Alternatives International Journal

Civil Society In Times Of (De)Fences: On-The-Ground At The Hungarian-Serbian Border

Dominique Bauer, Daniela Paredes, Kristine Kroyer — 2015-10-01T18:20:14Z

In Hungary, a fence has been built. One day before the opening of the second meeting of the Regional Academy on the United Nations (RAUN) in Szeged, a city located close to the Hungarian-Serbian Border, the fence had been completed and the border de facto closed. Two additional fences have been announced, and state leaders continue to open and close borders hourly. Röszke, a small town between Szeged and the border, became the main stage upon which Europe would witness the refugee tragedy. Thousands of refugees: women, men, children, young and old, mostly fleeing the Syrian crisis, flocked to Europe's gates. The doors opened, only to be promptly slammed in their faces. On September 14th, an emergency meeting of European Interior Ministers resulted in no consensus –not even a joint public statement. On September 22nd, the second interior ministers met and agreed to draft the planning of a quota system to relocate 120,000 refugees. The insufficiency, and probable inefficiency, of this system, along with the resistance of state leaders from Romania, Slovakia, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, is no match for the gravity of the escalating crisis.

In the meantime, however, European civil society seems to have reached a general consensus: “refugees are welcome”. International press coverage has brought to our attention initiatives, mostly in Austria and Germany (key passages and destination countries in this improvised, ever-changing emergency response), where Europeans greet refugees at train stations, welcome children with toys and blankets. People high-five refugees upon arrival, sing to welcome them and assist them in a variety of ways, ranging from addressing their basic needs to knitting hats and scarves with and for refugees at train stations. Just as the state orders to block refugees from crossing the border proceeded swiftly and effectively, engaged individuals and groups have swiftly and effectively organised to relocate the refugees. The Vienna-based organisation SOS Röszke (in the meantime renamed SOSkonvoi) has been assisting with the provision of basic needs and support on the Hungarian side of the border for the past 2 weeks, as informed by one of our team members, Nicholas Lieb, who has been actively volunteering with the organization.

Upon our arrival in Szeged, we found a wooden kiosk from MigSzol outside of the railway station. MigSzol is a Hungarian organisation based in Budapest that, since 2012, has worked to build solidarity with migrants. As of June this year, a number of Szeged-based grassroots organisations have united under the MigSzol name to effectively respond to the urgency of the situation. Improvised informative panels covered the inside and outside walls of MigSzol's kiosk, providing information about refugee rights, departure times of trains to Germany and Austria, where to access healthcare, and other crucial information.

The committed volunteers of Szeged and elsewhere have been working for 3 months, 24 hours a day, to keep this booth up and running. MigSzol took their initiative to the mayor of Szeged, from whom they received permission to expand and continue their work, as well as access to a water supply. Not long after establishing its presence, supplies began to arrive and volunteers signed up. In Budapest, however, the local government was not as cooperative. Despite this, Migszol organised language classes and events in Budapest to raise awareness, and recorded refugees' testimonies to integrate their experiences into the public debates.

Overnight on Monday, the situation changed: the Hungarian-Serbian border was closed. Supplies stored in Szeged and elsewhere were now needed on the other side of the fence, in Serbia. Unfortunately, attempts to transport supplies and aid were thwarted. Now, those seeking to cross the border, even with supplies for humanitarian work, and even by workers of the United Nations' Agency for Refugees (UNHCR), were impeded and, when allowed, goods were subjected to customs. Items such as water, food, and clothes were not allowed. The efforts of individuals continued. Supplies donated by individuals, not state institutions, continued to arrive in Szeged and Röszke where storage space needed to be improvised. Several hundreds of volunteers have worked over the past few weeks with MigSzol and SOS Röszke. Engaged people are relocating now to the Croatian-Serbian border where refugees are being redirected.

In the midst of these events we were holding the second session of the Regional Academy on the United Nations at the University of Szeged. The director of this public university made an official call to all university academics and staff to donate goods, money, but more importantly: their skills. Language skills for interpretation, coordination, health experts, and logistics, all of these were requested and provided.

As the crisis developed, we were taking part in RAUN at the University of Szeged, debating and discussing contentious political issues such as child soldiers, Europe's asylum policy, return programs, anti-radicalization, human trafficking, and border securitization. We know our task as young scholars is to be critical, to analyze, to engage with and to question theory. It is also our task, however, to connect this theoretical enterprise to developments in direct action initiatives; to engage our minds, hearts, and hands in all things human. Analyzing policies and social developments, understanding strengths and weaknesses, challenges and opportunities on a theoretical level is crucial, but let us not forget to recognize, act, and engage against injustice, especially as it unfolds before our eyes. The presence of a fence and of thousands of people seeking safety is only 20 minutes away, and we will not forget it.

Regional Solidarity, Peace, and Labour in South Asia: An Interview with Karamat Ali

Sophia Reuss — 2015-10-01T18:17:16Z

Karamat Ali is a Founding Member and Executive Director of the Pakistan Institute of Labour Education (PILER), a Founding Member of the Pakistan-India People's Forum for Peace and Democracy, and the Pakistan Peace Coalition. He is a renowned labour and development activist in Pakistan, and has spoken and written extensively about peace movements, labour organization, development, and politics in South Asia.

What conclusions have you reached from your work with PILER, your experience as a labour activist, and your understanding of the South Asian region?

I come from a trade union background; I worked in a factory myself and eventually became a full time trade union organizer. In Pakistan, there have been periods of great mobilization, of youth, student, and labour organization, predominantly in the late 1960s and early 1970s. I got involved during those times. We mobilized against the dictatorship, for labour rights, for student's rights, and for democratization. However, this movement was crushed in the late 1970s; Pakistan experienced another military dictatorship, which imposed Marshall Law. Under Marshall Law, fundamental rights don't exist, and military regimes are particularly harsh on labour organization. We went from a time when activists, influenced vaguely by socialist ideas, were willing to take massive collective action, when factories were occupied and run by the workers themselves for months, and when workers fought against the police and in some cases against the armies. Then there was a backlash. While we looked back to determine what went wrong, we realized that, amongst various other things, what was lacking was workers education and training. During periods of great mobilization, people just need to come out, to show up. But, how do people deal with their issues during the period of non-mobilization? We didn't know anything about that; we thought that collective action could solve everything.

That's how we started PILER. We tried to understand the issue of militarization; why it happens, how to deal with it, how to mobilize against it. We wanted to understand this flux of military regimes and civilian governments. We wanted to learn about democratization. From these interests, a variety or interrelated issues crop up: conflicts with neighbours, the issue of peace. We took up these issues, and many more. However, the issue of regional cooperation becomes, arguably, the most important.

In your lectures and writings, you emphasize the importance of regional solidarity in South Asia. How do processes of democratization and demilitarization relate to the need for regionalization and peace in South Asia?

If you look at the globe, the whole world is now more or less organized regionally, on the basis of regional cooperation, and of course these regions are all focused on economic integration. The neighboring countries in such regions are grouped together historically and culturally. Regions normally involve a common language, history, and/or culture, and in some cases, a long history of conflict.

Take the example of the European region. All the big wars have originated in Europe, regardless of where they were fought. There exists a history of conflict and rivalry amongst the three major European nations: the British, the French, and the Germans. The European nations fought over territories elsewhere; they were all colonizers. After much destruction and millions of deaths, the European colonizers concluded that it was time they started cooperating. They had destroyed each other's economies to such an extreme that they could no longer survive in a situation of perpetual conflict. Furthermore, there was another emerging economic and political power, which had the means to impose certain imperatives upon the warring nations: communism. Communism was a power to reckon with, its very existence threatened the economic order that all these countries had in common: capitalism. Many factors combined which led to a reconstruction of regional solidarity in Europe and also, simultaneously, the process of decolonization. The whole world was changing. In the European scenario, we witness the gradual emergence of a capitalist region in Europe, after periods of intense conflict on a global scale.

