Politics

On February 1, 2021, Myanmar woke up to the dawn of a demolished democracy as the military coup re-established itself after a delicate interval of ten years. The citizens were appalled when they discerned that the living icon of Myanmar's democracy, Aung San Suu Kyi, is under detention. This distressing event did not take much time to garner international criticism. The global adherents and defenders of democracy expressed their concerns and mourned over the apparent death of Myanmar's democracy. The coup was a response to Myanmar's November 2020 election results, an emphatic win for Aung San Suu Kyi. Tatmadaw, the Burmese army, including the senior military general Min Aung Hlaing were not satisfied with the election results and brought the military's dominance into effect once again after a decade's break. The coup's initiation stopped the country's passenger flights as per reports from Myanmar's government agency in charge of air travel. All roads to the International airport in Yangon faced road blockage on February 1 2021, as per the US Embassy reports in Myanmar.

Fragility in Civilian rule has always been a feature of Myanmar's short-lived democracy. Undemocratic militaristic hands have penned their political history from 1962 to 2011. Myanmar's military-drafted constitution was approved in a referendum in May 2008 and published in September 2008. The elections in 2010 paved the way for the victory of the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party. Only government-sanctioned political parties could register themselves for the election. The National League for Democracy, otherwise known as the NLD Party, was announced illegal during the election and Aung San Suu Kyi was under house arrest until the election ended. In 2011, NLD planned to register itself as a political party after some unanticipated reforms. Suu Kyi's NLD's democratically elected government was the first to replace a half-century-long military junta rule in Myanmar. The current rebirth of the coup seems much like a historical repetition of the firm military administration.

Myanmar coup has called for international attention, with appeals being made to the UN Security Council to contemplate the event and consider sanctions, arms embargoes, and travel bans as methods to pressure Myanmar to return to democracy. The United States did not hold itself back from sanctioning Myanmar and requested the UN to respond with similar severity. Biden announced that the executive order issued would leash Myanmar's generals from accessing $1 billion in US assets. He said that further, the new sanctions would empower his administration to freeze the United States' assets that benefitted Myanmar's military leaders while sustaining the health care support and other citizen-benefitting areas. The use of live ammunition against protestors by Myanmar security forces invited condemnation from Human Rights supporters. While Biden is taking a staunch standpoint towards Myanmar, there is a need for strategic cooperation with the international community to pressure the junta.

When on the one hand, the UK, the USA, and the European Union hold similar stances towards the Myanmar coup, China and Russia have adopted a subtle policy of holding back critical statements for the coup. China called the coup a "cabinet reshuffle", and China's ambassador, Chen Xu, said that the recent events in Myanmar are the country's internal affairs. Pro-democracy protesters in Myanmar have expressed their disappointment in China's lack of condemnation towards the coup, gathering with banners and placard in front of the Chinese embassy in Yangon. One of the many deprecatory placards read, "Myanmar's military dictatorship is made in China," as the protestors accused China of aiding the junta by flying in technical personnel and troops. Beijing responded by saying that it had no former idea about the political transition in Myanmar and dismissed all allegations on China as "ridiculous" rumours.

The military coup in Myanmar left India with "deep concern" as the Ministry of External Affairs stated, "We believe that the rule of law and the democratic process must be upheld. We are monitoring the situation closely". The coup sets the scene for a complex dynamic of setbacks and setups for India's Foreign Policy. So, far New Delhi has not followed the usual footsteps of using sanctions as a diplomatic tool to pressure Myanmar due to the north-eastern states' frangible security concerns. Previously Myanmar's military administration had sent India a letter mentioning the reasons for removing the elected government. Anurag Srivastava, the External Affairs Ministry spokesperson, while affirming the letter's arrival, chose to conceal the letter's content with silence during a news briefing. He said that as India and Myanmar are immediate neighbours sharing close cultural and people-to-people ties and are mutually dependent on trade, economy, security, and defence sectors, India will closely assess Myanmar's events.

There had been a telephonic dialogue between Modi and Biden on February 8. On February 9, a similar telephonic conversation took place between External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar and his US counterpart Antony Blinken. Anurag Srivastava further disclosed that India and the US have mutually decided for being in close contact while exchanging assessments on the current scenario in Myanmar. A discussion also took place between Jaishankar and his Australian counterpart Marise Payne, highlighting the increasing coordination among Quad members over the Myanmar coup.

It cannot be ignored that being a neighbour to Myanmar, India has shared close ties with its civilian and military administration. Hence, a balance must be aimed at to avoid any unforeseen counterattacks. With Biden and the EU tackling the coup with a strict attitude and the opportunist China seeking a personal benefit from the coup, India has to set its footsteps with a lot of contemplative discretion. The recent coup amidst an economy-distressing pandemic creates an opportunity for India to play a climacteric role in the Indo-Pacific region, an expanse of the territory where neither expansionist China nor western hegemonies have relinquished their self-interest. Thus, the yet-to-be-unfolded political, militaristic and economic consequences from the gripping coup holds a series of diplomatic twists that most status quo supporters will least appreciate.

Strikes me that Trump is the symptom, not the cause, of a greater U.S. problem. This is what makes Biden's job so tough. The challenge of his leadership.

It’s almost too easy to aim at Trump; let the district attorneys & America’s independent courts do that. This is not Biden's business, and he would be very wrong, to pursue it. (Particularly since McConnell & co; are now in the process of extracting themselves from Trump’s control.)

On January 5, in the wake of the Georgia senatorial election, the DC Republicans in the Senate & the Congress really began to get the message that Trump was a liability. On January 6, it was manifestly clear how big a liability.

Now the Republicans need to cleanse themselves of association with mob rule and Trump's demagoguery, his Proud Boys, Boogaloo guys and much else if the American Republicans are to remain a truly national party. IF. Time will tell if they are able to do it. (And if Ted Cruz & his like doesn't sink them.)

So what’s Biden to do? He’ll execute executive orders trying to reverse much of Trump's damage — environmental, the runaway of Covid-19, immigration, and the list goes on. Then Biden gets his cabinet approved. Then let the Senate have their impeachment trial; but Biden must stay well clear of it. Then provide stimulus to keep all those displaced families financially afloat. That’s the first wave.

After this, in my opinion there should be a huge infrastructure plan. This will help with global warming, underwrite new technologies, create jobs, make the US more competitive economically. Gosh, just let people drive to work in better conditions.

All these changes are important, but I think the creation of the new jobs is crucial to forming a consensus that America is headed in the right direction. Populism at its best. People with jobs and a stake in the country are not likely to become a violent mob, no matter what resentments they have. Perhaps this resentment was the source of the grievance that inspired the insurgent mob of 6th January, 2021.

America will never have total unity. Look at t realistically and I think one finds that it’s ever been more disunited than united. But I've the impression that there's now a chance for a convergence of aims, for common objectives left, right and centre. (A new populism?)

IF Biden can just get people talking to each other, for each & everyone to realize their own big Win in the total win-win. And maybe even experience the pleasure of some forward momentum after all the slimy sliding & slipping backwards and sideways. A lot could be accomplished.

Having said this, strikes me that the existence of an all-American bad cocktail of logical distrust must be noted.

In many ways American remains an impulsive, stubborn, uneducated, unenlightened nation. Tragically so sometimes. Subject to the whims & quirks of Mother Nature, the pandemic, Covid-19 -- blended with a recalcitrant & long-standing belief from a crucial part of the American population who trust their "gut feelings" more than they do Science. (Probably T's idea of drinking bleach was not original with him, but he thought it was golly-gee great.)

I assume we agree that reason, logic, Science is the way out of the Covid-19 quagmire that can cripple all other forms of American progress right now. America and elsewhere. Okay. But can the USA get to that crucial percentage of people who actually take the vaccine? And who have access to the vaccine? And who can pay for it? And a vaccine that isn't hobbled by new variants & mutations of Covid-19? Plagues tend to be persistent.

