CSS Forums

CSS Forums (http://www.cssforum.com.pk/)
-   News & Articles (http://www.cssforum.com.pk/general/news-articles/)
-   -   Democracy & Governance (Important Articles) (http://www.cssforum.com.pk/general/news-articles/61718-democracy-governance-important-articles.html)

Roshan wadhwani Sunday, March 25, 2012 02:29 PM

Democracy & Governance (Important Articles)
 
[CENTER][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]Democracy: ritual and reality
[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/CENTER]
Nasim Ahmed

Human wisdom has not yet invented a better system of governance and a more peaceful method of transfer of power than democracy. The theoretical underpinnings of democracy are well known: regular elections, voters' right to choose and remove their rulers, an executive answerable to parliament and the people's participation in running the government through their elected representatives. But these are just the outer trappings of democracy. What distinguishes democracy from other forms of government is its substance: a system of governance designed to secure the maximum good of the maximum number.

But, in practice, democracy can be reduced to a mere ritual. A system may have all the outer trappings of democracy without its substance. This is proved not only by our own experience but by the experience of other countries.

In our democracy, there is an annual ritual of presidential address to parliament which President Asif Zardari performed with lacklustre effect last week in the midst of noisy protests by the opposition. The fact that the president has delivered his fifth address to parliament in the last four years has been hailed by the ruling party as a great achievement of democracy, showing how we have elevated form over substance and reduced democracy to a ritual.

Is democracy only about delivering the annual presidential address to parliament and the government completing four years in office? Or, as PM Gillani frequently claims, about being the longest running prime minister in the country's history? Do the people elect their representatives and rulers only to ensure that they complete their tenure without expecting them to deliver on their campaign promises of caring for their needs and solving their problems? Does democracy mean merely holding elections and the elected representatives going through the motions of attending, and sometimes not attending, the assembly sessions without doing anything substantial to bring a difference in the people's lives?

The refrain about the present democratic dispensation having successfully completed its four years in office sounds incongruous when we juxtapose the claim with its performance during this period. Not surprisingly, President Zardari prefaced his address to the joint session with the usual litany of inherited difficulties in order to explain away the lackluster performance of the government. He sounded unconvincing and hollow when he said that his government has tried to meet the "aspirations of the people" and 'transform the country'. For, under the present dispensation, the daily life of the people has become more miserable, and if it has been transformed it has been transformed for the worse.

The economic data trotted out by President Zardari have no relevance to the people's daily lives, with some of them being outright lies. The prices of 12 most essential items of daily use have trebled and quadrupled in the last four years but he made the astounding claim that inflation has been controlled.
Similarly, his claim about electricity generation sounded hollow in the face of increasing hours of loadshedding which has disrupted normal life in the country and decimated large sections of the national industry.

The moribund state of the economy resulting from power and gas shortages, declining exports and lack of investment belie the claim that the government has brought ''economic stability'' and ''prosperity to our citizens''. Nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, with the cost of living rising on a daily basis, more and more people have been pushed below the poverty line in the last four years.

Food prices and the costs of petrol, gas and electricity have become unaffordable for an overwhelming majority of the people, but the president had the audacity to say that "we have tried to manage the economy with one primary focus: to ensure that the benefits reach the common man''.
The address of President Zardari was peppered with clichés and ritualistic statements like ''the rule of law has been established and the supremacy of parliament has been assured''. In reality the government has obstinately defied all efforts by the Supreme Court to bring the corrupt to book and ensure the rule of law and constitution in the country. Similarly, despite the claim of the president, parliament has been sidelined and all crucial decisions are taken by a small coterie of loyal party men around him. And as for the prime minister enjoying full authority as a result of the fresh constitutional amendments, the truth is known to all. PM Gillani is merely a nominee of the party head who is the real power behind the throne.

Had the government sincerely tried to set things right, the fifth parliamentary address of President Zardari would have been substantially much better than his first, four years ago. Worse, while President Zardari had not much to show by way of his government’s past achievements, he also failed to outline, in precise terms, his team's future plan of action.

Source: [url=http://www.weeklycuttingedge.com/index.html]WEEKLY CUTTING EDGE[/url]

Roshan wadhwani Sunday, March 25, 2012 02:39 PM

[CENTER][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]Democracy: marching on or winding down?[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/CENTER]

Faheem Amir

No one, including cynic or misanthrope, can deny the veracity of the observation that democracy is flourishing in Pakistan. The year 2012 will be remembered in the annals of Pakistan's political history, as the year when an elected president, for the first time in the country's history, addressed a joint sitting of parliament for the fifth time in his tenure.

This memorable occasion shows clearly that a fragile and weak democratic system is getting stronger in our country. In spite of facing many colossal challenges, the PPP-led government has succeeded to protect its government and the prevailing political system, which is highly appreciable.

During his address to the joint session of the parliament, President Asif Ali Zardari said that the PPP-led government had successfully met enormous challenges‚ established the rule of law and assured the supremacy of parliament. He also vowed to hold free and fair general elections next year.
"The world can see that the march of democracy goes on… I feel honoured to address the joint sitting of parliament. It is a shining moment for our parliament. Together we are creating history. While a lot more needs to be done, a strong beginning has been made. We Pakistanis can be proud of our young democracy. We are starting a new Parliamentary Year,” the president said in his speech, that mostly focused on the coalition government's achievements in several areas, including the economy, energy, counter-terrorism and the international diplomacy.