This led to the gradual emergence of what finally came to be known as the European Union. Over time, with extensive geopolitical realignment and rearrangement, we have witnessed the emergence of other similar economic cooperation blocs. We have, now, an African Union, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, the South American Economic Cooperation, Mercosur, and NAFTA, for example.

In South Asia, there exists the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, which began in 1985. This is the only non-functional regional arrangement. Much work has been done at the inter-state level, though it remains largely ineffective. This is largely due to a number of conflicts, especially amongst the three larger countries: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, which used to be one country under British rule. First and foremost, the partitions and the wounds of these bloody partitions have fractured regional cooperation. Territorial disputes, rooted in the arbitrary colonial borders, are another major conflict.

Furthermore, all of these countries are more or less organized around religion and religious orientation. Almost all of these countries, even if they exhibit one prominent religion, are comprised of many minority religions. One ethnic or religious majority is likely to be a minority in a different, neighboring country. This causes conflicts among and within countries. Such conflicts spill over the borders, since the borders are quite fluid and unsettled. This is one reason why democratic institutions have not developed regionally the way they should have under normal circumstances.

Religious, sectarian, and ethnic conflicts have bolstered the creation of over-centralized states. Given the multiethnic and multinational characters of these countries, a democratic, federal system would allow communities control over resources and autonomy within specific regions. However, identity-based conflict does not permit this. Thus, centralized states tend to be militarized, since when democracy fails, states must use coercion to control populations. This coercion extends to almost every sphere of life, thus facilitating further ethnic, religious, and class conflicts. The state focuses too much on what is known as ‘integrity', which generally means territorial integrity. In tandem with focusing on territorial integrity, these states must be ideologically-driven, because every such state, unless democracy is the dominant ideology, has to invent some overarching narrative, identity, and ideology that invariably becomes religious, ethnic, or racial. Some sort of superiority is given to a certain religion, ethnic group, or race. This, again, interacts to further strengthen centralization and militarization.

Regionally, there are occasional, actual confrontations. In Sri Lanka, there are many conflicts around ethnic, and religious, issues. The ideology of the Sri Lankan state becomes Sinhalese and Buddhist; the state seeks to impose this identity on its population. While the Tamil population is a minority in Sri Lankan, there exists a large Tamil population in India; many Tamils migrated from India to Sri Lanka under colonialism. The Tamils in India believe it is their responsibility to speak up for the Tamils living in Sri Lanka. It doesn't really matter whether the Tamils in India have any rights or not, but they use their identity to assert solidarity with Sri Lankan Tamils. This is the same for many different identities. There are Bangladeshis in India, and Bangladeshis in Bangladesh; and people tend to assert a variety of their multiple identities, given the nature of problems with their neighbours at any given time. Thus, the Bengali Muslims asserted their Muslim identity when they felt disadvantaged in the united India, but later on, when confronted with non-Bengali Muslims in Pakistan, they chose to reassert their Bengali identity. However, they still did not want to unite with other Bengalis, who were non-Muslim. Now they refer to the Bengali identity as Bangladeshi; it has become a territorial identity more than an ethnic one.

These sorts of complications demand that nations find some peaceful, democratic solutions. Since people live on both sides of borders, they should have the possibility of freely travelling between the borders; there are divided families in every country, they should be able to reunite with their families. Economically speaking, the separate economies have developed in such a way that they are complimentary to each other, however economic regional solidarity remains lacking. For example, Bangladesh has a huge garment industry, but it does not produce any cotton. The country has to import cotton either from India or from Pakistan, these are the two countries in the region that produce cotton, or from central Asia. Bangladesh, and every country, should be able to use the region's land routes, for rational trade and commerce; they should be importing and exporting regionally more than from distant countries. However, because of these conflicts, they can't even freely use (for neither people, nor goods and trade) these routes. All countries are linked through rail and road links, but they cannot make use of these. Routes are blocked because of security reasons. If economic development is going to occur, the region needs to rationalize all this, and this rationalization can only happen if countries decide not to fight against each other forever.

Endless conflict like this is not sustainable, politically, economically, or socially. We had an overall population of undivided India at maybe 400 million in 1947, now we have more than 1.5 billion people. This is likely to double in the next 50 years. These economies will not be able to sustain this many people if they are divided. It is truly unimaginable as to what could happen if the situation does not change. The benefits of discarding war as an option and minimizing militarization are obvious. Reducing the military expenditure by a mere 10% a year would allow for functional social security systems regionally. Every year, we have more illiterate people, not fewer. We could be able to deal with that with this reduction in the defense budget. There is a lot of potential within the region's countries to really expand their economies tremendously, if they prioritize regional cooperation.

I could keep listing one thousand and one reasons why these countries should stop being silly and complete this process of regionalization. Once they come to that kind of arrangement, these territorial disputes won't hold any meaning. Wherever we witness split-community conflicts, for example, the Kashmiri population that is split by borders, the two states involved are very clear that neither of them will let the populations become independent. Thus, if these groups have to be part of one or the other country, they should live with autonomy. Once countries are peaceful, they can become more democratic. Regional solidarity is the logic of today's world.

What is the current situation of rural labour in Pakistan?

Labour rights, especially rights of rural labourers, are directly linked to ownership and control systems, which are in turn linked to the nature of the state. The British brought about the current, and very problematic, land-holding situation in South Asia after conquering and colonizing India. Before colonization, there was no private ownership of land. With the hereditary, big land-holding system in place now, it is virtually impossible to secure fundamental rights in the rural economy. When the situation worsens, which it has and continues to do, rural labour assumes forms like bonded and child labour. These issues are the consequences of abject poverty, and the fact that education is not seen as a right for children of the poor, because the nature of the economy is such that it doesn't need an educated workforce. Since this arrangement does not have moral justification, it can only be maintained through coercion, and thus the state keeps people in a system of subjugation; mentally as well as physically.

Pakistan has a law now which prohibits bonded labour, but it is not followed or applied. Despite its ratification of the International Labour Organization's conventions, the government turns a blind eye, and actually enforces the systems in place. Most of the bonded labourers who are bonded are iron bonded, which generally signifies debt bondage. People take loans they are not able to pay back, and their loans and interest are transferred from one generation to another. These debt bonded labourers come from lower castes and minority religions. These social factors come together to create an environment where certain sections of the population are disempowered, and in a very vulnerable position. They are forced into this kind of existence, where they feel that it is maybe in their interest to remain in this relationship. Of course, this is in no way voluntary. It is enforced.

As long as we do not restructure the system of land ownership, bonded labour will continue. Similarly, as long as we do not recognize certain basic rights for all citizens, child labour will prevail. We cannot hope to eliminate all this without establishing systems that provide alternatives. The first step towards establishing an alternative is the creation of a social security system.

How does a state establish a social security system? Right now, our first is to reduce spending in two, interrelated, areas. Firstly, we need to bring about structural changes in our economy. We currently have to borrow money from the international financial institutions, and then repay these loans. Debt servicing in all our countries is the largest hurt. Reducing debt servicing would free up funds for social security. The second issue ot tackle is our military expenses, which is linked to the issue of debt. Pakistan uses its loans to buy arms, and thus debt and arms expenditure grow in tandem. The solution is very simple: cut down on both. This alone is enough to bring about structural change. The state should stop wasting money on arms. The state should democratize. When you have a democratic government, state expenditure can decrease. These changes will only happen when people are conscious of these issues and decide to act, mobilize, and organize, not just within Pakistan, but across borders.

