How Do You Solve a Problem Like Iran?

How do you solve a problem like Iran?

The United States of late has experienced intense difficulties maintaining relations with other governments unwilling or unable to cooperate with American demands. Leaders of “rogue nations” such as Iran have expressed no desire to comply with the United States and in turn, the United States has been unable to accomplish anything of substance in the region. With an economy fueled by oil, a young and highly educated population, and a huge stake in virtually all Middle Eastern affairs, Iran directly factors into American foreign policy decisions.

In order to take steps towards finding a progressive solution to Iran, The United States has to come to terms with three basic concepts. First, the UN imposed sanctions are not hurting Ahmadinejad’s regime but further bolstering it. Second, diplomacy and soft power and more effective than hard power in 21^st century conflicts, especially when considering that going to war with Iran is not an option. Finally, the United States must realize that strong relations with Iran represent more than just standard diplomatic relations but could shift the outlook of the entire Islamic Middle East.

The UN imposed sanctions with strong American backing are supposed to stifle economic growth and create hostility between Iranians and Ahmadinejad’s regime. However, a reverse effect is occurring, as the sanctions are not hurting the country as a whole, but rather the largely conservative rural groups and the working middle class. Since the struggling middle class can be blamed on external factors, it provides a viable scapegoat for the government. By standing up to the United States and international community which is imposing these sanctions, support only grows for him back home. Furthermore, the American government continues to ignore that clearly Iran does not need them to survive. The U.S. has to realize that in the 21^st century, Iran has other allegiances and trade relationships that can sustain its economy. Had the sanctions not been imposed, Ahmadinejad’s incompetence would have been undeniably due to his own decisions and policies, which would have left him vulnerable. Instead, he maintains support due to the sanctions in a country desperate for change. Until the sanctions are re-tooled or lifted entirely, Iran will continue to make friends with American enemies while the current regime will remain supported and in power.

To solve even the most elemental problem, communication must exist for a solution to be created and successfully executed. The United States has neglected to create a real soft power strategy with aims of improving relations with Iran and its people. Diplomacy and other methods of soft power are more effective than hard power, especially when dealing with uncooperative governments. Ousting Ahmadinejad is possible through the use of soft power if America dedicates itself to the cause. The United States had no reservations in using extreme methods of soft power when ousting the progressive Mohammad Mossadegh in favour of the ruthless Shah. The CIA and its cohorts managed to turn an entire nation against their leader in favour of a man who maintained his authoritarian grasp on Iran until the Islamic revolution. Essentially, the United States is here because of a mistake made decades ago, and it is time to reverse that grave error in judgement by using soft power the right way. If nothing else, the American government owes the use of soft power to the Iranian people, who were notoriously robbed of the democracy they now so much desire today.

Ahmadinejad is no Saddam Hussein. Despite the best efforts of the United States to make him out as a lunatic and ruthless dictator, that is far from the case. He is a master tactician and manages to maintain support in a country he arguably should not be running. He brings up fair points that question America’s motives in the region and they need to be addressed because they are also the questions that the rest of the Middle East is asking. Why can other countries, most notably Israel pursue nuclear technology while Iran is persecuted for doing so in a transparent manner? Why does the United States pour billions of dollars into supporting Israel, per capita a very wealthy nation, while tens of millions of Americans are under the poverty line? These questions among others deserve answers, and by ignoring them and those who are asking, the United States is not doing itself any favours.

If relations between Iran and the United States do not improve it cannot be for the lack of effort from the American side. If war breaks out in the Middle East or if tensions continue between Israel and Iran, blame can rightfully be placed upon the unwilling United States. The Bush administration alienated the Iranian government by placing it in his infamous “Axis of Evil” along with North Korea. Obama has to invoke change on the issue and separate himself from his predecessor. He must make it clear that the new American government is making conscious diplomatic efforts so that Ahmadinejad is left solely accountable for the state of Iran-US relations.

America has made pre-emptive war a staple in their foreign policy and now more than ever they need to institute pre-emptive diplomacy to prevent future relations from deteriorating in the first place. Anti-Americanism is arguably the most serious threat to American national security and the spreading sentiment can only be (weakened) by a revelatory global diplomatic presence. The United States has garnered enough blame for the Middle East’s laundry list of problems without providing even more basis for anti-Americanists to further their cause.

In 1961, American Henry Kissenger’s advocacy for US talks with the Soviet Union led to intense diplomatic talks. His idea influenced future high level diplomacy and was officially termed “strategic dialogue”. Essentially, the theory behind strategic dialogue is that governments sometimes need to put differences aside and initiate dialogue that is beneficial for both parties. The United States and Iran both know there is an upside to better relations, but strategic dialogue needs to take place in order for that upside to be realized.

Iran represents far more than one leader or one government or even one people. It represents the entire Middle East, namely the Islamic part of the region. If America can find a way to get Iran and its Shi'a population on its side, global leadership will become a far smoother process. Whether looking at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, defeating terrorism or halting the spread of anti-Americanism, Iran is the large piece of the puzzle. If the United States can solve Iran and regain some form of credibility in the region, resolving other global security dilemma's will be increasingly possible.

Interesting link

http://www.good.is/post/why-i-dumped-my-iphone-and-why-i-m-not-going-back/?utm_source=outbrain

I often contemplate the negative and positive aspects of technology and its impact on every day life.  Very interesting perspective.

Radicalism and the Search for Peace : An Analysis of Radicalism in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Radicalism is hindering the peace process in the Middle East, as exemplified through the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its associated violence and longevity. Radicalism has played a pivotal role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has perpetuated tension between Arab states and also between Arab states and the West. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been permitted to continue due to the radical support each side of the conflict boasts. Radicalism is the catalyst behind each side’s hatred for the other and it is that radical hatred which hinders progress towards positive change. The difficult aspect however is not identifying the existence of radical support, but rather recognizing the complexities of where the support is coming from. The United States and Palestinian territories have complex radical support systems, and because the magnitude of support on both sides is high, its impact on the conflict is severe. The longevity and violence of the Israel-Palestinian conflict can be greatly attributed to the radicalism within the United States’ support for Israel, and Hamas’ aspirations for its defeat.

The conflict is typically thought to have two sides, Israel and the Palestinian Territories, and while the United States is often figured into the equation, the source of American support is rarely analyzed. American support for Israel is a matter of public knowledge. It is often ostracized and applauded by allies and adversaries alike but the reason that support is so unwavering in strength is mistakenly not part of the common discourse. The two main sources of radical support for Israel from the United States come from the Israel Lobby in Washington and the conservatives who make it so powerful in the Christian community.

