out as soon as possible, and it must look into allegations of official negligence. Not doing so will only further intensify the divisive politics that is increasingly at play in the country. As Pakistain moves towards Senate and general elections and political temperatures rise, the violent, antagonistic instinct behind these attacks is exactly what political players need to resist.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/02/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[Dawn] LAHORE has broken the monotone and created space for Imran Khan ... aka Taliban Khan, who isn't your heaviest-duty thinker, maybe not even among the top five... to send his message across. At the Minar-i-Pakistain meeting on Sunday, Mr Khan highlighted some salient features of his 'Save Pakistain' campaign. He threatened a countrywide blockade if those in government did not declare their assets; he vowed he would rather die than beg for money; he said that he would never use the army against its own people. This was more or less a repeat of his recent speeches. It was the size of the rally and its venue which lent greater significance to the Pakistain Tehrik-i-Insaaf challenge. The rally was easily one of the biggest in Lahore in recent times -- a surprise to both detractors and old fans frustrated by Mr Khan's inability to live up to the promise he made when his party was set up a decade and a half ago.
Imran Khan the politician has taken a long time to arrive in his hometown. His arrival now has been facilitated in large measure by the popular disillusionment with the old power politicians. These old players are viewed by people as being too involved in their own persistent duels to allow a surge for real change in Pakistain. In a way, Mr Khan today stands at a distance from the deeply polarised Pak politics where a debunking of President Zardari is often equal to support for the Sharif camp, and vice versa. His recent rise as a popular leader has coincided with his attacks on the PML-N. His stance on the judiciary has helped as have his relatively bolder positions on serious Pak problems such as the war on terror and the drone attacks.
The gathering at the rally was varied as it was big; young and old, men and women, children, professionals, political activists -- many drawn from the PML-N and the PPP. Some among them may have an issue with certain parts of Mr Khan's emerging ideology, but it appears as if they are prepared to, for now, ignore these details and commit themselves to a drive for dismantling the old and for creating a third option in Pakistain. They have made a start but the task will take some doing, still.
The successful PTI show on Sunday has led to comparisons with Benazir Bhutto's rally held at the same venue in 1986. The Minar is a pyramid rooted in people's wishes with a cage-like top. It can also serve as a symbol for the sad compromises those who have been hailed in its shadow have later had to make to be in power.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/02/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[Dawn] DURING US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's ... sometimes described as the Smartest Woman in the World and at other times as Mrs. Bill, never as Another John Jay ... recent trip to Islamabad, Clinton confirmed the US has been reaching out to the Taliban and Haqqani network to "test their willingness" to participate in talks.
Clinton also stated the US belief that Pakistain could "encourage, push, squeeze" these actors to the negotiating table. Does the US have what it takes to usher the parties through meaningful and sustainable negotiations?
In peace negotiations like this, the existence of a mutually hurting stalemate, wherein both parties recognise they are at an impasse, can help push parties to the negotiating table. The US has recognised this logic and its 'fight-talk' strategy, whereby it fights bad boy groups to the negotiating table, has been a hallmark of its approach.
However, some people cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go... at this point, the Afghan Taliban and other bad boy groups do not perceive themselves to be at a stalemate.
Coalition fatalities for 2011 are near 2009 levels and recent events like the assault on the US embassy in Kabul and the liquidation of Burhanuddin Rabbani ... the gentlemanly murdered legitimate president of Afghanistan... served as reminders of the asymmetric nature of this conflict.
The US ability to continue to fight the Taliban to the table is in jeopardy due to the planned 2012 surge drawdown and the 2014 deadline to transition to the ill-equipped Afghan National Forces. Moreover, as Clinton said, Pakistain disagrees with 'fight-talk' and wants a ceasefire as a precondition for talks.
The US also has limited leverage regarding one of the major players (some would say spoiler) in this negotiation -- Pakistain.
Pakistain has made no secret that its national security strategy depends on a friendly regime on its western border.
The recent announcement of an Afghan-India strategic partnership does little to assuage Pak concerns. The recent meetings served as acknowledgment, finally, that Pakistain could not be bypassed in the negotiations. However, the difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits... this comes a bit late and at a period when the trust deficit between the two countries is at an all-time low.
While the US demands much of its strategic partnership with Pakistain, there is a huge gap between the assurances the US gives Pakistain and its actions on the ground. From the Raymond Davis incident, to the operation to capture the late Osama bin Laden ... who is no more... , to the recent accusations by (now retired) Adm Mullen of Pak links to the US embassy attack in Kabul, the US has applied a short-term lens where it needs a long-term one.
Mitigating negative Pak influence requires shifting the Pak strategic calculus away from seeing India as an eternal enemy. The US cannot hope to have any role in fostering this if its strategy is geared towards short-term goals which continue to feed the trust deficit.
If pushing actors to the table will not work, the US will need to make the dramatic shift towards developing enticing offers that will serve to pull the various parties to the table. Regarding the Taliban, this could include the expansion of disarming, demobilisation and reintegration operations for the low and mid-level cadre.
