Origin, Evolution and Performance of Nepalese Democracy

Critical analysis of origin, evolution and performance of Nepalese democracy and its comparison with the same of innate, model Democracy of the USA.

The year was 1951. The same year the world first saw the color pictures in their television set, Nepalese politics gained the colors of democracy for the first time. Nepal had been under autocratic rule of Ranas, a privileged tribe at that time, for a hundred and four years.  Eight brothers of a Rana family had ruled as Prime ministers of the country under different Shah Dynasty Kings, who by default had the absolute power of the state.  After unification of Nepal by King Prithivi Narayan Shah in 1768, Shah Dynasty had ruled the country as Kings, but Rana had managed to gain the power of the country by trickery called Kot Parva.  Kings remained the ceremonial head of the country, but the power of the country was vested upon Prime minister. This was ironic, for a privileged group of people ruled the country autocratically, but not the king who was supposed to be the supreme power holder of the country. Ram Sharan Mahat in his book, In Defense of Democracy, summarizes what he calls the Rana Saguante, “The Rana political system was undisguised military despotism with absolute total control over all aspects of public life” (Mahat 2005) . Ranas tried to imbed their political monopoly by restricting the education to Nepalese Population which scattered from the Mountainous region to flat Terai region. They feared that education could lead to the end of their regime. Education was not their priority, let alone other aspects of development (Shakya 2009).

Thus, they adopted the policy of isolation throughout their regime. Thirty three Presidents of America were already elected, twelve Olympics had been conducted, and huge development in the field of science, education and technology had been achieved, but Nepal was still at the starting lineup in just about every aspects.  America had started to rise from the Great Depression, but Nepal lacked even basic economic framework. Nepal was badly plagued by Rana Regime for their shortsightedness.

There is no denying the fact that Nepal started very late with just about every factor that concerns the development of a country. When most western countries, including the United States of America, had achieved quite a lot from industrial, political and economic development, Nepal was just gearing for its identification in the world.  India, which borders Nepal from the east, west and south, was colonized by Britian, and China, which borders Nepal from the north, was speeding up with Communism, but Nepal was neither colonized nor had any sense of democracy until 1951. The isolation Nepal went through before its pre-democracy era is important in evaluating the reason why Nepal is a comparatively below majority of the countries in terms of development. Unfortunately, this relatively lower position of Nepal in development is blatantly linked with the political process of Nepal that followed after 1951. It is, however, wrong to always link  relative under performance of Nepal in development with politics after 1951.

(2013 UN Human Development Report Quartiles n.d.)

King Tribhuwan, who had been crowned the king at the age of five in 1911, was the tenth king of Nepal. He was looking for an opportunity to legitimize his power by overthrowing the Ranas, and his involvement in Nepal Parja Parisad- a democratic force against Rana rule – was a prime characterization of this.  India had gained its independence in 1947, and the communist revolution was in rise in China at the same time.   “The inefficient handling of Government by Rana Prime ministers ignited a feeling for revolution among India educated and Gandhi-Nehru influenced leaders of Nepali Congress.” This was exactly what King Tribhuwan had wanted. This pro-democratic force- in the name of Nepali Congress and Nepal Praja Parisad- provided an impetus to push anti Rana crusade. Although initially propounding a nonviolent movement following the way of Gandhi, the Nepali Congress and Praja Parisad took an armed struggle against Rana from 1947 onwards. They gained the desired outcome in 1951 (Shakya 2009).

When the United States of America gained independence in 1776, it was a new country in the making.  Things cannot be done in the old ways in the new country; therefore, it was required for the USA to improvise on the older British system to fit for their people.  The process of transplanting the older system can remove “many of the shackles” of custom, tradition and system which might have retarded the political or social process of older country. Thus, things are done in the best ways in a new country (Charnwood n.d.). This may be one of the strongest reason why the USA progressed as a democratic nation. However, only a political system changed in Nepal in 1951, but different other aspects of nation including the political culture did not. Democratic principles were ignored by both democratic leaders and the Monarch. As a result, Nepal could not capitalize on what first was promised and expected of democracy, and what had proved to be a strong starting point for countries like the USA.

Hopes were high when democracy was institutionalized in Nepal. Year 1951 opened Nepal’s entrance upon the world stage and its first attempt at modernization towards an industrial society was then felt.  The talks for constitution drafting started with this process, which extends to this date. An interim Constitution was drafted and the first general Election was held in 1959. B.P Koirala was elected as the first elected Prime Minister of Nepal (Shakya 2009).

The inefficiency, which is apparent from Egypt to Iraq, after a change in political system in modern day world politics can be extrapolated to the political history of Nepal as well.  Whether it was for the inability of founding fathers of democracy or the mismatch of the democratic process in Nepal, the reason which still looks unclear, Nepal could not capitalize on an opportunity to draft the constitution, and also on an opportunity to establish democracy for a very long time.  The legacy of years of isolation, an administrative structure that had changed little since medieval times, capital, a proper long term plan of action and the scarcity of people with the capability to manage development projects proved big hurdles. Corruption, favoritism and nepotism proliferated in the nascent democratic state, and a chance to modernize and democratize was, thus, squandered. King Tribhuwan died in 1958. His youngest son- Mahendra- became the king of Nepal in 1958 (Shakya 2009).

A research by David Dunning in 2012, a psychologist at Cornell University has revealed that the democratic process produce mediocre leadership and policies (Livescience 2012). Sixty two years before these results were published, King Mahendra might have thought the same to reach a conclusion that democracy was not a right choice for Nepal.  He changed democratic system to party less panchayat system in 1960. Panchayat system was another version of autocratic rule, but this time under direct rule of King.

King Mahendra died in 1972 with no political parties. It was the turn of his Harvard Educated son King Birendra to succeed the regime. With an erudite political knowledge, he tried to speed up thus slow development process, and tried to eradicate deep-rooted corruption in a dismantled Nepalese political system (Whelpton 2005). Birendra came to a realization that panchayat System ,like any other political system ,could not hold up to what was required for the country.  In 1979, King Birendra held national referendum to choose between party less panchayat system, and multiparty democracy. The result was in the favor of Panchayat System by a narrow margin. The result was a shock for different entities associated with underground political parties. King shifted his focus to retain absolute Panchayat System after the referendum. In the meantime, Nepali Congress and Communist Parties started strengthening their political network in different corners of the country.  The creation of this powerful network fueled Nepalese people in revolt of Panchayat System (Shakya 2009).   

            The year was 1990. Berlin Wall had collapsed, USSR was sent home in disgrace from Afghanistan, and Communism was in the verge of collapse, but Nepal was roaring up for a massive revolution in the name of democracy. King Birendra had to give back the power his father had taken from the Nepalese people back to Nepalese people following massive mass movements. “Hopes season 2”came along with the restoration of Democracy. Multiparty democracy brought transient waves of changes in a form of new constitution drafted by a consensus of major political parties, economic reforms and general election after more than three decades.