There is a powerful relationship between the right-wing Christian community, namely the Evangelical community, and the state of Israel. It is not only American Jews who make up the Israel Lobby, as many prominent Christian leaders who feel very strongly about supporting Israel. The term “Christian Zionism” is relatively new, however the reality of the term is profound.¹ (4) The group is defined as “a formidable voting bloc of conservative republicans whose support for Israel is based on biblical interpretations.”² Some of this support coming from these Christian Zionists is radical in nature as their connection to Israel relates to fundamentalist sects of the Christian faith. It must be noted that Evangelical support for Israel is not out of good will, it is support deeply seeded self interest. Many fundamental Christians believe that through advocating for Israel they are earning God’s blessing, and that the United States is blessed and cursed according to their degree of support for the Jewish state.³ As religious leader Jerry Falwell explains, “God has blessed America, because America has blessed the Jew.”⁴ Evangelicals feel such purpose in supporting Israel because they believe the wrath of God will be upon them if they do not. From their perspective, America has been the least anti-Semitic nation in the West, and in order to uphold the blessing of God, that must continue.

Fundamental support for Israel in the Christian community is only one half of the issue. Their support for Israel may be blind and radical, but their distrust and hatred for the Palestinian people is just as disturbing. Several prominent evangelical leaders have denounced not only radical Islam but Islam in its entirety. After the tragic events of 9/11, son of Franklin Graham, the son of Billy Graham, deemed Islam a “very evil and wicked religion”.⁵ On 60 Minutes, Jerry Falwell referred to the prophet Mohammad as a terrorist.⁶ Many Christians in support of Israel also supported Bush’s War on Terror campaign and war in Iraq. They are wildly optimistic that the United States can manage to win over the Iraqi people, institute democracy by force, and create an ally in the Middle East. In contrast, that attitude disappears when discussing the Palestinians, who they consider beyond reform and merely an obstacle to achieving a full Jewish return to their homeland. Realistically, the daunting task America took on when entering Iraq pales in comparison to achieving peace in the Middle East. What perhaps is the most radical of Christian thinking is that the United States and its fundamentalist supporters believe their military can overtake the nation of Iraq, overthrow its leader, earn the respect of its people and form a friendly government. However there is no faith in brokering peace between Israel and Palestine. Radicalism is rampant in American support for Israel. The fact that religious and lobbying groups can influence the government to endanger national security is truly frightening and likely best explains why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has experienced such violent longevity.

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the United States during the Clinton administration it was not Clinton with whom he first visited. Instead he met with Christian leader Jerry Falwell and his evangelical, pro-Israel followers. Falwell is considered a forefather of Christian Zionism and boats a large following. In turn, he has power in Washington and also expresses his desire to use that power when necessary. He knows full well what power Christian Zionists wield and stated, “There’s nothing that would bring the wrath of the Christian public in this country down on this government like abandoning or opposing Israel in a critical matter.”⁷ For instance, in April 2002 when President Bush called on Israel to withdraw tanks from the West Bank, Falwell and his conservative base sent thousands of letters of protest to the White House. Israel did not move its tanks as per Bush’s request, nor did he ask again.⁸ Whether referred to as conservatives, Christians, or Christian Zionists, those who support Israel on a purely religious basis have developed a strong influence on foreign policy, which is the next subject of analysis.

For decades, American support for Israel has been questioned, especially their financial support for the Jewish state which has developed into an economically sound nation. Israel is fully economically, militarily and socially prosperous however it continues to receive billions of dollars out of the United States foreign aid budget. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt co-authored a controversial book, looking into the Israel lobby and its power. In their offensive against the lobby, the authors make some bold accusations. One notable excerpt reads, “Thanks to the Lobby, the United States has become the de facto enabler of Israeli expansion in the Occupied Territories, making it complicit in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians.”⁹ In other words, now the U.S. has blood on its hands due to the lobbying taking place in Washington. The book faced intense criticism from within the United States and abroad because it reveals the influence of the lobby on the United States government. The authors aimed to reduce the taboo surrounding the topic as they echo the thoughts of many in claiming that the lobby is not helping the United States, Israel, or the Palestinians. As outlined in the book, Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli.¹⁰ The numbers can only be described as radical. If congress were to propose that the American government send similar amounts of money to comparative economies like Spain, the idea would be comical. However for decades, what is referred to as the “Israel Budget” has been untouchable. No administration can even think of reducing support or they will suffer at the hands of the Israel lobby which consists of extremely powerful Jewish members of society and industry. The support is not limited to monetary aid and is also manifested in international forums. Since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members.¹¹ The reasoning behind the power of the lobby is simple. The Jewish population, albeit small, has a high voter turnout and is remarkably wealthy. Thus, when it comes to campaign funding and support, both parties look towards the lobby and Jewish Americans. The main issue here is not that the United States is spending money or that politicians receive funding, it is the fact that America is being influenced to act it what may not be its best interest. For example, when settlement freezes are ignored or a war takes place, all sides lose. The Israelis more hatred in the Palestinian community and take lives and the United States threatens its own national security by angering Muslims globally. It is terrifying for the United States that a special interest group like the Israel lobby can have such an extraordinary strangle hold on American foreign policy.

In the West Bank, Fatah refuses to negotiate over land as it is being taken away by the Israelis, and Netanyahu is wise enough to know that he can get away with it. He is American educated and highly aware of the situation in the United States. The United States can only express a minimal level of displeasure in regards to settlement expansion. If America were to forcefully speak out and condemn Israeli policy the Obama administration would be committing political suicide. The Israeli government utilizes the Israel Lobby in the United States to its full advantage and that is why it is so dangerous. Obama, like his predecessors, is powerless in the situation because the more pressure he puts on Israel, the more pressure he receives domestically in regards to the Israel Lobby.¹² When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refused a settlement freeze, President Obama backed down. And his decision to back off “pleased his political advisers, who fear that any pressure on Israel will result in diminished campaign donations for the 2012 re-election campaign.”¹³ The article goes on to suggest that Obama should ignore the lobby and draft an American plan for peace and unless accepted, Israel funding will be cut.¹⁴ This simple tactic of motivation would work; however never will happen until the lobby is ignored. The Israel lobby is a very real power in Washington. Despite the best efforts of its members to question its own existence deem its opposition anti-Semites, there is no doubt that the lobby does exist and its influence on the American administration is unmatched among interest groups.

On the Palestinian side, support comes in incredibly different ways from a wide array of governments, groups, and global actors. However, the radicalism on the Palestinian side largely stems from Hamas, and arguably Fatah and Iran as well. It is important to differentiate between global support for the plight of Palestinians and radical support for Islamism and the defeat of the Jewish State. Within Palestine, radical support comes from Hamas and Fatah, although in recent years Hamas has solidified its position has the Islamist voice for Palestinians. Radical support exists outside of Palestine as well from the current Iranian leadership and fundamentalists across the Middle East who identify with the Palestinian side of the conflict. Although, the greatest source of radicalism pertaining directly to the conflict is Hamas, the domestically popular Islamist military, social, and political party.

