Cyber Security - the Biggest Global Threat of our Time!

Published by The International Affairs Forum

Delhi hosted the 3rd Global Summit on Cyber Security in Oct 2012, which once again highlighted the complex security challenges that face the Cyber world. Advanced persistent threats (APT), Botnets, Hacktivists, Spies etc. are just among the daily headaches that put even top intelligence organizations to the test. But at least large organizations can afford to invest in cyber security solutions. Even more worrisome is the Norton 2012 Cybercrime report which states that 2 out of 3 adults online have been victims of cybercrime and each year the problem causes an estimated loss of about $ 110 billion. Every second, 18 adults become a victim of cybercrime with losses of an average $197 per victim annually. This yet does not take into account the emotional distress and dysfunction people suffer on account of cyber crime like hacking, information theft, invasion of privacy etc. Unlike large or even small organizations, individuals have rather limited access to any kind of advanced security solutions. The standard off the shelf security products have limited applicability and are not enough protection against even a slightly sophisticated attack. In countries like India, China etc. it is not easy to even register a cyber crime report and a response is almost unexpected. Furthermore, cyber criminals transcend boundaries, and international laws are inadequate to tackle the problem. As more and more of the world goes online in personal and professional sphere, cyber security is perhaps the number one challenge before the world yet we seem ill prepared to tackle it.

The Norton Cyber crime report for 2012 shows increased attacks in two areas as compared to 2011 – social networks and mobile networks. These are also the two areas where exciting new technological changes are happening everyday capturing more and more consumers. But as technological innovations are racing far ahead, the security systems seem to lag far behind. While most consumers seem aware of the new gizmos and apps being launched each day through mesmerizing ads, not enough are aware of the likely security threats or probable solutions. They rely on rudimentary knowledge making them easy targets for cyber criminals. They only seem to become aware once they have already become a victim. Awareness about security threats and probable solutions seems to be an issue at the individual level. Further, the technology business is no doubt driven by innovations which rake in the money but it would seem the security systems and innovations in those areas remain underinvested since they do not seem to be as lucrative an opportunity. Left to the private sector, this gap between galloping technology and lagging security systems is likely to remain or perhaps even widen. Unless a lot of awareness is generated about security issues and a lot more investment made into technological innovations in the cyber security area, this challenge will become a behemoth. At a larger level, the vulnerability of defense installations, transportation, power grids etc. to cyber attacks has always been a hot debate. Already some businesses and intelligence organizations have come to rely on paper records and safety vault systems for highly sensitive information. Could the severe lag on cyber security take us back to the paper and lock and key era?

Since hackers and other cyber criminals could be based in any country and launch an attack anywhere else, using already hacked systems, nabbing them would require a lot of trans-national cooperation. While there are summits and conferences - usually led by the industry, not much is being done at the government levels. Even international bodies like the UN are yet to get involved in this area and demand passing of international laws, leave alone seek cross country cooperation to enforce them. Lack of international cooperation thus remains another lacuna. To the contrary governments themselves are often involved in sponsoring spying and related hacking on other countries’ systems. The situation is worse in the developing world where even gruesome crime goes unpunished, so white collar cyber crime is unlikely to get any attention at all. A lot of attacks and spams originate from this part of the world where law enforcement remains a serious issue.

Given the alarming levels of cyber crime where 2 in 3 people online fall a victim to it, the apparent ignorance, grossly inadequate investment or innovations in security systems as well as weak law enforcement is even more worrisome. The problem plagues even top organizations like the FBI but they have a lot of resources at hand. However, it is often the individual or the common man who is most vulnerable to such attacks. They are often caught unawares and lacking access to any advanced help required to ward off the cyber crime or criminals, find themselves helpless in the face of it. Threatened cyber security and rising crime is perhaps staring the Technology horse in the mouth and could be its very nemesis. At the global level, the pan geographical origin of cyber attacks makes it a challenge very hard to tackle. At any rate, other than industry initiatives, not much is being done to raise the issue to the level of attention it deserves or requires. In a world relying more and more on technology, cyber security is the biggest global threat of our times yet it remains grossly under addressed at the international level and calls for greater focus and action.

Anuradha Kataria is an author and a consultant based in Delhi, India. She has published a book and editorials on the developing world issues. She also is a part of the growing statistic of 2 in 3 victims of cybercrime, having faced the hacking problem herself and seen the gaps in security systems or law enforcement process first hand.

