[This was published in Bogota Free Planet (Colombia)
under the column ‘Voicing from Bangladesh’ in three consecutive installments on
17, 18 and 19 April 2015]
Decades ago George Orwell said: “In our age
there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics.’ All issues are political
issues.” Politics, one of the catchy, juicy and mystifying words of the day, is
frequently heard or discussed more or less everywhere that encompasses, inter
alia, residences, offices, institutions, corporations, factories, industries,
private or public, buses, trains, planes, ships, boats, gardens, parks, prayer
places such as mosques, temples, pagodas and churches. Its ambit, functional or
territorial, ranges from local to district to division to national to regional
to international domains. Directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously,
willingly or unwillingly, almost every citizen or national irrespective of sex,
color, caste, creed, and religion is said to be/have been tuned to it. Even in
our daily parlors we hear that people are used to say ‘Don’t play politics with
me’, ‘He has been in politics for a long’, ‘The matter is political’, ‘Politics
has polluted the academic atmosphere’, ‘Political leadership should be honest,
committed and altruistic’, ‘There is a political crisis in the country’,
‘Defense forces should be away from politics’ ‘Government is in a trap of
regional or international politics’ etc. More importantly it is held that a
country with a democratic order cannot run well without political leadership
and thus more height and space are added to it.
Furthermore, nationalism, driving force of a
nation-state, is also a resultant upshot of politics. Hence, politics is more
popular, appealing and magnetic to the peoples in the developing countries than
those of developed ones. Today it is an impossibility to think of a state
without politics on hand, whatever its nature and dimension might be. Aristotle
(384 BC – 322 BC) even before nearly 2400 years ago , wrote his epoch-making
book under the title ’Ta Politika, translated into ‘Affairs of the
State/politics’. Laski’s ‘Grammar of politics’, ‘An Introduction of Politics’,
Harold D. Lasswell’s ‘Politics: Who gets, What, When and How!’ Stuart Rice’s
‘Quantitative Methods in Politics’, Appadorai’s ‘The Substance of Politics’,
Andrew Hacker’s ‘The Study of Politics’, Almond and Coleman’s ‘The Politics of
Developing Areas: Introduction’ etc. provided interest and attention further.
Various academic institutions universities in particular in the developed and
developing countries today run departments and faculties also using the word
‘politics’ such as ‘Department of Politics’, ‘Department of Politics and
Government’ or ‘Department of Political Science’. If all these come as reflections
of reality then the asking crops up in a second ‘What is politics?’ This is an elaboration of the article
‘Politics: Time, Space and Dimension ‘published in the in Burma Times on 15
October 2014, African Herald Express on 29 December 2013, Africa. Some parts of
this were published on 18 November in the leading weekly ‘Dhaka Courier’ and on 21 December 2011
in the leading daily ‘Financial
Express’ in Bangladesh.
Sequence-1
Over the centuries political philosophers,
thinkers, scientists, theorists, analysts, researchers, even politicians and
statesmen invested their labors and acumen to define ‘politics’ in various
modes, contents, contexts, fashions and currents and trends are on till the
date. Scientific studies, researches and forecasts keep us informed that
everything in the universe is in motion and rotating on its orbit around the
larger one starting from satellite to planet to star to galaxy to the infinite
largest. Likewise, the planet called earth---readily goes by the name
world---since the beginning and march of human race met and experienced a
number of civilizations over the millions of years. For familial, social,
cultural and religious interactions, associations and assemblies depending on
time (duration), space (place) and dimension (contents) in accordance with the
blueprint of the Lord of universe, visible and/or invisible, many orders and
systems were devised and put into operations. Some of them survived and lasted
for centuries while others lapsed into the times of yore.
Truth is that because of natural
transformation and change of the geographical footing of the territories of
earth it was neither possible in the past nor is viable at present nor shall be
feasible in future to preserve and continue with the records sine die. We are at
present more or less acquainted with the history and records of five to ten
thousand years ago. It is a further lesson of history that concepts, models and
theories related to the affairs of rule or administration devised and applied
during and in course of such interactions and association of people in
different parts of the world in essence originated principally from the overall
landscapes of the population, religion, culture, economies, type of rule,
education and so on in the territory in issue, which otherwise implies the
activation of time, space and dimension in the given situation as the seminal
factors. If any of such concepts survives and continues for centuries after
centuries, it then must be, of course, for the sake of acceptability, efficacy,
adaptability, applicability and sustainability, be subject to redefinition with
necessary additions, modifications and amendments retaining the basic spirit
unvarnished. Politics, speaking in the superlative, is one of such words or
concepts that have been put on record in history since the days of Greek
city-state.
In fact, taking all its literal, theoretical
and practical objects, subjects, definitions, explanations, interpretations,
applications and implications with limitations therein into account and on hold
together at the outset, Organically linked to the matters of state, politics
may precisely be earmarked as ‘an atomic concept being unfolded constantly
either in a process of evolution or revolution or the both in the context of
time space and dimension’.
The word politics comes from the Greek word Πολιτικά (politika), modeled on Aristotle’s
"affairs of the city", the name of his book on governing and governments,
which was rendered in English mid-15 century as Latinized
"Polettiques". Thus it became "politics" in
Middle English c. 1520s (see the Concise Oxford Dictionary). The singular
politic first attested in English 1430 and comes from Middle French politique,
in turn from Latin politicus, which is the latinisation of the Greek
πολιτικός (politikos), meaning amongst others "of, for, or relating to
citizens", "civil", "civic", "belonging to the
state", in turn from πολίτης (polites), "citizen"
and that from πόλις (polis)"city. It is a process by which groups of
people make collective decisions. The term is generally applied to the art or
science of running governmental or state affairs, including behavior within
civil governments, but also applies to institutions, fields, and special
interest groups such as the corporate, academic, and religious segments of
society. It consists of "social relations involving authority or power and
refers to the regulation of public affairs within a political unit, and
to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy. In fact, the
history of politics is reflected in the origin and development, and economics
of the institutions of government (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)".
In his etymology-searching write-up ‘Word
Power: Politics’ Gregory Rineberg noted ‘the word politics has its origins in
Ancient Greece. A. All of the cities in Ancient Greece, such as Athens, Sparta,
and Corinth, were referred to as city-states and the Greek word for a
city-state was polis (πολις). The
word acropolis is not just a clever name, the Greeks named all of the highest
points in their city-states that because it literally made sense.. Our culture
is not so different for we still see the word polis used today when cities, like
Los Angeles and New York, are referred to as a megalopolis or metropolis
(https:lunatickfringe.wordpress.com/2009/07).
Therefore, Politics for its
etymological derivation owes to the Greek words ‘polis’, which denotes the
activities related to the affairs of or in and around a city-state in ancient
Greece more than 3000 years ago and when the Romans took over Western
Civilization after the fading away of Greece, ‘polis’ was translated into
’politicus’ of the Latin language of the Romans. Later, for technical reasons,
with the dropping of the suffix-us, the words ‘politic’ was chosen and thus
‘politics’ was born. All citizens in the city-states were referred to as
polities and the system of government/administration by many aimed at the
well-being of the citizens and the state was called polity.
It does not mean and conclude that ‘polis’
meaning matters related to the rule of a territory (city-state in Greece’s
perspective) had its maiden march from the soil of ancient Greece for the
reason that the very theme in other‘s perspective had grown and developed with
various kinds of words in various types of languages in a variety of systems
and administrations in different places of the planet from the time immemorial.
Such growth and development, similar or opposite or mixed even, from the angle
of time, space and dimension, might be simultaneous in some territories,
coincident in some others and non-simultaneous in rest of the spaces.
Possibility of linkages, bi-lateral or multi-lateral, in most of the cases might
not be doable largely due to contemporary constraints and limitations of modes
and means of communications.
It is now well apparent and understood that
polis being the activities related to the affairs of or in and around a
city-state signifies and implies firstly, what a city-state in its perspective
did (objects of polis) i. e. its goals, targets, strategies, plans and
programs, civil and military, to run it and secondly, for the welfare and
security of its people (subjects of polis). Here city-state’s roles were as a
whole very much in the nature and form of an initiator and implementer. Further
findings show that city-state was considered as an ends in itself and
accordingly because of the established/customary philosophies, ideas and
beliefs people used to consider city-state as an attainment of life in full. To
obey the commands, laws, rules and regulations of city-state is to begin a
journey to reach at the pinnacle of life. This unfolds pointedly the
philosophical and moral foundation of city-state. Plato’s ‘Republic’ is a
living document of an ideal state based on such ethical and moral standard and
foundation of the time. Therefore, ‘polis’ in its perception meant matters
related to a city state and those matters were basically taken into accounts
and decided in the light of the ethical foundation of the city-state in issue.
It can, in fact, be deemed as an ‘atomic concept’ since there cannot be a state
without the fundamentals of polis (minus its ethical utility that varies from
state to state indeed).That’s its unique excellence for the present, and all
the ages to come.
In fact, in those days there was no idea, or
perhaps no necessity, of a political party in today’s perception and that might
be largely, inter alia, due to a its small size of population and territory.
Nevertheless, it is also learnt from history that the concept and method of
direct elections were there to a large extent, which show and substantiate
strong existence and prevalence of difference of opinions, organized or not, at
least in/electing and being elected to different bodies of public importance.
Aristotle’s monumental study of Ta Politika’, which, it is said, he wrote
having studied and analyzed a large number of constitutions, contained, inter
alia, a classification of government into dictatorship (rule by one),
aristocracy (rule by few) and polity (rule by many) with their perversion/
degeneration into tyranny, plutocracy and democracy provide strong supports of
the prevalence of those systems during or before his time.
It further strengthened the proposition that
there might be associations, guilds, clubs and groups, organized or segmented,
to practice aristocracy or polity in their own modes and fashions. Because
fundamental aspects of human nature are knitted in such a fashion that where
the number of person is one, question of difference of opinion does not arise;
where the numbers are two, possibility of difference of opinions exists,
whether exposed or not all the time and where the numbers are more than two or
many, possibility of difference of opinions exists and continues as virtual
certainty. Further dictate of human nature is that men differ in their
opinions, but, at the same time, they are gregarious by nature. If they are to
live in a society they must adjust their differences with others and agree on
certain fundamental opinions and the other is that they come together with
persons holding similar views in order to put forward those views in the form
of policy or decision or the both in an organized manner.
Polis in a city-state, after the death of
Aristotle, began to slide from Socratic-Platonic-Aristotelian epoch to new
basis, color and contents due to coming of the contemporary slowly growing or
sidetracked schools of thoughts to the forefront mostly Epicureanism and
Stoicism broadly aimed at placing before men the ideals of personal character
and private happiness in place of devotion to the city-state and rise of
various kinds of philosophical currents and flows along with its gradual fading
into the emerging folds of empire, church state, kingdom and so on. To speak
the truth, the sway of these two schools of thoughts brought about a radical
transformation in the thinking of city-state both from structural and
philosophical standpoints. Politics, religion and ethics so long considered as
a single whole under the polis (city-state), after the emergence of such new
light and focus on universalism, law of nature, human equality and world
citizenship, met with a big challenge and got virtually alienated with eclipse
of the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. City-state no longer remained an
ends in itself and it began swelling from territorial point of view.
Stoicism, established by Zeno in 300 BC,
spoke of universalism, law of nature and equality of all human beings more
scientifically and comprehensively and it lasted for five hundred centuries,
from 300 BC to 200AD. Zeno is said to have been a student of Crates who was the
leader of the Cynic school. Stoicism may there be regarded as a development of
Cynicism. It starts with the fundamental ideas of Cynicism--- perfect
self-control, independence of circumstances, complete self-contentedness and
self-sufficiency, and life according to Nature—but interprets them in a
positive and constructive way. This implies that the guiding and controlling
force in life is ethics not politics. A good man is something different from a
good citizen. Therefore, state no longer remains indispensible medium of good
life for an individual. The result was that Stoicism, in place of the wholly
negative and nihilistic doctrines of Cynicism, plants positive and constructive
ideas. The succeeding heads of the school came from Asia Minor where
co-mingling of Greeks and Asiatics was taking place. It was less intimately
confined to Greece proper than the other schools which flourished in Greece
after the passing away of Aristotle. It happened to continue to influence the
minds of men for several centuries, initially in Greece and finally in Rome,
where quick-witted persons like the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, Cicero, Seneca,
Polybius, and Epictetus (0nce a slave) made their formidable appearance among
its adherents. It is further held and understood that the ideas persisted
through centuries and molded the political thought of Europe from Cicero down
to the eighteenth centuries.
Epicureanism, founded by Epicurus in 306 BC,
spoke of the same but with less scientific and comprehensive focus for which it
was overshadowed by Stoicism and thus could not proceed furthermore. During
this time many things happened including conquer of Greece by the Romans, rise
and fall of Roman Empire, invasion and ascendance of the Teutonic (Germans),
attacks and plundering of Rome by the Barbarians and march of Christianity with
the Holy Bible on hand at first as a spiritual power and then as a political
power. Thus, theoretical shift from city-state-based moral and ethical
disposition to non-city-state-based standing pregnant with stoicism in
particular became acute while operational mode continued more or less on the same
wave.
Sequence-2
After the arrival of Christianity with the
Holy Bible as a code of life, spiritual and mundane, a new sense of wave
commenced to flow into the pulse of Europe in meticulous that challenged
ultimately the utility of the prevailing modes and definitions of universalism,
law of nature and egalitarianism. During the initial phase roughly from its
march to the sixth century, dispute or debate on the demarcation of
jurisdiction of powers between the church and state was at low ebb since it was
almost a foregone conclusion that the church should look into the spiritual
aspect while the temporal side should be dealt by the king/emperor. The balance
between secular and spiritual jurisdictions was more or less maintained by the
both sides keeping in mind the great saying of Jesus ‘Render unto Caesar the
things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s’. This
principle, in fact, rests upon the conception that man has a dual nature and is
therefore subject to dual authorities. As body which is mortal he belongs to
the civil society; his material or temporal interests are bound up with his
membership of the secular state; obedience to it, therefore, becomes a mundane
necessity. As spirit which is immortal has different interests and a different
destiny; he becomes a member of the Kingdom of Ends which is within him; his
spiritual interests are in the keeping of the Church and not the concern of the
civic society. Since spiritual interests are more important than worldly
interests, in case of conflict between loyalty to the State and loyalty to God,
the latter should always take precedence over the former. St. Ambrose, St.
