Panic Away

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 5:10 am December 11, 2009

Filed under: Articles — Tags: , , , , , , , — @ 6:57 am January 21, 2010
assertiveness



This article contains the explanation of different points of view: Hare’s theory about the bliks and the statement of Flew about assertions. Hare declares that Flew chooses for attack is to regard this type of talk as some kind of explanation. Hare, in his term, protects his point of view as for the bliks. He sticks to the point that without a blik people can not explain some events in their life and what is going on in the world. Hare is sure that not everything can be explained, as it is our bliks, and only a person herself can decide what can be explained. As the example he says that everything may happen by the chance. He says that it is not an obvious assertion, as it may happen or not happen. There is no need to assert something only because somebody is trying to deny it. It goes from this, that Hare’s opinion completely differs from Flew’s one, that if somebody asserts something there must be other person who denies it. Hare says that people should not be able to foresee, to explain or to plan anything, because in other case they will be like those people who are asserting anything. He states that those very bliks are strong beliefs in the person’s mind and they do not need explanation or approving.

It is well-known that people are different and they have different points of view on this or that situation. It is one’s own business what belief to choose or how to act in different situations. Hare says, that giving the theory of bliks, he tries to show some sort of difference between those people who really believe in God, appreciate him, trying to find His presence in every situation and asking for His help, and people who does not believe in Him.



http://www.google.com

What is the Meaningful Assertion?

assertiveness



Continuing the speech, Flew touches upon many other statements, such as “God’s plan” or “God made the world”. He calls them dangerous for theological utterance. He also states that at first sight they are like statements, but in fact they are not sure to be real statements. Flew sticks to the point that every assertion should be denied. It means that if the person states something, there must be someone who will deny it. Further he moves on by saying that anything, counting against the statement or anything, which can make the speaker consider it as the mistake must be partially the negation of the statement… and if there is nothing to be denied by the statement, there is also nothing to be accepted by it. So, it can not be called as an assertion. What does it mean? He proves the idea, that the statement may be regarded as meaningless when it is not supported by facts and evidence, counting against it.

As the illustrating example he used the conversation between the Skeptic and the Believer. The Skeptic said that everything he Believer called invisible, eternally elusive gardener differ from the gardener at all, and from the imaginary in particular. The Skeptic was arguing with the Believer that there was no gardener, as they examined the territory very carefully and none was found. The evidence witnesses against the gardener. The statement of the Believer was crushed by the counterpart that it was not assertion at all. That statement was considered to be meaningless, because it was not proved somehow. People may say different things, but not all of them deserve to be the meaningful assertions. Antony Flew claims that fact that every belief should be proved in order to be meaningful. In other way it would not be regarded as the assertion at all.



http://www.google.com

What is the Meaningful Assertion?

Filed under: Articles — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — @ 6:13 am December 31, 2009
assertiveness



Ever been accused of being aggressive when you thought you were simply being assertive?

This is actually quite common because usually it takes so much effort for unassertive people to stand up for themselves that their behaviour can often look more aggressive than intended.

Here’s what happens. Let’s say that in your day-to-day life you don’t feel very assertive. People take advantage of you; you are easily intimidated some of the time; you give in too easily; you accommodate other people’s wishes often above your own.

A lot of the time you’ll rehearse in your head things you could say to stop these things from happening. The problem is, you don’t. What then happens is that all those little upsets begin to grow into one big one. It gets bigger and bigger every time you don’t stand up for yourself and you feel you ought to.

Finally, one day you’ve had enough! The next time someone says something to you, expects you to stay late to finish up a report, drive the kids to school, or any number of little inconveniences, you’re going to do it, you’re going to say something. You plan the conversation in your head; you know exactly what you’re going to say and even what they are going to say.

But this takes courage!

So you steel yourself for this encounter. By the time it comes around you’ve probably worked yourself into quite a lather, at least internally. When the moment comes this is what often happens: you’re taken by surprise even though you were expecting it, and worst of all, all the words you had rehearsed go completely out of your head.

But in order to save the day you decide to go for it anyway. And blast the bad guy away with both barrels. Suddenly, your usual mild-mannered approach has turned into a full-scale attack. Not only that, you may be so horrified by what you have done that you either can’t stop and keep on going, making things even worse, or you scurry away full of apologies and look for a corner in which to lick your wounds.

This is why you may seem aggressive when aggression is the last thing on your mind

And this is why assertiveness can sometimes get a bad reputation. If other people experience you as very accommodating and perhaps even a bit of a pushover, when you push back and it gets out of hand, people don’t usually react very positively.

For assertiveness to work, it should be pretty much invisible, with not a double-barreled shotgun in sight.

When you start thinking about becoming more assertive, you need to start with small, incremental changes rather than imagining you are going to turn into this super-confident, quick-thinking and speaking person overnight.

