Aristotle Bhai,

Your point regarding strong institutions instead of strong personalities is good in principle. But as I do not like to follow many principles, so let me dare to point out the case of new member (She has joined forum today:http://www.cssforum.com.pk/off-topic...html#post18401 ), has got 712+39 marks -- 39 in essay .... so could not qualify written exam-2005. Now if you talk of 'strong institutions' then FPSC must follow its strict procedure and declare her fail in written.

For such instances, I am in favor of strong persons who should be able to apply their mind (remember that 'institution' cannot apply its mind bcoz it does not possess any mind), and should consider that her marks are good enough that defficiency of only one point can very easily be ignored.

Strong 'institutions' only can make our lives more mechanical. What 'institutions' do after all? They only ensure strict compliance to many written procedures. There may be many situations (like above-referred one) where application of mind of a strong person might be better that just following the blind procedures.

Institutions are important ..... but they are blind .... they do not possess mind of their own ...... they cannot take better decision in many particular cases. etc. etc.

Secondly, I do not think that our 'institutions' are weak.

Our institutions are very strong ... for example FPSC is very strong bcoz it possesses all the qualities of strong institution like .... it is blind ... it does not possess mind .... and so on....!!!!!

@ Khurram,

Very optimistic approach..... about leadership.
Would you like to suggest some good tips to become a leader?? Or going to keep them secret to become a leader yourself??
Anyways your approach about instititutions is realistic 1.

Regards,

__________________
My ALLAH it is enough for my respect that I m "Your" person & it is enough for my pride that "You" are my GOD."You" are exactly the way I desire.Thus please mould me the way "You" desire.

AoA

i disagree with the statement of khurram that our institutions are strong, exceptions are there but as a whole our institutions are not strong enough to sustain pressure specifically of political giants

v may take the example of FPSC, its credibility went at lower ebbs during chairmanship of mumtaz gul, then general kayani sustained it nd now v have yet to see the efficacious contributions by general shahid

in fact our country is run by the personalities not by the institutions, v may tak example from many institutions, the IT/Higher Education COmmission; Railway; CBR; Foreign Affairs and list goes ....

A good leader with less resources can lead the masses to good destiny as compared to a foulish leader with great resources....

Allah hafiz

__________________
'Thee woh ik shakhs kay tasawar saay - abb woh ranayee khayal kahaan'

@ Muskan Ghuman,

About 'leadership' --- and 'institutions'....

We people do so much effort in understanding the affairs of our country and about its relationships with external world ... for what purpose ....???? Just to become sub-ordinates of our political leaders, most of whom are less educated than us.....????

And about Institutions:

We have such institutions as legislative assemblies, bureaucracy and Judiciary .... Who has made these institutions...???? We have not made .... We just have copied them from West. I can see no logic in this type of system of institutions.

There are no criteria as to the level of competency for the members of legislative assemblies. But there are very hard criteria as to the level of competency for the entry in Bureaucracy and Judiciary.

Role of legislative assemblies is to formulate the policies whereas role of bureaucracy and judiciary is just to implement those policies.

Logically, more competent persons should formulate the policies and less competent persons should implement those policies. More and more know-how and intellectual skill is actually required for making the policies. But what is going on practically? Policy makers do not possess any in depth knowledge about internal or external affairs of country. We people often see that some of our political leaders get their articles published in newspapers. First of all most of those articles lack any kind of solid analysis. Secondly I know some ‘professional’ columnists who actually write those columns for those political personalities and in this way newspapers then publish those columns in the names of those political personalities.

So this is the level of competency of our leaders. And we are trying hard to become sub-ordinates of this type of leaders.

Actually very high level competency test should be required for the entry in legislative assemblies so that members of these assemblies may be able to formulate realistic, calculated and more beneficial policies for the country.