Performance of a political system is linked with the economics status or the development of the country. Economy can again be linked with economic resources that a country possess, and development can somewhat be linked with geography. Nepal and the USA lie in two extreme poles when their geographic advantage and economic resources are compared. “The boundless space and untrammeled conditions of USA made liberty and equality in some directions highly attainable ideas, much so that they seemed to demand little effort or disciplines. The patriotic orators…ascribed to the political wisdom of their great democracy what was really the geography” (Charnwood n.d.) This typical feature of the USA helped to create a strong economic foundation. Nepal, on the other hand, had comparative disadvantage because of its geography. Nearly 80% of total land of Nepal falls either in hilly or Himalayan region of Nepal, and this has increased the development cost of the country for already poor country due to technical difficulties the hills and mountains create in expanding development activities. On top of that, Nepal lacks strong economic resources to build strong economic stature without having a good political system- democracy- which is true for most of the Arabic countries.

The political success of a country is closely associated with the development of the country, and for that reason neither Nepalese politics nor fitful Nepalese democracy has gained acclaim from Nepalese population. Manjushree Thapa, Canada based Nepalese writer, defines politician as the epitome of all that is worst about Nepal.  “Disenchantment in Nepal has been worse because of the exhilaration which attended the end of the party less Panchayat system and perhaps also because of special features of the South Asian attitude towards power and those who seek it” (Whelpton 2005).

            Not only is the performance of political system evaluated by the economy of the country, but economy also relates to the stability of a government or political system. While discussing the role of economy in democratization, Maddison argues that countries need to attain certain level of economic well-being for democratic stability. Taking this facts into consideration, the economic indicators particularly after 1990s have not been very satisfactory. More importantly, very little attempts were made to invigorate economic activities that could have sustained the political change and addressed, to some extent, minimum aspirations of the people. As Maddison argues, this economic fragility led to political turmoil in Nepal right from the onset of democracy. This political turmoil has always stumbled the promises those political changes offered to make. In a vicious circle, this leads to instability in political system, which again derogatively hindered the economy of country, one of the chief reason for weakening of economy (Bhatta 2013).

             History was repeating itself again. The hopes of reformation brought by restoration of multi-party democracy were frittered away by conflict between the political parties which had paved the way for democracy. Government led by Girija Prasad Koirala was made to step down due to intra party conflict within Nepali Congress, the then largest party of the country. This led to Midterm election in 1994 which saw the rise of New Party – Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxists Leninists) (CPN (UML)). The minority government formed by CPN UML also could not last long more than nine months due to cut throat political battle between Nepali Congress and Ruling CPN (UML). Lack of strong ideological conviction and the feeble attempts at power retention was apparent with the political parties.  Ephemeral coalition governments before and after general Election in 1999 showed the ineffectiveness of multiparty democracy system.  Yet again the issues of institutionalization of democracy were questioned (Mayhew 2012).

            The beginning of the 21st century only worsened the political situation in the country. King Birendra who had tried to steer the country through some extraordinarily difficult times was gone. The mysterious massacre of King Birendra and his entire family in June 2001 brought King Gyanendra, yonger brother of Birendra, to power, who suspended the House of Representatives to grab the power to his hand in 2005. Prime ministers were sacked and replaced in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. A total of nine governments were formed in 10 years. “The fragile position of Nepali politicians is well illustrated by Sher Bahadur Deuba, who was appointed prime minister for the second time in 2001, before being dismissed in 2002, reinstated in 2004, sacked again in 2005, thrown in jail on corruption charges and then released!” (Mayhew 2012).

            Political instability, corruption, dissolution of the communist government and failure of government to perform promise of democracy aggravated the Nepalese people. Thus, economic reformation, corruption monitoring, and political stability became the political agendas of the parties, and Maoists capitalized on this political doldrums to start an insurgency in post 1990s era. Maoists had a strong grip on some of the rural mountainous and hilly part of the country, and made these places their battlefield (Chaulagai 2013).   By 2005 nearly 13, 000 people, including many civilians, had been killed in the insurgency, more than half of them since the army joined the struggle in 2001. Ironically, “the Maoist insurgency only worsened the plight of the rural poor by diverting much-needed government funds away from development.” This also caused different aid programs to be suspended due to security concerns (Mayhew 2012).

King Gyanendra dissolved the House of Representative and the constitution declaring the multiparty system as a failure on February, 2005.  King’s Steps to snatch multi-party democracy from people through coup sowed the seeds of yet another revolution. Big Parties which were already in political mainstream, were infuriated by King’s Step. They gained moral support from Maoists to lead People’s mass movement. Nine months after Gyanendra’s dissolution of multiparty democracy, seven parties and the Maoists signed an unprecedented 12 point agreement for peace and democracy. Nepalese from various walks of life and the international community praised this step as an appropriate response to address the political tension that was developing.  Ramesh Chandra Bisht in his book International Encylcopedia of Himalayas praises this step: “Against the backdrop of the historical sufferings of the Nepalese people and the enormous human cost of the last ten years of violent conflict, the MOU, which proposed a peaceful transition through an elected constituent assembly, created an acceptable formula for a united movement for democracy” (Bisht 2008).

All political forces including civil society and professional organizations actively galvanized the people. This resulted in massive and spontaneous demonstrations and rallies held across Nepal against King Gyanendra's autocratic rule (Bisht 2008). The desired result was achieved: House of Representatives that was paralyzed by King Gyanendra’s move in February 2005 was reinstated in April 2006 following days of mass demonstrations, curfews and the deaths of more than twenty protestors. 

 (History of Nepal n.d.)

Thus reinstated House of Representatives decided to conduct the much awaited Constitutional Assembly Election, and after nearly two years, first Constitutional Assembly Election was held in Nepal. Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists) garnered the most seats in the election. It established itself as the largest party in the Nepal above Nepali Congress and CPN (UML), the heavyweight of Nepali Politics before Maoists’ entry in mainstream politics. A federal republic was established in May 2008, with only four members of the 601-seat Constituent Assembly voting against the change which ended 240 years of royal rule in Nepal (The Maoists Triuph 2008).

However, when Maoists reached the heights of political powers, all the agendas which had won the hearts of many Nepalese people and which had placed them to supreme political position were left behind. Maoists, the most progressive party of the time, unfortunately ignored the issues of poor, powerless, equality, prosperity, and socio-economic transformation once it climbed the ladder of the power. People at large believe that Maoist only used the issues of poor and powerless for their won gain  (Bhatta 2013). This is testament to the results of Second Constitutional Election as well, in addition to other factors, in which Maoists suffered a huge setback, only coming third after Nepali Congress and CPN (UML).

USA is an example of responsible Party Model where its democracy is dependent on strong competitive parties in which one party wins the control of government based on its policy proposals, enacts those proposal once it is in control and stands or falls in next election on performance in delivering on its promises. Nepal, on the other hand, is only partly into Responsive Party Model. Power, Money, and Manipulation plays an important role in winning and regaining the election. A party hardly wins based in terms of political ideology.

