US election 2016: A Pakistani perspective
It’s donkey vs. elephant time again. So what, if any, are the implications of the conclusion of this particular race for Pakistan?
Before we address this question, let’s get one thing out of the way: Now that the US citizens are on the verge of choosing between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Donald John Trump, I think there’s no longer any need to be embarrassed by the ‘quality’ of choices usually on offer in our election – well, I take that back. We still need to be embarrassed, but not too much – the leader of the free world is hardly fairing much better than us.
Long ago, a renowned religious scholar summed up a famous Pakistani election campaign in these immortal words: ‘Fatima Jinnah has no demerit except the fact that she is a woman; Ayub Khan has no merit except the fact that he is a man.’ Of course, I don’t have the luxury of being this insensitive, sexist, and generalising. In the following, I will attempt to compare the candidates, from a Pakistani perspective, with all the objectivity at my disposal.
Some people are rooting for Hillary because they see in her some sort of a crusader against American – and, by extension – global capitalism. Although they earn full marks for naïve and unjustified optimism regarding Hillary, it will take much more than a president to take on something as entrenched as capitalism.
Much more valid is the concern that Donald is not one to be trusted around vulnerable people (read female staff) in the White House. Unfortunately for Hillary and through no fault of hers however, the prospect of a concupiscent first gentleman prowling the White House corridors squanders this particular advantage that she enjoys over Donald. (Note that Bill will now have much more time on his hands than he used to have.) In any case, I don’t see it as anything more than an internal matter for the US – an intern matter to be precise.
According to reports, large numbers of Indian-Americans are actively canvassing for Donald because of his anti-Muslim stances. That would certainly have been enough to make Hillary our obvious candidate, had it not been for the ISIS, which has just gone ahead and has endorsed Hillary, muddying the waters again.
Donald will almost certainly be safer for the world at large. Since he believes he is the greatest deal-maker of all time, he is expected to try and do some deals on the international stage, at least initially. In sharp contrast, being the first female president Hillary will almost certainly be obliged to keep proving herself more bellicose than the next guy. She will probably bomb the hell out of the few regions of the world that have as yet managed to escape US ‘attention’. That being said, a Hillary presidency will have its advantages too: It will bust, once and for all, the vicious myth painstakingly kept alive by feminists about women being more peace-loving than men.
A Hillary presidency will be a delight for liberals, feminists, and people subscribing to ‘the worst democracy is better than the best dictatorship’ sentiment. Her administration is likely to be very noisy about democracy in poorer countries. Her influence is likely to bring about more legislation to follow on the heels of the women protection and honor killing acts. There is certainly a large constituency of this sort of thing in Pakistan. On the other hand, Republican presidents have generally been more understanding when it comes to the ‘security’ doctrines of Pakistan. The Pakistani constituency subscribing to these doctrines cannot be underestimated either.
Unless it’s all campaign rhetoric, Donald may end up being bad for minorities inside the US. That will, most definitely, be bad for the US. And that will, in turn, probably be good for the rest of the world. Of the two, the recalcitrant Trump is expected to be the anti-establishment candidate – at least on some level he will be difficult to control. Trump, then, may just hasten the decline of the empire. Hillary, being the establishment’s baby, will be ‘safer’ for the empire.
Donald’s Mexican wall may also end up showing us Pakistanis the way – we are faced with similar problems on at least two long borders, not to mention the conundrum of campus walls collapsing after every rain.
With Trump one has a feeling of getting what one sees. Hillary is as fake as they come, always looking for the ‘correct’ thing to say, in just the ‘correct’ accent. Above everything else, Trump is an underdog, and there’s nothing like rooting for the underdog. If that’s not enough, just consider that cackling Hillary laughter, and the prospect of having to withstand her on TV for at least four more years! Trump has his orange hair too, but he is definitely entertaining in his own way. Being in the Ch. Nisar mould, Hillary is the exact opposite to being entertaining.
In summary, from a Pakistani perspective, Trump appears to be the obvious choice. Strangely however, many friends are of the opinion that Hillary is the sane choice. While I am perplexed by their analysis and disagree with their conclusion, many of them are too dear for me to risk offending them by challenging their judgment. May the best man win, I say. May the best man win!