Perhaps most of all, are there enough Americans who accept the validity of Science? Not that Science is perfect. But isn’t it the best way right now for solving these immediate, dug-in, obstinate problems? Can people accept a Scientific solution in the context of a contestatory, competitive, emotional-intuitive democracy?

Hey, another challenge for the nation and its leadership.

Much remains to be done.

From Dr. John Dean ,University of Versailles,France(with special thanks to Jon Sackson & the SJC Alumni Gang).

"Views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the position of the University

The term “populism” has long been a contested one, with critics focusing on its relation to political movements as well as to styles of leadership and the relation of governments to the governed. In these initial remarks I will make a fairly simple distinction between populism of the far right and populism of the left. In whatever form it takes the notion of populism inevitably speaks to mass movements organized against ruling powers, and devolves into an “us” versus a “them,” usually attacking or (in the case of far-right populism) scape-goating those whom the movement wishes to demonize.

In the American context the notion of populism became embodied in the Populist Party, also called the Populist Party, of 1892. It seemed at first a leftist group, since it advocated economic regulation and nationalizing the railroads, but it was hostile to immigrants, regarding them as cheap labor that would displace American workers. The party was also known to support Jim Crow laws and to advocate white supremacy.

Of course, these themes resonate in many ways with the current administration—in its anti-immigrant stance, its xenophobia and racism, its hostility to the rule of law equally applied, and in its authoritarian personality cult which brooks no restraints on its exercise of power, whether it violates the Constitution or not.

Populism often perceives society as divided into competing, even hostile groups: the “pure people” versus a corrupt elite. The right-wing version tends to establish a nativist or nationalist position, with threats perceived to the people who “belong”; hence its hostility to outsiders, defined not only as foreigners but those among its own citizens deemed less worthy than “the pure people”—the deserved ones perceived as victims of the “others” from certain ethnic backgrounds who would claim an unjustified status and seek to dispossess those who were there first. For right-wing populists the phrase “American first” thus has a double meaning.

For right wing populism the enemy can also be a corrupt elite who do not comprehend the needs of the “real” folk. Of course, the leaders of this movement are themselves inevitably the elite, however much they profess to be ordinary, hardly different from those whom they claim to serve though they may not in any real sense. Right-wing populist leaders argue that they alone represent “the people,” however false such claims may be. Because leaders of such movements depend on arousing paranoia in their followers in order to maintain their hold on power, those populist movements frequently invoke and depend upon conspiracy theories to solidify their claim to save the people from such disruptive forces as elites favoring immigrants, the free press, or politicians who might seem to undermine the ruler’s legitimacy. In all such cases the movement must resist the notion of a complex, pluralist society, the very hallmark of a democratic polity.

As I’ve said, both forms of populism emphasize “the people,” but left-wing populism sees the people as sovereign, capable of understanding and addressing their plight without needing a strong-armed authoritarian leader to guide or indeed to control them. Left wing populism, of the sort recently identified with Berne Sanders, and during the last century with the progressive Wisconsin Senator Robert La Follette, also champions the little people, but its enemies tend to be unbridled and unregulated capitalism, while its goals center on social justice and frequently on some form of income redistribution. A common distinction that’s made between right and left versions is that the former can be considered as “exclusionary,” the latter as “inclusionary.” “Inclusionary” populism defines “the people” as embodying marginalized groups and minorities, whereas right-wing populism tends to place those entities outside legitimacy. But both versions focus on certain groups as oppressed, and both see the elites as the real villains, though they have different ways of defining what constitutes elitism. For the right elites tend to be those who champion progressive ideas; for the left the elites tend to be those whose financial power constrain those in the lower or middle classes.

The question of President Donald Trump’s identity as a populist is a vexing one. In many ways he epitomizes the very essence of right-wing populism, in that he purports to celebrate and defend the forgotten “little people” against globalist, wealthy, corrupt elites out to harm “his” people. In his speech at the 2016 Republican convention he promised to serve the “forgotten men and women of our country.” Trump embodies such commonplace populist traits as extoling his unique healing virtues (“I alone can fix it [the broken system in Washington],” as he flaunts his self-proclaimed role as the uniquely competent protector holding back a sea of incompetence threatening to undermine true American virtues (circa 1950). Trump’s populism insists that he represents exactly what his followers do, however vastly different from them he is in terms of wealth and status. Nevertheless, everything he does in terms of policy benefits not those folks but the wealthy; his tax cuts of 2017 did almost nothing for the people he constantly claims to serve. His allegiance to them is entirely mythic. And in a cruel irony the right-wing populist Trump does exactly what he condemns elites for doing, namely excluding citizens from full participation in democracy and usurping the power of the state to his own ends. As has been well documented, the swamp Trump promised to drain has bubbled up into his entire administration. His populist language has scarcely disguised the fact that his administration has served the needs not of his devoted followers and the working class, but instead his wealthy friends, his businesses, his own family, and his sycophantic political devotees. Nothing of course could be more indicative of how supposed populism betrays the very people it purports to benefit than his attempts to dismantle the existing health care system, even as the number of insured Americans has climbed during his presidency.

The rest of my remarks will necessarily be framed within the context of United States issues during the Covid-19 pandemic. It is well known that America has had the largest number of Corona virus cases and deaths of any country in the world--33 percent of all cases, though we have only five per cent of the world’s population. The overwhelming number of deaths have occurred in our communities of color: African-Americans and Hispanics. In some American states those groups account for only 18 percent of the total population, but over 70 percent of the deaths from the disease. It is crucial to emphasize the egregious inaction, denial, and political calculations of our President; his wanton ignoring of the disease until too late; his firing of epidemiologists, scientists, and others who called attention to the lack of availability of protective hospital equipment and ventilators; his failure to provide enough testing, thus allowing the virus to spread rampantly; his dismissal of his own administration’s guidelines for safety; his promotion of bogus cures and panaceas; his proliferation of and deceptions and outright falsehoods; his cheer-leading designed to hide truths about how the disease is transmitted, especially among communities of color; his refusal to take responsibility for public health and his shifting blame wherever he can; his skepticism about science; and his racism that reveals his seeming indifference to the mortality of minorities, not to mention his naming the outbreak “the Chinese Virus,” which led to bigoted attacks on Asian-Americans and brought not a peep of protest from Trump. This is the same phenomenon that makes Trump and his populist followers equate a fear of a virus “from abroad” with a fear of invasion by Muslims, Mexicans, and from liberals within.

Throughout the spring of 2020 there were outrageous protests from Trump supporters refusing to follow guidelines designed to flatten the curve. These protesters, overwhelmingly white, refused masks and endangered themselves as well as others around them; they staged political-style rallies, and in many instances even carried assault rifles. They cried their freedoms had been violated, and denounced mitigation efforts as “tyranny” constraining their rights to shop as they pleased. They declared that guidelines for safety had been established by elites, academics, scientists, and Trump’s political rivals attempting to bring down the economy and thereby defeat him for re-election. We had the spectacle of the President exhorting his people to take to the streets to “liberate” their cities. In effect Trump was saying his white supporters will not be enslaved to a quarantine, perhaps as so many Black people, needed as essential workers, had to be. Trump praised those demonstrators, because he needed the re-opening of the country to validate his concern for the economy over human life. He has, of course, been notoriously silent on the astronomical death totals, as if those lives count for less than his beloved stock market figures. Such demonstrations included the shooting of a store employee who asked a customer to wear a face mask.

At the heart of numerous such aggressions lies the core of the populist issue in America. The word “epidemic” comes from the Greek “epi” [among] and “demos” [people]. An epidemic, especially a pan-demic (all the people), literally reflects our current mantra: “We are all in this together,” and recalls the American precept “We the people.” But even in the midst and the context of the pandemic there appears a visible cleavage in “the people,” especially, as I have suggested, in how each group—left and right—differently defines elites, and thus differently defines populists. The left sees elites as those with excessive wealth, who exercise unrestrained power while threatening the common good; for the left, populists are the mass of people who ideally form a social contract, a community where everyone strives to work for the benefit of all. Freedom here means an inclusive respect for all people.

