As a matter of fact

Author: By M J Akbar

June 24, 2012 on 9:41 AM

The rich now want money from the poor

Facts come in every shape, size, variety. Their survival is determined not by value but by how inexplicable they are. The human being has 23,000 genes, only “half as many as a tomato”, I am told. But humbling as this formative fact of life might be, it does not quite catch the imagination as much as the perplexity called death, particularly when death escapes the boundaries of reason: A plague decimates a continent, war murders a generation, or an evil maniac orders a genocide.

Statistics distil facts to stark simplicity. Between September 1939 and August 1945, the period of the Second World War, 27,000 people were killed each day. (This figure does not include war-related casualties like the three million-odd Bengalis who died of a famine that was a direct consequence of war policy.) There is always enough to be learnt from war, its machines and its machinations. Guess who is the largest buyer of oil in the world? If you thought it was a country, wrong. The Pentagon.

America’s military consumes more oil each year than the whole of Africa. And yet, when you think about it, is this very startling? The armies of the British Empire surely drank up more oil than all the colonies they ruled. None of us were there to count, and contemporary historians had more delicious details to record, but you can safely bet that Rome alone had more chariots than the rest of the Roman Empire.

It has always been thus. To the victor goes not only the spoils of war but also the far more substantial rewards of its blanket peace: A Pax Romana then, a Pax Americana now. So what’s the story? The privileges of power have not changed, but the world has.

If the ascent of America begins with victory in the First World War; its supremacy after the Second; and domination after the Third (also known as the Cold) War, then many of today’s contradictions also lie in the liberal ideas that America encouraged as a template for the future it hoped to control. America sought the rights of power without the problems or obvious injustice of foreign rule. It tried to fashion, particularly after 1992, what might be called the Good Empire as distinct from the Evil Empire (Ronald Reagan’s description of the Soviet Union). The thesis, broadly, was this: All nations would be equal; post-colonial nations would be formed on the basis of public will, with claims being resolved by plebiscite; the world as well as its parts would be governed by the broad principles of democracy.

Confusion is the bridesmaid of change, so after the applause died down there was achievement, failure and bewilderment in roughly equal measure. The fault line of democracy is that while it offers equal rights in theory, it does not guarantee equality in practice. Every vote has the same weight, but every voter does not possess equal weightage, whether in a municipality or the United Nations. Wealth feeds power and power reinforces wealth, both at the macro and micro levels.

In countries like India, the co-existence of democracy with degrading poverty cannot be easily justified, by either idealism or intellect. But poverty is both absolute and comparative. America’s poor, famously, are better off than the middle class in most of the world. However, they do not compare themselves to sub-Saharan Africa, thank God for their good fortune, and live happily ever after. They get angry with their president when their comfort zone is threatened. No child suffers the anguish of malnutrition in Greece, and yet Greek rage at loss of standards of living has boiled over into a volatile crisis. The battles being fought across the world are over inequity, a perception of injustice. Democracy does not, unlike socialism, offer economic equality, which is impossible; but its spirit does insist on economic equity. When disparity between the top 5 per cent and bottom 50 per cent becomes obscene, the deprived do not remain silent forever.

The establishment’s traditional response has been to blame the victim. But democracy permits a victim to scream, and the Greeks are doing so pretty loudly. Europe and America are rushing to its help, as they should if they want to. It does seem odd, though, that India, where 50 times the population of Greece lives below the poverty line, should gift $10 billion to help resolve a problem it did not cause. Till two decades ago, rich nations still felt some mild moral obligation to reduce poverty through aid. They now expect aid from the poor.

Miraculously, they get it. Delhi cannot find Rs 20,000 crore for Bengal, but hands over Rs 56,000 crore for Greece. Bengal’s poor can shout as much as the Greeks. Will India ever get this money back? Fact from history: Greece is still waiting for Germany to pay what it claimed as reparations after the Second World War.



The columnist is editor of The Sunday Guardian, published from Delhi, India on Sunday, published from London and Editorial Director, India Today and Headlines Today.

Budget highlights 2012-13

Following are the highlights of the Budget Speech for the financial year 2012-13 of Federal Finance Minister Dr Abdul Hafeez Shaikh in the National Assembly here on Friday:

* Total budget volume Rs2,960 billion.