Bureaucrats can be dug minded because their role is just to implement the policies. Bureaucrat must be able enough to just rightly understand whatever has been directed to him through the written policies. He is not to make any policy. So any person who cannot write analytical English essay should not be denied of entry in bureaucracy. But a bureaucrat must be able to rightly understand the policies written in English. So he must be good in ‘paragraph comprehension’. He may have to just convey the policies to his own sub-ordinates, so he must be able enough to write English précis.

So why to become just policy implementers and why not to become policy formulators? Therefore we should try to enter in legislative assemblies also because we can formulate better policies than our existing leaders.

And what should be the strategy????

Since currently we can do it by following the existing procedures of Elections etc. So right strategy would be to choose that political party whose ideology is most closely similar to that of yours. Then instead of wasting time in this stupid CSS exam, try to elaborate your political ideology and other politics related points of views in the form of a comprehensive thesis work. Then approach the leaders of your chosen political party and try to convince them about the usefulness of your political ideas. Also tell them how can you make your points of views popular among the people i.e. voters. In this way try to get party ticket for election and launch your election campaign in more systematic way. Make more public speeches than any other political leader. Present the usefulness of your proposed policies in such a manner in which general public may better understand. So this can be my tip to become a leader.


@ Tabbasum,

I agree with you. I said our institutions are ‘strong’ in just a ‘tanzia’ manner. But I am still in favour of positive (not negative – as under some pressure etc.) role of ‘personalities’.

__________________
Where is the SIGNATURE....????

Lack of Leadership... is the main and foremost problem to be solved. It will settle everything and all the socio-economic problems of Pakistan.

lack of sincere leadership

__________________
dare to b urself

In my humble openion,the biggest challenge which Pakistan is facing is lack of "sincere leadership". Friends, sincere leadership is required at all levels,it is not only the prime minister or president which must be a sincere leader,from a school teacher to chief secretary,from a councellor of a small union council to the president/prime minister,every where you need sincere people to lead the nation.

If the head of institution is corrupt,can you expect honesty from his sub ordinates...?? certainly not, on the other hand if the head of department is an honest person, then certainly he will ensure accountability in his department,if he fails to deliver,then he must resign..it means he is not competant enough to lead,therefore he has no right to rule.

Remember,Pakistan is not a poor country,its a poorly managed country...We have all the four seasons,very intelligent and dedicated human resources,enough natural resource,ideal geography....then what is missing...a sincere leadership at all levels...which can convert 140 million people into a nation with bright future...

May God bless us with a visionary leadership.

Regards...

__________________
- Some men give up their designs when they have almost reached the goal; while others, on the contrary, obtain a victory by exerting, at the last moment, more vigorous efforts than before!!
Polybius

What is my point by saying that Pakistan's main problem is the lack of leadership is same that replacement in these less educated leaders by educated 1 is the need of hour....

I am agree with all your points given under this heading.

We are not trying to become subordinate of such leaders...& admitt that there is lack of competent leadership, once this defficency is resolved all others will be handeled easily.

Yes Essay paper is too difficult....it is not judicious that a bureaurate must be capable of essay writing.

No doubt about capabilities....but who is going to give this chance to educated & compitent people...the blind & deaf system & institutions???

Wow gud tipz... ...I am busy this time secondly you seem more desirous to become a leader...so, follow all these steps after observing your fate I will try these 1....but you should be the pioneer.....

Regards,

__________________
My ALLAH it is enough for my respect that I m "Your" person & it is enough for my pride that "You" are my GOD."You" are exactly the way I desire.Thus please mould me the way "You" desire.

@khurram bhai with all due respect, bro i quit after reading a few lines frm ur post, reason is simple becoz u analyze each and everything in a philosophical way thts not gud like the way u said "For such instances, I am in favor of strong persons who should be able to apply their mind (remember that 'institution' cannot apply its mind bcoz it does not possess any mind)",
so u think tht there is no need for strong institutions like courts,police.Strength doesnt mean anything else than Independent Decisions ,decisions on merit.If you are against decision on merits than u can say tht our country needs strong personalities above all rules,above all codes.
Secondly u thought abt the one who failed just becoz of 1 Number with out thinking abt the one who has passed becoz of tht 1 number.Thats how our strong personalities like u enforce their personal desires on institutions.