On the Balochistan issue, the president apologised for the "mistakes" made against the Baloch in the past. He said that the Aghaz-e-Haqooq-e-Balochistan package was aimed at ending the sense of deprivation among the people of the province.

"But we acknowledge that much more needs to be done to heal the wounds of the past. We are willing to go an extra mile to engage in a dialogue with our Baloch brothers," Zardari said.

The president expressed his gratitude to the leadership of all political parties for supporting the democratic process and passing "historic" laws. "I wish to compliment Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani for his able leadership in the House," Zardari added.

He said that Pakistan was committed to maintaining bilateral relations with all countries on the basis of mutual respect, territorial integrity and equality. Important steps had been taken to start trade between India and Pakistan, the president said, adding, "We must also address important issues, including the Jammu and Kashmir dispute."

He said that Pak-US relations were multi-dimensional and important. Pakistan sought to engage meaningfully with the US on the basis of mutual interest and mutual respect, and invited parliamentarians to give their recommendations on re-engaging with the US.

Zardari stated that Pakistan favoured an Afghan-owned and Afghan-led peace process in the war-hit country.

The government was committed to empowering women. Zardari said that many laws had been enacted against domestic violence, harassment of women and other anti-women practices. The National Commission on the Status of Women was another step forward in this direction.

During the last four years, the government had tried to meet the aspirations of the people and pursued the politics of reconciliation and harmony. "We have worked hard to generate consensus on several issues of national importance and formed coalition governments to deepen democracy," Zardari claimed.

Under the PPP-led government, the Political Parties Act was extended to the Tribal Areas, the Frontier Crimes Regulation was amended, tribal areas of Kala Dhaka were converted into a settled area and Gilgit-Baltistan was granted self-rule status in 2009.

He said that the government had given more financial powers to the provinces, adding, "After a gap of 13 years, the federal and provincial governments agreed on a new NFC Award that saw the share of the provinces increased."

The parliamentarians belonging to treasury benches, on March 17, called the presidential address a landmark achievement, which they believed would strength the democratic process in the country. The Awami National Party chief, Asfandyar Wali Khan, said that the president's speech was reflective of the joint vision of the coalition partners. He also hoped that since President Asif Ali Zardari had addressed parliament five times, this tradition would be followed in future. Dr. Farooq Sattar of the Mutahidda Qaumi Movement said that the country's prosperity lies in a strong democratic system and the president's fifth address to the parliament would further strengthen the system.

On the other hand, leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, said that Asif Ali Zardari was making false claims about the PPP government's performance in five years. Talking to journalists, Nisar claimed that there was nothing new in Zardari's speech other than false claims. The PPP had delivered nothing to the nation in four years. The president was talking about developments in some other country, and not in Pakistan! "The nation should realise that not even Zardari but the PPP allies also shared common responsibility for bad governance and worst situation of the country," he added.

Nisar said that the president was counting his government's achievements but the common man was suffering from a bad law and order situation in the country.

Although President Zardari, in his address, had endeavoured his best to shed light on the achievements of the PPP-led government, no body can refute Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan's statements about the government's poor performance in solving even a single problem of the poor people of Pakistan. Those people are living in abject poverty. Around 15,000 people have committed suicide due to poverty and other social stresses during the last five years. A poverty-stricken father killed his two daughters in the Bara Banda area of Nowshere, on March 16. The tragedy is that his wife had already died in pregnancy for lack of treatment.

The Supreme Court has unmasked massive corruption in the RPPs (rental power projects), Pakistan Railways, PIA, Pakistan Steel Mills and many other institutions and projects, which are enough to weep at the callousness of our corrupt and unpatriotic rulers. Even the Senate election has seen the power of money and unmasked the real faces of our corrupt parliamentarians.
No serious effort has been made to reduce the electricity and gas shortage, which has closed many factories in Pakistan and forced many businessmen to shift their businesses to other countries.

The government has utterly failed to improve the poor law and order situation in Karachi, where targeted killings and abductions have resumed. Balochistan is bleeding, where dejected and frustrated people have revolted against Pakistan. This simmering issue has attracted the attention of foreign powers, which want to destabilise Pakistan. Sectarianism is killing many innocent people in Pakistan. At least 18 people were killed last month when a bus was ambushed by gunmen in the Kohistan district of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
The war on terror has cost us $69 billion and the lives of around 36,000 innocent people. Militants have blown up many schools in KP. They blew up a high school for boys in Swabi, on March 16.

Prime Minister Yousaf Gillani is defiant in his recalcitrance in not following the order of the Supreme Court to write the letter to the Swiss authorities to reopen corruption cases against President Zardari. His defiance in the face of the Supreme Court orders was taken new heights on March 15.
Prime Minister Gillani said he would rather go to jail than obey a court order and ask Switzerland to re-open graft cases against the president. "If I write a letter it will be a violation of the constitution, which is treason and which carries the death sentence," Gillani said in Bahawalpur. "If I don't write, I will be convicted for contempt, the punishment for which is six months' imprisonment," adding, "It's better to face six months' imprisonment than face the death sentence."

Separately, in Vehari, PM Gillani said: "I am a PM, not a peon. They (judges) consider me to be a peon." Then, on March 16, Gillani reiterated his resolve for not writing a letter to Swiss authorities. He said that he was afraid of no one and did not join politics to be scared.

