April 19, 2012
By Francis Matthew

Democracy is not just about elections, even if they are free and fair. Elections are simply a relatively cheap way of changing governments regularly, and so avoiding the twin horrors of either violent change with its attendant confusion and mayhem, or a sclerotic government that gets stuck in office for decades and loses its way.

Democracy is more about the spirit of inclusion, in which all members of society agree that others have a legitimate place in their nation’s proceedings. This means that opposition parties should be respected as having a right to be part of the political debate, even if they are not in power at the time. It means that the rights of the individual are supported by strong rule of law, in which all individuals have defined rights that they can enforce in court if they are restrained in some way by either individuals or even their government.

Democracy also means that the government of the day cannot be confused with the structure of the state. The government has to work within the system, and the head of government should not be able to run roughshod through the structure of the state, nor be able to treat the state as his or her personal possession. Achieving power does not give a new government a “winner-takes-all” right to loot the state. A government does not own a country, but holds it in trust for its successors and future generations to take over when their time comes.

The twin challenge facing many Arab states today are that they are defining new long-term constitutional structures for their states, and at the same time they are electing new governments. And these governments are coming to power with active social agendas and very high hopes after decades of repression, which is leading to a blurring of the distinction between the government of the day and the future long-term structure of the state.

In Tunisia, an Islamist government has won power but seems to have the support of the majority of its people as it has insisted that the future constitution should be more inclusive, with government thinkers quoting the example of Turkey’s more secular constitution supporting a popular Islamist government.

In Iraq, the process is a few years further down the road since Saddam was toppled in 2003. But a bitter civil war deepened the hatred and suspicions between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, so the country has failed to arrive at a final constitution. This has opened a vacuum within which the present government has started to reinforce its Shiite position, to the alarm of others.

In Egypt, the new parliament is dominated by a majority of Islamist parties, including the Muslim Brotherhood and their more radical Salafist allies, and their candidates are very strong contenders to win the presidency. They also tried to fill the constitutional assembly with their members, leading to a walk out of other parties which was backed by the courts. In this case, the long-term structures of the state reminded the government of the day that it is required to work within the system.

The challenge is that the new government has strong social policies with which other Egyptians disagree, but it is seeking to insert these into Egypt’s as yet unwritten new constitution. The Islamist government wants more public adherence to Islamic values, and that these should be enforced by law. Many more secular (but not atheistic) Muslims do not want their religion to be part of public life and resent the government’s assumption of moral duty, not to mention Egypt’s large Coptic Christian community which also disagrees with enforcing Muslim values as part of public life.

Throughout the Middle East, the great fear is that when the Islamists gain power, they will seek to insert their view of life with the structure of government and also refuse to relinquish power. This concern was very explicitly expressed recently by Lieutenant General Dahi Khalfan Tamim, Commander of Dubai Police, who told Al Qabas newspaper that Kuwait would be taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood by 2013, who would then seek to take over the rest of the Gulf by 2016. “They are concerned only with ruling chairs, and have nothing to do with implementing Islamic jurisprudence,” said Lt Gen Dahi.

There is no doubt that governments do reflect public opinion and in time changing public morals are reflected in law, but these changes have to reflect the broad will of the people, and should focus on supporting and encouraging individual opportunity, rather than imposing restrictions.

For example, during the twentieth century all across Europe and the United States laws were changed so that women could vote. In fact, this profound social shift of achieving full equality between men and women has yet to work its way through all sectors of society and employment, but ensuring women’s right to vote and own property independently of their husbands were essential starting points, and were mandated by government action.

The Arab world has to make sure that the liberalising changes that the vast majority of its people want, do not get confused with their largely conservative social and family structures. Just because the religious parties are far better prepared for this new public debate, they should not overplay their hand.

Source: Gulf News

April 23, 2012
M. Zaidi

THE recent avalanche in Siachen that buried 138 Pakistani soldiers and civilians in a mass of icy rubble once again highlighted the devastation which can be wrought by natural calamities, and why it is imperative to be adequately prepared for them.

Pakistan is exposed to multiple forms of natural and manmade disasters. Natural disasters range from earthquakes, floods, droughts, cyclones, landslides, and sea-based hazards. A relief and response model for coping with disasters has been the basis of our reactive response to disasters.

Floods have been prevalent, and in the 1960s a flood control programme was launched which made its way to the Fourth Five-Year Plan. The national disaster plan in 1974 by the Federal Emergency Relief Cell was the first plan which envisaged procedures, organisational structures, responding agencies and procedures for monitoring relief operations. Unfortunately, the plan never materialised beyond the paper on which it was written.

Another effort which went the same way was the Pakistan Emergency Service Ordinance and the Pakistan Emergency and Fire Code in 2002, in the aftermath of a fire in the 17-storey Shaheed-i-Millat Secretariat in Islamabad. The ordinance mandated a new federal Pakistan emergency and fire council and a rescue and fire service, neither of which materialised.