Augustine and Pope Gregory the great played a vital role here and, truly
speaking, St. Augustine’s ‘doctrine of two swords’ depicted in his book ‘City
of God’ was a revolution in this regard.
But at a latter phase notably from the sixth
century it became acute, sharp and contentious in full with the weakening of
the empire and rise of the power of the pope which resulted in the birth of
papacy leading to the second Roman Empire known as Holy Roman Empire with
leadership of emperors like Charlemagne and Otto 1 in particular. Problem of
making clear-cut demarcation between the two i.e. spiritual world and temporal
world was indeed a very difficult task for which controversy emerged largely
not only on the point of transparent separation but also on the question and
logic of such differentiation because the very thesis of Christianity was
resting on the proposition that ‘the life of a human being is a blend of the
two things, one is spiritual and the other is temporal; there is no scope to
separate the temporal from the spiritual one as he cannot be a half human being
under any circumstances’; this hunted and engulfed the periods from the
eleventh to the sixteenth centuries. Theology grew and developed as one of the
five sources of the origin of state. From the secular and intellectual angles,
Dunning, a leading political philosopher and thinker, dubbed the middle age
ranging from sixth to sixteenth centuries as un-political and going one step
forward political thinkers of various folds and faiths even did not hesitate to
call it a ‘Dark age’.
In fact, Ancient Ages (conveniently divided
into pre-and post Aristotelian periods up to the sixth century) came to an end
with the start of Middle Age in the sixth century and it continued up to the
sixteenth century until the arrival of Modern Age with the appearance of
Machiavelli. From the point of view of politics, political speculation and
administration related to empire/kingdom. Middle Ages can be split into three
distinct periods.
The first period may be said to extend from
the conquest of the Roman Empire by the barbarians to the eleventh century.
This period was intellectually barren; there was hardly any attempt to
independent thinking.
The second period may be said to last from
the beginning of Gregorian movement to the regime of Pope Boniface V111 I i.e.
from the latter part of the eleventh to the end of the thirteenth century.
Barker described this period as the age ‘enthroned Papacy and the Church
triumphant’. It witnessed the great revival of intellectual activity in the
realms of philosophy and law in which political philosophy also shared. St.
Thomas Aquinas, Egidius, Romanus, Dante Alighieri and John of Paris belong to
this period. Though the mass of political literature produced in these two and
a half quarter centuries is greater than all that was written on the subject
between the death of Aristotle and the installation of Gregory V11 as pope,
political philosophy did not attain to the status of an independent study; it
was overshadowed by theology and metaphysics. Speculation on political subject
was incidental to the controversy between the papacy and the empire; it was
dominated by the theological considerations.
It is in the third period, which may be said
to last from the fourteenth to the sixteenth century that regular treaties on
political philosophy began to be written. Marsillio of Padua and William of
Occam belong to this period. Barker described it as the silver and turbulent
age ‘in which Papacy is menaced by Kings, by sects and by councils; in which
villains revolt in the country and artisans are insurgents in towns; in which
theory becomes radical, lay and revolutionary’ (Barker in Hearnshaw: Social and
Political Ideas of the Middle Ages, Page12).
Under any circumstances, one should not be
forgetful of the reality that where there is a rule or administration, there is
a politics depending on its understanding, modes and definitions thereto.
Hence, branding Middle ages as un-political or non-political or dark age may
have some weights otherwise but from the point of view of politics, whatever
might be the quality, depth and gravity, right answer is that Middle ages was
not devoid of politics rather it bore politics in its own contexts and
contents. How can we deny the Roman contributions to law and constitutionalism,
human rights and egalitarianism? How can we disown the contributions of
feudalism, political or economic, to the emergence of nation-states? How can we
avoid the contributions of conciliar movement, Renaissance and Reformation? How
can we set aside the concept of representative government developed during the
latter part of the middle ages? Are not all covertly or overtly part and parcel
to the politics of the Middle Ages? If civilization denotes the totality of
‘what we have’ and if culture implies the totality of’ ‘what we are’, then a
deserving space should necessarily be provided to note that politics goes as an
inalienable element of them with its own mode, color, taste, adoptability and
sustainability.
Thus the philosophical standing of the
matters related to state, government and the contents therein moved further
mostly from realism to religion, which furthermore met with the political
philosophy of separation of power between the church and state with the
emergence of nation-states stepping into Modern Ages. There remains no dearth
of suspicion that politics being an atomic concept swelled, developed and
became varied more again both conceptually and structurally.
Sequence-3
It is widely claimed that the Modern Age
dawned and the Middle Ages came to an end with the appearance of Machiavelli
(1369-1427) who because of his thoughts in particular in the Prince and
Discourses is regarded as the initiator/father of modern political thought (in
academic sense and nomenclature, political science) in a sense of his making
attempt to draw a clear line of demarcation between the end of middle ages and
beginning of modern era. Philosophers, theorists, thinkers, writers of various
faiths, ideologies, shades and colors since then started sounding their voices
high in line with the call of ‘Freedom of thoughts, conscience, expression
giving priority to the overall flowering of individual in a secular atmosphere
with the dominance of state (government) at the initial phase and then with
less interference by the state (government) at a later date’.
Special features of this period, among
others, entail separation of the church from the state(king)or to say more
pointedly subordination of the church to the state(king), rise of nationalism
giving birth to nation-state either with constitutional monarchy or with
republic in place of monarchy based on feudalism(also called feudal state),
political or economic, discoveries of new territories, invention of printing
and faster expansion in this domain, revolution in the field of science and
technology and their effects on agriculture, trade and commerce, and
industries, rise of new merchant class with a visible trans-national focus and
proliferation. A new wave of thoughts began to develop centering the
Universities of Oxford and Cambridge in England. The glorious revolution of
1688 through the defeat and escape of James , then Monarch of UK, (while
fleeing he was first captured by Kent fishermen near Sheerness but on 23
December, with the prince’s connivance, James successfully fled the country),
French revolution, birth and development of House of Lords, House of Commons and
Parliamentary system of Government in UK, French revolution, genesis of USA
with a Presidential form of government, French model of government, World war I
and II, birth of League of Nations and its demise followed by the establishment
of UN0 later named UN etc resultantly contributed a lot in shaping the next
course of politics and its contents.
But the most striking development in the
field of politics was that in the succeeding phases of political history and
developments in the Modern Age it became evident on all accounts that the
theme/fundamentals of polis being an abstract entity dealing with matters of a
state in segmented or disorganized ways ---which was almost wholly confined to
the philosophical world of non-material foundation--- could not be put into
practice at large in the new set-ups without a material foundation. Meanwhile,
move to the words and concept of ‘politics’ taking the fundaments of polis
minus its ethical entity to welcome its atomic nature of expansion is almost
complete. It happened successfully supported and encouraged by various schools
of thoughts, philosophies and ideas and their resultant effects on the peoples
and states and, obviously, politics took the lead to move ahead of. And there
in a possible sequence of the call and necessity of a material foundation of
politics was given birth to an organization in the shape and name of ‘political
party’ (in the terminology of politics, government or political science). In
other words, ‘polis’ began to swell up adding a material foundation and
acquired the characteristics of both the material and non-material foundations
which, must be treated as one step forward since in reality it now found its
growth and continuance with people in due course from different walks of life
as players, actors and beneficiaries. Therefore, if today it is asked ‘What
does the words political party mean? Quick and plain answer is that an
organization which carries in essence politics as its loads, stocks and barrels
is called political party or else readily goes by the name ‘party’.
Truly speaking, so long Parliament beginning
from the day of the signing of the Magna Carta on 15 June 1215 at Runnymede in
England remained as an advisory body of the King the question of political
parties did not arise. Emergence of political parties took place in 1679
centering the Exclusion Bill crisis of 1678-1681 followed by the dissolution of
Parliament by Charles 11.Supporters in favor of the Bill got united and
petitioned for a new parliament came to be known as ‘Petitioners’ while those
who expressed their abhorrence of the attempt to force the king to summon
parliament were consequently named ‘Abhorrers’. Later ‘petitioners’ became
known as ‘Whigs’ leading to the formation of Liberal party and the ‘Abhorrers’
came to be identified as ‘Tories’ leading to the creation of Conservative
party. Influence of political parties over the people began to increase
gradually and people virtually became dependent on political parties for their
concerns and matters in a state which can be well understood from political
landscapes of United Kingdom, motherland of politics, political parties and
democracy. W.S. Gilbert in 1882, understanding the Influence and gravity of
political parties over the people of UK, wrote:
‘How nature does always contrive
That every boy and gal
That’s born into this world alive
Is either a little liberal
or else a little conservative.
An environment of freedom of thoughts,
opinions, and expressions is a pre-condition for the uninterrupted growth,
development and continuance of political parties and a viable party system
there from. This is possible in a democracy where so many political parties are
supposed to work together, vying each other and one another on the basis of the
respective programs, manifestos etc. Here the question of multi-party democracy
as opposed to single party democracy of communist world is very important.
Politics is inherently interlinked to overall landscapes of the country where
it is nursed and practiced, which shape and dominate the contents and nature of
the political culture there and, accordingly, this political culture plays a
vital role in determining the contents and nature of politics there.
Political culture is as well tied and tuned
to the geographical location and standing of the land concerned. Geography for
contents and nature of politics is very important since, under any
circumstances, people’s overall temperaments cannot be detached or separated
from it. As it is well-settled and accepted that In Earth Sciences / Physical
Geography) (often capital) Geography one of the divisions of the earth's
surface, especially according to temperature(heat from the star Sun) divided
into latitudinal belts of Equator, Torrid Zone Frigid Zone and Temperate Zone.
Equator is a line going around Earth and is
halfway between the North and South Poles; it is given latitude of 0°. Values
increase north of the equator and are considered positive and values south of
the equator decrease and are sometimes considered negative or have south attached
to them. For example, if latitude of 30°N was given, this would mean that it
was north of the equator. The latitude -30° or 30°S is a location south of the
equator. On a map, these are the lines running horizontally from east-west.
Three of the most significant imaginary lines
running across the surface of the Earth are the equator, the Tropic of Cancer,
and the Tropic of Capricorn. While the equator is the longest line of latitude
on the Earth (the line where the Earth is widest in an east-west direction),
the tropics are based on the sun's position in relation to the Earth at two
points of the year. All three lines of latitude are significant in their
relationship between the Earth and the sun.
The equator is located at zero degrees
latitude. The equator runs through Indonesia, Ecuador, northern Brazil, the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Kenya, among other countries. It is
24,901.55 miles (40,075.16 kilometers) long. On the equator, the sun is
directly overhead at noon on the two equinoxes - near March and September 21.
The equator divides the planet into the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. On
the equator, the length of day and night is equal every day of the year - day
is always twelve hours long and night is always twelve hours long.
It is determined that the Tropic of Cancer
and the Tropic of Capricorn each lie at 23.5 degrees latitude. The Tropic of
Cancer is located at 23.5° North of the equator and runs through Mexico, the
Bahamas, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, India, and southern China. The Tropic of
Capricorn lies at 23.5° South of the equator and runs through Australia, Chile,
southern Brazil (Brazil is the only country that passes through both the
equator and a tropic), and northern South Africa.
The tropics are the two lines where the sun
is directly overhead at noon on the two solstices - near June and December 21.
The sun is directly overhead at noon on the Tropic of Cancer on June 21 (the
beginning of summer in the Northern Hemisphere and the beginning of winter in
the Southern Hemisphere) and the sun is directly overhead at noon on the Tropic
of Capricorn on December 21 (the beginning of winter in the Northern Hemisphere
and the beginning of summer in the Southern Hemisphere).
The reason for the location of the Tropic of
Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn at 23.5° north and south respectively is due
to the axial tilt of the Earth. The Earth is titled 23.5 degrees from the plane
of the Earth's revolution around the sun each year.
The area bounded by the Tropic of Cancer on
the north and Tropic of Capricorn on the south is known as the
"tropics." This area does not experience seasons because the sun is
always high in the sky. Only higher latitudes, north of the Tropic of Cancer
and south of the Tropic of Capricorn, experience significant seasonal variation
in climate.
While the equator divides the Earth into
Northern and Southern Hemispheres, it is the Prime Meridian at zero degrees
longitude and the line of longitude opposite the Prime Meridian (near the
International Date Line) at 180 degrees longitude that divides the Earth into
the Eastern and Western Hemispheres. The Eastern Hemisphere consists of Europe,
Africa, Asia, and Australia while the Western Hemisphere includes North and
South America. Some geographers place the boundaries between the hemispheres at
20° West and 160° East so as to not run through Europe and Africa. All the
lines are used symbolically to understand the overall position of temperature
and determination of time and location.
Torrid Zone constituting the part of the
Earth's surface between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn
characterized by a hot climate;
Frigid Zone consisting of either of two
extreme latitude zones of the earth, the North Frigid Zone, between the North
Pole and the Arctic Circle, or the South Frigid Zone, between the South Pole
and the Antarctic Circle; and
Temperate Zone comprising either of two
intermediate latitude zones of the earth, the North Temperate Zone, between the
Arctic Circle and the Tropic of Cancer, or the South Temperate Zone, between
the Antarctic Circle and the Tropic of Capricorn. Human temperaments of the
inhabitants within the respective zone, thus, mostly grow and develop following
peculiarities therein.
That’s why a democratic rule cannot get its
root overnight in a land, which has for a long been fastened and directed to
non-democratic administration as a whole and vice versa. People in a hilly or
mountainous area cannot be possessed of same tastes and temperaments of those
of plain land or island land or archipelago. A nation-state may also be
composed of hilly, mountainous area, plain land, island land and archipelago or
may be a combination of few of them and, thus, temperaments grow and develop in
the almost same mode and direction necessarily. There must be differences of
tastes, habits, attitudes etc between or among the peoples of Torrid, Frigid
and Temperate zones. Even variations are also sharp and acute between or among
the peoples of the same zone depending on its distance from or proximity to the
equator.