These statements show that the present PPP-led government has no respect for the orders of the Supreme Court. The sentence "I am a PM, not a peon" shows that in "our land of the pure" only the poor people, the peons, farmers, labourers, clerks etc., are accountable for their actions, not the elite ruling class, the president, primes minister, politicians and feudal lords.

It is a great tragedy that while the courts, for the first time in the history of Pakistan, are trying to set an example that everyone is equal before the law, PM Gillani is publicly showing his resentment and annoyance at being asked to account for his actions.

In a real democracy, every one is accountable for his actions before the courts. In an Islamic system, no one is above the law, but the PPP-led government is flouting the orders of the Supreme Court. If the PM does not follow the orders of the Supreme Court in implementing its NRO verdict in letter and spirit, history will not forgive him for his undemocratic attitude and fuelling an antagonism between the judiciary and the civilian government. The prime minister seems to believe that the interest of his leader has precedence over promoting the smooth running and interaction between the pillars of state. [On March 19, the prime minister informed the Supreme Court categorically that he would not write the letter.]

Source: [url=http://www.weeklycuttingedge.com/index.html]WEEKLY CUTTING EDGE[/url]

Roshan wadhwani Wednesday, March 28, 2012 02:17 PM

[CENTER][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]Pakistan and Turkish democracy[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/CENTER]
By Imtiaz Gul
Published: March 27, 2012

Turkey used to be called the ‘the sick man of Europe’ and suffered inflation rates as high as 80 per cent per annum. But eventually, it fought back, reformed its economy with some tough decisions and made a remarkable economic turnaround. Successive International Monetary Fund support programmes also contributed in the economic recovery and consolidation. Though still somewhat volatile and beset with bouts of inflation every now and then, Turkey is not a risky economy any more for the simple reason that its economic managers are quick to make adjustments whenever needed. Turkey owes this turnaround also to political stability, heralded by the ruling Justice and Development Party — AKP.

At the same time, the grand political consensus on the separation of politics and religion remains strongly in place. The entire political discourse, therefore, continues to be embedded in universally acknowledged democratic values, despite the fact that outside modern Ankara, Izmir and Istanbul; Turkey, like Pakistan, is a religious country. That’s the reason why the AKP (a more ‘modern’ version of JI) didn’t dare to touch the overall secular framework (yet), though it has been placing its own people in key positions, preferring to promote bureaucrats who are more overtly religious, for example. Wine is no longer served in government functions. The hijab is okay. A friend once quoted an older Turk friend as saying that the country they had wanted to emulate in the past was Pakistan. But not the Pakistan of today, which they see slipping very quickly towards chaos.

It is, of course, debatable as to whether Pakistan can follow what Ataturk did over 90 years ago with brute power. The extent to which Ataturk went to remove reference to religion from every segment of the society was breathtaking and many observers believe, probably not possible today any more in an era of fast-moving, trans-nationalist Islamist ideologies, epitomised particularly by al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. This may, however, meanwhile endanger the secular edifice that Ataturk raised in 1923.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, perhaps, also is feeling the pressure and facing the challenge on the governance front; he may be popular but maintaining that popularity is predicated on service delivery and economic consolidation. Most local and foreign observers do feel that the Turkish government can face off any ideological or political challenge if it stayed focused on economic expansion and stabilisation.

Yet, what deserves consideration is whether Pakistan can emulate some of the fundamental principles that guide the Turkish model of democracy.
Other Muslim countries like Malaysia and Indonesia have also gone through more or less similar experiences which can indeed serve as role model for a country like Pakistan. If the entire education system is subject to state regulations, why cannot the private religious education establishment i.e. madaris be subject to those regulations?

The monopoly of religious thought and dissemination in private hands is risky and fraught with numerous pitfalls. This is what we see happening in Pakistan, led by the five Wifaq’s — Religious Boards of five Sects — and the religio-political parties. The latter have traditionally been unpopular but still benefited from the expedience of mainstream political parties. This way they also created space for their affiliated mosques and madaris, even though many of them were raised illegally. Ruling parties often look the other way when a Wifaq-related cleric encroaches on state or private land.

Based on the experiences of Turkey, Malaysia or Indonesia, Pakistan’s mainstream political parties, perhaps, can help initiate a debate on the subject. They need courage and a vision for a liberal and prosperous Pakistan to embark on that path. This, however, must not be misconstrued as an attempt to infringement of religious freedom. Everybody is and must remain free to practice faith. But that practice must not become an instrument of injustice, discrimination and intolerance.

The Express Tribune

Roshan wadhwani Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:38 PM

[CENTER][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]Feudalism stunts democracy[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/CENTER]
March 29, 2012
Ikram Sehgal

The historian Marc Bloch defined “feudal society” as a warrior aristocracy bound by vassalage. A lord was a noble who held land, the land was called a fief. Those granted possession by the lord were called vassals, expected to give service to their lord. Wealth was derived from agriculture organised not by market forces but by customary labour services owed by serfs to landowning nobles.

Rulers who adapted feudal institutions to increase their power were called “feudals”, their governments labelled “feudal monarchies”. When the feudals started paying wages to the soldiers, workers and labourers, historians presented medieval feudalism in the 14th and 15th centuries as a system in decline, calling it “bastard feudalism”. In contrast to the rest of world, this medieval system continues to exist and flourish in Pakistan masquerading under the façade of “democracy”.

