Angling to Challenge Najib for the Top Job
Terence Netto’s COMMENT: UMNO may not do the task of internal reform well, like cutting down on the practice of money politics, but say what you like, it does do internal dissension well.
Just look at how party deputy president Muhyiddin Yassin affects to swim in his leader, Najib Razak‘s slipstream while writing his own personal agendas. Muhyiddin’s reaction to the call by the MCA for a boycott of UMNO-owned paper Utusan Malaysia over the latter’s proposition that Malays rally behind the ’1Melayu, 1Bumi’ policy is a good illustration of the point.Muhyiddin rapped MCA across the knuckles for calling for the boycott on grounds that sounded vaguely like he believed in freedom of the press and then sidestepped the question of whether he supported or disagreed withUtusan’s ’1Melayu, 1Bumi’ rallying cry.
It was the clearest demonstration in his now delicate, two-year-old, trapeze act wherein he shows tepid support for policy initiatives of his party’s president while leaving himself enough wiggle room to hint he would chart a new course as skipper of the crew.
It is the manoeuvring of a deputy who is mulling a challenge for the top position: the controlled wriggling does not cause too big a ruckus in the party but it sports the unmistakable hallmarks of incipient mutiny.
One supposes there would be no prizes for discerning these signs of a revolt’s incubation in the folds of seemingly minor nuances of policy. After all, UMNO is a six-decade-old party that has weathered several chapters of internecine conflict.
Contestants long seasoned by the party’s intramural feuds would be skilled at the game of playing fast and loose with the pros and cons of still-fluid issues, the better to lever them to expedient advantage later when opportunity for getting up the greasy pole avails.
Once overlooked
Muhyiddin, survivor of the fallout from the Mahathir versus Musa Hitaminternal feud of the mid-1980s and the ructions between Mahathir and Anwar Ibrahim of the late 1990s, is apparently putting to good use the experiential wisdom he gained from those episodes.
In both instances, he initially backed the loser, only to imperceptibly shift course and come out looking none the worse for the wear. In each case, it was a story of plucking survival from the jaws of defeat.
There was reason to believe that when Abdullah Ahmad Badawi became prime minister in 2003, Muhyiddin had the better chance of being named his deputy but Mahathir’s pressure on Abdullah forced the latter’s reluctant selection of Najib for the position.
As things turned out, it was Muhyiddin’s criticism of Abdullah’s protracted timetable for departure from the UMNO presidency that hastened Abdullah’s exit from the post which comes with the premiership of the country.
That criticism was a calculated gamble by Muhyiddin. It paid off and now Muhyiddin is poised to take another gamble by challenging for the top post that will either result in his apotheosis or in his evisceration.
Sheer tenacityIt is one of the ironies of his career that if he makes the move to challenge, he may get the support of the very man – Mahathir – who was supposed to have stalled him before. If that support materialises, it would be one of the more vivid demonstrations of how someone with an outsider’s chance can re-insert himself into the reckoning given sheer tenacity.
Of course, the larger irony inherent in Muhyiddin’s projected rise would be that an UMNO bigwig from Johor is trying to reach the top on a platform that is strident rather than liberal.
From Onn Jaffar through to Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman through to Musa Hitam, contestants for top honours in UMNO had attempted to travel on liberal wings rather than on rabid ones. Muhyiddin would represent a break in this pattern.–www.malaysiakini.com
Only two budget proposals are being 'taken seriously' in Washington right now. One adopts the rhetoric of "austerity economics," that grab-bag of right-wing misconceptions that's weakened the British economy and wounded its ruling coalition.
Shaheed-e-Azam Bhagat Singh and his comrades believed that the middle class creates revolution when it walks with the poor, but turns into a reactionary force if it chooses to serve the ruling elite. This stands true even today. Both the shades of the middle class are visible in Anna Hazare's anti-corruption campaign. The countrywide support to Anna's five-day fast and the events thereafter have shown that much of the strength of the campaign is coming from the middle class and so are the attempts to sabotage it. It reflects the struggle of right and wrong at the national level as well as within an individual. We know the right path but the temptations of power and money are too irresistible. In such a scenario, the Jan Lokpal is not going to make any difference till the middle class conscience is awakened.