One problem here is that we see someone else handling all these things really well, and we think, “I wish I could be like that.” Personalities don’t change that quickly, and besides, you are you with all your own unique qualities and abilities. What’s important is to find the small things that would help you become more assertive, instead of trying to do it all in one fell, and ultimately, aggressive swoop.



http://www.google.com

assertiveness



Being assertive is good. It allows you to get your point across in a way that

is better remembered by the other party because of the intensity of the

emotion that is associated with it. However, assertiveness can also be a

pitfall when overdone. While it can seal deals, it also has the power to

destroy relationships and potential business opportunities. How, then, can

you assert yourself without being too pushy or annoying?

Here are some tips you might want to keep in mind the next time you try to

calmly convince someone to see your side of the story.

Don’t Bulldoze Your Listener

What is bulldozing? In sales, it is referred to as the act of drowning the

prospective clients in figures and facts in order to confuse them to eventual

submission. Keep in mind that the only way the other party will accept your

idea is when they have decided that they want it. People who have given in

to your bulldozing will do so only at first, but will eventually try to get out of

the situation, be it after a few minutes or after a few days. You must be able

to know how to read body language in order to decipher if a certain action is

appropriate for the situation.

Nevertheless, if you want to be an effective and truly successful persuader,

you want others to willingly agree with you, not because you almost forced

them unwillingly to do something or left them with no other choice. If you

are at a debate, this is fine. You are trained to tear the other person’s

statements apart. However, in a normal conversation, this is a major blunder.

“A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still,” as the saying

goes. This means that while you may have succeeded in getting others

person to give their agreement forcibly, they will still maintain their original

ideas. If you try to make them cooperate with you thereafter, expect that it

is going to be difficult.

What should you do then? Try to make your idea attractive to the other

party so that they would be more willing to submit to it. You can do so by

first acknowledging the merits of their points and then outlining your merits.

Do not make a comparison that is based on just the negative aspects. You

will appear to be discrediting the other person; this is not good.

Be Patient And Try To Avoid Clashes

The professional persuader is never overeager; he always moves steadily

and carefully towards his goal, and avoids getting into situations that would

result in idea collisions. He is sensitive enough to watch out for emotional or

psychological taboos and avoids them at all costs.

How can you do this? First, do not take sides. Try to be open to all ideas that

are placed on the table and consider each one’s merits meticulously before

you move on to pursuing your selection. Actually, you don’t really need to

focus on one concept alone. When you study everything that’s suggested,

you will find that you can make appropriate changes and combine all their

positive aspects to arrive at something that is agreeable to everyone

involved.

The key to being effectively assertive is to keep an open mind. If you simply

stick to what is in your head and work endlessly at seeing it through in

100% state to the end, do not expect to enjoy the ride. You will lose

friendships, you will lose confidence, and you will lose the drive, eventually.

Assertiveness is good when used the right way, which is the professional and

balanced way. If you try to use your assertive skills to force people to your

side, there is no way you will truly succeed.



http://www.google.com

Passive Assertive or Aggressive – What’s the Difference?

assertiveness



We can define assertiveness by placing it on a continuum between passiveness and aggression and making a contrast with them.   Assertive behaviours reflect the sense of personal worth that the individual has for himself and for the other person.  When we are Assertive we are honouring and reflecting our core values in whatever situation we find ourselves.  We stand up of these values and defend them in a manner which is inarguable. 

Looking at the differences in behaviours and attitudes shows some very obvious differences.

Passive Behaviour:

People who typically behave in a passive or submissive manner are demonstrating a lack of respect for their own values, needs and rights.

Many passive people do not express their honest feelings, needs, values and concerns. They allow others to dictate to them, denying their rights and ignoring their needs.

The body language of the passive person is bowed and bent, submissive and non threatening.

Their speech is peppered with “Sorrys”

Aggressive Behaviour:

People who typically behave in an aggressive manner express their feelings, needs and ideas at the expense of others. They need to win arguments. They tend to overpower other people.

The body language of the Aggressive person is threatening , finger pointing, stand over.

Their speech can be loud abusive, rude and sarcastic

Assertive Behaviour:

People who typically behave in an assertive manner use methods of communication which enable them to maintain self-respect and gain satisfaction of needs without abusing or dominating others.  They stand up for their rights and express personal needs, values and concerns in direct and appropriate ways.

The language of the assertive person is riddled with “I talk” 

Eg “I hear what you say and I believe that…..”

“I recognise that you are upset, what do you need to have happen…?”

“I feel that the time is right to make this change”

“I am confident that when we have covered of the agenda items we will have an agreement”

The Aggressive style gets results in the short term, and breeds an atmosphere of “submission under duress”. In leadership styles this styles certainly has an impact , often delivering above budget results and leaving a beaten and demoralised staff behind to be inherited by the nest leader.