Large joint families possess hundreds, even thousands of acres of land in Pakistan worked by peasants or tenants living at or below subsistence level. Comparable to medieval Europe, feudals virtually run towns, operating private prisons for personal enemies, the locals dependant on them generation after generation through debt bondage. This control makes the landlord an all powerful master, able to critically influence the distribution of water, fertilizers, tractor permits and agricultural credit and, consequently exercising considerable diktat over revenues, police and judicial administration of his area, and crucially the voting behaviour of the dependant peasants and town population.

With half of Pakistan’s GNP (gross national product) and bulk of its export earnings derived primarily from the agricultural sector, few thousand feudal families control almost two-thirds of parliament. With key federal and provincial executive posts distributed between them, this oligarchy dominating power since West Pakistan’s inception is as callous of the plight of the poor as were the 19th century European feudals and capitalist barons who migrated into politics and business. Blatant exploitation and brutal domination by the rich and powerful created space for communism, the same lack of compassion for ordinary people gives space for extremist Islamists in Pakistan today, Naxalites in India, Maoists in Nepal, etc.

Every vote has equal weight, all citizens being considered equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes. Equality and freedom are identified as important characteristics of “democracy”; no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative by the strength of a free voting process. The freedom of the citizens is secured by legitimised rights and liberties protected by a constitution governed by the rule of law, with separation of powers, an independent judiciary, the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, sanctity of contract and property etc.

Within the limits of the Constitution the fundamental principle of liberty is to govern and to be governed in turn. With the poor in majority in numbers and each citizen having one vote, making them (theoretically at least) more powerful than the rich. A minority can be ruled by a majority in the absence of governmental or constitutional protections of individual or group right, made acceptable to the minority by the fact that they are protected and that political minorities/majorities are fluent and changing.

Popular protests and harsh criticism from the mass media often enough force sudden, unexpected policy change. Any catalyst eg loadshedding, can effect drastic change in policy, and even in government. Frequent policy changes in business and immigration rules deter investment, and so hinder economic growth. Some believe that democracy is not desirable for a developing country in which economic growth and the reduction of poverty are top priority, China and Singapore being examples of lack of connection between democracy and economy growth. Economic growth picked up in Pakistan only during the periods of military rule rather than under democratic dispensations.

The peoples’ faith in the democratic process in Pakistan has been shaken because elections are rigged, the votes are purchased and known corrupt people, tax evaders and smugglers are foisted by the feudals upon a poor, illiterate electorate, unable to make an informed political choice. Instead of correcting the 40 percent fraudulent votes in the electoral rolls, the Election Commission became defensive. One hopes the acting CEC Justice Shakirullah Jan will take steps to cleanse the tainted votes. Such elections do not throw up the best or the most deserving but the scum of the community, only because they are the richest or the favourites of the people in power. Once the feudals determined that the local bodies of a new crop of leaders at the grassroots level would create and force- multiply challenge to their domination they became an anathema, how can the present feudal leaders in parliament tolerate those who can question them by the strength of a vote that is not subject to their influence or coercion?

The famous revolutionary Che Guevara was suspicious about elections in democracy, “Democracy cannot consist solely of elections that are nearly always fictitious and managed by rich landowners and professional politicians.” Elections are necessary but one cannot have democracy just by holding elections, only to get a perverted version thereof. A minority of powerful Romans in the Roman Republic got overwhelming control through a system of gerrymandering, most high officials, including members of the senate, coming from a few wealthy and noble families. Are the senators elected in the recent indirect Senate elections in Pakistan any different from the Roman Senate of 20 centuries ago?

Feudal mindset and democracy can never co-exist, there can be no democracy, liberal or illiberal, in a feudal country like Pakistan. What goes by the name of democracy in any feudal society is hypocrisy; this condemns Pakistan to repeated cycles of short-lived periods of corrupt, civilian rule, descent into chaos and ultimately military intervention.

The black law (made defunct by the Supreme Court) called the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), and the subsequent elections in February 2008 because of the NRO, subverted this process and allowed the same cabal of feudals (albeit with differing permutations and combinations camouflaged with a few genuine democrats) to slide into power. Hell-bent upon breaking the rule of law instead of upholding it, almost every tenet of the Constitution has been circumvented. Despite all their rhetoric to the contrary the Supreme Court seems hesitant to act against this farcical democracy, undermining its credibility and thus compromising its own authority in the process.

PM Gilani’s stance in the contempt case says it all (“refer the issue to parliament”, blithely says eminent lawyer and friend, Aitzaz Ahsan, tongue-in-cheek) and forget about the US$60 million! The crux of the feudal philosophy, public money once looted is gone and finders’ keepers, losers (in this case the people of Pakistan) are weepers. Ordinances enacted on the strength of the fraudulent vote that got most legislators into parliament will eventually make the Supreme Court powerless to act. When that happens, military intervention to stop the rot eating away at the integrity and sovereignty of the country will become unavoidable, triggering inevitably exactly what the SC is trying to avoid.

The implementation of democracy within such a non-democratic state can only be brought about by revolution. Hopefully the military will have learnt its lesson, it will stop at removing the government only and not blunder into a military takeover.