Human Trafficking - the Untamable Epidemic

Published by The International Affairs Forum

 
25 Sept 2012, Anuradha Kataria

Gut wrenching stories abound in the media about victims of human trafficking especially women and girls who go down in a vortex of severe and repeated abuse – from which few are rescued and fewer still ever rehabilitated. The UN estimates that 2.4 million people across the globe are victims of human trafficking and about 80% are being exploited as sexual slaves. Only one out of every 100 victims is ever rescued given the criminal network surrounding it and it is nearly a $ 31 billion industry. While there is so much noise over it in the media, the crime seems far from abated, to the contrary is on the rise. Perhaps the focus is on the wrong end of the problem. While the international bodies and at times some of the Western governments like the US put pressure on the developing countries to frame laws to nab the culprits, there is little the latter end up doing given their dismal state of law enforcement. Perhaps there is a need to focus on the source areas which are typically remote and lacking in even basic awareness about the hazards of trafficking. There are some UN initiatives in this area but not enough. Further, poverty is often touted as the prime cause of trafficking but a lot of the urban poor are not trafficked. Poverty is no doubt a causal factor but the problem goes beyond that. Let us examine the issue in its complexity and ascertain a probable solution which the source countries “can” implement.

Delving into the mechanism, let us look at the story of Hamida (name changed), a Bangladeshi girl who was lured with the promise of a job by a family confidante, as is often the case, and trafficked into India when she was only 10 years old. Isolated from her base community, she suffered huge amount of abuse in an alien land where she could approach no one for help given also that she spoke a different language. Many of the alleged abusers were cops themselves. With some quirk of fate she was rescued and also helped by an evangelist Ms Roma Debabrata (who then started an NGO called STOP to curb trafficking in India). However, the justice system was long embroiled and grossly insensitive that became an even more traumatizing ordeal for her and ended predictably in a verdict that allowed most of her alleged tormentors to walk away scot free. And it could be argued that India is still a far better country than many others in the developing world! A key problem remains not in framing of laws, which are framed in abundance especially in a parliamentary system but in lack of law enforcement. More often than not, the police system is bought into the trafficking chain and the culprits are too many and in collusion whereas the victim alone. The justice system is long drawn with cases taking up to and over 10 years and often resulting in negligible conviction rates. The social attitudes towards women victims remain regressive marred by indifference, blame and ostracism. In such a callous legal –social environment, a victim is actually better off not fighting for justice as it is a system that is going to harass her more than it would the oppressors. Hamida’s tale is a telling “house of horrors” and typifies the treatment trafficking victims receive.

But quite apart from the sorry tales of victimhood and lack of justice, what is the root cause of the problem and how can it be addressed. The plight of the victims of trafficking is never ending given the emotional damage they suffer leaving them scarred, angry, temperamental and mistrustful and nearly impossible to adjust back into the society. Prevention is always better than cure but in the case of trafficking, the only way out; once a victim has fallen into the dungeon there is only one way to go which is down. It may yet be better to prevent trafficking by nipping it in the bud in the source areas - to ascertain how, let us examine the causes in depth. While poverty is at the root cause of trafficking, an interesting point Ms Roma Debabrata makes that even in urban slums there is a lot of poverty but the girls and women are not sold into trafficking. For instance a rickshaw puller in a city hardly makes a living but his daughters and wives are not sold into trafficking. Rooted in their communities, howsoever impoverished, they are not isolated and the community protects them somewhat. It is always some unsuspecting young girl or woman from a far flung remote area that is suddenly brought into an alien city that falls as easy prey to the monster. Alone and isolated from any kind of societal support system, the victims become vulnerable to repeated abuse as they are totally at the mercy of the pimp who brought them. A victim’s “Isolation” is the core mechanism that feeds the cycle of trafficking and victimization.

In the source areas, the causal factors that lure unsuspecting victims into the ring remain lack of employment opportunities as well as ignorance about trafficking hazards. There is awareness in the large cities given their exposure to the media but none in the source areas – which are largely remote and rural. People are not aware of the dangers of sending minor girls alone to far flung places in the hands of a supposedly trusted uncle or aunt who lures them with promises of a job and money. Once isolated from their community, these girls are easy to exploit and abuse. From a long term perspective, it is essential to spread development to rural areas but in the immediate term, it is crucial to run awareness campaigns on trafficking hazards in the source areas - using all media like TV, radio, cinemas and word of mouth through the local village bodies etc. People need to become aware that even in a village they may have little or no money but far flung cities are but mean destinations for girls/ women. There is a need for greater awareness about what kind of slavery and drudgery possibly awaits these girls as they are lured away by the idea of making some money. If the families were aware of the way the mechanism works, they are less likely to send young little girls in the hands of some distant relative who is pretending to be a well wisher. It may go to curb, not all, but much of the problem at its source.

