Elections in Lebanon
Wednesday, 10 Jun, 2009
THE electoral victory of the ruling ‘March 14’ coalition in Lebanon has been welcomed as a victory for democracy. With voter turnout over 50 per cent and no violence reported, Sunday’s polls were not what this strife-torn country is accustomed to. The coalition led by Saad Hariri’s party won a majority, proving that the unexpected can still happen. The Islamist Hezbollah that had successfully confronted Israel in 2006 and proved its military prowess in Beirut last year failed to demonstrate its political strength. Many factors contributed to the electoral outcome. One of them was the booming economy that went in favour of the incumbent. With a GDP growth rate of nine per cent in 2008, revenues growing rapidly, the number of tourists going up by 50 per cent and industrial exports expanding, there was no reason for the Lebanese to reject their government. President Barack Obama’s ‘new beginning’ speech in Cairo a few days before the polls also injected that much-needed feel-good factor that was needed to tip the scales. Does all this mean that Lebanon has entered a new era and that fractious politics has become a thing of the past?
One should not be over-optimistic. With the fragmented sectarian composition of its population given constitutional recognition through a system of political quotas and checks and balances, Lebanon can hardly hope for any single party to gain a majority in parliament. Every party that rules is required to seek the backing of allies to stay firmly in the saddle. Moreover, given its proximity to Israel, Beirut is expected to put up with a lot of meddling from its neighbours — Syria, Iran or Saudi Arabia. There is also the overt and covert pulling of strings by distant allies, mainly the US, which Lebanon cannot escape. Above all, Israel is a dominating factor in the life of any Arab country. Hence any government in Beirut has to tread carefully and address the “sensitive equations” referred to by a Hezbollah leader recently. Mr Hariri’s offer “to extend our hand to work together” with his rivals should be well received. But his refusal to opt for the ‘blocking minority’ formula that allows the opposition to veto a cabinet decision could create hurdles when he seeks to enter into a power-sharing arrangement that is durable. Moreover, the well-armed militias of various parties will continue to give their supporters disproportionate leverage.
************************************************** ********
IDPs’ disillusionment
Wednesday, 10 Jun, 2009
WHILE the Pakistan military’s latest offensive against the TTP and other militant outfits has achieved some success, gains are also being made on the ideological front. The past few months have seen the tide of public opinion turn — from a fearful or confused conciliatory attitude towards these groups to what the US-based
New Yorker magazine recently called an “antipathy towards the Taliban”. Reports suggest that this change of heart is true not only of the people displaced internally by the conflict, and therefore most directly affected, but also of residents in areas as yet unscarred by the battle. Deeply disturbing, however, is the fact that this antipathy is accompanied by a general lack of faith in the commitment of the government and the army to the long-term battle: the defeat of the Taliban and their ilk for good and the extension of the state’s writ and protection to all areas. The New Yorker magazine reporter pointed out that “a number of refugees and residents of Mardan questioned how serious it [the government] was about cleaning out the militants”.
This is worrying, for a population disillusioned with the government can become part of anti-state or militant groups in the future. The more than two million people displaced by the fighting are most at risk, for the state has done little to mitigate their suffering. Even when it is safe to return, these people will face an uncertain future in the battle-ravaged areas where the civic and administrative infrastructure is in a shambles, and where medical and educational facilities will have to be rebuilt from scratch. Refugees can be easily radicalised. The failure of the state and its institutions to protect, accommodate and later rehabilitate them increases the anger of millions, as does the rejection of their presence in Sindh and Punjab by political groups. This can well create recruiting space for militant outfits. For long-term success in the battle against the Taliban and other anti-state forces, it is essential that the military battle is followed by tangible steps towards civic development and economic uplift of devastated zones and the rehabilitation of the displaced.