The right, on the other hand, defines elites as out-of-touch intellectuals who favor immigration, seek to aid and protect the disadvantaged because of their minority status or poverty, and write for the press. The right disdains appeal for universal health care, and an expanded safety net. For the right populists are largely white, rural, lower middleclass blue-collar workers, and American first-ers, suspicious of international alliances, of identity politics, of science and expertise and of any who do not look and sound like them. You may remember that during Trump’s 2016 campaign he said, “I love the un-educated.” Trump’s populists believe both in the power of authoritarianism as embodied in their leader, and ironically that government is not to be trusted, which makes them adore the Trump who “governs” by dismantling government, an especially deadly position when the pandemic cried out for a clear national policy, applied early on, which of course would have saved tens of thousands of lives.

This right-wing populism regards its freedom to do anything it pleases, as stemming from a condition of innately superior whiteness. Freedom is freedom only for themselves. For such populists individual liberty is more important than life itself. This too is ironic, since the very people who constitute Trump’s mainly rural base are disproportionately prone to chronic illnesses, given their lower rates of health insurance, often their distance from grocery stores selling fresh and nutritious vegetables and fruits, their dependence on opiates, and their resistance to guidelines about healthy eating.

In his blatant appeal to the underclass, Trump has really been preparing for a moment such as now, when the “un-educated” resist the warnings of science and other experts, and above all, are swayed by conspiracy theories. These include such absurdities as that the virus is a hoax, that death figures are inflated by scientists and Democrats, even that the dreadful images from hospital intensive care units appearing each night on TV are fabricated. Trump resembles his supporters who are impervious to facts, and they in turn follow him because his position never threatens their beliefs—though of course the disease itself will and has already threatened them a great deal.

This right-wing populism is dangerously close to fascism. As the Irish writer Fintan O’Toole has written, for Trump natural “winners” (i.e., the powerful and the rich—"real men”) do not get sick, only losers (i.e., the poor, Blacks, Hispanics) do. This is why he displays so little empathy for the dead, so many of whom are from those groups for which he has little regard. For Trump populists of the left are expendable.

Let me turn now to issues of food in the time of pandemic, and I’ll try to connect these issues to what I’ve been saying so far.

I will begin with something not widely known outside the U.S. We have long had a robust program of food stamps which allow impoverished Americans to get groceries at considerable discounts. Over five million of the poorest children in the U.S. depend on the program. But during the pandemic this program has been decimated by the Trump administration. In addition, Trump’s administration has cancelled food programs for children. As a result, nearly twenty percent of young children now go hungry, and many families do without enough food in order to buy needed medicine, or to pay their rent. Many of those children have depended on lunches at school, but of course those meals no longer exist since schools are closed.

Republicans have opposed proposals to make food more available to Americans suddenly out of work. Why? Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize economist, argues that Trump and his followers believe that increasing food aid will reduce incentives to work and increase laziness among the poor, which is preposterous since most of those who suffer are not even able to get work because so many businesses have failed; and if workers do elect to return to work it could be fatal for them. Trump is reluctant to help the poor lest they demand a stronger safety net, thus running up against right wing resistance to the social contract.

In addition, we have seen pictures of mile-long lines of cars, driving to so-called food banks, desperate to get free food since their incomes have disappeared. It is alarming for us in America to see such images, reminiscent of the poor lining up at soup kitchens during the Great Depression of the 1930s.

On another note about populism, the food supply chain is beginning to break down, in part because some of the greatest concentrations of Corona virus cases have appeared in meat-packing plants, which are manned almost entirely by Blacks and Hispanics. They work close to one another, and the infections spread rapidly. Trump recently ordered these seemingly disposable people back to work, but many quit (populists ultimately revolt if their lives are at stake and no one seems to care). Trump wants to “liberate” these food factories, but as a result those who work there will infect not only one another but many others in their towns and communities. What Trump overlooks is that public health and the economy are tied together—they are one and the same thing, and to deny that is suicidal.

The restaurant industry in America, as everywhere, is in dire shape. Unlike with airlines, there has been no government bailout for restaurants, despite the fact that in the U.S. they employ over eleven million people. The closing, uncertain survival, and perhaps ultimate demise of so many restaurants will have profound effects on urban life. Not only are people deprived of the pleasures of dining out, neighborhoods, which become lively and livable when restaurants are in their midst, will lose their attractiveness, thus bringing other community businesses down in their wake. Again, minority workers will suffer out of proportion: many of the kitchen staff jobs are serviced by African-Americans and Hispanics, who will either lose their jobs or, if restaurants open too soon and they return out of economic necessity, risk illness or death.

There are new possible models for restaurants: greater space between tables, fewer customers allowed in, dining-in places transformed to take-out or even to food shops. One restaurant in Amsterdam has diners sit in “personal quarantine greenhouses,” cozy little spaces for a single table; their waiters wear gloves and face shields, and serve dishes on long boards to diners. Is this our new dystopian universe? Will food no longer be something that gives us pleasure, but rather gives us pause? Does every bite taken have to come with a warning? I don’t mean that food itself will be contaminated, but that the conditions for consumption must be constantly wondered about. In this dystopian scenario the very things that make urban living so attractive may disappear, or be less attractive to us. At the very least, populism in the best sense of the term demands we do whatever is necessary to protect the safety and welfare of all of us. But I deeply worry about the joy that will continue to leach out our lives, and the grave loss of life, livelihood, and love of cooking that will affect both restaurateur and their customers.

Meanwhile, on a happier note, as we stay sheltered in place, we have learned to become home cooks, not at all a bad thing. Many people have suddenly started to bake, emptying store shelves of flour and yeast. Americans have become addicted to home-made banana bread, Russian rye bread, and baguettes. Are Indians making chapati, dosa, and paratha in home ovens? Are the people of El Salvador baking beloved pupusas in their own kitchens? Are Iranians frying sangak on hot pebbles on their stoves? Call this a new gastro-populism, certainly a domestic self-sufficiency that momentarily may help alleviate the absence of our favorite dining places and give us rewarding ways to quarantine.

We might think ever more seriously about Alice Waters’ important plan to have all grade schools in America plant gardens, so children may learn exactly where their produce comes from. Such culinary self-reliance may be just the thing that’s needed in these times. Call it a version of gastronomical populism.

Perhaps we will have returned to our grandmothers’ ways, when the entire family gathered around the home table. We can do this now only with those in our own household, or if we are eating alone, in a family of one. But there are far worse ways to spend our days, and I hope when we finally return to a semblance of normal, if we ever do, we can retain some of these practices as not only compensations, but deep satisfactions, even profound enticements.

Roger Porter is a Emeritus Professor of English and Humanities at Reed College,Portland,United States

With Bernie Sanders' exit from the race to the White House, the Democratic Party has now been relieved of the pressures of fighting in an almost pure ideological campaign against President Trump. Joe Biden doesn't seem to possess the same love for Socialism that Sanders does. Throughout his hard fought campaign to be the Democratic Party's nominee, Sanders showed commitment to a total restructuring of the healthcare system in the United States. He even went to the extent of calling himself a 'Democratic Socialist', a term that is not easily accepted in mainstream America. Biden on the other hand offers a contrasting scenario, a scenario without promises of total restructuring and an all out war against the 'Billionaires' who have been on the receiving end of Sanders' wrath. It could even be said that the Democratic primaries of 2020 were in a way a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party.