A devastating earthquake struck in the north in October 2005 which exposed the vulnerability of the existing emergency and disaster-response apparatus. The creation of the National Disaster Management Commission and its executive organ the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) ostensibly ushered in an across-the-board transformation of the national perspective on the issue.

A planned reorientation of all stakeholders heralded the much-needed evolution of legal frameworks, administrative arrangements, organisational structures and financial outlays to achieve desired disaster-risk management goals. The NDMA formulated a national disaster response policy as an integral component after extensive cross-sector consultations.

The National Disaster Response Plan (NDRP) seeks to upgrade the country’s ability to cope with all conceivable disasters.

The national strategy for disaster management in Pakistan classifies small, medium and large-scale natural and manmade disasters in the country and corresponding response mechanisms and procedures. It also illustrates structures and mechanisms for providing operational direction to disaster management authorities at the federal, provincial and district levels.

Emergencies at the local, provincial and national levels are clearly defined, along with the process of declaring each level of emergency and response mechanisms and procedures accordingly.

The roles/responsibilities of and coordination amongst the federal ministries, NGOs, provincial bodies, the news media etc are all explained in this document, which also describes the standard operating procedures for each relief function in case of a disaster and further defines the role of concerned government departments as lead and support agencies. The NDRP is supposed to express a consistent approach for reporting disasters, providing assessments and making recommendations to the prime minister and the chief ministers for relief operations.

As regards legislation and pre-existing structures, the West Pakistan National Calamities (Prevention and Relief) Act 1958 provides for the maintenance and restoration of order in areas affected by calamities, and relief against such calamities. The Calamities Act 1958 is mainly focused on organising emergency response.

In Punjab, a dedicated department, the Relief and Crisis Management Department, was also established in 1975, but with no clear mandate on how to operate within the parameters of the act. An emergency relief cell was created within the cabinet division in 1971 and is responsible for disaster relief at the national level. It provides assistance in cash and kind to supplement the resources of the provincial governments in the event of a major disaster.

Additionally, its mandate is to extend a helping hand to calamity-stricken, friendly countries as and when required. It is also supposed to coordinate the activities of all the related agencies i.e. federal divisions, provincial governments, semi-governmental, international and national aid-giving agencies during relief operations. The need for institutional and policy arrangements was ostensibly fulfilled by the promulgation of the National Disaster Management Ordinance 2007 in the wake of the devastating earthquake in Pakistan.

The NDMA is supposed to serve as the focal point and coordinating body to facilitate implementation of disaster management. The Disaster Management Authorities (DMAs) are meant to directly coordinate with all stakeholders, including ministries, divisions, departments and humanitarian organisations at respective levels for emergency response in Pakistan.

Meanwhile, the Provincial Disaster Management Authority is the provincial implementing body responsible for coordinating with ministries, departments and the District Disaster Management Authorities (DDMAs) for disaster-risk management activities in the provinces and also responsible for implementing policies and plans for emergency response in the provinces. The DDMA have been established in all the districts/ agencies with priority given to hazard-prone areas.

Thus, there is the existence of several departments that have roughly the same mandates with no clear demarcations as to what they are specifically supposed to do in case of a crisis. Clearly laid down procedures as to what is the sphere of their respective operations in what crisis are missing from their job descriptions. As can be seen above, there is repetition of responsibilities with the provincial and district DMAs as well.

In real time, it’s not these authorities that are there to control the crisis; rather it’s the Pakistan Army which is called in almost every time in such situations and has performed commendably during many natural calamities in the country. Even though there is legislation available for other entities, there are no resources to back it up.

This was clearly manifested during the recent floods in 2010 when there were communication gaps, coordination issues and varying perceptions and priorities between federal, provincial and district authorities handling the flood emergency. They were even unable to decide on the judicious allocation of relief goods to various areas according to their needs.

International donors provide generous support to Pakistan during each calamity but no coordination of distribution of such aid is observable between foreign donors and the DMAs in Pakistan.

The writer is a security analyst.
-Dawn

Revisiting national interests

Zafar Hilaly
Tuesday, April 24, 2012


One thing is crystal clear and it is that we have to resurrect ourselves as a state and a society. And that, with luck, we might be able to do so but only if we can get our crumbling house in some respectable order and do what it takes to restart our faltering economy. And of the two the state comes first because it is more in tatters. Civil society is still in better shape despite the extremists.

We must return to Pakistan’s core national interests, which is making life liveable for all citizens alike within its established and recognised borders. And it also means putting aside our complicated old world dreams/ambitions that have thoroughly impoverished us and got us into this crisis in the first place.

Our core problem is almost entirely internal now. The state can’t deliver on any front and non-state actors are running wild, emboldened by our derelict system of governance. Such is the nature of our existential crisis that we have even lost all sensitivity about our own appalling condition of life. It’s the kind of numbness that sets in on a body part when the blood has flowed out of it. The rest is neither here nor there. It’s so much hot air. No amount of nationalistic prattle, bluster or oratory will cut much ice or lift the spirit. It is impotence par excellence disguised as machismo. But for how long can we carry on like this? The world cannot be fooled anymore because it is there for all to see, not on a weekly or monthly basis but tragically every day. The narrative hasn’t changed much and that is our primary problem as the clock ticks away.