* Gross Revenue Receipts (estimated) for Year 2012-13 Rs3,234 billion.

* FBR sets Rs2,381 billion tax collection target.

* Rs1,459 billion to be transferred to provinces under NFC Award.

* Budget deficit likely to remain at Rs1,185 billion.

* Provincial Surplus estimated at Rs80 billion.

* Rs70 billion to be allocated for BISP.

* Rs10 billion to be allocated for Export Development Fund.

* 10% additional discount at Utility Stores on different commodities for BISP cardholders.

* Govt to set up 2,000 new Utility Stores, 35,000 families to get relief.

* 100,000 youth to get internships, technical training.

Bachelor, master degree holders to get 40,000 internships each in public and private sector.

* 20,000 graduates to be imparted skilled training to fulfil domestic and foreign demand.

* Govt to pay tuition fee of PhD and master students belonging to Balochistan, Fata, Gilgit-Baltistan.

* 20% ad hoc relief in pay and pension of Federal Government Employees.

* Income Tax Exemption Limit enhanced upto Rs400,000.

* Tax on Business Turnover reduced from 1% to 0.5%.

* Withholding tax ceiling for cash withdrawal from banks enhanced from Rs25,000 to Rs50,000.

* Federal Excise Duty on 10 items abolished.

* Federal Excise Duty on cement reduced from Rs750 to 500 per metric tonne.

* 18 raw materials, 9 components being used for text books, stationary exempted from Customs Duty.

* Customs duty reduced from 10% to 5% on 88 raw materials of Pharmaceutical Industry.

* Growth rate remains at 3.7 % as compared to 3.4 % during last two years.

* Pakistan repay $1.2 billion of loans to IMF.

* Sales Tax rate reduced from 17% to 16%.

* Current expenditure registers 10% decrease.

* Total volume of grants reaches 70% of Divisible Pool.

* Parliament passes 24 laws to empower women during last four years.

* Inflation reduced to 11%, next year it will be cut down to single digit.

* Tax Revenue registers 46% increase, tax collection increases from Rs.1327 billion to Rs.1950 billion.

* Subsidy of Rs50 billion given on fertilizer.

* Industrial growth rate projected to 3.4% this year against 3.1% last year.

* Subsidies of Rs1,250 billion given on electricity sector during last five years.

* Govt injected 3500MW of electricity to National Grid.

* Pakistan to get 2 billion cubic feet of gas from Pak-Iran gas pipeline, Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan India gas pipeline.

* 500 million cubic feet of LNG will be made available for consumers.

* Govt gave relief of Rs70 billion on petroleum products.

* National Economic Council approved Annual Development Plan of Rs873 billion.

* Federal Government share in Annual Development Plan is Rs300 billion.

* 200 projects completed under Public Sector Development Programme (PSDP) at a cost of Rs300 billion.

* Govt allocates Rs360 billion under PSDP for 96 ongoing projects.

* Rs69 billion earmarked for Electricity sector, Wapda, electric companies will be given Rs115 billion.

* Rs44 billion for Social Sector.

* Fata, Gilgit-Baltistan, AJK to get Rs37 billion.

* Rs16 billion allocated for Higher Education.

* Rs84 billion allocated for Transport and Communication (Rs51 billion for NHA, Rs23 billion for Railways).

* Balochistan share increases upto 9.09% in Divisible Pool.

* Govt accepted Rs120 billion as royalty on gas sale from 1954 to 1991 for Balochistan.

* Federal Government to finance 11,500 jobs for Baloch youth.

* Block Development Allocation enhanced up to Rs16 billion for Gilgit-Baltistan.

* Rs10 billion allocated for mega project in Gilgit-Baltistan.

* Rs17 billion allocated in PSDP for Fata.

* Rs12 billion for development projects, Rs16.5 billion allocated for current expenditure for Azad Kashmir besides a loan of Rs8.5 billion.

* Remittances by overseas Pakistan touch $13 billion mark during last two years.

* Exports register 28% increase, volume touches $25 billion mark.