So far as the law enforcement goes, it remains pathetic and no doubt needs a drastic shake up but in all likelihood, is unlikely to happen. However, taking employment opportunities to villages is a possible task but again has an unexpected rider in poor democracies. Apparently, the same rural folk who throng cities in search of jobs and live a wretched existence in urban slums, also oppose setting up of industries in rural areas. Often times the activists and opposition parties convince them that industry by itself is evil and will take away their rights and land. There is a need to educate first the activists and then the people about the fallacy in that logic. They need to be educated about the benefits of setting up industries in rural areas such that jobs go where people live and they don’t have to be uprooted from their environment to seek the oxymoronic heavens of urban slums in increasingly overcrowded large cities. Least of all, sending young girls alone to the “big bad cities” tantamount to a criminal act given the likely risks and hazards they are putting these girls into. Even in rural poverty they have a certain freedom, security and communal belonging which shield them from heinous crime and exploitation. So while the rhetoric of better law enforcement may continue, thus far it has not yielded any results. The problem can be nipped in the bud through intensive awareness campaigns in the source areas or else it becomes too big a menace to tackle given the present day law enforcement that exists in most of the third world and it could be said also in the first world when it comes to tackling an organized crime like this. The UN and other organizations have undertaken some initiatives along these lines but it needs greater focus. Targeting the source areas still needs to be developed as a full-fledged campaign and the core platform to tackle trafficking and perhaps should be the direction most countries should be pressurized into pursuing.

As is rightly said, freedom is priceless - all human beings deserve freedom and no one should have to undergo this form of heinous and repeated abuse that destroys their body, spirit and trust in fellow humans completely. That 2.4 million people are suffering such forms of slavery and exploitation in our ashamedly modern times, calls for greater focus and action and perhaps a different approach to curb the “yet growing” epidemic!