The cost to an organisation of this leadership stye is usually not felt whilst the leaders is in position, except perhaps in staff turnover statistics, it is usually felt in subsequent years, after the person has moved on.



http://www.google.com

Passive Assertive or Aggressive – What’s the Difference?

assertiveness



No matter what type of business we are involved in, our success is in part determined by how well we deal with people. We need to present ourselves as confident, decisive and assertive.

LET’S NOT OVERDO IT

Sometimes, however, our efforts to show our assertiveness cross the line. We end up coming across as rude, aggressive or downright belligerent.

Let’s clarify the major distinctions.

ASSERTIVENESS VS. AGGRESSIVENESS

In any situation where your rights or space are being violated, there are generally three options available to you. You can:

1) Be submissive, say nothing, and fume in silence.

2) Be aggressive and hostile, which will probably just fuel the fire.

3) Calmly and politely assert your interests.

Sometimes when we feel compelled to speak up, we can easily lose sight of the fact that we just want to stop the offensive behavior, period. We do not need to humiliate the other person, nor do we need to humiliate ourselves by overreacting.

This person may not even be aware of any wrongdoing. In any event, explosive, self-righteous behavior is never a good first line of defense.

CONFIDENT PEOPLE HAVE NO NEED OR DESIRE TO BELITTLE OTHERs

Assertiveness does not seek to humiliate or purposely embarrass anyone. The other party may well end up feeling a little embarrassed, but it won’t be laced with anger at you. It’s amazing how cooperative people can become when treated with respect. And it is equally amazing how swiftly and surely they will become uncooperative if they are being attacked in any way, even with a subtle gesture or an exasperated tone of voice.

HUMANS ALWAYS RESPOND MORE FAVORABLY TO KINDNESS

There’s an old saying, maybe a little corny, but it still holds true: “You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.”

This bit of common knowledge may not be as common as we think. Next time a situation arises, remember that you can choose to assert your interests calmly and politely without becoming angry or abusive.

Your kindness will likely be returned, and even if it’s not, your own sense of personal mastery and self-esteem will rise a notch.

You’ll find such good feelings to be habit-forming. Now there’s a habit worth having.



http://www.google.com

assertiveness



‘The most destructive element in human mind is fear.

Fear creates aggressiveness’

- Dorothy Simpson

Have you ever, if at all, tried to observe if you are an aggressive or assertive person? Despite the fact that man is naturally endowed with all it takes (and more) to undertake a self appraisal in order to make our individual and collective lives better, hardly do we consciously do this. Assertiveness is one of the basic features of leadership yet a lot of people in leadership positions are aggressive either deliberately or not. Do not get me wrong. You do not have to be at the helm of affairs in one big office to be a leader, but you are always at the helm of your own affairs and no one can take that away. So you too are a leader! Besides, it is natural that we find ourselves leading others at some point or the other. However, whether as a leader or follower, we all relate with others everyday.

In a world where might is right, it may seem appropriate to be aggressive in order to have our ways, but it is not always like that. Some managers, in a bid to assert authority, only succeed in intimidating subordinates, who in an attempt to repel the threat or seeming oppression, end up exhibiting unruly and unbecoming behaviours. But must we continue in such manner that neither gives us the desired peace of mind nor self respect, and infact shuts the door on real and sincere friendship and loyalty? No. This is especially so when there are simpler and better ways of doing these things. And who says adults cannot learn and change their ways? I am confident you will agree with me that every adult knows the difference and is sufficiently equipped to choose that which is right – being assertive.

Assertiveness is simply the ability to express yourself within the limits of your natural rights. Aggressiveness on the other hand, refers to a mode of communication and behavior where one expresses his feelings, needs, and rights without regard or respect for the needs and feelings of others. In some extreme situations, emotional or physical force is applied such that the rights of others do not see the light of day at all. This happens in our homes, between couples, in offices and even among friends. With an aggressive behaviour, the dignity of the other person tends to be trampled upon, distance is created, communication is hampered and relationships suffer. Having injured the ego of the other party, aggressive individuals experience a higher level of stress and this takes away the joy from their seeming triumph. Aggressiveness is an often regretted emotional outburst – only a little better than a physical illness. This is because aggressive individuals suffer a false sense of self righteousness, and a feeling so transient that such people after thinking through usually feel guilty. They thereafter burn inside and out of pride find no one to share the hurt with. This disposition pushes others away, causes them to lose respect for you and in some cases become angry, unfriendly and vengeful. It is possible to be aggressive without realizing it, especially when one is threatened. However, with a conscious effort at deep awareness, it is possible to always be in control of your reaction to any kind of stimuli.

