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]

[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]

[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

[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

[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]

[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

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.

[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

[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

[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,

[CENTER][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]Democracy is not just about elections[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/CENTER]
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

[CENTER][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]Poor disaster management[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/CENTER]
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

[B][CENTER][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]Revisiting national interests
[/SIZE][/FONT][/CENTER][/B]

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: [email]charles123it@hotmail.com[/email]

-The News

[CENTER][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]The essence of democracy[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/CENTER]
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: [email]aminjan@comsats.net.pk[/email]

-The News

[CENTER][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]Poverty of governance[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/CENTER]
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: [email]tajkhattak@ymail.com[/email]
-The News

[CENTER][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]Punjab’s profile of regional backwardness[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/CENTER]
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

[CENTER][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]Democracy: progress and pitfalls[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/CENTER]
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

[CENTER][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]Key moment in transition to democracy[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/CENTER]
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

[CENTER][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]Why the PM must go[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/CENTER]
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

[CENTER][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]Fake democracy[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/CENTER]
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

[CENTER][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]Why provinces hate local governments[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/CENTER]
June 2, 2012
Mohammad Malick

Out of the blue, the Punjab government announced on Thursday its ‘intention’ to hold local bodies elections. While the decision was a bit unexpected, the omission of an actual timeline wasn’t. The latest move appears nothing more then a deft manoeuvre to avoid a legal bind a la Sindh, where the Sindh government has been ordered by the Sindh High Court to hold Local Government (LB) elections within 90 days.

Taking a cue from their political elders in Islamabad, the Sindh government however has no intentions to honour the orders of the superior judiciary. Word has it that final touches are being given to a proposed law to sanction a six-month transition period preceding the holding of such elections. Even if such a law is brought in, it is bound to be challenged in the SHC, prompting another round of legal wrangling which will consume a few more weeks, if not months. Avoiding implementing court verdicts and buying time, has become the standard modus operandi of both our federal and provincial governments.

Punjab has gone a step further. It has smartly tried preempting any judicial intervention through its voluntary announcement of holding elections. Interestingly, while the timing and other critical details of the pronounced intent are missing, the government bureaucracy has simultaneously initiated a move that belies the very spirit of the LG system: bureaucratic hold over local governance – essentially the people’s domain. The LG election announcement was coupled with the Punjab government’s intent to bring back our bureaucratic lords and masters, the DMG-run office of a deputy commissioner even if under another nomenclature.

When it comes to the morality of realpolitik, Constitutional violations matter little; what matters more is the end result. Ignoring the constitutionally mandated LG system in favour of a bureaucrat-run fiefdom has immense tactical advantages – especially in an election year.

In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the government had the audacity to amend the CPC, a federal law, to facilitate the revival of the old magistracy system – a blatant violation of the laid down principle of separation of executive and judiciary. In this instance, the Peshawar High Court had to step in and declare the action illegal.

In Balochistan, those in power have even stopped feigning concern over this matter. Taking up the missing person’s case in Balochistan, Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry grilled the province’s chief secretary over the absence of the local government system. He was bang on dot when he said had the local governance system been in place, forget local development, there would have been effective policing and perhaps fewer people would have gone missing.

So what is it that the provincial governments so despise about the local government system? Is it the MPA-MNA combine egged on by the bureaucratic behemoth that is so averse to devolution of authority to the grass roots level? Is it about the misuse of billions of rupees that should otherwise, as per law, have been spent by the people on their own development? The answer: it’s a combination of all of the above, with the silent bureaucracy inflicting the worst damage.

For starters, none of the provincial governments want to hold local government polls just before a general election. Unfavourable electoral results threaten to puncture the Teflon coating of perceived impregnability. A string of election disappointments could actually set in motion an irreversible political momentum against the incumbent ruling dispensations.

All kinds of ruses have been offered by virtually every provincial capital and the centre to avoid local government elections. Courts have been told, at various times, that work is being done on the local government legislation and hence the inevitable delays. Sure, in Punjab some amendments were indeed brought in post the 18th Amendment but these primarily remained confined to seeking four time period extensions in holding LG polls, ranging from six months to a year at a time. The centre said security was an issue in Islamabad. KPK also went the security route as did Sindh but otherwise, both conveniently also held assembly bye-elections.

The excuse of old electoral rolls has also been cited but nobody said a word when the government held nationwide elections for Azad Kashmir on the same ‘inaccurate’ voter lists. Even the assembly bye-polls in different provinces were held on the same old electoral rolls.

So clearly, what is good for the provincial goose is definitely not good for the local government gander.

But political power and bureaucratic control is only half the story. It’s money, and big money for that matter. We’re talking tens of billions of rupees every year. According to a report prepared by The Local Councils Association, with a little tweaking of the rules and procedures, billions of rupees of local government funds are being blown away with impunity by the provincial governments.

According to this study of Local Finance in Pre and Post 18thAmendment and Seventh NFC Award, the Punjab government alone gobbled up Rs119 billion of local government funds, Sindh anywhere around Rs61 billion, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Rs26 billion. Simply put, between them the three provincial governments have eaten up over Rs206 billion of local government funds – money that locally elected peoples representatives should have spent on local development based on local priorities. Instead, these billions were spent by provincial leaders through their hand-picked bureaucrats.

Little wonder there is nothing tangible to show on the ground. The ‘official theft’ in Balochistan cannot be revealed because due to the supersession of BLOG 2001 by the Balochistan Local Government Act 2010, provisions relating to appropriation of funds to local governments under the Provincial Finance Commission Award discontinued in the provincial budgets.

At least now you know where the money is coming for politically motivated schemes like laptops, Ashiana housing, yellow cabs etc. In all fairness, any elected government has a right to initiate such public welfare schemes but it must do so from its own legal resources and not by usurping those of other constitutional bodies. Democracy does not stop with devolution of power from the Centre to the provinces but must go right down to the grass roots level. Unfortunately, post the 18th Amendment, the provincial capitals are meting out the same treatment to the local governments that they once accused the Centre of sending their way.

Ironically, nobody is opposing the local government system per se but neither is there any ‘official or political’ willingness to let it see the light of the day. The chairman National Movement to Restore Local Government, Danyal Aziz, puts it succinctly when he says, “Because all parties passed the 18th Amendment they know local government is the cure but they are like a doctor who is deliberately giving the wrong injection to 180 million people for selfish reasons”.

There are no two opinions about the collective wisdom of people being the soul of true democracy. But is this wisdom confined to the constituencies of the national and provincial legislatures? If the people are wise enough to choose their leadership at those levels, then aren’t the same people sensible enough to elect those from amongst themselves to deal with their local issues and development?

The writer is editor The News, Islamabad. Email: mohammad.malick1 @gmail.com
-The News

[CENTER][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]Public policy to address backwardness in Punjab[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/CENTER]
June 4, 2012
By Shahid Javed Burki

In this final article on the relative development and backwardness of the administrative districts in the province of Punjab, I will take up the issue of public policy. Following the added responsibilities transferred to the provinces by the Eighteenth Amendment and the promise of the flow of additional resources from the federal to the provincial governments as a consequence of the Seventh Award of the National Finance Commission, the provinces now have larger space available to them to address their problems. For Lahore, regional disparities need to be addressed with considerable seriousness.

As discussed in the earlier articles, those that have been left behind economically and socially are mostly in the south, those that are relatively better off are mainly from the districts in the province’s centre and a couple in the north. Given what we know and what I have discussed before, raises an important issue concerning public policy. What can the provincial government do to close the yawning gap between the province’s backward areas and those that have done well?

A comparison of the overall development ranking of the districts with the three sets of indicators used for this purpose (income and wealth, social development, and development of economic infrastructure) yields a number of interesting results. It should be expected that the top districts would do well in terms of income and wealth. That, surprisingly, is not the case. There is more than a five-point difference between district ranking on the development scale compared with the ranking on the scale of income and wealth for 17 out of the 35 districts. In other words, almost one-half of the districts do well even when their wealth and income indicators are not very high. To take two extreme examples: Gujrat ranks 16th on the development scale but is 33rd on the scale of income and wealth. This means that there are factors other than wealth and income that have contributed to the district’s better performance. Long-distance migration that results in large flow of remittances may be one of them.

The other extreme is the district of Bhakkar, which is 22nd on the development scale but sixth on the income and wealth scale. By and large, the less developed districts in the south do better in terms of income and wealth. This may well be because averages used for wealth and income hide the extremes in their distribution. However, since distribution data are not available at the district level this conclusion will remain in the realm of speculation.

The relative backwardness of the south is largely because of poor social development and poorly-developed economic infrastructure. These, as indicated above, are the other two indicators of overall development used by the Institute of Public Policy in its recent work on Punjab. It is, therefore, in these two areas that public policy needs to focus on to reduce the development gap between the more and less developed districts of the province. In these two broad areas, the provincial government should pay particular attention to four things: education, in particular at the tertiary level; health care; improvement of the irrigation system; and inter-district transport. I will say a few words about each of these four areas of public policy focus.

The need for getting all children educated has long been recognised as an important development objective. It is one of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) to which Pakistan has subscribed. However, while this MDG is to be met by 2015, Pakistan remains way behind. This is particularly the case for the country’s backward areas, including the less developed districts of Punjab. While the realisation of this goal must receive the attention of all governments, Punjab should give special attention to improving the levels of skills of the youth in the province. A public-private sector partnership should be developed where the government could provide land grants and supporting infrastructure to private operators who have demonstrated their ability to provide quality higher education. These seasoned educational entrepreneurs should be encouraged to establish vocational institutions in the areas where the region could establish new industrial and service sector enterprises.

In the health sector as well, the government, while focusing on providing primary care, could work with private parties to build hospitals in all the less developed districts. These medical establishments should be part of an integrated chain with different district centres specialising in different areas of medical expertise. This way patients will not need to go to the more developed cities in the province to get the medical attention they need.

There is now a realisation that Pakistan has not given as much attention to maintaining and further developing the rich irrigation infrastructure it inherited from the British period. It is a water-scarce country, which needs to properly husband this precious resource. The Punjab government needs to formulate an action plan aimed at providing the neglected infrastructure the maintenance it needs.

Developing a road network linking the districts is the fourth priority for the government’s focus. Such a network is needed so that south Punjab can move towards developing agro-processing industry. The new retail chains that have arrived in the country and set up shop in some of the major cities have indicated that they would be able to increase their processing activity if they can quickly move perishable commodities from the production areas to processing centres.

I will conclude this series of articles with the suggestion that the policymakers operating from Lahore may consider developing a special plan for the development of the backward districts. The plan should be formulated by involving the private sector and by consulting the citizens of the districts. And it should indicate the source of the required funding including the possibility of levying a ‘backward areas development tax’ on consumption in the relatively better-to-do parts of the province.

The Express Tribune

[CENTER][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]Which system for Fata?[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/CENTER]
June 5, 2012
Ayaz Wazir

There are a number of suggestions as to the future set-up in Fata, ranging from maintenance of the status quo to its merger with Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. An overwhelming majority advocates giving provincial status to the territory. Here are the pros and cons of each option:

Status quo: In other words, continuation of the colonial system of governance through the Frontier Crimes Regulations (FCR) imposed by the British in 1901. The civil and military bureaucracy and the privileged class (the maliks) favour continuation of this system of colonial administration whereby not only harsh measures or punishments can be imposed on the populace, without accountability to any quarter, but also provides the privileged with ample space for making easy money.

The FCR is draconian, inhumane and unconstitutional. It negates the very concept of democracy. Under this system the inhabitants are kept suppressed, their rights are usurped and their legitimate demands and aspirations are never met. Those administering the area are not accountable to anyone. Development does not figure anywhere in this system which is why Fata is extremely backward.

Extension of the law of Pakistan: This means extension of the laws of the land to Fata without further loss of time. The advocates of this system believe all people will have equal rights and equal opportunities for access to justice.