The importance of the middle class can be understood through history. It mainly led the Indian freedom struggle. Many sacrificed their lives for freedom. But at the same time a section remained servile to the colonial rulers and was responsible for corrupting the system after Independence. The ugly face of the middle class was also seen in the country's partition. The thinktank of the Muslim League and the Hindu Mahasabha also came from the middle class, which eventually succeeded in dividing India. Post-independence, those who fought for the freedom kept the social conscience alive and public probity a matter of pride till Lal Bahadur Shastri became the prime minister. But, after his death and with the rise of “Indira” Congress, honesty started losing relevance in society.
Jayaprakash Narain's Sampoorna Kranti movement, in which the middle class played an important role, was successful in overthrowing a “corrupt” Congress regime in 1977. But the leaders on whom JP relied also turned out to be corrupt. The Congress was back in power. Gradually, five deadly Cs — corruption, casteism, communalism, criminalisation and commercialisation — took India into their stranglehold, particularly after 1990s’ economic reforms. The opposition parties also participated in loot when elected to power leading to formation of the public perception "sub chor hain". But still the country witnessed many movements in different parts against corruption, land acquisitions, discrimination, and injustice. Most of them are led by middle class activists but participation of the middle class in general is very little.
The middle class is an important link in the chain of corruption. It is the beneficiary as well as the victim of the corruption, be it social, economic or intellectual. The stand of the middle class on corruption is also ambivalent. “Corruption is OK till it doesn't pinch me”. A majority of politicians, bureaucrats, corporate managers, activists, journalists and other professionals come from the middle class. But very few stick to honesty. A majority compromise with values and ethics as money has become the only motive of life no matter how it comes. The “talent” prefers plush jobs over defence services. Corruption has also seeped into the forces. Everything is on sale and character is the cheapest of all. Opportunism and sycophancy are considered virtues; integrity has become a rare commodity and morality is ridiculed.
Under these circumstances, a change can come only when the middle class decides to change itself and takes centre stage of the ant-corruption tirade. A glimpse of it was seen in Anna's campaign. While people from all walks of life took part in the five-day agitation, major thrust came from the participation of urban middle class, particularly the English-speaking, which mostly remains insensitive to the plight of others and always looks for a Gandhi, a Bhagat Singh or a Jayaprakash Narayan to fight the battle on its behalf. It also keeps away from voting in elections. But in this case, a section of the urban middle class came out on the streets perhaps because of the “suffocating” atmosphere created in the country by a series of scams in the past couple of years coupled with price rise and growing social and economic insecurity.
The participation of the urban middle class in Anna's campaign caught the fancy of the media. The media hype mobilised thousands in just five days, forcing the government to accept the demand of redrafting the Jan Lokpal Bill, which some believe, if enacted, will curb corruption by punishing the corrupt. Significantly, many who took part in the agitation did not even know about Anna, his life and works. The question is what made Anna's voice stronger and louder than the media, intellectuals and civil society who have been regularly writing, speaking and agitating against the corrupt system for long? The answer seems to be that the 73-year-old man pricked the conscience of the people with his moral strength acquired through selfless work done in Maharashtra for over 30 years. The politicians had nothing to confront Anna.
It will be too early to equate Anna with Gandhi and JP but he has been able to create a positive atmosphere against corruption. The middle class participation is an encouraging sign. In the past 12 years, the middle class (as a reactionary force) was out on the streets during protests against OBC reservation and Ram temple campaign. But this time it was out for a cause which concerns all. However, the greatest threat to the anti-corruption campaign is also from the middle class. There were many dubious faces in the crowd which assembled in support of Anna. Those likely to be hit by the Lokpal are trying to sabotage the campaign. A section of the media is playing dirty by projecting “disunity” in the campaign. It is also busy debating “Gandhi's sexual preferences” instead of building pressure on corruption.