With the outbreak of COVID-19 in the United States, President Trump now has a situation on his hand that will not only challenge his administration's ability to handle a national crisis, but also ask fundamental questions about the state of Healthcare in the United States. Joe Biden has been relentless in attacking the President for his lack of commitment and action during such a national crisis. A very important point to talk about is the contrast in the campaigns of Sanders and Biden. Bernie Sanders made it visibly clear that his ultimate aim was to wage a war against the billionaires of the United States who in his opinion were the major reason for America's lackluster performance in the field of Public Health, Transport, labour management, etc. Biden on the other hand chose his own path without any references to a class war. It is important to debate Trump's feelings about both the front-runners of the Democratic Party.

Trump has not been soft in expressing his antagonism towards both Democrats. However, political logic should tell us that Trump's Ukraine Scandal and the allegations surrounding it indicates his insecurity vis-à-vis Joe Biden as a Presidential Candidate. It is perhaps Trump's feeling that Joe Biden will be a tougher opponent to beat due to his lack of core ideological commitments as opposed to Sanders. Sanders would have made it easier for Trump to talk about 'America First' and target him for his grand socialist agenda without a clear plan as to how he was going to achieve them. Joe Biden seems to have a clear plan as it was visible during the Democratic Primaries and Debates. Biden was able to corner Sanders on several fronts, especially on Sanders' blind commitment to certain ideological goals and the lack of a pragmatic or realistic approach to policy. It was quite clear from the debates that Bernie Sanders was not able to refrain from making ideologically motivated comments. Most of his justifications relied primarily on ideological issues. There were moments in certain debates where Sanders got repetitive and couldn't stand the volley of questions from Biden and the other candidates.

The focus of Biden's campaign is to counter Trump with an already available framework. To get the system to work, rather than turning it upside down with promises of a working class revolution. Biden will also be relying on his performance as Vice President in the Obama administration. Trump's major challenge now would be to keep his appeal alive given the fact that Biden doesn't have a hardline stance on any issue. Biden has been promoting himself as someone who can appeal to both sides of the economic divider, as someone who can make changes in taxation policies without hurting the 'Billionaires' to the level of Bernie Sanders. Biden didn't shy away from addressing issues that have been at the core of Sanders' campaign, but he hasn't been ideologically motivated when has done so. His campaign sticks to simplicity and pragmatism, this approach will make life difficult for Trump as Biden will continue expanding his voter base. However, Biden will have the difficult challenge of winning over

the voter base of Sanders which has so far been motivated by ideologically derived promises and grand socialist plans to transform the economy. Sanders' exit from the race only goes to prove that the United States as a society is perhaps not yet ready to accept Socialism as a functional governing ideology.

With Sanders dropping out of the race to the White House, it is probably safe to say that November 2020 will be less ideological and more pragmatic. The people can expect the campaign to be based primarily on ongoing problems and not grand accusations on Socialism or Crony Capitalism. This also makes it difficult to predict a winner. In the absence of core ideological questions and debates, the focus will be on performance and practical questions on Healthcare, Foreign Policy, Economy.

Conflict resources or blood resources are resources that are born out of conflict areas. They are exported or sold from an area of conflict or war, essentially acting as a source of funding for the same conflict or war.

Many countries in the west of the African continent such as Liberia, Angola, Sierra Leone, Cote d’Ivoire following the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, descended into a state of chaos with civil war breaking out in most of these countries. This, having coincided with the discovery and development of diamond resources in the region, proved to be a deadly combination. As conflicts escalated, the diamond industry in these regions was exploited for financing the war causes in the region. Rebel groups and warring factions gained control of diamond mines, proceeds from which were used to finance their causes through purchase of arms and ammunition. These diamonds therefore, having been born out conflict, become “blood diamonds”, leading us to the title. Blood Diamond is a political/war thriller film directed by Edward Zwick and written by Charles Leavitt. It stars Leonardo DiCaprio as Danny Archer, Jennifer Connelly as Maddy Bowen and Djimon Hounsou as Solomon Vandy. The story is set in the 1991-2002 civil war time in Sierra Leone, portraying the brutal conflict between the government forces and rebel forces that causes the loss of lives of countless innocent men, women and children. However, the central character of the story are the blood diamonds. It depicts the despicable atrocities committed by either factions of the war and beyond, specially surrounding the mining and trade of diamonds to fund their violence.

The plot begins by following the daily life of a Mende fisherman and his family in Sierra Leone, Solomon Vandy. However, as the insurgent soldiers (Revolutionary United Force or RUF) barge into his village, pillaging, plundering and murdering innocent lives, Solomon’s life is changed forever too. He is separated from his family and is taken to work at a diamond mine controlled by the RUF in Kono. He mines a large pink diamond at the mine, one he seeks to hide by burying but the camp is soon attacked by government forces. Solomon survives but is imprisoned. After a series of events, he meets ex-soldier and white Rhodesian diamond smuggler Danny Archer in prison, who has now learned about the pink diamond that is hidden. Archer promises Vandy that he “knows white people” and that in return for the diamond, Vandy shall be reunited with his family. Archer wants the diamond because it would help him leave the continent by it would fetch a large sum of money. Maddy Bowen, an American journalist who is trying to establish a connect between these blood diamonds and western diamond companies, joins their hunt after she discovers that Archer has connections with Van De Kaap. Following this plot line, the film successfully traces the poignant realities of political instability, political and economic exploitation of commoners, child soldiers, war crimes and finally, western capitalism and its indifference towards these realities that they exploit for their own good.

Liberal View

Although realism is considered a leading theory in international politics, liberalist ideologies also have often been at the forefront of international relations theories. (Baylis and Smith, 2007) Liberalism holds that humans are inherently good and that they have a tendency to progress in terms of their moral and material condition (Naaz, 2012). Throughout the movie, even when times are the worst, the audience are often reminded that there is hope. On their way to Kono, Archer and Vandy meet Benjamin Margai, a kind, compassionate man who runs a rehabilitation center for rescued child soldiers. In one of the scenes, Margai says to Archer, “My heart always told me that people were inherently good.”. He says that no matter what, despite what he has seen, he believed that a moment of love could change a man’s life. This is an expression of optimism and hope about human nature and more importantly, the understanding that humans are capable of change.

In another scene, when Solomon remembers his son, he expresses hope that when the war is over, his son will study hard and become a doctor. This also takes us back to one of the first few scenes of the movie where Solomon speaks to Dia, his son, on his way back from school. Dia speaks of what he learned about utopia and says, “Some day, when the war is over, our world will be a paradise.”

During one of the exchanges between Danny and Maddy at the bar, we get an insight into Maddy’s liberal perspective of the war. Once, as the interaction between them becomes heated, Maddy condemns Archer’s pessimist view of the people of Africa and the conflict in Sierra Leone. She truly believes that it is the system that is to be blamed, not the people for their truly devastated condition and that if the African people worked together, things would get better. It is also this sentiment that bites her when she is forced to write about the victims’ sufferings only. According to liberalism, bad human behaviour, which is responsible for injustice and war, is actually the result of corrupt social institutions and misunderstandings among leaders (Naaz, 2012). This belief is what motivates her to conduct an investigation and gather information from Danny about Van De Kaap and his association with blood diamonds, to push his corruption into public light. And she does succeed in doing so, her story revealed enough information about blood diamonds and the corrupt institutions that exploited their production to initiate the Kimberley Process Certificate, a process that verifies that the origin of diamonds sold in the market are truly conflict free.