There is every possibility that the tribesmen, having lived for centuries under their own tribal customs and traditions, like Pashtunwali, will not be able to adjust to and accept an overnight change without an alternative system of governance, at least for an interim period. They are used to speedy justice based on truth and actual facts, and not to resolving disputes through the police or courts with protracted procedures or legalities as elsewhere in the country. It will have serious repercussions and may well lead to violent protests.

Merger with Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa: Under this system, Fata is to be merged into Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa by extension of the laws of the land. The difference between the two is that this way it will become a part of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, whereas in the option discussed earlier it would remain a separate unit as it is.

The strongest argument that its supporter offer is that Fata already depends for services and general administration on Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. The two have a common governor and a secretariat dealing with Fata based in Peshawar. Officers and staff including political agents are sent from Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa to all the seven tribal agencies of Fata. Its proximity with Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa makes it a perfect case of merger, they believe. The Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Assembly has recently passed a resolution demanding Fata’s merger into the province.

Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa does not accept responsibility for developing Fata, but on the other hand its chief secretary posts officers of civil bureaucracy from Peshawar to and from Fata. This means that without being held responsible he runs the administration of Fata, although indirectly. This duality has adversely affected the political and economic development of that area.

The governor of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa being an agent of the president administers Fata through his civil service appointees called political agents. Since the creation of the country invariably all its governors have belonged to the settled districts of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, barring a few from Punjab.

Our political parties have not played any commendable role in bringing about positive changes in Fata. Their leaderships allowed incorporation of Article 247 (b) in the Constitution which ousts the jurisdiction of both parliament and the Supreme Court from the affairs of Fata, thereby placing it at the mercy and whims of one individual, the president of Pakistan. Those leaders should have objected to the inclusion of this clause or their followers demanded its repeal in the subsequent constitutional amendments, but they did nothing other than keeping silent in order to maintain the status quo.

Fata, being less-developed, will be taken over by the moneyed class of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa if it is merged with that province. Its strategic location makes it a real estate attraction for the rich to invest and buy land and properties. They will turn the local tribesmen into refugees within their own territory through acquisition of their properties at throwaway prices.

Also, merger with Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa will entail extention of the legal system, the courts, system which the people there are not used to. The local people abhor the court system where cases take ages to resolve and in many instances the applicants spend life savings and decades in pursuit of justice.

It should be left to the tribesmen to decide whether to scrap their system, or make changes in it, rather than having outsiders decide it for them. Merger without proper homework and an alternative justice system will have worse repercussions than those in Swat and Malakand.

Fata as a separate province: A great number of people favour this proposal because this way the people will have a government of their own similar to the other provinces of the country. However, while they will wholeheartedly welcome getting the status of a province the tribesmen have reservations about the extension of the laws of the land. They are used to quick and real justice under their tribal culture.

Another important factor that deters the tribesmen from accepting the laws of the land is the daily perpetration of heinous crimes in the settled districts, where women are paraded naked in the villages, people lynched by mobs and custodians of the law resort to targeted killings in broad daylight, and the system does nothing to stop that. This makes the tribesmen despise the “thana” (police station) culture and prefer their own customs and traditions which are in no way a hindrance to good governance or a threat to the security of the nation.

In view of the fact that the people in Fata have been denied their rights to participate in the policymaking process and governance of the area for too long and outsiders are making decisions for them, the area has been deprived of development despite claims to the contrary. Nothing of the sort has been done so far and promises of development remained just promises and nothing else.

In order to bring Fata out of the darkness that it is in today its people have to come forward and take responsibilities for themselves for doing what others have failed to do in the 65 year history of this country. This establishes the claim of the tribesmen that without their participation in all matters pertaining to them Fata will never be developed, nor will real efforts be made to bring it at par with the rest of the country.

To achieve this objective matters need to be corrected forthwith. It is well known that the importance of the governor of their system is mainly because of Fata but no one from there has been made responsible for the administration of that area. This legitimate demand of the people of Fata should immediately be fulfilled and a tribesman appointed governor, who should constitute a council of elected members representing each tribal agency to administer Fata and oversee all matters concerning that area like a provincial cabinet does in a province. Alternatively, a separate post of governor should be created for Fata from among the people of the tribal areas with a council to assist him.

Once the people are empowered only then should the questions of merger with Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa or keeping it as a separate federating unit (province) be decided by the people there.

The writer is a former ambassador. Email: [email]waziruk@hotmail.com[/email]
-The News

[CENTER][B][U][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]Reviewing democracy’s performance[/SIZE][/FONT][/U][/B][/CENTER]
By: Inayatullah | March 16, 2013 . 0

We have, during the last few days, seen a string of positive and desirable steps taken by the federal government and the National Assembly. These include the assignment of management of the Gwadar seaport to China and the Iran-Pakistan (IP) gas pipeline agreement. Also, the rushed Anti-Terrorism Bill and the passing of some meaningful social legislation. Though late, these initiatives are, indeed, welcome.

A lot of credit is claimed for the elected Assemblies completing their terms of five years, as also the continuation of democratic governments. What, however, has been the record of their performance? They enjoyed electoral legitimacy, but did they also meet the demands of performance legitimacy?
Is Pakistan today better off compared to 2008 when these goverments assumed control? Are the people of Pakistan more prosperous, more secure and more progressive? What kind of legacy is being gifted in terms of the state of the economy, law and order and welfare of the masses? Has the industry moved up by leaps and bounds, providing the much needed employment? Have we caught up with the rest of the world in education and healthcare? Have we restored peace and initiated development works in our backward and neglected areas like Fata, Waziristan and Balochistan? Have we taken good care of the flood affected towns and villages? Has there been some headway in learning to live together and a better treatment and care of women and minorities? Have we taken serious steps to impart literacy skills to more than 55 million illiterate Pakistanis? Have we managed to control the growth of population? How good is school and college education? Are hospitals in the rural areas better manned and equipped to provide treatment to the poorer sections of the society? Has our image internationally improved a wee bit? Or has it worsened?

The United Nations Report on Human Development 2013 released last Thursday, speaks of the “Rise of the South”. It extols the rapid strides made by China, Brazil and India. Pakistan does not figure in the four dozen or so developing countries, which have done remarkably well. These include Turkey, Mexico, Thailand, South Africa and Indonesia. In 2010, Pakistan ranked 125th worldwide. In 2012, it came down to 146th. This marked decline sums up the downward trends in Pakistan.

It makes one sad to read the Transparency International’s latest assessment of the government’s performance. Just read some of its findings: More than Rs 18 trillion were lost to the nation because of corruption and bad governance (one may recall the NAB Chairman’s statement that Rs 10-12 billion go down the corruption drain every year). In the scale of the most corrupt countries of the world, Pakistan has risen by 12 places during the last five years. Adil Gillani, the Transparency International Pakistan (TIP) Adviser, said: “Last five years period in Pakistan’s short history has been the worst in governance and corruption.”

The TIP has highlighted the mega corruption cases. A number of them were taken up by the Supreme Court. The report mention’s some of them. These are: the Rental Power Plants (RPPs) deal, Rs 500 million, NICL, Rs 8 billion, Pakistan Steel Mills, Rs 20 billion, Punjab Bank, Rs 10 billion and hundreds of billions in Pakistan Railways, OGRA, Hajj payments, LNG imports, KESC, WAPDA, CDA, Neelum-Jhelum project, NHA, SCCL, PSO, PIA, and OGDCL.
Just last year, the country’s ranking on the international Ease of Doing Business index fell from 104th to 107th. Pakistan has been described as the most dangerous country in the world. UNESCO declared it in 2012 as the second most dangerous for the journalists. During the last five years, the consumer price index rose from 100 points to 173, and the dollar to rupee conversion rate slipped from Rs 60 to more than Rs 100.

The TIP also pointed out that not a single case of mega corruption was successfully prosecuted by FIA or NAB during this period. It would be unrealistic not to acknowledge the commendable contribution made by the PPP-led coalition government towards desirable amendments of the constitution.

It is also appropriate to compliment the government from implementing part of the Parliamentary Resolution and APC recommendations, stopping Nato containers to use Pakistani routes for carrying supplies to Afghanistan for a considerable period of time.

Mention, too, however, should be made of a surprising failure on the part of PPP to bring the killers of Benazir Bhutto to book during all the five years.
(The TIP has found Punjab as the least corrupt compared to other three provinces. Some of the projects completed in record time by the Punjab government - in particular education, communication and transport schemes - are worthy examples of competence for the centre and other provinces to follow.)

As against this dismal picture depicted above, it looks odd, if not amusing, to read the contents of the manifesto dished out by the PPP. The rainbow promises and sweet dreams projected in it defy logic and even commonsense. A number of core priorities have been unveiled. These are: meeting the basic needs of the people, employment for all, equitable and inclusive growth, infrastructure for the future, a new social contract and protection of the people.

Moreover, a pledge to increase cheaper electricity by 12,000 megawatts, roti, kapra and makan and a minimum wage of Rs 18,000 (3,000 more than the figure put forward by PML-N). Hardly any comments are needed on these tall targets, considering the party’s performance during the long five years.
It will be an act of gross omission if General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani’s commendable restraint is not duly appreciated. His resolve not to interfere in political affairs helped a great deal in ensuring completion of the term by the elected governments. Kudos also to the Supreme Court, media and the civil society for the democratic process to continue.

At the end, it would be instructive for Pakistani politicians to heed the sane observations and advice tendered in the UN Human Development Report 2013 for the guidance of the developing countries: how have so many countries in the South transformed their human development prospects?....…there have been three notable drivers of development - a proactive developmental state, tapping of global markets and determined social policy and innovation....…They challenge preconceived and prescriptive approaches…....A strong, proactive and responsible state develops policies for both public and private sectors - based on a long-term vision and leadership, shared norms and values, and rules and institutions that build trust and cohesion…....Promoting equality, particularly among different religious, ethnic or racial groups, also helps reduce social conflict.

Social policy has to promote inclusion and provide basic social services, which can underpin long-term economic growth....…Investments in human development are justified not only on moral grounds, but also because improvements in health, education and social welfare are key to success in a more competitive and dynamic world economy…....Good policymaking also requires greater focus on enhancing social capacities, not just individual capabilities.…...Active civil society and social movements, both national and transnational, are using the media to amplify their calls for just and fair governance.

The writer is an ex-federal secretary and ambassador, and a freelance political
and international relations analyst.
Email: [email]pacade@brain.net.pk[/email]

[url]http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/columns/16-Mar-2013/reviewing-democracy-s-performance[/url]

[CENTER][U][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]NA completes full term[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/U][/CENTER]
March 16, 2013 . 0

The country’s leadership can justly take pride in the fact that the outgoing National Assembly has completed its full-term of five years for the first time in the democratic interludes of Pakistan; for General Musharraf’s crafted NA ‘elected’ in 2002 had also gone on to complete its full term. After the military dictator’s exit, the people had expected that their new representatives whom they voted into power would be more responsive to their needs, thus making the burden of life easier for them to bear. Sadly, they found their troubles ever mounting, while the MPs sparing no effort to amass any perk or privilege they could think of. A long era of despondency descended on the nation; at times the despair led the people to violent protests for instance, in the cases of excessive loadshedding and the fast rising prices. They saw little of comfort coming to them from the august halls of the NA.

Looking at its proceedings one would conclude that more often than not they were lacklustre, studded with lack of forum, absence of concerned ministers right when issues related to their ministries were being debated, etc. Brawls and fisticuffs and rowdy scenes were not unknown. Its main business, legislation, suffered badly, with the NA coming to life at the fag-end of its term and pushing through bill after bill, without chance for fruitful debates from the members to take place, even on bills with far-reaching consequences. Among the few times the NA caught public attention and, incidentally, put itself in a bad light was when former Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and some of its other members addressed the house in degrading, critical terms of the highest judicial forum in the country, mainly to save President Asif Zardari against the consequences of invalidation of the NRO by the Supreme Court. To the misfortune of the nation, the required agreement between the government and the opposition on the caretaker setup has not yet been reached though the government is due to wind itself up in less than 24 hours. In response to the three names for the caretaker premiership suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, the government has proposed three of its own and all of them have been rejected by the Opposition. Letters are at this stage flying across and, it seems, the matter would go to the concerned parliamentary committee. In case, it also fails to come up with an agreed name, it would be left to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to make its choice.