The situation in the country today reminds me of what Winston Churchill said while opposing the proposal to grant independence to India in British parliament: "Power will go to the hands of rascals, rogues, freebooters; all Indian leaders will be of low calibre and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight amongst themselves for power and India will be lost in political squabbles. A day would come when even air and water would be taxed in India." Indeed, the situation is pathetic in India -- rampant corruption, nepotism, favouritism, loot of natural and public resources, criminalisation of politics and widening gap between poor and rich. While 20% of the rich and powerful control 80% of the country’s resources, 80% of the population is struggling for survival with the 20% leftover.
However, responding to Churchill’s remark, Mahatma Gandhi said: “I know there will be chaos and anarchy for sometime, but a free India will find the way out in its own way.” He warned us about the seven sins — wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, business without ethics, science without humanity, religion without sacrifice and politics without principle. He also gave us the talisman "before taking any action, whenever you are in doubt, recall the face of the poorest and weakest person you have seen and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to that person. Will it restore him/her to a control over his/her own life and destiny? Will it lead to swaraj for the hungry and spiritually starving millions? All your doubt will melt away."
The Jan Lokpal may pin down a few corrupt officials but will it change our mindset? Will it stop the dowry system? Will it put an end to sycophancy in political parties? Will it deter lawyers from taking cases of rich and mighty who get away after committing crime? Will it make doctors serve in villages and ensure teachers' presence in government schools? Will it save the media from paid news? Will it stop us from voting on caste and communal lines? Will it stop us from nepotism and favouritism? Will it make corporate houses to place probity above profit, come what may? How many of us who participated in the candle march in Anna's support have vowed not to indulge in anything illegal, unethical and immoral?
As of now, people are expressing views against corruption but I don't find any change in their attitude. In order to win the anti-corruption battle, the middle class will have to be scrupulously honest. The only weapon in the hands of those leading the anti-corruption campaign is integrity. Even a slight deviation, as in the case of the Bhushans, will give the corrupt an opportunity to crush the campaign. Attempts to sabotage are already under way in the form of public interest litigation against Anna and allegations of corruption against non-political members in the joint committee for drafting the Jan Lokpal Bill. A section of the media is playing in the hands of politicians, bureaucrats and the corporate class who do not want the Jan Lokpal bill at any cost. These reactionary forces can be defeated only by morality combined with revolutionary zeal.
Anna's anti-corruption campaign is yet to take the shape of a movement. The prerequisites of a movement are sacrifice and selflessness. It has to pass the test of time and evolve after every trial. It starts when the individual comes out of self and thinks about the welfare of others. The power of a movement is that it does not seek power for an individual or a group. Such a movement gives rise to a revolution which brings change. A movement which ends after replacing rulers and does not aim to change the mindset does not qualify to be called a revoltion. Gandhi's Swaraj, and JP's Sampoorna Kranti are still incomplete because in the core of the philosophy is changing an individual for sustainable change in society. India needs change and it can be brought about only through an ideological revolution which requires sacrifice.
The question is, are we ready for it?
The other comes from the Republicans.
There's a third budget plan, too. It reflects the views most Americans hold - including, in some cases, most Republicans . But it's either being ignored or contemptuously dismissed by the People That Matter, apparently for that most traditionally British of reasons: it doesn't come from "the right sort of people."
What this country really needs right now is an opposition party, one that refuses to accept stale and discredited conservative ideas. The President and other Democrats have been governing as if they were in a coalition government with Republicans - and sometimes like the junior partner in that coalition. There are better ways to serve themselves, their party, and their country.
Fight Club The front page of a Los Angeles weekly published last week illustrates just how skewed the American debate has become:
That's how the debate's being presented: In this corner, a center/right proposal which adopts some unpopular conservative ideas. And in this corner, a radical right proposal with ideas that majorities of all political persuasions hate. But the center/right proposal is described as coming from the "left," which may help explain why the left isn't very popular these days.