Being assertive, according to Wellness Workbook ( Ryan and Travis), “basically means the ability to express your thoughts and feelings in a way that clearly states your needs and keeps the lines of communication open with the other”. It enables you to put your cards on the table without either hurting the ego of the other party or destroying the chances of future relationships. It earns you a sense of ease; you feel good about yourself, gain more self confidence and even the respect of your colleagues and friends. Being assertive keeps you emotionally balanced such that improves your decision making ability and possibly your chances of getting what you want from life. The learned will agree with me that aggressiveness is caused by some kind of fear; that which comes from ignorance about self and one’s environment, and induces self doubt and lack of confidence. From the understanding of self comes a better appreciation of your world and that around you. It also allows you to be in harmony with yourself and your environment, and rewards you with a sense of security such that you are immunized from feeling threatened in any situation, hence no reason to be aggressive. This self knowledge comes from ‘Emotional Intelligence’.

The concept of Emotional Intelligence is the result of various studies on the role of non cognitive factors in helping people to succeed at work and in life generally. Revolving around the importance of social and emotional abilities for personal success, it is defined as “a form of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and action ”(Salovey & Mayer). Emotional Intelligence deals with knowing when and how to express emotion as well as the ability to control it.  According to Salovey, there are five pillars of Emotional Intelligence. The first of these is Self Awareness by which it is meant recognizing a feeling as it happens. This ability is crucial to self understanding because the lack of it leaves one at the mercy of those feelings. Self knowledge provides the necessary tools to pilot one’s life more effectively. Management of Emotions comes next. This is the ability to control feelings and emotions such that response to stimuli at any point in time is appropriate. It relates to the ability to sooth oneself and overcome negative emotions. Its lack leads to feelings of distress and depression.

A good understanding and control of one’s feelings is a precursor for Self Motivation, which leads to self mastery and creativity. People who have this skill tend to be more highly productive and effective in whatever they undertake. Another pillar of emotional intelligence is the fundamental people skill – Empathy. Recognizing emotions in others attunes one to the subtle signals that indicate what others need or want. The last on the list is Relationship Management which in other words refers to managing emotions in others. This skill underpins popularity, leadership and interpersonal effectiveness. People who excel here are social stars.

LAST WORD

It is only expected that people will differ in their mastery of these principles but the brain is eternally pliable, always learning and growing. This means that shortcomings in emotional intelligence can always be improved and built upon. So which would you rather be? Aggressive or Assertive? Besides, studies have revealed that the most successful leaders in world history were warmer, more outgoing, emotionally expressive, dramatic and sociable. It surely pays to be assertive. So why not learn Emotional Intelligence now!

 

tundekamali.11.37/021007



http://www.google.com

assertiveness



Knowing how to be assertive in the workplace is a great advantage for you. After all, the big bosses won’t care about your attendance record or how well you make coffee. They’re more interested in, and are more likely to remember, employees who are determined and carry out their own ideas.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re at work or at a doughnut shop. Learning how to be assertive is the first step to achieving your bigger goals and ambitions.

It’s your ticket to success. However, there are a few key points you must remember and practice before you set out to take that step.

Being Assertive Is Not Being Aggressive.

Many people make the mistake of thinking these two concepts are the same. You know better than that. Being aggressive can backfire on you big time.

Your co-workers, and even your employers, might feel intimidated or turned off by your aggressiveness. You don’t want to scare them away, do you?

Be subtle. If you have an idea, pitch it in a “soft” way. But don’t overwhelm the whole office with it.

Assertiveness Rests on Self-Confidence.

You won’t ever get past the first step if you don’t even have self-confidence. Learning how to be assertive includes improving all your other skills.

Try talking to yourself in front of the mirror. If you can’t even do that, then how do you expect to convince your boss of your credibility? You might even have to work on your stance and observe your body language.

Practicing how to be assertive in the workplace gives you many benefits that extend beyond your 9-5 timetable. You can also use the skills you have honed when trying to socialize with other people. Just remember that moderation is key, and that you are capable of becoming a self-confident and assertive person.



http://www.google.com

Editors view about elections 2008 in pakistan

Filed under: Assertiveness — Tags: — admin @ 4:15 am November 23, 2009

Editors view about elections 2008 (Before the Death of Benazir Bhutto)

It is a common thought that a person who reads Pakistani press can not be capable provide a precise idea that what is happing in Pakistan. Secondly the concerns uttered by Musharaf government about media’s responsibility in development of Pakistan, makes the character of media even more suspicious. Third, common men are not able to understand the difference between views of the newspaper and column writers. Most of the people just start reading a piece of writing by selecting their titles. And try to discover the truth. But when after one week if somebody asks what is the main theme is, so they will have no answer. For the reason I thought that there must be a piece of writing which can provide the overall analysis about forthcoming elections. So I selected two English newspapers namely Dawn and The News and copied their Editorials from their web editions from 1st December to 21st December 2007. I just made an effort to get their views about upcoming elections, political parties and Musharaf government. Mostly all the items are in one way or another related to the elections. This article will provide a glimpse of events of three weeks and all at once the reader can judge whether a prediction or analysis made by any newspaper was factual or fictional.