The first step towards understanding the radicalism within the Palestinian side of the conflict is recognizing the divide within the Palestinian people. Throughout most of the conflict, the Palestinian cause was commonly voiced by the Palestinian Liberation Organization and its leader Yasser Arafat. However in recent years, as segregation of the Palestinian people into the West Bank and Gaza became more pronounced, the people within those territories have split ideologically. The Palestinians have traditionally been perceived as a united front against Israel, and the media has reported on the conflict based on this assumption. The PLO developed into what is now known as Fatah which dominates the West Bank, and Hamas who has gained control of the Gaza Strip. Hamas surprisingly won the elections 2006 and took over control of Gaza the following year after violent clashes with Fatah, who was unwilling to hand over power. The differences between these two groups go deeper than political misunderstandings. The two are engaged in a “bitter battle in a wider power struggle between two rival Palestinian factions known to hold to diametrically different ideological positions.”¹⁵ The driving force behind Hamas, which means “Islamic Resistance Movement”, is radical Islam.¹⁶ Fatah on the other hand operates under the brand of Palestinian nationalism that desires a permanent and bordered Palestinian state. While there is nothing inheritingly dangerous about the desire for statehood, Fatah and nationalism have been responsible for numerable acts of violence and conflict. It is arguably the failure of Fatah which brought about the perceived need for a group like Hamas. Islamic fundamentalism may very well have “its roots in the failure of Muslim nationalism.”¹⁷ Regardless, both groups have employed violence and are not above borrowing bits and pieces of ideology from each other, but the focus of this analysis is on radicalism, not violence.

Radical Islam is an “expansionist and utopian ideology that often justifies violence in the name of what is commonly recognized as a peaceful religion”.¹⁸ Islamists seek a united Muslim global polity under the leadership of a caliph that would lead to world domination. The spread of Islamism is of great concern to the United States and the West in general but arguably poses an even greater threat to Palestinian progress. Hamas has been deemed a terrorist organization by much of the Western world, and neither the United States nor Israel will consider it a legitimate party to negotiate with. Hamas claims that it desires an end to Israel as a state, and Israel refuses to negotiate with terrorists who want them wiped off the map. The very principle of negotiation with Israel is offensive to Hamas, and Fatah’s diplomatic efforts have earned the ire of their radical opposition.¹⁹ Hamas capitalized on the anti-Israel sentiment among the Palestinian people, as they quickly realized that rejection of Israeli existence earned them support. However this extreme stance, however good for the short term support, has hurt the longevity of their political power. Early into gaining relevance, Hamas organized a series of ultra violent attacks on Israel. In 1989 alone, Hamas kidnapped Israeli soldiers, stabbed a soldier to death, hijacked and crashed a bus in Tel-Aviv killing 16 and then later in the year killed five IDF soldiers.²⁰ Hamas’ use of violence has been effective in two areas: increasing support within Palestine, and feeding into the hatred and radicalism in the opposition.

For every Hamas attack there is an Israeli response, more American funding, and another settlement built. And for every Israeli offensive there is an increased turn towards Islamism and violence. The two sides are caught in a deadly cycle that has yet to result in any true gains for Israelis or Palestinians. Jonathan Schanzer writes “only by rejecting the platforms of both parties will the Palestinian people behind to break the self destructive cycle”.²¹ Younger Palestinians of a more educated and aware generation must enter the political realm and shift those in Gaza and the West Bank towards diplomatic peace. The tactics and ideology of Fatah and Hamas need to be thrown out entirely as the conflict has evolved in complexity and scope since the 1980s. A united, moderate voice is desperately needed so radicalism can finally lose power and be removed from the equation. Again, it is clear that Fatah and Hamas have both resorted to violence, and in sheer casualty numbers, Arafat and his revolutionary PLO caused more death than Hamas ever has. The PLO was also the original radical force in Palestine. According to their 1964 Charter their goals included the “eradication of Israel’s economic political, military, and cultural existence.”²² What Hamas needs to do, much like the PLO did when transforming into Fatah is become less extreme, whether it is real change or merely perceived. It is all about perception and as long as Hamas embraces their role as radical Islamists, they are not doing their supporters or the peace process any favours.

Islam’s role the Middle East’s progress is profound and carries several unflattering misnomers—extremism, conservatism, Islamism, fundamentalism, and militant Islam. Whichever brand name preferred, Islam is undoubtedly heading in a dangerous direction in Palestine. It is thought by Middle Easterners and Westerners alike that Israel, despite its low approval among Muslims, is in fact good for Muslims. Israel provides Muslims and Arabs with a much needed common enemy, and without Israel to fight against, Middle Eastern nations would fight between themselves. Whether this argument is valid or not, which it very likely may be, it exposes what is wrong with the Middle East. Sure, Israel is a common enemy and for good reason but it has served as more than just that. It provides Islamists with a cause for violence and a reason to support extremism. As nations bond against Israel, they are being distracted from home-grown problems that are quite frankly more threatening than Israel. If the Middle East truly wants progress, something profound must happen. The common enemy needs to change from Israel to Islamism, and if it does not, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will continue.

Despite this paper focusing on radicalism within the support coming from the United States and Palestine, radicalism certainly exists within Israel as well. In regards to support of Israel coming from within the Jewish state itself, there is a very strong part of the population in strict allegiance with the notion that the land is rightfully theirs, including the land currently inhabited by Palestinians. Since achieving statehood, Israel has been supported by radicals within their own government and people. Radical proponents for settlement expansion and the oppression of the Palestinian people have prevented a successful peace process from unfolding. Israel has had one revolutionary leader in Yitzhak Rabin who was internationally lauded for his genuine efforts for peaceful co-existence in a two-state solution. He was assassinated by a Jewish extremist who felt, like many others did at the time, that Rabin was conceding too much to the Palestinians. The death of Rabin derailed a very promising peace process and gave power to the radicals on all sides. Before and after Rabin, Israeli leaders have showed minimal interest in peace and continue to strengthen the mutual hatred that fuels the conflict. An interesting fact and maybe even the trick to Rabin’s attempts at brokering peace: he was not religious. For the betterment of all parties involved, all fundamentalists should give up cursing each other and transform their hatred into furious prayer for another leader like Rabin.

Today Pakistani madrasas (Islamic schools) alone churn out more than one million graduates per year experts in jihadi ideology.²³ Is this alarming? Yes. But similar numbers can be found globally for Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and the like. Perhaps the key element to the Middle East discussion is to simply agree to disagree, a mantra that Israel and Palestine should have adopted long ago.