It is important to note what followed the introduction and eventual restoration of multiparty democracy system in Nepal. Democracy, which was gained on leverage of mass revolution that occupied the streets of Nepal in 1990 and 2006 unfortunately changed the definition of democratic system in Nepal. One legacy of the mass revolutions was that it boosted the attraction of extra-systemic protest. Mobilizing crowds on the street forced political change, and people in general showed disposition to use similar tactics again rather than using the less dramatic channels of constitutional politics (Whelpton 2005) . “Agitating cable operators cutting off transmission of cable channels, taxis expressing grievances by parking along the Ring Road to obstruct the traffic in and out of the airport, garbage pilling up in the street when someone in garbage chain is unhappy are the routine occurrences. Ironically, business and hotels which lamented the impacts of strikes call for strikes when their demands are unmet” (Shakya 2009).

            This comes along with the undemocratic political process Nepalese Politics has veered itself into. Chandra Dev Bhatta argues that political leaders have failed to value the democratic principles on which the entire political systems rests. He argues:

Although Nepali political leaders worked to install democracy, thirty plus years of democratic [1950-1960, and 1990-till now] practice has not even instilled democratic political culture upon them. The classic example to cite is: it is normally considered that the leader of the parliamentary party in the house is the candidate for the Prime Minister but those who are not chosen leaders of the parliamentary parties are also found to have been vying for the same position…If the political heavy weights could not work as per their interest, they even go to the extent of splitting the parties. Another classic example is that those who are founders of the parties were displaced by others. These exercises stand against the norms of democracy…

Maoists’ preliminary decision to boycott the Second Constitutional Assembly after unexpected poll outcomes also validates the argument made by Chandra Dev Bhatta that Nepalese politician have not been able to learn democratic principles to rule the country in an effective way. (Harris 2013) Similarly, corruption proliferated more in multiparty democracy as so in party less Panchayat System. The trading of political support for favors or protection “will occur to some extent in any political system but is particularly pervasive in Third World polities” (Whelpton 2005). John Whelpton from his interview with Minendra Rijal, a former Minister of Nepal in his article Nepalese Democracy and its discontent furthermore writes:

...Both cadres and voters frequently sought immediate favors for themselves or their friends and relations in return for their support rather than opting for the party whose blueprint for the future of Nepalese society most appealed to them. Examples were villagers who sold their votes, the bus conductor who got his job through Congress connections and feared he would lose it when some other party came to power.

The woeful state of democracy does not end here. The dismantled first CA had a few notorious members facing life sentence with confiscation of entire property on the charge of murder as per the judgment of the Supreme Court. “The unfortunate thing is that they are gracefully protected by their leaders and political parties they are affiliated with” (Dahal 2012).

(TransparencyInternational 2013)

Corruption, which is rampant and deeply rooted among politicians in power, bureaucracy, police, and judiciary, has emmerged as a threat to survival of democracy in Nepal. Corruption has gained momentum with secret but implicit auction of all top-level government positions with lucrative remuneration and perks. Those appointments are strictly offered not on merit but preferably own yes man comprising kith and kin and political workers on priority against installment-payments, which is true of all the parties. In addition to that, anarchy and impunity have rapidly grown over the years with strong emergence and domination of muscle power at national politics (Dahal 2012). The Report of International Watch Dog and Transparency International corruption index explicitly only prove the same.

Time is another factor that can be helpful in evaluating democratic performance of a country. Nepal has been under representative democratic system for little over thirty years, while USA has been under the representative liberal democracy for more than 210 years now. Democracy is a slow process, and it can get tougher when it is at its nascent stage. This was apparent in the case of United States of America, and that holds true for Nepal as well. Nepal is trying to adjust with the democratic process, and one can see Nepal’s shuffles with political and democratic system since first institutionalization of democracy in 1951.Nepal was united in 1768 by King Prithivi Narayan Shah, but Democracy was institutionalized in Nepal after 183 years of unification. On the contrary, United States of America had already been under system of democracy before the unification of the states began. The task of unifying the country developed a need for valuation of democratic principles. This again proved an advantage in making a strong democratic country with the constitution that has gathered praises from most of the countries of the world.

Lack of a one half majority to form the government and lack of a two third majority to draft a constitution invited a situation of political instability once again in the country. Nepal was ruled by four different prime minister in four years from 2008 to 2012 in an effort to forge a consensus on controversial issues of constitution writing process.  However, consensus among largely polarized powers in Constitutional Assembly could not be reached even after tireless attempts. Thus, the Constitutional Assembly was forced to be dissolved from the ruling of the Supreme Court.

This shattered the hopes cherished by the Nepalese people to live in peace and dignity in, what was proclaimed as, the new Nepal. Many Nepalese expressed dissatisfaction over the dissolution of Constituent Assembly as an unwelcomed and unprecedented repetition of history. Madan Kumar Dahal in Nepal: Democracy and Development at the Crossroads states the dissolution of Constituent Assembly without promulgating new constitution as the biggest catastrophe in Nepal’s political history. This entire episode has led the nation into oblivion with increasing risks and uncertainties. Moreover, this has only pushed Nepal into jeopardy to sustain peace, stability, democracy, and development (Dahal 2012).

The constitution writing process has been approached very differently in Nepal in comparison to that in the USA. Constitution writing was a work accomplished only by the founding fathers of the USA, while this job is left upon the representatives chosen by people in Nepal. This direction for Nepal has only caused the political chaos as the major parties could not forge a consensus to write the constitution. The USA, in this sense, had a head start with a constitution writing process. However, what made the constitution of the USA that is highly lauded?  Lord Charnwood in the biography of Abraham Lincoln  mentions that the peculiarity of American Constitution is partly due to sheer misunderstanding of the British Constitution, but much more to the want at the time of any strong sense of the national unity and to the existence of a good deal of dislike of all government whatsoever… (Charnwood n.d.).

            There have been a very good buildups at the recent time in Nepalese politics. Nepal had a second election for the Constitutional Assembly on 19^th November 2013 with 70% of the registered voters turning in to vote in the Election Day (Haris 2013). Poll results showed massive discrepancy with the  results of the  first Constitutional Assembly six years ago. Maoists Party which had established itself as the largest party in 2008 election, is now at the third position way behind ideologically similar, if their stand on first Constitutional Assembly is to be evaluated,  Nepali Congress and CPN (UML). These two parties need to collaborate with few small parties to garner two third majority needed to draft the constitution

(Election Commission 2013).