About the holding of elections in January the Dawn (”The task ahead” 1st Dec) believes that possibly the elections will not take place in peace for the reason that the promises made by Musharaf to withdraw emergency and PCO may not make happy all the fragments of the opposition and boycott of elections by the PML (N) and JI will have an effect on the credibility of the elections. One interesting sentence “There is more to the elections than satisfying the APDM. A greater precondition for a fair and transparent election is the need for lifting the curbs on the media”, shows that Dawn supposes that APDM is not seriously working for lifting the restrains on media. That’s why Dawn has set such a proposal to the concerned authorities and general public.

Adopting a very straightforward outlook about the boycott politics the Dawn (”Talks, not threats” 2nd Dec) condemns the APDM in these words “The APDM is far from being clear on what lies beyond the boycott”. And on the other side criticizes the composition of the present caretaker government and election commission of Pakistan. But at the same time shows mirror to the opposition in these words” Looking at the composition of the current caretaker setup and of the election commission, the opposition is justified in casting doubts on the fairness of the polls. But the opposition will also have to share the blame for the current mess in view of its failure to forge a united stance vis-à-vis the dictatorship in Islamabad whose strength is, among others, based on the disunity of its adversaries”. The Dawn not only points out the problems with the portrait but also gives a proposal for the cure of the syndrome. “The only way to set aside all such worries on the part of those willing to contest the election and convince the boycotters to join the fray is for the president to convene a multi-party meeting to iron out all such differences and to make certain changes to avoid aspersions being cast on the election process”. All the opposition parties are putting question mark on the credibility of election process, only putting aside PML Q and Mollana sahib. The Dawn (”The ‘common goal’” 5th Dec) represents this idea as such” Any election held under the circumstances will not be acceptable to the entire opposition, save perhaps Mollana Fazlur Rahman. What credibility an election which only the erstwhile ruling party and its officially designated leader of the opposition regard as free and fair will have is anybody’s guess”? The News (A step into the future” 1st Dec) sees this situation of boycott in different perspective ” At the same time President Musharraf’s firm assertion that general elections would go ahead as scheduled in January, and that “no one would be allowed to create a hindrance in the transition to democracy” are welcome. They give an indication of the resolve to make a full return to the interrupted process of democracy. Given the examples that exist from the past, political parties would be well advised to participate in the process, rather than staging a boycott. Full participation by groups representing all shades of opinion is in fact the best way to strengthen the system “. The News (”Free Aitzaz Ahsan” 3rd Dec) puts an allegation ” Aitzaz is, by any yardstick, a popular politician, a brilliant orator and a successful lawyer — right now he is the man the government is so scared of that he has again been caged for 30 days. He is also a candidate in the Jan 8 election and how can he possibly woo his constituents if he is detained. This would suggest that what the government is doing in his case is nothing more than pre-poll rigging — and that too of the most blatant kind”. Next day The News ( Pressure cooker” 4th Dec) “The one issue on which every party is raising its voice loud and vociferously is the credibility of the regime to hold a genuinely free and fair election. This is the biggest challenge facing President Musharraf and he has already indicated that if the results of the Jan 8 poll are unacceptable, he may quit the scene. This may be seen as a sign of weakness but his best option as the civilian president of the country would be to honestly and sincerely rise above the political fray, stop patronizing some of his past allies, sit down with the main political leaders giving them due respect, create a transparent and fear-free atmosphere and that way he will make the elections non-controversial and more about issues rather than his own person”. Criticising boycott of elections The News (”Mr. Boycott ” 10th Dec) suggests” Boycott is much on the lips of politicians as we move towards the election of January 2008, and it as yet unclear which of the parties, if any at the end of a period of ritualized posturing, will boycott the polls. Boycotts have a very mixed history in terms of success, and any ‘boycott’ of the electoral process by the parties is likely to inflict greater wounds on themselves than on the institutions and processes they are boycotting. It could be argued that in the present case a boycott of the process would move those so engaged even further from the levers of power than they already are, and do little to revive their parties which are still recovering from years of absentee landlordism”.

