The day after I arrived in Boston for a family visit, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution by a vote of 368-7 calling on the Biden administration to investigate the state of democracy in Pakistan, particularly in the context of last February’s general elections and allegations of fraud.
With the US presidential election in November now the primary focus for the Biden administration and the Democratic Party, the resolution is unlikely to receive the attention it would normally receive.
This was underscored during the debate between President Joe Biden and his opponent, former President Donald Trump, during which the incumbent Biden at times seemed to stutter and slur his words, leaving Democrats horrified and questioning the health of their candidate.
The challenger may have been more fluent, but he, too, seemed to wander into no man’s land with his usual string of half-truths and outright lies. Judging by the performances of both men, it seemed clear to many that whoever wins will likely end up with an administration run by influential and powerful behind-the-scenes advisers and aides.
It will likely be several months after the winner takes office in January before any congressional pressure is felt on policy.
So any congressional pressure on Pakistan, for example, will likely take several months to manifest itself in policy after the winner takes office in January next year. While this may be welcome news for the current Pakistani government, any policy response must take into account two facts.
The first is the obvious margin by which the resolution passed: the 368-7 vote indicates that the resolution had bipartisan support. There were few areas where House Republicans and Democrats agreed, and support for the resolution crossed party lines. In fact, it was essentially (nearly) unanimous.
This level of total support was not achieved solely through the efforts of a few lobbying firms hired by the PTI, but was the result of a coordinated campaign waged by Imran Khan’s supporters in constituencies across the country.
And here’s another factor that comes into play: During my few days here, I had the opportunity to speak with several Pakistani Americans whose education and wealth place them among the more established sections of society.
They have been lobbying their representatives vigorously and say the next step in their campaign will be to push for sanctions against the countries of their birth if their democratic rights are not respected.
Whether their lobbying efforts and what they see as principled positions will result in policy change remains to be seen, especially given that the U.S. administration is known to give such issues a low priority overseas, citing geopolitical objectives and interests.
A few months into the new year, much will depend on whether U.S. strategic interests in Pakistan remain largely unchanged or whether dramatic new elements are introduced into the equation.
There was much discussion, CNNBiden, who served as moderator and producer of the US presidential debate this week, gave a lackluster performance as Trump supporters found no fault with their candidate, but his sometimes incoherent and stammering speech raised alarm bells among his supporters. As things stand, Trump appears to have a slight lead in the crucial battleground states.
The United States was not the only country to highlight modern tragedies. Britain did the same. There, a television program BBCThe debate, organised by the UK Parliament, pitted Chancellor Rishi Sunak against Sir Keir Starmer, Labour’s candidate for prime minister.
Although all opinion polls had predicted that Sunak would suffer his biggest defeat yet in the July 4 general election and Starmer would win his largest majority since 1996, the actual differences between the two party leaders on specific policy fronts are not that great.
For example, the Middle East policies of both the Conservative and Labour parties, particularly regarding Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza, have been severely undermined by the fact that many of their leading figures have received campaign funding from the Conservative and Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) organisations.
One only needs to Google the facts to see the extent of influence of these groups and where they get their funding from. Public opinion in the UK and large pro-Palestinian demonstrations have no influence on the policies of either party, it is their dedication and loyalty to those who generously fund them.
Sadly, the United States is no exception: New York Rep. Jamaal Bowman, who condemned Israel’s genocide in Gaza, lost a primary to a candidate whose coffers were bolstered by $20 million in donations from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
Whether it’s AIPAC in the US or the conservative Association of Friends of Israel or LFI in the UK, they all have one thing in common: key people working for these organisations have either worked for the Israeli government or embassy or have close ties to them.
This forces politicians to make compromises and loses the ability to make independent decisions in key areas. The ongoing massacre in Gaza calls into question the humanity and human rights commitment of Western “democracies.”
Yet despite the horrors we see every day that would be unacceptable to any ordinary person, leaders seem powerless. Only a few countries – Spain, Ireland, Norway, Belgium and Slovenia – have taken a stance, perhaps because their leaders are uncompromising.
As if that were not enough, everywhere we look we see a decline in the quality of leadership. Visionary leaders are fast disappearing while demagogues are increasingly on the rise. Herein lies our greatest dilemma:
The author is a former editor at Dawn.
email address
Published in Dawn on June 30, 2024