Bangladesh ( i/ˈbɑːŋɡlədɛʃ/ or i/bæŋɡləˈdɛʃ/; Bengali:
বাংলাদেশ), officially the People's Republic of Bangladesh (Bangla:
গণপ্রজাতন্ত্রী বাংলাদেশ Gônoprojatontri
Bangladesh), a sovereign state of 155000 square kilometers located within 24°
00' N latitude in the Tropic of Cancer and 90° 00' E longitude in South Asia
may be an illustrative here..Bangladeshi climate is tropical with a mild winter
from October to March, a hot, humid summer from March to June. A warm and humid
monsoon season lasts from June to October and supplies most of the country's
rainfall. Natural calamities, such as floods, tropical cyclones, tornadoes, and
tidal bores, occur almost every year, combined with the effects of
deforestation, soil degradation and erosion. The cyclones of 1970 and 1991 were
particularly devastating. A cyclone that struck Bangladesh in 1991 killed some
140,000 people. It is now with 160 million populations, 150 US dollar GNP, 6.7%
GDP, 12% inflation with a fledging but weaker parliamentary system of
multi-party democracy.
Interestingly enough, it is sometimes also
viewed as a land of ‘Three Ps’(PPP)’ meaning ‘Poetic’ because of geographical
location from 23 to 27 degree latitude in the temperate zone having six seasons
a year, which bring about from gradual to u-turn changes in the mind of the
people mostly in a continuous process and thus causes laxity to a great extent
in the texture of making and sticking to decision(s), determination and
implementation, ‘Poor’ because of the weak economic standing, overpopulation
leading to serious fall and short of employment opportunities, civic privileges
and rise of resultant complexities in particular and ‘Political’ since the
people are poetic and poor, they have a penchant for making everything
political in their demand(s) and realization(For more, visit ‘Three-phase
national consensus: Bangladesh perspective’ in www.sinhaearthblog.blogspot.com).
Today it is further held that geography as a
discipline can be split rightly and broadly into two main subsidiary fields:
Human Geography and Physical Geography. The former largely focuses on the built
environment and how humans create, view, manage, and influence space. The
latter examines the natural environment and how organisms, climate, soil, water
and landforms produce and interact. The difference between these approaches led
to a third field, Environmental Geography, which combines physical and human
geography and looks at the interactions between the environment and human
being..
Furthermore, on the basis of aims,
objectives, ideologies and strategies politics, nay as its carrier political
parties may be of various forms, dimensions and natures such as right, left, centre,
extreme-right, extreme-left, centre-right, centre-left. Further labels include
conservative, liberal, reactionary and radical and so on. Accordingly giving
due attention to all the prevailing definitions dealing with natures,
compositions and elements of a political party as a whole, it is better, safer,
more logical and practicable to conclude that for becoming a political party
four elements are essential i.e. ideology, organization, program, activists and
leaderships. Speaking realistically, more a party is in a position to
consolidate and strengthen its overall standing putting these four pillars into
reality, more it acquires support, credibility and popularity of the people
from various walks of life and then, stands and continues as a party of national
stature crossing the boundary of local or regional entity. Further reality is
that politics becomes or turns out to partisan when it is conceived and carried
by a political party
With the increase of population and
technicalities plus complexities therein and the resultant effects of
development of science and technology, political parties correspondingly began
to expand sector-wise in line with say, labor, youth, women, student etc as
front or associate wings bringing more and more activists, active or passive,
and supporters under their respective fold and thus entered the texture of
being called ‘Parent organization’. Further enlargement(s) took place with the
recognition to and opening of various kinds of professional groups,
associations and bodies as associate wings. Party to party contacts between or
among the political parties of different nation-states in the mode and manner
of track- diplomacy and also setting up overseas units in some cases added
auxiliary ingredients to its ride. And so, like a developed tree with full of
branches, twigs and leaves starting from the budding position, today a
political party stands and continues with the foundation well-built and
stretched as much as necessary, vertically and horizontally, with a number of front
and associate wings.
Growth of political parties in a multi-party
democratic order is extra-constitutional from the legal point of view but at
the same time they are subject to laws, rules and regulations on question of
elections to local and/or national bodies and thereby came into being electoral
laws and Election Commission as regulatory body constitutionally to hold
elections in a free and fair atmosphere independent of the interference of the
party/coalition/junta-in power. Later, provisions related to the compulsory
registration of political parties were added as pre-conditions to participate
in the elections to legislative bodies, provincial or central, which virtually
put the political parties under the heads of ‘Registered’ and ‘Unregistered’(political
parties). It is also true that there many countries, for example, almost all
the states in the Middle East, where politics through political party(s) is not
allowed as of 15 November 2011 and if such ban is withdrawn ever at present or
in future that has to be done through a constitutional means indeed. Similarly,
in a single-party democratic order say China, North Korea, emergence of
multi-party democracy shall have to take place through constitutional
procedures.
There are cliques, groups, factions under the
cover of ‘inner politics’ in a political party and hence, a party is called a
combination of groups into a single whole with a unity in diversity. Elections
decide and determine which party or coalition shall be voted to power and which
party(s) or coalition shall sit in the opposition in Parliament. Hence,
Parliament is said to be composed of the Head of State (constitutional
Monarch/King/Queen/Emperor/President), Majority Party and Opposition (called
Minority Party in US Congress). Here role of the opposition as critic,
alternative proposer to the ruling party’s drives and initiatives and helping
hands to turn the ruling party’s development and welfare-oriented programs into
practice in a democratic order came to be viewed and considered as part and
parcel and for these the Opposition (Major Opposition) in Parliament) is also
known as ‘Shadow Government’ To attach more and significant weight to it, the
office of the Leader of the Opposition has been recognized formally with a
rank, status and privileges of a Cabinet Minister of the Government. Thus,
politics denoting the ‘affairs of state’ came out of the exclusive ruling
temperament and embraced both ruling and non-ruling (opposition) character as
its time-bound required disposition.
How and why politics and political parties
run side by side for the overall development of a country may be well
understood from the two examples here one from USA and other from Pakistan.
Founding fathers of USA conceived of a state without the existence of any political
party considering it as the root of disunity, chaos and threat to developments
but they soon realized the experiment was just an unsuccessful exercise.
Because in the Presidential election of 1796 on questions of, inter alia, the
determination of powers between the federal government and state governments
serious cleavage cropped up one faction supporting Thomas Jefferson and other
supporting John Adams. Thus, eventually in the long run came into being
Republican and Democratic parties, even to the extent of necessitating the
addition of the Twelfth Amendment so as to infuse vitality into the Electoral
College method to put it on a more solid foundation. More interesting is that
in the recent past we have seen in Pakistan that military ruler general Ziaul
Haque ruled the country without allowing the activities of political parties
(party less) for nearly a decade from 1977 to 1988 onward, which in the end
generated tones of problems, political or otherwise, in the overall affairs of
Pakistan, domestically and outwardly. It also proved to be a wasted exercise.
Today, unlike Greek city-state, there can be no nation-state without political
parties and leaderships there from.
One may refer to the systems in the states of
Middle East but one should at the same time not be forgetful of taking note
pragmatically that those countries say, Saudi Arabia in particular is not
devoid of politics because of its resting on the ideological base of Islam as
non-material foundation of politics. How long Saudi Arabia and others in the
line should be away from the call of political party(s) as its material
foundation? Yes, process has already started in their modes and styles.
Speaking in the superlative, no state is today secured and strong without
people’s participation as the historical lesson is that the people of a state
are the ultimate source of power and this realization is dawning in the Middle
East promisingly. The days of prolonged state of emergency suppressing and
strangulating the voice of the people, holder of popular sovereignty are no
more viable and durable. Events, called ‘Arab spring’, in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya
and Syria etc spreading as Tsunami for those who still like to cling to power
against the will of the people.
Needless to utter it twice that political
leadership stands on top of all types of leaderships in a state because of its
unique qualities to unite and integrate all possible issues &problems while
deciding a matter in issue. It is called the brain and wheel of a political
party. More a leader proves his excellence in directing, guiding and showing
ways and avenues to organize and set the party on track to the people, more a
party gets strengthened organizationally. A party may fail and fall with all
its sound programs simply because of the failure of leadership to stimulate and
organize the people or the target group befittingly around or under the
umbrella of its message. From this point of view, leadership is also called
‘charisma’ wherefrom develops ‘charismatic leadership’. Leadership is by nature
textured with dynamism, change and continuity and a good leader is he who does
not cling to power or chair or the both disregarding party-based or party-line
growth and development of leadership and the pulse and sentiment of the party
he leads.
Leadership is not a sort of private property,
which can be handed over to one by a ‘will’, or which can be claimed by virtue
of birth or relation in succession, although the trend is very much sharp and
strong in the politics and political parties of the developing countries as it
is, for cases in point, vivid from Nehru dynasty in India, Sheikh dynasty in
Bangladesh and Bhutto dynasty in Pakistan. It is rather marked with trust and
responsibility wherefrom arise the question of strict adherence to honesty, transparency,
commitment, dedication and altruism. For emergence, growth and development of
new leadership roads and avenues must be made open by the leadership in chair
or power. Those who could not do that they in due course of time became an
object of criticism by both the party and the nation because of the negative
feedback it left behind accordingly. In the recent past South African leader
Nelsen Mandela has been able to print his name in history by leaving the chair
to the new leadership.
To keep a balance between charisma and trust
and responsibility is a real challenge for a leader. On all accounts leadership
is one of the highest forms of music, arts, science, literature and technology
(For more visit the author’s piece, ‘Understanding the music of leadership:
Bangladesh perspective’ in O United Nations Sinha blog Articles). It is also
found that sometimes a party goes by the name of its leader as it happened, for
example, in cases of Gandhi’s Congress in India, Jinnah’s Muslim League in
Pakistan, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib’s Awami League and Zia’s Bangladesh
Nationalist Party in Bangladesh, Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for
Democracy in Myanmar, Mao’s Communist Party in China, Jefferson’s Democratic
Party and Adam’s Republican Party in USA and so on. Least of all, Political
leadership is for the most part regarded as a dependable road to statesmanship
as well.
There also remains a vital question to be
answered in unambiguous terms and the question is who is to be called a
‘politician’? A politician has been defined and viewed in many ways and angles
from time to time. In the city-state perspective, ‘a politician is usually
referred to as somebody that holds an office for the government. A. Since we
already know what the true definition of politics is, the only difference
between politician and politics is the suffix -ian. The suffix
-ian means related to or from. A. So, although you may hear of
politicians, like Barack Obama, John McCain ete just remembers that all
citizens are considered to be politi’ (https:lunatickfringe.wordpress.com/2009/07).
In modern perspective focuses, definitions
and interpretations are many depending on the canvass and angle in particular.
American Heritage Dictionary of English Language (Fourth Edition, updated in
2009, published by Houghton Mifflin Company).put forward the views that 1. (a)
A politician is a person who is actively involved in politics, especially in
party politics and (b) One who seeks personal or partisan gain, often by
scheming and maneuvering: "Mothers may still holds
or seeks a political office 2. One who want their
favorite sons to grow up to be President, but . . . they do not want them to
become politicians in the process" (John
F. Kennedy); and 3. One who is skilled or experienced in the science or
administration of government.
According to Urban Dictionary politician
refers to 1. A person who tries to please everybody when speaking, and tries to
steal everything when acting. 2. A pathological liar. 3. When in electoral
campaign: a prostitute.
Politician A: It was a good movie.
Politician B: Yes it was.
More generalized, accommodative and
acceptable mode of understanding a politician tells us to look at the reality
that a person who, from the institutional point of view, earns a degree in a
discipline, say medicine, physics, engineering or agriculture is academically
entitled to introduce himself as doctor, physicist, engineer or
agriculturalist. A person with a LLB background becomes a lawyer after his
joining the Bar and a person who teaches in a school, college or university is
called ‘teacher, lecturer or professor. Even a professor with a political
science background is known as ‘political scientist’. It is true that a
political party is not an academic institution but there is no denying the fact
that it is a political institution based on certain norms, rules and principles
with a team of policy and decision-makers, office-bearers, secretariat, annual
budget and office stretching from centre to the local unit. Its day to day
routine works from its central to the local offices is maintained by an
administrative network as well. Furthermore, by taking part in elections to
local and national bodies which involve nominations of deserving candidates and
budgetary matters put a party definitely on a better footing of institutional
character. As told earlier in this sequence that a political party is mainly
composed of four elements and now it is further asserted that all the elements
together elevate its position and standing accordingly to the rank or grade of
an institution with the characteristics of being called a political
institution.
But there lies distinct differences between
political and academic institutions because political institutions neither do
give certificate in the manner and mode of academic institutions nor is
politics considered as a profession. Unlike a profession, politics is a kind of
services and, perhaps, it is the highest form of services, which requires
unflinching commitments, dedication and altruism involving time, energy and
money. It is founded on the concept of ‘giving-up’ not of ‘taking-away’. The
term politician, unlike a politician in a city-state, implies a person’s onward
association with a political party with risks and responsibilities,
dedications, sacrifices and commitments for a particular period of time. It may
be at local, regional or national stature. All the workers, leaders at various
stages cannot be called politicians since the term carries some special and
more qualifications.
Therefore, logical deduction is that a
person, who has been in politics with a membership in a political party for a
certain period of time, thus gathers knowledge and experience through a process
of political actions and responses and holds leadership portfolio at any stage
or various stages of his party is said to be a politician. Leadership may be
imposed or foisted upon and a person may become a leader overnight without
being a politician whereas a politician cannot be a politician without at the
same time being a leader at any stage of organizational set-up i.e. local,
regional or national. So, politician presupposes both politics and leadership.
Sequence-4
Mostly unlike Greek city state, politics of a
nation-state is for all intents and purposes responsive and conscientious to
bi-lateral, regional and international calls, needs, assistance and
co-operations and so the words bi-lateral regional and international relations
and politics are convincing and compelling accompaniments and proliferations of
the time. Truly speaking, as it is mentioned also in sequence-1, that the
creations and categorizations of mankind into different kinds of races,
nations, tribes, clans with a variety of colors, languages and dialects in different
parts of the planet are the exclusive blueprint and jurisdiction of the Creator
of universe. Hence, it was neither possible in the past nor it is doable at
present nor even it shall be feasible in future for a nation or state or empire
or kingdom to rule and run the world as one whole under its single command as a
result of which mutual contacts and understanding, bi-lateral or multi-lateral,
between or among them crossing the territorial boundaries of each and all came
as a reality. Geographically, resources under the earth, over the earth and in
the space are also spread and dotted unevenly in such fashions and modes that
no single piece of territory was or is in a position to meet with its
requirements using its own dividends for the overall well-being and development
of the fate of the people.
