US presidential polls
ELECTIONS in two-party systems are meant to provide the voter a clear choice, ie alternative paths to the future that the electorate must choose between. Rarely, however, has there been an election where the choice has been so stark. Tomorrow, the US will elect as its next president either Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton or Republican nominee Donald Trump. A bitter, divisive and lengthy campaign season has exposed both candidates in a manner that is both remarkable and alarming. Both candidates are manifestly flawed at a personal level — Ms Clinton because of her closeness to a moneyed American establishment; Mr Trump because his garish life as a television celebrity and high-profile businessman has exposed a predatory mindset against women and entrenched discrimination against minorities and special-needs groups.
It is at a policy level, however, that America does have a meaningful choice between the two candidates. Ms Clinton represents a worldview that America is not fundamentally broken and on the wrong path, but it does need to adjust its economic, trade and social policies to nudge the state towards a fairer, more equitable place on the back of a strong economy. She is in many ways a continuity candidate, perhaps a sensible, safe approach in a deeply divided polity. Mr Trump is a protest leader, a candidate who has explicitly positioned himself as an avatar of the general discontent that America is suffering from. The answer, as with so many other countries suffering from economic slowdown and a reconsideration of liberal immigration and social policies, for Mr Trump is straightforward — a return to a nativist, nationalist politics built on a rejection of free trade, a return to a muscular American military posture abroad, and a social vision that returns so-called old America, read as white America by critics, to the centre of national politics. Ms Clinton is still the favourite to win, but the very fact that Mr Trump has the support of at least four out of 10 Americans and the warning by experts that polling forecasts could be wrong suggests how bitterly divided America is. It would be wrong to assume that had either party chosen another, more liked candidate, victory for that party would have been assured tomorrow.
What, though, of the day after? It is a tradition in American politics for the winning candidate to pledge to work for all Americans and to heal wounds. But the deep, gashing wounds of this extraordinary election will be difficult to heal. If Ms Clinton wins, she will still be confronted with an America that is the most divided since perhaps the Civil War. Where President Obama had to try and rescue the economy and America’s standing in the world, a Clinton presidency will have to try and salvage the very fabric of American democracy from the destructive forces that have grown inside it. If Mr Trump wins, he will have to prove he is a completely different man to the candidate who has violently marched towards the presidency. The world anxiously awaits the results.
Thalassaemia screening
PROGESSIVE moves that will have a positive impact on societal health deserve being supported whenever the opportunity presents itself. At the moment, under consideration is a draft bill which, if it becomes law, will make it mandatory for all citizens to have their blood tested before marriage, as is the case in some countries with a high incidence of the disease. The aim is to detect whether either or both of the would-be spouses are carriers of the thalassaemia gene, so that they can then factor into their decision to wed the chances of their offspring suffering from the same genetic disorder. The move has been under consideration for a while, but has been opposed by religious circles on the grounds that it would run counter to cultural norms. The Council of Islamic Ideology too has opposed making mandatory a blood test for those about to wed. Given this, the fact that the draft is being supported by Minister of State for Religious Affairs Pir Aminul Hasnat takes on greater significance. On Friday, in a joint meeting of the Senate standing committees on religious affairs and law, Mr Hasnat asserted that the issue was not related to religion but to improving the health of the nation. Replying to an objection raised by the chairman of the religious affairs committee, Mr Hasnat added that in case there were limited facilities for blood screening in the country, they should be increased.
This is just as it should be. Thalassaemia is a serious condition, and the incidence of it is not just high, but increasing, in Pakistan. As officials of the health ministry informed the Senate meeting, there are about 100,000 patients with thalassaemia major — they require regular blood transfusions — in the country, with an annual addition of 7,000 new patients. Regular blood transfusions are a lifelong necessity for persons afflicted by thalassaemia major, while there are thousands of others who are carriers of the gene but may not even be aware of it. The suffering of children with thalassaemia is heartrending, as is that of their families. Blood screening before marriage is the logical way forward, if only to make would-be spouses aware of any risks they or their children might face. Mr Hasnat’s stance deserves full support; the draft bill ought to be passed into law in a timely fashion, with the state establishing blood-screening facilities wherever they are lacking on an urgent basis.
Shuffling CPEC
THE constant changes being made to the bouquet of power projects under the CPEC umbrella shows the weak state of planning that went into the whole affair. Latest reports suggest that two more projects may have been knocked off the list due to reservations about the use of imported coal. In one case, a 660MW initiative has been disallowed completely, and in another, the project sponsors have been told to arrange foreign financing and shift to local coal, meaning their timeline has been disrupted, putting a question mark on the entire project. At the same time, the government is rushing to commission a new 1200MW plant to run on imported LNG.
The changes come after similar midcourse alterations to the terms in the solar tariff, as well as the collapse of the Salt Range coal-fired power project. Given these frequent changes, it is becoming clear that foresight and planning were missing from the launch of one of the biggest series of energy-sector investments ever in this country’s history. This is one reason why calls for greater transparency in CPEC are so pertinent. Clearly, the impact of imported coal on the external account of the country ought to have been studied long before the projects were approved, granted an upfront tariff, and issued letters of support and generation licences. The change of mind came at the Private Power and Infrastructure Board sometime in October. This is the same body that approved the projects and granted them letters of support earlier in the year. Perhaps such a strong emphasis on coal-fired power plants was never a good idea to start off with, due to their impact on the external account as well as the environment. But the way the government is changing its mind in the middle of the project timelines sends a signal to investors that Pakistan remains a high-risk country, and dampens investor enthusiasm further.
Published in Dawn, November 7th, 2016