Civil-military ties
A new army chief does not automatically suggest a reset in institutional relations, but it is an opportunity for all sides to re-evaluate their approaches to a central and common challenge: civil-military relations.
In the days-old tenure of army chief Gen Qamar Bajwa, so far there has been no indication of how his approach differs, if at all, from that of his predecessor, retired Gen Raheel Sharif. However, there are obvious areas in which improvement can and should be sought.
To begin with, a historical perspective, a problem far older than simply the former army chief’s tenure, in the military needs adjustment. The perspective is that the military has both the right and a need to steer national security and foreign policies — a belief rooted in historical anomalies and that is very much separated from the constitutionally mandated institutional scheme of things.
Unhappily, in recent years, the encroachment has gone beyond narrow, older confines and spilled over into a bewildering array of civilian priorities. Therefore, from the Karachi operation, conceived of and initiated by the federal government, to the contours of CPEC, and from essentially treating Balochistan as a national security issue to suggesting economic priorities, the military’s policy imperatives and fingerprints are unmistakeable.
It may not be a priority for Gen Bajwa to undertake a review of the vast encroachments in the civilian domain, but it should be — as several military leaders before him have discovered, the greater the incursions, the more likely the civilian leadership is to fixate on them at the cost of focusing on genuine democratic and governance deficits.
Perhaps a starting point could be for the military to discard the implicit destabilising option — that in times of crisis and civil-military tensions, a military takeover remains the ultimate option. A clear statement in this regard, like retired Gen Sharif’s public statement 10 months in advance that he would quit office on schedule, could go some way in setting the right tone in the latest era of inter-institutional ties.
Yet, the problem is clearly not of the military’s making alone. Military encroachment has been cheered, encouraged and even demanded by civilian leaders in recent years and over the decades. Be it the latter-day obsession with a so-called third umpire or previous-era exhortations to Article 58(2b)-empowered presidents and all-powerful army chiefs, civilian opposition parties of all stripes have at some point or the other been guilty of themselves undermining democratic precepts.
It remains the case that the surest path to strengthening the democratic process is when democrats put the system ahead of personal political ambitions.
Finally, democratic progress is not and should not be seen as a zero-sum game. Since the transition to democracy started anew in 2008, both the military and civilians have benefited from democratic continuity.
Companies Ordinance
THERE is little doubt that the Companies Ordinance of 1984 was in dire need of an overhaul. The main corporate regulator, the Securities and Exchange Commission, needed to be strengthened significantly to be able to tackle the growing power of private capital in the economy, and disclosure requirements also had to be updated in a world where ownership patterns of companies can be concealed easily using offshore jurisdictions. The government appears to have made an attempt to do something along these lines with the new Companies Ordinance, but in bypassing parliament it has made a tactical error. Legislation of such importance, with many detailed clauses that have great impact on the conduct of business in the country, ought to have clearly been presented before parliament and debated in detail, with comments and feedback from the corporate sector, before being passed into law. Parliamentarians who are objecting to the ordinance have a point, and the government should find a way to work with them to navigate this legislation further.
A closer examination of the legislation also shows some troubling signs. The devil, it would appear, is in the details. For example, whereas the powers of the SECP are being augmented, as well as its autonomy, the discretion to exercise these powers will lie with the “minister in charge”, according to the legislation. This means the government will in effect exercise these powers as per its own discretion. As a rule, regulators can only be expected to discharge their obligations properly if they are empowered to act independently of the government, and their staff is protected from government interference through fixed terms of service. The legislation appears to be carrying out a bit of a sleight of hand on this important issue, by first empowering the SECP, and then making the augmented powers subordinate to the government itself. This is a risky configuration of power since it can potentially politicise the regulator, and open its actions up to allegations of being politically motivated. There are other examples of clauses that leave one wondering as to their intent. For this reason, considering how ambitious the scope of the legislation is, and the immense impact it can have on investment in the country, it should have been debated in parliament in close detail and scrutinised carefully before being allowed to become a law. The government should move to build a larger consensus.
Karachi clean-up drive
KARACHI’S citizens will no doubt welcome the 100-day cleanliness campaign launched on Thursday by the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation. The drive — initiated by Mayor Waseem Akhtar — intends to focus on the key areas of sanitation and road repairs. Anyone who lives in Karachi will testify that the metropolis is suffering from an advanced stage of urban decay. Despite being Pakistan’s largest city and commerce hub, Karachi currently resembles a large garbage dump, with crumbling infrastructure and potholed roads. In fact, in the World Bank’s Karachi City Diagnostic Report, the bank says that the metropolis confronts “severe environmental challenges” which include “a high incidence of air, land and water, including marine, pollution”. Much of this, as the report says, is caused by inadequate waste management. The report observes that less than 60pc of Karachi’s people have access to sewerage facilities, while the same percentage of solid waste is not collected and transferred to dump sites. In fact, much of the waste is either left rotting in neighbourhoods, or is burnt, which creates a choking miasma that envelops localities. Keeping these grim details in mind, the mayor’s effort is much needed, if much delayed, though it is also a fact that Karachi only received an elected city administration earlier this year after an eight-year gap.
The mayor says he is doing what he can with limited resources. What the city needs is a permanent waste-management system. However, the fact is that the Sindh government controls two key areas that should be under municipal control: waste management and sewerage facilities. The city’s problems are complex and deep-rooted, and nothing short of a sustainable master plan can address its woes. But as an initial step, all civic functions, along with financial control, must be under the mayor’s jurisdiction. Waseem Akhtar says the Sindh chief minister has assured him of support; the best way the provincial government can show its support is by transferring all municipal functions to the elected local bodies across Sindh.
Published in Dawn, December 2nd, 2016