South Asian Regional Cooperation to Ease Migration, Alleviate Labour Issues

Katherine Cashman — 2015-10-01T18:14:08Z

The subcontinent of South Asia was divided in 1946 during the process of decolonization from British control, in an event called the Partition. Mass migrations followed Partition, whereby 6 million Muslims moved to Pakistan and 5 million Hindus and Sikhs migrated from Pakistan to India. South Asia, formerly known as a unified India, was thus split into separate nations. In the past fifty years, each country has developed an individual legal framework and political structure, as well as (though perhaps not as thoroughly as the states might hope) a national identity. Despite rapid development, each country in the region still faces issues of unemployment, poverty, and political distress. These issues, coupled with capitalist market flows, are the sources of migration patterns of millions each year moving throughout the region. Regional cooperation to ease migration barriers and develop legal framework to protect labour rights are two key ways that South Asian nations can work together to alleviate persisting political tension, underdevelopment, and poverty. Regional solidarity ought to ease migration-induced crises.

South Asians often migrate for economic purposes, moving from areas with employment shortages to regions with labour shortages. With a formal labour force of upwards of 650 million, regional migration is crucial; it transports labourers to places with jobs. When the Gulf States' economies boomed with oil revenue in the 1980s, a massive influx of semi-skilled and unskilled workers from the state of Kerala, India followed. The market in Kerala opened for migrants from other parts in India to move there in response to its subsequent labour shortage.

Labour market flows usually stimulate urbanization, whereby rural populations with limited economic prospects move to growing urban centers to find work. Urbanization has been central to economic development in the region; within India alone, 100 million Indian migrants move to urban areas each year. Likewise, in Pakistan's North West Frontier Province, harsh climate and agricultural challenges coupled with a lack of non-agricultural employment carry a huge migration flow of workers to urban centers in the populous Punjab region.

Migration resulting from urbanization is often dominated by semi-skilled and low-skilled labourers such as construction workers and female domestic workers. Such uneducated workers are vulnerable to exploitation. The lack of protective and efficient legal systems exposes these unskilled and impoverished populations to enormous exploitation.

Pakistan especially lacks any working labour regulation, and as a result, the nation's poor suffer systemic labour and human rights violations. Pakistan has a labour force of 66 million and a population estimated at 200 million, but according to the International Labour Organization, the country has between 10-12 million labourers stuck in a modern form of slavery known as debt bondage. This bonded labour system results from a debt agreement wherein the landlord gives a loan to a worker. The structure of such agreements is such that workers are rarely capable of servicing the debt, and accrue massive interest value. Debt accumulates far too quickly to be paid off, even with nonstop work. Half a million of these bonded labourers, which include young children, are working in brick kilns — there are 6,000 in Pakistan, 5,000 of which are in the Punjab province. Bonded labour is illegal according to the labour regulation framework laid out in the Constitution of Pakistan, however the rules are not enforced so the wealthy brick kiln owners can bypass the laws; they also use violence and intimidation factors to scare the workers and keep them enslaved.

Bonded labour in Pakistan was recently exposed to a Western audience through the photos of the famous Humans of New York photographer Brandon Stanton. He showcased the efforts of activist Syeda Ghulam Fatimam who founded the Bonded Labour Liberation Front in Lahore, and works to end bonded labour in Pakistan. A few days after his photos of bonded labourers and the story of Fatima's efforts were released, Humans of New York's international following (which is over 14.8 million viewers) raised over 2 million dollars in online donation to “end bonded labour”. However, this systemic problem is not easily solved with charitable foreign aid. The solution lies in Pakistani activist groups like the Bonded Labour Liberation Front. The Bonded Labour Liberation Front pressures the Pakistani government to enforce the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act of 1992, enforce a minimum wage for brick kiln workers, and generate alternative employment opportunities. The government must acknowledge the brick kiln workers as Pakistani citizens (even if they don't hold a birth certificate or proper papers) and provide education and economic rights for these vulnerable communities.

Migration to a better economic climate could be seen as a solution to the poor working conditions and poverty experienced in Pakistan. However, despite an article in the Pakistani Constitution that gives every citizen the right to move freely throughout Pakistan and settle anywhere, the migration process is arduous, non-transparent and largely unaffordable for the families in debt bondage. Many immigrants would have to accept poor working conditions again in their new location just to recover what they paid for the move. It's no easier to emigrate to India to escape a bad economic situation in Pakistan. With continued religious and political violence along the Indian-Pakistani border, there are limited locations to legally cross and procure the proper paperwork to be supported by the government. The so-called ‘lagging regions' of South Asia with the highest rates of poverty are the landlocked regions near the Indian and Pakistani national borders, which reiterates the need for regional cooperation to facilitate helpful trade and movement and stimulate these area's economies.

Each national border in South Asia reflects divergent political relationships. The Pakistan-Afghanistan border, for example, is not regulated like the Pakistan-Indian border. Rather, a network of ethnic groups facilitates the crossing process on terms that seek to transcend national borders. This system has allowed millions of Afghan refugees to seek political asylum in Pakistan (the country with the most refugees in South Asia). Many have been able to return, but still around three million remain in Pakistan.

Whereas many Afghans migrate to Pakistan, many Nepalese and Bangladeshis also migrate to India. The Indian government quotes millions of undocumented Bangladeshis in India, which is denied by the Bangladesh government, a contentious issue between the countries. The Nepalese, however can freely come into India without documentation due to The Nepal India Friendship Treaty of 1950, which allowed the free movement of trade and people between the countries. This treaty has not only maintained a relatively peaceful border, but creates opportunities for development. The World Bank is proposing a power transmission line to be built across the Nepal/India border, which could utilize Nepal's hydroelectric potential to create power and alleviate electricity shortages in both countries.

South Asian borders will continue to be contested. However, when regulated, migration can bolster economic development and help eradicate the violent legacy of Partition. Beyond alleviating border tensions and restrictions, there is a need for state intervention all across South Asia to provide regulatory institutions so the entire subcontinent's labour market can work for its people.

Sources:

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/20-Feb-2015/bonded-labour-in-pakistan-a-humanitarian-crisis

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/SOUTHASIAEXT/0,,contentMDK:23170500~menuPK:2246552~pagePK:2865106~piPK:2865128~theSitePK:223547,00.html

http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/---migrant/documents/publication/wcms_179642.pdf

http://www.adb.org/documents/south-asia-regional-cooperation-strategy-2011-2015

Climate Migration in Bangladesh: Vulnerability, Resilience, and Ways Forward

Malcolm Araos — 2015-10-01T18:09:15Z

Bangladesh is one of the most vulnerable countries to the impacts of climate change. Floodplains occupy 80% of the country and every ten years around one-third of the country is severely affected by floods from heavy rain. In catastrophic years such as 1988, 1998, and 2004, nearly 60% of the nation was inundated.

Human-induced climate change has increased rainfall volume in Bangladesh and intensified the flooding problem. Bangladeshis living in poverty are the hardest hit by flood disaster as they lack adequate means to protect themselves, their homes, and their livelihoods. Further, the poor often have low levels of capacity to bounce back from losses and damage to property and income.

Bangladeshis living on the coast face a particular set of risks as they are highly exposed to cyclones and coastal erosion. Cyclone Aila, for example, displaced over 2 million people from southwest Bangladesh in 2009. Many have not been able to return to their homes and a permanent solution for many families has been to relocate to urban centres across the country.

When climate migrants settle in cities, they often move into dense informal settlements. Bholar Bosti, for example, is a slum in Bangladesh's capital, Dhaka, named after the quickly disappearing island of Bhola in the south of the country. Fifteen families moved from Bhola to Dhaka in 1996, and the settlement has grown 40-fold since. Displaced people who previously worked as farmers or fishermen now take up low-skilled employment in rickshaw-pulling, domestic work, and garment work.

The cities, however, are not immune to the impacts of environmental change. Most of Dhaka is less than three metres above sea level and many of the city's informal settlements (slums) are located in supposed no-development zones assigned for stormwater drainage. Climate scientists predict that river flooding and monsoon rains in Dhaka will become even more frequent and intense due to human-induced climate change, putting extra pressure on flood prevention and drainage infrastructure.