Bringing high-level Taliban officials to the table may require power-sharing incentives. The problem with this is it would require the Taliban placing trust in the Afghan government which consists of anti-Taliban forces as well as former warlords that opposed them militarily.
While the Pakhtuns are the majority population in Afghanistan, they have been underrepresented in the post-Taliban government and security forces. Thus, the Taliban would have a strong interest in maintaining itself as a cohesive unit to further its interests.
The US will also have to focus on pull factors with Pakistain, which may include allowing a more robust role for Pakistain in brokering negotiations with the Afghan Taliban and other bad boy groups.
When/if there are formal negotiations, a much overlooked yet critical factor that will require focus is justice for victims of violence. This is a critical element to ensure the relevance and permanence of a negotiated peace. Reintegration of Death Eaters will most directly affect the communities into which these fighters are reintegrated. Afghans will have to apply the most appropriate type of justice for their circumstance.
Some may consider negotiations a signal that the end is near. But those of us who work in and study conflict-affected societies know this is only the beginning.
If the US and its partners want to do it right, it will be a costly, years-long process. It is an important moment, and a solemn one, wherein each actor needs to do hard thinking about the contours of their strategic partnerships. We see this happening in real time, through examples like the evolving Pakistain-China relations and emerging Afghan-India partnership.
Indeed, the modern iteration of the geopolitical balance in the region is in a formative stage and this generation of conflict will have an indelible mark on how the chips fall.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/02/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[Dawn] THE rallies have been staged. As expected, the PML-N, the party in power in Punjab which has been once again trying to sell itself as the alternative to the PPP at the centre, has exposed itself to some serious comparisons with Imran Khan ... aka Taliban Khan, who isn't your heaviest-duty thinker, maybe not even among the top five... by holding its show of strength so close to one by PTI.
Mr Khan had nothing to lose. In the event he has emerged from the rally considerably stronger. Whether he has paced his innings right remains to be seen. Faced with a dilemma, the PML-N may now want to prolong its rule in Punjab instead of going for an early showdown with the PPP. The PML-N needs time to consolidate its defences against this new, potent enough threat.
The expert analysts have so far remained too obsessed with an apparent lack of vote-winning candidates in the Imran camp, too obsessed perhaps with the old theories based on vote banks. Mr Khan needed a big show of strength where he was the only star attraction to remind the observers that the Paks essentially vote for the top man or woman. It is doubtful whether even Shahbaz Sharif would be able to name all the Lahore MPAs who won in the 2008 election -- as PML-N nominees, but actually because they were wearing the Sharif badge.
The numbers have been out to support Mr Khan, and in the heart of Punjab, aiding all those who must not presuppose. After the grand Imran rally at the Minar, the Sharifs, as well as the bystanders who go by the title of PPP politicians, need no further proof they have a worthy opponent to take care of.
There are a variety of factors contributing to the PTI rally on Sunday and to the growing unease in the Sharif camp, with a lame-duck PPP keeping away from political activity in the province at its own peril. A quick recap of some of these factors would be useful here.
1) As recent good politics goes, Mr Khan comes from the same camp as the Sharifs. The two parties won plenty of popular points with their support for the free judiciary. This gives their own battle in Punjab the colour of a factional fight, a much-awaited challenge from within the Sharifs have never faced before. The lesser-Moslem, lesser-Pak, non-Punjabi, anti-free judiciary tag doesn't quite fit Mr Khan whose show at the Minar was typically dismissed by the PML-N as a song and dance party. A significant part of the pro-judiciary caravan, comprising students, professionals such as teachers, doctors etc who have had more than a few complaints against the Shahbaz Sharif government allies itself with Imran Khan; the students and the professionals were there in large numbers at the PTI rally on Sunday.
2) For now, the PTI chief's support chiefly comes from the same urban areas of Punjab considered to be the Sharif stronghold which catapulted Nawaz Sharif ... served two non-consecutive terms as prime minister, heads the Pakistain Moslem League (Nawaz). Noted for his spectacular corruption, the 1998 Pak nuclear test, border war with India, and for being tossed by General Musharraf... to prominence as a national leader.
3) A few of the kingmakers who had once been so active on the Sharifs' behalf have in recent times been spotted flanking Imran Khan. The Sharifs cannot be faulted for feeling wary of being tailed by him on the path they have themselves walked. Tellingly, Chaudhry Nisar's statement the other day in which he said the army should not intervene confuses a lot of likely PML-N backers since it came only days after the top PML-N leadership vowed to try 'all' options to oust President Zardari. At the same time, there is this suspicion that some of their old backers who could mediate on their behalf have this cleaner patriotic option in Imran Khan.
4) Mr Khan has the potential to cash in on the widespread anti-America sentiment. The Sharifs were working on the assumption that the PPP, given its power needs, could never rival the safe PML-N play on this count. Shahbaz Sharif has been inclined to issue an anti-drone statement from time to time, his range rather limited since the PML-N with its own knowledge of the power game wouldn't want to upset the Americans too much.