Political parties are beginning to recognise the problem but somehow they are unable to raise the level of discussion as they seek petty advantages over each other in the struggle for power, relying more on bombastic speeches than substance to convince the electorate. Our political parties are amorphous entities dominated by personalities and designed more for seeking and retaining power at whatever cost than for delivering governance. Their leaders do not appear to see beyond their noses or can’t see the forest as they are lost among the trees. All of which, in our politically perverse environment, gives rise to very depressing thoughts. Alas, we have no option but to work with whatever we have inherited and try to make the best of a bad situation.

Democracy is the only system that can give the people control not only of the political process but through it the main instruments of state power. We have seen how in its absence we have been tumbled and tossed from one dictatorship to another and how much blood and treasure has been lost along the way.

Democracy, imperfect as it is, and often a sham is still better and offers more hope if we can learn to make it work. At the very least it encourages reason and resistance to abusive authority and oppression. And it enables the people to know who is with them notwithstanding the packaged opinions we are fed by sections of the media. And, above all, it can help to ensure that no longer can a leader consider himself above the law; and even if he does, he has no legal immunity and nor is he above public censure boldly expressed in the print media and loudly proclaimed on private television channels.

We had a well-designed administrative system before we ran it into the ground. That can be revived, though not restored in its entirety, because it was designed for a different purpose and a different time. And it is important that we work at fixing the administrative system during the brief snatches of political stability. Respect for the system of checks and balances that democracy makes possible between the executive, legislature and the judiciary can help take us in that direction. This is important so that when the political machinery stalls that of the state does not also come to a grinding halt. That would make it possible for governments to come and go without the wholesale changes of personnel and policy that occur and the dislocation it causes once a government changes hands.

But forging a new mind-set for those who run the administration is an important starting point. Far too often government servants believe they are just that, and not servants of the public who are their true masters as they are paid out of the public exchequer to advance the collective good. And although the government of the day may have the decisive say how public money is spent, there are laid down procedures for its disbursement which transcend governments and must be adhered to.

Similarly the system of postings, transfers and promotions are also governed by rules; and procedures exist, and can be further reinforced, to prevent violation and punishment for those who do. This is a basic principle that applies as much to the exercise of authority as it does to an over-speeding errant driver.

All this, however, is the easy part and requires no more than tinkering with the present system. Basically it means simply implementing laws and procedures which already exist. What however will require immeasurably greater effort and is supremely important and urgent is the delivery of speedy justice to the people. The lack of justice and the absence of basic security are the foremost challenges we face, even more important than fixing the economy.

Actually, the only guarantee of security is justice but obtaining justice in Pakistan is often an exercise in futility. It’s a delusion and a snare which can end up punishing the weak and further strengthening the powerful. Although the lawyers’ movement promised much in this regard these hopes remain unfulfilled. Access to justice continues to be restricted in practice to those who can afford it. While court procedures and practices are so complex and dilatory that delays in obtaining judgments can be interminable.

That said, our best efforts could be in vain if the economy collapses because there can be no meaningful individual freedom or progress in the presence of economic insecurity. The people were told they must put up with rising unemployment and recession because that was the price of keeping inflation down but alas, that has not worked. Meanwhile mishandling of the economy, corruption, a significant drop in local and foreign investment and exports has debased the currency.

Furthermore, the population is growing exponentially. The number of those less than 35 years of age in the country has crossed the 65 percent mark of the total population. It is bad enough that nearly 100 million people are unemployed but what is infinitely worse is that they are virtually unemployable because of fake degrees, rampant cheating in exams, the breakdown of the state education system, the absence of technical and teacher training centres and other self created deficiencies.

It is clear, for example, that borrowings along with the interest to be paid often exceed the sum that is actually received from international financial institutions. Collecting taxes from those who dodge them, expanding the tax base and levying higher taxes on the rich is a far better way to raise funds and become self-sustaining. That would, of course, entail sacrifices but if levied imaginatively they would only be required from those who can afford them. Moreover, if the truth be told, the amount so levied is likely to be trivial considering the fines that would have been imposed had taxes and defaults been properly assessed in the first place.

Actually, there is no reason why all these challenges cannot be addressed at the same time. Acquiring a modicum of self-respect, shunning the beggar’s bowl and trying to make democracy work will take us there, but we need to get there fast, having already lost much precious time.

The writer is a former ambassador. Email: charles123it@hotmail.com

-The News

April 27, 2012
Amin Jan Naim

Democracy as a modern political framework for states has evolved over a long period of time. This evolution has not been without bitterness, upheavals and catastrophes, both moral and historical.

Though still imperfect, the juridical, political, administrative and civic arrangements of a modern democratic country are much more conducive to economic, social and personal advancement of human beings than any despotic or autocratic government could be. The successful functioning of democracy is linked to demography, material resources and the intellectual attainments of a society. This context has been lacking in Pakistan.

