Last year has been quite good for democracy in south asia. Bhutan, Nepal and Maldives got their democratically elected government and at the same time Bangladesh and Pakistan could bring back civilian government after a long time. In Mayanmar also protests for democracy picked up last year but eventually got very brutally crushed. Perhaps India and China need to do some serious work here before democracy and freedom start taking meaning in this country. But except Mayanmar it's democracy which emerged triumphant all around south asia.
But will the trend continue? Recent trends are worrisome. Bangladesh is witnessing mutiny just after two months of civilian government in the office. Sri Lanka is trying to crush the tamil issue (which is brewing for decades) at the point of gun and Sharif brothers are getting banned from contesting election in Pakistan. These happenings are certainly going to push back the process of democracy a bit.
This is the time when both the newly-elected and other governments in the region set the stage for a more open and inclusive democratic process. This means listening to the opposition, bringing in greater transparency and paying attention to strengthening the institutions of democracy. Despite recent events, the very fact that democracy has taken root, howsoever tenuous, brings hope that we will one day reap its dividends.
Bangladesh may be seeing disturbances now, but it is significant that after two years of emergency rule and considerable uncertainty, parliamentary elections were held peacefully on December 29, 2008, returning democracy to the country, with a record turnout of 87 per cent of the 80 million registered voters. The election was credible and transparent and one of the most non-violent in the history of the country. The Awami League-led grand alliance won a landslide victory, securing over two-thirds of the 300 seats in the National Assembly. How the new government will foster working relationships across parties, and ensure that all parties, especially those in the minority, feel that they are part of the democratic process will be an important measure of success.
In Pakistan, despite the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, elections were held on February 18, 2008, that led to a victory for the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP). Yousaf Raza Gilani was elected Prime Minister and Asif Zardari, Bhutto’s husband, eventually won the presidency after General Pervez Musharraf’s resignation that brought eight years of military rule to an end. The people of Pakistan fought long and hard for a return to democracy. But now that the apex court has barred both former premier Nawaz Sharif and his brother Shahbaz Sharif, chief minister of Punjab, from contesting elections it can only be hoped that this will not lead to a political crisis.
Notwithstanding a history of violence, Nepal’s Constituent Assembly election on April 10, 2008, turned a new page in the country’s political history. The positive outcome of a smooth election gave a big boost to the peace process. A refreshing outcome of the election is that women now comprise more than 30 per cent of the elected members. Much hope now rests on the Constituent Assembly to meet the expectations and aspirations of Nepal’s diverse communities in shaping a ‘New Nepal’. Given Nepal’s huge development challenges there is no other viable option.
Bhutan held it's first ever election and voters turn out were magnificent. India is doing really good work in this country by helping democracy to take the baby walk here.
Now thrust is upon the SAARC to keep the development. SAARC countries will have to group up and form the strategy to protect and develop the democracy. Main reasons of failure of democracy in south Asian countries have been the curruption. Govenments in respective countries will have to fromulise starategy to root out this menace. Strenthening the judiciary and decentralising the power is other things these govenments need to do. All the political and governmental processes have to be more transparent and convenient for common man. Introduction of strong e-governance can solve ninty percent of problem immediately. In short, if at all democracy has to survive in this region...governments will have to live up to the people's expectations.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
UN : Designed To Be Useless
Watching Israel bombing schools and depot in Gaza killing thousands of innocent Palestinians among them many children and women made me realize again that how worthless a human life can become at times…and how pragmatic Darwin's hundreds of year old 'survival of the fittest' theory still is. It seems only thing which matters today is 'Power'. And struggle to have and later keep it i am afraid might take us back into stone age. It's hight time we take notice of world event little more seriously and start raising voices against the attrocities and crime committed by the powerful or powerhungry countries and groups.
To achieve our goal of peace and freedom so called civilized humans of the world had created an unified body called United Nations more than half a century ago. They tried to project it as a world's governing body. But kept a private club called security council which vetos all the powers of UN and help manupulate and carry the personal agendas of club members. And when there is no personal agendas involved, they just keep the conflict alive for the future benefits as it is happenning in Gaza, Congo, Somalia, Sudan, Srilanka, Afghanistan, Pakistan and in many other countries around the world.
What justification UN can ever give for massacre, rape and pillage in Haiti and Bosnia which happened not surprisingly in the presence of UN’s blue berets? In the name of peacemaking and peacekeeping UN has committed more attrocities and crime than anyone else . Shouldn't we think about reorganising or to the certain extent recreating UN now, before it is too too late? Or should we just let it get abolished??? But before we come to any conclusion lets have a look into some statistics...
the second world war almost 150 major conflicts have taken place in the world. Among them 130 have been fought in developing world. Since the 1950s, more wars have started than have stopped. By the end of 2008, wars had been running in Afghanistan for 30 years, Angola for 43, Liberia for 19, Somalia for 20, Sri Lanka for 25, Sudan for 25 and congo for 14 years. The global case-load of refugees and displaced persons is growing at alarming speed. The number of refugees from armed conflicts worldwide increased from 2.4 million in 1974 to more than 40 million today as per the UNICEF’s report. Report notices that another 30 million people displaced within their own countries. Children and women make up an estimated 80 per cent of displaced populations. And what has UN been doing in the meantime...almost nothing. It did deployed its blue berets in many parts of the world but didn't give them mandate to act. As per the mandate blue berets are not deployed to fight but to keep peace. There are hundreds of procedures involved before a blue beret's soldier decides to raise his gun...even if he has to do it for self defence. So in 60 years blue berets did nothing, just stood by their post, guns loaded but facing down...