Out of this practicability, crossing of
territorial boundaries occurred necessarily in the shape and form of
bi-lateral, regional and international structures and compacts. Concepts such
as agreement, pact, memorandum of understanding and treaty, bi-lateral or
multi-lateral, based on pacta sunt servanda (meaning that the agreements
entered into by the states must be followed by them in good faith) supported by
series of international laws, rules and regulations from time to time and
emissary, emperor’s or king’s agent or representative, state’s consulate,
ambassador/high commissioner, nuncio with required diplomatic manners and
protocols etc grew and developed. Thus, the areas and dimensions of politics
remained dormant in its atomic fold because of lack of discovery and
application began to flourish geographically with all functional inputs
further. Developments in the fields of science and technology made them so
nearest in almost all respects that today world is called a ‘global village’ of
nation-states with the United Nations along with its wings and affiliated
bodies as a unique centre for all.. This has as well been summed up in a lucid
mode in a prosaic poetic expression in the Author’s book O United Nations as
follows:
O United
Nations------------------------------
You are a unique centre for a get-together
Of all the member states in the world
Ranging from North to South to
East to West;/
Embracing all------------
Asians, Africans,
Australians, Europeans/
South Americans, North Americans
And Antracticans
Irrespective of caste, creed, color and
religion
Relaying the voices of/The Black, the Whites
and the Mixed to/
Everywhere in the world
(Page 18 at www.sinha-ounitednations.com)
Politics in regional and international
dimensions has become so dominating and encompassing that in these days state or also a government can hardly think to
survive and continue without being formally recognized (de facto and/or de
jure) by other states followed by her membership essentially in various
regional and international bodies. Concept of balance power, bi-lateral,
regional or international, and then accumulation of arms and ammunitions,
conventional or most sophisticated, in the name of safeguarding and upholding
of territorial integrity and national sovereignty made nation states more
venerable to such politics. To the utter disappointment of all, the planet has
meanwhile witnessed two world wars one in 1914 and other in 1939, which on an
average lasted more than five years onward. Once the world faced the cold war
and wars in limited scales on different fronts between or among the nation
states with the patronization, supports and inputs of two super powers, USA and
USSR, of the bi-polar socialistic and capitalist world from 1917 to 1990 and it
continued till the fall and dismantle of USSR into a number of free and
sovereign states with a shift to mixed or almost near-capitalistic model and
now we are having the taste of the uni-polar world under the sole dominance and
command of hyper state USA. All these happened or happen due to play and
counter play of the players in the fields of international politics. Thus the
lexis such as US politics, EU politics, Chinese politics, and Indian politics
and so on are made available in this sphere.
There are bundle of references that
predominantly because of such regional or international politics toppling or
fall of a party/coalition-in-power elected democratically by popular mandate or
junta through martial law or mass upsurge may take place in a free and
sovereign nation-state. Idealistic supports under the cap of doctrine of
necessity or doctrine of efficacy or the both cannot sustain at all if such
toppling or fall is not backed by regional or international politics or by the
both. Martial laws in Pakistan by General Ayub Khan in 1958, by General Ziaul
Haq in1977 and by General Pervaz
Mossaraf in 1999; in Bangladesh by Major General Ziaur Rahman in 1975 and by
Lit. General HM Ershad in 1982 and Mass upsurge in the then East Pakistan in
1969-70 that led to the birth of Bangladesh through a nine month long war of
liberation in 1971, fall of Pilipino dictator F. Marcos, Shah of Iran and,
above all, rise and flare-up of ‘Arab spring’ in the Middle East are its burning
illustrations. Further to point out is that there is no better option for an
emerging power, regional or sub-regional, to get and ensure supports and
assistance from a superior power(s) to exist, sustain and continue. For
instance, when US officially affirms and declares that India is a
sub-continental power she actually endorses and passes a message in clear terms
that the sub-continent falls more or less within the domain of Indian politics.
Espionage network is another dimension that takes the stronger or big states to
an advantageous position to poke their noses into the matters of weak or small
states. Today the names such as CIA, KGB, MI-6, MOSAD, RAW, ISI etc are very
much sounded and heard nationally, regionally
and internationally. It is also alleged that CIA played strongly behind the
curtain to give birth to the ‘Arab spring’. To suit the purposes ‘political
assassination(s)’ may even be justified as was seen in case of Allendale of
Chile, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Ziaur Rahman of Bangladesh, Z.A.
Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan, Anwar Sadat of Egypt and so on.
Human rights under the various caps entailing
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950, American Convention
on Human Rights, 1969, African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Banjul
Charter), 1981, Istanbul Declaration on Human Rights following the spirit of
OIC etc are not weighed and looked into in all such contexts. To speak the
truth, declaration and protection of Human Rights at universal, regional and
national levels appear to be sleeping mostly in the pages of the documents and
charters at the dire disregard to those for whom they are meant and made. Sense
of phobia, security or economic or otherwise, may also bring forth alignment
and counter-alignment such as Allied and Axis powers during world war 11, NATO,
WARSO, ANJUS, OAU, Arab League, APEC, ASEAN, SAARC etc in the post world war 11.
Chapter V111 of the United Nations recognizes formation of regional alliance
after the spirit of UN to strengthen and consolidate the bases of multi-lateral
cooperation among the nation-states functionally and territorially. There is no
dearth of reservation that politics remains as the prime driving force behind
all these.
There are two basic frames in the
international order one is formal and other is informal. Formal frame begins
and moves from bi-lateral to regional to international contexts and contents
which may rightly be called ‘International Relations’ between or among the
nation states while Informal frame may deservingly be treated as ‘International
politics’ in the same contexts and contents. One grows out of necessity and
inter-dependence (largely on social, economic and cultural considerations and
perspectives) for survival and continuance of the nation-states but the other
comes and develops out of perception of security and dominance, hegemonic or
chauvinistic, mostly. More interesting to see is that in the final analyses and
experiments it comes to light that informal relations in practice shape and
mould the course of formal relations and, therefore, the upper hand is
accordingly achieved by the state or states which can play more using her/their
power, resources, opportunities, possibilities and diplomacy and on the top of
all these there remains a wheel or whip called ‘International politics’.
Internationally, today, this wheel or whip is in the hand of USA, leader of the
uni-polar world, regionally it is handled by the regional power(s) and
bi-laterally it goes to the state that enjoys balance of power tilted in her
favor. In most of the cases the vital point is ‘national interest’ that has
appeared as the most powerful but perplexing concept and terminology in
international relations and politics.
In fact, in the context of time, space and
dimension politics also began to develop as a field of study and disciplinary
focus and consequently acquired distinct and separate entity and characteristics
and came to be recognized as ‘science’. Politics thus with the addition of the
words science became ’political science’ ‘having its dynamic presence in the
domain of social sciences. Hardly there is a university, public or private,
which does not provide education in political science under the department of
political science/government and politics under the faculty of social sciences.
Correlations and discovery of its linkages, overt or covert, latent or active
or near or remote with other branches of knowledge such as arts, literature;
music, mathematics, science and technologies are its additional glamour. Once
non-institutional scholars, thinkers and philosophers dominated the field but
today the field is demonstratively in the grip of institutional think-tanks and
political scientists.
Politics as a concept in motion is free and
open to its users and beneficiaries so that they can dig, exploit more and more
undiscovered areas in its atomic womb and broaden, increase its ambits and
involvements. Its power of acceptance, power of digestion, power of bearing the
loads and stocks and power of accommodation are so unique that today it can
concertedly carry and continue ethical, non-ethical, religious or non-religious
contents together or separate or mixed in the context of needs and priorities
of a state in issue.
Sequence-5
Over the period, dozens of definitions of
politics came from different angles and perspectives and more are likely to
come and thus it is better and wiser to treat these as merely touching and
digging dormant areas of the atomic nature of development/swelling of politics
to meet with the needs and demands of time in tune with the ongoing rapid
development of science and technologies. Its approach(s) and application(s) may
be micro or macro and positive or negative. It is sometimes called a possible
and dependable means to integrate so many things together with a view to
reaching at an amicable solution, and at times termed as application of
multiple tricks to achieve the goals. Somebody make attempts to elevate it to a
height with a wrap that it has the inherent potentiality to make a thing out of
nothing while others do not like to lag behind and thus put forward more
dignified swathe that it is both arts and science. Concept of political economy
is another focus on politics taking politics and economics as one entity.
Considering power as the moot point of politics some also labeled politics as a
‘game for power’. Definitions are also available in line with its application
to the matters related to families, clubs, offices etc even to bi-lateral
exchanges and dealings. Taken all such viewpoints together, it is said that
politics is everywhere from toilet to kitchen to bad room to drawing room to
courtyard to family to local to national to regional to international compacts
and concerns.
Therefore, with due care and respects to all
the perspectives and dimensions, politics is a concept, which is atomic by
nature. It develops and swells in the context of time, space and dimension in tune
with the needs of the people and the sate concerned. It, in fact, may be viewed
and anatomized as consisting of two essential elements, one is Object and the
other is Subject. Object(s) aims at the well-being of the people and upholding
the sovereignty and security of the state in issue and to suit these steps to
be taken are, firstly, to transform the objects into practice through
determination of vision & mission matching with time. Here comes
predominantly the questions of democracy, election, parliament, forms of
government, domestic resources and their utilizations, science and technology,
foreign policy, regional and international compacts and concerns since the
world is today considered as a ‘global village’ indeed and so on paving the
ways for necessary reforms.
Focus on the areas of object(s) is an
unending process. Some are dogged and explored while others are yet to be
dogged and explored and in progression of this water and space emerged as
recent inputs to politics. Making of laws related to Sea under the cover of
UNCLOS, 1982 and Space, starting from Air Law of Paris Convention of Arial
Navigation, 1919 to Chicago Convention, 1944 to the Outer Space Treaty 1966 to
UNISPACE-82 have consolidated the areas more formidably from political standpoint
also. Concept of ‘sustainable development’ has its immediate effects on
politics. It goes on telling the world over and over again that ‘sustainable
politics’ is now a Hobson’s choice as well. In fact, science and technology
have stood by politics as torch and tool to dig, explore and use its unexplored
possibilities and opportunities as vibrant inputs. There is nothing wrong to
think of an ‘’era of digital politics’ within the timeframe of 21st
century.
To put all these into reality there must be a
means/mechanism and accordingly ‘political party’ was given birth to as
necessary carrier and implementer. Consequently, political parties started
infusing all these into their program and agenda in line with importance and
necessity. Political parties further made it clear that politics is not at all
confined to the affairs of state to be dealt exclusively by the
government/party or coalition-in power rather the parties within or outside
parliament, broadly called opposition political parties, which are also
generally known as ‘opposition’ with or without seat in parliament, are also
entitled to play a role related to the matters of state. No government can
ignore the inevitability of the working of political parties in running the
state. Reality carries records pointedly that in a democratic set-up,
multi-party or single party, a government itself is the product of a political
party or coalition, called ruling party or coalition. Again, initiation of
track –diplomacy, a call for diversification of the modes of diplomacy from the
single hold of government played mainly by the foreign ministry to more modes
i.e. diplomacy track 11, 111, 1V, V, V1 etc, has broadly explored more ambits
of politics in the field of bi-lateral, regional and international affairs, which
was not possible to think in the days of polis in Ancient Greece.
Like other areas say dictatorship,
aristocracy and plutocracy, politics may also be perverted. It was not within
the consideration of Aristotle since the concept was then used synonymously
with the polis (city-state).Time is now matured enough to look into the matter
with due care, focus and analysis. Yes, I feel and understand that the
perversion of politics may rightly be called ‘politease’, which here in our
context means to tease (taunt, mock or misuse) politics instead of practicing
it in proper mode and technique. Further elaboration states that when a person,
group or party does not practice politics proper rather does try to apply it to
achieve vested gains or interests, it is then a deviation from the path of
politics and a beginning to get immersed in politease. Therefore, from the
practical point of view, politics because of lack of politesse (correctness
involving aims and objects broadly called contents) may be transformed into
‘politease’. Hardly there may be a debate about the proposition that ‘today we
are passing through a juncture of politease in the name of politics’.
Attention as well is needed to be paid to the
facts that media, print or electronic, also known as the ‘fourth estate’, and
civil societies of various kinds and folds emerged as the ‘fifth estate’, have
demonstratively made their presence to voice the issues and problems of the
people in a state in their own modes and fashions.’ There is a strong view that
the ambit and influence of political parties have been quaked to a degree by
these two fronts, together or separately. But the truth is that they, instead,
started playing role, positive or negative, to provide and supply further
inputs to politics and secondly, subject of politics is the people and the
state in issue in particular and the world in general. That’s why when the
object(s) of politics aimed at the well-being being of the people of a state is
decided it, from the viewpoint of reality, it needs also to take stocks from
bi-lateral, regional and international compacts and concerns in the light of
state’s standing as a free, sovereign whole and its ongoing relations &
concerns thereto have to be infused in a proper and cautious manner into the
party’s approaches in its own fashions and modes.
Sequence-6
Today it is claimed that democracy is the
best practicable model to run a country and thus the countries which are away
from this are bridging the chasm through various initiatives, programs and constitutional
measures. But reality is reality’ It does not believe in the game of hide and
seek and ultimately stands by the truth like a solid rock and thus unfurls to
the world that in the name of democracy a kind of mockery, fraudulent practices
are on in a full swing. Democracy is safe neither to so-called capitalism of
corporate kingdom nor to the so-called socialism of managerial dictatorship.
Wilson’s vision ‘world must be made free for democracy’ remains a myth even in
his own land. Noam Chomsky in his book ‘Failed States: The Abuse of power and
the Assault on Democracy’ identified America as one of the leading failed
states in the world because of her failures to provide and ensure necessary
opportunities and privileges to the citizens.
The very objects of politics nay, the
‘democracy of the people, by the people and for the people’ have been seized
and snatched away by the syndicates and their lobbyists. A reign of
inequalities has overshadowed good sense and spirit allowing rapid rise and
escalation of ‘animal spirit’ as a result of which the words ‘peace’ has been
passed to a remote cold storage. In a sequence of such proliferations ‘Nobel
Peace Award’ has become an object of severe criticism as politics made its
distinct presence even in choosing and selecting such Nobel laureate(s)
starting from 1901 to 2011. ‘Nobel peace prize1973’ was jointly accorded to Dr.
Henry A. Kissinger, then US Secretary of State, and Le Duc Tho , who served as
special adviser to the North Vietnamese delegation to the Paris Peace
Conferences in 1968–73, in reorganization of their outstanding performance for
negotiating and concluding the ‘Paris Peace Accord of 1973’. World experienced
with much wonder and discomfiture when Dr. Henry Kissinger accepted and
received the prestigious award, although the other co-recipient Le Duc Tho
rejected it on grounds that ‘his country was not still at peace’.