If we imagine for a moment that the police, magistracy and electoral mechanisms of European countries were to be transplanted to our situation now in Pakistan, they all would be at a complete loss of what to do and would become paralysed in trying to curb the lawlessness, unimaginable violence and anarchy prevalent here.

Our own law enforcement mechanisms have also, in recent years, been confronted with entirely new challenges and duties quite outside their normal experience and training. These include widespread terrorism, cyber crimes, drug trafficking and human smuggling.

Their effective manpower and capacity have been overstretched beyond limits. They are faced with circumstances extremely difficult to tackle. If Pakistan is to remain steadfast to constitutional government, parliamentary democracy, free enterprise and universal human rights, these difficulties need to be overcome.

To what extent and in which situations do the better elements of human nature triumph over or, alternatively, are submerged by bale and evil are issues vital to our future politics. The massive technological opportunities opened up to evil forces and to organised crime, do not seem to augur well.

Thus, we see not only malfeasance by the state nowadays, but, what is much worse, a phenomenon such as the proliferation of private torture cells and jails and extortion rackets being indulged in by some political parties.

The sad fact is that whereas evil forces tend to reinforce each other and link up in grids, the struggles of the good elements in Pakistan are isolated and remain ineffective. When this situation is juxtaposed with intellectual confusion, religious dogmatism and the extremist fanaticism that pervades our country today, one can only visualise poignant tragedy.

Despite this pessimism, our aim, nevertheless, must be to remain steadfast in firm adherence to the rule of law, constitutional government, parliamentary democracy, regular and frequent elections and the strengthening of the judiciary. The superior judiciary in Pakistan faces a superhuman task. It is heavily overburdened. Its verdicts need to be respected. Our social order needs to be underpinned by ethical and intellectual prerequisites. The long periods of military dictatorship have left a tragic legacy. It will take time to surmount the damage that military dictatorships have caused to our political and administrative institutions.

Yet, we must not swing now to the other extreme but should respect and strengthen our armed forces. In all modern democracies in the world today, the armed forces are considered essential to the state. They are, however, kept under strict civilian control in democracies.

The complexity of modern juridical, legal, administrative and political processes needs to be accommodated in a framework of democratic freedom and liberty. This would only be possible if we inculcate a social outlook that is not malignant and contorted as it is at present.

Pakistan needs to take a place of pride in the modern comity of nations and the globalised world. We must do this by evolving a progressive and tolerant society. In earlier times of history, epic battles were single combats, as for example between Macbeth and Macduff.

In these days of faceless organised criminal networks operating worldwide, we need to join all enlightened forces of the world and build in our country a dynamic and prosperous society. At the same time, we must remain mindful of the harmful machinations of some western powers.

The writer is a former ambassador.Email: aminjan@comsats.net.pk

-The News

May 3, 2012
Taj M Khattak

It is no small honour for a politician to be prime minister of a country, but this high position also carries enormous responsibilities. It is unfortunate both for the individual and the country when that opportunity is squandered while public expectations remain unfulfilled. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s fall from grace in the Supreme Court was therefore a sad moment in national politics.

The posture Prime Minister Gilani has adopted towards the superior judiciary which reminds you of what, in the American context, The Daily Telegraph described as Obama’s Law: “It’s judicial empathy if the Supreme Court agrees with me, and judicial activism if it does not.” President Obama recently stated that any attempts by the US Supreme Court to strike down the individual healthcare mandate passed by the Congress would be judicial activism of the worst kind and threatened to make that a campaign issue if it happens.

Gilani, however, ignored a fundamental fact: that the NRO, which is at the centre of all the present crisis, was not even debated in parliament where the ruling party has a majority. In litigations, there is a point up to which it is perfectly legitimate to explore all options for ends for justice to be served both ways, but not beyond a certain point. In popular perception, the prime minister and his legal team is way past that point and it would bring no credit to the country if the affairs of state are in the hands of an unrepentant, smiling convict. But surprisingly there is little concern for that. People have lost interest, with well-heeled lawyers visiting the courts only for some smart pre-lunch exchange with the bench and long adjournments, because it has little or no bearing on their lives.

President Nixon wasn’t exactly one of the best presidents of the United Stares. In fact, he is the only one who was forced to resign from the Oval Office. But he was honest on two counts. First, while defending his aides John Ehrlichman and Bob Haldeman as dedicated and fine public servants during the height of the Watergate affair and expressing the hope that they will come out all right, he added truthfully that it probably does not make a difference any longer since they have already been convicted in the minds of millions of Americans. Second, in his resignation speech, he said he was resigning as he felt he no longer had the support of the American people. Any such thoughts amongst our own rulers?

Ever since assuming power, the Gilani government seems to have given a twisted meaning to its slogan of “Democracy is the best revenge” and displayed scant concern for public woes with spiralling food inflation, electricity and gas load-shedding, the rising price of petrol, unchecked corruption, cronyism and a wobbly foreign policy. It has an unprecedented track record of accommodating, pardoning and rewarding tainted individuals. This affinity for the tainted in large numbers and interference with investigations every now and then has lowered the morale and motivational level of state officials.