Struggle of Nepalese democracy has been with associated with economic well-being of majority of Nepalese people.  Getting back to the big picture again, one can question what really distinguishes United States of America as a paradigm of successful democracy and Nepal as a failed democracy. The general answer can be accessed with each country’s typical history, geography, time and development of democratic practice in each country and time of each country’s introduction to global arena, on which this paper has tried to delve.   It is not that countries with largest economy, including the USA, in the world now did not go through same political struggle as Nepal did, but they had gone through that process much earlier than Nepal did. So, all the political turmoil they went through are not the sources of grievances, if big picture of country is to be compared. It is this concept of relativity of time that marks Nepal as poor country, the reason of which is also vested for its failed attempt at democracy. If Nepal is to be isolated on its own in evaluating the performance of democracy, it has not at all done a poor job given the comparatively lower democratic years, but it is when Nepal is compared to other countries, such as the USA, that Nepal is marked as a failed democratic state.

References

n.d. 2013 UN Human Development Report Quartiles. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2013_UN_Human_Development_Report_Quartiles.svg.

Bhatta, Chandra Dev. 2013. "TelegraphNepal." TelegraphNepal. June 5. Accessed December 6, 2013. http://www.telegraphnepal.com/views/2013-06-05/nepal:-antinomies-of-democracy-peace-and-ideological-crisis.html.

Bisht, Ramesh Chandra. 2008. International Encyclopedia of Himalayas. Mittal Publication. http://books.google.com/books?id=x3D_E_ynbsoC&pg=PA188&lpg=PA188&dq=Nepalese+from+various+walks+of+life+and+the+international+community+regarded+the+MOU+as+an+appropriate+political+response+to+the+crisis+that+was+developing+in+Nepal.+Against+the+backdrop+.

Charnwood, Lord. n.d. The growth of the American Nation: Biography of Abrahm Linclon. New Delhi: Satyam Interprises.

Chaulagai, Yam Prasad. 2013. "Ekantipur." The Kathmandu Post. 11 10. Accessed 12 6, 2013. http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2013/11/09/related_articles/outside-the-ring/255551.html.

Dahal, Madan Kumar. 2012. "Nepal: Democracy and Development at the Crossroads." TelegraphNepal. http://www.telegraphnepal.com/national/2012-06-17/nepal:-democracy-and-development-at-the-crossroads.

Election Commission, Nepal. 2013. CA Results. Election Results, Election Commission, Nepal. http://election.gov.np/CA2070/CAResults/reportBody.php?selectedMenu=2&rand=1386158106.

Haris, Gardiner. 2013. "Voter Turnout in Nepal Is Heavy Despite Violence." New York TImes. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/world/asia/nepal-holds-vote-amid-scattered-violence.html.

Harris, Gardiner. 2013. "Vote Fraud Is Claimed by Maoists in Nepal." The New York TImes. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/world/asia/nepals-maoists-losing-vote-charge-election-fraud.html.

n.d. History of Nepal. Accessed December 7, 2013. http://www.nepalvista.com/features/history/media/timelinebrief.gif.

Livescience. 2012. People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say. February 28. Accessed 12 12, 2013. http://www.livescience.com/18706-people-smart-democracy.html.

Mahat, Ram Sharan. 2005. In Defense of Democracy. Kathmandu: Adroit Publishers.

Mayhew, Bradley. 2012. Nepal. Lonely Planet. http://www.lonelyplanet.com/nepal/history.

Shakya, Sujeev. 2009. Unleashing Nepal. Kathmandu: Penguine Books.

2008. "The Maoists Triuph." The Economists.

TransparencyInternational. 2013. Transparency International: Corruption Perception Index. http://www.transparency.org/cpi2013/results.

Whelpton, John. 2005. "Democracy and its Discontent." Research Paper, Kathmadnu.

The Beauty of Life is Beautiful

If you are having a hard time choosing between the comedy and the  tragedy genre of movie to watch this weekend, Life is Beautiful could be an option for you- an unusual mixture of these two opposite poles of genre. You are in for fun, but make sure you have tissues with you! Even though Life is beautiful is marked as a comedy movie on the paper, the movie is a conglomeration of philosophy, comedy and drama. There are scenes where you are sure to laugh like crazy unless you hate comedy! That is not all; you can find the intricate philosophy in hilarious comedy scenes and hideous sensation of sorrow in the same. It is a thrilling movie about a father who tries to save his son from the harsh realities of concentration camp. 

The movie commences with a quote that defines the whole movie in a sentence, “Like a fable it has sorrow, and like a fable it is full of wonder and happiness.” Guido, played by Roberto Benigni, along with his friend arrives in a town when the brake of their car fails. The movie sets up to a comedic start, when they are mistaken for a visiting dignitary, which extends to the end of the movie.  Guido falls in love with the beautiful school teacher Dora and, in the process, “becomes the undeclared rival of her fiancé who happens to be the Fascist town clerk.” Serendipity and carefully manipulated tricks come into play to woo Dora, and forty-five minutes into the movie, “Guido and Dora glide into a greenhouse”, and emerge with a son named Joshua (Maslin). The first part of film may be acclaimed for its entertainment through interesting plot and ultimate comedy by Guido, but it is with the start of second half that the intensity of the plot deepens. The film portrays the maltreatment Jews received near the end of World War II in the beginning of second half of the movie. A group of combatants parade past a store, which has a poster that reads “No Jews and Dogs Allowed”. Joshua, at an age of five, naively asks his father why Jews are not allowed in the store. Guido replies cleverly that everyone has a choice to restrict something they do not like, and they would place a poster restricting something they do not like in the bookstore they own. A series of fabrications follow to keep his son from harsh realities that continue when Guido, Joshua and Dora, eventually, are shipped to a concentration camp.

Roberto Benigni’s high pitched voice seems very phony at times but his consistently cheerful character makes the film so lively and humorous even at the deadliest Holocaust scenes (Tatara).His real life character is much like the one he portrays in the movie. “I saw him once in a line at airport customs, subtly turning a roomful of tired and impatient travelers into an audience for a subtle pantomime in which he was the weariest and most put-upon. We had to smile” (Ebert).Film’s three Academic Awards in 1999 ,with Benigni winning the Best Actor, speaks of  Roberto’s flair both as an artist and director (Academy Award Database) . Another character on whom the main plot of film rests heavily is Joshua. The cute, lovely and innocent looking five year old is suited very well for his role in the film which required him to be innocent, playful and impish all at the same time.

 The plot is unusual. You do  not expect movie to veer its direction so swiftly from stand-up comedy to utter melancholy in matter of seconds. You do not realize you will be on the receiving end of sorrow after experiencing the hilarious showcase in the first half, until your stomach churns by what happens in the concentration camp.   However, this construct has had some criticism of an unrealistic presentation of the concentration camp and Holocaust. In “Unbelievable Optimism in Life Is Beautiful,” Paul Tatara writes:

Benigni is not in any way making light of events, but he creates such a glossy, back-lot version of a concentration camp.   He's cheating us before he even begins dealing with the horror.  The absurdities just keep on coming. To begin with, Guido has to hide Joshua in the barracks with the men…This is accomplished by having him quickly duck down on one of the top bunks whenever a guard enters the room. This is silly enough, but the barracks - which would undoubtedly have been covered with filth, human waste, and, more than occasionally, a dead body -looks like an uncomfortable place to sleep, but not much more than that.