Awarding Nobel peace prize1994’ jointly to Yasser
Arafat, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the PLO, President of the
Palestinian National Authority, Shimon Peres, Foreign Minister of
Israel. and Yitzhak Robin, Prime Minister of Israel, for their efforts
to create peace in the Middle East and Nobel peace prize 1978 jointly to Mohamed
Anwar Al-Sadat, then President of the Arab Republic of Egypt and Menachem
Begin, Prime Minister of Israel, for jointly negotiating peace between
Egypt and Israel, were considered by many during that time as ‘carrying no
significance from the point of view of the end product of the agreement in
reality’ and today the world knows very well what the truth is. A slight focus
on the Camp David Accords may be helpful to understand the politics of Nobel
Peace Prize.
The Camp David Accords were, in effect, two
accords that provided the basis for the continuation of the peace negotiations:
a 'Framework for Peace in the Middle East' and a 'Framework for the Conclusion
of a Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel.'
In the long history of the Arab-Israeli
conflict, the Camp David Accords set the framework for future peace in the
Middle East. Following twelve days of secret talks and negotiations between
Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Egyptian President Anwar El Sadat and US
President Jimmy Carter, the Camp David Accords were signed on September 17,
1978 at the presidential retreat in Camp David, Maryland. Although initially
the accords led to the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty on March 26, 1979, they were
unsuccessful in bringing long-term peace between Israel and other Arab
countries in the region.
Egypt and Israel maintained a state of war
since 1948 when Israel had declared its independence and the founding of the
State of Israel, which did not bring any benefit to Egypt. Later on, in 1967
during the Six Day War, although initially Egypt embargoed Israeli shipping by
closing the Straits of Tiran and unifying forces with Jordan, Syria and Iraq to
establish a large armed force in the Israeli border, Israel attacked back
capturing the Gaza strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the Golan Heights
from Syria and the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan. In 1973, during
the Yom Kippur War, Egypt lost again to Israel realizing there was no way to
eliminate the opponent through outright war. It was then that Egyptian
President Anwar El Sadat preferred the road of diplomacy to solve the problem,
unlike other Arab countries that continued being at a state of war with Israel.
On January 20, 1977, US President Carter
proceeded with a comprehensive, bilateral approach to revitalize the peace
process in the Middle East. Carter's new approach appealed to the reconvening
of the 1973 Geneva Conference that had initially failed to solve the
Arab-Israeli conflict in the absence of representation of the Palestinians by
the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). This time, President Carter hoped
that the Conference would be held with a Palestinian delegation in the hope of
negotiating a final settlement. However, this remained a pure aspiration.
President Carter visited the Arab leaders on
whom he would have to lay his hopes for peace settlements in the Middle East.
Although his meetings with Egyptian President Anwar El Sadat, King Hussein of
Jordan, Syrian President Hafez al-Assad and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak
Rabin were successful, President Carter feared reactions. Albania, Bulgaria,
Hungary and Czechoslovakia that had allied with Egypt and Syria as well as
other Arab nations such as Libya and Lebanon would possibly react to the US
efforts of getting Egypt to make peace with Israel. Under the threat of
terrorist attacks against Egypt, NATO armies were prepared fro war. Israel had
to withdraw its military forces from all fronts, including the West Bank.
Besides, the political situation in Israel changed abruptly with the
long-ruling labor Alignment losing the elections to Menachem Begin's
center-right Likud in May 1977.
On November 19-21, 1977, Egyptian President
Anwar El Sadat paid a first-time visit to Jerusalem to address the Israeli
Knesset (the legislative branch of the Israeli government) and initiate peace
talks between Egypt and Israel. That was the first visit of an Arab leader to
Israel and for his effort Sadat was named 'Man of the Year' by Time Magazine in
1977.
The Camp David Accords were, in effect, two
accords that provided the basis for the continuation of the peace negotiations:
a 'Framework for Peace in the Middle East' and a 'Framework for the Conclusion
of a Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel.'
The 'Framework for Peace in the Middle East'
summarized principles for a comprehensive peace settlement with a focus on the
Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Apart from specified areas where Israel was
allowed to maintain forces to ensure its security, it had to withdraw its
military government from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank so that the residents
of these areas could elect autonomous authorities within a five-year period.
Besides, Egypt and Israel, along with Jordan and 'representatives of the
Palestinian people' should participate in negotiations to reach a firm solution
to the issues of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, Israel-Jordan relations and
Israel's right to exist within secure and acknowledged borders.
The 'Framework for the Conclusion of a Peace
Treaty between Egypt and Israel' dealt with Israel's withdrawal from the Sinai
Peninsula and the institution of peaceful relations between Israel and Egypt
within a period of three months. Israel agreed on withdrawing from the Sinai
Peninsula within three years and dismantling its air bases in the Gulf of Aqaba
and the town of Yamit. Egypt agreed on having full diplomatic relations with
Israel and allowing Israel passage through the Suez Canal, the Straits of Tiran
and the Gulf of Aqaba.
The Egyptian side approved the frameworks on
September 19. For Egypt the relation between the two accords was crucial
because it feared that other Arab countries might view an Egypt-Israel peace
agreement as a betrayal of the Palestinians. The Israeli side approved the
accords on September 28.
Apart from the two main frameworks, the
agreement also led to the United States subsidizing several billion dollars to
both governments in the form of grants and aid packages committed to purchasing
US supplies in military and commercial supply chain management. According to
the US Department of State, it is estimated that in the period between 1979 and
1997, Egypt has received $1.3billion per year as military aid, beyond any sort
of economic or humanitarian aid that totals more than $25 billion. Similarly,
Israel has received $3 billion per year since 1985 as military aid and grants.
The Camp David Accords had major implications
on the politics of Middle East. First of all, the perception of Egypt within
the Arab world changed dramatically leading to its suspension from the Arab
league in the period 1979-1989. Secondly, the accords, in essence split up the
united Arab front. The Palestinian issue became the central issue in the
Arab-Israeli conflict, yet Egypt did not push Israel enough for a firm
solution.
For their efforts to solve the problem of the
long-lasting conflict between Egypt and Israel, Anwar El Sadat and Menachem
Begin received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1978.
Consequences of the accords are also
reflected in the mode and manner that hold that ‘the time that has
elapsed since the Camp David Accords has left no doubt as to their enormous
ramifications on Middle Eastern politics. Most notably, the perception of Egypt
within the Arab world changed. With the most powerful of the Arab militaries
and a history of leadership in the Arab world under Nasser, Egypt had more leverage
than any of the other Arab states to advance Arab interests. Egypt was
subsequently suspended from the Arab League from 1979 until 1989.
When the Camp David accords were signed,
Jordan's King Hussein saw it as a slap to the face. When Sadat volunteered
Jordan's participation in deciding how functional autonomy would work and, more
specifically, effectively said that Jordan would have a role in how the West
Bank would be administered. Like the Rabat Summit Resolution, the Camp David
Accords circumscribed Jordan's objective to reassert its control over the West
Bank. Focusing as it did on Egypt, the Carter administration accepted Sadat’s
claim that he could deliver Hussein, however, with a number of Arab world
opposition building against Sadat, Jordan could not risk accepting the Accords,
without the support from powerful Arab neighbors, like Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and
Syria. Hussein consequently felt diplomatically snubbed. One of Carter's
regrets was allowing Sadat to claim that he could speak for Hussein if Jordan
refused to join the talks. But by then the damage was done with the Jordanians.
The Camp David Accords also prompted the
disintegration of a united Arab front in opposition to Israel. Egypt's
realignment created a power vacuum that Saddam Hussein of Iraq, at one time
only a secondary power, hoped to fill. Because of the vague language concerning
the implementation of Resolution 242, the Palestinian problem became the
primary issue in the Arab-Israeli conflict immediately following the Camp David
Accords (and arguably, until today). Many of the Arab nations blamed Egypt for
not putting enough pressure on Israel to deal with the Palestinian problem in a
way that would be satisfactory to them. Syria also informed Egypt that it would
not reconcile with the nation unless it abandoned the peace agreement with
Israel’ (Camp David Accords, Wikipedia).
What is very interesting to note is that it
is widely held by the western powers that possibly the biggest of all
implications is the psychology of all parties involved in the Camp David
Accords. Sadat, Begin and Carter managed to show to the rest of the world, but
mostly to the other Arab nations that negotiations with Israel were possible
and that solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict would be feasible only through
continued efforts of communication and cooperation.
Reasons for awarding ‘Nobel peace prize 2009’
to US President Barak Obama in expectation of his grand successes in the
desired fields, which is a gross deviation from the very intent and spirit of
Alfred Nobel and the Nobel peace award itself still remains shrouded in
mystery.
But the other side of the coin carries the
load of facts and documents that Mahatma Gandhi, pioneer of non-violent
movement in British-ruled India, in spite of his having been nominated for
Nobel peace prize for five times onward from 1943 to 1947 was not finally
chosen by the Norwegian Nobel Committee at Oslo simply because of the politics
of the age , which was largely played and dominated by the British with a Kingdom
where the Sun never set due to her territorial boundaries.(for more visit page
47 in the web publication of the author’s book ‘O United Nations’ at www.sinha-ounitednations.com).
Plaintive expressions of subsequent Nobel Committees for such mistakes and
follies pointedly since 1989 when 14th Dali Lama (Tenzin Gyatso),
Tibet Religious and political leader of the Tibetan people, was awarded Noble
peace prize 1989 and UN’s Declaration of Gandhi’s birthday as the
‘International day of non-violence’ may rightly be viewed also, among others,
as a by-product of ongoing regional and international politics in the context
of India’s visible appearance there.
Politics has by and large turned into
business and the businesses turned into politics and consequently, political
parties, parliaments and fight for democracy all are, directly or indirectly,
within the fists of vested groups. Sustainable development and monopolistic
corporate expansion, drive for reduction and destruction of arms and race for
creating more and more markets for sales of arms including uranium and
accessories, raw materials for manufacturing destructive weapons for the
purposes other than peaceful use for generating energy and power, cannot move
together. This duality is not only unfair but it also pushes the world towards
a great catastrophe leading to recession to depression and it, as the latest
studies and approaches predict, may skate even to the extent of stagnation.
‘Occupy Wall Street’ is just a beginning of such flare-up. That's why, with WTO
and unbridled move of G-20(in the last summit in Paris in 2011 strong
commitments, among others, to reduce the ongoing imbalance between the
developed and developing countries have been pledged and reiterated),
Millennium Development Goals, a highly ambitious drive and thrust by United
Nations can hardly be achieved and poverty alleviation shall continue as a
soothing but befooling slogan accordingly.
|
Cesar
Chelala, MD and PhD, a winner of the Overseas
Press Club of America award, in an article ‘ A failure of US democracy and
human rights’, 01 November 2014, Daily Observer, Bangladesh, noted:
|
|
It is a sad day for democracy when
12 Nobel Peace laureates write a letter to US President Barack Obama urging
him to close one of the darkest chapters of recent US history by
acknowledging and then rejecting the "flagrant use of torture and other
violations of international law" that have been conducted with the
excuse of "fighting terrorism" since 2001.
That the recipient of the letter is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate himself makes the situation ludicrous. That he presides over the country purported to be one of the world's leading democracies makes the situation even more incongruous. For those of us who used to admire Obama for his avowed stand on human rights, his re-election seemed to give him the opportunity to fulfil the promises he made regarding the closure of Guantanamo, the use of torture and the killing of innocent people in several countries in conflict. However, we are still to see a determined action from him on the human rights front, to which he has paid only lip service so far. And it makes us wonder who really holds power in the United States. How is it possible that the president of the most powerful country in the world is unable to rally the support necessary to end one of the most disgraceful policies of the US government? Although six months have passed since the Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence voted to release its 480-page executive summary of its review of the nation's "enhanced interrogation" programme, the release of the unabridged and uncensored summary has not yet happened. The reasons for this situation are not a secret. As the committee's leader, California's Senator Dianne Feinstein stated last April, "The report exposes brutality that stands in stark contrast to our values as a nation. It chronicles a stain in our history that must never again be allowed to happen." In a two-year study, the Constitution Project, a US independent group, concluded that it was indisputable that US forces had employed torture as well as 'cruel, inhuman or degrading' treatment in many interrogations; that 'the nation's most senior officials' bear ultimate responsibility for allowing and contributing to the spread of these techniques; and that there is substantial evidence that information obtained by these methods was neither useful nor reliable. The US Supreme Court has held since the 1890s that punishments that involve torture are prohibited under the Eighth Amendment, which states, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The US is a party to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which originated in the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1984, and that was signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1988 and ratified by the Senate on Oct 27, 1990. In addition, the US is a party to the following conventions that prohibit torture: the American Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights signed in 1977 and ratified in 1992. In 2006 the military issued field manuals on intelligence collection and counterinsurgency that stressed that "no person in the custody or under the control of the Department of Defence, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in accordance with and as defined in US law. Despite these guidelines, the US military systematically violated these rules both at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and in more than 17 countries where both US citizens and foreign nationals were transferred to US administered detention facilities, where they were held incommunicado for periods of months and even years. That happened in spite of the fact that the Convention Against Torture proscribes signatory states from transferring a detainee to other countries "where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture." Those actions, taken in full knowledge of the US president, led the Nobel Peace Prize laureates to say, "We have reason to feel strongly about torture. Many of us among the Nobel Peace Prize laureates have seen firsthand the effects of the use of torture in our own countries. Some are torture survivors ourselves. Many have also been involved in the process of recovery, of helping to walk our countries and our regions out of the shadows of their own periods of conflict and abuse." "It is with this experience that we stand firmly with those Americans who are asking the US to bring its use of torture into the light of day, and for the United States to take the necessary steps to emerge from its dark period of its history, never to return."(http://www.observerbd.com/2014/11/01/51985.php#sthash.CZUNvdfu.dpuf) |
World is awaiting something solid and perfect
aimed at the welfare of the deprived who are the majority but who are groaning
under the wheels of suppression and oppression of the microscopic minority who
monopolistically hold the ninety percent resources of the planet. This is
definitely not the objects of politics and democracy therein. How to get rid of
these all negative proliferations? I recall and salute Plato for his book
‘Republic’ not for his depiction of a model of ideal state therein to face the
then challenges of politics in Greece but for the spirit and message it carries
for all the ages to come that ‘the matters of politics should be handled by
those who are above selfishness, greediness, luster i.e. above the influence of
animalism’. It signifies two things one is that politicians should be away from
getting involved in the business of profits and the other is that they should
not practice cronyism of any nature and kind as they are committed to the
service of the people irrespective of caste, creed, color and sex. Let us here
also remember the sayings of Leo Tolstoy, a Russian novelist of universal
appeal and standard. In one of his pieces ‘Three Questions’ he concluded that’
there are three important things in life which are (a) the most important time
in life is ‘now’, (b) the most important man or men is or are the person or
persons who is or are with you now and (c) the most important business is to do
good to him or them. All the questions and answers in unequivocal terms uphold
the true spirit of politics also otherwise. Roseau’s theme of ‘General Will’,
Locke’s juice of ‘Popular Sovereignty’, Lord Bryce’s strong sounding of
people’s supremacy through democracy swallow, digest and bear the spirit
furthermore.