The people are desperately waiting for the next elections to be conducted in a manner that leaves little room for doubt about their credible credentials i.e. they speak for their being free, fair and transparent. One would earnestly wish that the ECP is able to get over the hurdles that are doubtless intractable. Only then, the people could expect their genuine representatives to take the helm and attend to their problems.

[url]http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/editorials/16-Mar-2013/na-completes-full-term[/url]

[CENTER][U][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]National Assembly waves goodbye[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/U][/CENTER]

First assembly to complete term strengthens civilian power

The National Assembly (NA) was dissolved in a low-key session on March 15, 2013. For better or for worse, the day will be marked in Pakistan’s history to celebrate the first parliament to complete its tenure. Just to set the record straight, Pakistan has had 12 separate NAs.

A good-bye note from President Asif Ali Zardari was read out by the ruling Pakistan People’s Party lawmaker Yasmeen Rehman: “The session that started on February 18, 2008 has prorogued on completion of its business. I pray that Allah gives us success and that democracy should continue and the next parliament should also complete its term.”

In a record 650 sittings, the NA passed 126 bills, 81 of which became Acts, and three constitutional amendments. The legislations included protecting rights for women and children, reinstating sacked employees and changing election laws. Perhaps more than the legislations, the current NA will be remembered for the three constitutional amendments it past: the most significant of which was its decision to devolve some of its own powers through the 18th Amendment. Of course, there is a series of missed opportunities, including the creation of a new province in Southern Punjab.

Amongst other things, the President addressed a joint sitting of Parliament five times. Eight members of parliament died during its five-year tenure, including Minister for Minorities Affairs Shahbaz Bhatti who was murdered. The NA was addressed addressed twice by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and once by Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao. It saw two prime ministers: Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani and Raja Pervaiz Ashraf.

This term, it was the judiciary, not the military, that was the direct tormentor of many a parliamentarian. A prime minister was lost to the NRO case, a number of parliamentarians were questioned for fake degrees and each constitutional amendment befell the scrutiny of the higher judiciary. However, the tussle was one of two institutions looking to regain their power in what had earlier been a khaki dominated set up.

The next parliament shall inherit a mixed legacy, but it is a positive one to follow. Despite disagreements amongst them, the various political parties have recovered some of their constitutional turf, and the next sitting assembly must complete the task. There is a need to strengthen the various parliamentary committees, unlike the many committees who failed to deliver. The strong work of the Public Accounts Committee merits mention and could be a good example to follow. Similar strength is needed to add weight to parliamentary resolutions. Overall, as the Raja Pervez Ashraf tenure comes to a close, another bout of democracy at work is awaited.

[url]http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/03/16/comment/editorials/national-assembly-waves-goodbye/[/url]

[CENTER][U][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]PM: democracy wins[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/U][/CENTER]
March 18, 2013 . 0

As the midnight clock struck, signalling the end of the 16th day of March, 2013, it also brought to a close the constitutionally mandated five-year term of the National Assembly and by virtue of that it stood automatically dissolved, thus, winding up the PPP-led federal government’s rule. In his farewell address to the nation, Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf claiming that democracy had won recounted a long tally of government’s achievements despite serious “inherited” problems though, sarcastically remarking that it could not make the people wallow in luxury. He acknowledged, at the same time, that the government could not come up to the expectations of the people about making electric supply available to them round the clock.

On the face of it, the outgoing democratic setup, no matter how poorly and erratically it performed, carried the day as it was able to avert getting ousted by non-democratic forces. But whether the completion of its term could guarantee against a Bonapartist army head stepping once again in the corridors of power, as the Prime Minister has said, is an open question; for the government made no effort to establish genuine democratic traditions, but rather did everything possible to tear apart the already existing ones. Only a government respecting the globally accepted democratic conventions and delivering could claim to have put down roots of the institution of democracy. The outgoing government, instead, presented the worst possible model of a corrupt regime with an inevitable consequence of misgovernance. The politics of reconciliation of which Mr Ashraf boasted boiled down to the logic of sticking to the seat of power at any cost. The country’s largest port city Karachi kept bleeding with armed bands roaming around and shooting at will, as the government went about its business unconcerned. The reign of terror that prevailed unabated, particularly in Balochistan and KPK, could only elicit loud voices of condemnation, with hardly a well planned, serious move to checkmate it coming in sight. The government’s greatest disservice to democracy was its total defiance of judicial verdicts, something unheard of before it assumed the rein of power, thus trying to pull out the roots of an established democratic tradition. Projects like Benazir Income Support Programme not only reeked of corruption, but were also mere palliatives.

The Prime Minister’s claim that the government added 4,000MW of power to the grid is belied by the realities on the ground: endless loadshedding, demonstrating that it did not have a clue to manage the crisis. The rental power projects brought out glaring shenanigans of corruption at the highest level and, on top of that, failed to deliver. Only the tariff kept shooting up. The most viable and useful project, Kalabagh Dam, was dumped and in this exercise even the PML-N has joined; for even its election manifesto failed to make any mention of it. The leadership lacked the guts to bring home to the opponents its abundant benefits, in relieving power shortage, providing assured water for crops stalling the danger of food insecurity and avoiding floods. And for all, expert findings are on the record. The government coming into power after the general elections must take note of this tragic neglect and make amends as its first priority.

[url]http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/editorials/18-Mar-2013/pm-democracy-wins[/url]

[CENTER][U][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]The balance sheet
[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/U]
[B]Outstanding achievements, colossal failures[/B][/CENTER]

The five-year long democratic era is marked by outstanding achievements and colossal failures. The former include the historic 18th and 20th amendments. The 18th amendment restored parliamentary democracy, widened the sphere of provincial autonomy and introduced a better system of appointing the higher judiciary. The 20th amendment brought into existence an independent Election Commission and made the selection of the caretaker setup more consensual. Another major achievement was the 7th NFC award which untangled a knot that had defied consensus for 19 years, with arbitrary Awards intervening since 1990. While the PPP played a leading role in piloting the constitutional amendments, the achievements were the result of a combined effort by all parliamentary parties. The gains were indicative of the inherent strength of the democratic system and its ability to reconcile conflicting interests.

Lack of responsiveness to the common man’s problems was one of the glaring failures of the PPP-led coalition. Thus the gulf between the richest and the poorest continued to widen during the last five years. Power and gas shortages could have been reduced if the government had concentrated on the matter from day one. The setting up of an extra large federal cabinet was the first step towards bad governance which was to characterize the period. Incompetent cronies were appointed to lucrative positions leading to several financial scams that landed the high-ups and their scions in courts. Karachi and Quetta suffered the most under the present government. The former was virtually handed over to land and extortion mafias, some of them enjoying the support of the parties ruling in Sindh. In Balochistan, the provincial government turned out to be so thoroughly incompetent and prone to corruption. The province was virtually handed over to security agencies. Forced disappearances and extrajudicial killings combined with negligence added to the alienation already prevailing in the province. The Punjab ruled by the PML-N too suffered from bad governance as the chief minister insisted on micromanaging the province and the government wasted tens of millions of rupees on unsustainable projects to gain popularity.

The PPP being a minority party had to enter into alliances. It decided to rely on parties some of which had murky agendas and undemocratic thinking. What is more they demanded a free and with survival the prime object, the PPP obliged. A five year long uninterrupted democratic rule leading to preparations for a peaceful transition is something worth celebrating. This indicates a modicum of maturity in the political parties. One can only hope that those who come to power after the elections will build on the basis that has been laid to create a responsive democracy that brings down the poverty graph, strengthens the federal system and strives for peace in the country.

[url]http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/03/17/comment/editorials/the-balance-sheet/[/url]

[CENTER][U][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]New democratic opportunity
[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/U][/CENTER]
By: Dr Hasan Askari Rizvi

[CENTER][B]Election is the most civilised way to elect new assemblies and new governments[/B][/CENTER]

March 16, 2013, is a landmark date in Pakistan’s troubled political history. The elected National Assembly and elected civilian federal government completed its full tenure and came to an end through a normal constitutional procedure. The members left the National Assembly in good mood saying goodbye to one another. The prime minister addressed the nation on radio and TV two hours before the conclusion of the tenure of the National Assembly, thanking all those who contributed to strengthening the democratic process. He also highlighted what he considered to be the achievements of the PPP government at the federal level.

The politically active circles would continue to debate the achievements and failure of the five years of democracy. Given increased political divisions in Pakistan there is a greater tendency to take a partisan position. If one is a supporter of the PPP there will be some praise for the government. The opposition members have nothing but criticism to offer. The PML-N leaders appear to be more critical of the PPP than any other party but they project the PML-N government in the Punjab as the best example of performance. Imran Khan criticises both parties.

There are those in Pakistan that trash everything. Either they are idealist or pessimist. For them no government has done anything for them; prices have increased, life has become unsafe and there is power shortage. The democratic era has not given them anything, they argue. They are not interested in the civilian governments completing their terms. Some of them think that there is no hope for democracy until an ideal society and state are created and a super human and fully pious person appears on the political scene.

Despite political failures and poor governance, peaceful and orderly completion of the term of the government marks the end of the first phase of democratic transition. This needs to be acknowledged and celebrated. The second phase starts for the selection of new assemblies and governments.

The test of the people’s commitment to democracy is the general election. It is a challenge to hold peaceful, fair, free and transparent elections. This calls for a joint official and non-official effort to hold the election in a manner that it provides an opportunity to the people to elect their representatives. It should be held in a manner that its results are acceptable to the main players in the process and the elections observers describe it as a fair chance to the people to exercise their right to vote.

It is a wrong assumption that democracy cannot exist without ideal political and societal conditions and that the people in the lead political role must be pious and angel-like. Democracy is a process that improves by practising it. The process must continue and mid-course corrections are made in the light of the experience of working of democracy. The democratic process improves over time provided there is a conscious effort to improve it and its values are adopted by the society as the standard way of dealing with social, political, cultural and economic affairs. Democracy has to become a way of life and a way to look at life as well as the strategy of dealing with other.

The leadership reflects the broad features of the society because the leaders have to deal with the people and address their problems. If corruption and favouritism are rampant in the society, do not expect that the leaders will be completely free of these weaknesses. If every leader refuses to help people who have not been able to prove that they are fully justified in their demands, the people will be unhappy and turn against such a leader. Either the leader has to solve the problems of the people or convince them that they should not demand this or suggest a better alternative.

The quality of leadership can improve if the people and societal organisations scrutinise the performance of the elected leaders through mutual dialogue and discussion on national and local problems and issues. The voters need to use their right to vote on merit. If they think that a parliamentarian has not performed his job in a fair manner or engages in corrupt practices, they should not vote for such a person. This is a more effective method of accountability than expecting someone appearing on the political scene and cleansing the society through arbitrary and brutal methods.

Election provides the people with an important opportunity to hold the parliamentarian accountable for their work. When the candidates are engaged in election campaign the voters should ask them questions about their agenda for local development work and national issues. Invariably the candidates give a rosy picture of the future or make promises that are never delivered.

When a candidate makes a promise ask him to give a plan of action. For example, a candidate can argue that if his party comes to power it will provide jobs to every young persons with high school education and others and that the problem of electricity shortages will be removed in three months. Ask such a person how would his party mobilise financial resources to achieve these objectives. What are the specific plans to produce more electricity or use the currently available electricity in an efficient manner? Which methods for power generation will be employed and how would funds and technology be made available?

Everybody should check if the vote is registered and use it on the polling day. A large voter turnout reduces the chances of manipulation of results. The party activists need to take extra security caution in the course of the election campaign and on the polling day to avoid terrorist attacks. Hold small public meetings and monitor the areas closely where election activity is taking place so that none is able to plant a bomb or engage in suicide attacks.