Bangladesh's national and local governments have been unable to adequately serve vulnerable migrant citizens from natural hazards. Addressing expansive infrastructure demands and deficits in housing and basic services, especially the 40% of the Dhaka's population who live in slums, remain significant challenges for government authorities.

Despite Bangladesh's poor position to cope with climate change, there is space for the global community to help developing countries deal with climate-induced migration. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meets yearly at an event called the Conference of the Parties (COP). This year's conference will take place in Paris, France in December, and negotiators from across the world will seek to agree on new mitigation targets: they will negotiate how much each country should reduce their carbon emissions.

Reducing global emissions is important because it helps slow the rate of climate change, but in the case of Bangladesh the impacts are occurring and millions have already been displaced from their homes. For this reason developed countries will also be expected to commit a significant financial amount to help developing countries adapt to the effects of climate change.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is the centrepiece of the climate finance endeavour and it is intended to raise $100 billion a year by 2020. In Bangladesh, vulnerability-reductive coastal infrastructure and resilience-building social policies are constrained by a lack of adequate financing. Therefore funds from the global community can go a long way to protect citizens from the impacts of flooding, cyclones, and coastal erosion.

The money in the Green Climate Fund should not be viewed as charity or aid, but rather as direct payment for the loss and damage caused by the polluters, the developed countries, to the citizens of developing countries such as Bangladesh.

Sources

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00884.x/full

http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org/country/home/tags/bangladesh

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-Chap24_FINAL.pdf

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-Chap8_FINAL.pdfhttp://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-Chap8_FINAL.pdf

http://www.dhakatribune.com/feature/2015/jul/25/climate-change-and-migration-nexus-bangladesh

Crisis of Coincidence

Dylan Boyko — 2015-10-01T18:06:50Z

Stephen Harper is not my dad, but he might wish he was. It is becoming categorically apparent that helicopter parenting is all the rage in the Harper household, with its peculiar and protective restrictions against those who need Canada's help the most. The Syrian refugee crisis is yet another black eye for a government that turns even the most simple, compassionate policy decisions into lame-duck lessons on security and protectionism.

Aggression, in subtle and direct forms, underlines all refugee policies currently presented by the Conservatives. As a Canadian Press article outlines, the Harper government seeks to accommodate a small number of refugees while maintaining public goals of anti and counter terrorism inherent to their near militaristic agenda. Harper's patriarchal ‘Don't talk to strangers' approach does not only exist overtly. The goal is a “classic Conservative two-fer” – marrying a control with security, and aid with an increasingly politicized message.

Make no mistake, as Stephen wants to be a good dad! Noted in the Canadian Press article, Harper wants to appeal to female voter empathy by softening his stance on sex trafficking refugees, along with his Syrian allowances. Never mind the constant refrain that comes with any softened policy, – allow human trafficking immigrants easier asylum but increase the criminal scrutiny and the politics of aggression towards said human traffickers (not necessarily a negative, but part of a theme). Harper's gendered aims speak to a through line in the Conservative Party's conduct in regard to human trauma. As awful as sloganizing can be, Stevie wants the nation to stick with “Proven leadership” and return control to a dangerous sense of complacency.

The statistical reality of Canadian commitments to Syrian refugees reveals the stagnant paternalism always present in Conservative foreign policy. A Vice primer written by Jake Kivanc provides the facts: 10,000 refugees will be admitted by 2018, of which only 1000 have currently been admitted and only 600 of those migrants government sponsored. Private citizens are sponsoring forty percent of all Syrian refugee claimants in Canada, a troubling truism. These numbers fail to completely describe the humanitarian failure at work. Kivanc notes that – of course, being a god-fearing dad – Harper's policy prioritizes religious minorities in refugee selection, almost positively pulling the region's Christians ahead of Muslim refugees. Saving individuals in general is good, but saving refugees based on religion alone is xenophobic and emphasizes a more covert distinction. The grotesque party line is toed again and again, where Kivanc consistently lists the failings of Canadian efforts: Turkey and Lebanon each have taken over one million refugees, Conservatives are specifically against strategic evacuation arilifts, and the false panacea of military intervention ‘stabilizing' the region. Conservative refugee policy is fundamentally at odds with humanitarianism .

The decision to avoid reality is not a new tactic for Stevie. Speaking colloquially, he's the kind of dad to ask if you filled up the windshield wiper fluid all the while forgetting to tell you the brakes might be cut. A Stephen Marche New York Times opinion piece cuts deeper than any unsubstantial parental metaphor: “[T]he nine and half years of Mr. Harper's tenure have seen the slow-motion erosion of that reputation for open, responsible government. His stance has been a know-nothing conservatism, applied broadly and effectively.” Instead of considering the plight of any refugee, Stevie sticks to the platitudes that have so long served him. The fear-mongering gestures towards the spectre of terrorism. The religious homogenization of a nation's immigrant class for fear of cultural difference. The focus on militarism despite his nation having a reputation as peacekeepers. When Steven Harper dreams, its is of bald eagles and Patton, not of Romeo Dallaire and diplomacy. In his dreams, trumpets are always playing, strategically and efficiently. En masse, the Conservative Party's lack of commitment underlines a strange commitment to insolation over charity, even when the nation could provide so much more.

We are on the eve of another Canadian election, one in which the polls consistently vacillate between involved parties. The Conservatives, led by their bland father figure, are representative of the safe choice. Stevie “has to look like the adult in the room,” but he promises Marche's “steady and quiet life, undisturbed by painful facts.” The quiet life cannot and should not be accepted. All cloying metaphors aside, the man and his party are delaying help to a most vulnerable group of the global population. This is wrong. There appears to be a disinterest in change, a stagnation of moral outrage because of the weathered quality such a leader and party can enact on a nation. Sometimes you need to disregard your parents, your paternalistic government, and even cynicism. Change requires motivation, and Stephen Harper is providing the best sort of impetus to enact some substantial alterations in Canadian government.

Sources:

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/what-stephen-harper-has-to-prove-in-the-munk-debate/

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/opinion/sunday/the-closing-of-the-canadian-mind.html?_r=0

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/what-have-canadas-politicians-promised-to-do-for-syrian-refugees

Freedom of Expression in the Age of the Internet

Katrina Gibbs — 2015-10-01T18:04:25Z

As we partake in this era of expansive technological advancement, the invention of the Internet has changed nearly every aspect of the way that we live our lives. The Internet has completely revolutionized mass communication, and the status of journalism remains in flux in the wake of this radical transformation. It has become increasingly difficult for any one specific group (political, religious, economic, etc.) to censor the spread of information and opinions. Yet freedom of speech remains a cause for which people give and lose their lives.

The interplay of journalism and politics has always been complex, and maintaining a balanced and objective journalism in the face of pressure from influential actors in society has always been one of the greatest struggles that journalists must face. Powerful political, social, and economic actors have often tried to use journalists to their advantage, hoping to promote their specific interests. For instance, in the past year in Canada, Bell Media President Kevin Crull has been accused of using his corporate influence over CTV in order to prevent the Telecommunications Commission chairman Jean-Pierre Blais from receiving airtime. This controversy ensued after a CRTC ruling that required broadcasters to provide a low-cost package to customers.

In India, political groups like the BJP have been known to use their influence over newspapers to print stories from a perspective that promotes their goals, often involving anti-Muslim rhetoric. Political and social power, as well as scare tactics, harassment, death threats, and violence are an unfortunate reality that journalists have had to face throughout history across the globe. These are the headwinds that journalists must struggle against in order to expose the truths that can help society reform and progress. As the scope of journalism expands, Internet bloggers are now faced with the same dangerous realities of heavy-handed reactions against the free exchange of ideas.