Granted, the Los Angeles Jewish Journal isn't a Beltway opinion shaper (although my colleague Marty Kaplan is a columnist there). But their headline shows how the Washington consensus has distorted public perception outside the Beltway. To many people President Obama represents the 'leftmost' side of the spectrum, even though his budget plan borrows liberally (you should forgive the expression) from a right-leaning philosophy that's rapidly losing credibility.
Oy.
President Clegg? We're having a crucial national debate about our priorities and governing philosophies. That's a heck of a time for President Obama to position himself as the American Nick Clegg. Clegg, the leader of Great Britain's centrist Liberal Democrats, formed a coalition government with the Conservatives and gave their austerity program an aura of reasonableness and a dash of youthful vigor. Like Obama, Clegg strikes a Januslike pose, with rhetoric that faces left and compromises that face right. Clegg and his senior partner, Prime Minister David Cameron, even embraced a favorite slogan of the President's when they said they would "agree to disagree" on crucial matters.
It's not going well. While the British Conservatives are far more civilized than their American counterparts, they're still happy to undercut Clegg whenever it suits them. Clegg's posture of "reasonable centrism" has cost him both his base and swing voters, and has left him holding the bag as the economy flounders. Only 9% of likely voters now say they'll vote for a Liberal Democrat, down from a high of 30% one year ago. The Labor Party, which suffered what might be called a "whuppin'" last year, now dominates the polls at 39%. The Conservatives are holding steady at 35%, but austerity measures have cost Mr. Clegg's party most of the country's 'persuadable' and independent voters.
As well they should. As the New York Times reports, retail sales have fallen 2.5% in the year since Great Britain's austerity program began. Household income is projected to fall another 2%. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are being lost as a result of the cuts, triggering fears of another recession.
Of course, Great Britain is not the United States. Conservative leader Cameron is well to the left of American conservatives, and in many ways he's to the left of President Obama too. Cameron supports the country's national health system and is resisting calls to lower the top tax rate for high earners from its present level of 50%. President Obama, by contrast, is proposing to raise the top rate to 39.5% and offered only lip service to the public option.
And Great Britain has three major parties, not two. That means voters who aren't happy with the Conservative/Liberal Democratic coalition have an alternative.
The Loyal Opposition Great Britain is a parliamentary democracy with a tradition of the "loyal opposition." As Clegg triangulated, the Labor Party assumed that role. And as the Liberal Democrats' fortunes have fallen, Labor's have risen. Where's our loyal opposition, our alternative to unpopular and failed austerity policies?
It might surprise most newspaper readers or cable news watchers, but there is one. It's in a subset of the Democratic Party called the Progressive Congressional Caucus. They've released a budget proposal that's more fiscally responsible than Ryan's, and which more accurately reflects voters' preferences.
But their budget plan has a serious problem: It has the word "progressive" attached to it. That immediately provokes an attitude of contemptuous dismissal from the media herd. (See the ever-predictable Dana Milbank for one of the saddest examples of this. I fear for his state of mind if he ever realizes his impact on the national discourse. That's not "snark." I really do.)
If the "P word" were stripped from its title page and this budget was given a dummy name (like the "American Business and Stability Council Plan For Economic Growth"), it would poll like gangbusters and be met with the appropriate journalistic genuflections. But the "P" is there (and so is the unfortunate name "the People's Budget"). That's one of the reasons that reporters are either mocking it Milbank style or, more typically, ignoring it altogether.
A Plan That Works The Progressive Caucus budget actually cuts the deficit, which Paul Ryan's extremist plan fails to do. And where Ryan's budget was rejected in polling, polls suggest that the policies in this proposal would be even more popular than the President's. On the revenue side, for example, it creates additional brackets for very high earners and it establishes a more progressive estate tax that asks a bit more from the Paris Hiltons among us. In other words, this proposal does exactly what the public wants: It raises taxes on the rich.