Turn Adversaries into Allies

Tip of the day
Anyone who has faced rivals at work — bosses who take all the credit, team members who undermine things — knows how difficult it is to ignore them. Instead, turn your adversaries into collaborators by following these three steps: Redirect. Try to channel your rival's negative emotions away from you by bringing up something you have in common, or talking about the source of the tension in a favorable light. Reciprocate. Give up something of value to your rival — help complete a project or divulge important information — so you are poised to ask for something in return. Reason. Explain that not working together cooperatively could mean lost opportunities. Most people are highly motivated to avoid a loss.

To Save Pakistan, Author Says U.S. Needs Plan for Afghanistan

By Michael Coleman
Uploaded on April 30, 2012

News articles and media commentators frequently describe Pakistan as a dangerous place — the world's most dangerous, according to many observers — but few, if any, can match the vivid, sometimes frightening reporting of celebrated journalist Ahmed Rashid.
Rashid, once called Pakistan's "best and bravest reporter" by the late author Christopher Hitchens, exploded into the international consciousness in 2001 with "Taliban," a New York Times number-one bestseller that was translated into more than 20 languages. The book helped readers better understand the brutal regime that hijacked Afghanistan and incubated the terrorist group behind the 9/11 attacks. He earned widespread acclaim for his 2008 follow-up, "Descent into Chaos: The United States and the Failure of Nation Building in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asia."