The writer is a defence and political analyst. Email: [email]isehgal@pathfinder9.com[/email]
-The News

Roshan wadhwani Saturday, March 31, 2012 12:46 PM

[B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"][CENTER]Democratic Peace Theory:
An Explanation of Peace and conflict Between Pakistan and India [/SIZE][/FONT][/B]
Musarat Amin*
Rizwan Naseer**[/CENTER]

[url]http://berkeleyjournalofsocialsciences.com/March3.pdf[/url]

Roshan wadhwani Tuesday, April 03, 2012 11:28 AM

[CENTER][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]Phantom rulers[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/CENTER]
April 3, 2012
Iqbal Jafar

WHO are the real rulers of Pakistan? Politicians? Bureaucrats? Feudals? The military? The question is not easy to answer mainly for the reason that none of the nominees for the award accepts being the ruler of Pakistan.

This confers upon Pakistan the unique distinction of being the only country where no person, party, group or class is willing to be recognised as its ruler. Undaunted, many historians, reporters, columnists, talk-show hosts and guests, local researchers and foreign spies, have been at it for quite sometime, but the mystery remains unsolved.

In the course of the search for the persons ruling this country incognito, many have given up, some have died, disappeared, been silenced, or have had their head shaven for being dense.

Ordinary citizens can hardly ever locate the ‘government’ to get their problems addressed by the ‘competent authority’. On the other hand, functionaries, envoys and missions of foreign powers operating in the region are never quite sure who to negotiate with, so they talk to everybody from those perched on the hill top to those hunkering down in the plains.

This ridiculous situation had often been a source of much fun, but it has now ceased to be funny, especially in the context of Balochistan that burns and smoulders while disclaimers about who rules it have become more insistent and shrill.

The federal and the provincial governments, the military and the paramilitary, the police and the intelligence, have all denied having anything to do with the repressive measures, including the killing and kidnapping of the Baloch nationalists and political activists. In the face of these disclaimers who do we look for? Ghosts, apparitions, phantoms?

Not just yet, one might say, for some other possibilities too have been suggested. According to one view, popularised by the super-patriots, the unrest in Balochistan is being fomented as part of a bigger conspiracy by some foreign powers to break up Pakistan. One can agree or disagree with this assumption only by making yet another assumption, for there is little evidence, at least in the public’s knowledge, to prove or disprove the alleged intervention by foreign power or powers.

Granted though that anything is possible in geopolitical games, one cannot ignore the fact that the assumption regarding the so-called ‘foreign hands’ remains unfounded, for no foreign spies, agents or operatives have ever been caught or killed during all these years of insurgency in Balochistan, whereas hundreds of Baloch nationalists and political activists have been killed during the present phase of insurgency.

Consider also the fact, even if there are any foreign spies or agents operating in Balochistan, they would only be supporting an already existing insurgency. The story of Baloch disaffection with Pakistan goes as far back as May 1948. The problemis not who started or supports the insurgency in Balochistan, but what to do with the phantom rulers of Pakistan who don’t seem inclined to either eliminate the foreign hands or pacify local ones.

Next, let us consider the theoretical arguments, based on deduction or the process of elimination, in support of the proposition that some foreign power or powers are behind the ongoing insurgency in Balochistan and the Baloch nationalists are working as their tools. The argument is, in fact, a combination of two different arguments that, if put in a loosely syllogistic format, would read as follows:

First: foreign enemies are conspiring to break up Pakistan; Baloch nationalists demand separation of Balochistan from Pakistan; therefore, Baloch nationalists are agents of foreign powers. Second: Baloch nationalists and political activists are being killed; the military, paramilitary, and other agencies of the state are not involved in it; therefore, the Baloch nationalists and political activists are being killed by foreign agents to destabilise Pakistan.

These arguments won’t pass the test of logic but may sound credible, or even acceptable, as a working hypothesis in a political discourse, if taken separately. But if the two arguments are taken together they can only lead to the conclusion that the Baloch nationalists and political activists are being killed by none other than those very foreign agents who are supposed to be busy supporting and inciting the Baloch nationalists to destabilise Pakistan.

Even more absurd would be the other possible conclusion that while one set of foreign hands arms, funds and trains the Baloch nationalists, another set of foreign hands kills or kidnaps them.

Can it be that those who keep repeating these arguments almost on a daily basis actually believe in the truth of these arguments and assumptions? Do they actually believe that the Baloch, who have been at odds with the state apparatus for the last 65 years, have no good reason to feel ignored, exploited and disinherited? One hopes that the false assumptions and
arguments do not deceive the deceivers, as it sometimes happens, and the truth finally prevails.

Where should we go from here? In the first place the phantom rulers of Pakistan should step out of the fog of anonymity and take charge of the affairs of the state in accordance with the popular mandate, and the parameters laid down by the constitution.

Next, to initiate the process of healing, reconciliation and restoration of order in Balochistan, what needs to be done is for the supreme commander to summon a meeting of his commanders and discuss Balochistan for as long as it takes to reach a meaningful consensus on the future course. Together they must deliver the nation from the agony of paralytic
inaction and stop this march of folly.

The writer is a former bureaucrat.

[email]iqjafar@gmail.com[/email]
-Dawn

ali ahsan Wednesday, April 04, 2012 10:32 AM

Does Pakistan really need a revolution?
 