Realist View

Realism is a theory in international relations that maintains that the principal actors in the international arena are states, each acting in its rational self-interest within an environment of international anarchy. No overarching or sovereign authority exists to control the actions of states or relations among or between them. (Basu, 2012)

The film is a political thriller that revolves around a raging civil conflict that is also far more complex than it seems. Hence, it is no surprise that when viewed through the realist perspective, most characters and plot driving events are driven by ego, self-interest and greed. Most of their actions are carried out not with concern for mutual cooperation or benefit but out of concern for what they are to receive in return. During one of the first scenes, Captain Poison begins to chop of arms of innocent men but when he comes across Solomon, he recruits him to work at the insurgent controlled mine, to their own benefit. Later, when he sees the pink diamond with Solomon, he threatens Solomon to hand it over to him. It is obvious that the Captain sought to keep it for himself and as we learn towards the end of the film, he had thought of it as his ticket out of the country (as he tells Solomon). In the same scene, the Captain says to , “You think I am the devil, but it is only because I have lived in hell.” This is a great insight, specially in the context of neo-realism. Kenneth Waltz's theory emphasizes the importance of the structure of the international system and its role as the primary determinant of state behaviour. (Baylis and Smith, 2007) This theory of Waltz is today known as having laid the foundations of neo-realism. It is reflective of a larger picture in which individuals, as well as nations are forced to adopt harsher modes of action due to pressure from the environment around them.

The situation is not very different for Danny either. During one of the conversations between Maddy and Danny where they drink palm wine, he tells her that his circumstances, having grown up with a terrible childhood without parents had made him so tough.

Also, very importantly, we see an interaction between Commander Zero and Archer in the beginning of the movie where we are presented a very insensitive way of interaction. They very casually talk of a deal of weapons (grenade launchers) in return for diamonds, all for the self-interest of either sides. Danny is even ready to go make a deal with the government.

Realists primarily emphasize on power, national interest, security and the centrality of the nation state. They believe in the constancy of human nature, which can be both good and evil. In the quest for security, nations try to build up resources. Realists do not believe that the imposition of normative values or patterns of ‘standard’ behaviour upon states is feasible or realistically sustainable.(Basu, 2012) In most instances of the movie, Danny is driven by his own motives - he tries to advance his own goals and achievements in an attempt to secure his own present and future. He tries to manipulate Solomon by promising his family to find the pink diamond, he asks Maddy to find Solomon’s family in return for sensitive details that Maddy needed for her investigation. He is rarely concerned with the morality of his actions, at least not in the first half of the plot. Talking about his time in Angola, Danny says, “We thought we were fighting Communism, but in the end, it was all about who gets what, ivory, oil, gold and diamonds. So, one day I decided, I’m going to get mine.”

Captain Poison also manipulates many people into working for him, by indoctrinating in them his beliefs. He even manipulates the child soldiers and sends them out to kill and die for him and the RUF.

There are multiple instances in the movie that hint at the belief that the African continent is inherently prone to violence and conflict. “How can my own people do this to each other?”, Solomon says, with a tone of sadness and hopelessness. “I know good people who say there is something wrong with us, inside our black skin. That we were better off when the white man ruled.” TIA - This is Africa is a term that is often used in the movie, also to hint at the pessimism that surrounds the idea of peace and political stability in Africa. It is a way of saying that Africa has no hope and the people of Africa condemned to this life of war, death and violence.

A realist would say that the conflicts in Africa are born out of inherent tendencies to conflict.

Marxist Perspective

Marxism is a critical theory of international relations that asserts that the international political system is integrated into the global capitalist system in pursuit of capitaal accumulation. Hence, colonialism bestowed sources for raw materials and to capture markets for exports, while decolonialization brought new and more opportunities in the form of economic dependence. (Basu, 2012) Marxism believes that not only do the capitalist bourgeoisie influence the economic spheres in a nation but they also extend their devious influence over the political spheres of a nation. The State therefore, is a mere puppet in the hands of the bourgeoisie that uses the State as a tool for exploiting the ‘proletariat’ or the working class for their own gains. And according to Marxism, the most important tool of exploitation here is war fought under the garb of nationalism. Marxism proposes that war is only an instrument of exploitation for the capitalist class.

In the movie, neither the RUF nor the government really works for the common people of the country. The RUF especially, is concerned primarily with the material gains from the war. It is only in their slogans that they really “fight for the people”. Marxist theories aim to expose a deeper, underlying-indeed hidden-truth. This is that the familiar events of world politics-wars, treaties, international aid operations-all occur within structures that have an enormous influence on those events. These are the structures of a global capitalist system. Any attempt to understand world politics must be based on a broader understanding of the processes operating in global capitalism. (Baylis and Smith, 2007) More deviously, therefore, we see the Van De Kaap Diamonds Company, a capitalist institution that exploits the ongoing war for their profiteering motives. The Company purchases diamonds at a cheaper rate from conflict areas and locks them up underground to prevent them from driving the price down in the market (which could happen if they flood the market directly), ultimately benefiting themselves from the stabilized high prices. They worry not one bit of the bloodshed that they finance, with every diamond they purchase.

This is a prime example for Marxist explanations on capitalist exploitation of wars.

Game of Thrones (GoT), the much-celebrated American fantasy drama television series is set in a feudal setup. The show follows a cataclysmic quest among several noble families to either gain control over the throne or attain independence from it, in the mythical lands of Westeros and Essos and also features a story arc of an impending threat to humankind from supernatural humanoid creatures. The show employs a plethora of fantasy and mystical allusions in its narrative, like dragons, resurrection, green sight, ice zombies, shadow demons and thus would give an impression that its not prevalent as a specimen to study International Relations, but it is clearly otherwise. The plot follows the major houses in the landmass of Westeros, namely the Starks, Lannisters, Baratheons, Targaryens, Greyjoys, Tyrells, Martells etc engaged in a bloody feudal tussle to claim the Iron Throne, both a physical seat of office and a metonym for the monarchy of Westeros. In addition to the noblemen, there exist other groups of characters like the Wildlings or ‘Free Folk’, who are thought of as barbarians and are thus segregated from the rest of the population using a wall, a Mongol like horde of warriors called the Dothraki and the Unsullied, a band of eunuch militia, all of whom impact the storyline in some way or the other.

REALISM:

GoT’s depiction of sex, violence, witty banter and ice zombies have proved the show’s mettle over time, but its bountiful portrayal of complex political theories has stepped up its ante. All the great Houses in GoT, impulsively act to further their National Interests and thus the portrayal of realism is central to the plot. Cersei Lannister’s assertion and the show’s most iconic dialogue, “When you play the Game of Thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground” lies in perfect sync with Realism’s depiction of an environment of international anarchy, with an absence of an overarching sovereign authority (Martin, A Game of Thrones, 1996). A state’s primary goal in such a situation is survival, and in order to achieve this goal the Houses in GoT often face a security dilemma, where a lord/lady can summon his/her bannermen in the event of an imminent war and can forge alliances and also betray them to achieve their own self interests. For instance, Tywin Lannister had turned against his King, Aerys II Targaryen and aided Robert Baratheon’s army in the sack of King’s Landing, when he saw it as an opportunity to cultivate his House’s interests with the new monarch and augmenting its power and influence in Westeros (Fandom, 2011). Tywin Lannister stands out as one of the skilled forerunners of the realist foreign policy as his decisions are based on power calculations as opposed to the Starks’ moral code of governance. He was able to lead his House to victory in the War of the Five Kings and consolidate his grandson’s position as the King by employing strategic alliances with the Boltons in the North, Freys in the Riverlands and the Tyrells in the Reach, which resulted in the successful routing of the secessionists. The relative level of power of Hose Tyrell, determined its relations with the other Houses throughout the run of the series. Tyrells had access to fertile lands and large armies and thus all Houses sought an alliance with them, beginning from Renly Baratheon, the Lannisters and finally Daenerys Targaryen. The Tyrell women, Olenna and Margaery are some other notable practitioners of realism, each acting for their rational self-interests.