Photo: Ahmed Rashid

Now, Rashid, based in Lahore, is back with "Pakistan on the Brink: The Future of America, Pakistan, and Afghanistan." The book examines U.S. policy toward Pakistan and Afghanistan and how the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan will affect international terrorism and a region vital to world security. While the subject matter is grim, Rashid offers clear-eyed suggestions for a peaceful path forward, including the provocative notion that the United States and Pakistan should negotiate a political compromise with the Taliban.
In a wide-ranging interview with The Washington Diplomat, Rashid said he wrote his book "with the very acute realization that Pakistan was literally going down the tubes."
In fact, just days after the interview, Taliban fighters stormed a prison in northwestern Pakistan, freeing nearly 400 inmates in what is being called the biggest jailbreak in the country's history. At the same time in Afghanistan, officials in that country were blaming the Haqqani network of the Taliban, based in Pakistan, for a coordinated series of attacks that paralyzed the capital of Kabul in mid-April.
As for U.S.-Pakistani relations, they seem to plunge to ever-lower depths as each new crisis explodes. Bilateral ties — already strained in the wake of the U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden at a secret compound about an hour north of Islamabad — ruptured following a NATO air attack in November that mistakenly killed 24 Pakistani soldiers. As a result, the Pakistani Parliament underwent a complete review of its relationship with the United States, demanding an immediate end to drone strikes and an unconditional apology for the strike on Pakistani soldiers.
There was speculation that with the review finished, Pakistan might reopen a critical NATO supply route to Afghanistan. "We are a responsible nation," Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani told Parliament, though he wouldn't confirm if the route would reopen. "We know our obligations as well as the importance of the United States."
Yet Rashid argues that Pakistani leaders have long fostered a narrative that blames everyone — and especially America — for the South Asian nation's precarious state, when the overwhelming evidence is that many of its troubles are homegrown. Rashid's newest book begins in 1989, at the twilight of the Cold War.
"When the Cold War ended, Pakistan did not change at all," Rashid said. "It remained heavily dependent on the United States, the elite refused to pay taxes, and we pursued a foreign policy that was expansionist and aggressive."
Rashid argues that while Pakistan made terrible domestic political decisions, the United States enabled the country's government by pouring aid into a Pakistani military that made no effort to account for its spending. The situation dramatically worsened after al-Qaeda terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Rashid said. In the decade since 9/11, the U.S. government has sent $20 billion to Pakistan and has little to show for it.
"That's a hell of a lot of money," Rashid said. "Eighty percent of that money has gone to the military, and there has been no accounting of that money in the civil sector. How do they account for it?"
Rashid says the gravy train started with former President George W. Bush and former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who made backroom deals that allowed CIA agents and U.S. Special Forces to infiltrate the country in exchange for truckloads of American cash.
"People essentially said, 'Give us something that is visible and tangible,'" Rashid charged. "They said, 'Don't give us this democracy support bullshit.'"
However, rank-and-file Pakistanis, who are among the world's poorest people, resented the aid, which went almost exclusively to the all-powerful military.
"There was deep suspicion about America's intentions," Rashid said, adding that the two countries should have been more transparent. "I think if [Pakistan] had been more responsive earlier to this whole notion of civilian aid and a strategic dialogue with the U.S., we could have worked out something that would be more balanced."
Rashid says the Obama administration has largely continued these secretive policies, as evidenced by the record number of surreptitious drone strikes in the country.
"These secret deals deeply annoyed the people of Pakistan and that's one of the reasons for this anti-Americanism," he said. "There is a horrendous spate of anti-Americanism that's going on, which is extremely dangerous because along with that comes anti-democracy, extremism and outright religious conservatism."
Rashid also argues that the glut of American money has made the deadly, decade-long U.S. exercise in Afghanistan — inextricably linked to neighboring Pakistan — vastly more expensive and ineffective than it needed to be. During the initial U.S. invasion in 2001, Rashid and other experts in the region met with top officials at the White House and suggested a modest plan to rebuild the country after the toppling of the Taliban.
Over the past 11 years, the United States has sunk more than $500 billion into the war in Afghanistan. Rashid and the other experts argued that stabilizing the country could have been done for a fraction of that amount.
"We estimated if you gave the Afghan government $5 billion per year just for development for 10 years, that was all the Afghans could absorb," he said. "It would have sufficiently rebuilt the economy to where it was in 1978 before the Soviets came in.
"I would claim right now that unfortunately the West has not even been able to do that despite spending billions on so-called development," Rashid continued. "Apart from some areas where there have been huge contributions, particularly education and health care, as far as developing an indigenous economy, agriculture, infrastructure, there hasn't been much done at all. It's difficult to see how it has come up to the level even of what it was in 1978."
Although President Obama pledged and delivered more resources toward the fight in Afghanistan, he's largely pursued a military-centric approach in both Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan, especially given the successes of drone strikes and special ops raids that have decapitated the bulk of al-Qaeda's leadership.
The hallmark achievement of this counterterrorism strategy was the killing of Osama bin Laden a year ago during a covert U.S. raid in the midsize town of Abbottabad, where the terrorist mastermind had essentially been hiding in plain sight of Pakistani military forces.
While celebrated in the United States, bin Laden's death marked a pivotal turning point in U.S.-Pakistani relations, especially after the circumstances of the midnight raid came to light, Rashid told The Diplomat.
"Initially, people welcomed his death," the author said. "But then what happened is the Pakistani press lambasted the military and raised two issues that remain unresolved.
"Were they hiding Osama? And if they weren't hiding him, they were bloody incompetent," Rashid said. "That caused immense embarrassment and questioning inside the military. Then the military came back and [said] these are not the questions. They said the real question is, 'Is America breaking our sovereignty by intruding into Pakistan, etc.' That then became the new mantra."
Rashid explains in his book, and in his Diplomat interview, that he's not buying the military's attempt to change the subject.
"The military tried to change the narrative," he said. "We can get to the sovereignty question later, but first they need to answer these questions. Not only did nobody answer them, but there was no accountability. Nobody was sacked or fired and nobody was held responsible."
Why not?
"There was acute embarrassment, but also in the lower ranks of officers there was acute anti-Americanism," he replied. "I think the high command was faced with a barrage of criticism from the mid-level officers who wanted the army to denounce the Americans."