Although freedom of expression is considered a fundamental right under the Declaration of Human Rights, recently many governments have had adverse responses, not only to free access of information on the internet, but also to the expression of dissenting opinions through mass media. The open architecture of the Internet inherently resists tight controls on freedom of expression; however, this has not prevented governments and other groups from harsh reactions to freedom of expression on the Internet. The upper house of parliament in Russia approved a law that imposes regulations on bloggers and users of mass media in an attempt to increase control of online content. China has also increased censorship of mass media by closing down 16 websites. Users of mass media, in both China and Russia, must now provide personal information to the government oversight agencies regarding online communication. The Chinese and Russian governments have deemed the proliferation of opinions, rumors, and certain kinds of information as threatening to public order and social stability.

Sensationalist journalism can certainly pose a threat to public order and social stability, and this is a concern in the age of the Internet, in which the distinction between bloggers and accredited journalists has become increasingly blurred. In the United States during the 1920s, the rampant problem of sensationalist yellow journalism coincided with exposing the inhumane conditions under which poverty stricken citizens were living. In this way, we are forced to ask: which is a greater threat to public order, sensationalism or censorship?

Sensationalism may proliferate fear, but censorship creates it. This government crackdown on users of mass media may have stifling effects on political competition in the countries, as well as exposing social evils like crime and corruption. In parts of Southern Europe, UNESCO reports that journalists and bloggers will avoid certain topics, such as crime and corruption, in order to avoid conflict. Moreover, there is a huge discrepancy between the freedom of expression that government officials are able to safely exercise, and that of journalists whose personal safety is often threatened. Though world leaders join together each year at the United Nations General Assembly where they are able to speak openly, the journalists and bloggers of their countries are not afforded the same platform for free expression without potential repercussion. In Mexico, PEN reports that at least 67 print and Internet journalists, bloggers, and writers have been murdered since 2004. In 90 percent of cases, there have been no convictions. Mayan journalist, Pedro Canché, was imprisoned for 271 days on charges of sabotage in relation to protests regarding rising water bills, though he was not involved in any of the protests in question. After his release, Quintana Roo Governor Roberto Borge Angulo proposed legislation, which was later passed by the state legislature, that allows the government to decide who is and who is not a journalist. This law prevents freelance journalists and bloggers from receiving protection in case of emergency. The Governor also refused to acknowledge Canché's role as a journalist, despite his work for Mexican news agencies, radio stations, and a notable website called Animal Politico. As the status of journalism expands to new platforms of mass communication, like the Internet, it seems that the security of journalists has become increasingly threatened. In Saudi Arabia, the prominent liberal blogger, Raif Badawi, was sentenced to 1, 000 lashes and ten years imprisonment for criticizing Saudi clerics. That was back in 2012, and since then the reaction against freedom of expression on the Internet has escalated in severity.

Earlier this year, three prominent secular bloggers, Avijit Roy, Ananta Bijoy Das, and Washiqur Rahman Babu, were all brutally murdered in Bangladesh within the span of a few months. Prior to his death, Ananta Das had reportedly received death threats and his name appeared in two assassination lists in Bangladeshi media. Das and Roy were both secular bloggers and close friends, brutally murdered within the span of two months. Ananta Bijoy Das criticized religious intolerance in his blogs, and his writings were deemed blasphemous by extremists and militant Islamists. Das was surrounded and killed by a masked gang with machetes. Avijit Roy, his fellow blogger, was killed in a similarly brutal attack. A militant Islamist group has reportedly claimed responsibility for the attack of Roy. Despite arrests, no one has officially been charged with these murders. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right under Bangladesh's constitution; however, these bloggers were brutally murdered in the streets near universities and even near their own homes. The response from the Bangladeshi government has been indifferent, despite its constitutional commitment to protect freedom of expression. Simply declaring that freedom of speech is a fundamental right does not secure the lives of those who write and share their opinions on controversial issues. The globally accessible platform for mass communication that the Internet provides has enabled the free exchange of ideas to foster. Yet the sword continues to attempt to silence the pen with scare tactics and violence.

Tactics of harassment and violence against journalists and bloggers lead to increased self-censorship, though some brave bloggers continue to exercise the right to freedom of expression despite the potentially disastrous consequences. A multiplicity of voices and the coexistence of differing opinions always run the risk of engendering conflict, whether it be a legislative battle against censorship or the struggle to survive in an environment that seeks to silence. Yet it is the most controversial topics, like religious intolerance and government corruption, that most desperately demand the right to freedom of expression. It is not the expression of an idea that is most dangerous, but its suppression that has the most adverse effects on societal ills. It is through revealing the most controversial and the most difficult aspects of a society that enable a society to progress. To stifle the exchange of ideas through mass communication is not to protect public order, but it is to stagnate society. Silence cannot be commensurate to peace.

Corruption: A Big Fly In The Ointment Of The Transition

Messaoud Romdhani — 2015-10-01T18:01:40Z

“Democracy is fragile because it doesn't speak all the truth.”
Edgar Morin, Manouba Univesity, Tunis (May 29th, 2015)

While the feel-good memories of the “Arab Spring” slowly fade away in the winter of chaos, marred by all types of religious, sectarian and political violence, Tunisia has stood as the only possible success story, so far. Indeed, its political process has been an exception as it has peacefully achieved a democratic electoral process while other countries in the country region sink into more turmoil: an authoritarian military regime in Egypt, a tragedy in Yemen, an utter chaos in Libya and an open-ended civil war in Syria.

But there are heavy clouds on the horizon of this small country and the revolutionary dream is still out of reach as three major challenges threaten to halt the democratic progress, and to jeopardize the stability of the country:

First, the economic situation is in continual decline and the social imbalance is becoming more and more conspicuous. Continual price increases, rising poverty and the erosion of middle classes have led to mounting social tensions ,drifting sometimes into a tug-of-war game between the government and unions and generating into a total blockage of social services … a more slippery slope ,in the long-run ,than what many people would believe;

Then, the scourge of terrorism, which is no longer confined to mountains and caves, it has now extended to touristic cities, putting in jeopardy the economy of the country and its security. Of course, the increase in terrorist attacks is related mainly to the geopolitical context and to the post-revolution anarchy; the fact remains, however, that many young people ,who saw no change taking place through pacific protest and who gave up all hope in the improvement of their social conditions are vulnerable to violent extremism. Here is the second challenge facing the political and civic elite in Tunisia. Security measures, regardless of their firmness, are not likely to get rid of terrorism since combating terrorism does not only depend on the effectiveness of police control, nor does it only depend on the severity of codes and laws: it depends more on attacking the deep social , economic and cultural roots of the scourge.

The third major concern is corruption: it might be worth reiterating that the tens of thousands of protesters who took to the streets demanding the fall of the regime and the departure of Ben Ali were driven by the exasperation against a family and a system that used repression to plunder the national wealth of the country.

The World Bank itself, after supporting the regime and praising the “competitive economy” while Ben Ali was in power, changed tack and denounced the clan that had manipulated the economic regulations “to reap astonishing profit” (April 3rd,2014, All in the family: state capture)

Most Tunisians think that the situation has worsened after the revolution. “The system that favoured Mr. Ben Ali's cronies remains largely in place, benefiting other businessmen,” wrote the Economist (July 4th, 2015).

Just as alarming are other reports. The Index of the Corruption Perception, in 2014, showed that Tunisia was ranked 79 among 175 countries, lagging behind Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Oman. Compared to 2010, we must admit that the country has fallen by 20 ranks. (Transparency International Report, 2014)

In fact, corruption has been fed on the weakening of the state, the absence of the rule of law and the laxity of successive governments, mainly in front of the development of underground economy.

It's rare to find an expert or a researcher who does not emphasize the link between extremism and social deprivation. Some even go further to underline the relationship between extremism and corruption, be it a bribe or general forms of nepotism.

