Archive for the 'Politics' Category

Some years ago, the U.S. government started a hodge podge of initiatives to bring about democracy in the Muslim world. Several of these initiatives were collectively known as the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI).

MEPI’s objectives included reform of the education systems in Muslim countries in ways that would help produce democratic / progressive leaders and tolerant societies. But the programs have not been on a perfect track thus far.

In my opinion, the original idea of investing in progressive education systems in Muslim countries is not assailable. There are indeed schools in Muslim countries that teach the opposite of tolerance and subject kids to rote learning.

To its credit the MEPI programs have funded such things as girls’ education, helped provide books to schools that needed them, and started some vocational training programs. But many of the MEPI programs focus on such ethereal things as digital classrooms in relatively poor countries, or student exchange programs, while overlooking more thoughtful initiatives that could get to the heart of the issues: unfavorable economics, a.k.a. poverty, paltry government investment in schools with progressive curricula, or in schools in general.

Key problems with education systems in Muslim countries lie with the rarity of quality public education and the popularity of Saudi-funded Wahhabi madrassas in places like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia.

It is worrying that several thousand madrassas in these countries teach rigid and extremist brands of Islam to kids between 5 and 21. While madrassas may not always graduate terrorists, many do graduate pupils who empathize with acts of terror. In political and social arenas of Muslim countries too, there is a stark divergence of views of modernists and Islamists.

The education systems in Muslim countries, as well as the problems with them, are similar. Public schools tend to offer unmotivated instructors, disorganized curricula and poor educational materials. Private schools, modeled after colonial era institutions have slightly better standards, but cater mostly to moneyed classes. In the meantime, madrassas are a cheap or free alternative–most even offer free room and board–and the strict educational leadership of zealous clerics often gives the appearance of structure and organization.

U.S. efforts, instead of relying solely on book donations, wired classrooms and exchange programs should look for smarter ways to reform education. They could focus first on building trust and collaborating with reform-minded local citizens and educators to demand far-reaching curricular reforms that promote exploratory learning.

Also needed is big money to expand the availability of public education in remote, rural areas, combined with a push to get governments to commit more resources and funding to public education. There should be greater push for accountability so that no institution is allowed to operate without licenses, and minimum standards for teaching certification must be set for instructors.

Overarching efforts, though, should focus on addressing poverty in ways that don’t necessarily involve sweeping changes. For example, one great way to go could be to expand school lunch programs in existing public schools, e.g. check out the McGovern-Dole program.

For interested U.S. citizens, a campaign for McGovern Dole is in full swing and a vote is coming up soon in Congress.

So I tend to like most things Persian - Kiarostami, miniature paintings, khoresht, the excessive use of nuts and saffron in “polow” - and almost all of whatever I have been exposed to - of Persian architecture, arts and literature. I also love how Farsi sounds.

I was chatting with a Professor of Islamic History and he pointed to me, how political Islam has had an uneasy relationship with both Iranian and Bengali society. Perhaps.

I suppose the presence of long secular cultures, very productive in the arts and literature, true for both Bengal and Persia, might create problems for certain kinds of Islamisms. Of course, the history of political Islam in any Muslim country is nothing if its not inconsistent and checkered. So it’s hard to generalize.

Another interesting analogy between Bangladeshi and Persian societies is the central role Dhaka and Tehran University have played in defining their states’ religio-political cultures.

Dhaka University, founded soon after the first Partition of Bengal, to uplift the Muslim masses of East Bengal, went from strength to strength and played a pivotal role in nationalist politics leading up to 1947. After 1947, the university changed character dramatically, as many Hindu Bengalis vacated faculty positions and were replaced by an expanding Bengali Muslim intelligentsia. An intelligentsia that was increasingly secular in the way it imagined a raison d’etre for East Pakistan, and if not that, at least culturally very proudly Bengali. In 1952, the University became a central hub of demonstrations against the Pakistani State. Again, in the ’60s, throwing their weight behind an increasingly outspoken Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the University students and faculty came under the radar of the Pakistani State. Little wonder then that many of the Pak Army’s worst atrocities were carried out on the campus during Operation Search Light.

Tehran University was founded roughly sixty years before Dhaka University. The University was formed by integrating various independent faculties and schools. Initially, heavily influenced by French curricula, after WWII, it tried to Americanize its system more. Tehran University also became a battleground on which various religious and political skirmishes were fought by those struggling for state power. Of course the students have been more than pawns in these great games - they have played a central role in them.

In 1979, when the world watched a revolution as momentous as the French or Russian, a lot of impetus to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s anti-Reza Shah rhetoric came after mass-atrocities on the TU campus. The campus fell under the control of anti-state guerrillas who made weapons and Molotov cocktails . Of course, the agitation had deeper roots. The leftist, liberal Tehran University elements also witnessed the 2,500 year-old celebration of the Persian Empire as Reza Shah threw a party to end all parties. Pro-American, anti-leftist, anti-Islamist, Reza Shah alienated many, and as draughts raged in Baluchistan and Sistan, he had two hundred chefs flown in from Paris, served a ton of caviar and spent between $50 to a $100 million dollars for lots of corporate guests, both Western and Iranian. Students of Tehran University weren’t very impressed.