Had Aristotle been alive today he would have
indeed been taken aback to see how his concept of polity, rule by many aimed at
the well-being of the people and the state, is being misused under the fedora
of democracy, rule by many aimed at the well-being of few in the name of the
well-being of the people and the state. Former is originality and the latter is
its perversion/degeneration. Interestingly enough, democracy, perversion or
degeneration of polity, has been recognized and accepted by the modern
civilization as a model of the rule by many. This may also signify otherwise
that polity is an ideal, which can hardly be reflected into practice and
democracy is a reality, which as a frame works and continues readily.
Therefore, to deal with the people of a variety of natures, folds, backgrounds
and beliefs, realism is safer, more reliable and comfortable than idealism. If
such is the logic then there is at least a kind of consolation that reality,
thy name is compromise. In his historic ‘Gettysburg Address’ of 9 November 1863
at Pennsylvania, Abraham Lincoln, then President of USA, asserted and ranked
democracy as the best form of ‘Government by the people, of the people and for
the people’. Therefore, the auto-question crop up in a second is, ‘what is the
terminology to be used if democracy degenerates further? Is it demagogy? If the
degeneration is called so, then there is no denying the fact that we are
passing through the era of demagogy with a sticker and envelop of democracy
taken as polity interchangeably or justifiably; and
Sequence-7
More important to note is that there is no
denying the fact that there is a missing link for which all the visions and
missions of politics in various models of democracy are faced with acute crisis
of not getting implemented smoothly in spite of the Himalayan efforts and
drives. Political parties of various faiths and ideologies, ruling or
opposition, are confused and bewildered since the overall landscapes entailing
social, economic, cultural, religious and political are degrading day by day
putting serious challenges to peace, stability and continuity. Corruptions,
philistinism, cronyism, degradation of moral values, private or public,
greediness, lessening ties of fellow-feelings, brotherhood and so forth have
appeared as Leviathan’ before the nation-states in particular and the world in
general as if we are almost in the Hobbes’ ‘state of nature’. Widely-quoted
fundamentalism, terrorism and trafficking of many faces are on rampant
increase. Therefore, the question is what is the missing link?
Answer is clean, clear and thought-provoking
since there is emerging a new line of thoughts in new-fangled modes and
contents from the latent areas of politics to voice and reiterate, and I
believe also, that careful attention to the real teachings and practice of
religions of various faiths and folds should be taken as the possible missing
link. Today it is being felt, realized to a greater extent than ever before
that the objects of politics are manifested all the way through its contents
and for overhauling and rejuvenating the contents, carriers and implementers
from within and without requires supports from religions as religion as only
religion can touch the body and soul together. Ethical standing and standard of
politics are condition precedents for its survival, development, continuity and
longevity. Man-made theories, doctrines, laws, rules and regulations all are
subject to flaws and short-sightedness, and contain adequate roads, avenues,
lanes and by-lanes for escapes and exits. Greediness, lusts, ugliness, negative
competitions etc can hardly be uprooted from the very minds of those who prefer
philistinism and opportunism anyhow and at any cost to altruism, sacrifice,
dedication and commitments which are the basis of politics. Therefore, keeping
the appeals and efficacy of religions at a long distance in the name of
so-called standards of politics and civilization may not continue as a
measuring rod in the coming days. Growth of extreme secularism i.e. separation
of religion both from life and state means in the final end inevitable rise and
application of proper teachings and lessons of religions in life not as a
segmented piece but as a whole at every possible stage of life from self to
family to society to state to international compacts. Let there be no ambiguity
about the conclusion that ‘whole is truer than a part and all the parts
together constitute the whole’.
Time has come to reassess and recast
everything in a new perspective and focus that neither Muslims nor Christians
nor Jews not Hindus nor Sikhs nor Buddhists nor others in the currents are in a
position to say in most of the cases, to be sure, that they are very much aware
of the proper teachings and lessons of their respective religion while dealing
with other(s) in a community, society, state in particular and the world in
general. No religion in true sense of the term encourages a person to be
dogmatic, hostile, terrorist, regressive and static. Humanity, humanitarian
outlook, dedication and sacrifices are said to be ornaments of a religion. This
is also true that, like other areas, religions have also become prey of
negative interpretations, uses and escalations. We have to bear in mind
carefully the difference between a religious person and a religion-loving
person. One is exactness leading to conclusion being the minority of a religion
and the other is vagueness keeping distance from conclusion forming the
majority. Today it is really difficult to find and rank a community based on
proper foundation of a religion. Let the leaders in the domains of religions
take the crisis as challenge without delay anymore.
Take it guaranteed that I am neither talking
of anything in line with politics based on religion, nor asking for revival of
Din-i-Ilahi ((Persian: دین الهی "Divine Faith")
of the Mughal Emperor Akbar the Great who reigned the Indian sub-continent from
27January 1556 to 27 October 1605(49
years, 273
days). Akbar, for the purpose of perpetuating his rule, devised this syncretic
model accommodating and merging the best elements of the religions of his
empire, and thereby made attempts to command and enjoy the confidence of all.
One of the major targets of it was to reconcile the differences that divided
his subjects causing serious disorder and threat to the smooth and peaceful
running of administration and atmosphere thereto. My proposition rather goes on
saying that no canvass or model of politics aimed at the well-being of the
people and development thereto can succeed or thrive in full or even achieve an
optimum level of satisfaction if the people engaged in the process of
leadership, distribution and implementation are not committed and dedicated
from within with a considerable degree of sanctity and purification. And so,
the concept of ‘social business’ based on seven principles of business
objectives with a perceptible focus ‘traditional business operating in
capitalist economy, teaches how to maximize profit, which means how to be
selfish. On the other hand, social business teaches how to solve social
problems in a business way with a very minimum profits, which means how to be
selfless’ about which Bangladeshi Nobel Laureate Professor Dr. Mohammad Yunus
is moving from heaven to earth may not be put into practice in line with the
vision and mission due to its lacking of the ‘inner drive’ in soul. His extreme
emphasis on the use of technological devices including internet and mobile
phones to transform the world into a world without poverty, as depicted in his
thought-provoking book ’Creating a World Without Poverty: Social Business and
the Future of Capitalism (2008)’ model of which was shown in detail in his
another book ‘Building Social Business; The New Kind of Capitalism That Serves
Humanity’s Most Pressing Needs (2010)’, is not so sound indeed since he
allegorically considers the devices as the ghost of Aladin’s Lamp, a tale in
the Arabian Nights’, in the hands of the users and so, he could not come out of
the frame of the concept of business based on profits.
We know from the tale that the Lamp’s ghost
remained loyal, committed and blind to his master without caring anybody else.
The ghost was like a robot under the command of his welder. So, there lies a
big gap between Dr.Yunus’ vision and mission. Producing a microscopic number of
people with knowledge of the use of scientific and technological devices cannot
be a move for real and true solutions to the fight against poverty, which is on
a rise alarmingly. Concerns of the day are not only the inputs of civilization
but also the inputs that keep the soul of the masses safe and unpolluted from
the evils of various forms and natures including cronyism, corruption,
terrorism, trafficking and in particular, it as a whole relates to those who
matter in deciding as to what to do, how and when. He pointedly and
unambiguously made it clear to the world that the root point of the crisis of
the day is to determine a line of demarcation between ‘selfless’ and
‘selfishness’ and now the civilization needs social business with ‘selfless’ as
the driving force. Is it possible without fortifying the souls of those masses
and carriers who are actors and players in putting his vision into reality? So,
here comes the question of application of teachings and lessons of religion to
make a person ready from ‘within’ for a sacrifice. Dr. Yunus’ vision merits a
lot and it definitely be weighed on a balance of plus and minus in the light of
its magnetism, dynamism, limitations, applicability and feedbacks. He rose to
an unexpected height with his ’Grameen Bank-based micro-credit concept that
brought him Nobel Peace Prize 2006. Other side of the coin is that he could not
stand by the down-trodden because of the actual feedbacks of the operation of
it. Publicity and popularity, mostly fluid by nature, cannot be the measuring
rod of the success and sustainability of a noble vision because, truly
speaking, ‘Real is more ideal than ideal itself’.
In fact, business means risks, predictable or
unpredictable, which otherwise passes a clear message ‘either you gain or lose
or remain at par’. But ill luck would have it, our forerunner Dr. Yunus does
not believe in loss or even in at par and therefore, profits, anyhow profits
shall continue as the moot point in his vision and mission, but, ironically
enough, service to humanity being manifested, voiced and carried through his
ends and means asks for sacrifices and dedications from the ‘self’ that turn
the self into ‘selfless’ in the true sense of the term.
In the context of Grameen Bank micro-credit
scheme unfolding truth is more attention-grabbing and ill-digesting. In this
micro-credit lending a loan is approved under certain water-tight terms and
conditions and one of them is to repay it plus interest at the rate of almost
40% on average and installments shall continue on weekly basis. Repayment, also
the central theme of such loan, has to be made anyhow; no excuse even on
humanitarian ground is tolerable. System of recovery is very tough, rigid and
unsound. How is it really practicable to ensure the targeted profits and repay
the weekly installment? How many creditors are in a position to meet with the
requirements? More thrills are that a borrower is free to take loans from other
or more than one lending NGOs. When he finds that he is not in a position to
repay an installment(s) timely or is likely to become a defaulter, he then
takes loan (s) from other lending NGO(s) and repays the old installment first
without paying much attention to the proper use of the newly borrowed capital
for which it has been taken and so practicing and exhausting all the possible
avenues, he in the long run gets caught in a vicious circle of loan defaulter
and thus a sense of frustration, insecurity and phobia, instead of optimism and
security, start hunting him all the time. Such practices, which, are, in fact,
encouraged by the former lender(s) for its own interest, make him idle also
since by getting cash he does not fell to work hard until the cash minus
repayment(s) is exhausted. What a wonderful device to alleviate poverty! Let me
sound here again on a high volume that ‘Real is more ideal than ideal itself’.
I am not against micro-credit drives because
I also believe that it is one of the best initiatives to alleviate poverty and
to put it on track as real tool or weapon there is no better alternative but to
revisit the whole from within with a view to upholding the spirit and mission
in true perspective going, of course, beyond so-called reports, documents,
publications and advertisements most of which are bureaucratic or ordered
focusing only one side of the coin i.e. stories of successes.
Opening the door at the call of time does not
mean closing the eyes to ‘in and around’. Look at India, the largest
multi-party democratic country in the world, and see how NGOS, in particular,
NGOs, international or supported by foreign fund, have to work under strict
laws and rules and then have a glimpse of Bangladesh where NGOs, local or
international or supported by foreign fund, and see how they play a vital role
even in shaping and molding the contents of politics and the government. Roles
of NGOs are both blessings for and challenging to the very purposes of politics
aimed at the well-being of the people and safeguarding the interests and
sovereignty of a nation-state. There should be more studies and researches in
these sectors so that truth and reality are well-reflected, which will help a
lot to the policy-makers and decision-makers to understand, realize the defects
and feedbacks. Otherwise, ongoing drives against poverty or drives for poverty
alleviation shall suffer more. Focus on NGOs from the same angle as another
landmark content of politics that requires to be revisited duly.
Relevantly enough, it is notable here that
Dr. Yunus once presented a pen-picture of an ideal state and society while
delivering speeches as the Chief Guest at the opening ceremony of a political
party ‘Samridah Bangladesh’, translated into ‘Flourished Bangladesh’ floated by
one of the leading but highly hot business tycoons Salman F; Rahman, then
President of Federation of Bangladesh Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FBCCI)
possibly before or shortly after 2000 at Dhaka. He made an open call to the
party to work and move as possible carrier of the goals and objectives to build
a happy and prosperous Bangladesh. His possible means to ends was nipped in the
bud with the immediate demise of the party. It was, if viewed otherwise, also a
kind of failure for choosing the very means as a road to his ends (vision)
because he could not realize and foresee that the persons with and around the
party were not committed and promising to do and materialize what he was
longing for.
In 2007, he himself took a very drastic
initiative to float a political party at the backdrop of the failures of the
political parties in Bangladesh to uphold the continuity of the parliamentary
democratic process through people at his call; he left the field with a sense
of frustration and desperateness and decided to continue wholly with Grammeen
Bank. Again, for the second time he failed miserably for the reason of
non-response of the people. All these carry a message that either he failed to
understand the pulse of the people and music of politics in Bangladesh’s
perspective or he is not in position to mix and continue with the people as a
man of politics, which he never tried in life. Now he is surrounded by flocks
of admirers, supporters and sponsors. Is it really possible for him to achieve
the goals with the means he has chosen deliberately? It is sensitive and stimulus
as a slogan and presupposes supports of politics (there was a call to devise a
political frame at the three-day Third International Conference in Vienna in
November, 2011) but nothing new at all and, to speak the truth, I am startled,
frightened to think whether he is being used by any vested quarter(s) to make
it stand as a pressing but dependable alternative to capitalism at the same
time being or having been within the fold of capitalism! If his drive succeeds
at all, even then there is every possibility of its being marked and branded as
a SOS for the salvation of new liberalism, extreme financialisation and
leverages (in the name of capitalism proper, which, to speak the truth, has
never been allowed to grow and move in accordance with its natural course of
development) in the face of the extreme crises and challenges it has ever
experienced.