Impoverished to Ravenous – 21st Century China and Sustainable Development

Published in the International Affairs Forum
Anuradha Kataria, 19 July 2012

The just concluded RIO +20 Summit has received universal criticism in letting down the environment agenda set about 20 years ago, devolving into some sort of corporatization of the Green economy. While purported as the largest Earth summit with over 100 heads of states, the proceedings were marred by conflict and discord between developed and developing countries blocs as well as a general sense of unease over green economy goals being manipulated to cater to the markets rather than address genuine ecological concerns. Sustainable development, which in principle strives to achieve a fair, equitable, just and “green” economy alongside poverty alleviation remains elusive. In this backdrop, let us examine China that has spearheaded economic development in the developing world over the last few decades. On the one hand there are questions about the long term viability of its export oriented growth model and on the other its rapid industrialization’s impact on the environment as well as its progress on other parameters of development. What is unique about China’s industrialization story as compared to other developing countries given that even in the BRICS bloc, Chinese economy is equal to the other four put together. How is it faring on environmental standards and a question that is asked less often nowadays, what is its tryst with democracy?
Not too long ago China was an impoverished country in the news often for its violent Communist past and abysmal poverty. For quite some time, India and China were spoken of in the same breath due to their overwhelming population and poverty. The last decade however saw China’s stupendous rise to global power, based largely on its economic achievements. While still a part of the BRICS bloc, the Chinese economy leads the rest by miles and is equal to the balance four put together. Having become the world’s second largest economy, today China’s comparative benchmark has shifted to the US as both nations vie for economic, defense and political supremacy on the global front. Although China’s GDP is yet only $5.93 trillion, well short of the US at $14.6 trillion, the current decade will determine if the Chinese economy will plateau at this level, akin to Japan few decades back or really soar even further. Regardless of the predictions about its long term economic prospects, China’s rapid development and break from poverty is unprecedented where over 600 million people were delivered from abject poverty (defined as $1.25 per day) between 1981 and 2005. As the nation seems ever so ravenous for greater growth and power, let us trace China’s development history and assess how solid and sustainable is its current economic position as well as its progress on other parameters of development.
China underwent a tumultuous era under Mao Zedong led Communist revolution that was marked by violence, loss of millions of lives and yet none of the stated objectives of equality, poverty alleviation or economic development were achieved. Seeing the failure of the State command control socialist model, China started undertaking market oriented reforms starting in about 1978, pioneered initially by Deng Xiaoping. China took a cautious approach to market economy first establishing SEZs – Special Economic Zones in limited areas ear marked for this
experiment. Soon seeing the success of these zones, the model was scaled up and many more SEZs were established as well as expanded. This form of phased development allowed China to learn the ropes of the market economy unlike its Communist neighbor Russia that went through a shock therapy and ended up in a greater mess. Further, China did not adopt a pure market economy and that seems to have worked in its favor. One key difference was that the state invested heavily in infrastructure – be it roads, power grids or even public infrastructure. Given the long gestation period of infrastructure projects as well as marginal returns, it is not so lucrative to the private sector and state investment in the same accelerated China’s development. On the one hand good roads, public amenities, power supply etc. raise the standard of living for the common people and on the other, are a strong incentive for industries to set up shop.
In a relatively short span of time, China has become the “factory of the world”. Why are industries eager to set up shop in the developing world and in particular China? Because it is profitable and it is also relatively “hassle free”. It is profitable because the developing world offers production at much lower costs, be it goods or services. Given the global imbalance in labor and other costs, some of this economic leveling was inevitable in an increasingly open world. As the standard of living rises, these costs are going up in China but it may still continue to be a dominant export economy on account of two reasons. One, as already highlighted, is its outstanding infrastructure and two, Industries are offered a lot of sops and hassle free existence by the CPC. Inundated by lawsuits and stringent legal and regulatory framework in the Western developed world, industry has found itself a safe and comfortable haven in an industry friendly country like China.
Environmental degradation is the first challenge of China’s breathtaking industrialization, although that was also the case in Europe about two centuries back in the early stages of industrialization. Within the CPC also there is a divide over its pace of development and a rising awareness about what it is doing to the environment. This is certainly a challenge before the nation as China has become the lead country on Carbon emissions. In the just concluded Rio summit, once again the developing countries made a lot of noise over opposition to environment regulatory framework citing “poverty” as the reason which increasingly looks like an excuse. On every other parameter, the developing world today is assertive and demands an equal footing and gone are the days of Western imperialism. But at the same time, when it comes to an important cause of protecting the environment, developing world bloc likes to pull out the poverty badge. Poverty alleviation need not come at the expense of environment nor is environmental conservation a superfluous goal that can be addressed a century or so later. For instance, India is facing acute water shortage and the World Bank predicts that India’s ground water table would dry up in about 15 years time. What would that do the 1.2 billion (and counting) – how would the nation cope with this impending crisis and yet there is little debate or focus on the issue. Likewise China’s industrial belt’s environment is so polluted that there is a constant haze over its vast areas. It is hard to believe that people inhaling such toxicity would not develop any long term health hazards. Protecting the environment is not a “developed world agenda”; it affects the developing countries equally if not more.
Overall, it may be said here that life for an average citizen is still far better in China as compared to any developing country including the neighboring democracy, India, which remains mired in
rampant gender crimes, caste based oppression, lack of law enforcement and abysmal poverty etc. China seems to be higher on a societal development curve as compared to that. Apart from infrastructure, China continues to invest heavily in education, allocating as much as 6% of the GDP to it. Street crime is quite low in China and there is access to basic health care for the people. These are still a distant dream for most other developing countries. Up until China’s rise to an economic power, it was believed that democracy and free markets go hand in hand. In fact anytime IMF or World Bank moved to rescue yet another decrepit African nation, they would first urge democratic reforms before helping with market reforms. Initially when China started turning around, its success was doubted, touted as a flash in the pan, not sustainable etc. since it did not have democracy which was widely believed to be an important pre-requisite for development. But as China’s rise continued steadily through the 1990s and at an even more astounding pace in the 2000s, this assumption stands challenged.
Given China’s authoritarian model, its decision making as well as implementation is fast. What CPC says goes and China is no doubt a tight run ship. And it is this centralized structure that has enabled China to pull millions out of poverty in such a short span of time. This model has worked well in the last few decades especially for the masses given that it meets their basic needs of food, shelter, water, electricity, education and health care (no other developing country has been able to achieve this thus far). Further, for the older generation, China is far more open and liberal as compared to the past they have endured. But there is a generation next that has not seen that poor and oppressed China, is exposed to the world through the internet and is has its primal needs already met. This yet remains in a minority, mainly in the large cities but still, there is an awareness of basic rights and a desire to have a say. There also is a wealthy class that often finds itself victimized should they ever fall out of favor with the CPC. As China scales greater economic heights, it may not be able to ignore the higher order needs of this emergent class especially in a free world which is being revolutionized by internet and communication technology.
How those higher order needs can be met remains an enigma as clearly just a turn to democracy has not really worked in the developing world. For instance, Indian democracy is perhaps the most stable and evolved of democracies in the developing world. It no doubt has some benefits for the educated and well to do urban citizens who are relatively empowered, can buy private infrastructure and enjoy open and free debates and discussions etc. But six decades on, it is not clear if democracy works for the majority -70% of India remains doggedly rural and the poorest sections of the society suffer a lot of oppression, violence as well as lack of access to basic amenities like water, power or toilets. Life in urban slums is even more wretched and seemingly hopeless. Democracy in India benefits its minority of prosperous elites as it meets their higher order needs but fails to meet the basic needs of its vast and poor majority.
In contrast the Western world underwent tremendous social changes and awakening for centuries alongside its economic development. Voting rights too were extended gradually in tandem with the same and the end result has been astounding, current economic turmoil notwithstanding. A short cut to the end with universal voting rights without undergoing the necessary processes of social reforms has been the undoing of most developing world democracies which believed just granting voting rights to the populace enables an evolved and empowered society; far from it. Democracy has a totally different shape and form, mostly
subverted, in the developing countries and has failed to achieve a fair equitable or just society. China has not followed that path which perhaps has enabled its rapid development on the economic front. Despite its unitary political model, life of an average citizen is far better than anywhere else in the developing world. However, while China has raced far ahead of other developing countries, its entry into the developed world fold remains tinged with a lag on development along other socio-political and environmental dimensions.
China’s economic fundamentals seem strong given its high level of investments and an industry friendly (perhaps too friendly) environment. As an economic powerhouse, it is perhaps here to stay but can it transcend to a more evolved society now that its benchmark has shifted to the developed world, it is hard to say. Most critically, can China step up to setting some serious environmental goals and start delivering on them given the obvious environmental impact of its large industrial base. This is the real challenge before this ambitious nation that seems ravenous for greater economic growth but lagging on the sustainable development goals.