The main idea in Sarah Chayes 's book "Thieves of the State" is that corruption threatens global security as corrupt governments breed violence. For the writer, fraud, corruption and bribery are not simple moral issues. They've got a tremendous economic toll. The core activity of a corrupt government whether with Ben Ali or with Mubarek or any other dictator "was not exercising the functions of the state but rather extracting resources for personal gains." Another legacy of corruption: masterminds of terror, benefiting from the bitterness and anger of the poor classes, take the role of the "moral avengers" who will establish justice and general moral rules. That's why nowadays governments are losing ground to violent insurgents. In the case of Tunisia, that seems to make sense.

The economic and social crisis, the scourge of terrorism and rampant corruption make up a horrendous threat to the constitutional, political and civic process. If taken lightly, the whole transitional process might be compromised.

The Committee for the Respect of Liberties and Human Rights in Tunisia

The Politics of Indebtedness and Government

Ranabir Samaddar — 2015-10-01T17:58:32Z

The tragic capitulation and decline of the Greek government is directly linked to the postures of the radical left, and hence is the cause for greater alarm. A government that was elected to overturn austerity agreed within five months of coming to power on the same or worse terms for austerity measures. It was a government that had promised to return to the Greeks their dignity and lost popular sovereignty, then accepted the ultimate humiliation, such as the dismissal of the Minister of Finance and the international humiliation of the Prime Minister at the summit of the Euro zone and then EU countries. The most humiliating part for the Greek people was the return of a more severe and punitive version of the euro group proposals rejected in the referendum of 5 July – only a week before. Of course political activists, commentators, and analysts all over the world know that militant Greek people did not take this lying down. The Left in Greece has split. The Communists are also rethinking their sectarian strategies. The debate over the Euro has if only sharpened. The question of alternative, at times in a programmatic sense called Plan B, has become equally sharper.

Yet at one level, these sound like hollow and pious observations and hopes, if we do not acknowledge the massive nature of the defeat, the causes of the Left's weaknesses, and the intractable nature of the government under neo-liberal conditions and its relation with indebtedness. Socialists and communists have to face the fact of government: the realities of the way power functions. After all, as suggested above, if we closely examine the details of the ten point reform plan which the deal is to facilitate, we must ask, what are they collectively if not the roadmap to a new style of governing, a new government, or the bluebook for setting up a neo-liberal state through establishing in painstaking details the cogs and wheels of neo-liberal governance? What does austerity mean in the grammar of rule? What does indebtedness signify in terms of restructuring the state, the new process and agenda of legislations, establishing new protocols for public administration, new standards of productivity, and new forms of relations with private capital, techniques of measurement, and finally the dynamics of harmonization with a global model of rule? If this is the new logistics of setting up a government, at the same time it is no less a Utopia of our time. Hence we must look into some of the uncomfortable aspects of the Left politics, which was probably never more than a version of Left Keynesianism, and not surprisingly collapsed in front of the neo-liberal realities of our time.

Future historians may say that debt was the instrument through which the state was restructured, and the socialists and the European Left with their ideology of pan-Europeanism facilitated this, because this ideology closed their eyes to any alternative. The underlying deficit of this government was in the illusion about its ability to win popular sovereignty and abolish austerity through memoranda with the EU and especially the euro zone. The illusion led to the destructive logic of the Left that failed to understand that the fight against the EU was a crucial aspect of the struggle for the emancipation and progress of the peoples of Europe, and that therefore it was crucial in each country, at least in each debt ridden and peripheral country, to strengthen the fight against the EU. To build a popular, democratic and Left front and movement to exit the euro zone was a decisive step in the struggle to secede from the European Union if necessary, precisely because the euro had become the “super neo-liberal weapon of anti-democratic European Union”.

Some of the voices on the Left are now calling for an orderly exit, an “orderly disintegration of the euro zone”. In the words of Stefano Fassina a former Italian deputy minister:

We need to acknowledge that the euro was a mistake of political perspective. We need to admit that in the neo-liberal cage of the euro, the left loses its historical function and is dead as a force committed to the dignity and political relevance of labour and to social citizenship as a vehicle of effective democracy. The irrelevance or the connivance of the parties of the European socialist family is manifest. Continuing to invoke, as they do, the United States of Europe or a pro-labour rewrite of the Treaties is a virtual exercise leading to a continuing loss of political credibility… The choice is a dramatic one. The road of continuity is the explicit option of the grand conservative-led coalitions and “socialist” executives (in France and Italy for instance). The road of discontinuity may be the only one for attempting to save the European Union, revitalize the middle-class democracies and reverse the trend of the devaluation of labour. For a managed dis-integration of the single currency, we must build a broad alliance of the National Liberation Fronts, starting from the euro zone's Mediterranean periphery, made up of progressive forces open to the cooperation of the democratic right wing sovereignty-ist parties. The time available is increasingly short.

Here too we see the same illusion, namely that the conflict is between Left wing Keynesianism and monetarism, and that the goal is not a political and social revolution but attainment of social citizenship through a return to ole post-war national labour welfare regimes.

Meanwhile, the Greek protests have thrown up from the bottom solidarity of militant Left in Europe that harbours no illusion of a continental social citizenship. This is best exemplified by the spirit of solidarity extended to the Greek proletarian masses by the German Anti-capitalist Left platform within Die Linke in these words, “No to austerity even if it means break with euro”. We must also remember that at the same time making his visit to Israel on July 19, 2015 the Greek defence minister Kammenos signed a mutual “status of forces” agreement. Although particular details are still not known, such agreements usually regulate the conditions under which foreign military forces can operate on the sovereign territory of a given state. Israel has had such a treaty in place only with its closest ally and long-time protector, the US. The Syriza government has thus complied to two inviolable dogmas – supporting euro and shoring up relations with Israel. As has been pointed out, there is a whole series of striking examples like Gysi, the former head of the German Left opposition party Die Linke. In order to become a partner for government formation he accepted German support for Israel as necessary “reason of state”. Though strongly attacking austerity measures imposed by Schröder he opposed any questioning of the EU and the Euro regime. The same held for the Italian Rifondazione Comunista before its demise. The fallacy was crisply explained by Alekos Alavanos, a Syriza leader and the first to advocate the exit from the euro zone, “The whole policy of Syriza from 2012 onwards, when they abandoned their position ‘the euro is not taboo' is based on a cynical lie: We can abolish austerity and the same time stay in the euro zone. This led to a policy agreeable for large sections of people because it did not involve ruptures, but it was a policy totally unrealistic. This policy, for which the party of Syriza bears full responsibility, would necessarily lead to "cloudy Sunday" of 12 July.” (Italics mine)

Rupture: this is the most important word; and the most important point is that the way the Greek and the European Left approached the question was one of continuity and not rupture and normalcy and not crisis. This explains the astonishing flip flop, the absence of an alternative plan, the hesitation to revolutionise the masses, and the inexorable governmentalisation of the party, politics, and strategy. Theoretical gloss over this fundamental inadequacy of the European Left and the Syriza has not been lacking. Almost as if nothing has happened, one commentator puts the problem as one of how to find ways of radicalisation of democracy and not rupture and revolution. In this commentator's words:

The biggest wound in this process of tactical retreat – which was experienced as defeat, indeed self-defeat – was surely suffered in the ranks of the movement. The experience has been traumatic, and the condition of response to this trauma is at this point an aporia. It is understandable as to why, if we return to what I pointed out at the outset. The movement lives in the now. It is not made for, nor concerned with, tactical manoeuvres of retreat. The immediacy of its social base, relative to the mediation of the exigencies of governance, keeps the movement free of responsibility to sovereignty, to the entirety of the polity within which after all the movement fights agonistically, where time is in constant flux and parameters can change at any minute and in directions that may run counter to plans and wishes, even principles. Here, democracy is severely tested.

