View Point (Spotlight Weekly)

Letter from America

By Madhav K. Rimal

It is, indeed, a wonderful experience to see how the people of the United States elect their President. Four years ago also I happened to be visiting this country when the then Vice President Al Gore lost the presidential election to the Republican challenger George W. Bush in a very controversial decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. This had not only caused many eyebrows to be raised but also had cast a shadow on the integrity of the U.S. Supreme Court and the faith of a great number of people had shaken on its impartiality. Four years later people here were getting apprehensive that the drama might be repeated in the Presidential election of 2004. Fortunately nothing of the sort happened. Till the last hour the difference in the Electoral College votes between the two candidates was quite narrow and success of the democratic candidate hinged on the outcome of one of the two states of Ohio and Florida. Incumbent President Bush managed to carry both the states and the feared unpleasant situation was quietly averted. The democratic challenger, John Kerry, gracefully conceded his defeat to the President. But many of his disappointed supporters were not willing to give up. Fueled up by skepticism about voting machinery and vivid memories of the election debacle of Florida four years ago, conspiracy theories had started swirling around the internet. A vast majority of the Americans believe they had witnessed the most emotional campaign in recent memory, because the policies of George W. Bush had brought a sharp division in the two political parties of the United States and the country was virtually at the point of perilous marginalization. He must start the healing process immediately if the unity in the country is to be restored. Jimmy Carter, the former President, also remarked, “I don’t remember anytime in my lifetime when there was this much antagonism between the political parties.” It seems very strange that despite his clear victory and the wide margin of 3.5 million in popular votes, a fairly influential section of the people here doubt whether Bush has the mandate to implement his dubious policies. It seems George W. Bush did manage to win the election to his second term but many believe here, he has failed to win good friends, both at home and abroad. Why should a man immolate if George W. Bush wins the elections? And why should many Americans think of turning into Canadians if Bush wins his second term? Yet, the internet is all abuzz with residue resentment. Canada’s immigration website is reporting a sharp increase in inquiries from Americans seeking information how to migrate there. It is very funny to see websites offering color maps of a North American political landscape in which the so called blue states that voted Democratic are joined to Canada in a new blue country calling itself the United States of Canada.

George W. Bush must become a changed man if he wants to win back some respectability and go down in history as a great President. Some people here think it to be a big paradox that he should have secured such a huge majority of 3.5 million in popular votes. The voting pattern has clearly exhibited that the United States is still dominated by the conservatives who cannot walk with the changed times. It has been established by now that the evangelicals, the rightists and the extreme narrow minded voters came out in greater numbers to support George W. Bush to create that sort of wide margin in the popular votes. This presidential election in the United States has made us sit up and ask – Is democracy the best form of government after all? Do best men get to hold the office in this system? Democracy could be a government of the people, for the people, by the people. But it is definitely not the best government, for the best people by the best people. Because, only the best people can elect a best government. And in countries where the majority of voters are incapable of using their judgment and are carried away by other considerations greater chances are that spurious breed get represented and they cannot give best government to their country.

Knowledgeable people here believe that George W. Bush made a big mistake by attacking Iraq. His arrogance makes many here quite apprehensive that he may again commit similar blunder in Iran or North Korea. The one saner voice in his cabinet has quit and the new appointees of his cabinet, so far, are people who would go along with him rather than asserting their disagreements. Commenting on the President’s frame of mind one columnist has written, “Confidence is good; conviction is fine; cocksure is tolerable for a day or two. But hubris, as most second term president and a host of fallen kings will attest, is nearly always fatal. It offends the gods.” Bush, he further states, likes to surround him with Yes Men. He writes, “That’s what I am most afraid of in the next four years: the complete closing of the circle, the old Bush emphasis on loyalty, above brains, judgment or expertise. Bush has been making this mistake for years and it is clear it will now get worse. The clash of ideas is not welcome in his office. He wants everything solved in one page memo. This effectively limits him from being exposed to anything but obsequious third-rate thinking. It is precisely how he got into Iraq.” But, we believe, Bush must be quite a chastened man now. Since much of the world has come to despise him for his arrogance, he just cannot afford to blindly follow his first term pattern. If he does not change course, his sincere friends and other great powers will eventually give up their waiting game and move to counter balance and contain him.