So what can the United States do to try to lift the abysmal state of relations with a hostile, nuclear-armed, Muslim nation?
The most important thing it can do, according to Rashid, is to get out of Afghanistan.
"I do think a withdrawal will be hugely beneficial to Pakistan," he argues. "We have our own Taliban now who are very dangerous. If there could be a political settlement between [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai and the Taliban and the Americans that allows the Americans to withdraw in a peaceful situation, I think it would have a huge effect on de-fanging and de-legitimizing the Taliban.
"One of their claims of a legitimate jihad is that they are fighting with their Afghan brothers against the American occupation," he added. "That is a legitimate jihad, but if that reason was to disappear tomorrow, or in 2014 [the planned U.S. withdrawal date], so does one of their main planks. That would have a huge impact."
Rashid contends that the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan will also remove a convenient excuse for Pakistani leaders trying to explain the sorry state of affairs in their country.
"We would no longer have this excuse that everything is going wrong because of the Americans or the American presence in Afghanistan," he said. "We would be forced to look at ourselves and sort out our own problems, rather than blaming others for them.
"Pakistan would be forced into a kind of self-sufficiency."
But Rashid does not advocate a hasty withdrawal, especially in the absence of a political agreement in Afghanistan, where he says the Taliban must be dealt with somehow before U.S. troops head for the exits.
"There has to be a negotiated political settlement with the Taliban," Rashid said. "The Americans cannot leave Afghanistan with that country in a state of civil war as it is today. The Americans can only leave that country with a relative reduction of violence.
"If you leave that country in a state of civil war, the Afghan army isn't going to stand up to the pressure of the Taliban," he warned. "I think in a year or two, the government would collapse and there would be a multidimensional civil war. It would spread its tentacles into all the neighboring states and even allow al-Qaeda to come back."
Rashid suggested a two-pronged approach. The first phase would be a military ceasefire between the United States and the Taliban after extended exercises in "confidence and trust building." The second part would be a power-sharing agreement between the Afghan government and the Taliban, with representation from all sectors of Afghan society — including women.
"The Taliban has to meet with Afghan women and be exposed to Afghan women who have in the last 10 years gotten educated, gotten jobs and are working," he said. "This is a generation of women the Taliban have never even met with. They can't even conceive of them."
He also suggested that the primitive religious group be given modern offices.
"If we can open an office for the Taliban [in Afghanistan] and have negotiations, the more you can expose the Taliban to modern Afghan society — urbanized Afghans — the more you'll be forcing the Taliban to moderate their positions."
Of course, that's assuming the Taliban is even willing to enter into peace talks, a concept that's been tentatively in the works for years, only to be derailed by incidents such as the alleged massacre of 17 Afghan civilians at the hands of a U.S. soldier, as well as the Taliban assassination of Burhanuddin Rabbani, a top Karzai emissary in the proposed negotiations.
Despite the difficulties, Rashid says the alternative is worse. "The grimmest outcome would result from a botched, overly hasty Western withdrawal, the absence of a political settlement with the Taliban, a continuing civil war in Afghanistan, the Pakistani leaders' continuing resistance to internal reform, the army's refusal to seek a compromise on Afghanistan with the United States and Afghans, and a consequent meltdown of the Pakistani state," he warns in "Pakistan on the Brink."
To that end, if the region implodes, Rashid says there would be plenty of blame to go around. "Obama and his senior officials share a major part of the blame because their failure to act as a team has resulted in contradictory policies, intense political infighting, and uncertainty about U.S. aims and objectives in the region," he wrote.
At the same time, Rashid blasts the Pakistani military for its obsession with Indian hegemony, the Kashmiri cause, protecting its nuclear program, and ensuring a pro-Pakistani government in Kabul — despite U.S. pressure and money.
"Its political and military leadership has shown neither the courage nor the will nor the intelligence to carry out major reforms in the country's foreign and economic policies," he charges. "The military has allowed the Afghan Taliban factions and their leaders safe sanctuary and support ever since 2001 — something the Americans knew well but failed to raise effectively. Social services are near collapse, law enforcement is abysmal, economic hardship is widespread, natural disasters occur with little or no government assistance, and the majority of the population has no security."
This kind of blunt talk is unquestionably dangerous in Pakistan, where shadowy violence abounds — as does shadowy Machiavellian politics. (Islamabad's former ambassador in Washington, Husain Haqqani, became ensnared in a bizarre controversy last year revolving a memo purportedly orchestrated by the civilian government asking the U.S. for help reining in the military.)
The Committee to Protect Journalists declared Pakistan the most dangerous country in the world for reporters in 2011, with seven journalists dying in the tumultuous nation that year. Rashid said he's well aware of the perils of his work.
"I'm very outspoken, but one tends to play a cat-and-mouse game with the extremists and the terrorist agencies," he said. "It's become very hard to become a journalist in Pakistan. The threats and harassment journalists face are very real. I feel them all the time.
"But this is very important and I don't think Pakistan can be ignored."
Rashid also encourages American policymakers to re-evaluate their attitudes toward Pakistan, especially those who might want to dismiss the nation as a lost cause.
"The tendency of some in Congress to say 'let them go hang' doesn't make sense," he told us. "It's a geostrategic linchpin in South Asia and West Asia, and its location on the Gulf makes it extremely important for the U.S. oil supply and global stability.
"It also happens to house the full range of Islamic extremists — local, Arab, Central Asian, the Chechens."
So what to do about those terrorists, especially the radical Taliban? Rashid proposes the radical notion of rehabilitating them, when possible, rather than killing them.
"There has to be a change in foreign policy," he said. "We have to wake up to the new reality that we have to de-fang these militants, not through military action necessarily but through some kind of reconciliation program."
He pointed to a program in Saudi Arabia in which young al-Qaeda recruits were captured and initially imprisoned, then gradually re-indoctrinated through the intervention of moderate mullahs.
"They didn't kill them, but put them into jails which became residential accommodations and they kept them there for many years and had them indoctrinated by mullahs, got them degrees and skills, got them married, and gave them psychological treatment.
"It's been a very successful program and we could probably get funding for something like that," he said. "We need to do that on a much larger scale in Pakistan, and I think if we did that there would be a lot of Western support.
"In the 21st century, we cannot maintain extremists on our soil as an arm of foreign policy," he added. "That era has gone. It was possible during the Cold War because the fundamentalists were anti-Soviet and the Americans also funded extremists — Osama bin Laden and all kinds of groups. After 9/11, that era has ended."