http://www.ia-forum.org/Files/SHHMZE.pdf

A Forgotten War - the Democratic Ruined Republic of the Congo

Anuradha Kataria, International Affairs Journal

18 May 2012

Published by the Center for International Relations
As conflicts of the oil rich Middle East forever grab media attention, a far deadlier war, Congo civil war stays in the shadows. This conflict that started in about 1997 – 98 has claimed over 4 – 5 million lives and expended heinous brutalities on women and children. (As a comparison, the Syrian conflict has claimed about 7000 – 13000 lives thus far as per various estimates). For the scale and level of brutalities, DR Congo’s civil war is often claimed as the world’s deadliest conflict since World War II. Yet it neither finds as much media focus nor debates about its future – has the world perhaps given up on it? As is the case with other conflict torn African nations, a question is always asked of Congo as well – is the nation even capable of self rule? Amidst such prevailing cynicism on this nation’s future and capabilities, let us explore possible ways out of this war and what role can the international community play.

The war started in about 1997 when Laurent Desire Kabila led a rebellion to overthrow Mobutu Sese Seko’s over 30 years long authoritarian rule. This was done ostensibly in the name of establishing democracy though the elections were never held. No sooner had Mobutu fled the nation creating a sudden power vacuum at the top, than the civil war started with various rebel factions vying for control. Congo’s neighboring nations too, got embroiled in the conflict and the eastern border particularly bore the brunt of this war as it was already teeming with refugee camps which were a spillover from the earlier Rwandan genocide. Laurent Desire Kabila assumed control of the capital Kinshasa but was soon assassinated in 2001, post which his son Joseph Kabila ascended the throne. Young and inexperienced, Joseph Kabila was unable to control the war. While on paper he declared the war over in 2003, the International Rescue Committee estimated that the war casualties continued unabated at the rate of 45,000 a month.

It was then believed that democracy would help the nation resolve its problems and the country held its democratic elections in 2006 which Kabila won owing to his ethnic loyalties. However, the violence escalated post this and now also spread to the western Equateur region. The parliament in Kinshasa became a mere paper-pushing entity, passing several laws which had absolutely no enforcement in reality. The decentralized power at the grassroots was in the hands of various rebel factions that plundered the nation’s resources to further fund the war. The government troops themselves got involved in worst forms of brutalities. In Nov 2011 Congo held its second elections and now also suffered pre and post electoral violence which is yet to subside. Why is there no end to this civil war? No doubt lack of good leadership is at the heart of the problem but more than that, is there something amiss with our political thinking that may be adding to the problem?