Now lets try to remember again the preamble to the United Nations Charter. There are mainly four –
* To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
* To reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
* To establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
* To promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Now tell me honestly could UN live up to its charter ever? Hasn't it just been fooling around so far? Therefor I ask again, isn't it the right time to pause and think...think for the alternatives.
The UN came into being at a time when the world was without an Internet and a global economy had yet to emerge. The immediacy that is common place today did not exist when the UN was founded. Much of the activities of the UN were not known to most of the world. This is why in the first 40 years sanctions by oppressive governments were largely ignored. Doesn't UN needs to be updated as per the passings of time?
Although there has not been a world war since the founding of the UN there have been quite a number of wars, whether it is Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq or Israel. All happened in the very presence of UN which kept acting impotent.
On the second mission statement; "...to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights..." this has not been affected by the UN in the least. Yes, the UN affirms human rights but abuse of human rights are as prevalent as ever. A good example was the "Food For Oil" scam perpetrated on the world. Secondly, can anyone seriously suggest that the People's Republic of China, Ghana and the Republic of Congo adheres to the same principles of human rights as Belgium, Italy and United Kingdom do? Even though the principles of human rights should be universally attainable and understandable, most countries in the world couldn't care less about it. The result is that nothing meaningful gets accomplished in this area...
The third point, "to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other source of international law can be maintained." which with exceptions, has also been a miserable failure. Most countries ignore this when convenient and embrace it when convenient. The result being a gigantic gap in credibility...and pathetic failure of UN's approach towards the solution...
So again, what's the alternative (remedies)? I will say, "abolish the security council". We have got to abolish this elite club to bring equality of share in UN and prove Mr. Darwin wrong at least in social spectrum. This will solve all the problems stright away. Just let it be a world governing body which includes representatives of all the countries with equal power and voice. Let all the issues get debated and voted by all...
To achieve our goal of peace and freedom so called civilized humans of the world had created an unified body called United Nations more than half a century ago. They tried to project it as a world's governing body. But kept a private club called security council which vetos all the powers of UN and help manupulate and carry the personal agendas of club members. And when there is no personal agendas involved, they just keep the conflict alive for the future benefits as it is happenning in Gaza, Congo, Somalia, Sudan, Srilanka, Afghanistan, Pakistan and in many other countries around the world.
What justification UN can ever give for massacre, rape and pillage in Haiti and Bosnia which happened not surprisingly in the presence of UN’s blue berets? In the name of peacemaking and peacekeeping UN has committed more attrocities and crime than anyone else . Shouldn't we think about reorganising or to the certain extent recreating UN now, before it is too too late? Or should we just let it get abolished??? But before we come to any conclusion lets have a look into some statistics...
the second world war almost 150 major conflicts have taken place in the world. Among them 130 have been fought in developing world. Since the 1950s, more wars have started than have stopped. By the end of 2008, wars had been running in Afghanistan for 30 years, Angola for 43, Liberia for 19, Somalia for 20, Sri Lanka for 25, Sudan for 25 and congo for 14 years. The global case-load of refugees and displaced persons is growing at alarming speed. The number of refugees from armed conflicts worldwide increased from 2.4 million in 1974 to more than 40 million today as per the UNICEF’s report. Report notices that another 30 million people displaced within their own countries. Children and women make up an estimated 80 per cent of displaced populations. And what has UN been doing in the meantime...almost nothing. It did deployed its blue berets in many parts of the world but didn't give them mandate to act. As per the mandate blue berets are not deployed to fight but to keep peace. There are hundreds of procedures involved before a blue beret's soldier decides to raise his gun...even if he has to do it for self defence. So in 60 years blue berets did nothing, just stood by their post, guns loaded but facing down...
Now lets try to remember again the preamble to the United Nations Charter. There are mainly four –
* To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
* To reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
* To establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
* To promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Now tell me honestly could UN live up to its charter ever? Hasn't it just been fooling around so far? Therefor I ask again, isn't it the right time to pause and think...think for the alternatives.
The UN came into being at a time when the world was without an Internet and a global economy had yet to emerge. The immediacy that is common place today did not exist when the UN was founded. Much of the activities of the UN were not known to most of the world. This is why in the first 40 years sanctions by oppressive governments were largely ignored. Doesn't UN needs to be updated as per the passings of time?
Although there has not been a world war since the founding of the UN there have been quite a number of wars, whether it is Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq or Israel. All happened in the very presence of UN which kept acting impotent.
On the second mission statement; "...to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights..." this has not been affected by the UN in the least. Yes, the UN affirms human rights but abuse of human rights are as prevalent as ever. A good example was the "Food For Oil" scam perpetrated on the world. Secondly, can anyone seriously suggest that the People's Republic of China, Ghana and the Republic of Congo adheres to the same principles of human rights as Belgium, Italy and United Kingdom do? Even though the principles of human rights should be universally attainable and understandable, most countries in the world couldn't care less about it. The result is that nothing meaningful gets accomplished in this area...
The third point, "to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other source of international law can be maintained." which with exceptions, has also been a miserable failure. Most countries ignore this when convenient and embrace it when convenient. The result being a gigantic gap in credibility...and pathetic failure of UN's approach towards the solution...
So again, what's the alternative (remedies)? I will say, "abolish the security council". We have got to abolish this elite club to bring equality of share in UN and prove Mr. Darwin wrong at least in social spectrum. This will solve all the problems stright away. Just let it be a world governing body which includes representatives of all the countries with equal power and voice. Let all the issues get debated and voted by all...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)