The forthcoming election is an important occasion for the people of Pakistan to demonstrate their commitment to democracy by getting actively involved in the electoral process. Do not listen to those who argue that nothing can change by casting vote. Election is the most civilised way to elect new assemblies and new governments provided the people vote for the people who are genuinely committed to the cause of the people. The voters and politically active people should cooperate with each other to turn the election into a genuine democratic exercise.

The writer is an independent political and defence analyst.

[url]http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/03/20/comment/columns/new-democratic-opportunity/[/url]

[CENTER][U][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]The politics of care-taking[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/U][/CENTER]

By:Hashim bin Rashid

[B][CENTER]The first consensus interim setup must deliver only its mandate[/CENTER][/B]

May 11 has been announced as the date of the next General Election. With 52 days to go, there is no sign of a caretaker prime minister popping out as an eight-member parliamentary committee went into a huddle on Wednesday.

The deadlock is on two questions: who becomes caretaker prime minister? And, when does the Punjab Assembly dissolve?

The earlier the answers are provided the better – but surely the answers should have been provided at least three weeks ago.

But as the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz’s (PML-N) Chaudhry Nisar Ali and the Pakistan Peoples Party’s (PPP) Qamar Zaman Kaira have traded diplomatic blows at the centre stage, the more substantive questions about the caretaker setup have yet to come to the front.

The names under consideration are: Hafeez Sheikh, Ishrat Hussain and Justice (retd) Mir Hazar Khan Khoso from the PPP; and Justice (retd) Nasir Aslam Zahid, Justice (retd) Shakirullah Jan and nationalist leader Rasool Bux Palijo from the PML-N. Mentioned amongst possible wildcards have been: Asma Jehangir and Senators Raza Rabbani and Ishaq Dar. And then there is the self-nomination put forward by Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain of the Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q).

There is surely something to be said about each of those nominated. But let us stick to painting in broad strokes. Two of the nominations (Hafeez Sheikh and Ishrat Hussain) are ex-World Bank technocrats – and for a while it appeared that the bets were on Ishrat Hussain taking the coveted post. Ishrat, a former State Bank governor, was both lobbying and being lobbied and still appears as one of the “less-polarising” options on the table.

But installing a caretaker prime minister of the technocrat mould shall be nothing if not a bad joke by politicians on themselves. As a key part of creating what is now widely understood as the fudged economic bubble in the Musharraf dictatorship – and pushing the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) and World Bank’s agenda of pursuing neoliberal economic policies in Pakistan – Hussain was hand in glove with Hafeez Sheikh in creating the grounds for the weak economic foundations the current PPP-led government inherited.

The irony is that it is the PPP that has nominated both Hussain and Sheikh, at a time when the chattering classes and business interests appear to be clamouring from a longer technocratic rule to apparently “remedy the economy”. It is the PPP that has suffered from the economic effects of so-called technocratic fudging with the economy: an agreement with the IMF was signed before Benazir Bhutto’s first term in 1988, another agreement with the IMF was signed by the caretaker PM in 1992 before Benazir’s second term; and it inherited the Shaukat – alias shortkut – Aziz economic mess when it took the reins in 2008.

Technocrats are failures because they pursue IFI-driven agendas and have an exit plan for themselves before they come in. Neither Ishrat Hussain nor Hafeez Sheikh bode well for the confidence of politicians in themselves if either is chosen. Policies are a task for public vote – the tendency to reduce it to the domain of experts needs to be challenged – but this is a subject for a separate article. For now, it must be remembered that caretaker governments do not possess ‘magic pills’. Their task is merely to facilitate a handover. With an over $1.5 billion loan repayment to the IMF scheduled during the caretaker period and the IMF signaling it wants more talks, the choice of a technocrat as prime minister would only serve to indicate that politicians are abdicating responsibility from themselves and looking to play another blame game.

And then there is something to be said about the fact that retired judges are considered the ‘safe choice’ to head interim setups. Two former judges have already been appointed caretaker chief ministers in two provinces to reach a consensus: Justice (retd) Tariq Parvez in the Khyber Pakthunkhwa and Justice (retd) Zahid Qurban Alvi in Sindh. It seems to have shocked no one – except for Asma Jehangir – that former judges are being considered ‘politically neutral’, efficient administrators. Again politicians appear to have more trust in outside institutions than amongst themselves – one of the critical reasons why the discourse of corruption appears to still be solely focused on politicians – and not the civil and military establishment which has shared power for much longer. The question to be asked is that why task judges, whose task was to interpret law, with creating an even playing field for politics?

The names of two Senators Ishaq Dar and Raza Rabbani, both respected in their own way, have more forte for the post – but either is expected to raise alarm to all other political parties. It is similar with the nomination of Rasul Bux Palejo, who is still respected, but his son continues to play an increasingly active role in Sindh’s politics. Asma Jehangir, a candidate with both strong merits and demerits, has withdrawn herself from the reckoning.

Strange happenings continue to be reported: on the eve of the announcement of the caretaker chief minister for Sindh, a key government official was meeting a British diplomat to ‘discuss the caretaker setup’. Ministers of the Balochistan government resigned to join the opposition a day before dissolution of the assembly and the Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM) became part of the opposition in Sindh a month earlier. Political checkers continues to be played, but as with anyone who has played the game knows that checkers is a game that requires much sacrifice. Here it appears politicians are ceding roles they should have taken up themselves to technocrats and judges of questionable merit. The consequences of doing so shall come to the fore soon enough.

But there is another debate to be had about the caretaker setup. If the task is create an even and fair playing field for all political parties, then the Election Commission of Pakistan has yet to fulfill what it has been tasked with. The Supreme Court’s judgment on a petition by the former Workers Party Pakistan has yet to be implemented. Issued on June 12, 2012, the ECP has had enough time to suggest relevant changes in election procedure; including compulsory voting, adding a ‘none of the above’ vote, implementing stricter campaign budgets, but the judgment has yet to come into force. Would an unimplemented SC judgment not raise questions about the credibility of the elections and leave them open to contestation post-event?

Somehow a task as serious as implementing a caretaker setup and an even playing ground for free-and-fair elections have been reduced to a rat race. Essential aspects are delayed as Pakistan attempts to select its first consensus caretaker government. To be fair to them, the existing political parties have not had to deal with such a situation before. There are serious electoral parties, including the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf and Jamaat-i-Islami, sitting outside parliament, and wildcard groups such as Tahirul Qadri’s Pakistan Awami Tehreek, looking to pounce at any misstep.

Each day’s delay in announcing respective caretaker setups creates more fears. It is imperative that a political solution is found at the earliest to this political problem. Technocratic selections, most certainly, will represent a bad omen, rather than a good one, as people are gearing up to vote within their respective constituencies.

The writer is the general secretary (Lahore) of the Awami Workers Party. He is a journalist and a researcher. Contact: [email]hashimbrashid@gmail.com[/email]

[url]http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/03/21/comment/columns/the-politics-of-care-taking/[/url]

[CENTER][U][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]Long live Pakistan, long live democracy!
[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/U][/CENTER]
By:Wajid Shamsul Hasan

[CENTER][B]A salute is due to the toiling masses[/B][/CENTER]

The Pakistan Day on March 23 would be yet another landmark event in the life of the nation. The first-ever election to be held under a democratic government has been announced for May 11 by President Asif Zardari after the completion of five-year constitutional tenure of the parliament.

It would be yet another first that power would be transferred through vote to an elected government after a series of extra-constitutional interventions of the past. It would indeed be a momentous occasion for the entire nation that has suffered long to see democracy blossom into a formidable dispensation despite long catalogue of intrigues, machinations and Praetorian coups backed by the judiciary.

As the nation gears up for the historic polls, I would like to salute the toiling masses who remained steadfast in their commitment to pursue the democratic destiny chosen for them by the Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and those great men and women who braved worst possible persecution to keep the torch of freedom alight.

While it would need a separate article to record the long journey of how we have come to such a joyous pass, briefly I would like to remind the nation about a historic coincidence. One of the greatest political figures of our struggle for democracy Begum Nusrat Bhutto was also born on 23rd March many years before Muslims in India resolved to carve a separate homeland.

Begum Nusrat Bhutto was born in Isfahan, Iran on 23 March, 1929. Her life went through many ups and downs in Pakistani politics. Her husband, Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was the founder of the Pakistan Peoples Party. Her son-in-law Mr Asif Ali Zardari is currently President of Pakistan.

Begum Nusrat Bhutto took over as head of the Pakistan Peoples Party after Shaheed Bhutto’s elected government was overthrown in a coup by Gen Ziaul Haq in 1977 and subsequently Bhutto Sahib was eliminated by him in 1979. She led the party for several challenging years until her now-martyred daughter Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto took over as head of PPP to become the first ever woman to be prime minister twice in a Muslim country.

Begum Nusrat Bhutto was an iconic political leader who made significant contribution towards establishment of democratic rule in Pakistan and founded a unified opposition – Movement for the Restoration of Democracy (MRD) – to wage struggle to free the country from the clutches of dictatorship. She was one of the most charismatic leaders of our time and god mother for the entire nation, especially those under-privileged who found in her a voice for themselves. Her services for democracy and the masses of Pakistan will never be forgotten.

It is satisfying moment for the nation as it pays tribute to Begum Nusrat Bhutto, her daughter Benazir Bhutto and all those who sacrificed in blood, toil and tears and made idea of a democratic Pakistan possible.

Notwithstanding the enormous difficulties electoral matters are moving in the right direction and we shall have a change of government through vote at last. Five years of democratic rule have been of far reaching consequence.

We never had it as good as manifested in politics of reconciliation and consensus – a vision of Benazir Bhutto – that brought its political leadership including the opposition, military and judiciary on the same page. Constitutional amendments – the 18th, 19th and 20th – have made democracy invincible. Pakistan today is self-sufficient in wheat and its economy has shown improvement slowly but surely overcoming multifarious challenges. Its Benazir Bhutto Income Support Scheme has laid the foundation of a social welfare state.

The legacy of the government that is moving out would be a source of strength for its successor since the nation and its institutions are unified on issues of national and strategic importance. President Zardari’s decision of handing over management of Gwadar Port to China and Pak-Iran gas pipeline are of paramount importance for the progress and prosperity of the country. Among its other achievements include opening up of trade with India without compromising on the core issues.

Yet another feather in its cap is the excellent relations with the United Kingdom as endorsed by the British Prime Minister in his oft-repeated assertion that “your enemies are our enemies and your friends are our friends”. As High Commissioner of Pakistan to UK I must acknowledge the role played by the UK in getting Pakistan market access into EU and its continued tenacious support to Pakistan for GSP+ status. No doubt the UK has established itself as our most reliable friend in the western hemisphere.

As far as Afghanistan is concerned Pakistan has convinced all parties to initiate a dialogue with Taliban for an Afghan-specific resolution when the NATO withdraws by 2014. Now it is up to Taliban to respond positively to a way out of imbroglio. A resilient Pakistan, however, is determined to safeguard its sovereignty and eliminate terrorism.

Pakistan today has an independent judiciary that had been rendered into a pliable tool in the hands of dictators in the past. Media too can gloat itself on account of the absolute freedom it enjoys. It is also a matter of pride for the government that there is no political prisoner in the country. Even rallies led by foreign nationals are allowed to symbolise the nation’s strength in democracy.

It is satisfying to note that President Zardari has buried the politics of vendetta and replaced it with tolerance and peaceful coexistence as a democratic way of life. He has also ensured that power would be transferred to those who win elections within the framework of the constitution under an interim set up. It is a landmark and proud achievement that a democratic government has completed its tenure to make room for constitutionally mandated transfer of power. Long live Pakistan, Long live democracy!