5) The PML-N is hopeful the 'corruption' and 'blunders' at the centre would hide its own shortcomings in Punjab. The fact is a visible anti-incumbency sentiment exists in Punjab. Denied the benefit it draws from a comparison with the PPP in Islamabad, the PML-N this time around has created quite a lot of ill will generally and in specific groups such as the bureaucracy, doctors, teachers, etc.
6) There is talk the PML-N leadership's relationship with its senior members is far from how it once was. Bruised by the betrayal after the 1999 coup, this time the Sharifs have increased their dependence on the close family-friends circle around them. This has led to greater centralisation of command in Punjab, with the chief minister unwilling to share power through its delegation. This leads to grumbling within the PML-N politicians and conveys a negative message to the people in the constituencies who increasingly want to be represented.
7) Then there is the support of the media and 'intelligentsia' to Mr Khan. Even if the conspiracy theories that link his rise with the support of (parts of the) establishment are to be ignored, the media finds concentrated around him a variety of points that sell. His clean image sells, his less-inhibited anti-Americanism sells and so do his free-judiciary stance and his popularity among the trendsetting youth. Whereas it is accused of being urban-centric, the media has been instrumental in closing the much talked about but actually shrinking gap between the cities and villages. The PML-N has merrily ridden the new-wave media in its power dispute with the PPP and it surely doesn't approve of the coverage given to Mr Khan. In the lead-up to the two rallies on Oct 28 and Oct 30, PML-N members visited the offices of television channels in Lahore. They complained of the TV channels' bias for the PTI chief. Their fears must have been reinforced with the passionate media commentaries on the PTI rally on Oct 30, as opposed to the rather routine reporting of the PML-N rally a couple of days earlier.
These factors -- and there are scores of others that make up the political discussion right now -- combine to spell out the desire for change among large sections of the Pak people. There is this desire to break away from the past, and the violent tone adopted by Shahbaz Sharif at the Oct 28 rally was a bad advertisement for his kind of politics since it was interpreted by the wary and the tired as a sign of a continuation of the long-drawn duel with the PPP.
This desire for change found a manifestation in the presence of old PML-N and PPP workers at the Oct 30 rally. The PTI chief has the material to work with, and one way of doing it would be for him to right now shun any alliances that could suggest to his supporters that he is in any way perpetuating the very politics that he set out to end.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
11/02/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
If they can't/won't york the ball into Khan's stumps, then let's see him hit it straight to Silly Point.
h/t Gates of Vienna
Good Evening. Im here to talk about a subject no one wants to discuss religion. Many people in our post-Christian society (especially journalists) are afraid of it, misinformed about it and ignorant of the most basic theological concepts. And our theologians are often too specialized in their work to be able to discuss religion in its broadest outlines or our Churchmen are often soo concerned with finding common ground that they gloss over and ignore the theology of Islam.
Our greatest Islam critics confine their attack to the non-religious aspects of Islam, either its political side or its judicial side. But when we discuss political Islam or Sharia law alone, we imply that there is a religious Islam that is perfectly fine, that we dont have to worry about. And we leave the major problems of Islamization Muslim immigration, mosque building, the proselytizing in our prisons and military and the infiltration of our governmental institutions completely untouched and indeed untouchable.
So I think we need to take a few steps back to examine Islam as a whole and to broadly define the outlines of Islam what it is and what it isnt.
One thing we can definitely say about Islam is that is it not solely confined to a belief system. If it is a religion it is not a religion only. Islam is a total system of life and contains within itself a particular social system, judicial system, and political system which includes geo-political aspirations - the conquest and administration of territory.
I often liken Islam to a duck-billed platypus which superficially resembles an otter. Upon closer examination, one finds this animal has a duck-like bill, lays eggs, and has many other characteristics which are not otter-like. So it cannot therefore remain in the biological category containing otters. It is simply too different and has to have its own category. I believe the same thing is true of Islam. It is much too different from the other religions to remain in the religion category, it should be uniquely classified in its own category.
Secondly, I think it is obvious to Christians that Islam is its polar opposite and I believe nihilism lies between Christianity and Islam and that the morality of Islam is inverted.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Qadaffy
[Dawn] THE international community has hailed Tunisia's recent elections as the triumph of the Arab Spring, but its real success is yet to be determined; Egypt, a larger and more globally important country, is facing a much rockier transition, with the Supreme Council for the Armed Forces (Scaf) consolidating its power and dangerously reversing the revolution.
[Dawn] In October 2008 at an event marking General Musharraf's 1999 coup, Shahbaz Sharif was addressing a gathering of his supporters. PML-N had just capped a phenomenally successful year which saw them go from the wilderness of exile to the corridors of power. They had ousted their arch-nemesis Musharraf and there was an air of redemption to the rally.
Punjab
Hillary Clinton's 
Nawaz Sharif
6) There is talk the PML-N leadership's relationship with its senior members is far from how it once was. Bruised by the betrayal after the 1999 coup, this time the Sharifs have increased their dependence on the close family-friends circle around them. This has led to greater centralisation of command in Punjab, with the chief minister unwilling to share power through its delegation. This leads to grumbling within the PML-N 