On the subject of the disagreement among Nawaz and Bhutto camps, the Dawn (Split on boycott 8th Dec) evaluates the reasons as “Technically, the talks were held between the ARD and the APDM. But for all practical purposes it was the two former prime ministers who were exploring the possibility of adopting a joint stand on the general election. The ARD team was relatively homogeneous, but the diversity in the APDM delegation did not seem to have come in the way of a consensus within the Nawaz camp, Prof Khursheed Ahmad’s presence itself symbolizing the hard line adopted by the MMA’s Qazi faction. The two sides also have differed in their attitude towards President Pervez Musharraf. While Benazir Bhutto had implied that she was willing to work with a president out of uniform, Nawaz Sharif made it absolutely clear that President Musharraf, whether in or out of uniform, was not acceptable to him”. And in the end The Dawn validates Nawaz approach,” President Musharraf may be out of uniform, but the state machinery is not out of the dictatorial mode”. In this feudalistic and capitalistic civilization of Pakistan, every facet of life is under their influence. It is evident in the days of elections when party tickets are given to this segment of society. Dawn (”Feudal stranglehold” 9th Dec) raises the curtain from the stage of upcoming parliament in these words ” OVER the decades, society in Pakistan has undergone many changes but one major component of our body politic has resisted all change: the feudal control of the country’s political institutions… According to the report, the three mainstream national parties — PPP, PML-N, PML-Q — and the Sindh-based PML-F have made no efforts to diversify class representation in parliament and have continued to give party tickets in overwhelming numbers to feudal lords”. The News (”Taking the lead” 2nd Dec) shows other side of the came coin in these words ” In recent years, the gradual disappearance of ideology — except that adhered to by religious parties — from politics in Pakistan has in fact left behind a situation where policies regarding key issues such as privatization, welfare and taxation no longer figure in electoral campaigns. Instead, the exercise has been reduced largely to tussles between powerful individuals, whose personal standing, influence and wealth decides the outcome of the contest for a particular seat. In other words, elections have become little more than a kind of wrestling contest between such ’strong men’, and occasionally women, whose success or failure is at best only vaguely related to the programme of their parties”.

From the very beginning, foreign hands are involved in Pakistani politics. Dawn (”The real constituency?” 9th Dec) gives details of this situation. “ANSWERABILITY to the people is a basic tenet of democracy. True we are currently living in dictatorial times, but public opinion has been largely inconsequential in Pakistani politics even in times of democracy, engineered or otherwise. Our leaders in recent decades, be it Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif or Pervez Musharraf, have all looked to foreign shores for validation and subsequent consolidation of power. When out of office and on the wrong end of the power equation, our politicians make a beeline for Washington or London in an attempt to destabilise the incumbents in Islamabad. Their true constituency, it seems, is not the people of Pakistan but the US and its allies in Europe and the Middle East — and of course the GHQ in Rawalpindi, in some cases…. The image abroad is clearly more important than opinion at home. When elections can be rigged, losing votes and the confidence of the people is not a primary worry. Ours is a country that has imported two prime ministers, one from the World Bank in Washington and the other from Citigroup in New York. Yet, our leaders talk of ‘sovereignty’ and waste no opportunity to condemn foreign interference… We have only ourselves to blame for any meddling in our internal affairs. ‘Advice’ from overseas has been kowtowed to all along, so why should it be surprising that the Saudi envoy can meet Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry when former prime ministers of Pakistan and the deposed Chief Justice’s colleagues, friends and admirers cannot? Or that foreign diplomats have been dispensing advice to local politicians in the run-up to elections, or visiting the offices of media outlets banned under the emergency? The Turkish president recently met with leading Pakistani politicians, going so far as to coach them on how to deal with the military. No doubt he has some experience in this matter but purely in the context of Turkey”.

Criticizing the boycott politics and suggesting a way for political parties the Dawn (”PML-N in the field” 11th Dec) writes these lines” The boycott drama, which should have been behind us now, has taken a bizarre turn. Having failed to reach a consensus on the boycott issue in their critical meeting on Sunday, the APDM participants had glossed over their disagreements by announcing that all component parties were free to go their own way. Not to anyone’s surprise, the PML-N decided to enter the electoral fray only to find itself being thrown out of the APDM that Mian Nawaz Sharif had himself founded in July… How the participating parties fare in the elections now depends on numerous factors such as their ability to enter into seat-sharing arrangements, the position they adopt on the restoration of the pre-PCO judiciary in their election campaign, and their success in mobilising the voters who have been depoliticised over the years and are, by and large, apathetic and cynical vis-à-vis the game of politics that is being played out in the country”.