The recent Bannu jailbreak is a good example of the stark contrast between determined attackers and unmotivated jail staff. On its most fundamental duty to protect the lives and property of its citizens in Karachi, the commercial hub of the country, it has all but lost the battle and the will to discharge its functions. This has caused deep public resentment and eroded public support for the government.

Bismarck famously said that hunters seldom tell the truth after a hunt, generals not during a war and politicians never before an election. People in Pakistan are fairly realistic and have never expected that their popular sentiments will connect in any meaningful manner with the actions of the rulers whom they empower through the electoral process. But the high price being extracted from the public due to the wide chasm between the conduct of our present rulers, with their singular objective to prolong their rule and enhance personal gains, and the unfulfilled democratic aspirations of the populace, has reached backbreaking proportions.

There had long been murmurs in the media about allegations of corruption against the prime minister’s family and he could have intervened if he wanted to. But it is now a familiar practice to denounce even daylight robberies as politically motivated charges, with the joke going too far when past dictators also sing the same raga. Both President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani have repeatedly claimed credit for not incarcerating anyone as political prisoners during their rule. Well, that may be true, but it begs the question: has anyone been put behind bars for wrongdoings?

Even in areas where the government receives foreign assistance, its performance has been dismally poor. In the case of the ongoing anti-polio campaigns for example, it receives help from the UN and the Bill Gates Foundation. Yet we are far behind Burma (Myanmar) and Sudan in efforts for the eradication of this crippling disease.

According to a report published in The Economist last year there were at least 115 confirmed cases of polio in Pakistan, up from the previous year. The current annual global number is roughly 1,000, down from 400,000 about three decades ago. In next-door India, with a far larger population, only 44 cases were confirmed last year, down from 250,000 three decades ago. The World Health Organisation fears that over 200,000 children may have missed polio campaigns in the last two years.

China had been free from polio since 1999 but recently it has reported ten fresh cases in the region bordering Pakistan. While the world edges forward towards global eradication of the crippling disease, we could well be the last remaining reservoir of this endemic poliovirus transmission; an added dubious distinction, to say the least. Public health concerns demand greater focus on polio campaigns rather than obsession with Ephedrine quotas, but only if the government had been sincere with its people.

The government’s relations with the military can best be exemplified by the Seraiki phrase: “Majal hai, sain,” meaning “How dare you,” or “How dare I,” depending upon phonetic emphasis. For how else can one interpret the prime minister’s salvo on the floor of the National Assembly declaring the actions of the COAS and the former director general of the ISI unconstitutional one day and taking a U-turn a few days later? But the prime minister isn’t all that naïve, as some might think. Just consider: there would have been no Memogate (with allegations of treason against some individuals), had the prime minister’s move to place the ISI under the interior ministry succeeded.

The opposition leaders have asked the prime minister to resign in the wake of the Supreme Court’s verdict and the PML-N has even called for early elections. However, the major political parties have made the next elections look more like discussions about who will win rather than how they can change the destiny of Pakistan through an agenda favouring the people. Politicians have become performers in public rallies or over telephone addresses, where the audiences hear them articulate their concerns without any real hope that these will be addressed once these individuals enter the corridors of power. An election, therefore, does not end agony; it only begins new agony where the winners have to recoup the election investments.

The phrase “every man has his price” is attributed to Sir Robert Walpole, Britain’s first prime minister who ruled for two decades. If President Zardari can be credited with one thing, it is his fullest understanding of the phrase and his near perfection of this art. Zardari could well be in power for a long time if he does not lose his forte of performing balancing acts in any situation thrown at him. With a convicted Gilani and his scions under clouds in other matters, a political transaction is complete and its time to move on.

But generous as Zardari is, he will let Gilani have the pleasure of running the marathon in the appeal process.

The writer is a retired vice admiral. Email: tajkhattak@ymail.com
-The News

May 21, 2012
By Shahid Javed Burki

It is inevitable that an economy of the size of Punjab will have regional differences. These differences are profound in the case of the country’s largest provincial economy. From the perspective of making of public policy, the important thing is not only to recognise these differences but to reduce them. By narrowing them, Pakistan will be able to address the problem of regional disparities that has become acute and is posing serious economic and social tensions in the country.

How large are the regional differences in Punjab in terms of social and economic development, how have they come about and what could be done to narrow them are some of the subjects covered in what the Institute of Public Policy (IPP) called the “Punjab story” in its recently released report for 2012. The report focuses on regional disparities since “there has been talk of about creating a new province (Seraiki, Bahawalpur) within Punjab“.

Drilling down the analysis of the forces responsible for economic development and social change to the district level provides several important insights. While reading the situation at one particular point in time is useful, what would be even more rewarding is to view the change that has occurred over time. This can be done if the administrative units that are the focus of analysis do not change. This has not happened in the case of Punjab. The number of districts in the province has increased from 19 in the late 1960s to 35 half a century later. One of the major contributions made by the IPP is the reconstruction of past data so that comparisons can be made with the situation at the present.