There is deeply rooted irony or maybe more accurately hypocrisy in the global conflict between Christians, Arabs, and Jews. Each religious group is labelling an opposing group as radical and religiously driven all the while each group acts according to a literal interpretation of their holy book. As history tells it, the Jewish people flocked to the Middle East to fulfill a desire for a Jewish state due to a history of persecution throughout Europe and other parts of the world. Christians, most vigorously in the United States, support the Jewish people in their permanent relocation. They felt guilty for the allowing the holocaust to happen and the bible calls for a Jewish return to Jerusalem. The result of Jewish immigration to Palestine was uprooting of indigenous Arabs living in the area who eventually turn to radical Islam in the form of Hamas after nationalism fails with Fatah. Essentially, the Jews and Christians support the Jewish state based on a literal translation of the bible and torah in the same breath condemn the Islamists trying to defend it through a literal interpretation of the Qur’an. There is obvious radicalism on all sides of the conflict and once leaders recognize it and figure out a way to bypass it politically and socially, a peace process may finally come to fruition.

Bibliography

Baylis, Thomas. The Dark Side of Zionism: Israel's Quest for Security Through Dominance. United States: Lexington Books, 2009. Print.

Ensalco, Mark. Middle Eastern Terrorism:From Black September to Sepember 11th. Philadelphia: University Of Pennsylvania Press, 2008. Print.

Gupta, Dipak K. Understanding Terrorism and Political Violence. New York, NY: Routledge, 2008. Print.

Lee, Melvin E. "The Fallacy of Grievance Based Terrorism." The Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2008. Web. <http://www.meforum.org/1830/the-fallacy-of-grievance-based-terrorism>.

Lipsky, Louis. Thirty Years of American Zionism. Arno Press Inc, 1977. Print

Marranci, Gabriele. "Reading Islamic Fundamentalism: Theories, Theorums and Kernals of Truth." Understanding Muslim Identity: Renthinking Fundamentalism. England: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. 55-77. Web.

Mearsheimer, John. "The Israel Lobby." London Review Of Books, 10 Mar. 2006. Web. <http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby>.

Mohaddessin, Mohammad. Islamic Fundamentalism. Washington D.C: Seven Locks Press, 1993. Print.

Rosenberg, MJ. "Jerusalem Bombing: Obama Must Act Now." Al-Jazeera English, 24 Mar. 2011. Web. <http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/201132475022188112.html#>.

Schanzer, Johnathan. Hamas Vs. Fatah: The Struggle for Palestine. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press, 2008. Print.

Stephen, Spector. Evangelicals and Israel: The Story of American Christian Zionism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

1 Stephen, Spector. Evangelicals and Israel: The Story of American Christian Zionism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print. Page 2.

2 Stephen, Spector. Evangelicals and Israel: The Story of American Christian Zionism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print. Page 2

3 Ibid. Page 24.

4 Ibid

5 Stephen, Spector. Evangelicals and Israel: The Story of American Christian Zionism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print. Page 76.

6 Stephen, Spector. Evangelicals and Israel: The Story of American Christian Zionism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print. Page 76.

7 Mckay, Mary J. "Zion's Christian Soldiers." CBS News, 8 June 2003. Web. <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/03/60minutes/main524268.shtml>.

8 Mckay, Mary J. "Zion's Christian Soldiers." CBS News, 8 June 2003. Web. <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/03/60minutes/main524268.shtml>.

9 Mearsheimer, John. "The Israel Lobby." London Review Of Books, 10 Mar. 2006. Web. <http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby>.

10 Ibid

11 Mearsheimer, John. "The Israel Lobby." London Review Of Books, 10 Mar. 2006. Web. <http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby>.

12 Rosenberg, MJ. "Jerusalem Bombing: Obama Must Act Now." Al-Jazeera English, 24 Mar. 2011. Web. <http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/201132475022188112.html#>.

13 Rosenberg, MJ. "Jerusalem Bombing: Obama Must Act Now." Al-Jazeera English, 24 Mar. 2011. Web. <http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/201132475022188112.html#>.

14 Ibid

15 Schanzer, Johnathan. Hamas Vs. Fatah: The Struggle for Palestine. NY, NY: St. Martin's Press, 2008. Print. Page 2

16 Ibid. Page 5.

17 Marranci, Gabriele. "Reading Islamic Fundamentalism: Theories, Theorums and Kernals of Truth." Understanding Muslim Identity: Renthinking Fundamentalism. England: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. 55-77. Print

18 Schanzer, Jonathan. Hamas Vs. Fatah: The Struggle for Palestine. NY, NY: St. Martin's Press, 2008. Print. Page 5.

19 Schanzer, Jonathan. Hamas Vs. Fatah: The Struggle for Palestine. NY, NY: St. Martin's Press, 2008. Print. Page 6.

20 Ibid. Page 32.

21 Schanzer, Jonathan. Hamas Vs. Fatah: The Struggle for Palestine. NY, NY: St. Martin's Press, 2008. Print. Page26

22 Ibid

23 Lee, Melvin E. "The Fallacy of Grievance Based Terrorism." The Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2008. Web. <http://www.meforum.org/1830/the-fallacy-of-grievance-based-terrorism>.

The Undemocratic Nature of Direct Democracy

Direct democracy is a variation of democracy that significantly differs from representative democracy. By definition, direct democracy is the attempt to engage mass participation to vote or give their say on an issue being debated in government. ¹ The term “direct democracy” typically refers to citizens of a nation making decisions in person through a firsthand vote as opposed to expressing their views through elected representatives. Direct democracy, or at least certain aspects of it, has been used in countries throughout the world. In Canada there have been several national and provincial referendums held and in the United States, the election of every President is in the form of direct democracy. There are three distinct facets to direct democracy and they are referendum, initiative, and recall. A referendum provides citizens with the opportunity to have a true voice and vote on a particular issue. Initiative refers to when voters publicly and powerfully circulate a petition which eventually forces the government to act. Finally, through a recall, citizens are able to remove an elected representative from office. In Canada alone there have been many provincial and national referendums as the referendum on prohibition in 1898, the referendum for conscription in 1942, and the provincial referendum that took place in Quebec on sovereignty in 1995.

Although direct democracy promotes citizen engagement and is arguably even democracy expressed in its purest form, it simply is not practical for any developed nation to put into practice. Direct democracy is a lengthy, expensive, misleading and ineffective form of democracy which negatively enhances political decision making. An examination of the history of notable referendums in Canada will reveal that the process of direct democracy is and fiscally irresponsible, citizens are unfortunately often uneducated in most political matters, and there is widespread and emotional rhetoric used by politicians and media outlets that can mislead the population into voting outside of their best interests.

Citizens undoubtedly appreciate having a direct voice in provincial and national decision making, however holding a referendum is excessively costly and time consuming. In theory, a referendum sounds like an ideal solution to gauge public opinion, but a referendum is only possible after lengthy preparations. The referendum process consists of several stages: the debate over the referendum question and its wording, the planning of the timing of the referendum, and post referendum planning if it does indeed pass. It is these stages which make a referendum such an expensive and lengthy procedure

The Quebec referendum on sovereignty in 1995 is an ideal example of direct democracy to highlight drawbacks of holding a referendum at all. The issue at hand was whether Quebec should separate from Canada and become a sovereign nation distinct from the other provinces. The question posed towards the voters in Quebec was: “Do you agree that Quebec becomes sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada of a new economic and political partnership within the context of the Bill on the future of Quebec and the agreement signed on June 12, 1995”.² Remarkably, the cost of asking this question was roughly $70 million.³ This obscene cost does not yet include the money spent on campaigning by the two opposing parties. Sadly, the money spent on planning and executing a referendum could be spent on directly solving the problem at hand. The very idea of putting such high amounts of money towards a referendum is in itself undemocratic. If a referendum were to be held in Canada on whether to partially privatize health care, which could very well happen, the costs would be staggering. Even if looking at the cost of $70 million for a referendum held in only one province, that money could be put towards fixing the health care system.

Arguably Canada’s most significant referendum, the 1992 Charlottetown Accord was an instance of direct democracy on a national level. The Charlottetown Accord was a package brought forth by the provincial and federal governments which proposed Constitutional. The question Canadians were being asked was: Do you agree that the Constitution of Canada should be renewed on the basis of the agreement reached on August 28, 1992?”⁴ This question was submitted to a national public referendum in 1992 and was defeated by a slim margin. Elections Canada “dispensed some $142 million; by far the biggest component of this was the preparation and revision of the voters’ list.”⁵ The spending did not stop there as campaigns “raised and spent millions of dollars”.⁶ Constitutional amendments have been made an average of once every five years however never has it been so costly to simply propose a change.⁷ Furthermore, because the proposal was denied, all of that money went towards maintaining the status quo, which could have been accomplished for free.

The money required to hold a referendum and the time it takes both sides to campaign their arguments renders the process ineffective. There is no way of justifying the spending of hundreds of millions of dollars to maintain the status quo. If change is truly wanted by voters then their elected representatives are accountable to make that change happen. Forcing the decision upon the public and wasting exponential amounts of money is no way to invoke democratic decision making.

A referendum leaves the citizen in complete power to make crucial political, economic, and social decisions that they otherwise have left in the hands of elected representatives. A harsh reality of any nation, is that the citizens are not educated enough in domestic affairs, nor are they privy to all government information. Often voters “seem like curmudgeons, unwilling to countenance change even when the status quo is no longer sustainable.”⁸ There is another side to the problem as well where “the mirror image is voters as dupes, too easily led, even to the point of voting for a dictatorship.”⁹ There is no preliminary test evaluation one needs to pass in order to vote on the referendum. According to the election act, the only requirements to vote in the 1995 referendum were that the person voting be 18 years of age, a Canadian citizen, and a resident of Quebec for the past twelve months. In essence, matters of supreme importance, such as proposed sovereignty and constitutional amendments cannot be left to uninformed citizens to address.

A popular argument is that direct democracy is democracy at its roots with the people holding the power to decide. However, it is also a democratic ideal to elect officials who act as a representation of citizen wants and needs. If the citizen is completely bypassing their elected representative by voting in a referendum, they are also shifting accountability from the government to the public. For instance, should a proposed referendum successfully change the constitution, and that change is perceived negatively, it is not the fault of politicians, but rather the fault of registered voters.

The opposing side to the argument is that citizens are capable of making educated decisions and elitist politicians are not trustworthy. Former politician and party leader Preston Manning believed in a model of democratic choice that makes two critical assumptions: that voters are well equipped to decide for themselves; and that elites are not to be trusted.¹⁰ However the complete opposite is true, as politicians are more informed to make appropriate decisions and through the act of being elected have earned the trust of the voters. An over simplistic analogy of a referendum would be to visit the doctor, reject his diagnosis, and then self-diagnose. If the public elects a representative it is only democratic to have that elected official actually represent the voters.

There were many in the political world that did not view the 1992 referendum in a positive light and suggested it was troublesome to propose questions to the public in using this method. “The experience promises to be unnerving and markedly un-Canadian,” claimed Paul C. Newman, “we have always shied away from traumatic public confrontations, resorting to compromise....”¹¹ He envisioned the referendum and its cultural divide as the “civil war Canada never had”.¹² No longer could voters divide over issues through voting for different political parties, but rather were literally in an ideological battle with their countrymen. The book Direct Democracy in Canada asks in regards to the 1992 referendum, “Is it a loss, not a vindication, in the faith of democracy?”¹³ Based on the evidence presented, it is clear that taking the power out of government and dividing the nation to make a single decision is not democratic nor is it traditionally Canadian.

Due to the influence of the media, politicians, and political groups, the common citizen can easily be swayed to vote for or support a cause upon false pretences. Effective rhetoric has undeniable power over the voting masses, and political parties have excellent resources in regards to influencing public opinion. Referendums take the form of an election but instead of voting for a party, citizens are voting to answer a yes or no question. Because of its election like atmosphere, there is a plethora of campaigning, advertising, and speech-making on all sides of the question being asked.

In 1994, just one year before the Quebec referendum, polling of Quebec’s registered voters showed that support for “sovereignty” was approximately 45%. ¹⁴ Jacques Parizeau, the separatist premier of Quebec at the time, devised a strategy to increase that approval percent. He wisely altered the question very slightly, phrasing the proposal as not a complete separation but merely a “sovereignty-partnership”.¹⁵ This change made the issue at the heart of the referendum seem less extreme than it really was which naturally appealed to voters. Those who were not completely sold on the idea of Quebec separating were more open to some form of partnership. Luckily for the “no” side, charismatic Prime Minister Jean Chretien was determined to keep the country together. He had a universal appeal to Canada, most importantly to Francophone Quebec. A native of Quebec, Chretien speaks French fluently and could relate to people across Canada. As Prime Minister it was Chretien’s intention to keep Canada together and united which heavily benefitted the “yes” side. Had he not been in power, the “no” side would have had a far easier time swaying public opinion whilst facing a less charismatic opponent.

The “no” side in the 1995 referendum used some very controversial tactics during the months leading up to the official vote. The federal government headed by Jean Chretien initiated a sudden anti-smoking campaign in Montreal. The campaign consisted of many billboards being placed across Quebec with the slogan “Say No to Cigarettes`, with the word ``no`` enlarged.<sup>16</sup> The opposing side, which was hoping voters would vote in favour of the referendum, felt that this anti smoking campaign was really meant to subliminally convey the message of `no`. Of course, the federal government denied the accusations, but whether they are true does not even matter. The fact that voters were exposed to the possible subliminal messages and the consequent public accusations had an impact on voters.

Even common sources of news and information were politically motivated and began to influence public opinion. Due to Prime Minister Mulroney`s low approval ratings leading up to the 1992 referendum on the Charlottetown accord there were worries that people would vote “yes” just to vote against Mulroney. Voting for the referendum was a way of personally defying Prime Minister Mulroney, and voters jumped at the opportunity to do so. So to prevent this from happening, the Toronto Star editors urged their readers to look past Mulroney and vote based on the issues.¹⁷

The theory behind a referendum ignores outside influences and assumes that citizens will make individual decisions. In reality, no citizen is reading over the proposal by themselves, making an informed decision, and then voting accordingly. The methods used by the opposing sides of a referendum play far too large a factor in the outcome of a supposed democratic process.

There are two common interpretations offered by the 1992 referendum. One interpretation is that the referendum was a “profound blunder”¹⁸, which should have been expected based on the question and Canada being so culturally diverse. The other interpretation and is that voters bypassed politicians and made educated decisions based on what they felt was best for the country. However, when studying the cost and length of the referendum and consider the motives behind the votes being cast, the first interpretation is the only logical one. The high cost associated with holding provincial and national referendums means that money that could be spent on solving issues are spent on merely presenting a question. Citizens voting for or against the Charlottetown Accord in 1992 and the separation of Quebec in 1995 were not as informed as politicians to make decisions. Furthermore, propaganda and campaigning that was done was not meant for educating the people but simply aimed to sway public opinion. The branches of Canadian government could not do what they were elected and paid to do as all accountability was removed from the government and placed upon registered voters.

The ideas behind holding a referendum are admirable. It is important that citizens are able to voice their opinions on matters of national importance. However, if citizens are so out of touch with their elected officials that they have to cast a vote to make policy decisions, the democratic process becomes ineffective. Preston Manning argues that direct democracy is a challenge to the elites in government.¹⁹ Unfortunately the only challenge elites face in direct democracy is how to campaign and effectively shape the voters’ opinion to vote the right way. Canadian voters and their elected representatives must have strong communication in order for democracy to prevail, and a referendum is nothing more than a cop out. Looking forward, hopefully Canada and other developed nations focus on close government-voter relations and less upon the expensive, tedious and ineffective process of direct democracy.

1 Flanagan, Thomas. Dickerson, Mark. An Introduction To Government And Politics. Toronto: Thomson Nelson, 2006

2 Trent, John. N.d. Dialogue Canda. http://www.uni.ca/dialoguecanada/trent_guide.html#1

Book Review

3 Trent, John. N.d. Dialogue Canda. http://www.uni.ca/dialoguecanada/trent_guide.html#1

Book Review

4 Johnston, Richard, Andre Blais, and Elisabeth Gidengil. The Challenge of Direct Democracy: The 1992 Canadian Referendum. Walnut Creek, CA: McGill-Queens UP, 1996. Print.

5 Boyer, Patrick. Direct Democracy in Canada: The History and Future of Referendums. Toronto: Dundurn P, 1992. Print.

6 Ibid

7 Ibid

8 Johnston, Richard, Andre Blais, and Elisabeth Gidengil. The Challenge of Direct Democracy: The 1992 Canadian Referendum. McGill-Queens UP, 1996. Print.

9 Ibid

10 Johnston, Richard, Andre Blais, and Elisabeth Gidengil. The Challenge of Direct Democracy: The 1992 Canadian Referendum. McGill-Queens UP, 1996. Print.

11 Ibid

12 Ibid

13 Boyer, Patrick. Direct Democracy in Canada: The History and Future of Referendums. Toronto: Dundurn P, 1992. Print.

14 Robinson, Gertrude J, and Martel, Marcel (Reviewer). "[Constructing the Quebec referendum: French & English media voices]." Review of [Constructing the Quebec referendum], University of Toronto Quarterly  70, no. 1 (January 1, 2001): 565-566

15 Robinson, Gertrude J, and Martel, Marcel (Reviewer). "[Constructing the Quebec referendum: French & English media voices]." Review of [Constructing the Quebec referendum], University of Toronto Quarterly  70, no. 1 (January 1, 2001): 565-566

16 September 7, 1995. CBC. “A tale of two strategies”

http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/federal_politics/topics/1891/

17 Boyer, Patrick. Direct Democracy in Canada: The History and Future of Referendums. Toronto: Dundurn P, 1992. Print.

18 Johnston, Richard, Andre Blais, and Elisabeth Gidengil. The Challenge of Direct Democracy: The 1992 Canadian Referendum. McGill-Queens UP, 1996. Print.

19 Boyer, Patrick. Direct Democracy in Canada: The History and Future of Referendums. Toronto: Dundurn P, 1992. Print.

The White Tiger and The Indian Culture of Corruption

There are serious problems facing India in the 21^st century, and there is great debate as to which problem should be top priority. Along with corruption, problems like the negative impacts of globalization, social inequality, religious tension and conflict between social classes also present a case for being the largest hindrance to Indian progression. A main theme in The White Tiger is corruption and its strong presence in Indian political culture and society. The main character’s personal successes are based around corrupt acts which act as the catalyst for virtually plot development. The novel portrays a very dark side of every-day India where corruption is common and often necessary for career advancement or societal reputation. Corruption truly manifested itself in India in the 1990s and it was not unique to India as other Asian countries like China also saw corruption play a larger role in society and politics. However, what makes India unique is that corruption, rather than decreasing or at least becoming less visible, is going in the opposite direction.

Instead of cracking down on corruption and help create a new political culture, India and its leaders show no desire to move beyond the status quo. Corruption has a ripple effect through society and although most corruption takes place between political parties and upper class businessmen, the middle and lower classes suffer the most. Moreover, those same people have no choice but to desperately indulge in corruption in order to propel them into financial prosperity. What also is unique to India is the way corruption manages to infiltrate literally every aspect of Indian life imaginable from politics to cinema. While corruption is evident to Indians and the international community its causes are often overlooked or misinterpreted. It is the recognition of the causes of corruption that will allow for a viable solution. Corruption has been able to seed itself so deeply in Indian culture due to religious practices, economic insecurity, unenforced laws, a forgiving media and a powerless government.

The Booker Prize winning debut novel The White Tiger, written by Indian novelist Aravind Adiga, tells the story of Balram Halwai and his transformation from lower class labourer to wealthy entrepreneur. Balram works in the village he grew up in destined to be a lifelong member of India’s struggling lower class. However, Balram dreams of a different life outside of his village and its financial and social limitations. He works in the rural village of Dhanbad at a local tea shop and while working he decides to learn how to drive after learning about the high wages drivers can earn. Balram’s big break comes when a rich man known as The Stork hires him as his driver. The Stork has achieved notoriety and his nickname through skimming from the profits of local fisherman. He is the first person to expose Balram to real corruption and also acts as his ticket out of his impoverished life. Balram goes on to be the driver for The Stork’s son, who lives in New Delhi, also referred to as the “light” of India. Balram is desperate to find a way to access the world he sees while driving the son through parts of India he never thought he would be a part of.

An impressive feature of the novel is how Adiga exposes two very different portraits of India. Within the novel there are two sides of India known as the “light” and the “darkness”. The light and darkness refer to the economic conditions in different areas of India and really emphasis the inequality that exists in the country. Ironically, the actions that often bring you from the light to the darkness or from the bad to the good are morally questionable. It seems that you need to abandon the values learned in the darkness in order to escape into the light. Basically, to live in the light you need to be dark or bad, whereas if you live in the darkness, your morality might have a chance of staying intact. Balram’s narration, especially later in the novel, does not glorify his actions or achievements but uses his actions to portray how moral ambiguity is a commonly accepted practice. While it is true that there are many wealthy people in India living lavishly, there is also a vast portion of the population living in contrasting conditions.

Adiga impressively manages to express the scale of disparity between rural and urban India through his protagonist, Balram. A resonating part of the novel comes when Balram recalls a former teacher of his while growing up in the “darkness”. His recollection is powerful in the sense that it really explains the two different worlds within India. Balram reveals that while there was a government funded lunch program in place for his school, the students never saw any of the food. He goes on to claim that the students knew why and it was because “the schoolteacher had stolen our lunch money” (Adida, 20048, 28). The students do not blame the teacher however because he had not received a salary in six months. As Balram’s thoughts so eloquently put it, “...you can’t expect a man in a dung heap to smell sweet” (Adiga, 2008, 28). And perhaps that analogy pertains to more than just the teacher but India as well. How are impoverished Indians expected to refuse to engage in corruption when they live in such poor conditions? The system must be held accountable, not the people themselves.

Balram eventually concludes that the only way to immerse himself successfully into the world he sees while driving Ashtok around is to kill his employer. The murder is successful, as Blaram slits Ashtok’s throat and steals his even hundred thousand rupees intended for political bribes. He takes the money, moves to Bangladesh, changes his name and establishes his own taxi company. The same man who felt remorse for outing a fellow driver as a Muslim, had little issue with murdering for career advancement. However, because he is able to feel remorse, he remains very human and his immoral acts seem much less immoral. After his new taxi company takes off, Balram fulfills his dream of distancing himself from rural India by living in the “light” as a wealthy entrepreneur. He even changes his name, which is a means of avoiding persecution, but also as a means of officially starting a new life as a successful, urban, corrupt citizen.

Balram is a unique type of protagonist because although the reader sympathizes with his life in the darkness and hopes his pursuit of the “light” is successful, his methods are immoral. However those immoral acts are overlooked along with his corruption, in a perfect example of the ends justifying the means. That is likely the most appropriate description of most pursuits of propensity in India, especially if coming from rural poverty. It is not about how you get there, but that you get there at all. Everything else is excusable. Adiga is aware of this mentality and uses it to his advantage in the novel by using the reader as an example. We should care a lot more about the malicious acts Balram commits, but again the system takes the majority of the blame, while the individual goes on unscathed. The White Tiger does not try to simplify the situation in India or glorify corruption. Rather, Adiga uses Balram to give an accurate, albeit occasionally humorous, depiction of the lengths people will go to in order to remove themselves from poverty.

Suresh Kohli claims in his book written over three decades ago that “the most important single cause of corruption is economic security” as there is a constant possibility of gaining or losing in the Indian economy (Kohli, 1975, 14). His assessment still applies to Indian society even all these years later. The poor become corrupt in their pursuit of growing rich while the rich “indulge in corruption in fear of losing what they have” (Kohli, 1975, 14). It is a vicious circle which will only be broken when Indian citizens of all social classes feel somewhat secure. Security means having health care, two meals a day, clothing, and employment. Once people attain these basic needs, corruption will be automatically reduced because people will not be willing to act immorally when they are not as desperate for essentials.

An important factor when considering the solution to economic insecurity is severely low government wages. Government workers often make such meagre pay that corruption becomes not only tempting but necessary to put food on the table. For instance, a police officer is more likely to accept a bribe from a speeding driver if that bribe is more than what they make in a week of honest work. If salaries are increased to reasonable levels to that government works can sustain themselves without corruption, economic insecurity and corruption will take a serious blow. Kohli and other Indian historians advocate for a neither a top-down nor bottom-up approach but rather cooperation between the upper and lower class. He argues that the government needs implement free medical centers, secure employment opportunities and reasonable wages. If these steps are taken, along with the enforcement of anti-corruption laws, corruption will seem much less attractive to at least the middle and lower classes. When the upper class’ corruption is finally no longer accepted or tolerated by the rest of society, the process of removing corruption from Indian culture will finally begin.

Another aspect of economics is globalization, a phenomenon that has impacted India more than almost any other country in the world. Whether globalization is truly good for India, it has undoubtedly contributed to its economic success in recent years. The view of the novel’s main character shares this perspective. From Balram’s perspective globalization is largely a positive force and its success is due to the outsourcing of jobs from American companies such as IBM and Microsoft. As long as businesses continue to outsource to India and provide jobs for the middle class, the Indian economy can continue to prosper. The obvious problem with the outsourcing of jobs is that if there is no longer incentive for American companies to provide jobs to Indian workers, those jobs will be taken away and given to the domestic labour force. Although to be fair, that seems highly unlikely as low labour costs and highly efficient workers make India extraordinarily attractive to corporations. While the economy prospers however, inequality continues to increase, a pattern that can be traced back to globalization. Essentially, there is a large amount of very wealthy people in India but they are counter balanced by an even larger part of the population living in poverty. Investors and upper class business men continue to make profit off of millions of workers making minimum wage or less. While this clearly is a problem, it is trumped by the problem of corruption simply because the negative aspects of globalization are grossly exaggerated by the presence of corruption in Indian society.

The reason why globalization and its possible dangers are not nearly as counter progressive as corruption is because while they are separate issues both are certainly related. Since globalization really hit India and its economic boom took shape, an already corrupt society invited even more corruption into the country as foreign investors took great interest in the thriving Indian economy. Such investors include global corporations, entrepreneurs, and local and intentional investors. These investors arguably have more domestic influence than the government and thrive in the culture of corruption. The upper class is fuelled by the capital of foreign companies and investors while the government is dwarfed by the power of economic prosperity. It is hard for government officials to crack down on corruption and risk investments leaving India. Nobody wants to be responsible for bringing down the Indian economy and there is a fine line between cracking down on corruption and turning away potential economic opportunities. However, it is a line that can be walked if the government works will all social classes, cracks down on the rampant corruption while supporting investors, and provide incentive for companies to provide transparent financial information to the government or an independent auditor. Globalization is acting a catalyst for increasing corruption and widening the income gap. Without corruption embedded so deeply in India, the people could benefit much more from globalization and its negative aspects would be much less visible.

Drawing a connection between religion and unethical practices may seem contradictory, however in India, religious practices often feed into the culture of corruption. An analysis of Hinduism reveals that despite the good intentions of the religion, its associated traditional practices replicate that of corrupt society. Kohli observes that “the chief object of our religious exercise is to gain prosperity, good health, triumph over adversaries” (Kohli, 1975, 12). Indians traditionally bribe their gods with prayers and the promise of good deeds in return for the washing away of past indiscretions. Also, priests receive large payments to carry out rituals for the sole purpose of washing away sins. Despite its virtuous intentions, this brand of religion, in regards to corruption at least, does more harm than good. There is a way that these religious practices can exist without breeding corruption, but the connection between religious practice and corruption must be recognized. The chief object of India’s religious practices shares the same chief object with corruption and that is the major problem. There is no doubt that a largely Hindu population can live in a society without corruption, but when combined with all of the other causes of corruption, religion is not helping move in the right direction.

The relationship between corruption and religion has another angle as well. Religious tension between Muslims and Hindus still exist decades after the creation of Pakistan, and these tensions play an active role in Indian society. Competition between the two religions is very real and this is true to all aspects of life, whether it be over territory or career advancement. This competition fuels corruption because each side is willing to take whatever measures necessary to better the other side. While a war is not taking place between two armies, there is constant conflict over jobs, economic opportunities, political representation and other means societal success. The Muslims in the North often act as an independent nation with independent interest and look out for their own. The same goes for Hindus throughout the rest of the country. Basically, religion comes before nationality and people identify with being Muslim or Hindu before identifying with being Indian. In turn, corruption is the beneficiary as competition between religious groups means that ethics and morality take a back seat to gaining some sort of advantage over the opposing group.

A free mass media is crucial to any democratic state as it can act as independent third party to keep all levels of government and society in check. India does have a functioning media which has the power to act as a positive force against corruption. Thus far however, the media has played a reduced role and acted more as an indifferent bystander than an independent third party in search for truths. There is no greater deterrent to corruption than public exposure, and such exposure has to increase if media wishes to invoke positive change. Because corruption is so rampant, media outlets can be bought as well. Often, the media only exposes the corrupt practices of those they want to be exposed. Other corrupt parties that the media benefits from are free from being exposed. In other words, the media reports selectively based on who they like and do not like. If the mass media were to report on the facts and refuse the temptation of bribery and corruption, they could truly act as an objective force behind ending corruption. Political corruption scandals continue to dominate the media, and it is scary to think that there are more stories that go unreported due to corruption within the mass media.

Besides selectivity of the media, there is a major need for an increase in press freedom. As outlined in the University of Delhi’s report on corruption, international organization “Reporters Without Borders” ranked India as the 122^nd country out of 178 countries based on the freedom of the media. There is no benefit for any party involved if the media is suppressed or censored, unless that party is corrupt. If the government eliminates corruption within itself, a free media can be a useful tool in bringing down corruption outside of the government. From the perspective of businesses, doing good, ethical business would for the first time be beneficial as corrupt practices would finally suffer. For the communications companies, a credible and trustworthy media enterprise would be financially prosperous and challenge competing companies to employ the same standards. An independent mass media has the power to hold the corrupt accountable and expose the severity of the problem to the public.

Another culprit behind corruption is the lack of government enforcement of laws and its consequent lack of credibility. Laws are only effective if they are enforced, and while there are laws meant to prevent and punish corruption in India they are for the most part ineffective. Between 1950 and 1980 alone, India had the Railway corruption Inquiry Committee, the Vivian Bose Commission, the Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption, the Wanchoo Committee Report on Black Monday. None of these committees have managed to slow down the spread of corruption and that is because the enforcement of laws relating to corruption is extremely weak. The government has failed to successfully implement legislation because it is simply not credible. Nobody takes the government seriously due to its perpetual inability to enforce its own laws. A government lacking credibility also lacks obedience, and those engaging in corrupt activities know that they are just one corrupt act away from getting away with their crimes, as opposed to getting caught.

Due to the lax enforcement of laws surrounding corruption the government seriously lacks credibility in India. If the government’s desire is to cooperate with the people to come down hard on corruption, credibility must be established first. For the people to be receptive to government changes or new legislation, the government must establish at least minimal credibility. Corruption is a phenomenon in India that is just as much psychological as it is a cultural custom and it has reached the point where it is threatening the political system. If democracy is to survive in India, cooperation between a socially conscious people and a credible government must take place.

The recent spread of democracy at the grassroots level means that corruption can be discussed and confronted openly by members of all social classes. According to so and so, preventing corruption requires more than just legislation. He argues that there is a serious lack of participation in civil society in India, and that contributes to the governments struggles to enforce laws. The people have to feel safe and secure in speaking out about corruption and also have to be knowledgeable on the subject. The general public must participate in civil society in order to be properly educated on the implications of a corrupt society.

The White Tiger focuses on an individual representative of a massive rural population. And it is the people that have to take the initiative to defeat corruption with the cooperation of the government. The government must see that there is a public demand for the end of corruption or it will continue to cater to the corrupt instead. Balram is an ideal example of an individual taking matters into his own hands due to a lack of government support and a desperate need for a better life. The international community finally seems to realize the extent of the problem and the complexities in solving it. As reported by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) in India, The United Nations General Assembly has designated December 9^th of each year as International Corruption Day. The CVC report goes on to state, “Considering the enormity and complexity of the problem of corruption and the need for involving a wide set of stakeholders that include Government institutions, Private sector, Civil Society, Media, International agencies and Academic institutions...” Now that the international community is on board and has recognized that solving corruption involves tapping into nearly all parts of society, it is up to the Indian people to wage its own war from within. Suresh Kohli uses an analogy to best describe corruption in India and its deep roots in Indian society. He writes, “Corruption is like a cancer of the blood. Just as diseased blood has to be drained out before healthy blood can be infused to give the body a chance of survival, so has society to purge itself of false values before it can receive a transfusion of healthy social consciousness” (Kohli, 1975, 10). Before Indians throughout society can break free of the culture of corruption so deeply embedded in their nation’s social and political structure, the people must express their desire for change. It might mean someone like Balram finding another way to succeed or perhaps it means providing people like him with other ways to succeed. Likely however it a mixture of both, and until all aspects of society band together against the common enemy of corruption, advice given three decades ago will remain relevant.