The Progressive budget also addresses Social Security in the manner that's supported by strong majorities in both parties and among Tea Partiers and independents - first, by separating that program from an overall deficit discussion, and then by eliminating the payroll tax cap for employers and raising it for employee contributions. The proposal cuts more from the defense budget, which is also highly popular, and it restores the public option for health care (which received wide public support last year, including from a slim majority of Republicans in swing districts).
The Progressive budget also provides funds for creating jobs. Post-election polling showed that jobs are a much higher priority for the public than deficits, and recent polling confirms that.
Weak Tea Obama's budget, by contrast, embraces the unpopular personal proposals from Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson. It embraces the right-wing formulation of "two thirds spending cuts and one-third revenue increases," which ignores the stimulative effect of government spending. While the President's rhetoric is powerful, his proposal only offers a nebulous, Clegg-like cloud. The Republican Ryan budget, on the other hand, is clear and direct. (The President's proposal does, of course, have the virtue of not being pathologically destructive to the American dream - but that's setting the bar a little low, isn't it?)
Obama's proposal would be considered center/right by any reasonable measure. Now it's being upstaged by negotiations among the Senate's "Gang of Six," a group of three center/right Democrats and three Republicans. They're using the leverage given to them by that body's undemocratic structure to attempt a "compromise" - between the far-right GOP proposal, and the position of Democrats like Dick Durbin, who tacked to the right of the President even before negotiations begin.
That's not what the public wants. But if the progressive proposal's such an exciting road to fiscal and political success, and is supported by Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi, how did the Jewish Journal come to believe that Obama represents the "left" side of the political spectrum?
Marginalized
I'd have to agree with the argument which says the progressive proposal is getting ignored because it won't get passed or even influence the final outcome. Its invisibility seems to say more about our media's "who's in/who's out" mindset than it does any Pravda-like suppression of dissident ideas.
But it's only treated as irrelevant because the Congressional Democrats have been marginalized by their own party, starting at the top with the White House and extending to the Senate. The President and the Senate leadership don't believe for a second that House Democrats will refuse to pass a budget that's been hammered out by President Obama - or by the Gang of Six, for that matter. They could probably defeat it if they did, but it's assumed that they'll be "responsible."
What's more, the White House has pre-empted and marginalized the progressive representatives with its centrist budget and talking points. As The Hill reports, "This year's budget battles have forged a loose bond between President Obama and Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) while revealing some distance between the White House and Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)." Hoyer's right-leaning opinions and longstanding intention to cut Social Security are unpopular with the general public, but they make him a handy ally for the Simpson/Bowles White House.
That leaves proposals like the Progressive Caucus budget out in the cold, even though they reflect majority opinion. Most people don't even know it exists. A Google News search on the phrase "Gang of Six" came up with 4,280 hits today, while "Ryan budget" came up with more than 16,000. "Progressive caucus budget" got 363 hits.
Choices
The President's lofty "the parties should stop squabbling" approach to the budget debate seems to be part of his approach toward winning re-election (although it's more likely to backfire). But it's no way to lead in a two-party democracy.
There's no doubt that the President can lead. As McClatchy reported, "Support for higher taxes rose by 5 percentage points after Obama called for that as one element of his deficit-reduction strategy last week. Opposition dropped by 6 points." But if he raises expectations only to abandon them without a serious fight, he won't be serving his country or his own future very well.
Voters don't want radical austerity that supports the newly rich, and they don't want "austerity lite" either. The President and his party should consider the fate of Nick Clegg and his Liberal Democrats before committing themselves to joining with the right in a "coalition government" that's doomed to fail. Sure, they'll eventually have to compromise to keep the government running. But before they do they should offer voters a real alternative, not just a cup of weak tea whose only good quality is that it's not Republican cyanide.
This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project and the Strengthen Social Security campaign.
No comments:
Post a Comment