Salaam,

First, rectification, that I did not use the word honest for bureaucrats. The ones who are selected on merit are talented and I do not doubt this fact.

The discussion on degradation of the institution of bureaucracy will be delayed for some other moments of our lives. Right now I would like to tell you about the importance of bureaucracy.

Luckily all that I that I had to tell you has been published in this Sunday's newspaper. I am posting the article with relevant paragraphs emboldened. Peruse them for my reply.

Also, for further information on its effective role in Pakistan, please refer to Initial Problems of Pakistan and Role of Bureaucracy in Resolving them. No-one has doubts about the enormity of the problems, I am sure you'll understand the essence of the institution once you're done with it.

GENERAL Musharraf may say ever so often that the system he has introduced represents the very essence of democracy and good governance. However, neither the people of Pakistan nor the world at large see this as the reality. This scepticism at home and abroad is not without a basis.

Gen Musharraf amended the Constitution and enacted laws as he wished, yielding little ground in the process to the religious groups who had made it all possible for him. Yet he continues to perform functions and exercise powers beyond even the limits that he himself had set for the office of president. His concept “real” democracy has not diminished his dominant role either in public life or in the power structure.

Governance too, whatever its quality, remains more of the president’s responsibility than that of the cabinet or the prime minister. Because he is also head of the armed forces, the army commanders are involved in governance more than the parliamentarians or civil servants.

In short, credit is given to the president wherever something goes right once in a while, — the economy for instance, and when things go wrong, which is often, only he is blamed as in the case of the bloody insurgencies in Waziristan and Balochistan. This rule applies to foreign policy as well and with greater emphasis. The whole situation has the appearance of president’s rule in a continuing national emergency.

A political environment in which the prime minister, the cabinet and the parliament do not determine the direction of state policy nor bear the ultimate responsibility for its good or bad results cannot be called even a rudimentary democracy much less a quintessential one as Musharraf would have us and the world believe. The same is true of governance. A system in which permanent civil servants — experts and generalists alike — are not the decision-makers in day-to-day government affairs and are not able to advise the parliamentarians on state policy, is not an example of good governance even if, for a time or on occasions, it is more effective and less corrupt.

The more Gen Musharraf asserts that the country has never been more democratic or better governed than now, with him as the president, the more his detractors insist that it is a strong dictatorship in a weak state where the administration represses political opponents but is unable to provide relief or justice to the common man. The confrontation between the government and the opposition, whether it is viewed as a fight for democratic rights or a power tussle, will end one day — maybe through general elections or a showdown on the streets. But until that happens it lies in the government’s power, more specifically President Musharraf’s, to lessen tensions.

The country has a parliamentary form of government and it remains that way, notwithstanding the power assumed by the president to dissolve the parliament and dismiss the government. While validating Gen Musharraf’s extra-constitutional intervention in 1999 the Supreme Court, too, had ruled that the parliamentary character of the Constitution would not be changed.

Through amendments to the Constitution but more by the public posture and actions of Gen Musharraf, the parliamentary character of the system has indeed been impaired. He is being taken here and abroad as head of state and government. By restricting himself to the constitutional role of the president he would be reducing the tensions which have been exacerbated by the fact that he has chosen to continue as chief of the army as well. The opposition would feel at ease in dealing with the prime minister for they still view Musharraf as an army commander rather than as a political leader.

An incidental, though important, advantage of Musharraf withdrawing from the affairs of the government would be that the army would be spared the criticism it has had to face because of the decisions he makes in his capacity as head of government. As head of the state, President Musharraf can always advise and warn the prime minister but the decisions — whether relating to dams, insurgency or elections — must be taken by the prime minister and his cabinet. At least, it should appear so to the public.

The problem here is that there are too many ministers and advisers with conflicting political affiliations and personal agendas to constitute a cohesive and competent cabinet. Most of them have been appointed to secure a majority in the National Assembly rather than to make policy and run the affairs of the state.

The first essential step towards restoring the primacy of the cabinet and the parliamentary system would be to have a cabinet of 15 or so ministers. Other ministers/advisers may stay on to serve the original purpose of their appointment but a cabinet that the prime minister can reach only through a public address system in the hall cannot consider national issues nor make decisions that must remain confidential.

The cabinet, once it is trimmed to a workable size, would be effective only if its members are advised and aided by career civil servants conversant with the rules of business and precedents. Even in Britain, the mother of parliamentary democracy, the laws are made in Westminster and policy decisions at 10 Downing Street but the knowledge and guidance comes from Whitehall — the home of civil service whose independence and security are guaranteed by law and tradition.

The independence and security of Pakistan’s civil servants have been all but destroyed by the legislative and executive actions of successive governments. The death blow was delivered by Gen Musharraf soon after he assumed power. How the civil services have ceased to be the career choice of the educated youth is obvious from the result of the latest competitive examination conducted by the Federal Public Service Commission.

