Bush Administration…..no….Regime

The Oxford dictionary defines regime as:

regime
• Noun 1. a government, especially an authoritarian one. 2 a systematic or ordered way of doing something. 3 the conditions under which a scientific or industrial process occurs.

— ORIGIN originally in the sense regimen: from French, from Latin regimen ‘rule’.

While it defines and administration as:

administration

• Noun 1. the organization and running of a business or system. 2 the action of administering. 3 the government in power. 4 chiefly N. Amer. the term of office of a political leader or government.

So when does an administration become a regime? How many times have we heard that the Bush Administration is advocating regime change in North Korea or Iran or as in the past Iraq. By labeling even democratic or semi-democratic administrations as regimes like in Venezuela or Russia, does one man’s regime mean another one’s administration?

The Bush ‘administration’ has been in power for eight years and over the years has faced countless charges of high-handedness, secrecy, unilateralism and authoritarianism over its domestic and foreign policies. The invasion (or is it occupation!) of Iraq, the domestic wiretapping controversy, Guantanamo Bay etc. have all the potential to make this administration fit the ‘regime’ definition. But can we ever call it that? I think not. Then again, do democratically elected governments, and more so re-elected governments, ever become regimes? Why is that in Russia the Putin administration, which held out the olive branch to the US in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, is now labeled as a regime curiously once ties between the two countries have considerably cooled? Or for that matter the previous Khatami government in Iran, considered moderate by Iranian standards, was considered an administration, even though American data now suggests that it was under that very regime (?) that Iran was building a nuclear weapons program! The current Ahmedinejad administration, which going by the same intelligence estimate is now nuclear weapons program free is labeled a regime. Confusing isn’t it?

But then in this naïve argument over regime over administration, one cannot overlook the fact as to where the source of a story one reads emanates from usually decides the regime-administration debate and outlooks change from country to country and from one media form to the other. American and Western media will always like to call the Bush government (thank God for a neutral word!) an administration, never mind the fact that they will paint it as a copybook regime. The reverse is true for unfriendly countries like Russia, Venezuela and Iraq, so a definite pattern does seem to emerge. The media in the Middle East, though never known to call a regime a regime, still refer to all its governments as administrations. So as you move from country to country a clear pattern of what defines a regime and administration changes with glaring alacrity. Then again, electronic media like Fox News in the US, for wanting to create sensationalism love words like regime and dictatorship at the drop of the hat (or is it mike), while more sober outlets like the New York Times would still prefer government and administration.

The other equally intriguing question that emerges is can a regime become an administration or vice versa? Is it just semantics or does a rational system to label a government actually exist? Pakistan is a curious country in a bit of a pickle. As President Musharraf ruled valiantly for the past few years, the Musharraf administration was hailed as a frontline ally against terrorism, the cowboy of the East as it were. This year though, his ‘administration’, now enjoys the tag of a regime. Never mind the fact that authoritarianism was the hallmark of the Musharraf government right since the beginning what with a crackdown on democratic parties and the free media. But it was never the West’s concern to call a dictator just that as long as he was on their side. With the administration now getting out of hand, the curse of the regime is now solidly attached to Musharraf. Then again now that he has taken off the uniform, a loaded term on its own, and assumed the role a civil ‘administrator’ does he warrant a change from regime to administration again? A regime change if you will!

In India too, the regime-administration tug of war continues. So as soon as the word Modi comes up, regime and dictator follow. And strangely, his new found friend in that exclusive regime club is West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee. But in India we face a curious problem; it is not rocket science to imagine that the Manmohan Singh government is an administration and not a regime. How can we call his government a regime, when let alone authoritarianism, the Prime Minister does not even have authority to shuffle his own cabinet. Here we have an administration which is being run by the Congress regime and the regime of the regional parties. To each is own I guess. So, to get around this regime-administration business, why not start a colour coded regime to administration chart, much like terror alerts in the West. Green could mean an administration while red could mean regime, with yellow, orange making up the transformation. It would be a great ready reckoner for all of us who get oh so confused with the regimen of calling a spade a shovel and vice versa.