Some critics have defended the cynicism it has received for softening the Holocaust. The real story of the film “is not about Nazis and Fascists, but about the human spirit and rescue of whatever is good and hopeful from the wreckage of dreams” (Ebert).  The film “did not intend to betray the experience of millions of Jews, but intended to show how far a father can go to save his child from the horror of the Nazi War Machine”(Brady).

Life Is Beautiful is a film which has proved that comedy and tragedy can effectively be presented to the audience in one movie. For that reason, Life is Beautiful has expanded the horizon of movies as far as genre is concerned. Except for the unrealistic portrayal of the harsh realities of a concentration camp, it is a great movie of a great class. A must watch movie for the lovers of the comedy and tragedy genres! The movie sure is unrealistic to a large degree, but it is called a fable for a reason.

Works Cited

"Academy Award Database."  The Academy of Motion Pictures Art and Sciences. Academy of Motion Pictures Art and Sciences,n.d. Web. 5 Deember 2013. <http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1386249746573>.

Brady, Terrence. “Life Is Beautiful.” Pan and Scan Reviews. Terrence J. Brady, n.d. Web.  15  Nov. 2013. <http://www.teako170.com/ps18.html>.

 Ebert, Robert. “Life Is Beautiful.” rogerbert.com. Ebert Digital LLC, 30 Oct. 1998. Web.14 Nov. 2013.  <http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/life-is-beautiful-1998>.

Maslin, Janet. “Life is Beautiful: Giving a Human and Humorous Face to Rearing a Boy inFascism.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 23 Oct.1998. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.  <http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/23/movies/film-review-giving-a-human-and-humorous-face-to-rearing-a-boy-under-fascism.html>.

Tatara, Paul. “Unbelievable Optimism in Life Is Beautiful.” CNN.2000 Cable News Network, 10

Nov.1998.Web.Nov.2013.<http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/Movies/9811/10/reviw.lifeisbeautiful>.

Two Party System, Representation of Public Opinion and Voting Behavior

Winner–takes–all system has led to a two-party system- a phenomenon described by Duverger’s law in USA -for three main reasons. First, the smaller parties are pressured to form an alliance with one of the two major parties to try to become big enough to challenge a large dominant party.[1] Second, voters adopt the strategic voting, and thus decide not to vote for candidates outside of one of the two large parties since they feel that their votes for third party candidates are usually ineffectual.¹ Third, many people do not vote if one of the two candidates appears to be dominating the race, because they feel that their vote will not make a difference in the outcome of the election¹. This trend has resulted in domination of two parties in the American Politics for a long time. One question, however, is whether this two party system is effectively representing the opinions of electorates or is it making the electorates to comprise and choose between unappealing narrow choices. Another question is how this two party system is affecting the voter turnout in election,

Critiques of two party system claim that restricting choices to two parties limits the free marketplace of ideas and reduces each voter's choice. Lisa Disch in the book “Tyranny of Majority” argues that two party system identifies popular sovereignty with choice, and then limits choice to one party or the other. If there is any truth to the analogy between elections and markets, America's faith in the two–party system begs the following question: Why do voters accept as the ultimate in political freedom a binary option they would surely protest as consumers?[2] This is the tyranny of the two–party system, the construct that persuades United States citizens to accept two–party contests as a condition of electoral democracy ².  Diverse citizens of the USA with diverse ideology are forced to choose between two choices, often very similar, which may or may not appeal to them. It is preposterous to think that the political rainbow can be summed up and represented properly by a bi-chromatic facsimile.[3] It is not only a political agenda that an electorate will be voting for a party, but all the political agenda that the party has put forward. This puts the electorate in trouble of deciding whom he is to vote, because his stance on one political agenda may be represented by one party while his stance on another political agenda may be represented by another party. Thus, a two party system forces people to make concessions on their beliefs, all in the name of simplicity³.

Two party system has been criticized for downplaying alternate views, and for not being able to include views from wide political spectrum.  Ariana Huffington in one of the Intelligence Square debate argued that two part system has made Americans prisoners of conventional wisdom. It has made us look every political problem through that obsolete binary prism of right versus wrong⁴.We will not be able to solve problems at same level of thinking that created it.[4]

With typically only two contestants for most offices in a general election, the candidates tend to converge to the middle of the political spectrum on the issues being discussed.  Voters do not feel that the parties give them even two distinct choices on Election Day. Voters also express their desire for a wider variety of candidates than those produced by the two parties. While some people censure the parties for their tendency to become more like one another over time to gather the centrist vote, few others criticize the parties for taking a black and white perspective with no gray area.³ No matter what reason a dislike for two party system may be, a majority of Americans (57%) agree that their views are not represented by either of the two parties and thus feel that there should be a third major political party in addition to the Democrats and Republicans.[5] According to Gallup polling data, in 2011 only 23 percent of Americans identified themselves as Republicans and 28 percent as Democrats, while 46 percent considered themselves independent[6]. If we are to apply those numbers to congressional representation, instead of the current representation, the Senate should be made up of 28 Democrats, 23 Republicans and 46 Independents, as well as three others, and the House of Representatives would contain 122 Democrats, 100 Republicans, 200 independents, and thirteen others. This gives a clear picture of representation of public opinion in American Politics.

The goal of effective democracy should be to achieve good government through high level of public participation. Therefore, voter turnout is very important in evaluating effectiveness of democracy and representation of public opinion.  Advocates of two party system argue that two party system encourage voter turnout by mobilizing the people to vote between two candidates.  They also emphasize that the two party system provides a stable balance by accommodating varied interests and opinions by considering the concerns of organized groups and individual voters. However, recent public polls on effectiveness of political parties have shown the opposite results. The report from the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, puts 2012 voter turnout at 57.5% of all eligible voters, questioning the representation of public opinion in American democracy. When 43.5 percent of the population stays home on Election Day, there is no question whether public opinion is effectively addressed in the process or not.

Of the many other reasons, the dynamics of the two-party system also contributes to low voter turnout of the candidates. First because the major two parties may not have appealing choices, and second because they may have same choices.[7] For instance, Bob Dole and Bill Clinton both entered the 1996 presidential election in favor of balancing the budget, decreasing expenditures on welfare and Medicare, and cutting taxes. With the two parties in basic agreement on so many major issues, voters felt that there was no difference between the two candidates and no reason to vote, leading to the extremely low voter turnout.⁸

Similarly, the supporters of minority parties in two party system abstain from the voting process because they feel that smaller parties are not likely to get representation in government, since these parties cannot win in system in which top parties get to make the government. [8] This results and scholarly quotes explicitly prove that two party system has not been able to address the preferences of majority of citizens, but is making them choose between with an option of voting between narrow choices and another option of abandoning the election.  Theodore J. Lowi in his book “The Republic of Parties? Debating the two party system” makes a point that public participation can increase with the number of political parties. He writes: Because one of the function of the party is to mobilize the voters, a third party would mean more party worker and more activities and this might well increase the public participation. [9] Therefore, alternative political system in the form of multiparty system can be effective in representation of public opinion than the two party system.  