LIBERALISM:

In the brutal feudal polity of GoT, overrun by civil war, turmoil and use of force, liberals are very difficult to find. Most characters are deeply conservative who believe in traditional values and detest democracy. But there are certain characters and incidents on the show, which reflect the world of Mill, Bentham and Kant, and the greatest contenders are the Wildlings or as they call themselves, the “Free Folk’. The Free Folk beyond the Wall don’t follow a hereditary system of governance and instead elect the ‘King Beyond the Wall’, don’t pay taxes, don’t bend the knee to anyone and have liberal attitudes to sexual and moral codes (Martin, A Clash of Kings, 1998). They have survived for thousand of years despite attempts by the Night’s Watch, the White Walkers and the Northerners to decimate them, which is testimony to the robustness of a liberated society. The traditionalists, i.e. the majority population of Westeros abhor such ideologies which propound democracy over aristocracy and thus deem the Wildlings as ‘savages with no loyalty’ and have segregated them by erecting a Wall. Similarly, the Ironborn who resemble the Vikings are also portrayed as proto liberals, who hold Kingsmoots to elect the most powerful man/woman as the Monarch. Lastly, the only men in the Seven Kingdoms who could be classified as consistent, striving liberals are fellow Brothers of the Night Watch, Jon Snow and Samwell Tarly. Jon’s response to immigration, alliances in the times of war, issues of social integration bring out the liberal in him and cements his belief that human nature is innately good and people have the capacity to improve their moral and material conditions and pave the way for progress. He unites the Wildlings, the Targaryen entourage and the Northern Houses to battle the White Walkers and the impending ‘Long Night’, which could be understood as an allegory for climate change in present sense (Dasgupta, 2019). He did so by fostering cooperation, trust and following a pragmatic foreign policy. Samwell Tarly was the first and last character on the show, to suggest democracy as a form of government in Westeros, which wasn’t meet with a very warm reception by the other characters.

MARXISM:

GoT is centred around a feudal society and is hence the breeding ground for the tenets of Marxism. Society is primarily divided into two classes, the Monarchs with their ministers and lords who own property and land, whom Marx would categorise as the Bourgeoisie and the majority of the population, who toil for their masters, i.e. the Proletariats. The Houses keep fighting each other throughout the length of the series to advance their own interests and get the have nots to fight their wars for them (Basu, 2017). Not only did the War of the Five Kings redraw the political map of Westeros, but it also brought immense suffering to the poor peasants. They were constantly raided and pillaged to feed the various armies and in case their lord was defeated, the rival forces sacked their granaries, raped their women and massacred them. There are many instances on the show, which bear close resemblance to a Proletariat Revolution like the Riot of King’s Landing, where the citizens disgruntled with the shortage of food and dissatisfied by King Joffrey’s tyrannous ways revolt almost capture the royal family; the activities of the Brotherhood Without Banners, who have no allegiance to any House and are protectors of the ‘small folk’ etc. The High Sparrow, the head of the Faith Militant aptly represents the Proletariat class, which lives on the verge of death due to the means of production being held by the Bourgeoise. During a heated conversation with Jaime Lannister, he says that even though they are insignificant in number, they can unite to topple an entire empire (Mishra, 2016). The High Sparrow gives the proletariats hope, as he promises a life without serfdom and as religion becomes the opium of the masses, the Faith Militant along with the citizens establish a dictatorship of the proletariats. Similarly, Daenerys Targaryen, after noticing the misery of the slaves in Slaver’s Bay, unleashes her dragons on the slave masters to restore the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lastly, the fourth episode of the concluding season was aired on May 5,2019- Karl Marx’s birthday (Balan, 2019). In the episode, Varys had reminded Tyrion Lannister that his loyalty truly lay with the people and not his Queen. Varys intended to rid the people off despotism and understood the class struggle really well.

According to the Guardian, 50000 people have been killed and 24 million people are in need of humanitarian aid after 4 years of a brutal civil war in Yemen. This is what Yemen looks like today. The roots of the conflict can be traced back to the arrival of the Arab Spring in Yemen in 2011 and the democratisation of the country. There has been a direct conflict in the region since 2014, when the Shia Houthi rebels overtook the capital Sanaa and caused the existing President Mansur Hadi to flee to Saudi Arabia. Since then, the situation has only worsened, especially for the civilians. What initially started out as an internal conflict between two religious factions, the Sunni government and the Shia minorities now has various sides: the Shia Houthi rebels, allegedly supported by Iran; the Sunni government of Yemen led by Hadi Mansur, which is supported by Saudi Arabia; the separatists in the South, supported by the UAE; and the terrorist groups, Al Qaeda and IS taking advantage of the lax security situation in the country.

A possible way to explain the involvement of all these players and their interest in the region is the realist proposition of international relations that centers around the perpetual need for power and propagating self-interest. The conflict between the Sunni Hadi government and the Shia Houthi rebels can be seen as a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, both of which aim to attain control of the Middle East region, taking on the role of the regional hegemon. They have been supporting opposing sides in a number of civil wars, like the Syrian and Iraq too. Saudi Arabia considers itself the leader of the Muslim world, partly on account of its control of the holy places of Mecca and Medina. Saudi Arabia has constantly tried to fix its position as the leader of the Gulf region, through efforts like the proposal to form a Gulf Union in order to strengthen ties between the Middle Eastern countries, in the wake of the political instability of Arab Spring and Arab Winter. The UAE, which was initially supporting Saudi Arabia’s contentions in Yemen, changed it stance and started supporting the Southern separatists. The terrorist groups are trying to further their own self interests in the region. None of them are concerned about the killing of civilians, the famine, the outbreak of cholera, the possible war crimes and the fact that Yemen is facing the worst humanitarian crisis ever. Hospitals and schools are being bombed, children are dying and yet the struggle for power continues unhindered.

According to the report by Human Rights’ Watch, the Houthi rebels have conducted unlawful air strikes, and indiscriminate artillery attacks on homes, markets, hospitals and schools alike. The Houthis, the UAE and the Saudi backed Yemeni government have all arbitrarily detained people, including children and kept them in poor conditions. The Houthis have also taken hostages, which is a war crime. In Aden, guards tortured, raped, and executed migrants and asylum seekers, including children, from the Horn of Africa in a detention center. The authorities denied asylum seekers an opportunity to seek refugee protection and deported migrants en masse to dangerous conditions at sea, according to the documentation by the Human Rights Watch. The Saudi-led coalition’s restrictions on imports have worsened the dire humanitarian situation. The coalition has delayed and diverted fuel tankers, closed critical ports, and stopped goods from entering Houthi-controlled seaports. Fuel needed to power generators to hospitals and pump water to homes has also been blocked.

Houthi forces have blocked and confiscated food and medical supplies and denied access to populations in need. They have imposed onerous restrictions on aid workers and interfered with aid delivery. The Houthis have detained students, human rights defenders, journalists, perceived political opponents, and members of the Baha’i religious community. A group of local journalists have been detained in Sanaa for more than three years. The Saudi-led coalition and Yemeni government forces have also harassed, intimidated, and arrested activists and journalists. Since May 2017, the coalition has restricted travel routes for journalists and international human rights organizations.

United Nations, as an international organisation, is supposed to avoid such humanitarian issues and intense conflicts, but in the five years of direct conflict in Yemen, which involved a whole host of international players, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Bahrain, Qatar, Sudan, the UAE and even the United States of America indirectly, the UN has failed to effectively curb the conflict or reach a solution. Though it has made some vague efforts in this direction, like the resolution demanding the withdrawal of the Houthis in 2016, which had no grave impact and the support extended to the Hodeidah agreement, the crisis continues to worsen with each passing day.

The role played by the USA in the conflict also talks about the perpetual need for the propagation of self interest. USA has been the largest supplier of arms and ammunition to Saudi Arabia as well as in providing military training. Saudi Arabia in turn made use of these weapons to carry out direct attacks in Yemen against the Houthi rebels, in turn, also killing a lot of civilians, including children. USA is dependent on Saudi Arabia for oil and Yemen is also home to a large faction of the Al Qaeda. Moreover, considering the USA's tensions with Iran, it would only gain by siding with Saudi Arabia. USA is, therefore, being held responsible for a lot of the human rights violations happening there, and there is immense international pressure on USA to stop being a party to it.

