August 27
The Economist's India stringer is an ardent India-hater. Here's more
of his usual, banal attempts at equating India with Pakistan by
comparing the two PMs, both of whom are economists.
Why does the Economist not run a similar article comparing the US and
Saudi Arabia? Both are run by lunatic-fringe religious crazies.
Actually, the Indo-Pak comparison is correct in a wholly unintended
way: both PMs are shikhandis, kept in power merely as masks and
whitewash for the behind-the-scenes, sinister Svengalis: Antonia and
Musharraf. That part is true.
Only excerpts posted, to honor the Economist's copyright on a premium article.
India and Pakistan
The technocrats take over
Aug 26th 2004
India and Pakistan both have technocrats in charge. This is only
partly a good thing
Reuters
SHAUKAT AZIZ, a banker turned administrator who serves his country
free of charge, was due to be sworn in as prime minister of Pakistan
on August 28th. His elevation brings a curious, and in many ways
pleasing, symmetry to governance in the sub-continent's two
nuclear-armed giants. Both will now have prime ministers who are
technocrats: Mr Aziz hails from Citibank; India's Manmohan Singh was a
much-respected academic economist. Both men were drafted into politics
late in life as finance ministers before getting the top job. Neither
is a politician in the conventional sense. Mr Singh has never won a
democratic election: he sits in India's nominated and indirectly
elected upper house. Mr Aziz did not enter Pakistan's lower house
until last week, when he won two safe by-elections expressly called
for the purpose of installing him as prime minister.
... deleted
In many ways, yes. Although ultimate power in Pakistan will continue
to rest with General Musharraf, it is reasonable to expect continued
good economic management on both sides of the India-Pakistan border.
And the fact that two such even-tempered and practical people are in
charge should bring a more profound recognition of the huge benefits,
in the form of trade and investment, that could accrue to both
countries if their relations were conditioned more by economics and
less by the destructive politics of Kashmir.
Yet Mr Aziz's appointment, good on the economic front though it may
be, looks in many ways like inept politics. General Musharraf has
promised that by the end of this year he will relinquish the post of
army chief, while hanging on to his president's hat and his
chairmanship of the National Security Council. He has already shown
signs of resiling from this commitment.
... deleted
The situation is less dire in India, because the system there contains
more than enough democracy to compensate for Mr Singh's unorthodox
route to power. Even so, there is already the beginning of a worry.
Brilliant technocrat he may be: but does Mr Singh possess the gutsy
political skills he needs to hold together his ramshackle coalition,
and the communicative ability to sell uncomfortable changes to the
electorate? So far, the signs are not encouraging. The cabinet
contains some frighteningly useless coalition members, and the
government's first budget was uninspiring, ducking most of the tough
issues and promising more handouts, not fewer. Officials are already
muttering that Mr Singh needs to get out more and sell his ideas to
the country. But they don't teach you how to do that in banks or
universities. You learn it on the stump.
No comments:
Post a Comment