James Maddison writes in Federalist writes, “Republic refine and enlarge the public view by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice, will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.”¹⁰ Taking this as a base, some scholars argue that the number of the political parties should not matter much as long as Americans have wise representatives to represent the electorate given the representative nature of democracy in the USA.¹¹  They assert that the quality of the representative would be important than the position the representative holds on certain topic that are to be addressed by the representative.¹¹ However, two party system hinders the competition among the candidates to get the kind of candidates Madison defines.⁴

It can be assed that two party system has been inefficient in representing public opinion of people. Because two party system is based on binary solution of problems, it provides very narrow, often similar, options to choose from. The policy position that both the major parties hold do not appeal to majority of electorates as shown by recent poll data. The effect of which is also seen in voter turnout in each election.  Increase in competition, movement politics and removal of winner-takes-all system could be very effective ways to address wide spectrum of public opinion in American politics. 

---

[1] Duverger, Maurice. 1972. Party Politics and Pressure Groups, translated by David Wagoner. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell

[2] Disch, Lisa Jane. 2002. Tyranny of the two Political System. Page 9 Columbia University Press. http://books.google.com/books?id=2OSOnGvU_SQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Lisa+Jane+Disch%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NiB_UvbJFq3NsQTKgQI&ved=0CDIQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false.

[3] 2010. "Is two party system preferable to multiparty system?" Debate.org. http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-a-two-party-system-preferable-to-a-multi-party-system.

[4] Huffington, Arianna. 2011. "Two Party System is making America Ungovenable." Intelligence Square Debate, February 15. Accessed November 17, 2013. http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/560-the-two-party-system-is-making-america-ungovernable&tab=2.

[5] Andrew Kohut, Carroll Doherty Michael Dimock, and Scott Keeter. 2012. Voter Attitude. PEW RESEARCH CENTER, 13. http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/06-21-12%20Voter%20Attitudes.pdf.

[6] Gallup. 2013. Party Affiliation . Gallup . Accessed November 16, 2013. http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx.

[7] n.d. Two Party System: Winner takes it all. Duke University. Accessed November 16, 2013. https://web.duke.edu/poli/classes/proprep/withouttext.htm.

[8] Hill, David Lee. 2006. American Voter Turnout. Page 64.Westview Press.  http://books.google.com/books?id=YcgTUi1At_MC&pg=PA66&dq=two+party+system+and+voter+turnout&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xlSEUqKPOIfM2gWgq4DQDg&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false.

[9] Theodore J. Lowi, Joseph Romance. 1998. The Republic of Parties?: Debating the two party system.  Page 63. Rowman &Littlefield Publishers, Inc. http://books.google.com/books?id=1bIVGPwmWgYC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false11.

10 James Madison. Federalist. Number 10

11 Theodore J. Lowi, Joseph Romance. 1998. The Republic of Parties?: Debating the two party system.  Page 63. Rowman &Littlefield Publishers, Inc. http://books.google.com/books?id=1bIVGPwmWgYC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false11.

Fiction Park: Do not Judge, Understand!

Always seated in the last bench of the class was an overweight boy with thick eyeglasses named Kancho. Small eyes with big eyeglasses, small head with large torso, tall and heavy but weak, Kancho was an eccentric person- obnoxious, introverted and anti-social. Characterized by a reclusive nature, he rarely spoke to any of the classmates in the class, let alone the teachers in school. Isolated, in so as much by his own will as by social boycotts, he was not interested in social activities and gatherings. His eccentric behavior became the subject of mockery to the class. The whole class, not excluding me, used to bully him for his attire, looks, and big eyeglasses.  A day never went by in which we did not make fun of him.  However, he neither responded to us verbally or physically, nor did he complain to teachers in his defense. This stirred us to decisively make fun of him as much as we liked.  

      It never occurred to me why Kancho acted the way he did. There should have been a reason, if not many, I never thought- it was too much to think for a twelve year old kid like me. I did what most of the people did to him: teased and made fun of him. Time moved along as we made progress towards our junior year of high school. Even after a couple of years together in the same school, our attitude towards Kancho unfortunately did not change; neither did Kancho’s attitude and behavior. In the junior year of our high school, Kancho transferred to another high school.

    The same year that Kancho left our school, great adversity struck my family.  My father, the only economically active member of my family, had to wash his hand of his job because of job cut offs in my country following economic depression. This made my family economically weak and volatile. I started to work an average of four hours a day to support my family while still continuing my studies, in the process making my academics as fragile as the economic situation of my family. My routine became so hectic that I had scarcely any time to do school work. Thus, it became hard for me to cope with rigor of the curriculum. In the meantime, I was struggling economically even after my earnest effort to improve economic condition of my family. My family had a scarce amount of money to perform even the mundane economic activities. I passed through such miserable times that I did not have enough money to get myself a pack of lunch. I went from a well off and brilliant student to an impecunious underperformer in one turn of event!

     

       This change in circumstances changed the behavior of my friends towards me in an unprecedented way. My friends started to harass me for not being tidy, for struggling to pay my tuitions, and for being an underperformer. They started to speak in patronizing tones whenever I approached them; they just were not as co-operative as they used to be.  This led to my isolation from my friends’ circle. I neither cared what my friends said about me, nor tried to elucidate them of my changes in circumstances which attributed to the ways I acted in my life. Whether or not they included me in their gatherings, parties and hangouts did not bother me after all. Nothing besides myself became a matter of my concern. I started to enjoy my struggling life which was, to a great degree, analogous to Kancho’s life when he was in our high school: dejected, declined and desolated.   

      With profound understanding of reasons for my own isolation, I then understood the reasons for Kancho’s isolation as well.  I concluded that it was not Kancho who was responsible for his eccentric behavior, but the society around him which shaped him to act in certain ways. Because he was obese and wore thick glasses - traits which he might have obtained from the genes of his parents- he was disliked, and thus bullied by the majority of the students.  These two judgmental effects made me reach some understanding of my life, which I would not have deciphered had I not gone through similar circumstances as that of Kancho. I, like my friends, was disposed to judge Kancho on account of his obesity and optical problem. Then, I went through an uncontrollable circumstance in my life that affected the way I acted in my life, which in turn catalyzed my friends to derogatively judge me.  This unique juxtaposition taught me to never judge people on basis of uncontrollable circumstances, genetic traits or possessions which they gain by birth. 