Fundamentals of Inductive logic tell us that
(a) nothing comes out of nothing. Every event/occurrence is a result of
multiple causes, immediate or distant. For example, if a bomb explodes then it
needs to be noted carefully that it does not explode only for the immediate
reason of its switching on but also for the reasons of its planting in that
very mode and direction and, above all, the human brain behind all the plans
and technicalities must be taken into account and (b) nature behaves in the
same way under the similar circumstances, which implies that if there is a rain
today, there shall be rain tomorrow provided the same weather takes place
again. That’s why, instead of going for any kind of SOS services to face the
crises in the fold of capitalism, let the leaders of G-20 and EU face the
challenging question emanating from the reality is that ‘Has capitalism as a
model really failed? Or ‘Has it been strangulated by the political leaderships
of ‘Oligarchy’ in the name of so-called multi-party ‘Democracy’ allowing
unchecked monopolistic corporate Dinosaurs to grab the very concept and
purposes of welfare state paving further, to our utter surprise, the way for consolidating
and cementing the standing and march of corporationist state?
Definitely, capitalism as an ideological
content and model of politics has been made subservient to those forces that
are matured, clever and cunning enough to turn it into their self-targeted
ideological content and model of sweet-heaven squeezing ambits of the powers
and functions of state. Hence, the concept of ‘less interference by the state
means more development’ is another ill-motivated weapon being made and used by
them and their think-tanks, researchers, propagandists and advertisements in a
very planned, concerted and convincing manners, modes and fashions.
Capitalism, in fact, does speak of a welfare
state based on multi-party democracy, human rights and economic development
with due respects to culture and religion of various folds and beliefs. All
these ingredients assert, affirm, confirm and conform a society and state where
there must have a balance, befitting, qualified or unqualified, so that the
range and extent of inequalities, opportunities and privileges in almost all
sectors cannot under any circumstances emerge and continue as threats to each
other and one another; where resources are not to be concentrated in the hands
of few; where powers are not to be vested in the hands of opportunists and
demagogues; where science and technology shall be used for the benefits and
development of the people, not for the satisfaction of a few and ,above all,
where due care must be ensured so that the stages of the development of
capitalism with a responsible and responsive role of ‘national bourgeois (as
opposed to the rise and expansion of modern monopolistic corporate Dinosaurs)
might not be disturbed or foiled. And to tie and integrate all these, state
shall play and continue her role as a friend, philosopher and guide ensuring
territorial integrity, security and sovereignty internally and externally to
the best of its capabilities, capacities and strengths. Therefore, the very
question of her (state) becoming a ‘post-office or a mere ‘director of
orchestra’ is just a negation to the very basis and aims of the birth of state
since a welfare state cannot sit and remain idle leaving all the keys of
welfare vulnerable to others considering the area as ‘discretionary zone’ of
those who can afford and like to do so. Sovereignty lies inherently in the hand
of state and it should be there undeniably based on monism. But while applying
such power a state must have to be careful enough so that question or chance of
misuse may not jeopardize or frustrate its sanctity and purpose(s). Pluralistic
approach to sovereignty is very soothing to hear but in reality it weakens or
makes inoperative of the sovereignty of state as a whole.
But as ill luck would have it, the world of
today’s capitalism is just a U-turn from the very vision and mission of
capitalism proper and that’s why it’s truly a misnomer to entitle the
‘perversion’ as ‘proper’. Had there been proper treatments and preventive
measures of the causes of the ‘Great Depression of 1930’ and ‘Black Tuesday’
there possibly took place no further ‘Crisis’ that has recently started
plaguing the domain of capitalist world. Communist Manifesto of 1848 followed
by Das Kapital of 1867, translated into Capital: Critique of Political Economy,
came into being not because of the momentary outbursts of the emotions and
protests of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels rather it was also a clear message
to the welders of politics of capitalism of those days as to what ought to be
done in the face of new challenges. Adam Smith’s ‘Wealth of Nations’ does not
contain a single sentence in favor of exploitation by a few over the majority.
Economists, researchers, think-tanks, media etc supporting the negative
escalation of capitalism in line with the expansion of corporationist state
either failed to realize what they are exactly doing or they have taken the
course deliberately to suit their vested purposes.
In this regard two examples, inter alia, may
largely be illustrative. One is the repealing part of Glass-Steagall Act of
1933 and enactment of Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial
Services Modernization Act of 1999, USA and the other is genesis of off-shore
banks.
Today it is well-understood that in the name
of de-regulation, repealing part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 and passage
of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services
Modernization Act of 1999, during Clinton administration (1993-2001) removing
barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies and
insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any
combination of an investment bank a commercial bank, and an insurance company
caused a havoc in the financial and banking sectors in USA with its blasts in
UK because of Blaire’s following the same pursuits in line with the thoughts of
his mentor Professor Anthony Giddens. With the passage of the
Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms,
and insurance companies were allowed to consolidate.
Many believe that the Act directly helped
cause the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis. President Barack Obama has
stated that GLB led to deregulation that, among other things, allowed for the
creation of giant financial supermarkets that could own investment banks,
commercial banks and insurance firms, something banned since the Great
Depression. Its passage, critics also say, cleared the way for companies that
were too big and intertwined to fail. Economists Robert Ekelund and Mark
Thornton have also criticized the Act as contributing to the crisis. They state
that "in a world regulated by a gold standard, 100% reserve banking, and
no FDIC deposit insurance" the Financial Services Modernization Act would
have made "perfect sense" as a legitimate act of deregulation, but
under the present fiat monetary system it "amounts to corporate welfare
for financial institutions and a moral hazard that will make taxpayers pay
dearly. Joseph Stiglitz, 2001 Nobel laureate for economics and former World
Bank Chief Economist also argued that the Act helped to create the crisis
(Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
The process began in the very face of the
continuation of Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 even a year before the new law was
passed. Citicorp, a commercial bank holding company, merged with the insurance
company Travelers Group in 1998 to form the conglomerate Citigroup, a
corporation combining banking, securities and insurance services under a house
of brands that included Citibank, Smith Barney, Primerica, and Travelers.
Because this merger was a violation of the Glass–Steagall Act and the Bank
Holding Company Act of 1956, the Federal Reserve gave Citigroup a temporary
waiver in September 1998. Less than a year later, GLB was passed to legalize
these types of mergers on a permanent basis. Yes, be sure, it happened due to
indomitable rise and walk of monopolistic corporate empire in the fold of
capitalism.
Creation of Off-Shore banks (while the term
originates from the Channel Islands being "offshore" from the United
Kingdom, and most offshore banks are located in island nations to this day, the
term is used figuratively to refer to such banks regardless of location,
including Swiss banks and those of other landlocked nations such as Luxembourg
and Andorra ) within the fold of capitalist empire is another landmark addition
to the protection of the deposits of those who earn a lot through various
sources, legal or illegal, open or underground, crime or plunder, taking
resorts to tax evasion, money laundering, or non-declaration of the income by
the tax-payer to the authorities concerned in the nation-states and
jurisdictions. Interestingly enough, such protections include greater privacy
in the name of bank secrecy, a principle born with the 1934 Swiss Banking Act,
low or no taxation called tax heavens, easy access to deposits at least in
terms of regulation and protection against local political or financial
instability.
Feedbacks and impacts of such off-shore
banking on the nation-states are well understood today. In their efforts to
stamp down on cross border interest payments EU governments agreed to the
introduction of the Savings Tax Directive in the form of the European Union
withholding tax in July 2005. A complex measure, it forced EU resident savers
depositing money in any country other than the one they are resident in to
choose between forfeiting tax at the point of payment, or allowing notification
by the offshore banks to tax authorities in their country of residence. This tax
affects any cross border interest payment to an individual resident in the EU.
Following September 11, 2001, offshore banks and tax havens, along with
clearing houses, have been accused of helping various organized crime gangs,
terrorist groups, and other state or non-state actors. Since then there have
been many calls for more regulation on international finance, in particular
concerning offshore banks, tax havens, and clearing houses such as Clearstream,
based in Luxembourg, being possible crossroads for major illegal money flows.
However, offshore banking is a legitimate financial exercise undertaken by many
expatriate and international workers.
In the 21st century, regulation of offshore
banking is allegedly increasing, although critics maintain it remains largely
insufficient. The quality of the regulation is monitored by supra-national
bodies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Banks are generally
required to maintain capital adequacy in accordance with international
standards. They must report at least quarterly to the regulator on the current
state of the business.
Since the late 1990s, especially following
September 11, 2001, there have been a number of initiatives to increase the
transparency of offshore banking, although critics such as the Association for
the Taxation of Financial Transactions for the Aid of Citizens (ATTAC),
non-governmental organization (NGO) maintain that they have been insufficient.
A few examples of these are:
*The tightening of anti-money laundering
regulations in many countries including most popular offshore banking locations
means that bankers are required, by good faith, to report suspicion of money
laundering to the local police authority, regardless of banking secrecy rules.
There is more international co-operation between police authorities.
*In the US the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
introduced Qualifying Intermediary requirements, which mean that the names of
the recipients of US-source investment income are passed to the IRS.
*Following 9/11 the US introduced the USA
PATRIOT Act, which authorizes the US authorities to seize the assets of a bank,
where it is believed that the bank holds assets for a suspected criminal.
Similar measures have been introduced in some other countries.
*The European Union has introduced sharing of
information between certain jurisdictions, and enforced this in respect of
certain controlled centers, such as the UK Offshore Islands, so that tax
information is able to be shared in respect of interest (Off-shore bank,
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
Therefore, the question is, how long shall
this very unethical standing of off-shore bank continue? Is it not a curse for
capitalism proper and civilization? Voicing of the same is much more reflected
truly in a prose-poetry mode as follows:
O United
Nations----------------------------------
Behold, behold, behold
In the name of privacy, secrecy and safety of
Money, bonds and securities going on what a
Wonderful legally protected guarantee under
the canopy of
Off-shore and Swiss banks
Certainly, certainly within the wrinkle of
Capitalism!!!
Bearing on the other side of coin c as a
Corollary to all such capitalistic boundaries
a
Merciless, crude and brute hidden truth
Full of suspense, sensation and thrills
leading, leading to
Tragic culmination while so-called
invulnerable diamond-fenced
Privacy, secrecy and safety wither away in
moments
As soon as whistling starts followed by
Ringing of the bells of fall of such
account-holder(s);
Dazzling recent examples are---
Former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak
Tunisian President Zine al-Abidine
Pilipino Dictator Marcos and so on.
Therefore, O United Nations, tax heavens are
not safe
Not safe even for the Dinosaur
account-holder(s) in time of
Distress and necessity
So the logical asking crops
up-----------------
Are not forts remaining unsafe finally?
Is not it a shame for mankind and
civilization?
How long, O United Nations, how long such tax
havens
Even in refined, redirected form shall
continue to be justifiable?
Cannot, cannot we get rid of it
Paving, paving a right way out?
(Page 36 in the Author’s book O United
Nations at www.sinha-onitednations.com)
Needless to reiterate that there needs a
great overhauling in capitalism with clear focuses on wherefrom it started,
wherefrom it got derailed and how such derailments can be compensated,
stitched, tailored and tuned to move with time, space and dimension. Let all
perceptions and senses of frustrations centering in and around capitalism as a
viable contents of politics be revisited, recast and refueled. Let us not utter
nostalgically and conclusively that ‘the ‘days of capitalism are over’ rather
let us sound on a high volume that ‘Let the days of corporationist state
foisted as a heavy weight upon the natural course of development of capitalism
be over’.
Similarly, there should be no hide and seek
in affirming that socialism as a content of politics has not failed rather it
was mishandled by the managerial management after the spirit of the
dictatorship of the proletariat. Almost all the condition precedents were
ignored or set aside. Neither Marks nor Engels nor any book on socialism
including the Communist Manifesto ever made a pen-picture of a socialist state,
which emerged and continued under the leadership of pre-disintegrated USSR,
then a leader of bi-polar world.
Further, between the two systems basic
differences mostly come from that capitalism sticks to a multi-party democracy
with propensity towards both state(where essential or unavoidable) and private
ownerships while socialism believes in single party democracy and state
ownership with les or no interest in religion even as a faith. To be noted here
is that capitalism is more dynamic, accommodative while socialism is more stereotyped
and non-accommodative. Capitalism has every avenues, lane and by-lane to
continue with state ownership and private ownership, which for socialism
implies deviation from the root. From this point of view, the concept of mixed
economy is very much inherent to capitalism or rather says that mixed economy
is a phase or variety of capitalism. When China adopts and continues with ‘two
economy’ it indicates the worthiness and sustainability of capitalism and
limitations of socialism. So, capitalism can never wither away or die since it
is organically tied to the fundamentals of human race, spirit and development.
Therefore, when it is heard that neither
capitalism nor socialism is in a position to meet with the needs of time, in
both cases the outright reply is, although comparatively capitalism is viable,
accommodative an sustainable truth is that neither capitalism nor socialism was
allowed to flower, develop and, accordingly, stand by the people because of
poverty of leaderships with firmness, determination, courage, honesty and
commitments predominantly. We must not forget even for a second that any
content of politics may meet with failure or extinction also because of those
who for a particular period of time take the helms to lead, guide and direct.
Hence, more focuses should be made on the men behind the machines such as
Stalin, Brezhnev, Gorbachev, Regan, Bush, Clinton and Obama and so forth.
Nevertheless, I praise Dr. Yunus for his
unflinching commitments, sincerity and relentless endeavors. Therefore, with
the profoundest regards and love for him I do make a fervent call to him to pay
due attention to this very domain of religion as one of the fundamental tools
of development since his ends (vision) for the third time has been set in
motion taking apparently less profit-seekers called ‘social
businessmen/investors/entrepreneurs’ as means (medium) to play and materialize.
Once founding father of India Mahatma
Karamchand Gandhi, widely acclaimed as pioneer of non-violent movement in
India, remarked, ‘there is no politics devoid of religion’ and his concept of
religion consisted in truth and love. Gandhi, in brief, desired to moralize man
and society with an emphasis that moral means must be adopted to achieve
desired results because where there exists and continues moral values and
standard there is a way to even mindedness which is full of a kind o spiritual
power to spray and spread one’s sense of dedication and sacrifices Today my
realization is, ‘there cannot be politics proper short of touch of religion in
building and cementing the base of dedication, honesty and sacrifices’.
Looking at the recent development in France,
a land where laïcité
(secularism) grew and developed, further attention deserves to be paid to the
book ‘La République, les religions, l'espérance (The Republic,
Religions, and Hope) co-authored by Surkozy, sitting President of
French, in 2004. He argued in the book that the young should not be brought up
solely on secular or republican values and advocated reducing the separation of
church and state, arguing for the government subsidy of mosques in order to
encourage Islamic integration into French society. About the philosophical or
ethical standing of France he stated on many occasions that ‘the roots of
France are essentially Christian’. It’s a clear indication to the possible
missing link of politics.