In order to understand the geographic profile of regional backwardness, the IPP used a variety of indicators to rank the provinces 35 districts according to their level of development. In all, 13 indicators were used in three categories: income and wealth (example: cash value of major crops per capita, value added in manufacturing per head of the population), social development (examples: literacy rate, hospital beds per 1,000 people) and economic infrastructure (example: proportion of households with electricity). A composite development index, ranging from one at the top and zero at the bottom, was constructed. Not surprisingly, Lahore is at the top of the districts with a reading of 0.712 and Rajanpur with a reading of 0.102 is at the bottom. The ratio between the top and the bottom is close to seven suggesting a very wide development disparity. Eight districts with scores of more than 0.525 were classified as developed; 15 were put in the intermediate range and 12 were in the least developed category. In addition to Lahore, Sheikhupura, Rawalpindi, Hafizbad and Sialkot were among the five most developed districts; among the least developed five were Lodharan, Muzaffargarh, Bahawalpur, D.G.Khan and Rajanpur in descending order.

Aggregating the data to the divisional level brings into stark relief the regional disparities in the level of development. There are now nine divisions in Punjab (there were only three in the late 1960s). Among them, Lahore is the most developed largely because of better infrastructure and services. Rawalpindi, Gujranwala and Faisalabad come next. Sargodah and Sahiwal are in the centre of the scale with Multan, Bahawalpur and DG Khan making the bottom of the scale.

One thing is clear from this grading: the southern part of the province is much less developed than the parts in the centre and north of the province. However, there are pockets of poverty in the north and centre and relative prosperity in the southern parts. Relatively poor Attock and Narowal districts are located in the more developed parts of the province while the relatively better-off Multan is surrounded by the province’s poor districts. About a third of the provincial population was in each of these three categories.

There has been a significant movement in the relative positions of the districts over time in relation to their relative position on the scale of development. The districts in the centre have gained while those in the south have lost.

The Express Tribune

May 21, 2012
By Dr Akmal Hussain

Underlying the formal framework of democracy in Pakistan is a rent-based institutional structure that maintains a coalition of elites. The rents (unearned incomes) are systematically generated for the elites on the basis of excluding the majority of the people from competition in both the economic and political spheres. Until recently, the predominance of the military within the elite coalition, while it gave a semblance of political stability, created a hitherto unresolved contradiction between a formal democracy and the actual politics of authoritarianism. At the same time, the military-dominated power structure prevented the institutional changes in the economy that were necessary to achieve sustained economic growth — such as a process that requires inclusion of a wide range of citizens rather than only a few, in the process of investment, competition, efficiency, innovation and hence sustained productivity growth.

The tenure of the current elected government has been marked by an intense contention for turf amongst the main organs of the state: the executive, parliament, the military and the judiciary. This political turbulence and the associated institutional instability, signifies a reconfiguration of the elite coalition. This dialectic of power has created the possibility of achieving a new balance within the state structure that corresponds in practice to the balance stipulated in the Constitution.

Five key institutional changes have occurred in recent years which could enable Pakistan to tread more firmly on the path to democracy: (1) The citizens’ movement led by the lawyers — unprecedented in its intensity, sacrifice and geographic coverage — served to restore the judiciary. In so doing, the movement helped establish the norm that the people of Pakistan are willing to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. (2) The heroic initiative by Mohtarama Benazir Bhutto in the face of obvious danger to her life, of launching a campaign against the military dictatorship of General Pervez Musharraf. In sacrificing her life for democracy she joined the pantheon of martyrs whose memory inspires the resolve of the people to defend their freedom. Such great sacrifices permeate into the collective consciousness and folklore of the people, and hence irrigate the organic growth of democracy. (3) The passage of the Eighteenth Amendment rectified the distortions introduced in the Constitution by successive military governments to facilitate the overthrow of elected civilian governments. (4) The emergence of an independent judiciary with a spine whose strength was drawn from the will of the people. The Supreme Court began to hold to account not only the incumbent government for corruption and malfeasance, but through its power of suo motu strove to protect the rights of citizens who had been abducted by various security agencies. It publicly scrutinised a case in which the ISI had allegedly funded opposition political parties, and it castigated elements in the military establishment who had stepped outside the law. Such dispensation of justice without fear or favour has helped to achieve a new balance between various organs of the state in accordance with the Constitution. (5) The perceived threat of destabilisation of the elected government by the military, following the so-called ‘memogate’ affair, was successfully overcome in a historic face-off between the prime minister and the military.

As the people of Pakistan build democracy they face two major threats: (1) An economy that within its existing rent-based structure, extracts the fruits of the labour of people for the profligacy of the elites. Consequently while the people are deprived of the minimum conditions of dignified life, public debt has increased to such an unsustainable level that the country faces bankruptcy. (2) The religious extremists pose a threat not only to the way of life of the people of Pakistan, but to its very existence as a state. The response to them is ambivalent: they have apparently penetrated the security apparatus, and won allies amongst some of the right wing political parties. The way democratic forces address these challenges will shape the future of democracy.