The recent striking of the Saudi oil fields by the Houthi rebels in Yemen raise very serious global concerns regarding the spread of the Yemen conflict outside Yemen. Most of the Middle Eastern countries are already a party in the conflict, the direct fighting just needs to go beyond the boundaries of Yemen. There needs to be a serious decision and intervention in Yemen, in order to find a long term solution for this problem. A federal government needs to be established with proper representation of all communities, including the Shia Muslims, as well as the Southern Yemeni population, to make sure that everyone’s interests are represented and a balance of power is reached. However, this transition needs to occur soon before the entire civilian population of Yemen is wiped out.

Suffering under Beijing repression, Tibet is one of the least free regions in the world in terms of civil liberties and political rights. According to Freedom House, Tibet is the second least free area next only to Syria. After the takeover of Tibet in 1959, the People’s Republic of China has instituted extreme policies for regional assimilation. In 1949, the Chinese Communist Party adopted the minority policies which was based on Stalinist theory of national minorities. Different autonomous areas were established at different regions. Tibet was also one of them. The minority policies created the two tier structure in nation building process in China i.e. the national “upper level” and “lower level”. Fifty six minority nationalities were listed under the “lower level”.

China’s minority policies included severe religious restrictions and forced denunciations of the Dalai Lama, bans on the formal study of the Tibetan language, and forced resettlement of traditionally grassland nomads. All these culminated in a series of protests and riots in Tibet. But one act of protest in particular stunned the world: on 27 February 2009, in Ngawa City, a young Tibetan monk – Tapey – self-immolated and set the precedent for an extreme form of protest. Since then, self-immolation has become one of the mediums in Tibet to protest against Chinese authority.

Recently, on 08 December 2018, a young Tibetan man set himself on fire outside a district security office in China's Sichuan province. He is the latest Tibetan to attempt self-immolation over repressive Chinese policies in Tibet. According to the Central Tibetan Administration, since 2009, at least 153 persons (127 Male and 26 Female) self-immolated. According to data compiled by Central Tibetan Administration, 2012 and 2013 witnessed the highest self-immolations. (2009: 1; 2011:12; 2012: 85; 2013: 26; 2014: 11; and 2015: 7; 2016: 3; 2017: 6; 2018: 2)

The Dalai Lama has had difficulties on the issue of self-immolation ever since the first one by Tapey. He has advocated ‘middle way’ path that refers peaceful protest and deserves credit for dissuading the protesters from violence in most instances. His response on self-immolation is typified. In an interview to The Hindu on July 9, 2012 the Dalai Lama said:

This is a very, very delicate political issue. Now, the reality is that if I say something positive, then the Chinese immediately blame me. If I say something negative, then the family members of those people feel very sad. They sacrificed their own life. It is not easy. So I do not want to create some kind of impression that this is wrong. So the best thing is to remain neutral.

On other hand, in another interview, the Dalai Lama made had praised the courage of those who engage in self-immolation and blamed the self-immolations on “cultural genocide” by the Chinese. In saying that those Tibetans who killed themselves were gallant, the Dalai Lama showed his approval and in fact endorsed suicide.

Importantly, since the first self-immolation, the Tibetan people have seen almost no substantive improvement of their condition. Worse, the Chinese government has responded to the protests with a surge in activity by security forces, a propaganda campaign against the protesters and punishments for protester’s families and communities. Self-immolators who survived their protests have been detained and the whereabouts and condition of many of them is still unknown. Beijing has described the protests as “violent behavior whose aim is to create an atmosphere of terror” and accused the Dalai Lama of instigating the protests.

Though on the ground, the self-immolations have achieved at least one of their goals, which is that they attracted the world’s attention to their struggle. But an imperative is also on that the Dalai Lama and other Tibetan Buddhist authorities did not take any particular decision to curb religiously motivated suicides. Too many have died; after more than 150 self-immolations, another one will not anymore change the world’s perspective on the oppression of Tibet.

There is no doubt about Tibetans’ intense sense of frustration that has led them to resort to such extreme means, but there are other ways to make those feelings clear. The most disturbing issue here is the Dalai Lama and other authorities could have very easily put a stop to these pointless deaths. It is right time for the Dalai Lama to take decision without any hesitation and dilemma. He must definitively and without reservation urge his followers to employ those other ways of protest.

The release of the final draft of National Register of Citizens (NRC) has sent waves of uproar and anxiety across the state of Assam as almost four million people have left out from it. The NRC published on July 30th has put the citizenship of a handful people in Assam into uncertainty. Although political leaders and Supreme Court are assuring that this draft is not the final one, it is the same Assam’s power-play politics and the Supreme Court which spearheaded this filtration exercise whereby all the Indian citizens in Assam is exclusively categorized.

Inspired by the protest and agitation from indigenous Assamese on accounts of their conviction that the influx of illegal migrants, especially the Bangladeshi Muslims, the Guwahati based NGO, the Assam Public Works, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court. This PIL sought to remove the “illegal voters” from the electoral rolls of Assam and demanded the preparation of National Register for Citizenship in order to classify the Indian citizens as per the Citizenship Act of 1955. The Assam agitation of 1979-1985 sowed the seeds of demand for filtration of Indian citizens exclusively in the state. On June 8, 1979, the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) went on a 12-hour general strike demanding the ‘detention, disenfranchisement and deportation’ of all foreigners. This culminated in the signing of Assam Accord between the Union government and the All Assam Students’ Union to end the agitation against “outsiders”, promising to identify and remove any foreigners from Assam who had entered the State after 1971.

As per the accord, citizenship would be given to all the people who came to Assam prior to January 1, 1966. Those who moved in between January 1, 1966, and March 24, 1971, would be “detected in accordance with the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order 1964”. Their names would be deleted from the electoral rolls and they would remain disenfranchised for a period of 10 years. Lastly, “Foreigners who came to Assam on or after March 25, 1971, shall continue to be detected, deleted and practical steps shall be taken to expel such foreigners,” said the accord.

The PIL filed in 2009 picked up steam when the Supreme Court directed the Union and State governments to speed up the process. As per this exercise, all the residents of Assam were required to submit documents from a list prescribed by the government to prove that they were citizens of India. The verification process was marred by many confusion and complexities. Rejection of the gram panchayat certificates as the valid proof of residency gave a judicial angle to the problem as the Guwahati high court declared that certificates issued by gram panchayats could not be relied on by residents to seek inclusion in the NRC. Later Supreme Court modified the judgment of Guwahati high court declaring that the panchayat certificates could be relied upon, provided the documents themselves had been appropriately proved in court.

Even though the NRC draft is ready after much political, social and geographical hiccups, it is now the real challenges which are going to arise both for the excluded people and the state. The state will be confronted by the ideological confusion of what to do next. How India is going to address the fate of those people who could not find their name in NRC but who have been staying in India for long by building their own home and assimilating themselves with the local economy and community, will be a hot issue keenly scrutinized by world nations. Detaining and deporting illegal immigrants instantly will not be a big headache as far as the state is concerned. But taking the same measure against those who managed to stay in the country for many years and decades is a Himalayan task which has humane, legal and international connotations.

In this juncture, India is faced with a moral dilemma of answering a series of questions. What if the original homeland of this excluded people wash off their hands to take the responsibility of this people? What if it leads to communal violence and riots? What if families get bifurcated for being Indian and Non-Indian as per NRC? What if in certain localities where non-Indians as per NRC is a majority, deny moving out of the country? How is the central and state government going to handle the situations without compromising the human rights of those who have been rendered as stateless and helpless?

Whatsoever follow up is made after finalizing the NRC, it is crystal clear that India is going to have a tough time after the partition in 1947. Country’s approach towards citizenship and illegal immigrants are once again going to be observed and analysed in the international sphere. One hopes that India will sensibly approach the issue without compromising the nuances of human rights and objectives of NRC.