Of course, the students of both Dhaka and Tehran University continue to be politically active. Although politically conscientious voices are fast disappearing on the DU campus, as Shibir cadres are increasingly ensconcing themselves there. Still DU remains a hot-bed of anti-state politics. As does TU, witnessed by the violent protests against against the closing of the reform-minded newspaper, Salam, and more recently against Mr. Ahmadenijad.

Academically, both universities are formidable with a former alumnus/a in each case, bagging a Noble Peace Prize recently: Shirin Ebadi in 2003 and Muhammad Yunus in 2006.

Bangladesh has come a long way from being perceived as what Henry Kissinger infamously called a “basket case” in the 70s. The past decade has seen stunning economic growth rates of around 5 percent—this in spite of continuous political instability and economic disruptions because of it.

Accompanied by this growth has been an expansion of the urban middle class. The Bangladeshi middle class accounts for about 9 percent of the country’s population, still low compared to Pakistan’s 18 percent and India’s 30 percent, but growing.

Anyone who has recently been to Dhaka, the Bangladeshi capital, has come back raving about the new restaurants, coffee shops, malls and new ways to spend moolah.

About five years ago, a brand new theme park opened. “Fantasy Kingdom” answered the prayers of urban kids with an urge to ride roller coasters and bumper cars superior to those found at “Shishu Park” where I have several baby pictures with my cousins. Some criticized the idea of a shiny new theme park when so many problems still plague a country where so many children still beg on the streets.

Yes, inequality in Bangladesh is still stark and most people still earn a bit less per day than the entry fee at Fantasy Kingdom. But the steady growth of the middle class can be a boon for Bangladesh if managed in the right way. This is if (with a capital “I” and capital “F”) governance improves, greater investment in the economy is allowed, taxes are actually collected, and the money is actually used to make smart investments to lift the poor.

But, regardless of this exhaustive list of things that the government could be doing with the golden economic egg, the chicken has already hatched. The question is which way the chicken will bolt.

Some trends have led us to hope. The growing middle class has already led to greater civil society participation. Impressively, the middle has shown itself to be increasingly vocal about political matters and brazen about challenging the government.

For the Club of the Optimistic (of which I am a member) these happenings could mean greater evolution and effectiveness of Bangladesh’s political institutions and in turn its economic institutions. A large enough middle class could also eventually mean more checks on the abuse of political power by the affluent, as well as more support for public investment in education, health and roads.

But I remind myself that in order for any of this to happen, the middle has to play fair. First, it has to continue to stay socially and politically aware and active. Second it has put an end to inveterate practices that still continue and serve to shut out the many at the expense of a few: e.g. bribing everyone from politicians to school headmasters to healthcare institutions to company officials.

I sincerely hope that the growing middle will rise to the occasion.

India is a country of chaos. Overcrowded streets filled with potholes, power cuts at unpredictable times, and water shortages are just the way of life in this democracy of 1.1 billion people speaking a cacophony of languages and practicing a pantheon of religions.

Somehow, the country manages to function. Sometimes, just barely.

I used to just think that all India needed to do was crank out some brainy urban planners and civil engineers from its universities and all infrastructural problems would be solved. Roads without lanes would become mere memories. If the IITs could produce brilliant computer scientists, then surely a similarly inspired institution could mint fastidious urban planners who could impose sanity upon the madness that is India.

How naive.

In India, the problem isn’t potholes, or power cuts, or taps that yield no water. The problem is democracy.

Yes, the “hard” infrastructure of roads, power lines, and water pipes is in crisis, but so too is the “soft” infrastructure of transparency, civil society, and representative government.

A recent BusinessWeek cover story “The Trouble With India,” alludes to this underlying problem, even if its subheading only references hard infrastructure, stating “Crumbling roads, jammed airports, power blackouts could hobble growth.” Indeed, India’s “revolving-door” democracy is a true “tyranny of the majority'’—its poor populist masses call the shots. Recently, a new government was voted into Tamil Nadu after it promised free color TVs to poor households. Why vote for a politician who promises shiny, wide roads when you can vote for one who promises shiny, wide TVs?

And look what happened to N. Chandrabubu Naidu, the former chief minister of Andhra Pradesh. He turned Hyderabad into Cyberabad by improving road conditions and priming the land for factories and office parks that are today the sites of R&D facilities for Google and Microsoft.

What happened to him? Two years ago, the populist masses voted him out for neglecting rural areas.

And, of course, there’s the perpetual problem of corruption. For any infrastructural project, whether it be a road, bridge, or sewer system, expect 25 percent of the budget to get siphoned off to government officials. They want their cut.

If Indian people, their politicians, and their government simply got their acts together, the subcontinent would have world-class infrastructure. Instead, the situation is so out of control that Aruna Newton, a vice president for Infosys, says, “I wish building a road was as easy as writing a software program.”

Only in India could constructing a functional road be more complex that computer coding for a transnational corporation.

Democracy, by its very nature, is an inefficient, messy way of getting things done. In comparing China and India, Daniel Vasella, an executive at the pharmaceutical company Novartis, remarks, “If you have to build a road in China, just a handful of people need to make a decision. If you want to build a road in India, it’ll take 10 years of discussion before you get a decision.”

That’s what happens when you have a diverse nation of 1.1 billion.

Does that mean India should ditch democracy in favor of a China-style authoritarian government? Of course not. It just means that the Indian populace needs to do a better job of making democracy work for them by participating in civil society and holding their leaders accountable.

Until then, India will continue being the clumsy elephant that lumbers forward, forging ahead somehow, some way.