DAWN 10-12-2011


AS rumour and speculation in Pakistan continue and sections of the political opposition and media drop all pretences of differentiating between the PPP-led government and the overall democratic system, it has fallen to Nawaz Sharif to provide some dispassionate analysis about what is really at stake. Speaking to the media on Thursday, Mr Sharif warned that continued rumour and innuendo risked inviting an extra-constitutional intervention by the army and firmly moved to dispel any doubts that he or his party would support anything other than the continuation of the democratic process. No saviours, no `Bangladesh model` of army men and technocrats running the country, no one but the duly elected representatives of the country had a right to rule, Mr Sharif insisted. It is a welcome intervention in an alarming discourse that has gripped swathes of the country in recent days. That the comments have come from the man who is the leader of one of the two largest poli- tical parties in the country is even more welcome. Since his return to Pakistan, Mr Sharif has shown admirable consistency in his support for the democratic process, despite many voices inside his own party calling for a quick wrap-up of the Zardari-led PPP government.

Two points in particular are worth making here. Neither is new but they do need to be reiterated. One, the army does have not solutions to Pakistan`s governance crisis. Four dictators have tried and failed and there is no reason to believe a fifth will succeed. The reason is not one of commitment or application. Even the most committed and capable of self-appointed saviours will suffer from a lack of political legitimacy that will eventually erode his standing. To take Pakistan forward, a sustained effort is needed over several decades but it is difficult to imagine how any dispensation can survive without genuine political legitimacy for that period of time. When back to square one, or worse, is the almost guaranteed result at the end of a dictator`s term, why go down that path at all?

Two, the civilians will have to raise their game and improve their performance if they are to be given the necessary time and space to govern. Unfortunate as it may be, the reality is that the space that ought to be the preserve of civilians is occupied by a domestically predominant army. To expect that space to simply be handed over to civilians regardless of their performance is un-realistic. Until the civilian leadership develops the ability to deliver better results, the threat to democracy will never really disappear.


ZARTEEF Khan Afridi was a courageous man. He was a staunch supporter of human rights and, in an ultra-conservative part of the country, encouraged the women in his family to vote and openly opposed the Taliban. Despite death threats, he continued with his advocacy of basic rights. In extremely testing times he paid with his life for an ideology based on tolerance and respect. A local coordinator for the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan for the tribal Khyber Agency and headmaster of a government school, Mr Afridi was gunned down by two assailants in Jamrud on Thursday as he was on his way to work. And he was by no means alone in the struggle against injustice. Over the years many rights activists have been killed or `disappeared` by actors of all ilk who appear to be above the law.

Sadly the government has done little or nothing to protect people striving to promote equity in the country. According to the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders` 2011 report — launched in Pakistan by the HRCP the same day Mr Afridi was murdered — perpetrators of violence against those working for human rights are rarely brought to justice. The victims include civil society activists, members of religious minorities who brave all odds to raise their voice in an increasingly narrow-minded nation, NGO employees, journalists, trade union members and lawyers, among others. For instance, Pakistan was listed by the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders as one of the deadliest countries in 2010 for media workers who were doing nothing more than working towards creating awareness about injustice in all its forms. Our politicians, especially those in power, need to move beyond their personal squabbles and look at the larger picture. Human rights have come to be so trampled upon in Pakistan that the unempowered see injustice as a fact of life. Meanwhile those with a voice who ruffle feathers know that they need to be prepared for any even-tuality. Society as a whole cannot be expected to advance in such an environment.

THERE is no doubt that the government`s decision to remove the subsidy on agricultural tubewells countrywide will be difficult to implement but the current economic climate leaves no other choice. The cabinet decided on Thursday that meters will be installed at tubewells. Until now, most users had been paying a flat rate that cost the state an annual amount of Rs5bn in subsidies. However, we feel the removal of the subsidy should be gradual and that small farmers should continue to benefit from it. Perhaps there can be a cut-off mark — for example farms beyond a certain acreage should not qualify for the subsidy. Large landowners, who don`t pay income tax as it is, should be paying their fair share for the water they use. At the same time, the government must consider the decision`s impact on agricultural output in underdeveloped areas like Balochistan.

The installation of meters at tubewells will hopefully improve water-management practices. The use of traditional irrigation methods in Pakistan results in significant wastage of water, especially at a time when our water resources are dwindling. Having to pay for the water they consume may convince farmers to use the precious resource judiciously instead of flooding entire fields and encourage them to adopt better farming techniques to reduce wastage and improve crop yields. Drip irrigation is one method suggested by experts to promote rational use of water. While it is important to recoup losses sustained by power companies and the state and to promote a culture of paying for what one uses, care must be taken to ensure that the overall impact of the removal of the subsidy does not lead to further inequity. As indicated earlier, a planned and phased removal of the tubewell subsidy, giving a break to poor farmers, is the best way to proceed.