Pork barrel politics in Maldives?

As we see happening in several representative democracies of the world, Maldives too has embraced the concept of pork barrel politics at the expense of broader public good. The term "pork barrel" - which originated in United States refers to "appropriations secured by Congressmen for local projects." Typically, "pork" involves funding for government programs whose economic or service benefits are concentrated in a particular area but whose costs are spread among all taxpayers. (Wikipedia)

The Rf11.9 billion mid-term budget for 2010 has been passed by the parliament, the legislative body, after including Rf800 million which was added following a parliamentary committee review. This is in addition to the Rf4 billion deficit in the budget proposed to parliament by the government. The Minister of Finance has informed the parliament that he will not be responsible to secure funds for the additional expenditure included by the parliament.

A responsible government budget is necessary to maintain economic stability of the country. If the government spends more than it gets and continues to print money to make up for shortfalls, it will eventually lead to inflation and set off a serious decline of the rufiyaa.

With the separation of powers, the Legislature or the Parliament makes the laws, and supervises the activities of the other two arms- the Executive and the Judiciary-with a view to changing the laws when appropriate.

Now that the parliament has forced the hand of the of government compromising the separation of powers and adding to increasing political chaos, how does the parliament wish to hold the government accountable for the Rf800 million included by them? Parliament wants the government to spend this money- public money on among other things to restore civil servants pay and subsidise private media.

If the opposition in the parliament is doing this to derail government efforts to secure financing from international institutions, it creates a more dangerous tendency. It may lead the way for members of the parliament to practice the US style pork-barrel politics, to carry out their pet projects using government funds in return for their constituents loyalty.

Although we now have the framework for a representative democracy-i.e., elected individuals representing the people, our society is more sharply divided on political party lines. The political parties engage in a bitter adversarial struggle to regain power or to remain in power. Rather than a simple dynamics - involving only voters, candidates, and issues - we get a dynamics based on competing factions. Political parties compete for funding, support and for voter loyalty; grassroots movements, special-interest groups, and wealthy elite factions compete amongst one another to influence public opinion and government policy, etc. People have no control over what their "representatives" do. Wealthy elites, with their ability to fund campaigns - and in various ways to influence candidates, the economy, the press, and government officials - end up having a distinct advantage in the competition among factions.

Climate Talks stalled due to lack of Trust

China, India and other developing nations blocked U.N. climate talks on Monday, bringing negotiations to a halt with their demand that rich countries discuss much deeper cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions.

Representatives from developing countries — a bloc of 135 nations — said they refused to participate in any working groups at the 192-nation summit until the issue was resolved.

The move was a setback for the Copenhagen talks, which were already faltering over long-running disputes between rich and poor nations over emissions cuts and financing for developing countries to deal with climate change.

More on this article of AP.

A group of US Republican lawmakers have banded together and they are going to arrive Copenhagen to try to block President Barack Obama's efforts to push for mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases.

Blatter's 'moral compensation' to the Irish

FIFA president Sepp Blatter said Thursday that he wants to offer a special award for Ireland- a 'moral compensation' after Ireland lost a World Cup spot to France when a handball from the French captain Thierry Henry led to a decisive goal.

On the day Blatter announced that World Cup teams will receive at least $9 million for taking part in the competition, he insisted that a monetary reward would not be appropriate to pay the Irish.

The Irish never asked for a financial compensation or even a moral compensation. They wanted a place in the world cup contest. To talk about a moral compensation in the world cup dominated by powerful forces of sponsorship and big money just like any other big business that is bereft of morality is really a farce.

Earlier in the week Blatter urged players and coaches to "observe fair play", calling on them to understand that doing the right thing on the pitch has "social and cultural value" and commanding them to "be an example to the rest of the world".

This call for honour came just days after he revealed that Thierry Henry wasn’t to blame for his cheating which cost Ireland a place at the World Cup finals.

Blatter also revealed that he telephoned the France captain to offer him support “because he tried to get in touch with me.”

Blatter added: "He was honest by admitting that he did use his hand, but it wasn't his responsibility to tell the referee. In the specific case of the Henry handball, the referee should have taken the time to reflect rather than immediately awarding the goal."

Thierry Henery admitted to the hand ball only after the match was over. If Thierry Henry was so honest, he should have told the referee who did not see the hand ball before the match was over. Then the goal would not have stood and Ireland had the chance to go to the world cup.

It is difficult to understand Blatter's intellectual reasoning. What kind of a message does this controversy send considering the fairplay and honesty that Blatter talked about?