The writer is High Commissioner of Pakistan to the UK

[url]http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/03/23/comment/columns/long-live-pakistan-long-live-democracy/[/url]

[CENTER][U][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]History in the making[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/U][/CENTER]

Friday, 22 Mar 2013
[B][CENTER]New factors make first democratic transition of power important[/CENTER][/B]

Gear up for the first democratic transition of power in Pakistan’s 66-year history. With the Pakistan Peoples Party-led coalition at the centre having managed to successfully persuade all provincial governments to dissolve together, May 11 is set to be the day all of Pakistan gets to vote. And in another first the people of the tribal areas will also get to elect their representatives. Another first is that these are expected to be the first elections where an independent Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) shall conduct a meaningful scrutiny of the nomination papers of candidates. The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), State Bank of Pakistan (SBP), National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and National Database Registration Authority (NADRA) are expected to aid the process.

But if this was to be a time for unprecedented celebrations; it has been dampened by the impasse over selecting a caretaker setup and the short three-week campaign time candidates are expected to get. This does not take away from the fact that major political parties have been undertaking their campaigns for at least six months; with the parties in power doling out last minute development schemes and those out of power campaigning on the go.

The current polls will also show the strength of the rise of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf as a serious contender in national politics – and the true strength of the ‘youth factor’ it has been banking on and traditional parties trying to woo. More than 49.76 million voters, equal to 58 percent of the total voters, are 40 years old or younger, while 34 percent of total voters are aged less than 31 years old. These suggest that the preferences of younger voters will be key in deciding whether new faces will emerge or the same faces will don the assemblies after the polls.

The religious minorities vote has also emerged as a wildcard – and is expected to be the decisive factor in over 96 constituencies. With over 2.77 million non-Muslim voters in the country, winning candidates in 13 districts in Sindh and two districts in Punjab are expected to turn on the support of minorities.

The election turnout itself is expected to be better than previous elections. The expected interest of the youth in casting their vote and the independence of the ECP means that people have more faith that their vote will matter in the grand scheme of things. It is of interest to know that 3,844 senior citizens, over 100 years of age, have also registered themselves to cast votes. Punjab still continues to possess the country’s largest vote base, being host to 57.17 percent of the country’s voter base.

On May 11, 2013, 85 million voters shall get a chance to cast a vote to elect the representatives to the national and provincial assemblies. Each vote shall be decisive.

[url]http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/03/22/comment/editorials/history-in-the-making/[/url]

[CENTER][U][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]Pakistan in search of better future[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/U][/CENTER]
March 25, 2013
Mahboob A. Khawaja, PhD

Pakistan is at critical crossroads. Its moral, intellectual and socio-economic and political capacity and lifelines are undermined by its own wicked rulers. If there were any educated, honest and intelligent political leaders of vision and integrity, they would worry about its present and future and try to pursue a navigational Change. Could the think people of Pakistan reverse the course of junk history and make a new beginning based on the ideology and values of the concept of Pakistan? Could the new generations of educated, honest and intelligent Pakistanis initiate new political system and institutions, produce proactive visionary leadership to extend intellectual security and help to protect the integrity and security of the besieged nation?

Crises made Pakistan’s history. The first time political power was ever transferred to civilian rule was on the Independence Day - 14 August 1947 by the British colonial Viceroy to Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the 1st Governor General of Pakistan.. What happened afterwards is a history full of intrigues, wickedness, in-house conspiracies and bloody tragedies to shame the Pakistani nation. Whenever an opportunity arose for peaceful transfer of power, it was foiled by the traitors - both military and their complacent civilians. Some might allege that Sheikh Mujib ur Rehman was a traitor but what about ZA Bhutto? In principle, Sheikh Mujib ur Rehman’s Awami Party won the majority seats in the Pakistan National Assembly during the 1971 elections, why was the power not transferred to him. It was ZA Bhutto, the self-centered and power hungry man, not Sheikh Mujib. There are credible statements that he never wanted separation of the East Pakistan into Bangladesh. ZA Bhutto in collision with General Yahaya Khan conspired for a military action against those who had won a fair election in One Pakistan. ZA Bhutto was likewise a traitor too who took over the reign of power illegally after Pakistan was defeated by India in December 1971. This was his plan implemented to defeat and disgrace the Muslim nation. Bhutto and Yahya Khan were the people who stabbed the body and soul of Pakistan. There was evidence that ZA Bhutto wanted to grab power lot earlier during the Ayub Khan presidency. He wanted to see Pakistan defeated under Ayub Khan when India attacked on West Pakistan in 1965 because of war in Kashmir. Those running the politics are nothing other than filthy creed of the dead past. The stunning contrasts and internal conflicts generate extreme uncertainty and massive insecurity to the common folks looking for law and order, individual safety and a secure future. It is all because there are wrong people operating the political governance.

How to Change the history - to disconnect with the junk past and to make a new beginning is an issue that is not addressed by the traditional political apparatus in this war-torn nation. They all appear eager to hold new elections and use intrigues and backdoor conspiracies to define the power-sharing and political governance. You won’t find a single frontline politicians having vision, honesty of purpose and integrity to be respected by the masses. Change would mean life, stability and a promising future if at all it is envisaged by the new educated generation of intelligent and creative people. Nation-building and individual change and development framework have lot in common. Those living in darkness could well appreciate the sight of light and power of seeing and those deaf by nature could well dream and adore when they hear the sound breaking self denied silence. Change is constant part of human life built-in as the full meaning and purpose of life. Nations likewise the individual go through the process of change, leaving past to history and embarking on anew future for change and adaptability to futuristic challenges. The Western industrialized nations have accomplished this aim effectively. Where would the Change come from if there is no systematic mechanism to facilitate political change? If change and new political imagination were ever part of Pakistan’s political systems (if there are any), how dare the Generals stole fifty years of the national lifelines? Global history tells us wherever absolute military rule overwhelms the country it destroys all its natural thinking hubs, morals and intellectual powerhouses. This is what happened to the Europeans before and after the WW II and this is what America is experiencing and this is what caused the former USSR to collapse. Pakistani politics nurtures under the powerful shadow of the military Generals, not on its own national institutions breeding freedom, human rights, vision, integrity and any glimpse of a different future. America and Britain both share vital strategic interests with Pakistani military establishments. The “War on Terror” is the net outcome of this strategic pursuit to keep the imperial domination over the former subjects- the subservient Pakistan. The US politicians and British comrades in arms used the 9/11 pretext to wage a bogus war on terror against the Muslim world.

Finian Cunningham (“9/11 Paved the Way for America’s Permanent Wars of Aggression” - Global Research: 9/11/2011) explains some of the pertinent facts: Whether 9/11 was an inside job or an amazing terrorist success, the fact is that either way the atrocity is intimately linked with US state terrorism…..that Al Qaeda, Mujahideen or Jihadis - whatever they are labeled - are the Frankenstein creation of US and British military intelligence to fight the proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan during the 1980s. The 9/11 tragedy - if we see it as such - is thus a form of blowback where the terrorist dogs of dirty war come back to bite the hand that feeds them. …..So even if we believe that the “war on terror” is genuine - albeit crassly misguided - the fact is that it would not be occurring if it were not for the state terrorism that emanates from Washington and London in pursuit of imperialist intrigues…… Leaving aside that 9/11 may have been an inside job to facilitate strategic permanent war, even if the official narrative were true, it still gets down to the US and British playing with fire. These governments create terrorists, fund terrorists, train terrorists and use terrorists. Either way, the facts emerge: the US and its allied puppets have absolutely no regard for democratic freedom, international law or human rights.

There is ample tangible evidence to prove that the US led war in Afghanistan has continuing strategies to undermine the integrity of Pakistan. Professor James Petras (“Legal Imperialism” and International Law: Legal Foundations for War Crimes, Debt Collection and Colonization: Global Research: 12/3/2012) helps us to understand the prevalent context of a modern infant Empire dreaming of global strategic domination and control:

By now we are familiar with imperial states using their military power to attack, destroy and occupy independent countries…….…Empire-building throughout history is the result of conquest - the use or threat of superior military force. The US global empire is no exception. Where compliant rulers ‘invite’ or ‘submit’ to imperial domination, such acts of treason on the part of ‘puppet’ or ‘client’ rulers usually precipitate popular rebellions, which are then suppressed by joint imperial and collaborator armies. They cite imperial legal doctrine to justify their intervention to repress a subject people in revolt.
The spill-over impacts of the war in Afghanistan and strategic developments in the region shaping Pakistan’s future appear to be the same blueprint as was used by the US and its allies in March 2003 of Iraq invasion. This week is the 10th anniversary of that terrible aggression and crimes against innocent people. In her critical insights unto Iraq’s bloody ordeal, Felicity Arbuthnot (“Iraq: Destroying a Country: War Crimes and Atrocities.” Part II Global Research: 11/8/2010), describes the scope of horrifying human tragedies inflicted on the Iraqi population which perhaps Pakistani nation is going through over several years:

The Independent’s Robert Fisk (“The Shaming of America”, 24th October 2010) commented: “As usual, the Arabs knew. They knew all about the mass torture, the promiscuous shooting of civilians, the outrageous use of air power against family homes, vicious American and British mercenaries, the cemeteries of the innocent dead. All of Iraq knew because they were the victims.”

“We found people wandering like ghosts through the ruins... looking for the bodies of relatives, trying to recover some of their possessions from destroyed homes... We moved from house to house, discovering families dead in their beds, or cut down in living rooms or in the kitchen... It became clear that we were witnessing the aftermath of a massacre, the cold-blooded butchery of helpless and defenseless civilians.”

In wars, when an aggressor sees the defeat coming, it resorts to mass killings of the civilian population to avenge the fear of the unknown. To pursue its policy of global domination, now American strategists sponsor death squads in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The aim is to terrorize the masses by drone attacks and death squads and destroy their habitats thus creating more reactionary terrorism through its paid political agents - the ruling elite. Its ultimate goal is to make Pakistan a crippled nation totally incapacitated for any useful role in global affairs. The cruelty of the American led bogus war on terrorism has transformed Pakistan into a non-productive beggar nation, solely looking to military and economic aid for all of its operations. The army Generals and their by-products - the ruling Bhutto family-PPP Zardari, and in-waiting Nawaz Sharif (Muslim League-N), have infected the body politics of Pakistan with corruption and political tyranny, drained out all of the positive thinking and creative energies of the nation for change, development and a promising future. The traitors are inside, not elsewhere. If the law and justice system is still in tact, these political thugs and indicted criminals should not be allowed to hold offices of public responsibility but be held accountable in a court of law. The besieged nation MUST see itself in the mirror and learn from the dead past, to change the future course of history and to articulate a new beginning - a new political system under the new educated generation of honest, intelligent and visionary leadership to strive for a promising future.

The military Generals, Bhuttos, Zardari, Sharifs and Chaudries could never have come into political governance unless the whole nation had lost the sense of PURPOSE of the creation of Pakistan and MEANING of the Foundation of Pakistan. Are there any concerned and proactive young people to safeguard the national interests of the present and future generations of Muslim Pakistan?

To all concerned and educated Pakistanis, it is becoming crystal clear that the so called politicians are the wrong people, with wrong thinking and doing the wrong things. The so called American financed democracy has no relationship to the living masses of Pakistan. With almost half of a century of lost time and opportunities under the dictatorship of various army Generals, dismantled public institutions, devastated social and economic affairs, disjointed trades and commerce, political surge of terrorism and dead leadership, how could a nation be able to conduct business as usual?
The masses wish if Pakistan could be returned to its originality - foundation of Islamic ideology and practices for peace and unity of the divided nation. The corruption knows no bound. Under military dictators, Pakistan has lost precious time and opportunities to regain honor (“Ezat”) while the Generals were used to lead coercive politics devoid of reason and responsibility - the nation continues to live in tormenting uneasiness and being crippled by the cruel acts of death and destruction across Pakistan. Shamefully those wicked instigators who target and kill the minorities and make feuds with other sectors of the society are the criminals bent on destabilizing and destroying the essence of vision and integrity on which Pakistan was built in 1947. If the nation is fractured and feels insecure- the traitors are inside- the few political names- feudal lords, palaces erected with stolen wealth of the nation and hired killers organizing political campaigns who will make their way to foreign lands once their ambitions are met. A concerned school teacher in Islamabad asks the grade 10 students - what is the meaning of Pakistan? Who is the most popular leader of Pakistan to win the next election? The classroom sounds deafening silence.