Shia Sunni Conflict

After the death of Prophet Mohammed in 632AD, Islamic world got divided in the question of Prophet Mohammed’s successor as the caliph of whole Islamic community. This was the start of long conflict in the Islamic community, which we now understand as Shia- Sunni conflict. Shia are the minority Muslim population comprising an approximation of 10 to 20 percent of total Islamic population with their majority population in Iran, Azerbaijan, Iraq and Bahrain, while Sunnis are the majority Islamic population with majority population in all other Muslim countries.

Modern Shia-Sunni conflicts holds much of the importance in politics of Middle East and also in the politics of many western countries ,which is one way or other associated to Middle East. The Iranian Islamic revolution changed the calculus of Shia- Sunni power equation in Muslim countries with overthrowing of the rule of Shah Mohammad Pahlavi supported by the United States and United Kingdom, by Shia leader Ayatollah Khomeini; thus arousing the traditionally subservient Shia to the alarm of traditionally dominant Sunnis. Shia dominated Iran was in favor of Shia- Sunni harmony, but their contentious relation with Saudi Arabia divided Arab countries into two different front. Countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan went through a new wave of revolution following this Islamic revival. American military intervention in Iraq also fueled Shia- Sunni conflict to new height.

Iraq was dominantly ruled by Sunni people under the leadership of Saddam Hussein until 2003, under which period some 50,000 to 100,000 Shia were mercilessly persecuted. After an intervention from USA in 2003, Shia majority have handled the administrative position in Iraq which previously used to be hold by Sunni. The violent Sunni-Shia conflict took a new turn with Sunni majority killing Shia population by suicide bombings, and Shia majority through death squad, a practice of extrajudicial killings and forced disappearance for political reasons to keep the secrecy of killed and to avoid the accountability.

Al-Qaeda, terrorist group against any anti-Sunni Islamic principal, is also responsible for provoking sectarian violence among Muslims. Al-Qaeda has carried out many attacks on non-Sunni Muslims and  non-Muslims; 9/11 attacks,  Yazidi community bombings, the Sadr City bombings, the Ashoura Massacre and the April 2007 Baghdad bombings are some of the examples of attacks. Taliban, another Islamic terrorist group, has also been instigating the sectarian conflict between Sunni Pashtun and Shia population in Afghanistan after Soviet Union’s withdrawal in 1989. Similarly, recent Syrian uprising has reawakened the sectarian tensions in Syria, which now is turning into a sectarian strife between the Alawits and Sunni Jihadists.

In countries like Syria, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, sectarian conflict is pervaded primarily by an effort to change the political system in the country- this sectarian conflict has not come by itself. When Iran tried to transform itself into republic state, it brought about the sectarian conflict all over the world that has influence up to today’s world. When USA tried to bring democracy in Iraq by out-casting the Sunni minority led by Saddam Hussain, it brought about a political havoc not only in Iraq but also in USA, whose aftermaths  of involvemnet still has influence in downturn of American Economic to this date. Similarly, when Soviet Union in one end of the spectrum and USA and Saudi Arabia on the other tried to solve political fiasco in Afghanistan, it brought about the sectarian problem with Taliban and Al-Qaeda, the greatest threat of Western world. Contemporary Syrian crisis is another vivid example where an effort to change political system has backfired the struggle into a sectarian conflict. It is safe to assume that whenever Middle East nations have tried to transform their fundamental political system, it have always created a problem with Sectarian issue.

If world wants stable, non-extremist and democratic Middle East, it needs to settle sectarian conflict before it wants middle east countries to walk along the road of democracy- the political change these countries are trying to embrace. Trying to change the political system without ousting the probability of sectarian conflict will always create troubles in world.

References: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=a-QH_CxIFTEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA9&dq=sunni+shia+conflict+iraq&ots=pqbl9nh-TN&sig=LJgBXm69IzWi6RQ0jY9UYWaeHtI#v=onepage&q=sunni%20shia%20conflict%20iraq&f=false

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia%E2%80%93Sunni_relations

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/09/sunni-shia_conflict_being_stoked_by_syrias_civil_war.html

Spreading Smiles through Toilet Papers

I used to spend quite a lot of time in the library reading, doing homework or preparing for the tests. One Tuesday, as I was preparing for a calculus test, I got bogged down in few questions. Tired of unsuccessfully trying the same questions again and again, I rested my head on the table, covering my face with my hands. It was then that I heard a heavy and gruff, yet affectionate voice. "Are you alright, son?,” asked a tall African American man with an oval face, a pointed nose, large and wide ears, and intense brown eyes below dense eyebrows. He cleared his throat, and patted my leaning torso. Raising my bowed head, I looked at the tall figure with amazement and replied that I was okay, rubbing my eyes. He introduced himself and offered me a bottle of water, which I took without hesitation. He was Lawrence Perry, a janitor at the University of New Orleans. This was the first time I was approached with such kindness after I had left my country, Nepal. Even though Mr. Perry holds a mop, not a briefcase, he holds the power to spread a smile, and he has every reason to be happy himself.

“I think my job is one of the most important jobs in UNO”, says Lawrence Perry, who has been working as a janitor at the University for the last five years. “Imagine what would happen if I did not keep toilet papers in the restroom”, he continues with a giggle in his voice.  He has a defined chin and a strong jaw line that gives an aesthetic element to his broad smile. He always smiles when he sees a familiar face. “There are people who show nonchalance when I smile or try to talk to them, but I never have any grudges against them”, Perry says with immense weight in his voice. “Life is about sharing what you have. I have a smile to give to people. It is their discretion whether to respond to me or not”, he continues in a slightly indignant tone.  “I am happy with my life, you know! I have done what I need to do to my family, and I try to be good to every person. That is my life to me”, he ends abruptly in a graver toner.

Mr. Perry is a familiar face around the Earl K Long Library, where his work is mainly concentrated. Mr. Perry, who has been working as a custodian for the last nineteen years in one place or another, is very aware of cleanliness. Mr. Perry’s job is to clean the restrooms and to make sure that every restroom in the entire four story building has toilet paper and soap. He performs his task of cleaning with great care and sincerity.  His job is such that if he does everything right his work is rarely given a credit. “I wonder if people ever notice that there is a man who is doing all the work behind the scene”, Perry speaks contently in response to the question of what people’s response is towards his job.  He recalls the time when he was ignored by some people on account of what he does for living. “When I say my profession is a janitor to people, some people try to forestall the conversation. You know what, next time those people see me, they just ignore me”, he quickly lifts his shoulders as he speaks with wonder.

 In the same momentum of the conversation, he mentions about an incident when he was excluded from an invitation to a staff member’s wedding, when the whole building was invited.  “I have come to realize that some people judge me as being unworthy of their time and attention, but the bitter truth is that those people need a through contemplation of their own life”, he says vaguely.   He takes a deep sigh and looks at his wrist watch. His sad and humble voice, when he spoke, reflected his disapproval of the people’s prejudiced attitude towards people like him. “But again, I feel my life is the way it should be. You cannot really make grievances against anything”, he gives his second thought, shifting his focus from his watch to my spectacles. That belief is the reason why he starts every day with a cheerful smile.

