close
Thursday April 25, 2024

Horse-trading also exists in developed countries

LAHORE: What to talk of political horse-trading in Pakistan and other undeveloped countries, the nuisance of vote trading even continues to plague some developed democracies, a research conducted by the Jang Group and Geo Television Network reveals.Also called “political log-rolling” or even “political maneuvering” in United States and some European

By Sabir Shah
March 04, 2015
LAHORE: What to talk of political horse-trading in Pakistan and other undeveloped countries, the nuisance of vote trading even continues to plague some developed democracies, a research conducted by the Jang Group and Geo Television Network reveals.
Also called “political log-rolling” or even “political maneuvering” in United States and some European countries, the phenomenon of horse-trading is quite old and can roughly be defined as an unethical way of trading favours in a political arena.
These favours are extended by politicians, legislatures or political parties to the men and entities who are not siding with them over a certain issue at a given point of time.As is the case in literal horse-trading, where the selling of horses offers massive opportunities for dishonesty due to the difficulties in evaluating the merits of the animals put on display to attract buyers, political horse-trading is also deemed to be an immoral act—-totally against the spirit of flawless democracy!
However, these underhand business practices do continue unabated in countries like Pakistan, India, United States, United Kingdom, Afghanistan and Mexico etc, where hard bargaining of some kind does take place both within and outside the legislative houses at certain times. The forms of vote trading may vary from country to country, but the purpose is the same.
While these practices are known to allow special-interest groups to have a voice in the political process; they also play a decisive role in stabilising and destabilising regimes, besides being instrumental in getting certain bills/laws passed or blocked on the floors of the legislative houses.
When former US president Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919) was criticised during the November 1904 presidential polls for making certain political alliances, he was totally calm and unfased over the media-bashing.
After getting elected to a full presidential term, the exuberant Theodore Roosevelt, possessing a “cowboy” persona and robust masculinity, had remarked: “In politics, we have to do a great many things that we ought not to do.”
But, one of the first examples of horse-trading or vote trading to occur in the United States was way back in 1790.
As history tells us, Thomas Jefferson (an American Founding Father, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and the country’s third president) had inked an accord in 1790 with his rivals James Madison (an American statesman, political theorist and the country’s fourth president) and Alexander Hamilton (founding father of the United States and the chief staff aide to General George Washington) to move the American capital from New York to a site along the Potomac River in exchange for federal assumption of debts incurred by the states in the Revolutionary War.
(Reference: Roderick Kiewietac’s book “Vote Trading in the First Federal Congress? James Madison and the Compromise of 1790”)
Another US president William Jefferson “Bill” Clinton was also slated by US media for initiating rounds of deal-making in garnering support for the house vote on the North American Free Trade Agreement.
This is what the November 22, 1993 edition of the prestigious “Los Angeles Times” had stated about the “horse-trading” deals of yet another US president Lyndon Johnson (1908-1973): “To most political analysts, the late President Lyndon B Johnson remains the modern standard by which presidential horse-trading is measured. When the Texan was in power, lawmakers were plied with everything from military bases and dam projects to first say in choosing judges and federal appointees in exchange for their cooperation on Johnson’s programmes. Indeed, Johnson was so adept at political deal-making that his machinations became known irreverently as “the Johnson Treatment.”
Interestingly, some 122 years ago, the March 22, 1893 edition of the “New York Times” had carried an editorial captioned “Lying and legislation,” which had actually slammed a proposed law to make it illegal for a newspaper to falsely state its circulation figures.The 1893 editorial of the “New York Times” had commented that if the menace of lying was somehow stopped by law, the business of horse-trading would come to an end.
According to the editorial abstract, the US legislatures were taking a good deal of interest in 1893 in the morals of newspapers. It had stated: “It is not long since a bill was introduced into a Legislature requiring newspapers to guarantee their advertisements and providing that any man who was misled by an advertisement should have his remedy, not only against the advertiser, but also against the publisher of the advertisement, who was made responsible in damages.” In India, where the vintage Congress party had mooted anti-defection measures in 1967 when 175 of its legislators had crossed the floor, a leader of the country’s Communist Party had accused Indira Gandhi of engineering defections all along.
He had commented: “Congress only raises a hue and cry only when the boot is on the other foot.”When the Anti-Defection Bill was tabled in the parliament during 1985 for discussion and passage, this is what the then premier Rajiv Gandhi had said: “This (Anti-Defection) Bill is the first step towards cleansing our public life.”
Another Indian premier V.P Singh had said something different in 1997: “This (Anti-Defection) Act has not been able to serve its purpose. It has helped larger parties...to break smaller parties.”(Reference: The November 17, 1997 edition of the “Outlook India”)
This is what the November 26, 2002 edition of a leading Indian newspaper “The Hindu” had maintained about the concept of horse-trading: “In our country this word (horse-trading) is normally associated with politics. Whenever a government falls, a lot of horse-trading goes on before another government is formed. If you think this is because some of our politicians look like horses, then you are being terribly unfair, especially to the horses! Coming back to the expression, “horse-trading” is normally used to indicate a hard bargaining of some kind. The two bargaining parties show an understanding of the problem and the negotiations are done in a clever manner. Shrewd bargaining is always involved in “horse-trading.”
Echoes of horse-trading can also be heard in the United Kingdom, where the five-year parliament law is being dubbed a ‘recipe for political horse-trading’ and calls to ditch this particular legislation are gaining momentum with every passing day.
The January 5, 2015 edition of “The Daily Mail” had written: “David Cameron is under growing pressure to agree to tear up the government’s controversial fixed term parliaments act which means general elections take place only once every five years. Former minister Sir Alan Duncan has called for a cross-party deal to repeal the legislation, branding it a recipe for political horse-trading and coalition maneuverings. He is the most senior MP to demand that the law, which will make it all but impossible for either Cameron or Labour leader Ed Miliband to run a minority government if they fail to win a Commons majority next year, is scrapped.”
Earlier, in its November 22, 2014 edition, the “Daily Mail” had flashed the headline: “Polling expert says another period of political horse-trading seems inevitable.”
In Mexico, as the July 13, 2013 edition of the “Economist” sheds light, the country’s “Institutional Revolutionary Party” had persuaded businesses and unions during the economic crises of the 1980s and 90s to join “solidarity” pacts that had ultimately forced them to freeze prices and wages.
“The Economist” had further written: “In the late 1980s, it (the Institutional Revolutionary Party) had struck a deal of sorts with the conservative National Action Party, surrendering a few governorships in exchange for approval of sweeping economic reforms.”
In Afghanistan, as a May 29, 2014 report of the globally-acknowledged wire agency “Reuters” reveals that power-broking had dominated the first week of campaigning for the run-off round of Afghanistan’s presidential election, with the two candidates vying for support from former warlords and powerful tribal leaders ahead of the June 14 (2014) vote.
The “Reuters” had added: “In a departure from the first round, which saw elaborate rallies around the country by a crowded field of presidential hopefuls, the last men standing have hunkered down in Kabul to focus on building alliances. Knowing little of what is being negotiated behind closed doors; many voters regard the process with cynical disdain.”
When political pacts were being signed ahead of the Afghan election run-off, this London-based news agency had quoted a doctor in Kabul as saying: “Corrupt personalities with very dark backgrounds are supporting candidates whose slogans are to fight against corruption.”
“The “Reuters” had also quoted a researcher at the “Afghanistan Analyst Network” as viewing: “It’s a part of Afghan politics unfortunately, the current deal-making. You do not need to go to every each voter to convince them vote for you - you need to go to the elders, the tribal leaders and community leaders, and convince them to convince the community.”