Just consider an example if u ve a very gud car 2006 model (institution) and an average driver one who can drive like u and me,and on the other hand if u ve very old car with so many faults in it , weak engine 1965 model with an expert driver(strong personality),what do u think who will win the race?now a philospher will favor the expert and a realistic one will favor the 2006 machine.
In simple words if u ve strong institutions then u can utilize your mind otherwise its useless.Thats the reason today javed hashmi ,yusaf raza gellani and many others r in jail.Becoz they cant fight for their rights under might is rite system.pakistan is full with such examples........where u cant apply ur philosophy.

"wesay philosopher log be ajeeb hotay hein enhein jab kaha jay suraj east say nikalta hay tu yeh kahein gay nahe west say
aor jab enhein kaha jay suray west say nikalta hay tu yeh khein gay nahe east say"

__________________
"Who do many calculations are victorious"

@ Aristotle

I really have enjoyed Aristotle's criticism on philosophers ... Aristotle was a strong critique of Plato, after all.

Well, I am not against the existence of institutions. But institutions should not be as big fools as to be not able to recognize what could be the real best option in various particular situations. I quoted the case of a candidate whose over-all 62% marks could not save her from being declared FAIL in written exam. May be you cannot realize the Stupidity of FPSC in this case. One can better realize it if one personally go through similar instances.

Secondly I am in need to clarify what meaning I take of 'strong' person and 'strong' institution.

In this connection, we denote 'strong person' generally as a person who does not care for rules and regulations for negative purposes or for personal selfish reasons. This is the popular meaning and it is negative meaning.

But I had not used 'strong person' with this negative meaning. For me, 'strong person' would be that one who does not care for rules and regulations for good and positive reasons.

Now about strong Institutions:

You say:

"Strength doesnt mean anything else than Independent Decisions ,decisions on merit."

Well, if you are talking of 'strong institutions' in that sense which you are favoring, then let me point out that under the system of 'strong institutions' which you favour, decisions are NOT independent and decisions are NOT on COMPETENCY (here I hav replaced ‘competency’ for ‘merit’).

Because in 'strong institutions', decisions DEPEND on rigid rules and policies .... whereas meaning of 'merit' is NOT level of competency but is just 'level of compliance to written rules and policies'.

I ask you a simple question. There are two students who are doing Masters in Physics. University has designed a pet syllabus for Physics. First student is research minded and he takes pain in trying to find new facts about Physics. For this purpose he has to spend time in his research activities.

Second student is good crammer of syllabus books. What shall happen in the University exam….????? Crammer of syllabus books shall come on MERIT. On the other hand, research minded student might fail in University exam because he had been full time busy in his research activities.

My question to you is that who is more competent ……. ?????

If you say that research minded person is more competent …. Then you are in favour of strong personalities because in this case your decision has been INDEPENDENT OF RULES AND POLICIES OF UNIVERSITY.

If you say that person who is good crammer of syllabus books is more competent …….. then you are in favour of strong institutions because your decision has been BASED ON RULES AND POLICIES OF UNIVERSITY.

In my opinion, research minded person is REAL competent whereas crammer just have come on merit.

My another question to you is that: “Competency Vs Merit” …… What do you like……????

Competency can go anywhere – it can set its own direction also … Merit is just a blind chase of rigid rules and policies. Competency is the quality of leaders. Merit is the quality of followers. Leaders are those who show others some new direction. Remember that any new direction could not be contained in previously written rules and policies. Those who are just to follow the already written rules and policies, how can they go to any new direction….??? A person who does not go to any new direction, how can he show any new direction to others??? And a person who does not show the new direction to others ---- simply he is not leader. Perhaps he is such a ‘manager’ who cannot take many independent decisions …. Because his decisions would depend on written rules and policies.