In his twenty eight years of marriage, Perry values his family the most. He believes that his marriage is the greatest blessing in his life. “My wife is the most influential person to me. She has always been by my side to support me in ups and downs. She accepts me for who I am, and that is the reason why I feel satisfied even though I have not accomplished a great deal in life,” he says, leaning on the chair. In response to the question of what makes him happy, he says with a smile in his face, “My reasons for happiness are rather modest. My wife’s birthday, my children’s birthday, my children’s promotion to the higher grade, my dog and my small world are the causes for my happiness.” Perry believes that everything that makes his family happy is the biggest achievement of his life. “My family is happy with what we have. This is actually an achievement for me. When my family becomes discontent or dissatisfied with me, then making them happy will be my challenge”, he says re-iteratively.  

         

 Mr. Perry made me realize that people become great by their deeds, not by the job they hold. He does not hold grudges against any people, but performs his work with sincere effort and tries to help others as much as he can. “What distinguishes men from another creature is their care and concern for another being .I try to make my family happy, and try to give others what I can”, he says in a philosophical tone. After an awkward silence, he says,” I do not frown to people, nor do I hate them whatsoever. I respect everyone for who they are”. Mr. Perry always reminds me of the importance of positive attitude in life. 

Syrian Issue- A political Conundrum

Whether USA should attack Syria or not is the most debated topic as of 11th of August, 2013 as far as international politics is concerned. This topic has gathered varying opinions on what USA’s move should be, typically after Obama’s “red line” has now been crossed. This is my attempt to explore, analyze, critique and improve two contradicting opinions, one from Radwan Ziadeh, spokesman for the Syrian National Council,   and other from Stephen M. Walt, professor of international affairs at Harvard University. Walt makes valid arguments against intervention, but fails to address possible ways the Syrian Crisis can be resolved. He is more concerned about the interests of the US than of a conflict that has clearly gone out of control. Ziadeh represents that side of the world, which still look up on the western world to help check the atrocities against civilians around the world. He however, fails to explain how western intervention will lead to or even help reach political stability in Syria.

Walt makes strong arguments against the intervention in Syria. He holds strong proclivity against any kind of attack against Syria on USA’s part. Walt addresses the fact that deadlier weapons than those used by Assad regime have been already used, so violation of international law against chemical weapons should not be the triggering factor for a reaction. He reminds us of how USA has violated the international laws to get what Washington D.C. wanted in the past; thus, it would be inappropriate to talk about international law at this point.  He further believes that half-hearted attack as proposed by Obama Administration contributes nothing towards depriving Assad of his power, and even if this attack helps rebel group backed by Jihadists to topple the ruling government, it would be unfortunate for Syria and western countries to have the extremist Jihadists as the ruling power of Syria. In his view, the USA need not intervene at this point regardless of use of chemical weapon when people were mercilessly killed from the beginning of the conflict. In Walt’s view, Obama’s red line is the only reason for the USA to attack or at least punish Syria for using chemical weapons. This drawing of a line was foolish in his opinion due to the presence of deadlier weapons already, and responding to a foolish decision with another foolish move would not be what the USA would want to do. Any reluctant action taken to hold firm on the earlier stance might push USA into deeper trouble, Walt further argues.

Walt’s argument on why USA should not attack Syria following recent chemical attack is agreeable from the American point of view. It is true that the USA cannot afford to go to another war, particularly in Syria, because the consequences are unknown, yet most likely miserable. He defends the counter argument too by convincingly putting forward the domestic concerns of the USA. His argument on the last paragraph about intervention being a foolish act to save Obama’s face sounds convincing, especially when looking back at the aftermaths of American intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

On the other hand, Radwan Ziadeh argues that the USA and international society have decisive power to control the rebel in Syria as the only legitimate organ to respond to these attacks is paralyzed by Veto Power of China and Russia in United Nations Security Council. It seems reasonable, in his View, for powerful western nations to take action against impunity by Assad’s regime.  He elaborates that preceding events which were not kept on track by the NATO and other nations opened the door for the attacks of higher magnitude and destruction by Assad’s Regime. He believes that targeted air strikes and enforcement of non-flight zone can end impunity and bring back stable Syria.  However, he does not defend counter- arguments about retaliation from Syria and its allies. Even though Ziadeh mentions that international intervention can thwart away the evils of Syria, he fails to address looming questions of world war, as well as stability and leadership in Syria after intervention.

It is interesting that a Syrian writer himself is expecting intervention from the western world because Syria indeed has lost all hopes. However, Zaideh doesn’t sound convincing in his proposed solution of targeted air strikes and enforcement of a non-flight zone, especially after the international community has already decided that intervention is not going to solve the problem and that Syria is rather on its own. While the argument is whether western intervention is essential for checking chemical weapon use, Zaideh is hoping too much by pointing that the international community might be able to solve this crisis.

After 9/11 attack, USA government is keeping tight scrutiny in Middle East countries with an influence of either Al-Qaeda or Taliban. It has also been cautious over the issue of nuclear weapons, linked especially with North Korea and Iran. Syria seems to attract attention from both of these issues. USA fears that conflict ridden Syria can act as base for terrorists groups like Al- Qaeda. On top of that, recent use of Chemical weapons have attracted its attention as it is something USA is weary of. However, intervention is still a bad idea even for USA at this point. Middle East is going through a lot of trouble, and involvement of USA could mess the situation more. The half -hearted attack, as the United States Government claims, will only outrage allies of Syria namely Russia and Iran, which in turn can disturb the delicacy of international politics leading to serious political crisis. If half-hearted attack as USA government proposes turns out to help the opposition Jihadists, whose involvement in the protest have lately been verified, to take control over Syria, it will only escalate the burden of USA and international society. Learning from experience at Iraq and Afghanistan that foreign intervention in internal conflict of country does not work out well, USA does not want to get involved in Syria the way it did in Afghanistan and Iraq. If USA is to attack Syria even at small scale, danger persists that attack to punish the violation of law against Chemical Weapons may drag USA into the war, in which it does not want to be involved. As far as the question on violation of international law about chemical weapons is concerned, it would be ironical to attack by violating another law, law concerning UN Security council, as Watt argues.

 

In a vicious circle where every action looks inappropriate to give direction, the best way to solve the issue would be to wait and watch as the questions on attack is adjourned by the agreement between USA and Russia. As far as punishing Assad regime for chemical attacks is concerned, it should be a step taken not only by the USA, but by a collaboration between powerful states. Although Chemical weapons are less destructive than several other weapons, as argued by Walt, it is best for the world to have it under control because of its tendency to affect more civilians than the intended target.

Radwan Ziadeh’s Article

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/08/26/is-an-attack-on-syria-justified/the-west-must-finally-respond-in-syria

WALT’s Article http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/08/26/is-an-attack-on-syria-justified/type-of-weapons-assad-uses-shouldnt-affect-us-policy