By demolishing Iraq and capturing Saddam Hussein, if President George W. Bush really believes, as he has said a number of times, that America and Americans are safe and even the world has become a safer place, he would be living in a fool’s paradise. A survey conducted here has shown that nearly 200,000 Iraqis have, so far, died since March 2003. But neither the U.S. government nor the U.S. public seem at all concerned. It is only the death of about 1300 Americans that seems to have affected them. And this kind of attitude will only contribute to alienate the hundreds of millions of Muslims all over the world. Even the American Muslims inside the United States pose a great threat to the administration. Bush has made life for every American, wherever he might be, if not for others as well, really unsafe and difficult. It will be a tall order for Bush to reverse the global Muslim attitude. His campaign against the imaginary threat of terrorism by Saddam Hussein and total demolition and destruction of Iraq, because he has the power and might to do so, has not only tagged him as anti-Muslim but anti-Islam as well. It is a legacy that his successor will not only hate but find it almost impossible to get rid of totally in the foreseeable future.

Even at the home front George W. Bush might not have a very smooth sailing. Hardly counted as a philosophical man and certainly not as an intellectual, one of his glaring personal weaknesses, according to current commentaries and criticisms, is his tendency to go with his ‘gut’ when facts and logic are against him. This is supposed to be an intellectual failing that has led many to concede he cannot think very well. Since Bush has been branded as the rich man’s President, he has to work hard even only to sustain the favorable trends seen recently in domestic economy to give some kind of relief to the poorer section of the society if he is to win them over. Bush’s first term is reported to be the first administration since Herbert Hoover’s to preside over a simultaneous decline in payroll jobs and the stock market. President Bush faces great challenges all around. The world is waiting to see how he emerges, not only as the President of the only superpower but outright leader of the free world, in his second Presidency.

Religious Leaders Join The Fight Against HIV/AIDS

Senior religious figures and leaders from faith-based groups from across the region have joined together to fight HIV/AIDS by forming the South Asia Inter-Religious Council on HIV/AIDS, which opened its inaugural meeting in New Delhi, India on November 19. The 30 participants represented the major religions and faiths in South Asia and come from the eight countries in the region - Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Maldives, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

The formation of the Council is being supported by the United Nations Children’s Fund, UNICEF, and the World Conference of Religions for Peace.

“The Council aims to strengthen and accelerate the work of religious leaders of major faiths in HIV/AIDS prevention, care and support. Hundreds of millions of people in South Asia depend on their religious leaders for guidance who are therefore uniquely placed to shape knowledge, behaviours and attitudes in the response against HIV/AIDS,” said Professor Akhtarul Wasey, the convenor of the Council.

While there are some very positive examples of faith-based organisations acting as powerful resources in the fight against HIV/AIDS in South Asia, many more religious leaders need to be engaged to effectively reduce and end the stigma and ignorance that feeds the epidemic, according to Professor Wasey.

South Asia is at a crossroads in its fight against HIV/AIDS, according to Ian MacLeod, UNICEF’s Regional Adviser on HIV/AIDS.

“The region is home to over 5.2 million people living with HIV/AIDS. Decisions made now by leaders at all levels of society – including religious leaders – will determine whether the countries can successfully control and reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS or instead move into entirely preventable generalised epidemics affecting the future well-being of hundreds of millions of children and families,” said MacLeod.

“The HIV/AIDS pandemic does not recognize national or religious boundaries. This calls for an approach that is both regional and multi-religious, drawing on the fact that religious and faith-based networks go beyond national boundaries, uniting people across borders. Cooperation among the religious leaders can make the response much more powerful,” says James Cairns, Director of Advocacy and Action for Children, World Conference of Religions for Peace.