The Express Tribune

May 23, 2012
By Wadah Khanfar

Earlier this month, millions of people throughout the Arab world viewed, for the first time, a tele-vised debate between two Egyptian presidential candidates when secularist Amr Mousa took on Islamist Abdul Moneim Abu Al Fotouh.

The debate, which lasted more than four hours, was unique in itself. This is because for many decades the Arab masses were accustomed to hearing one leader and one candidate. Today, they feel democracy has indeed been attained. They also feel that their next president, whoever he may be, will not be a gift from a merciful providence, or a leader for whom the nation must sacrifice its blood and soul.

Instead, they believe he will be an ordinary human being like them. He will be grilled and interrogated, and he may choose to give straight answers sometimes and be evasive on other occasions. In the end, they will choose him by their own free will and according to their own convictions.

From the standpoint of substance, the debate examined at length the vision of the two candidates on how to revive Egypt’s economy, health and education. More importantly, it also dealt with the relationship between religion and the state. While Mousa spoke about Islamic values such as justice and equality as the basis of legislation, Abu Al Fotouh spoke about the implementation of Sharia that would assure national harmony and freedom of religion.

As for their positions towards Israel, that part of the debate was controversial, to say the least. Whereas Mousa referred to Israel as an adversary, Abu Al Fotouh regarded it as an enemy.

Naturally, it is important to assess these positions within the context of the election campaigns. So even though Abu Al Fotouh described Israel as an enemy, that does not mean he would prepare for war if elected. It is certain that the priorities of the next president will not be ideological. Instead, he will be preoccupied by the economic needs of the state and its political interests.

Mousa, 76, presents himself as the experienced statesman who will deliver stability in the midst of an uncertain economic climate. Having worked as foreign minister under Hosni Mubarak and been secretary-general of the Arab League, he would be the preferred choice of the ruling military council, the intelligence agencies and large sections of the Egyptian bureaucracy.

Indeed, sizeable sections of the population see in him a guardian of economic stability. On the other hand, many others view him as an extension of the defunct regime and, therefore, he contradicts the spirit of the people’s revolution.

Abu Al Fotouh, 62, is renowned for his opposition to the Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak regimes, for which he was imprisoned. He presents himself as the candidate of the revolution, who is able to reach out to the youth and various political forces.

He promises not to take unilateral decisions, but instead work with a team of experts. This contrasts with Mousa, who appeared in the debate to be notably self-centred. It should be noted, though, that the latter has some Islamic credentials and enjoys reasonable support among the Salafists. In fact, key figures among the secularists, leftists and liberals have declared their support for him; a precedent not offered to any other. On this basis, Mousa could qualify for the second round.

The third candidate is Mohammad Mursi, 61, leader of the Freedom and Justice party and the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate. The Brotherhood is, without doubt, the largest political force in Egypt. Although Mursi entered the race for the presidency late, the numbers that attended his rallies in provinces throughout Egypt were astounding. Mursi’s supporters argue that Egypt needs a leader who has a strong party backing that would secure the stability of the country; and that his links to the Brotherhood will ensure a synergy between the presidency and the parliament.

On the other hand, his opponents point out that the Brotherhood’s control of the presidency, the government and the parliament would alienate the other parties at a time when the country needs a broad national base.

Ultimately, Mousa may win more votes than any other candidate in the first round; but he is not expected to win in the second round. It is highly unlikely that those who vote for Abu Al Fotouh and Mursi in the first round will vote for Mousa in the second. Instead, the Islamists voters would unite behind a single candidate who is recognisably Islamist, whether he is Mursi or Abu Al Fotouh.

Thus, it appears the next president of Egypt would be an Islamist. That will ensure a break from the past. Moreover, it will safeguard the transition toward democracy. However, if Mousa were to be elected, the revolutionary forces would suffer a huge setback. Not only this, the army would continue to predominate in one form or another. That may embroil Egypt in disputes and divert it from the transition toward democracy.

Wadah Khanfar is a former director-general of Al Jazeera network.
Courtesy: Guardian News & Media Ltd

May 29, 2012
By Rasul Bakhsh Rais

On issues like corruption, incompetence, flagrant violation of rules, defiance of the Supreme Court and standing firm against a contempt of court conviction, the polity of Pakistan is divided between those who are in support of the Gilani government and those who are against it. One specific trait of our social and political culture is partisanship — a cleric, a feudal lord, a tribal chief or a caste leader is never wrong, he is always right. Similarly, we see some prominent lawyers and commentators in the media, linked through a system of visible and invisible patronage of the state, waxing eloquent to prove that the prime minister is right and that the Supreme Court is overstepping its mandate. On the other hand, opponents of the regime, mainly the PML-N and the PTI stridently argue that he is a convict and he doesn’t have any legal standing anymore to continue as prime minister.