Abraham Lincoln opined that Democracy is “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” The importance of political parties in a democracy is inevitable. As E. E. Schattschneider observes, “Modern democracy is unthinkable except save in terms of parties.” The importance of parties is because of their multitudinal role in a democratic system, especially in the parliamentary form as intermediaries, activists, compromisers, feeders, educators, interest articulators and aggregators.

However, political parties, especially in the developing countries, do not always perform the above functions comprehensively and effectively. They, of course, face a different set of problems unlike their counterparts in the developed world. The countries of South Asia are young in the Westphalian sense of modern states; most of them emerged out of colonial rule or shadow of colonialism in the late 1940s. Interestingly, in the present context, almost all countries in the region are under democratic regimes.

Political parties may see themselves as “a group of people united for the good of their country” and are seen as such by their followers. Yet, in practice, they are perceived by the common man as a group of people united for the sole good of themselves. However, despite the perceptions and shortcomings, as Alexis de Tocqueville observed, “Parties are a necessary evil in free governments.”

Given the plural nature of society, the countries in the region are characterized by the presence of multiple political parties. Unlike their European counterparts, parties in South Asia operate in different socio-economic and political contexts. The nature of party system in the region clearly reflects differences in the system of governments, state structures, socio-cultural milieu, economic conditions and historical moorings.

Religious ideology is rising among political parties in the region either that be Hindutva in the case of India, Islamic radicalism in the case of Pakistan and Bangladesh or Buddhism in the case of Sri Lanka. At the same time, these religious-oriented parties haven’t remained unchallenged either by opposing ideological parties or the so-called ‘secular’ parties. Notably, vote bank is the main consideration behind ideological narratives or counter-narratives of these parties.

Parties of South Asia are by-and-large leader-centric, giving rise to the phenomenon of ‘dynastic politics’. Dynastic politics is common in almost all countries of the region. Notable family names in politics include Nehru-Gandhi family in India; Bhuttos in Pakistan; Koiralasin Nepal; Bandaranaikes in Sri Lanka; and Zia and Sheikh in Bangladesh. Dynastic politics has had an impact on intra-party democracy. Elections to the party leadership are usually a formality where a single candidate is elected unopposed. Dissent against party leadership is usually not tolerated.

The political parties of South Asia are broadly classified as national parties, regional parties and ethnic parties. Proportional Representation (PR) electoral system led to the increase in the number of parties contesting for power. At the same time, it does not fully confirm to Duverger’s law. Despite, First Past the Post System (FPTP) system, multiple parties continue to exist in South Asian countries. Similarly, two dominant parties (UNP and SLFP) formed governments in Sri Lanka despite the proportional representation system.

Some groups, who were involved in militancy in the past, have turned to political parties. Maoists in Nepal, Tamil groups in Sri Lanka, few Communist groups in India and Sri Lanka fall in this category. In some cases like Bangladesh and Pakistan, military dictators found political parties to legitimise their rule. Bangladesh Nationalist Party by Gen. Zia Ur Rehman, Jatiya Party by Gen. Ershad and All Pakistan Muslim League by Gen. Pervez Musharraf are few notable examples.

Funding is important for running political parties and to contest elections. The political parties of the region raise funds from various sources. But, all sources of income are not transparent. Though rules and regulations are being strengthened to regulate funding the political parties, they have been not so effective. State funding of the parties has been under debate, but not been implemented in any of the countries of the region.

These trends are reflected in the character of political parties of the region. Unless there is transformation in these trends, it is difficult for a positive contribution of political parties in the governance process.

Redicting things in the political arena is a Herculean task indeed. Politics changes fast and takes us to different unforeseen directions. I was in the 5th semester of my undergraduate course pursuing EPS (Economics, Political Science and Sociology) at Christ University and had the privilege of being taught International Relations by Professor Venugopal Menon. It was the first half of 2015 and during class the question of Donald Trump was somehow brought into discussion. I strongly felt that Trump would definitely play a major role and probably even run for President. Professor Venugopal Menon totally dismissed my point and opined that Trump would never rise to such a level. Naturally, there was a lot of questioning and rebuttal from my side and Mr. Venugopal replied with great confidence and explained how democracy and secularism works in America.

He believed that Trump would never rise to a prominent position in the US because US democracy is rooted in liberalism and secularism. Given that Trump was seen as a polarizing figure by a considerable number of people, Mr. Venugopal's arguments did look strong. He had strong reasons to believe that the Right Wing would never become strong in the US. I of course had my own reasons to believe why Trump would grow in power. 9/11 and its consequences changed the American mind-set in an unprecedented manner. Islamophobia became the bitter truth of the day and Americans had very strong reasons to be wary of Muslims. Muslims faced racism and racial profiling in the post 9/11 US. Many whites who have historically controlled and dominated America definitely have found it difficult to accept Barack Obama and his 8 year rule as President. What many analysts and political scientists failed to recognize is that the feeling of insecurity prevailed in the minds of many Americans. The Americans always identified themselves as dogged defenders of freedom and liberty and never stoked any kind of nativism in spite of having the most patriotic national anthem-"Star Spangled Banner "

Today it flabbergasts every liberal as unthinkable. The Ku Klux Klan specter is staring down on the Americans because in the US nativism was confined to the Fringes of American radio and was never a part of mass political strategy.

The reason for this turnaround is the powerful American racialism and it never reconciled to the fact that a black controlled the country’s institution from 2008. It is a fact that American institutions have never been fair to the blacks and still has high discriminatory election laws. Yet, Obama a black that too born to a Muslim origin father symbolized usurping control of institutions earlier held by Whites and dented social prestige of a country which till 2008 had not selected a black or for that matter a woman president. Donald Trump’s statements and his growing popularity reflect the “bring back reactionary politics for the benefit of White Americans.”

Mexico and illegal immigration has always been a problem which the US had been unsuccessful in efficiently tackling. The Mexican migrants were viewed as job stealers by many Americans. The US economy had still not completely recovered from the evils of recession and the productivity of the US has not been the best in recent years. when Trump came into the picture, the discussion was centred around his personality and personal strengths and weaknesses alone The issues Trump spoke about were ignored. There was no discussion in the media on whether or not the issues raised by Trump made sense. Another aspect is the foreign policy. Obama's foreign policy had been confusing and without a clear aim. The question of intervention or non intervention in Syria became a big issue. China too seemed to rise and Russia too was gaining its strength under Vladimir Putin. One can say that Donald Trump was there at the right place at the right time. He spoke about strict border controls and even an uncompromising stand on Islamic terrorism and a ban on Muslims. He was also seen as a very successful man in the world of business and many Americans believed he could improve the economy.

Trump managed to secure a tremendous amount of support and captured the Zeitgeist. It is always necessary to look beyond the personality of a politician. The issues made the difference in the case of Trump. Trump didn't try to be politically right and didn't hesitate to make extremely radical statements. Yes, Hillary Clinton seems to be a more balanced, experienced and an inclusive person but Trump's tough stance on many issues made him the Presidential candidate of the Republican Party. The media and even the political enthusiasts failed to recognize the public view. The need to project American power had also risen. America was losing out in many areas. There was no clarity from the side of the Obama administration and this was probably why Trump was seen as a agent of radical change. The Southern States of America too may naturally drift towards Trump. Iraq, Syria, South China Sea, The inability to strongly counter Russia, slow growth, the need for more jobs, border problems, illegal immigrants, Islamic terrorism and a general feeling of insecurity contributed to the rise of Trump and right wing politics in the US. It is still a very difficult election to call. Both results still seem to be possible. The election day is fast approaching and curiosity is the dominant feeling. Trump may or may not win the election but he has definitely managed to change the agenda and has shifted public debate to an unforeseen realm in the US. Thus Trump’s triumph proves the point that lecturing on Democracy, liberty and equality is far easier than practicing especially when social prestige is under threat. Trump and his rise is only the first of many things to come in the United States.