A slippery slope

WHILE the intense grief and anger at the Peshawar massacre is understandable, it is disturbing to note the demands for public executions and for the killings of the students to be immediately avenged by the deaths of militants, wherever and whenever. Disturbing too is the role that sections of the media have been playing, acting as cheerleaders for executions, demanding more and lobbying for executions to be broadcast or even carried out in public arenas. What can really be said about those sections of society that appear to want to descend to the level of the Taliban in order to fight them? It is a sad indictment of Pakistan that many citizens now want the equivalent of a `khooni chowk`, a bloody square that Mullah Fazlullah and his men made notorious in Swat at the height of their insurgency.

Surely, the violence of the battlefield should not be replicated by the state under public demand in the form of public executions, whether televised or in front of a cheering crowd. That would not just be the start of a slippery slope, it could spell the end of hope for a civilised, rules-based society where rights are paramount and laws carefully and honourably implemented. Is through the spirit of revenge being so brutally projected in the media and in conversations across the country simply because of fear or is it the sign of some deeper malaise that afflicts Pakistan? At the very least, it appears that neither state nor society, neither the country's leadership nor the average citizen, appears willing to reflect on what has gone wrong and how to find a way back to a stable and secure Pakistan.

Consider that appalling as the massacre was, it did not come out of nowhere nor do the perpetrators reflect a mindset that is not on display in other dark corners of this country. Furthermore, while the problems of extremism and militancy are not one and the same, consider how much of an enabling environment has been created over the years by militant apologists, preachers of hate and even the toxic ideas that pass as mainstream views via textbooks across the country. Can militancy really be eradicated root and branch if the infrastructure of jihad the mosque, madressah and welfare network created and sustained by groups espousing violence against Pakistan`s purported enemies is not also rolled up? The military and political leadership has talked about ending the distinction between good and bad militants, but has it even an idea about how to progressively eliminate the environment that makes any kind of militant possible? The media too must surely shoulder some of the blame. Focusing on the here and now, avenging the sense of grief and loss after Peshawar, instead of asking the tough questions and holding rulers to account will do little more than ease the path to the next terrible atrocity.

Crackdown in Turkey

BY taking arbitrary measures and showing authoritarian tendencies, Recep Tayyip Erdogan seems to be vindicating his critics at home and abroad. So far, 24 journalists, including the chief of a television network and the editor-in-chief of a newspaper, have been arrested on terrorism-related charges. Even though the court set free eight of them, including the editor, those still in custody include the television boss and others accused of trying to overthrow his regime in league with Fethullah Gulen, once Mr Erdogan`s friend and now his critic. Mr Gulen lives in self-exile in the US, but Mr Erdogan accuses him of planning his regime`s overthrow by setting up a `parallel state` through a network of cells in Turkey.

It is obvious that the arrest warrant for Mr Gulen is largely symbolic and unlikely to evoke a response from the US, which, in any case, is unhappy with the Erdogan government`s policy on the so-called Islamic State. The European Union, which is unhappy with Mr Erdogan`s Syria policy, denounced the arrests as being incompatible with `European values`.

It is astonishing that a man of Mr Erdogan`s stature should exhibit such paranoia. He created a new party after easing out the late Necmettin Erbekan, won three general elections in a row, was prime minister thrice and is now, after amending the constitution, the president. He has some extraordinary achievements to his credit, including the spectacular growth of the economy and the marginalisation of the military`s role in politics. Yet Mr Gulen seems to have got on his nerves, with Turkish politics revolving round the Erdogan-Gulen rivalry. Hizmet, Mr Gulen`s powerful movement, has branches in over 150 countries and controls a chain of newspapers and television networks, which regularly target Mr Erdogan`s policies. Matters came to a head early this year when Mr Erdogan thought the Hizmet-linked media was using a corruption scandal to overthrow his government and accused Hizmet followers of hatching `a dirty plot` by creating `a state within a state`. Then he upped the ante by booking Hizmet supporters on terrorism-related charges.

He has now defended his action, wondering whether the EU was `competent to make comments` on the raids and said he did not care whether or not Europe accepted Turkey as a member. The issue here is not Turkey`s EU membership but media freedom and Turkish democracy. Mr Erdogan is clearly overreacting to criticism and must show restraint.

Bashing K-Electric

THERE is much to hold K-Electric accountable for. But the gratuitous bashing of the power utility and its private-sector management by the power bureaucracy and its line ministry needs to end. The latest example of trenchant criticism of K-Electric comes from none other than the Minister for Water and Power Khawaja Asif, who in his testimony before a standing committee, reportedly said that the current privatisation of the entity was `against the public interest`, and that the shareholders had a reputation of doubling their money within a few years and moving out. These are highly unfair remarks. If the privatisation was `against the public interest`, would the minister care to clarify how his own government`s scheduled privatisation of power distribution companies will be different? And given that the current shareholders have held management control for more than six years now, how can he argue that their intention is to double their money in a few years and then move out? Does his government intend to prohibit successful bidders from ever selling their shareholding when they privatise the distribution companies next year? When K-Electric was in government hands, it was vilified for being inefficient and overstaffed and for devouring state subsidies.

Using these arguments, the utility was the first to be placed on the chopping block when privatisation of the power sector began in the early 2000s, and now a new set of complaints is being bandied about.

Yes, the federal government is owed money by K-Electric, but aren't there payments owed to the utility by the government as well? Yes, K-Electric buys electricity from the national grid, but why shouldn't it? Yes, there are inefficiencies and losses, but K-Electric`s record of reducing these is so far better than that of its counterparts in Punjab.

Khawaja Asif should realise that he is responsible for the power sector of the entire country, and not just one province. He should understand that Karachi, as part of the country, does not deserve such one-sided censure.