[B]Does Pakistan really need a revolution?[/B]

We as a nation are obsessed with the concept of messiahs and revolutions. The very fact that we are fixated on such things suggests how deep the rot is. It allows us to think of the misfortune that has befallen us as something which cannot be cured, and which can only be fixed by something like a revolution.

Add to this the religious bigotry that has crept into our society and what you get is the mindset that inhabits the minds of many Pakistanis: indoctrinated, paranoia-stricken, and ready to blame the west for all ills — real and imagined. This kind of mindset is also the reason why so many of us leave matters to fate, as it were, and seem to think that God will help us (obviously those who think this way have not heard of the wise saying: ‘God helps those who help themselves’).

There are many among the educated lot, who consider themselves intellectuals, who feel that the country is ripe for a revolution. They should know that revolutions happen usually in autocratic or dictatorial regimes. Why should a revolution take place in a country with an elected civilian government and which was installed in office in a democratic election? Unless, of course, the idea is to overthrow democracy and install a monarchy in its place.

If we take a close look at the history of modern revolutions, we will find that most revolutions, with a few exceptions, actually end up reinforcing the same dynamics/forces they initially sought to dislodge. For all the charm and romance associated with them, revolutions actually never lighten the burden of tyranny but simply shift it to another power centre. Take the examples of some of the most-studied revolutions in modern history: the English revolution and civil wars starting 1642, the French revolution of 1789, the Russian revolution of 1917 and the Chinese revolution of 1949. A close look at any of these would suggest that revolutions almost always follow a set pattern.

They begin with the economically-discontent and frustrated segments of society organising themselves and making revolutionary demands. This is followed by use of force by the government in power to discourage the revolutionaries, the failure of this approach and followed by the acquisition of power by the revolutionaries. The sad part is that this is where the romance of our intelligentsia on revolutions ends because they ignore what history tells us regarding what happens next in the revolutionary, so to speak, cycle.

In a revolution, like in a novel, the most difficult part is to invent the end; all the above-mentioned cases demonstrate that after the fall of the government as a result of a revolution, a brief honeymoon period ensues. But that period of celebration soon ends as elements among the revolutionaries — who were united to overthrow the government but who may have different opinions/ideas once that goal is achieved — start asserting themselves.

In the ensuing power struggle, violence often is a consequence. Power starts with moderates, flows towards the centre, and eventually slips into the hands of the radicals and, as happened in all the above-mentioned cases, the final result is a dictatorship: Cromwell in England, Napoleon in France, Stalin in Russia and Mao in China.

So is Pakistan ripe for a revolution? Again, for the benefit of our educated class, let me point out that history tells us that revolutions are not brought by the downtrodden and crushed and, moreover, they are not a reaction to the sheer hopelessness that reigns supreme at that time. They happen when people actually start to live a little better — as in under the same regime that they may later go on to overthrow — and thus realise how much better a life they could live if they appropriated power to themselves.

But the main issue remains that in the presence of a democratic set-up, howsoever crippled it may be, any uprising in Pakistan will only end up bringing a change in government and nothing more. Furthermore, the reality is that the elected civilian government has little actual power, which lies with the establishment since it controls all the levers of power. Hence, a rebellion against the government could well end up reinforcing the hands of the establishment which already has all the power. Quite clearly, a revolution for Pakistan is not a worthy goal because it is likely to make institutions that already have most of the power, even more powerful. And that is hardly akin to bringing about real change.

Of course, there are many among us who would like a revolution inspired by religion, and in this they usually cite the example of Iran. But here, too, the problem lies with whose interpretation of religion will hold sway? In Pakistan, we have a virulent strain of sectarianism and where even different schools of thought within the Sunni community often don’t see eye to eye on theological and related issue. Have we forgotten the results of the Munir Commission which was formed to arrive at a definition of a Muslim?

More dangerously, given the tendency following a revolution of power shifting from the hands of moderates to radicals (Egypt right now is a good example of this), one shouldn’t dare imagine the consequences of a revolution which starts in the hands of the radicals — as in how much further radicalisation will such a campaign give birth to?

Those who support a revolution should know that revolution is simply transfer of power. Those who support reforms should know that a reform is correction of abuses. Numerous revolutions all over history have caused more damage and in return brought about far less social change than that brought about by overarching reforms. One can see the example of people like Kemal Ataturk in Turkey or Park Chung-Hee in South Korea and study in detail the impact they made on their nations and decide for themselves that does Pakistan really need a revolution at this point in time.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 4th, 2012.

Roshan wadhwani Friday, April 06, 2012 11:30 AM

[CENTER][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]Fight for real democracy[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/CENTER]
April 6, 2012
By Syed Talat Hussain

The old order is not dying, the new is not born yet, and it’s the big void in between that is killing us. This modified version of a much-cited quote sums up the core reason for the agonies ordinary Pakistanis suffer every day. For all its pomp and show, the exiting political set-up is representative only in name. It is a near-complete failure in ensuring the larger good for the largest number of people.

For the inhabitants of Karachi, this means perpetual fear and murder under the reign of democratic terror. Armed wings of political parties are battling it out on the streets. Institutions of the state dedicated to maintaining normality seem to have fallen in a state of paralytic disorder. Gangs rule the roost. Either you are with them or against them. Neutrality is a sin punishable by death in the crossfire of hate.