PML Q has designed its manifesto with 5 D’s and makes some promises with the nation. Dawn (”The manifesto season” 12th Dec) exposes the party in these words” The two leaders said the PML would never support the presidential system, even though the constitutional system as it exists today has been stripped of its parliamentary character and is presidential in all but name….Like all manifestos, the PML-Q’s programme contains aims and promises that, if fulfilled, can help end poverty, create equality, spread education, give the people a higher standard of living and take Pakistan into the 21st century. However, once in power, the parties tend to ignore their election pledges, and it is the bureaucracy that draws up and implements plans that often conform to the conditionalities imposed by the aid donors”. While The News (”The five D’s” 12th Dec) criticizes the same phenomena in these words ” It is also true that both the two detailed manifestos released so far, with their carefully planned words and their mottos, have something in them that resembles a charter put out by a group of boy scouts or some similar organization. There is something a little childish about the focus of the whole effort, particularly since the document, as is the case with the one by the PPP, makes no effort to provide insight into the ideological basis of the policies the parties hopes to follow, but reads essentially as a list of promises, or solemn pledges. This also says something about the wider role of manifestos in Pakistan’s politics. The fact is that the assertions made in these documents are rarely, if ever, implemented. And the knowledge of this reality is perhaps one of the reasons why parties can afford to allow so many high-sounding words and phrases to dominate them, confident that in a system where checks and balances have increasingly slipped away or been thrust aside, and the powers of people to retain or throw out leaders taken away from them by interventions from the outside, or tampering with the election process itself, they are unlikely to be called on to fulfill the promises made…. Whereas in its manifesto, and in the speeches made at its launch, party leaders of the PML-Q spoke of democracy within and outside the party, the reality is that during its five years in office, the party has done little to build such a culture”. And commenting on the manifesto of PML N the News (”Restoration theme” 17th Dec) writes these words” Using the acronym ‘RESTORE’, the PML-N has joined the sudden flurry of manifesto announcements by political parties, with the stress laid on the return of deposed judges and an end to the military’s role in politics. The seven letters in the word ‘RESTORE’ stand for restoration of the judiciary, democracy and the 1973 constitution; elimination of the military role in politics; security of life and property; tolerance; overall reconciliation; relief for the poor and education and employment. Like the ones announced by the PPP and the PML-Q over the past month, the agenda of the PML-N is quite obviously an impossibly ambitious one”.

Only lawyers are left to stick with their stand of boycott of elections. Rest of the main parties decided to take part in elections. Dawn (”Lawyers and boycott” 14th Dec) describe this situation as ” MR Aitzaz Ahsan’s decision to finally withdraw from the election seems to be in keeping with the legal community’s boycott of the Jan 8 vote. The lawyers’ stand is that those who are taking part in the general election are legitimising the Musharraf government…. The politicians have not shown unanimity on boycott. Maulana Fazlur Rahman’s decision to go for election has divided the MMA, and the boycott camp collapsed when the PML-N virtually defected to the other side. The boycott is now confined to the Jamaat-i-Islami, besides some small parties. The legal community’s principled stand against the president’s March 9 decision and the promulgation of the PCO will go down in history as unprecedented in terms of the sacrifices rendered. However, one often feels uncomfortable about the danger of the legal community getting politicized”. The News (”The middle path ” 7th Dec) raises the issue of the new Judiciary role in lection in these words ” It is a fact, and rightly pointed out by Mr Malik, that hundreds of district judges, additional district judges and civil judges throughout the country were transferred with immediate effect by the chief justices of provincial high courts just before the announcement of the election schedule. It is these lower court judges who will become returning officers and are crucial cogs in the electoral process. Appeals against their decisions will go to the high courts and the current Supreme Court, and all of these are now manned by judges who took a fresh oath under the PCO. Thus the entire election edifice has been constructed in such a manner that any unwanted political candidate can be excised from the process at any stage. That is where the system could be rigged as has been amply demonstrated by the rejection of nomination papers of both Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif”. The News (” In the president’s court” 13th Dec) puts some light on the promices of Musharaf ” Thus the 2008 election is slowly moving to become what President Pervez Musharraf had once described as the ‘mother of all elections’. It is also reassuring that the president has stated publicly that he will accept the results and will try to work with anyone who comes to power after the elections. Though his claim that “I interact with people quite well, I am not such a trouble creator” may sound like an oversimplification or slightly optimistic, at least he seems to be sounding the right notes to work with a genuinely elected parliament….While Ms Bhutto and Mr Sharif have to prove their strength in the polls, Mr Musharraf has a much more difficult task to accomplish. He has to prove his words, repeated frequently, that he is neutral and will not support any political party. This needs more than a few statements to establish, especially if one looks at the way state and government resources have been commandeered by the former Punjab chief minister as he and his party go about trying to gain an “upper hand” in the electorally-crucial province”.

Ms Bhutto analysis that the ousted judges were doing politics before the promulgation of the Nov 3 Provisional Constitution Order which sent them packing, and her claim that elections will not be fair, the Dawn (Bhutto’s strange logic” 15th Dec) gives history of emergence of political leadership in Pakistan. “A sense of wonderment must also be felt by many over her caveat that the Jan 8 election will be rigged. Is she the only one to be trusted in the whole game plan devised by the devil himself, as it were? This acute sense of paranoia is indeed unsettling…Ms Bhutto surely has a good memory but it tends to fade rather selectively. There has been a historical pattern whereby assertion of independence by civilian players never went unpunished; and the list is long. Of late, it is worth recalling that Mr Zulfikar Ali Bhutto made his debut in politics under a martial law regime and assumed power after an election held under army rule. Mr Mohammed Khan Junejo was handpicked by Gen Ziaul Haq. Both asserted their independence in due course; Bhutto paid for it with his life, Junejo with his job only. Do not the ousted judges merit credit for their stand in 2007″? The News (”Principled step ” 15th Dec) on the other hand supports Civil Society and Lawyers movement and praises Aitaza Ahsan boycott of elections ” The decision taken by SCBA President Aitzaz Ahsan to withdraw nomination papers he had filed from a Lahore constituency as a candidate of the PPP, has immediately raised his status as a man of principle. Explaining his move, which deviates from the line of the party Aitzaz has been affiliated with for decades, he stated that he had decided to stand by the community of lawyers who had so bravely led the struggle for judicial independence”.