Then you say:
Yes I am against decisions on merit …. But in above mentioned sense. And yes there should be strong personalities … above all rules, above all codes …… but they must be allowed to go beyond all rules and all codes only for good and positive reasons.


Here you have used ‘strong personalities’ for those people who break rules for personal selfish reasons…. I do not call these people as ‘strong personalities’. They are actually selfish personalities. I am extending my support only to strong personalities and not to selfish personalities.

Yes if we make our institutions ‘strong’ (within your meaning) then we would not be in need of competent persons. Just like an incompetent driver of a better car can win the race with competent driver, who drives an old car.

We already have shortage of competent persons …. Do you want to cover this shortage in this way….???? By eliminating the role of any human competency……????

But you have forgotten that the incompetent driver shall be able to win the race only when a competent person would already have invented a better car. I already had pointed out in my previous post that ‘strong institutions’ only make our lives more mechanical. Nothing would happen if you replace all the persons in your ‘strong institution’ with mechanical computer aid robots. So there would be no need of humans in your strong institutions. I again have given all the philosophical reasons in support of my views. I can give examples of ground realities also where so-called strength of institutions have given the results of miseries for general public and have opened the avenues for corruption in many government departments. Our official taxation laws, for instance, are so harsh that tax liabilities of small businessmen can reach to such amounts, which may be more than total capital employed. I know that now-a-days, personal property of a person is going to be seized. That person did business of making soda-water bottles on small scale and supplied them to small village shops. What could be his total capital …. 2 lack, 5 lacks or so…..

Since he did not get himself registered in tax department … so he has been found to be guilty of tax evasion plus penalties etc. amounting to more than 15 lacks.

Another business had to be closed just because that businessman made payments to his supplier in cash instead of through banking channel. Otherwise that businessman had been a regular tax payer and he had deposited all his due taxes. He committed only this procedural mistake i.e. of not making payments to supplier through banking channels. In this way he has attracted penalties amounting to more than the total capital of business.

Since our BLIND strong institutions cannot see the on ground facts and they only can follow the written rules and policies …. So as a result, that business is closed now. I myself have won the case (being the representative of department in the judicial proceedings) against that businessman at Departmental tribunal level. In my private meetings with the advocate of businessman, I admitted that no revenue loss was involved in that case because taxpayer had duly deposited all the payable taxes. Only fault was procedural in nature where no government revenue loss was involved. But the penalties involved for such procedural mistake would amount to more than the capital employed by the business. During the judicial proceedings before the Tribunal, I argued that taxpayer had violated such and such rules and sections of Law so he may be penalized for it. So I myself play the role of ‘strong institution’. In another case, taxpayer had made such mistake which had little effect on government revenue. But he was charged with heavy penalty for the procedural mistake. Case already had been decided in favour of tax payer by the lower adjudication forum. Adjudication officer might be some “strong person” within my meanings …. So he had taken the decision in favour of tax payer because amount of revenue loss was really just minor.

On the next forum i.e. before Appellate Tribunal, I represented the department before Tribunal. First hearing of case was on 25th may … i.e. just two days before the start of CSS-2006 exams. I won the case on first hearing in favour of department by arguing that tax payer had violated such and such rules and laws.. Again I played the role of ‘strong institution’ and ‘weak personality’….. And I promoted real injustice in this way because tax payer had committed just immaterial type of procedural mistake which would have just minor impact on government revenue. Now that person shall pay heavy fines.

I also knew and Judges also knew that there had been no significant loss to government treasury in that case. But my role and the role of judges had been just to blindly follow the written policies and procedures. And this is what we really did. So how can you say that strong institutions shall solve all the problems of nation….???? Strong institutions themselves are a big problem….. because they are blind …. Because they prevent the personalities from applying their minds for the betterment of country. Because institutions possess no working mind ….. because they possess just mechanical written policies which might not be in the best interest of country in all the situations.


I shall entertain these remarks only when you give the example of any philosopher who said that sun rises in west … or crow is white …. Or similar blames which general public raise on philosophers.

__________________
Where is the SIGNATURE....????