For the northern rim of the country, Gilgit-Baltistan, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Fata, this old order has meant perpetual conflict, military operations, mushrooming of terrorist organisations, displacement and, like in parts of Karachi, withering away of livelihoods and businesses. For other parts of Pakistan, the torture of electricity breakdown and rising prices of fuel have caused anger to overflow. As factories shut down in industrial areas, laid off workers (in the millions) or whose meagre wages are cut to half, mix with the frustrated population to turn streets into tinder boxes ready to explode at a touch. For Balochistan, there is no solace and little hope that a visionary scheme will heave it out of its slow-but-steady burning mode. Fabian terror tactics remain pervasive. Law enforcement agencies continue to operate at a tactical level without any long-term policy to restore lasting harmony.

Generally, life for most of the middle class is a Sisyphean struggle. Except for the members of a limited but exceptionally resourceful class that has accumulated substantial assets in the last decade or so (not to be confused with the chronic and sickeningly rich elite of the country), or those who have secure skill-based jobs and are protected by institutional welfare schemes, most are worried sick about the future.

This total picture of the country and its citizens is a far cry from the rose water-dipped narrative of the elected leaders about the achievements of democracy under their command. The fact of the matter is that in the last year of this longest tenure of a civilian government, the ordinary Pakistani is poorer, more insecure, more disillusioned and more frustrated than before. The country, by the same token, is certainly more tormented, shaken and directionless than before. But this is the necessary cost of building a genuine democratic order, which the present one is certainly not. The horror of being ruled by a self-serving, self-perpetuating rapacious elite is a much-needed wake-up call to all conscientious and democratic-minded citizens that it takes much more than the ritual of elections to bring in a reasonable dispensation that could meet some primary, universally accepted standard of performance and service delivery. Indeed, elections can and have brought in the worst of the lot.

Yet this rule of the rotten represents a critical phase of transition for Pakistan to a stable and a more genuine democratic order where public voice and interest shapes government behaviour and where worship-thy-leader-no-matter-how-cuckoo is not the path to political success. (Pakistan has the global distinction of having most public places named after individual ‘leaders’. This naming spree indicates zero respect for the public and reflects a mindset that sees resources and possessions of the state as items of personal collection.)

The heightened level of public frustration and excessive privations of the voter serve the worthy cause of opening possibilities for new political forces. Protests bordering on mayhem lay bare the naked nature of people’s needs and these can no longer be hidden in the garbage tank of official self-praise. The sense that this country is slipping badly and might go over the edge is poking us all in the ribs to do something about it rather than wait for the free fall.

For the first time in Pakistan, we can pick up chatter about the triple ‘A’ formula (Allah-Army-America) not being enough to save our future. A good number of people want to see Pakistan beyond its present-day problems, the source of which is a leadership that is as unwilling to govern as it is incapable of being honest. Civil society, professional groups, students, teachers, businessmen, media, the judiciary and all those who care about tomorrow will have to play their part to distil real democracy from the slime and slush that we face. This is a lot of hard work and struggle, but history offers no other path to building democracy than the one made by toil sweat and blood.

The Express Tribune

Roshan wadhwani Tuesday, April 10, 2012 11:19 AM

[CENTER][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]Democracy is no panacea for all ills[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/CENTER]
April 10, 2012
By Linda S. Heard

The definition of democracy is “the government of the people by the people” but that should be redefined when so many citizens in democratic countries feel disempowered. Democracy’s failings are tragically playing out in its birthplace Greece where the government has to abide by diktats from Brussels else hurl the country into bankruptcy. The privilege of living in a democracy was no comfort to the 77-year-old retired pharmacist who shot himself in Athens’ Syntagma Square, fearing being reduced to eating from garbage cans.

As a concept, democracy is great, but, in practical terms, it’s grossly over-rated and isn’t one size fits all. So isn’t it about time we quit prostrating ourselves before its altar, rid ourselves of the quasi taboo of even questioning its merits and began recognising that it has warts?

People in non-democratic countries who believe democracy is the cure to all their ills are sadly misguided. For one thing, it’s a system of governance that relies on an educated population who can understand the issues at stake. In Egypt, where 40 per cent of citizens are unable to read or write and where over half live under or just over the poverty line, it’s no surprise that a large number are seduced by political parties that promote their agendas under religious slogans.

For another, it doesn’t work in nations where there are sectarian divisions or tribal links because voters will simply vote according to their ethnicity, religion or inherited personal loyalties. Democracy was forcibly introduced to Iraq but as long as there is a Shiite majority, Sunnis will feel excluded. And in Israel, whose Jewish population boasts that their state is the only democracy in the Middle East, there will never be an Arab-Israeli prime minister or president. Afghanistan is nominally a democracy but how on earth can democracy exist under foreign occupation?

Thirdly, in places where there’s corruption, its outcome can be manipulated by bribes or at the ballot box and in others by convoluted or unfair rules. In the US, former president George W. Bush’s two wins came under a cloud with the first having to be pronounced upon by the Electoral College even though rival Al Gore received more of the popular vote — and the second having been marred by electronic ‘vote switching’ incidents that favoured Bush.

Fourthly, it provides citizens with the illusion that they are free to make choices or to have a say in the running of their country when nine-times-out-of-ten politicians promise the earth before they’re elected and do exactly as they please once they’re in office. Former British prime minister Tony Blair didn’t care a jot that the overwhelming majority of British citizens were against the invasion of Iraq when he squandered the lives of servicemen and women along with his nation’s surplus.

