Timing their apologies

Hillary Rodham Clinton has said ‘sorry,’ for ordering actions when she was the Secretary of State that led to her ambassador and four others being killed in Benghazi, Libya. There is another confession by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair whose ‘mistake’ in Iraq has destroyed another fairly prosperous Arab nation.

Why do politicians across the world confess to making mistakes, long after they have committed? Reasons may vary from person to person and country to country. But their actions taken from high offices they once held leave massive trails of misery.

Unfortunately, they live on with their delayed confessions made with that golden, convenient word, ‘sorry.’ In about a week, many public confessions and regrets have appeared, leaving one wondering what to make out of them. It would invariably have to be OK, at last. Or, this is too little, too late.

Why do politicians across the world confess to making mistakes, long after they have committed? Is it realisation of the continuing damage that they have caused? Is it the fear of the law catching up? Is it the hope of making a political comeback? Or are these pangs of conscience?

Reasons may vary from person to person and country to country. But their actions taken from high offices they once held leave massive trails of misery. Unfortunately, they live on with their delayed confessions made with that golden, convenient word, ‘sorry’.

Some never admit their mistakes and go the way all living beings do. Some evade the law. Some go into exile. They carry their guilt, assuming they have one, to their grave. But we can leave them in their heaven or hell.

In about a week, many public confessions and regrets have appeared, leaving one wondering what to make out of them. It would invariably have to be OK, at last. Or, this is too little, too late.

Those who have suffered by the actions of these confessors would have anger welling in their chests. They may cry in silence, unless it becomes a collective protest that is taken note of.

The Democratic Party’s front-runner for the United States presidency, Hillary Rodham Clinton, no stranger to India and Indians, has said ‘sorry’, a guarded one and a calculated one, for ordering actions when she was the Secretary of State that led to her ambassador and four others being killed in Benghazi, Libya. She did that to ‘clear’ her name amidst her campaign for the party’s nomination, hoping to become America’s first woman President next year.

There is not much talk, though, of why, in the first place, the US had to go for “regime change” to oust a wayward dictator, Muammar Gaddafi. There is not much talk of the havoc caused in ‘liberating’ Libya of Gaddafi who had in any case been tamed with his palace being bombed and his son being killed years earlier. But then, the US and the West in general, have been pretty selective in their choice of dictators to be either protected or destroyed.

The result of the regime change has been destruction of a society that was once fairly prosperous. This brings us to the latest confession by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair whose ‘mistake’ in Iraq has destroyed another fairly prosperous Arab nation.

There is no remorse for that, though. Blair guardedly says that the West’s invasion may have led to the rise of the Islamic State. After the US created it, the IS has gone out of their control and dares the world by capturing territories in Syria. The US has been hunting with the IS hounds in Syria, obsessed with another regime change, that of Bashar Al Assad who, like Saddam, although a dictator, runs a secular regime.

Blair admits that no weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) were found in Saddam Husain’s Iraq, the main alibi for the invasion. It now turns out that Blair is making confessions in time for a probe headed by John Chilcot set up in 2009 on Britain’s role in the Iraq war. Perhaps, Blair fears indictment and a possible punishment.

It is no secret that the US, under Bush senior and Junior, had gone into Iraq twice at Britain’s behest. Even the timing of the two campaigns was decided by British Prime Ministers, John Major and Tony Blair respectively. It is also no secret that because the father ‘won’ the Gulf war that Saddam survived, the son unleashed another Gulf war to avenge it.

Canada’s Trudeau

Like India did last year, Canada has experienced a ten-year itch. Anti-incumbency has worked. After all, Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair had faced it, and so have elected leaders elsewhere in the world.

The Canadians have rejected Stephen Harper, an intelligent, but reserved and uncharismatic leader. They have opted for a populist leader. Any comparison between Manmohan Singh and Narendra Modi is unintended, though.

Why did Justin Trudeau win? After all, his party was in third place only months ago. Some of the momentum has to do with his name and personal charm.

Trudeau is young and charismatic with almost superstar looks. He is an India-admirer – more than his rival Harper tried to be for long. And while the latter did have many ethnic Indian lawmakers in his party, Trudeau has gone far ahead, attending Indian parties wearing kurta-pyjama and doing Bhangra. A video clip of him dancing on India’s 65th Independence Day at a function in Montreal, dancing away with Indian performers has gone viral.

Along with looks, Trudeau has pedigree, being the son of Pierre Trudeau, Canada’s most popular Prime Minister. Any comparisons with India’s so-called ‘first family’ –actually there are many more in the states across the country – are unintended.

Looks, dress and pedigree do not matter beyond a point. Trudeau has made promises during the campaign and promises to keep them. He has been sensible in his campaign, kept it positive, and took mostly the middle path on economy, climate change and other issues that confront the Canadians.

While Harper was seen as divisive and tried to stir up fear about Canada’s Muslim population, Trudeau loudly rejected it. A film clip of a Muslim girl in hijab attending his meeting has gone viral.

There are said to be no more than a hundred such girls donning hijab all over Canada. Trudeau countered Harper’s campaign that the latter’s critics and sections of the media termed as promoting Islamphobia. So it is not populism alone. Trudeau’s people are not into triumphal mode after the victory. He has talked of consensus politics and said this week, “Conservatives are not our enemies; they’re our neighbours.”

Last Sunday, Modi celebrated India’s unity and diversity and said that “diversity is the mantra of unity. He emphasised that “peace, harmony and unity” were the trinities on which the country’s progress and well-being depend.

Reassuring words in these troubled times. Will they translate into action? Will his party colleagues, allies and his mentors pay heed to them?