Democracy is a bit of “work in progress” in most nations, more so in some (particularly the developing ones) than others. It is no doubt an evolved model and despite its imperfections, has achieved a lot in the Western developed world, in terms of individual freedom, human rights, women’s rights, transparent governance and rule of law etc. These are ideals worth striving for and some of the developing nations are “trying” and must continue to do so. But in war torn nations like Congo, democracy is not work in progress – it is “work stopped” as the nation continues its steep decline on all parameters of governance. At the grassroots power is usurped by warlords who constantly feed the conflict, using plunder, ethnic divisive games and violence to exploit the populace rather than emancipate them in any manner. Shattered, abused and exploited this is the not the state in which perhaps a society is ready to take on the mantle of democracy. It would likely never stabilize. This form of quasi-democracy where elections are won through division and violence is only legitimizing a regime that is delivering nothing to its people. Instead, should not a leader or party in power derive its legitimacy from their ability to bring down the violence and tame the war? Is democracy the right model for Congo, or for that matter most war torn and conflict ridden nations? Neighboring Rwanda did manage to contain violence following the 1994 genocide under a single party rule, mostly under Paul Kagame’s leadership. While Rwanda has received much criticism for its role in the Congo war as well as lack of genuine democracy and political freedom, it is a stable state which has many achievements to its credit including the highest number of women parliamentarians anywhere in the developing world. Is there a lesson for Congo therein? Can it achieve stability and end its civil war under a centralized power structure as opposed to a decentralized democracy it is now in the grips of?

The same question could also be asked of other ruined nations shattered by war and internal conflict like Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Can democracy ever take root and be sustained amidst war and wide spread violence, or is it put to its most subversive use at the grassroots with power in the hands of warlords, rebels, militants, etc? Can the international community engage in a debate over our basic political assumptions about war-riddled states and specifically, do we need a political rethink on Congo to seek an end to its tragic war?

The Sins of the Indian Democracy

-Anuradha Kataria,  The International Affairs Forum  12 Mar 2012

(Published by The Center for International Relations)

As the poll fever catches up round the world with Presidential primaries in the US, Presidential elections in Russia, Parliamentary elections in Iran and the upcoming Presidential vote in France, media seems abuzz with excitement. However a closer look at election results often throws up uncomfortable questions as voters never fail to surprise political theorists with the kind of choices they make, often at odds with the modern liberal principles that democracy espouses in theory. This is all too apparent in India in the just concluded elections in its largest state, Uttar Pradesh (UP). Given the size of the state, UP elections are considered critical and often touted as the semi finals to the national elections. They represent all the colors and hues of democracy as it plays out in reality in India.

A star campaigner here was Rahul Gandhi, the crown prince of the Congress dynasty. However, his clean image and promise of transparent governance could not take the party far, as these are not really the factors that weigh heavily on the Indian voters’ minds. Another star whose charisma faded in these elections was the incumbent Chief Minister, Mayawati, a lowest caste dalit woman and a political outsider who swept the previous state elections. While in the news for her megalomaniacal excesses like erecting her own statues all over the state and also corruption, she still is emblematic of the dalit pride. Her rise to power represents all that is good about democracy, such that even the most marginalized and victimized of communities, that dalits unfortunately are in India, can find representation and political say. However dalits comprise only about 20% of the populace and she could not really muster electoral support from other caste segments even though she had managed to improve the law and order in the violence prone state.

The elections were swept this time by Mayawati’s arch rival Samajwadi party that ruled the state before her tenure and was notorious for “rule by crime” and yet the voters did not seem to consider that a mighty flaw. The “crime connection” is indeed an integral part of the Indian democracy. While the national parliament itself has about 29% elected members facing criminal charges as serious as even rapes, murder and robbery, in UP this percentage was even higher for the candidates contesting the 2012 elections at about 35 – 38%. It is not as if the candidates’ criminal antecedents are hidden from the voters; most candidates’ criminal records are widely publicized in the papers but it would seem the voters are indifferent to it while casting their votes. A good proportion of these alleged criminals make it to the assembly over candidates with far cleaner image and record. Why is that so? The answer lies in the factors that propel voters to choose a candidate.

The biggest factor today in the Indian elections is the “caste dynamic”. Parties differentiate themselves primarily along caste lines, aligning themselves with this or that caste segment or a cluster of many. They lure the vote blocs with promises of exclusive benefits like reservations in jobs and educational institutes. This cuts across the entire caste spectrum from lowest to middle to higher castes and a party’s ability to mobilize such sentiments and loyalties is core to its success in the elections. As is often said in India, you don’t cast your vote but vote your caste. In essence democracy has become an instrument of deepening and reinforcing caste divides rather than challenging the medieval caste system as such. The state also has a large proportion of Muslims and they too became an important vote bloc for some parties while mobilizing the Hindu majority became a means for some others. These divisions mainly along the caste but also religion and language lines are reflected in almost all elections throughout the country.