(Dr. Mahboob A. Khawaja specializes in global security, peace and conflict resolution with keen interests in Islamic-Western comparative cultures and civilizations)

[url]http://www.thefrontierpost.com/article/213597/[/url]

[CENTER][U][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]Lawmakers or lawbreakers[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/U][/CENTER]

By:Shakeel Haider Sayyed
[CENTER][B]You can’t expect others to follow law when you don’t follow it yourself
[/B][/CENTER]
Democratic values are taking roots in Pakistan as it is evident from the successful completion of a democratic government and by the role of media, judiciary and civil society in the past few years that have consistently kept an eye on issues of transparency and accountability and helped save democratic process from derailing. A number of values vital for survival of democracy in true spirit have started to set in. Transparency and accountability of public representatives is an essential ingredient of western style of democracy that we follow. True to this spirit, one very positive development towards this direction is Election Commission’s stance for adopting new kind of nomination forms chalked out in the light of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The new nomination forms would be helpful in sifting lawmakers from lawbreakers at the very first step of entry into political contest. By questioning integrity of candidates through information about such things as academic qualifications, tax returns, loan default etc, it would indeed be helpful in sensitising all the political parties including those who appear to oppose it, to the significance of transparency in establishing credibility of candidates and parties themselves, and would have long term effects on strengthening the role of lawmakers.

Accountability of lawmakers is considered a cornerstone which serves to provide firm basis to democracy to sustain and survive, because the laws that they make for the public have to be respected by themselves first. As the dictum goes “leaders lead by example”, it is more relevant in the case of democracy. Until and unless people’s representative will set examples of clean records, they would not be able to pursue the people they represent to abide by the laws they make. As we follow paradigm similar to Westminster style of democracy we also need to follow the process of accountability of public representatives. In Britain , there are numerous examples of holding parliamentarians, cabinet members and even the prime minister accountable, sometimes on very small issues which in Pakistan might be seen so little as to easily get away with.

The tradition and practice of accountability has to start with the first step of fielding the right candidates and not merely electables, and sifting at the time of filing of nomination papers is an important step in this direction. You cannot have clean water if the source is not clean, so the Election Commission has taken the first step of cleansing at the source. Political parties have all the reasons to rejoice as they can now field candidates with cleaner background and it will be easier for them to shun the responsibility of many of the loan defaulters and non-tax paying party members whom it was otherwise hard to sift due to party loyalties or other obligations. Now the answer is simple if they don’t fulfill the criteria set by Election Commission, political parties may look for alternative candidates.

Taxation constitutes an essential part of national income which in turn is used for providing services and facilities to the public. Everyone with taxable income is required to pay the taxes. Whereas, unfortunately in Pakistan, recent studies showed that 70 percent of lawmakers did not file their tax returns. Most of the time when our parliamentarians are questioned by media about filing tax returns, a very common reply is that “our taxes are deducted from the salaries at the source”, whereas even for a salaried person filing tax return is mandatory by law, regardless of deductions at the source.

To be an active politician you simply can’t thrive on salaries; you have got to have a substantial source of income. Majority of our politicians come from agricultural or industrialist backgrounds. Those with agricultural income try to get away by saying that agriculture income does not fall in the tax net. I am afraid that’s not the case, most of them give their lands on lease, called ‘theka’, to other people who cultivate the land and pay a fix amount on yearly basis. Now the FBR needs to clarify whether ‘theka’ is categorised as agricultural income or rental income as big landlords usually also rent out equipment like thrashers, tractors, tube wells etc to the cultivators who could not afford to buy them. When a person earns a certain amount of income, the income tax laws require him or her to submit a statement of wealth in which one has to show all the movable and immovable wealth with reference to the previous year to explain the sources and also reasons for gain or loss.

Parliamentarians may be thankful to former Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz as during his tenure they were successful in abolishing wealth tax which was mandatory to people having more than one million rupees worth of movable and immovable wealth after excluding one residential property regardless of its cost. It was a tax that targeted all wealthy people who were not paying any income tax because of exemption of agricultural income.

Our politicians usually complain that media grills only the politicians and never asks these questions from civil and military bureaucrats and big media magnates. This is no logic as to why politicians should not be questioned or held accountable. In fact everyone should be held accountable. But again the drive has to come from the leaders, more so from the lawmakers. People elect their representatives to protect their rights, not to set examples of anyone above the law in any respect. Lawmakers can hope to implement laws only if they abide by them.

[url]http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/03/26/comment/columns/lawmakers-or-lawbreakers/[/url]

[CENTER][U][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]Democracy: failure and survival[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/U][/CENTER]

Nasim Ahmed


This is the first time in the history of Pakistan that a democratic government has completed its full five-year term and stepped down to clear the way for holding the next election. This is a rare event and must be celebrated.
Pakistan's chequered political history has seen wild swings between democracy and dictatorship. Brief democratic interregnums were followed by long years of martial law, and the game went on endlessly.

No democratic government in the last 60 years completed, or was allowed to complete, its normal constitutional term. The early fifties saw frequent governmental changes followed by the Ayub dictatorship. which spanned almost the entire decade of the sixties. Democracy was restored in the early seventies but the Z. A. Bhutto government could not complete its term. Next came marching in General Zia-ul-Haq whose eleven-year rule severely disfigured Pakistan's democratic culture and traditions.

None of the four democratic regimes of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif that followed the Zia regime in the late eighties and nineties could complete their five-year term for reasons that are now part of history. Then followed eight years of Musharraf's military rule which finally ended with the restoration of a new democratic dispensation in 2008.

Against this background, the PPP government completing its five-year tenure is clearly an achievement. But that is about all it can claim - and nothing else. It has not left a political legacy that the nation can be proud of, nor has it set a governance record that people will remember it for. On the contrary, it did everything to give democracy a bad name and so grossly mismanaged the economy that it will take years to put it back on an even keel.

The PPP leaders have made much of the fact that they successfully kept the ship of democracy afloat during the last five years. The fact is that if the system has survived, it is not because of any great feat performed by the government. In the given circumstances, the system survived by default. The government set new records of misrule, corruption, loot and plunder.

In the past governments were sent packing for much less. But this time around, in the presence of an assertive judiciary, a watchful media and a vibrant civil society, a return to army rule was not an option. The opposition led by the PML-N also made sure that the applecart of democracy was not upset. It criticized and attacked the government but refrained from launching any system-shaking movement. On its part, the Supreme Court repeatedly said that it would not put up with any deviation from the constitutional path. The fear of an adverse reaction from world powers also kept the extra-constitutional forces at bay. So the system kept creaking on for five years.

Wittingly or unwittingly, the PPP government gave democracy a bad name. But, thank God, it was not hanged. Poor governance was the defining feature of the five years of the PPP rule. The government signally failed to bring about any improvement in the lot of the common people. The poor became poorer and a few - those in the corridors of power and their hangers-on - thrived through ruthless abuse of power and callous exploitation of national resources.

The government formulated no long-term policies to empower the people politically and economically. Local government elections were not held which would have strengthened grass-root democracy. On the other hand, gross economic mismanagement further impoverished the poor people. There was no conscious effort to establish and promote a regime of social and economic justice. The rich became richer and the poor became poorer. More people - 70 million according to an estimate - slipped below the poverty line. The prices of all articles of daily use - wheat, sugar, pulses, cooking oil, etc. - went through the roof. Electricity and petrol rates went beyond the reach of the common man. The free fall in the value of the rupee against the dollar made sure that the rates of all daily necessaries kept inching up continuously.

The standard of public services deteriorated steeply as no steps were taken to strengthen and expand education, health, housing and transport facilities. Employment opportunities for the common run of people further shrank because load-shedding led to the closure of thousands of industrial units across the land. Additionally, overriding all considerations of merit, illegal appointments were made and all available jobs were handed out only to party loyalists.

The stink of corruption rose to the high heavens. The loot and plunder of national resources was underlined by an endless series of corruption cases - the Swiss money laundering case, the rental power plant scam, NICL, Haj and ephedrene scandals - which cast a shadow over the entire government apparatus, including the highest in the land.

Karachi continued to bleed profusely where more than 4,000 people fell victim to target killing. Despite the apex court's repeated reminders, the coalition government completely failed to stop the gang war between their militant wings. Sectarian attacks and bombings also went on without any check, making a mockery of Rehman Malik's claim about the law and order situation in the country.

Without keeping this perspective in view, we cannot make a real assessment of the value and importance of democratic survival during the last five years.

[url]http://www.weeklycuttingedge.com/[/url]

[CENTER][U][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]A lamentable five years[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/U][/CENTER]

Tahira Mansoor

While the PPP celebrated completion of its five years tenure, the nation rejoiced that they at last got rid of the most inept government of our history that increased the government debt from Rs. 6 trillion to Rs. 14 trillion in five years.

Yes, these are official figures, that the entire foreign and domestic debt of Pakistan was Rs. 6 trillion in 2008, after 61 years of our independence. This government took more debt in the last five years than all the previous governments accumulated in the previous 61 years. When this government assumed power in 2008, the debt servicing was around Rs. 350 billion a year which has now increased to Rs. 1,000 billion or Rs. one trillion. We spend 50 per cent of our tax revenue on debt servicing alone. Add to it the defense expenditure of Rs. 600 billion and public sector enterprises losses of Rs. 500 billion we end up with a negative balance of Rs. 100 billion which is above our total tax revenue.

The budget deficit last fiscal was Rs. 1.8 billion according to Abdullah Yusuf, the former chairman Federal Board of Revenue (FBR). The budget deficit gap was bridged by borrowing an equivalent amount from the commercial banks and the Central Bank. This amount was higher than the entire budget of the country in 2008. Despite this heavy borrowing the federal government could not spare adequate resources for development. Most of the amount was spent on non-development expenditure.

The National Assembly budget increased five times from its 2008 level. During the past five years the amount spent on National Assembly members and its secretariat exceeded Rs. 6 billion. Tainted members of the assembly enjoyed high posts in the government. Raja Pervaiz Ashraf was the main character in the Rental Power scandal, so much so that he is still called Raja Rental though he was the prime minister of the country. The looted money of the NICL scam was found in Makhdom Amin Fahim's bank account which he was forced to return to the exchequer; still he continued to enjoy the status of Federal Minister for Commerce. Federal Advisor on the Interior Rehman Malik was sentenced by the courts but the president granted him amnesty and he continued to enjoy official status and perks. Makhdoom Shahabudin continues to remain the Minister for Textiles and is on bail in the ephedrine scandal. Transparency International has time and again pointed towards the thousands of billions of corruption during the tenure of this regime.

It was during the tenure of the PPP-led coalition that the Railways came to standstill in Pakistan. The Railways still has the most solid infrastructure capable of carrying more than 80 per cent of total goods transported within the country but its current share in goods is less than 5 per cent. It simply lacks engines to carry the bogies on the railway track. Transportation by railway is four times cheaper than through road transport. The high cost through roads is eroding the competitiveness of Pakistan's industry. It is more costly to send a 40 feet container from Karachi to Lahore then the cost that one incurs on sending the same container from Karachi to China. Most of the passenger trains operated by Pakistan Railways have been discontinued while those still operating are delayed for days because of the inability of the authorities to arrange diesel needed for the railway engines.

Pakistan International Airlines, once the pride of the nation, has become a shame for the country. Its ill maintained aircrafts are periodically banned to land in Europe and other developed economies because they do not comply with the safety standards of those countries. Many of its aircrafts are grounded because of lack of spares. The airlines losses have increased with every passing year during the tenure of the last regime. The government had to bail out the national carrier time and again without any chance of improvement. Foreign airlines have stopped touching Pakistani airports and the few that come go back loaded with passengers. Most of the eight million Pakistanis living abroad visit Pakistan through foreign airlines.

