Hillary’s nomination
IN one of the toughest, and strangest, American presidential campaigns in memory, a bright spot is the first-ever nomination of a woman as the candidate of one of the two main political parties. Hillary Clinton has smashed the glass ceiling, and that is the singular fact to celebrate from the outcome thus far. Her journey has been an extraordinarily long and difficult one, a fact that testifies to her strength and determination to beat the odds. The race now moves towards the conventions in July, and her numbers at the polls should rise steeply as she emerges as the sole candidate — the Democrat votes, that had thus far been divided between her and Bernie Sanders, are expected to now largely come to her.
The race pits a sophisticated Washington insider against the controversial Republican contester Donald Trump whose campaign has been marked by aggressive rhetoric towards sensitive issues, something that has only served to deepen the divisions in American society. Thus far Ms Clinton has shown considerable mettle in meeting the unconventional challenges posed by Mr Trump, and is refusing to be cowed. As the campaign gathers pace in the run-up to the conventions, and beyond, her strength will be tested to the hilt as she attempts to tap the female vote as a counter to Mr Trump’s drive to secure his standing. In the days to come, she will also have to square her hawkish position on Israel and her support for American military adventures in the Middle East with her positions on refugees and immigration, as well as interfaith harmony within the US. Given the sheer magnitude of the challenges faced by the US, its waning power in the world, its crumbling economy and infrastructure at home, and the deep vein of disaffection with the politics of Capitol Hill, Ms Clinton will have to climb a steep and slippery slope to the White House as a conventional, mainstream politician facing unconventional challenges.
Panama impasse
SEVEN rounds of negotiations between the government and the combined opposition over the terms of reference for the Panama Papers judicial commission have yielded an impasse. While another meeting is scheduled, members of both sides in the parliamentary committee appear to be pessimistic about finding common ground. According to the opposition, the government is determined to avoid any inquiry that focuses on Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif alone. According to the government, the opposition has consistently backtracked on its public position and is ultimately seeking a witch-hunt against the prime minister. It is perhaps in the nature of politics for all sides to exaggerate and threaten the collapse of talks. Time and again, an alleged impasse is broken at the last minute and usually with the intervention of the party bosses themselves. With Mr Sharif still out of the country and convalescing, perhaps the government team does not have the authorisation to reach a deal immediately and the opposition is not keen on letting attention turn away from it and towards the slow grind of a judicial commission as yet.
However, there ought to be no doubt: the Panama Papers continue to hang like a dark cloud over the country’s politics. True, the government has recovered somewhat and the business of governance has been taken up to an extent, especially with the budget process, but the politics of the Panama Papers is still a clear and major distraction. While the opposition is wrong to the extent that it appears to be uninterested in any systemic change or investigation beyond the first family, the government has been wrong to suggest that the prime minister should be held to the same standard of conduct as everyone else. The Panama Papers continue to reverberate nationally precisely because the prime minister’s children have been ensnared in them — to deny that is deeply problematic and, now, politically unacceptable. Given that it is the government that must notify the formation of a judicial commission and it is the leader of the government itself under scrutiny, it is the government that must show both creativity and flexibility to break the impasse.
For the political opposition, the challenge remains to convert the public outcry over the Panama Papers into something meaningful for the overall tax and financial system in the country. If the Panama Papers have yielded prima facie illegalities, the opposition should be working on legislative proposals to close loopholes and improve financial oversight. That process can and should move alongside the judicial commission’s work. Sensible legislative action that dovetails with reasonable political discourse is a fundamental way of introducing incremental change in the democratic system. Yet, until now, the opposition has appeared more focused on the politics of the Panama Papers and inflicting damage on the government than fixing the system. Can a better kind of leadership prevail?
Derogatory language
IT seems that a competition is under way among our legislators to secure the most marks in the use of derogatory language. Following Minister for Water and Power Khawaja Asif’s outburst against PTI chief whip Shireen Mazari in the National Assembly on Thursday, JUI-F Senator Hafiz Hamdullah has sought to overtake the PML-N legislator by launching a tirade of verbal abuse against rights activist Marvi Sirmed on TV. On a pre-recorded talk show aired late Friday night, Senator Hamdullah rudely interrupted Ms Sirmed who was responding to a question on the rise in honour killings and the Council of Islamic Ideology’s reaction. Angrily storming off the set, the JUI-F legislator is accused of having attempted to strike Ms Sirmed. Such insupportable behaviour is hardly befitting of the chairperson of the Senate Committee on Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony; not only has the lawmaker brought the august upper house into disrepute, he has also shown his own party in a negative light. Will the Senate and the JUI-F take action against the errant senator, who is reputed to get riled on air?
Regrettably, this incident also underscores the failure of TV channels to fulfil their responsibility of promoting informed debate as opposed to regular marathon catfights. It is unethical for talk shows to knowingly provide a window for the use of expletives. In their bid to boost programme ratings, media owners — and by extension coerced news directors — disregard the electronic media’s code of conduct that bans hate speech and incitement to violence. True, freedom of speech is a basic right and all aspects of an argument must be heard, hence the need for invitees holding contrasting viewpoints. However, it is equally important to ensure the wise selection of participants especially when it comes to controversial discussions; the channels are aware that certain guests have a track record of aggressive behaviour on TV. There is no reason whatsoever to discard the rules, even if it is to raise ratings. And in such cases, if the fine imposed by Pemra on channels for violations hasn’t served as a deterrent, then the amount should be increased. Since the start of 2016, Pemra has issued 17 show-cause notices for abusive language and irresponsible incitement to violence. Ethical journalism is integral in front of the camera. Only when the current breed of anchors realise their power lies in conducting reasoned debate will they safeguard media credibility.
Source: Editorials
Published in Dawn, June 12th, 2016