Moreover, any prime minister or president who is elected with a small majority, say 55 per cent, is not necessarily representative of the interests of the remaining 45 per cent.

The pro-democracy argument rests on the ability of citizens to vote out a leader they believe has let them down when his term ends, which has merit. However, countries that are suffering major long-term problems need long-term plans and programmes which successive elected governments, each with differing solutions, are unable to implement to fruition.

Real decision-makers

Take the US, for instance, where Democrats have been trying unsuccessfully to institute universal health care for decades. President Barack Obama managed to get a heavily watered-down version of Obamacare — “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” — passed by Congress but not only is the Supreme Court weighted in Republican’s favour reviewing its constitutionality, all Republican presidential contenders have sworn to repeal it. Put simply, democracy lacks continuity.

Then, because democracy usually goes hand-in-hand with a capitalist system the real decision-makers are not ordinary people but bankers, corporate moguls and media barons who encourage a debt-ridden, materialistic society that keeps workers on a gruelling treadmill in order to purchase that ‘must have’ plasma TV and to keep up with mortgage payments on a home they think they own, when until that final payment it’s actually the property of the bank.

Democracy gives power to media bosses like Rupert Murdoch, who used to regularly drop in on Blair’s Downing Street without invitation, as which politician in his right mind would dare upset a guy who shapes voters’ perceptions in his tabloids. And, to my mind, the way that political candidates are funded by interest groups and lobbies in the US is wholly undemocratic as it means organisations use their cash and influence to manipulate policies.

To be fair, there are many nations in which democracy has been beneficial, comparatively wealthy Scandinavian countries come to mind, where democracy and capitalism are tempered by welfare systems. Many of democracy’s advocates admit it’s not perfect but say it’s the best available. I once thought the same because, like so many, I was brought-up in a country whose citizens are indoctrinated from an early age to automatically accept democracy as the gold standard.

Most of us are so caught up in nomenclature that often we can’t see the wood for the trees. Any system that can provide people with a decent standard of living, homes, jobs, health care, education and essential freedoms is worthwhile.

Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She can be contacted at [email]lheard@gulfnews.com[/email] Some of the comments may be considered for publication.
Source: Gulf News

Roshan wadhwani Tuesday, April 10, 2012 12:12 PM

[FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"][CENTER][B]Can we emulate Turkey?[/B][/CENTER][/SIZE][/FONT]
By Imtiaz Gul
Published: April 9, 2012

Turkey was referred to as the ‘the sick man of Europe’ and suffered inflation rates as high as 80 per cent per annum. But eventually it fought back, reformed its economy with some tough decisions, and made a remarkable economic turnaround. Though still somewhat volatile and beset with bouts of inflation every now and then, Turkey is not a risky economy anymore; for the simple reason that its economic managers are quick to make adjustments whenever needed. Turkey also owes this turnaround to political stability, heralded by the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP). Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan leads the party in a roughly 550-member parliament with 327 members of parliament. He has managed to remove the stigma that Turkey carried for a long time; that of being ‘the sick man of Europe.’

At the same time, the grand political consensus on the separation of politics and religion remains strongly in place. The entire political discourse, therefore, continues to be embedded in universally acknowledged democratic values, despite the fact that outside modern Ankara, Izmir and Istanbul, Turkey, like Pakistan, is a religious country which is strictly orthodox Hanafi Sunni. Not every Turk drinks but most people pray and fast. They are, at the same time, very comfortable with the secular model of governance.

Wine is no longer served in government functions. The hijab is okay. A friend quoted an older Turk friend saying that the country Turkey wanted to emulate in the past was –– Pakistan. But not the Pakistan of today, which they see slipping very quickly towards chaos.

It is, of course, debatable as to whether Pakistan can follow what Ataturk did over 90 years ago with brute power. The extent to which Ataturk went to remove references of religion from every segment of the society was breathtaking and is probably not possible today in an era of fast-moving transnationalist Islamist ideologies, epitomised particularly by al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. This may, however, endanger the secular edifice that Ataturk raised in 1923.

Meanwhile, what deserves consideration is whether Pakistan can emulate some of the fundamental principles that guide the Turkish model of democracy.

Other Muslim countries like Malaysia and Indonesia have also gone through similar experiences which can indeed serve as benchmarks for a country like Pakistan that is currently embroiled in a crisis that stems from the intertwining of religion and politics. If the entire education system is subject to state regulations, why can’t the private religious education establishment i.e., madrassas be subject to those regulations to avoid sectarian divisions and their adverse impact on the society?

The monopoly of religious thought and dissemination in private hands is risky and fraught with numerous pitfalls. This is what we see happening in Pakistan, led by the five wifaqs –– and the religiopolitical parties.

Based on the experiences of Turkey, Malaysia or Indonesia, Pakistan’s mainstream political parties can perhaps help initiate a debate on the subject. They need courage and vision for a liberal and prosperous Pakistan to embark on that path. This, however, must not be misconstrued as an attempt on infringement of religious freedom. Everybody is, and must be free to practice faith. But that practice must not become an instrument of injustice, discrimination and intolerance.

-The Express Tribune,


03:03 AM (GMT +5)

vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.