Pakistan Steel Mills was in profit when the PPP government assumed power in 2008. Today, the giant steel producer is fighting for survival. It is pulling on through periodic injection of money by the government. The over staffed mill was burdened with more employees at the behest of the government to accommodate the political appointees. The appointments at the key posts in public sector enterprises were without merit in all public sector entities during the last five years.

So much has been written on the power sector and PEPCO that even a common Pakistani is convinced that the power crisis was engineered and its woes are more due to bad governance than the ability of the system to produce power. Both gas distribution companies of the country were posting hefty profits until 2008. Now both the companies are in trouble although the gas tariff in last five years has more than doubled. The gas theft, given the technical name of unfound gas, has increased beyond reasonable limits. The gas distribution companies UFG has crossed 10 per cent and is increasing gradually.

As far as the general public is concerned they have been hit by double digit inflation throughout the last five years. The rates of edibles have multiplied. Mutton rates increased from Rs. 250 per kg to Rs. 650 per kg. Atta is the staple food of the country; its rates increased from Rs. 14 per kg in 2008 to Rs. 35 per kg in 2013. During the same period the price of edible oil doubled to Rs. 200 per litre. Sugar prices increased from Rs. 30 per kg to Rs. 50 per kg. The prices of petrol almost doubled while that of diesel tripled during this period. Electricity rates more than doubled. Transport fares reached new heights. City commuters that used to pay Rs. 3 for a travel of up to three kilometers now are required to pay Rs. 12 for the same distance. Tuition fees of all schools and colleges have multiplied during last five years. House rent increased beyond the affordability of the families that are now forced to live in slums at higher rents than what they used to pay for a decent accommodation in middle class localities.

The common man is worried about the future. The uncertainty is coupled with fear that the next government would have to take more harsh measure to correct the wrongs done in the last five years. The poor will bear the brunt of those measures. Experts, however, say that a prudent government with nerves of steel could achieve an economic turnaround without penalizing the poor. It will have to muster the political courage to bring all sectors of the economy in the tax net. It will have to take harsh measures to curb corruption, nepotism, favoritism and make appointments and postings on merit. These measures will bring in enough resources without further taxation.

The tax evaders, under-filers, the smugglers, the under-invoicers if apprehended could fill the coffers of the government without putting further burden on the poor.

[url]http://www.weeklycuttingedge.com[/url]

[CENTER][U][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]PPP: Performance and promises
[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/U][/CENTER]
Nasim Ahmed

Back in the seventies, the slogan of 'roti, kapra aur makan' proved such a catchy vote-getter that it not only catapulted the PPP to the pinnacle of power but it has kept the hope of better days burning in the hearts of the common man ever since despite the party's poor performance in office more than once.

Keeping up the tradition, Pakistan People's Party Parliamentarians (PPPP) on March 14 unveiled its election manifesto, once again promising to provide bread, clothing and housing to the poor. The manifesto also promises a minimum wage of Rs. 18‚000 per month by the year 2018, and representation of the labour class in parliament. President PPPP Makhdoom Amin Fahim presented the manifesto at a news conference which was also symbolically attended by former Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani.

This time the PPP has come up with a new theme which expands on the original slogan to make it more comprehensive. The new slogan is "Roti, Kapra Aur Makan, Ilm, Sehat, Sab Ko Kam, Dehshat Sai Mehfooz Awam, Ooncha Ho Jamhoor Ka Naam."
It means bread, clothing and housing, education, healthcare, employment for all, protection of masses from terrorism and primacy to democracy.

Explaining various points of the manifesto, Amin Fahim said: "In our manifesto, we propose seven core priorities that will protect and empower the people of Pakistan and we will initiate key programmes in the first 100 days at the federal and provincial levels to implement these core priorities." The core priorities, according to him are: meeting the basic needs of the people, employment for all, equitable and inclusive growth, infrastructure for the future, a new social contract, protection of people and the country's engagement with the world.

The manifesto, as usual, contains pledges and promises galore. Among other things, it envisages the creation of a new province in South Punjab through necessary constitutional measures. Under the new NFC Award‚ Sindh will get a special grant for Karachi which is the mega port and economic hub of the country. This is clearly meant to assuage the feelings of the MQM which recently walked out of the coalition government in Sindh in protest against the annulment of the local bodies law.

Reinforcing its claim of being the party of the poor, the manifesto pledges to meet the basic needs of the socially and economically disadvantaged people. PPP's record, though, shows that whenever it has wielded power, its policies have made life more miserable for the general people, while bestowing some special benefits on the party workers. As per constitutional requirements‚ the manifesto promises universal primary enrolment by 2018 and 10‚000 higher education and technical vocation scholarships for FATA and Balochistan. As for the housing part of the famous slogan, there will be a renewed focus on housing and the poor will be given priority in the low cost housing schemes to be launched through the public-private partnership. Incidentally, the same promise has been made by the PML-N in its election manifesto.

The PPP manifesto also pledges empowerment of all citizens, especially women‚ minorities and the dispossessed. Labour representatives will get four seats in the National Assembly and two in each provincial assembly through legislation. The National Commission on Minorities will be given statutory status and religious properties would be given full protection. In accordance with the Charter of Democracy (CoD) and to strengthen the federation, a constitutional court will be established with equal representation from all the federating units and the inclusion of other areas administered by the state.
Rampant unemployment, coupled with a rapidly declining economy, has been the bane of the PPP government during its five-year tenure. Keeping this factor in view the party proposes to launch a youth employment initiative called 'People's Employment Programme'. Under this programme special schemes will be made to engage the educated youth in gainful employment.
In the agricultural sector the farmers will be supported by charging a flat rate for electricity for tube-wells and providing cheaper inputs. Special Economic Zones would be established to promote industrialization and create job opportunities. The tax net would be widened and the tax-to-GDP ratio would be increased to 15 per cent by 2018. Incidentally, the government signally failed to achieve these targets in the last five years.

The energy crisis is a sensitive issue for the PPP. In view of its poor showing in the sector in the last five years, the manifesto pledges an addition of 12‚000 MW of power by way of hydel‚ coal‚ gas and renewable energy by the end of the next term of the government. But it does not make it clear from where the necessary resources would come to generate the additional amount of electricity.

Matching the PML-N manifesto's pledge to make the parliamentary scrutiny and approval of the defence budget compulsory, the PPP has also proposed to make the military budget accountable to the National Assembly and institutionalize a better oversight of defense expenditure.

The PPP manifesto is silent on many fundamental issues. For instance, it does not say anything about how the economy, which suffered serious setbacks in the last 5 years, will be turned around or how inflation and prices will be contained to bring relief to the common man who has been a victim of the double whammy of price inflation and rising shortages. It is also silent about how to reduce the mountain of domestic and foreign debt which constitutes a crushing burden for the economy.

The PPP knows that in view of the dismal performance of its government in the last five years, very few people will take its election promises seriously. That is the reason why the manifesto is not only lackluster both in content and presentation but it also avoids setting specific targets for achievement in various sectors. The PPP promised more than 50 years ago that it would provide roti, kapra aur makan to the people. On the basis of this slogan the common people of Pakistan voted it to power four times. But the promise was never fulfilled. Each time the party assumed office it left the economy in a worse shape. On top of it all, corruption has been the defining feature of all PPP regimes. Its latest stint in power has proved to be the worst of all. While the party stalwarts have got richer, and some crumbs have been thrown the way of the lowly hardcore party loyalists, the common people have suffered miserably from high prices, energy shortages and shrinking job opportunities. In the face of these hard realities, there will be few takers in the country for its manifesto promises.

[url]http://www.weeklycuttingedge.com/national02.htm[/url]

[CENTER][U][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]Democracy's failure?[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/U][/CENTER]

Muhammad Hassan


The democratic government has completed its five-year term despite many hiccups and politicians are taking credit for it but the masses feel let down as issues have compounded after the 2008 election.

Today, the law and order situation, the national economy, rising prices and energy crisis are major problems which the elected government failed to resolve in its tenure.

People had pinned high hopes of a democratic government after a dictator was dislodged after the 2008 elections. Almost all political parties, except the Jamaat-i-Islami and the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf of Immran Khan, were in power in the Centre or in provinces, but they failed to make people realise that they were serious about resolving their issues. People are disgruntled and perceive it a failure of democracy. It looked politicians were inept or lacked the will to address national issues. However, the failure and inaptness of politicians should not be construed as the breakdown of democracy.

Critics of the PPP say except few achievements, its five-year rule was a complete failure which brought the country to the brink of financial and administrative collapse. They blamed the PPP government for mismanagement, widespread corruption and criminal negligence on issues of national importance and focusing only on its survival and completion of term. Over the years, the PPP leadership's main issue was to keep its rule intact for which it had to meet demands of its coalition partners, the MQM, the ANP and the PML-Q, and other pressure groups from time to time. Undoubtedly, the biggest negative point of the PPP rule was the shortage of energy which hit the masses hard. Outages of power and gas led to closure of hundreds of industrial units and millions of workers jobless across the country. Though allegations of corruption and mismanagement tarnished the image of the PPP government in its five-year rule, yet high prices of daily use items and the energy crisis could be the main reason if it loses the next election. PPP ministers contended that it was a legacy of the Musharraf era. People bought it for few years but now they are not willing to accept any apology after the culmination of their mandated constitutional term.

The issue is aggravated as people could not find any serious effort on part of the ruling alliance to address the energy issue. The government came up with rental power projects but they were shut down on the order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan after allegations of massive corruption and kickbacks in agreements with national and international companies. On the other hand, the PPP loyalists say it was an attempt to defame the PPP as the rental power agreements were signed by the Musharraf government in 2007 and the PPP government only advanced the projects but all the blame was squarely put on the PPP government. Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf also requested the Supreme Court of Pakistan to form a fact-finding commission to fix responsibility and clear his name. However, critics say the measures taken by the government to overcome the problem were ill-planned or tainted with corruption and the court had no option but to scrap them.

Now the situation has worsened to an extent that the whole nation faced an acute shortage of electricity even in the winter when electricity demand-gap usually remains zero and there are no power outages in the country for few months. The issue was also blown up by the PML-N government in the Punjab, even though it could not launch a single power generation project after the passage of the 18th amendment. It launched multibillion projects, like the metro bus project and the laptop schemes, without seeking approval of the federal government but said it could not start energy projects as it needed the nod of the Centre in projects involving billions of rupees.

The PPP government also faced harsh criticism for the mishandling of state institutions and autonomous corporations, like PIA, Steel Mills and Pakistan Railways, which added to financial worries of the country. It was accused of appointing favourites to head big corporations and institutions which ruined the entities and resulted in a loss of huge public money. Critics say the government turned a blind eye to rampant corruption in corporations and departments and neither improved the National Accountability Bureau nor brought about new accountability laws. They also criticise ill-planned devolution of power to the provinces which created serious problems in education, health and agriculture sectors. They cite statistics of the World Bank and the IMF which say poverty has increased in the country and millions of middle and lower middle class people slipped down the poverty line. They point out the government received record loans from local banks and overall debt of the country doubled in just four and a half years rule of the PPP.

On the other hand, the PPP prides itself for constitutional reforms.
Its outstanding achievement was the removal of anomalies in the 1973 Constitution and restoration to its original shape. Under the 18th amendment, the government granted autonomy to the provinces by abolishing the concurrent list from the constitution which had been a longstanding demand of the provinces. Another PPP success was the unanimous passage of the 7th National Finance Commission Award which strengthened the federation. The policy of reconciliation not only helped the PPP to stay in power despite being without even simple majority in the National Assembly, but also left it with outside chances to form the next government as no single party can sweep the election. At times, the government was on the verge of collapse, but the PPP not only managed to complete its tenure, but also passed a considerable number of pieces of legislation with consensus. Moreover, the PPP's claim that it started a healthy tradition by shunning the politics of victimisation and vendetta is also true as no case against political opponents was registered during its term. It is to its credit that it improved the national economy as Pakistan was facing huge financial crisis and feared to be declared bankrupt when it came to power in 2008. It improved the national economy by its benefits could not reach the masses.

