McCain: Imprint from his death.

The passing of John McCain is a monumental, but sad, event in two crucial ways; its the end of an era for a man who stood by what he believed and on the other hand it defined the pettiness of the man who happens to be the President of USA, Mr. Donald Trump.

John McCain was a permanent fixture on the US political scene, with his presence in the Senate, his unsuccessful bids to become the President of the country, and most of his conviction in what he believed. While one may not have agreed with him on many issues one had to concede that he was a Republican with a heart of decency and good values. For me one of the most memorable moments was when one of his supporters lashed out, in a Q&A session against Barrack Obama, with whom McCain was locked in battle for the Presidency, he stopped the lady and told her that Obama was a decent American and showed a rare pedigree of respect for his opponent that makes it a memorable moment.

He put the interest of the country first at all times and worked in the Senate with a bipartisan spirit which won him the respect from the other side of the aisle. While for us foreigners abroad he did articulate an aggressive foreign policy stance, which one could disagree with, he still allowed his conscious to decide his position of matters. He was against the use of torture as a means of policy and while not pro-immigration, was certainly not devoid of humanism on the issue. His critics may say he was too wishy washy and middle of the road, but it would seem he was torn on many issues, like abortion, immigration and taxes. I showed that he tried to gauge the pulse of the nation in deciding at a particular time his voting pattern.

As he gradually drifted closer to his end from the brain cancer, John McCain was detailed in planning how his funeral must be held and in it sow the seeds of a remembrance that would define him for generations to come. The fact that amongst others he asked for former President's Bush and Obama to offer an eulogy at his funeral shows the depth of the man. Absent from even the list of invitees is President Trump.

This brings us to the second imprint from the death of this American hero, John McCain. Trump has shown a pettiness in dealing with the death of John McCain that shows the character, or the lack of it, in Trump himself. Just as one cannot forget the image of McCain correcting the woman one cannot forget the image of Trump hands folded in front of him and ignoring questions about the death of John McCain. He even stopped the issuance for a formal statement from the White House on the death of the Senator, and some suggest was behind the fact that the flag did not fly at half mast over the White House on that first day.

Yes McCain was no fan of Trump and disagreed with him, and indeed he was a bitter rival of both Bush and Obama. However, both Bush and Obama had the class, as indeed did McCain did, to know that political differences and personal respect do not have to be strange bedfellows. At the end of the day we are brought up to say that once a person dies we must not speak ill of them.

All differences aside Trump could have acted Presidential, he could have taken the higher moral ground and invited or not to the funeral made sure he pays the right tribute to an American who was first and foremost a patriot. Sadly the death of John McCain defines the greatness of McCain in the same way it defines the characterless pettiness of Donald Trump.

Sher View: The deed is done.

Indeed the deed is done. The General has got the endorsement from the Judges he appointed, announced the election date, and before December 1st 2007 will have shed the military uniform and seemingly all will be well. His good friend President George W Bush has said while the emergency is not something the US is elated about, 'General Musharraf has done a lot for democracy.' A truly puzzling statement. But then what Mr. G W Bush thinks of the General is not important, what the people of Pakistan will feel is more crucial.

Yes indeed the General was doing fine for democracy up to a year or so back, then the proverbial 'drunk with power' syndrome got to the man. Locking up political opponents, firing a Judge for alleged corruption without referring the case to the judiciary to try their own, and mishandling the siege of a mosque a few hundred meters from the Presidential residence in Islamabad all started a response from the General that has not made sense. In an interview to BBC the General tried to justify his actions and asked 'you think I just went mad in the last few months?'. The truth is Yes sir you have gone pretty mad. Here is why.

Building democracy by tearing up the constitution, locking up over 3,000 lawyers and human rights activists and rewriting the rules to protect your position is NOT Democracy. Interestingly Benazir Bhutto in championing 'democracy' cut her deals, then the general reneged and she did a hasty U turn and now might well contest the election as the sole main political leader if Nawaz Sharif is not allowed to contest the election. Under the new rules Mr. Sharif has to be personally present to file his nomination papers, so it is likely he will convince his Saudi hosts to let him return. Perhaps this was one of the reasons General Musharraf visited King Abdullah in Riyadh to either ask the Saudis not to let former PM back, but is more likely that he was trying to ask them to get Mr. Sharif agree to not demand the general's removal as President if he, in return, is allowed to return.

The Americans have again got this wrong, as if their main purpose is to fight terrorism and restore democracy then the way forward is rather simpler than backing just the General and Benazir Bhutto. They should engage in a contact with Mr. Nawaz Sharif and indeed the religious political parties in getting them to agree that Washington will support a full free election in return all political parties must agree to reduce violence within Pakistan. This is also in the interests of all the political parties, as terrorism within the country takes the political initiative away from the party leadership. Ms Bhutto and General Musharraf, now out of uniform, will not be able to deal with terrorism on their own.

If full and free elections are held and all parties are allowed to contest then this is what is likely, Sind province will go to Benazir's political party, Punjab to Nawaz Sharif, the North West Frontier Province to the MMA (a coalition of religious political parties) and Baluchistan to the Baluchi nationalist parties. Only the PML of Nawaz Sharif can deal with the groups who will win in NWFP and Baluchistan, and it is in these provinces that the problems of militancy and terrorism exist. This is why I have always argued that the country needs a government of national reconstruction where all parties are encouraged to form a collective government. Backing only one or two horses in this complex race will never be a fruitful bet and hence the dialogue has to be more broad based.

For the US hence the option has to be a neutral encouragement for free elections after they have had contacts with all political parties. It would seem while there will be legal and political resentments to the generals 'election' as the President, there is a chance that if free elections are allowed and all are allowed to participate then perhaps the chances are that this sordid deed will be buried in the need for national interest.