Predicting some facts about the next parliament Dawn (”Bhutto’s strange logic” 16th Dec) says” The amendments made in the Basic Law since Nov 3 cannot be undone, except by a two-thirds majority, and all indications are that the Jan 8 elections will give us a hung parliament in which the opposition will find it impossible to garner that many votes. In other words, the lower house that will come into being next month will be presented with a fait accompli. What position the PML (Q) will have in the assembly is difficult to say, but it should not be beyond the president’s power to manage a two-thirds majority with the help of the “king’s party” and those willing to go along. That the president chose not to do this, and the amendments have already become part of the Constitution show he has decided not to give the assembly even rubber-stamp status”. Next day in its editorial (Pakistan in its labyrinth), Dawn suggests that this situation is very helpless for the people of Pakistan, ” As far as the Jan 8 election is concerned, there was precious little in the president’s Saturday night speech to allay the opposition’s fears as to the polls’ transparency, even though Mr Musharraf has invited any number of foreign observers to witness the process. At the same time he made it amply clear that he will not allow any agitation or rejection of election results by anyone. Under the circumstances, poet Faiz’s prophetic lines come to mind: ‘Take a vow of fidelity or of separation, do as you please/ what do we control? What will you have us endorse?’ The people of Pakistan have never been this helpless in shaping their political destiny”. And on the same day in another editorial ” Voters’ list” The expresses its concern over the female voters participation in elections” Here it may be pointed out that an issue that needs to be addressed by the Election Commission and also the NGOs working at the grassroots level and civil society is that of the participation of women in the election process. Over the years more and more women have been taking part in the polls, thanks to the efforts of advocacy groups that have conducted consciousness-raising campaigns to educate women politically. But the aspect that gives rise to major concern is the fact that in some constituencies the female turnout has actually been nil. This has been attributed to a patriarchal culture with male elders forbidding women from casting their ballots. This is reprehensible. The Election Commission must look into this matter and take measures to pre-empt the use of social pressure to stop women from exercising their right to vote”.

Even Dawn criticism of the next hung parliament, it is in favor of taking part in elections.” Participation by a majority of the mainstream political parties in the election is the right decision, though the PPP and the PML-N have said that they are taking part under protest. As the big two failed to agree on a charter of demands as a prerequisite for their participation, the hope that the polls could be held under a more even-handed dispensation is now all but dashed. It is clear that those who have chosen to stay away have left the field open to their opponents, which may achieve little else besides disappointing their committed voters. The JI is perhaps atoning for its sin of being a party to the 17th Amendment and now refuses to do anything that might be seen as approving Mr Musharraf’s tailor-made system yet again. Mr Imran Khan and the nationalists have no faith left in the current system because they believe the next parliament, like the outgoing one, will remain under the president’s thumb”. While the News (”Role reversal” 11th Dec) after Nawaz decision to take part in in election, describe the next parliament in these words” In this situation, a dilemma also arises for the ruling group and indeed for President Musharraf. A two-third majority in the new assembly is essential for the presidential camp, so that the necessary parliamentary stamp of approval can be given to post-November 3 decisions. The decision by the PML-N to take part in polls makes this task harder — at least if a free and fair election is organized”.

Some political parties are expressing their concerns about rigging in election and making threats to launch agitation after election. Dawn (”Rigging and agitation” 21st Dec) recollects the history of Pakistani politics and gives direction for future “The government lifted the emergency on Dec 15, leaving only three weeks for campaigning. The business class is, of course, very happy with the government. The people might have remained poor, but the economic benefits to Pakistan in the aftermath of 9/11 have gone mostly to the business class, which has prospered at the people’s expense. For that reason, this class has no reasons to fund an anti-Musharraf (read anti-American) agitation. In fact, quite a few tycoons are contesting the elections and will most probably make it to parliament because of their power to buy votes. If, therefore, some parties are planning a popular agitation after the Jan 8 vote, they had better read the situation carefully. As the events since March 9 have shown, the lawyers’ and journalists’ agitation has failed to evoke a popular response, and it is unlikely that the people will respond zealously to an anti-government stir the way they did in 1977″.

 

Older Posts »