The PPP will mainly bank on its constitutional amendments and mixed financial success to lure votes in the next election. It also rehabilitated people after the floods in 2010 and massive rains in 2011, which had inundated most parts of Punjab and Sindh. It launched programmes for the poor, like Benazir Income Support Programme and the Pakistan Baitul Maal. The Swat operation was also a success story.

However, high prices of daily-use items, power and gas outages and rising unemployment may haunt it in the polls.

[url]http://www.weeklycuttingedge.com/national04.htm[/url]

[CENTER][U][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]Pakistan reaches democracy milestone despite challenges
[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/U][/CENTER]
Augustine Anthony & Khurrum Anis


Pakistan's government became the first democratically elected administration in the nation's 65 years of independence to serve a full five-year term, a landmark marred by a struggling economy and rising sectarian violence.
Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf said the Pakistan Peoples Party-led government had overcome all threats, drawing a line under a past punctured by military coups. Ashraf remains in office until a caretaker premier is appointed to govern in the run-up to a general election scheduled for May.

"It is true that we have not been able to turn Pakistan into a land of all honey and milk in the past five years," Ashraf said in a televised speech to the nation late on Saturday. "But we have lessened the inherited problems and strengthened democracy so much that no one will be able to derail it in future."

The weekend milestone for Pakistani democracy may not help the Peoples Party, which is headed by President Asif Ali Zardari. The party got less than half the support of its main challenger, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, in an opinion poll released March 4. Its popularity has shrunk amid the nation's worst energy crisis, inflation above 7 percent, a Taliban insurgency in the northwest and growing insecurity.

While Zardari and his government worked to entrench democracy and appease opponents with decisions in 2010 to give greater autonomy to the country's provinces and strip the presidency of the power to dissolve Parliament, prices rose and factories were shuttered by rolling electricity cuts.

"Zardari found the instinct of survival," said Rashid Ahmed Khan, a professor of politics and international relations at the University of Sargodha in central Pakistan. The ruling party managed its coalition well and improved ties with rival India, "but failed to address the economic challenges faced by the people," Khan said.

After being carved out of British-run India in 1947, Pakistan has been ruled for half its history by the army, with civilian governments ousted by generals following allegations of corruption and misrule.

Whichever party wins in May will have to boost the $ 210 billion economy which has grown at an average 3 percent since 2007, less than half the annual pace of the previous five years and too slow to reduce poverty in the world's sixth-most populous country. The US is seeking help from Pakistan's civilian and military leaders to stabilize Afghanistan as American combat troops withdraw from an 11-year war with Taliban guerrillas by the end of 2014.
The Peoples Party was preferred by 16 percent of respondents, according to the March analysis by Gallup Pakistan of two national polls carried out in November and February. Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's PML stood at 37 percent, with ex-cricket star Imran Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf on 16 percent. The February survey of 9,660 voters had a margin of error of 2 percent to 3 percent.

Talks between the parties of Zardari and Sharif on the make-up of the interim administration are set to continue, and if no agreement is reached by the beginning of next week, a premier may be appointed by the country's Election Commission.

Former Finance Minister Abdul Hafeez Shaikh, who resigned last month, and an ex-governor of the central bank, Ishrat Husain, are among the candidates. Zardari's term expires in September. Pakistan's president is elected by members of the national and regional assemblies.

Pakistan is grappling with a slide in foreign reserves and an almost 8 percent plunge in the value of the rupee against the dollar in the last year, increasing the odds it will need a further bailout by the International Monetary Fund. Foreign investment has slumped 85 percent since 2008. The benchmark Karachi Stock Exchange 100 Index has climbed 33 percent in the period, helped by increases in corporate profits.

Ashraf's speech, after which Parliament was dissolved, marked the end of a tumultuous five years for the government.

The Peoples Party emerged as the largest in the National Assembly following elections in 2008, two months after its leader and former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated at an election rally in Rawalpindi, just outside Islamabad. Zardari, Bhutto's widower, took over party's reins, forging a short-lived alliance with Sharif.

The army extended its campaign against Taleban insurgents in the northwest, sending 28,000 troops into South Waziristan in October 2009 and triggering a nationwide wave of retaliatory attacks by militants. A year later, the country's worst ever floods displaced 20 million people.

The American special forces raid that killed Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in a Pakistan army town in 2011 escalated a downturn in ties with the US, Pakistan's largest aid donor. It also led to a prolonged confrontation between Zardari and Pakistani generals, who were subject to rare criticism over the military's failure to detect the airborne operation.

Even before bin Laden's killing, Pakistan's relationship with the US - and President Hamid Karzai in neighboring Afghanistan - had been plagued by distrust.

Karzai and officials in Washington had long accused Pakistan of assisting Taleban guerrillas in a bid to derail Kabul's closer ties with India and retain its traditional influence over Afghanistan's majority Pakhtoon community.

In 2012, Pakistan's Supreme Court ousted Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani after he cited the president's immunity as a barrier to seeking the reopening of corruption cases against Zardari in Swiss courts.

Top judges, who were accused in the media of unfairly targeting Zardari, in January ordered the arrest of the replacement premier Ashraf for alleged graft in rental power projects when he was power minister. The head of the country's main anti-corruption agency later told judges there wasn't enough evidence to proceed.

That challenge came as a popular cleric led some of the country's biggest ever political rallies in central Islamabad demanding the government step aside and, controversially, that the army help run the country ahead of elections.
Ties with neighbor India improved after talks resumed in 2011 following a more than two-year hiatus triggered by the terrorist attack on Mumbai by Pakistani guerrillas. Deadly border clashes in disputed Kashmir in January have since cast a shadow on efforts to repair the relationship.

At home, bomb attacks targeting the Shiite minority have killed 200 hundred people this year forcing the government to announce a belated attempt to curb some Sunni extremists. In Karachi, the country's financial capital, almost daily gun battles claimed 2,000 lives in 2012.

"Zardari silenced detractors who thought the government was going home in six months," Khan of the University of Sargodha said. "His government wasn't good, but it wasn't the worst" Pakistan has had.

[url]http://www.weeklycuttingedge.com/national05.htm[/url]

[CENTER][U][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]Failure of democracy: A political perspective![/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/U][/CENTER]
March 26, 2013
Ahtesham Katikhel

So, the previous parliament of Pakistan is the first-ever parliament of the country to have completed its full term. Indeed, it is a long-awaited and one of the most desired events in the turbulent political history of Pakistan. It can safely be regarded as an encouraging indicator of the transition to democracy in the country.

Since its inception, Pakistan has been struggling very hard to install democracy within its boundaries in real sense. Its difficulties and hurdles in this regard could be well depicted by taking a single instance from its early history: the delayed framing of it first constitution. Pakistan took nine long years to frame its first constitution while India, with somehow similar political circumstances, made its first constitution within two years. Besides, the overthrow of Nazimudin government, dismissal of First Constituent Assembly, inability of stakeholders to address the political, linguistic, and social grievances of Bengalis, nepotism, bad governance, creation of One Unit etc served as severe blows to democracy in the country. Though 1956 Constitution of Pakistan envisaged an effective and delivering democratic setup in the country, but unfortunately, it became the victim of vested interests and political intrigues and died prematurely, leaving the country in deep uncertainty and chaos.

Presidential system of government, on the pattern of American political system, was introduced in Pakistan in 1962. But, ironically, the two most important principles of American Political system viz. ‘Checks and Balances’, and ‘Separation of Powers’ were not observed in Pakistani setup.
Consequently, the system miserably failed to deliver and demo racy remained elusive in the country. EBDO, Basic Democracies, and indirect elections were the most controversial innovations of General Ayub’s era which caused untold resentment in the whole country. In this way presidential system, too, could not bring true democracy in the country.

The first general elections in Pakistan were held in 1970. Pakistanis participated very enthusiastically in election process in the hope of changing their lot. These elections were viewed as a herald of new politically secure era in the country.

But to their utmost disappointment, the political deadlock after the elections resulted in the greatest loss to Pakistan since its birth: the debacle of East Pakistan. Mutual mistrust suspicion, and misunderstanding between the two parts of Pakistan were behind its break-up. From here, both parts of Pakistan began to write their own independent history.

The duly framed 1973 Constitution, by all intents and purposes, was the best constitution of Pakistan. It laid the foundation of a democratic government in Pakistan. The bicameral legislature, a viable federal structure with 3 lists of subjects, an independent judiciary, and fundamental rights to the citizens etc were some of the shining characteristics of the Constitution.

These principles are the essentials for an effective democratic political system of a country.

But despite of all these noble characters, people of Pakistan were unable to see democracy to flourish in their homeland.

General Zia’s Martial Law in 1977 was the third Martial Law in Pakistan--after the Martial Laws of 1958 and 1969. Zia totally transformed the character of the original Constitution of 1973. His most important innovation was the 8th Amendment to the Constitution in 1985.

This amendment made the President of the country at par with the Prime Minister from its position of a titular head of the state. Zia created the most lethal anti-democratic weapon in the shape of insertion of Article 58-2(b) in the Constitution. This provision later caused the ouster of a number of democratically elected governments. The same article was used to overthrow the governments of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif in 1980s and 1990s.
The so-called Decade of Democracy, too, was marred with the allegation of corruption and bad-governance on the part of the successive governments. Various steps were taken to curb corruption and to ensure transparency in the country. But these were taken half-heartedly and used for personal and political scores. One of the most noteworthy events of that decade was the restoration of original Constitution in 1997 by the mutual efforts by Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto. But, sadly, the decade ended by yet another military coup.

General Musharraf’s nine-year rule brought about many dramatic changes in the political scene of the country. Pakistan’s involvement in the war on terror and its role as a front-line ally of the US had their own challenges which had adverse effects on democracy. The rise of extremism and militancy, the 17th Amendment to the constitution in 2003, imposition of emergency, deposition of judges and NRO were the dark events of his rule that caused hurdles in democratic process. But despite of all these negative developments, there were some positive happenings too, such as, the flow of information got impetus with the inception of a large number of private TV channels.

And now, the previous civilian government, despite massive allegations of corruption and bad governance, has been successful in completing its tenure. During its term, much legislative work was undertaken ranging from social issues to women’s rights. But among all legislative enactments, the 18th Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan tops the list.

This amendment did much to ensure the smooth working of democratic political system in Pakistan. It restored the original Constitution of 1973. It strengthened the relationship between the Centre and federating units by abolishing the Concurrent List.

Also it made the President, again, a titular head of the State by curbing his dictatorial powers, especially given under Article 58-2(b), that are alien to a parliamentary system of government. Though government’s term was marred by some unpleasant events such as the dismissal of a duly elected Prime Minister, the completion of its tenure is, definitely, a welcome step towards achieving an effective parliamentary system of government.

The role of judiciary in Pakistan’s history has been dismal to a great extent when it comes to the history of establishment of true democracy in the country. The Maulvi Tameezudin case, the Dosso case, and Asma Jillani case etc set bad precedents.

The verdicts in these cases strengthened the hands of un-democratic forces at the expense of true democracy. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, being the custodian of the Constitution and fundamental rights of citizens, has more responsible role to play. Currently it has assumed a very prominent position of power among state institutions. It should focus on its constructive role for the nation and refrain from, as some allege, encroaching upon the spheres of other institutions so that the principle of tracheotomy of powers must not violated.

At present, the future of democracy in Pakistan seems much bright. As mentioned earlier, the previous government has completed unprecedented full term.

This is a positive sign. Today, Pakistan has an emerging middle class, a vibrant media, an awakened civil society, a proactive judiciary, and en-lighted citizens.

All these are the pre-requisite of a true democratic setup. So, in Pakistan the transition to democracy has begun now!

[url]http://www.thefrontierpost.com/category/10/[/url]