On the positive side, Electronic Voting machines are widely used and electoral violence, once common place and inevitable in all democratic elections has been curbed to a large extent. UP, a state otherwise notorious for violence particularly against lower caste segments as well as women, has seen the recent elections pass with hardly any major incident of violence as used to be the case in the past. This is a significant progress and march forward for democracy and is mainly on account of the pain staking electoral reforms that India has undertaken in the last two decades which truly empowered the office of the Election Commission. These initiatives are worth emulating by other developing world democracies as well, given that election rigging and violence is a serious challenge before them too.

Overall the Indian democracy is a mixed bag. While it has granted political rights and representation to a marginalized caste segment, caste fissures seem to have only deepened in the society. Instead of fostering any kind of awakening to get rid of the archaic and unfair caste system, democracy is fast becoming a tool of reinforcing the same. Almost all parties use this divide and rule formula to win elections making it a cardinal sin of the Indian democracy. The criminal infestation of the state and the national parliaments further undermines the “ideal” of a democracy, as it ought to have been. Given that the voters themselves chose candidates based on the caste or religious identity dynamic and are indifferent to the relative criminal background of candidates, it is not clear then how the Indian democracy would absolve itself of these sins and awaken (if ever) to pursuing the intended “democratic ideals” of an equal, progressive, unified and peaceful society.

Democracy on Trial, All Rise! - Book Editorial

                                 MWC news - Media with Conscience
Democracy on Trial: the book

| Print | E-mail

Saturday, 05 February 2011 10:31

By Ben Tanosborn

 Share Link:            

Comments and Reactions

America answers crucible of revolution with distrustful evolution

This morning, on this eleventh day of protests in Egypt, perhaps the eleventh hour for America to show how it handles change and turmoil in the developing world, I received an email from Anuradha Kataria, author of “Democracy on Trial, All Rise!”  It could not have been timelier, or more apropos, to what has been happening lately in the world of politics, extending from North Africa to the Middle East, touching many well entrenched autocratic regimes.

Ms. Kataria, who had used a citation in her book from an article I wrote in March 2010, “Iraq’s election results will confirm, but not bestow power,” appears to have her theory and analysis being put to the test once again.  Her book challenges democracy as being the right political model under all socio-economic contexts.  And that is something which I have observed for decades without the added analytical rigor of a social scientist.

The path to democracy, whether via revolution or evolution, is indeed quite different for a nation with a sizeable, educated middle class, than for a nation where the population is overwhelmingly rural, poor and conservative.  In the latter, according to Ms. Kataria, democracy leads to subversive use of “people power.” Here, of course, subversive could very well be considered a loaded word.

America has followed the British tradition, model if you wish, in dealing with turmoil and unrest beyond its borders, from the moment it attained nationhood: all past and present American governments, without exception, have always insisted, and often demanded, that governments anywhere in the world be amicable to the United States and, if need be, subservient to its interests.  Although the State Department has always maintained America’s unequivocal promotion of civil rights and freedom for others in the world, the bottom line has been to accept dictatorships, or any form of autocratic government, when deemed as necessary to meet American economic and military objectives.  That is an indisputable fact that holds true today!  A fact that is complemented by another fact: that, overwhelmingly, Americans are in total accord when it comes to matters of empire and self-serving interests, freedom or civil rights appearing to have a looser definition when applied to people living beyond this nation’s borders.

Latin America has always been the perfect example for a foreign policy based on self-serving interests dating back to the nineteenth century; the proclamation of the Monroe Doctrine and the forceful incursion of the United States in economic, social and political matters that took place in the American hemisphere.  That arrogant Monroe Doctrine appears to have been replicated by Israel and her own declared “hemisphere” which apparently comprises the entire Middle East!

The biggest concern at the White House during this popular revolt in Egypt, one more prone to have economic rather than political roots, had less to do with freedom of the Egyptians to express their discontent, than with the degree of friendliness that a new regime might have for Israel.  From the outset, the US State Department made it clear to the world that the Muslim Brotherhood was an unacceptable element in any revolt, or in the possible sharing of future power in Egypt.  Never mind that the organization might be the voice of 20 percent or more of the Egyptian people, or that they have expressed themselves to the West in a friendly and co-existing tone!  But, just as the US showed its intransigence with Hamas after they won the Palestinian elections in January 2006, it shows its bullheadedness in denying the reality that the Muslim Brotherhood represents.  There is a direct line between Washington and Tel Aviv that supersedes and denies any other type of communication.  And that is, and will continue be, an insurmountable obstacle to world peace.