When a US President-elect routinely touches
the holy Bible while taking oath it at the same time conveys a message that
even the President who remains under the obligations arising from the
Constitution of USA requires further to tie himself with the religious lessons
so that both divine and temporal laws may his guide, friend and inspiration. In
its currency it wrote,’ ‘In God we trust’ and recent trends also cover a
convention of political party with a prayer. If such is the necessity in the
statecraft at the peak then should not the same be reflected and practiced in
other areas of the administration and politics in the country?
In Germany political parties exist and
continue and even voted to power in the name of Christian religion. In so-called
secular India religion of various folds and faiths are deeply rooted in
politics and statecraft with Hinduism at the peak.
In Russia religion is reviving, which has
started even before the fall of socialism, more acutely than ever before.
Fabrics of Chinese societies are much tuned to religion predominantly with
Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism and Islam and Christianity are developing
there gradually. All these were also encouraged more vividly through a
constitutional amendment in 1982.Above all, in Japan there the ‘Emperor’ is
regarded as the direct descendent to the Sun.
Article 33(2) of the Constitution of Greece
reads:
‘Before assuming the exercise of his duties,
the President of the Republic shall take the following oath before Parliament:
"I do swear in the name of the Holy and consubstantial and Indivisible Trinity to safeguard the Constitution and the laws, to care for the faithful observance thereof, to defend the national independence and territorial integrity of the Country, to protect the rights and liberties of the Greeks and to serve the general interest and the progress of the Greek People".
"I do swear in the name of the Holy and consubstantial and Indivisible Trinity to safeguard the Constitution and the laws, to care for the faithful observance thereof, to defend the national independence and territorial integrity of the Country, to protect the rights and liberties of the Greeks and to serve the general interest and the progress of the Greek People".
In fact, The Greek Orthodox Church is under
the protection of the State, which pays the clergy's salaries, and Orthodox
Christianity is the "'prevailing" religion of
Greece according to the Constitution. The Greek Orthodox Church is self-governing
but under the spiritual guidance of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople.
Freedom of religious beliefs is guaranteed by the Constitution, but
‘proselytism’ is officially illegal. According to the most recent Euro stat
"Euro barometer" poll, in 2005, 81% of Greek citizens responded that
"they believe there is a God", whereas 16% answered that "they
believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" and only 3% that
"they do not believe there is a God, spirit, nor life force". This
would make Greece one of the most religious countries in the European Union of
25 members, after Malta and Cyprus.
The
Muslim minority, concentrated in Thrace, was given legal
status by provisions of the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923
and is Greece's only officially recognized religious minority. The recent
influx of (mostly illegal) immigrants from Eastern Europe and the Third World
has an expectedly varied multi-religious profile (Roman Catholic, Muslim, Hindu
etc.).
During
the 2001 constitutional amendment, complete separation of church and state was
proposed, but the two major parties, ND and PASOK, decided not to open this
controversial matter, which clashes with both the population and the clergy.
For example, numerous protests occurred over the removal of the Religious
Denomination entry from the National ID card in 2000.
In United Kingdom it is laid down in
documents that’ the Head of kingdom shall be a protestant by faith at the same
time being the ex-officio Head of the Church of England. More interesting is
that the necessity of religion has desperately further been echoed in the voice
of David Cameron, sitting Prime Minister of UK, on 16 December 2011, which
Daily Star, Bangladesh quoting AFP noted as follows on 18 December 2011:
Britain is a Christian nation and should not
be afraid of standing up for Christian values to help counter the country's
"moral collapse", Prime Minister David Cameron said Friday.
In a rare foray into religion by a British
premier, Cameron said "live and let live" had too often become
"do what you please" in Britain.
The "passive tolerance" of immoral
behaviour had helped fuel the August riots, excess in the banking industry and
home-grown Islamist terror, he said.
"We are a Christian country. And we
should not be afraid to say so," Cameron said at an event in Oxford to
mark the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible.
"The Bible has helped to give Britain a
set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today. Values and morals
we should actively stand up and defend.
The alternative of moral neutrality should
not be an option."
Cameron described himself as a committed but
only "vaguely practicing" member of the Church of England, who was
"full of doubts" about big theological issues.
"We've got stand up for our values if we
are to confront the slow-motion moral collapse that has taken place in parts of
our country these past few generations," he said.
"Moral neutrality or passive tolerance
just isn't going to cut it anymore.
Cameron said that along with the works of
William Shakespeare, the King James Bible was a "high point of the English
language".
"The Bible has helped to shape the
values which define our country," he said.
"Responsibility, hard work, charity,
compassion, humility, self-sacrifice, love, pride in working for the common
good and honoring the social obligations we have to one another, to our
families and our communities -- these are the values we treasure.
"Yes, they are Christian values. And we
should not be afraid to acknowledge that.”
"But they are also values that speak to
us all -- to people of every faith and none. And I believe we should all stand
up and defend them."
All these testify on records that religion in
its many manifestations are inherently tied to life, society, politics and
state but the real teachings and lessons are not properly reflected in life,
society, politics and state. Why the half-done initiative and performance?
Isn’t it true that a half truth is more dangerous and negative than a lie?
Therefore, and unlike Gandhi’s, my stress is
on the use and application of the proper teachings and lessons of religion
(religion in the true of religion, not in Gandhi’s line) in one’s life so that
a human being fell and realize all the time that he a creation of the Sovereign
of universe, visible or not visible, and he has no choice but to go back to Him
any time upon His call and satisfaction. It is well perceived and digested that
living in the world for a period of time is just one of the billions of
fractions of ultimate time. No religion asks its followers to be bad, wicked,
greedy, dishonest, corrupt, immoral, unethical, inconsiderate, ruthless, and
inhuman and so forth. A human being is a blend of animalism and rationalism so
fight for supremacy of one over the other is on all the time. When a human
being acquires the ascendency of rationalism in life, he becomes a valuable
asset for himself and others around him. Unfortunate to note it is that the
numbers of such people are on decline everywhere in the world (Ibid, pages 37
and 39).
Moreover, today it is tested and crystal
clear in all respects that neither socialism nor capitalism can stand and
sustain suitably as a possible response to gear the wheels of politics for
development because of the inherent flaws, constraints and limitations. All the
so-called sweetest words contained in the documents, theses, theories, books
and publications have come to a critical standstill, nay, collapse because of
their failures to cope with needs of the politics and development overshadowed
by mismanagements, laxity in determination of priorities and corruptions in
particular (for more visit Sustainable Development: Needs more pillars for its
sustainability’ in the author’s Sinha Earth Blog).
At the
end of everything the very sayings and realization of Albert Einstein may
logically be recurring focus for due importance and attention pointedly. It is
he who candidly noted that ‘Science without
religion is lame. Religion without science is blind’; ‘Intelligence makes clear
to us the interrelationship of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us
a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental
ends and valuations and to set them fast in the emotional life of the
individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion
has to form in the social life of man’; ‘Whoever undertakes to set himself up
as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods’;
‘True religion is real living; living with all one’s soul, with all one’s
goodness and righteousness’; ‘The real problem is in the hearts and minds of
men. It is easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of
man’.
Sequene-8
Inquisitively enough, a new turn is on in
politics giving birth to the concept of sustainable democracy. Therefore,
further attention needs to be paid to the call of sustainable democracy. It’s a
kind of response to the so many variations and sub-categories within categories
of various models of democracies with so-called catchy prefixes and/or suffixes
being imposed forcefully or advantageously to suit the very purposes of the
wielders concerned. Truth is that democracy is democracy and, under all the
circumstances, approving or not, it remains so both in body and spirit. From
these standpoints, continuous supports, legal and political, to strengthen,
enhance and consolidate all the necessary institutions like political parties,
elective bodies, national and local, election commission, judiciary and
responsible and responsive administration breeding good governance within a democracy
and democratic order require to be ensured and upheld in qualified moods and
modes.
Once democracy is on, let it not be allowed
to fall into trap of discontinuity, disruption or collapse whether it is
because of martial law or otherwise. Survival, lasting and continuity are the
first and last words here. Look at the states in the capitalistic fold with
America at the lead and understand how and to what extent democracy has been
made subservient to oligarchy and corpocracy. John Ikerd in an article ‘Is Democracy Sustainable’ wrote: ‘In a
democracy, the political power ultimately must reside in the common people.
Increasingly, the political power in the United States does not reside in the
common people, or even real people, but in corporations. Corporations wield
political power at least as great as their economic power. Corporate influence
permeates all aspects of government – executive, legislative, and judicial. Our
democracy is rapidly degenerating into a corpocracy.
A sustainable democracy would not be
socialism or communism, although it would require an active role for government
in establishing and enforcing the bounds within which the economy must
function. Within such bounds, capitalism can function sustainably. Without such
bounds, democracy is not sustainable.
No doubt, Democracy has been being sustained
there but that is not sustainable democracy in the true sense of the taxonomy
in respective perspectives rather call it suppression of democracy under the
cover of eye-catching sustainable democracy since frustrations, hatred, dismay,
disbeliefs, suspicions and so forth from the peoples are getting aired robustly
and acutely arising from negative stand
and/or reluctance of the decision-makers to go for required reforms in various
wings in the ongoing political order in
tune with time, space and dimension.
Factually speaking, Sustainable Democracy is
a joint report of twenty-one social scientists, from eleven countries and four
academic disciplines, who collaborated over the period of two years under the
name of the Group on East-South Systems Transformations (ESST). Their report
identifies the principal political and economic choices confronting new
democracies in Southern and Eastern Europe and South America, while evaluating
their merits and feasibility in the light of current social science knowledge.
The scientists explore the social, political and economic conditions under
which democracy is likely to generate desirable and politically desired
objectives, as well as, whether it is likely to last. It is argued that the
state has an essential role in promoting universal citizenship and in creating
conditions for a sustained economic growth. Special emphasis is placed on the
interdependence between political and economic reforms (Sustainable Democracy by Adam Przeworski).
Sustainable democracy, according to the manifesto of Democracy and Sustainability
Platform implies:
‘We cherish sustainability: meeting the needs
of people now without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs. But today, human activities have exceeded the earth’s natural
limits. As a species we have created great inequalities and torn resources away
from those yet to be born.
We cherish democracy: the rule of the people,
by the people, and for the people. But democracy is undermined by
decision-making that is democratic in name only. It is threatened by conflict,
apathy, inequality, manipulation and corruption. It is failing to deliver
sustainability.
Together, if we take immediate action, we
have the power to transform democracy so that it is an engine for
sustainability. This Manifesto for Democracy and Sustainability has been
developed to guide a global movement for change. As its signatories, we confirm
that we want to be part of this movement. What we create together will be part
of our bequest to future generations.
*Sustainability needs flourishing democracy
*Take the long view
*Sustainability must be a central goal of
governments everywhere
*Education must link citizenship and
sustainability
*Knowledge must be inclusive
*Nothing about us without us’.
Foundation for
Democracy and Sustainable Development (FDSD) in its column ‘Who we are’ noted:
‘FDSD
is working to equip
democracy to tackle the challenges of sustainable development.
Current systems of democracy are failing to
adequately address sustainable development challenges such as climate change,
resource scarcity,
inequality and intergenerational justice.
At the same time, widespread participation and accountability
are necessary to deal with these complex problems.
FDSD researches
workable reforms, and works with others to inspire and create practical change’.
In all cases, today it is a settled case that
for overall sustainability in a state, required attention and nursing of
sustainability in various areas and operations shall have to be ensured anyhow.
To create a balance in a system, first and foremost initiatives should be to
take notes of other sectors attaching weight dually since sustainability in one
sector and non-sustainability in other(s) cannot be viable at all for the
sustainable system as a whole. That’s why, the challenges before the leaders of
the world are acute and Himalayan. Here leaders and decision-makers of the 21th
century have to be more pragmatic, visionary, articulated, responsible and
responsive while dealing with the question of ‘Sustainable Democracy’ as a
species of the generic concept ‘Sustainable Development’.
Poverty of leadership and statesmanship in a
democracy can foil the very theme and spirit of democracy. Then, for a
sustainable democracy, what more get listed embrace practice of leadership and
statesmanship and applying them befittingly as and when required. Dynastic
succession of leadership is mostly an impediment to the democratic growth and
development of leadership while leadership imposed otherwise is more dangerous
indeed. In cases, sycophancies, cronyisms, philistinism and corruptions may
have trouble-free access to play their own tunes at the denial of the very
purposes of democracy. Accordingly, where there is a democracy, which is
sustainable in its entirety, there remains more possibilities and oscillations,
practical or strategic, to guard, cultivate, nurse, defend and protect the
components therein and fight against negative growth and escalations.
Let us not die into oblivion of the truth and
wheels of civilization rest on the flowering and advancing of positivity
trampling and suppressing negativity in its all forms, natures and dimensions.
But as ill luck would have it, today, animal
spirit breeding, nursing and carrying greed, lust, immorality, unethical
activities etcetera have mostly overshadowed the positive aspects of mankind
and civilization and, as a result, the overall standing and flowering of
democracy and global economy in line with betterment are groaning and breathing
with the fullest sense of suffocation and humiliation. This is also the message
being carried and focused by the book ‘ANIMAL SPIRIT, How Human Psychology
Drives the Economy, and Why It Matters for Global Capitalism by George A.
Akerlof and Robert J. Shiller
So, to understand and realize the state of
politics in a country and thus, assess and determine the rank or status one
needs to take both the object and
subject covering almost all within it and its effects on the people and the
state entailing almost all within it. Focuses on a particular aspect or area
say, political parties, democracy, parliament, economic development and so on
may be useful to understand its standing in general but to have a grasp of the
real standing there is no alternative to focus on the two fundaments of
politics. Let there be more and more researches, studies and publications in
this line and frame. Let United Nations, Departments of
Politics/Government/Political Science in different universities, public or
private, International Political Science Association, and National Political
Science Associations in the nation-states and Global research Think-tanks
dealing with such operations come forward to get involved in the pursuits
keenly. Let the same be followed in our respective perspective in Bangladesh,
India, Srilanka, Nepal, Pakistan, Maldives, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia,
Vietnam, Cambodia, Columbia and Myanmar as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment