Anatomy of two Shootings

The New Year had an inauspicious start with two political shootings in the first week. Although half a world apart these cases have similarities; polarized populace and discontent with the politicians. The Governor of the Province of Punjab in Pakistan was killed on January 4 by his own security guard. Then on January 8 a gunman killed six people and shot Representative Gabrielle Giffords, thankfully not fatally, in Tucson, Arizona. The Governor was killed because he supported the weakening of harsh fundamentalist Islamic laws of the country. Ms. Giffords was shot presumably because the gunman did not consider her tough enough against illegal migrants from Mexico

The two countries where the incidents occurred are the opposite poles any way you look at them. Pakistan, for all practical purposes, is not a functioning state. For most of the fifty three years of its existence, it has been ruled by military dictators with iron fists. Its current civilian government is divided and weak. Civil disobedience is common, corruption is rampant, army acts independently of the government, federal and provincial governments are continually in conflict and riots and suicide bombings are common occurrences in major cities. The general populace is desperately poor and illiterate. It is polarized into two camps: religious fundamentalists and the moderates who want to modernize Islamic practices. The war between these groups has raged for some time with varying intensity and many leaders have become its victims.

Conversely, the United States is a democracy with a cherished system of government established two hundred and fifty years ago. But it does have a history of violence in civilian and political spheres. The country has a unique distinction among developed countries of losing four Presidents to assassins while in office and attempts made on the lives of several others. Such unsavoury record in a small country would not cause much stir but it is a serious concern when it blights the only major power. The situation is even more worrisome because the so-called ‘economic engine’ of the world currently has severe financial problems; the recession of 2008 caused general population a lot of grief and no relief is in sight. The hands of the government are tied with a war in Afghanistan, the huge budget deficit and the debt mountain growing rapidly. It doesn’t help that a significant portion of the U.S. government bonds are held by China, not a friendly state by any definition. Then there is the politics of government, federally and in most states. There is a continuous warfare between the White House, Senate and the House of Representatives and the judiciary in the form of Supreme Court has its own political agenda. The party discipline does not exist in the two major parties and each member of the Senate or the House votes as s/he chooses. The government appears to be unable to act whether to direct the economy or provide the essential services like education or effective medical care. Even modest federal legislation and regulations are challenged in the law courts by belligerent southern states some of whom are in dire straits themselves. The wealth is concentrating in fewer hands and the divide between rich and working Americans is becoming wider as the middle class shrinks due to wage stagnation, increasing unemployment and catastrophic drop in the value of homes.. No wonder the general population is feeling more and more frustrated. Some of the rich are exploiting the situation by using the media they largely control to convince a large number of people that they also could become rich if the controls and taxes on industry and capital were abolished. The economic uncertainty and these media campaigns are polarizing the nation into two camps: capitalist wannabes and the moderates. The first camp wants unregulated free enterprise, less government and low taxes. The second camp consists mostly of professionals and academics and wants the government to provide social services and tax fairly to pay for them. If the two groups do not agree on appropriate steps to resolve the financial crisis, there is a possibility that discontent in the society would rise to a point where serious upheaval becomes a reality.

The shooting in Arizona is an expression of the frustration felt by people whose high hopes have been dashed by the recent economic collapse and the absence of signs of its revival. It could be a harbinger of worse yet to come. It is a warning to the leaders that urgent action is needed to revive the economy and increase the employment. This is not likely to happen overnight. In the meantime it is vital that the polarization is reduced and the expectations are brought down to a realistic level.

An Opinion:

Both issues, fluoride in our water and lanyards for kids in schools are examples of democracy gone berserk. The water supply is a health issue and it is the business of city's water supply authority to determine how it is filtered and add whatever the health experts recommend, whether it is chlorine, fluoride or any other substance. Most people, including myself with eight years of postsecondary education in science, know nothing about water and should leave it to experts. Similarly, if school board is responsible for kids' safety and education standards they have a right to decide how they go about doing it. If wearing a lanyard is all that much of a bother, how do these kids do what a teacher asks for home assignment which is much bigger intrusion on their time and energy?

I often wonder why any one goes in public service occupations any more when every one claims to know more than the professionals, does what he or she wishes and then blames them when the problem does not go away.