************************************************** ********
Pakistan Railways
Wednesday, 10 Jun, 2009
PRIVATISATION works when it builds capacity and improves products or services. In the case of Pakistan Railways, any sale by the state will most likely fail to meet the first criterion. Services may — and that’s a big ‘may’ — improve under private ownership. Train travel could conceivably become safer and more comfortable and dependable. At the same time, however, it is inevitable that loss-making routes will be done away with, which means that fewer stations will be serviced. Capacity will thus be reduced, not enhanced. In many remote areas, the train service represents a lifeline to the rest of the country and this link that sustains both travel and trade ought not to be severed. Britain’s privatisation of the rail system saw several stops disappear from the map for reasons of profitability. The same is bound to happen in Pakistan, with far greater adverse effect, if Pakistan Railways is sold. Jobs too will be lost in the downsizing effort and fares are likely to increase, again to the detriment of the public. What’s more, firing poorly paid workers is unlikely to turn Pakistan Railways around. What is needed instead is a complete rethink of the organisation’s top-heavy administrative structure. This can be done without selling the railways.
The railways minister was adamant on Monday that
PR would not be privatised even though a cabinet committee had been formed to discuss the same. Admitting that “some people” want the sale to go through, he said privatising the railways would run counter to the ruling party’s manifesto. He also pointed out that the budget for the road transport network is nearly four times bigger than that of the railways. This is a key point. Pakistan Railways, which racks up billions in losses every year, is a victim of government neglect as well as mismanagement. Its fortunes could well be reversed through a combination of commitment, increased funding and honesty of purpose.
Substantial investment will be required to make train journeys safer and more comfortable. Staff performance must be improved and tracks upgraded to ensure smoother traffic flow at junctions and stations. When trains are delayed it is not just the passengers who suffer — Pakistan Railways’ budget also takes a hit. Fuel expenses accounted for over 32 per cent of
PR’s operational costs in 2006-07. This figure would be lower were it not for the fuel wasted by locomotives idling for hours at stations or waiting elsewhere for other trains to pass. According to a report in this paper in February, “Locomotives stalled in yards and train delays resulted in the loss of 770,700 minutes between May 2007 and April 2008, causing a loss of Rs776,865,600”. Pakistan Railways need not be seen as a lost cause. There is massive room for improvement and it could be revitalised without being privatised.
************************************************** ********
OTHER VOICES - European Press FF have lost the right to dictate
Wednesday, 10 Jun, 2009
SO, the medicine has been administered and now all we can do is wait, watch and hope, wondering if the patient will respond or succumb to the malaise…. [T]he patient’s well-being is central to all of our prospects and ambitions.
Stretching the medical analogy, almost as far as our credibility was stretched over recent years, hopefully we can begin to build a sense of optimism now that the fever has broken and the patient is in a position to respond. And what a response it must be. In the next few days Taoiseach Brian Cowen goes to the EU summit in Brussels, which is scheduled to finalise the legal guarantees to enable a rerun of the Lisbon Treaty in the autumn.
The Irish Examiner
A second rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, no matter how earnestly felt, would be suicidal. We simply don’t have the luxury of pretending that we can reject it and continue to enjoy the essential support of our European neighbours, support that proved absolutely vital in the last few months.
In the coming weeks An Bord Snip Nua will publish its assessment on how the public service might be reformed. If the report has the substance and sweep required … it will cause ructions amongst those in the firing line. Age-old privileges and authority will be challenged and those once thought untouchable will be taken out of their comfort zone…. It is certain, however, that the Commission on Taxation report on the tax system will have an impact on incomes.
This report is taking shape and will be with us long before the consequences of last Friday have faded…. [IT] will feed into the December budget…. These projects would stretch a government in rude health, but … [a] profoundly challenged government might find it all too much…. Of course there are other matters, such as our errant banks, the prospect of 500,000 people in dole queues before Christmas, energy dependence, collapsing pension schemes, great difficulties in agriculture too and many … more problems that can’t be ignored. In this context it would be appropriate for [the] government to give an outline of how it intends to proceed … [and] secure these objectives….
These unique circumstances present challenges for Fine Gael and Labour too. They are both a step closer to their holy grail and must now behave as they might should they assume power. They too must say how they would fix our world. If they don’t how can they expect to be given the opportunity? — (June 09)