Among the 224 successful candidates, only two belong to urban Sindh and that too way down the merit list which would, if at all, get them into junior service. On the other hand, young men and women in hundreds from Karachi and other cities take up banking, law and other professions every year. There was a time not long ago when a candidate from Karachi was among the first 10 to get into civil or foreign service. The rest had to be content with the lower services. The choice of the candidates at the top now is the police. They may not prove their merit even there because the lower cadres in the police are all backed by political appointees.

Gen Musharraf has the benefit of being advised by army officers who are still selected on merit, are professionally trained and protected against arbitrary action. Not so the prime minister. A parliamentary government would not be able to dig roots here unless the president and the prime minister work together to create an environment in the government which induces the educated youth to forego the financial rewards of the private sector for the dignity, independence and security of the public service. Gen Musharraf should not be averse to this idea now that his army career is drawing to a close and he makes no secret of his ambition to start a new one in politics.

When all has been said, in the final analysis the government and the opposition would be able to get along and work together only if an assurance exists that departing from tradition the next elections in 2007, may be earlier but not later and would be free and fair and open for all to vote and contest without discrimination or harassment.





It is good to see someone who talks on behalf on Musharraf and tries to justify his stupid experiments. I will look forward for some useful deliberation on Musharraf in future.

I will be back... with an Army of Anti-Musharraf freedom fighters.

Regards,

Mr.Memon and Ms.Ghuman,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,the main thing that I want to clearify is that neither I'm advocating President's devolution plan nor I'm against bureaucracy, what I tried to do is to pull the cover from the face of past record.
Simple instance, if u won't work hard in ur class u'll be beated, when u won't try diligently to save ur system along with its rectification u'll face downfall, thats what has happened now, we all know that governments which arrive on refrendum are used to formulating such sort of patteren which strengthen their exsistence.

Ms.Ghuman bureaucrates have authority to make policies, just tell me one thing, if one couldn't sketch durable and favourable policies in countries develpoment regards then off course at one stage his roots will be spoiled, there's a great irony around, nobody wants to accountable themselves, everybody wants to prove themselves exonerated and victums.
Our earlier leaders kept on fighting for their personel stability and bureaucratic lobby supported them, thats the reason how fudilism, military and civil bureaucracy became more and more consolidated.
Now if their protocol has minified, they are crying.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,well what I really want to say is that, if the entire section of politicians and bureaucrates had tried hard to establish democracy on our land then they wouldn't have faced such typical setbacks.

Finally, as u precised the story from A to Z again, I better say that it is known to all of us about back bites of bharat mahan and afghan bhai jan.
What I want to say is that, once if leader proclaimed that he is not going to quit the office till 2016 atleast so confidently, then it means that he does have some proper recomended confirmation in this regards,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,secondly, (its my anticipation) it might could be happen that if Pakistani intelligence produced Amen azzahravi or some other hyberated figures then this thing will definetly make the General's position strong.

And for kursi anybody can do anything.

So long my dear gentleman and lady.

__________________
Farangi teyra chehra do rangi,,,A'ankhein roshan dil zangi.

Salaam,

Originally Posted by maria khan
Mr. Memon, if our bureaucrates are so talanted and honest, then why they didn't lead the country on the top? Its only because landocrates used to tackle their own intrests and accounts instead of dealing the matters and tragedies of the common. Its the bitter reality that excluding the few, majority of them are nepotists and corrupts.This is the reason why devolution plan has introduced.

It was the last line that forced me to believe that you had been recruited into Musharraf's administration and you're speaking on behalf of him. Anyways, since you've cleared the position, this point has lost its charm.

Miss Khan, your analogy of Bureaucracy-Feudals-Military is well taken and deserves complete agreement.

I must not say but it's a truth. It's Quaid-e-Azam who is responsible for such state of affairs. It is he who promoted feudalism. He deliberately made use of these very feudals to strengthen his roots. He never opposed feudalism.

Being the very first Governor-General (notwithstanding the short tenure) he had the authority to eradicate the menace of feudalism, but we hear of no such thing. (I don't blame the proceeding leaders, since more or less, all belonged to this class.)

Political leaders from this class stepped into politics and since those days, we still have them in place, intact. Bureaucracy, in times of British, the one we inherited, was honest and competent. Behind their corruption, I blame the factor of poor and incompetent governance. Afterall we don't have angels in countries like US and UK to constitute the bureaucracy, yet they're not as corrupt as the Pakistanis are. Rather say, they are honest.

A good political system hasn't been allowed to take roots in Pakistan. Blah Blah Blah....

I am just indulging in the customary activities of delivering useless sermons. I will take a break here.

Regards,
Adil Memon

__________________
"The race is not over because I haven't won yet."

Adil Memon
Police Service of Pakistan (P.S.P)
37th Common Training Program