Before I explain why Gilani must go, I would like to concur with two arguments presented by his supporters. Firstly and politically, I think it was not possible for the prime minister to write a letter to the Swiss courts, whatever the merits of the case may be. President Asif Ali Zardari handpicked him purely on the same grounds that his predecessor appointed prime ministers, that is, being political lightweights. There was an additional quality that President Zardari was looking for and this was absolute loyalty towards him. Mr Gilani has proved his loyalty, honouring the time-honoured code of the feudal world — personal commitments are stronger than matters of public interest or law.

True, the prime minister is now a convicted person but in my view, he may continue to stay in the job until there is a decision on his appeal against the conviction. We have heard that he is not planning to appeal but who knows if the government may yet change its mind on that? Even his opponents, who want to see him return to Multan immediately, don’t present any valid argument against his right of appeal. They talk about moral legitimacy which, in an immoral political world of ours doesn’t carry any weight. If morality — that which is considered public conduct according to the accepted social norms of honour, decency, fair play and merit — were the value to judge our leaders; we may not find any in this part of the world, or elsewhere for that matter.

Morality is a good stick to beat opponents up with but a poor judge of the conduct of power-oriented politics. Politics is, therefore, governed by law alone. There is another source to judge politics, the opinion and support — or lack thereof — of the general population. Sadly, our tradition of rule of law remains weak and public opinion, if judged by electoral results, is polarised along a partisan party system based on strong social networks. Having said this, I believe Mr Gilani must go home.

First, never in our history have we seen such an incompetent government and perhaps, never will we see such a disastrous composition of actors again. There are only a handful of sane voices in his cabinet, the rest being incompetent and unable to run their ministries efficiently and for the greater public good. Second, Pakistan has done better under other regimes and could do better in terms of development, resource generation and governance. Also, the prime minister’s reputation is not all that clean, not least because of the serious allegations of favouritism and nepotism in the so-called ephedrine scandal allegedly involving one of his sons.

Finally, with a heavy burden of perceived corruption, poor governance and now standing in the middle of a political controversy, his carrying on in office may cost the PPP dearly. He is a political liability and the sooner he is sent packing the better off the PPP will be, as well as the rest of the country.

The Express Tribune

May 31, 2012
By Dr SM Taha

Democracy, no doubt, is the best system if it is run by the best people living in the state. It is unfortunate that Pakistan’s democracy is run by the worst of its citizens. There are a few exceptions but they cannot alter the well-entrenched trends of Pakistan’s democratic culture. Let us state a few undeniable facts about Pakistan’s democracy.

First, families and clans act as custodians of voters and political parties. Second, most voters in the rural areas do not cast votes of their own free will and many are not even aware of their basic fundamental rights. Third, corruption and coercion are part and parcel of Pakistan’s electoral process. Last, but not least, politics is deemed dirty and dangerous by law-abiding, educated citizens of Pakistan.

Along with these facts, there are certain misperceptions about democracy that have purposely been inculcated in the minds of Pakistanis by politicians. These include: elections lead to the establishment of democracy, parliamentarians are true representatives of the people and voters cast their votes freely.

In addition to these misperceptions, there are clear fault lines in Pakistani society, i.e., sectarian, ethnic, tribal, and provincial. Our so-called political parties are clearly divided along these fault lines.

The above-mentioned facts, misperceptions and fault lines have produced an electoral system that creates governments incorrectly termed as democratically elected. The political party is the fundamental institution of any democracy and is supposed to be structured democratically. However, in Pakistan, major political parties are controlled by a few influential families. The PPP claims that it is a democratic party but the change of leadership in the party happened through a will, after the demise of Benazir Bhutto. And the irony was that not a single seasoned parliamentarian like Raza Rabbani, Amin Fahim or Aitzaz Ahsan, uttered a single word against this undemocratic act.

In the rural areas, most constituencies are controlled by influential feudal families, who like seasonal birds, keep moving from one power broker group to another, according to their changing interests. The recent by-election results in DG Khan and Multan raise serious concerns for those who believe that only political awareness will change the status quo.

Another important institution in any democracy is an independent election commission, which is responsible for implementing election rules. In Pakistan, we have an election commission that is spineless when it comes to ensuring the implementation of election rules. Similarly, an independent judiciary that provides speedy justice and a bureaucracy free from political influence are also essential ingredients of a true democracy. These prerequisites seem to be absent in Pakistan.

In the remote areas of the country, people are not even aware of the existence of an election process. My visits to some coastal union councils of Thatta revealed that the people of the area had no idea about who the MPA and MNA of their constituency were.

Lastly, I believe that without elected local governments, no regime can claim to be a democratic one. All provincial governments in the country are unwilling to devolve power to the local leadership, which is the essence of a democracy.

Because of all these reasons, the track record of elected civilian governments is not at all impressive. The unpleasant fact is that the economic growth rate achieved during democratic regimes has compared poorly with the rates achieved during military regimes. I am afraid that this rotten system will continue in the future as well. Getting rid of the influential feudal families and the corrupt urban elite seems like an impossible task at the moment.

The Express Tribune