One thing we know for sure is that the situation in Egypt is causing global economic jitters, although the probability of the Suez Canal closing is almost zero.  An undertaking like that would be foolish for any type of government: autocratic, democratic or even one with strong fundamentalist roots.  Perhaps the biggest danger of all would come from fear itself and the possible stockpiling-hoarding of wheat and grains by some nations, such as Algeria and Saudi Arabia – or Egypt for that matter – that would greatly help metastasize the political strife.

While we may think of democracy as part of, if not the solution to, the problems of the developing world, we may heed Anuradha Kataria’s concern that it has more often than not led to instability, civil wars, genocides, fundamentalism, crime and corruption.  Let’s hope that such is not the case with Egypt or the other neighboring nations where people are aspiring to, at the very least, a greater degree of freedom.

© 2011 Ben Tanosborn

Myanmar and the Winds of Change

Myanmar and the Winds of Change - Anuradha Kataria 5 Jan 2012 published in International Affairs Forum (Published by the Center for International Relations)

(1)

Aung San Suu Kyi is a name bigger than the nation itself and often the reason Myanmar stays in the news. Her release from detention last year brought mixed cheers as the military regime has been known to reverse their stance and detain her right back as has happened several times before. The nation’s further tentative steps towards opening up were also viewed with suspicion. But one year down the line, there seems no rolling back as Myanmar continues to shore up international confidence with ongoing voluntary reforms. US secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s recent visit seems emblematic of this growing confidence. So, are the winds of change for real this time?

Looking at its past, Burma (as it was then called) gained independence from the British colonial rule in 1948 and set out on a democratic path. The ensuing era was fraught with instability brought on by a series of political and ethnic insurrections as the nation is riven by 135 odd different ethnic communities. In 1962, there was a military coup and the junta regime came to power and has held on to it ever since. Being an authoritarian regime, Myanmar has faced harsh international sanctions, although it is not seen as such a villain in the region itself. Both India and China have maintained diplomatic as well as trade ties with it. But general political and economic isolation in an increasingly global world has hurt the nation and continued military dictatorship taken a toll on people’s spirit.

Perhaps realizing the inherent implausibility of its continued military rule, the regime started opening up starting with Suu Kyi’s release in Nov 2010. A civilian government was also instituted under Thein Sein who is widely considered as a moderate with a clean image. Several political prisoners have been released, dialogue initiated with separatist groups and media restrictions also relaxed, albeit only slightly. Aung San Suu Kyi is now allowed access to the international media as well as visitors and seems to be preparing to contest a parliamentary seat. This augurs wells for the nation as no doubt Suu Kyi is key to integrating Myanmar with the rest of the world. After decades of sacrifice and commitment, it is about time she be given her due political role in re crafting Myanmar’s future.

However, US urge for expediting reforms towards a full-fledged democracy may not be as pragmatic as it sounds on paper. If we look at a parallel here, in the early 1980s, Pakistan too went through a similar phase when the military rule was brought to a close and Benazir Bhutto, daughter of the slain leader, then an international favorite was seen as a new hope for the nation. Amidst huge popularity within the country and without, she was expected to usher in democracy and turn the country around. Democracy did come marching in full colors but the reality thereafter turned sour and things did not go as expected. This is often the fate of sudden political opening up and a turn to universal suffrage democracy in the developing world, Nepal being a recent victim of such an overhaul in the region. Factional power struggles and political opportunism take to the fore and rule of law as well as stability ironically suffer in a quest for the same.

Myanmar too has a potential for instability given the separatist movements that exist in its bordering regions as well as the drug mafia that continues to simmer despite some initiatives by the Junta. Instead of an abrupt and sudden break from the past, an evolutionary transition to democracy might be a far better option and seems to be the path Myanmar has thus far chosen for itself. Aung San Suu Kyi has a huge role to play in modernization and reintegration of Myanmar with the rest of the world. However instead of a shock therapy, which can endanger national stability, collaboration with the existing stakeholders and taking them along might be the best model for Myanmar. So long as the Junta backed leadership realizes this and continues moving forward with greater reforms, progressing even at the pace that they are, international bodies should perhaps play a more encouraging role. The much needed IMF and World Bank assistance as well as phased lifting of sanctions should be given a serious thought. They can always be rolled back should the nation backtrack on its path.

As of now the signals are positive that this time the change is for real and Myanmar is indeed set to take a break from its repressive past and step into the 21st century.