… Developing a left governmentality entails precisely that internal dissent would register its critical force as part of the governmental capacity. I repeat: Syriza is a heterogeneous coalition, not a party, strictly speaking. Hence, the notion that ‘voting No in Parliament against the measures is a vote of support to the government,' as was voiced by various dissenting Syriza MPs, utterly bamboozled the media technocrats and the liberal parties, who can only understand a hierarchical, mono-vocal, and ideologically sutured party politics.

… Nothing is more radical, more troubling, and more trouble-making than a government that proclaims that it disagrees with the policies it has agreed to implement, a government that refuses to identify with these policies because it recognizes them as abhorrent and unfeasible.

… Radical democracy and left governmentality are not about the politics of unreality – so-called alternatives that belong to fantasies of the past, like the nationalist self-enclosure of Grexit scenarios. They are about crashing with realities head on, from the precarious position of groundlessness on matters of principle and the sheer incalculability of decision in the midst of struggle exactly at the point where all options have been removed from the table….

The main problem in this sort of analysis is that it reifies the governmental capacity of a non-revolutionary administration, and assumes that radical democracy can emerge by itself from a void, which means a condition of being without direction, living in the present – a present incapable for charting out a path of the future. This is what Marxists call the worship of spontaneity – the complete abdication of responsibility.

It also means a refusal to think of the political economy of the crisis seriously, because it assumes that with continuous injection of money into the market the lives of the workers can be maintained. Therefore one may ask: What does this “Left governmentality” have to say with regard to, say for instance, the neo-liberal mechanism, QE (quantitative easing)? Described by one commentator as “the most important thing on the planet”, QE was originally deployed by the US Federal Reserve to enable markets to recover from the 2008 recession, but has since spread worldwide. Officially, it involves the central bank of a country pumping capital into key financial institutions so as to boost liquidity and spending. Money is thus digitally created - disconnected from actual economic activity. And in that sense it is a substitute of the latter. QE thus frees money from its real world moorings and turns it into a good that can be freely produced whenever a central bank chooses. It is not that governments in the past had not printed money to cope with emergencies. However QE takes this practice to a different level, assets created as a result accounting for more than 20 per cent of the GDP of many developed countries now. There is no doubt that with the injection of the money that Greece sought and will get will come from QE, which will perpetuate the crisis Greece and several other countries in Europe faces. Equally there is no doubt that from this crisis a few business barons will emerge richer.

In other words, only a deeper appreciation of the dialectics of the reality of crisis in capitalist economy and society can tell us of the significance of the discontinuities from the politics of the earlier Keynesian period. To be sure then, the crisis emerges as a nodal point in class struggle ready for a revolutionary resolution in the form of a rupture in politics. Crisis in this way involves the discontinuous within the continuous. As Lenin saw, the revolutionary situation engendered by the contradictions of society accentuates crisis – precisely because it has introduced discontinuity within continuity. A theory of radical democracy without revolution fails because it cannot integrate the temporal dimensions in its approach to the crisis of a structure - in other words, the dichotomy of diachrony and synchrony, the two complementary aspects of temporality, known otherwise as continuity and discontinuity. The dual determination of history in this way functions, only the Left in Europe forgot this classic lesson.

Why? This is where the next argument in this critique takes off. We have to speak here now, though inadequately, of the ideology of Europeanism that led the European Left into the blind alley of a social democratic version of Keynesianism. Europeanism implied that the Left had to forget the political significance of rupture, which is a substitute of a more dangerous word, revolution.

Excerpted by Sophia Reuss from Europeanism: The Repressed Anxiety of a Trans-National Intellectual Class

There is Nothing to Celebrate after Sunday's Elections in Greece

Theodoros Karyotis — 2015-10-01T17:51:58Z

Skyrocketing abstention, social demobilisation and an impending wave of harsh austerity measures call for critical reflection after Syriza's victory.

There is nothing to celebrate, really. Maybe the European leftists who arrived in Athens to support Tsipras are justified to celebrate, since they have a vision of Syriza that is external and more often than not romanticised. As far as Greeks are concerned, no one can doubt that there are honest and well-meaning left-wing people who have voted for Syriza or are even (still) members of Syriza. But after the developments of the last few months the last thing they want to do is celebrate.

How can they celebrate, when tomorrow the new Syriza-led government has to enforce and oversee the implementation of a harsh attack on nature and the popular classes, having given up its capacity to legislate without the tutelage of Brussels and Berlin, and being under constant financial blackmail by the creditors?

Left-wing pragmatism and social demobilisation

Tsipras' new "selling point" is his fight against corruption and the oligarchy, since his newly-adopted "pragmatism" dictates that he cannot anymore fight against austerity and neoliberal restructuring. Thus, the horizon of left-wing politics in Greece has become an "austerity with a human face", a "less corrupt" and "more just" enforcement of neoliberal barbarity.

Unfortunately, in the coming months we are going to witness Tsipras' "political maturity" and "pragmatism" extending to ever new areas: Pragmatism dictates that you cannot fight against those who own all the wealth and the mass media in Greece, that you cannot shut down the disastrous gold mine in Skouries, that you have to privatise the water companies after all, that you cannot permit worker occupations like VIOME to challenge private property, that you have to deal with protest and dissent deploying the forces of public order.

In short, left-wing pragmatism is going to achieve everything that right-wing arrogance could not, that is, to subdue a population that has been fighting against neoliberal barbarity for 5 years.

All the while, the social movements have been tricked into standing by and waiting for Syriza to fulfil the role it assigned for itself: that of the mediator between social resistances and political power. The government is gaining political time, while movement demobilisation means that struggles are defeated one by one: The self-managed workers of ERT banished by the new management, the anti-mining movement in Halkidiki seeing the destruction of its land... Who is next? Maybe self-managed VIOME, struggling to legitimise its activity in adverse conditions? Maybe Thessaloniki's water movement, which fiercely fought and stopped privatisation, only to see it back on the table according to the terms of the new memorandum?

The failure of Syriza's splinter “Popular Unity” to mobilise left-wing voters comes as no surprise: despite the anti-memorandum rhetoric, the new party repeated some of the more objectionable practices of Syriza: It was constituted in a top-down process, solely on party cadres, built around flamboyant and self-centred personalities, projecting a hegemonism towards movements and other political forces, seeking followers rather than allies, projecting its state-centric program of national capitalist reconstruction outside the euro as the holy grail of transformatory politics. It failed to mobilise ex-Syriza voters, most of whom preferred to stay at home rather than go out to vote for Popular Unity; it also failed to convince the disenchanted movement-friendly party base of Syriza, which to this moment remains politically homeless. It thus allowed Tsipras to emerge as the absolute winner of the electoral game.

Electoral abstention and the “lesser evil”

Someone could argue that Syriza retaining its electoral percentage on Sunday's elections is a sign that the bulk of the population consents to the party's "pragmatism". Two points should be stressed here:

Firstly, it is a perfectly respectable stance to vote for Syriza as the lesser neoliberal evil. Voting by definition involves complex calculations, political blackmail and a host of ethical dilemmas that the Greeks have faced three times in less than 8 months. Those who abstain for political reasons cannot claim moral superiority over those who use their vote instrumentally in this fluid and complex political situation. But let's not assume either that all the people who cast an instrumental vote for Syriza in order to prevent the reinstatement of the hated New Democracy are going to stand by with their arms crossed when the government begins its raid against people and nature in the next few months.

Secondly, and most importantly, while the political system is designed to maintain appearances and guarantee the continuity of power, no one can deny that the most significant aspect of Sunday's elections was the abstention skyrocketing to 45% from 36% in January and from 29% in 2009. It is easy to calculate that in a country of 10 million registered voters this translates to over 4 million people who do not vote, or about 1 and a half million people who have lost their faith in the political system since the start of the crisis. This last figure represents about as many people as those who vote for either of the two major political parties.

We shouldn't hasten to claim all these people for the forces of social emancipation and self-determination, as some anarchists would have it. Certainly a critical mass of people refrains from voting because it has a conception of politics as an embodied collective process, not as a ritual stuffing of the ballot box -even of one does not necessarily preclude the other. Nevertheless, a wide range of motives and circumstances can lead to this disenchantment, which can include apathy, helplessness, individualism and resignation.

While the political system could not care less about this huge mass of disenchanted citizens –as long as they stay at home and they do not vote for protest parties that could cause disruption, it is all the same to them. Indeed, the ones that should be really concerned about this part of the population should be the social movements and the ideological movements that feel closer to the grassroots, namely the libertarian movement and the extra-parliamentary left. How can we break through the wall of apathy and individualism, connect with the desires and aspirations of the disenchanted population, cultivate collective spirit, social organisation and creativity, desire for change and emancipation?

The inadequacy of political practices

Unfortunately large chunks of the libertarian and leftist movements are more concerned about preserving their own identity than connecting with the disenchanted classes. We circulate our indecipherable manifests, largely for internal consumption; we cling to our ideological purity and our maximalist rhetoric; we shout out our angry slogans and cradle our flags; we boast when we have a handful of protesters more in our marches or when our parties get a few thousand votes more in the elections. All the while, millions of people out there are hungry for social change, but are probably resigned into an individualistic existence, and we have no means of getting through to them.

While many would interpret the 45% of abstention as a healthy rejection of the pointless simulacrum that is representative democracy, it can as well be interpreted as a failure, or rather as a chain of failures: The failure of a social order to incorporate large chunks of the population in the mainstream of social life; the failure of a political system to offer effective avenues of changing said social order; the failure of the social movements and the left to create a new imaginary of transformation of this political system.

An opportunity to reflect

The politics of “there is no alternative” promoted by our left-wing government are sure to heighten resignation and apathy; nevertheless a society under extreme pressure for so many years is definitely bound to explode sooner or later. The social movements in Greece have produced admirable responses towards self-emancipation in the last few years, but they have failed to articulate these responses into a coherent voice, a proposal for overcoming the present political and economic order. They have idealised partiality and fragmentation, they have not addressed the issue of political organisation, and have thus been tricked into submission by the hegemonic project of Syriza.

The pyrrhic victory of the left in last Sunday's elections should initiate a process of critical reflection, both in Greece and throughout Europe. We have ahead of us difficult moments of resistance, and the social movements, however small and insignificant, constitute at present the only remaining antagonistic force against capitalist barbarity.

Pakistan's Donald Trump

Pervez Hoodbhoy — 2015-10-01T17:48:36Z

Even his fellow Republicans have labelled him insane. But, defying the predictions of all soothsayers and political pundits, Donald Trump's still surging popularity with Republican voters suggests that he could become America's next president. The first step, now within reach, will be winning the Republican Party's nomination.

Articulating the ‘mad as hell' anger felt by many Americans towards Washington's putatively liberal policies, Trump knows it pays to be outrageous and wickedly racist. He follows the black-hating governor of Alabama in the 1960's, George Wallace, who would famously shout “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” at rallies. Some of Trump's claims are breathtaking: Mexican immigrants are mostly criminals and rapists, and President Obama is a foreign-born Muslim.

An American political commentator, John Dean (of Watergate fame), describes Trump as “a near perfect authoritarian leader” with a personality type that is “intimidating and bullying, faintly hedonistic, vengeful, pitiless, exploitive, manipulative, dishonest, cheat to win, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, militant, nationalistic, tell others what they want to hear, take advantage of ‘suckers', specialise in creating false images to sell self, may or may not be religious.”

Take away the “faintly” and this neatly fits Trump's Pakistani counterpart, cricketer Imran Khan, who burst upon Pakistan's political scene with his mammoth Lahore jalsa of 2011. With a lavish lifestyle and his playboy past neatly tucked away in some closet the reformed Khan promised the moon as he cavorted on the stage, loudly praying towards Makkah for success.

Khan's support base is diverse: college-educated “burger bachas”, brigades of bejewelled begums, hysterical semi-educated youth, and wild-eyed TTP supporters. Delighting them all, he unleashes from time to time a steady stream of abuse upon his political rivals who threaten to sue him but are ultimately deterred by Pakistan's labyrinthine court system.

Made of the same stuff but packaged differently, the Trump-Khan duo has thrilled racial and religious extremists. The former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke, declared that of all presidential candidates, Trump is “the best of the lot”. Khan received still greater appreciation. He was nominated by the TTP as their representative to last year's (cancelled) peace talks, the reward for leading massive “peace” marches protesting American drones. Resolutely refusing to condemn any Taliban atrocity, Khan would seek to shift the blame on the US.

Worshipful followers love aggressive leaders. Trump, said to be the most abrasive politician in American history, uses barbs and insults while Khan menacingly swings his cricket bat. Use of indecent language invites no penalties. Last month, Trump crudely remarked that Fox anchor Megyn Kelly, who had aggressively confronted him in a CNN interview, had “Blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her wherever.” Khan went yet further. From the top of his dharna container, he screamed that a panicking Nawaz Sharif had wetted his shalwar.

Why do such leaders attract followers? First, each can confidently claim that he is his own man, a top-of-his-game type. He can convincingly label political rivals as midgets, corrupt, or incompetent (Khan's job is easier than Trump's). The self-made Trump earned a fortune through real-estate business and now owns acres of expensive Manhattan land. His personal worth, though modest on the scale of today's billionaires, is around $4 billion.

Khan too is self-made. He ranks as one of the world's best cricket professionals who could bat, bowl, and captain. His cancer hospital is a model of professional management and an important public service, even if his contribution pales before that of Abdus Sattar Edhi.

A second reason: both men are unabashed narcissists. But shouldn't this turn people off rather than on? In normal life narcissism is considered a personality disorder, but not so in politics. Exceptionally vain and self-absorbed men, who see themselves as deserving attention and power, are often the winners in political contests. Explaining this anomaly is a challenge for those who study group psychology.

A recent issue of Harvard Business Review carries an article intriguingly titled, ‘Why we love narcissists'. The author, Prof Tomas Premuzic of University College London, summarises recent research in psychology that explains how narcissists get ahead in all domains of life. Premuzic distinguishes between “productive narcissists” like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, who actually created great new industries, with “charismatic narcissists” who use charm to push personal agendas.

Charismatic narcissists, says Premuzic, are masterful impression managers. They dress to impress, disguise arrogance as confidence, and are superb social networkers. Convinced they are never wrong, they take credit whenever things go well. But when things go awry, they blame colleagues and subordinates. Pre¬muzic notes that “It is always easier to fool others when you have already fooled yourself; it is always harder to feel guilty when you think you are innocent.”

Even with wild schemes, the charismatic narcissist can whip up enormous enthusiasm. Trump has vowed to build a wall along the US southern border with Mexico, likening it to the Great Wall of China and has even dubbed it “The Great Wall of Trump”. What he doesn't know — and doesn't want to know — is that even the Ming Dynasty's 13,000-mile wall failed to keep out the Manchurians.

Khan's ideas make even Trump's hare-brained schemes look tame. Once I'm in power, Khan declared, I will end corruption in 19 days and terrorism in 90 days. The 19 was subsequently changed to 90; the need for an additional 71 days remained unexplained. But let's put that aside. It's now 887 days since Khan's PTI took over the reins of the KP province. The end of corruption and terrorism should be nigh, right? But don't hold your breath.

To conclude: charismatic narcissists are much hot air but very little substance. Unfortunately, they can be very dangerous. If running a country they can take it to war, waste resources, and increase internal violence. On the other hand, real leadership requires building high performance teams, emphasising altruism over egotism, and competence over confidence. Until the public understands this, it will continue inviting narcissists to the top while overlooking more reasonable alternatives.

The writer teaches physics in Lahore and Islamabad.

Published in Dawn, September 19th, 2015