Recycled Thought: From Procedural to Substantive Democracy

Recycled Thought: From Procedural to Substantive Democracy: One of the fundamental reasons why some of us prefer to fight for greater democracy in this country is because it remains the only attainabl...

Lost opportunity?

 Dawn

By Moeed Yusuf | 4/16/2012 12:00:00 AMPAKISTAN`S civil-military landscape has begun to change quite significantly. The independent media, judicial activism, the military`s preoccupation with the fight against terrorism, and geopolitical developments had already set the ball rolling.

But a number of embarrassing developments for the military in 2011 have ended up opening up unprecedented space for the civilians in the national security and foreign policy arena.

The trend is nascent but not to be ignored. Most countries that have managed to correct civil-military imbalances start off with incremental steps and are often helped along by unplanned and unexpected developments that incentivise new behaviour patterns on the part of the militaries and greater responsibility by the civilian authorities.Of course, not all manage this feat. There is voluminous literature attempting to identify the key factors that determine whether a country is able to redress civil-military imbalances. And while evidence shows that ahost of complex factors tend to align before this paradigm shift takes place, one of the most critical happens to be the ability of the civilians to prove their capacity and competence by outperforming the militaries.

In cases where civilians have managed to use the space available to them to produce impressive outputs, the chances of a permanent correction in the institutional imbalance are much greater.

The past weeks have provided us with an opportunity to see the Pakistani civilian enclave take charge of one of the most critical foreign policy issues: the relationship with the US.

The development was entirely positive as it allowed a civilian-led process to take precedence over ad hoc, non-transparent decision-making by a handful of individuals that had otherwise been the norm in Pakistan.

Unfortunately, the outcome has left much to be desired.

For one, the review process was dragged onforfar too long. The upper hand in terms of the US being on the back foot after Salala that Pakistan went into the review with has been lost.

In fact, as I discussed in a recent column in this space, the lack of closure on the review forced the US to consider alter-host of complex factors tend to align before this paradigm shift takes place, one of the most critical happens to be the ability of the civilians to prove their capacity and competence by outperforming the militaries.

In cases where civilians have managed to use the space available to them to produce impressive outputs, the chances of a permanent correction in the institutional imbalance are much greater.

The past weeks have provided us with an opportunity to see the Pakistani civilian enclave take charge of one of the most critical foreign policy issues: the relationship with the US.

The development was entirely positive as it allowed a civilian-led process to take precedence over ad hoc, non-transparent decision-making by a handful of individuals that had otherwise been the norm in Pakistan.

Unfortunately, the outcome has left much to be desired.

For one, the review process was dragged onforfar too long. The upper hand in terms of the US being on the back foot after Salala that Pakistan went into the review with has been lost.

In fact, as I discussed in a recent column in this space, the lack of closure on the review forced the US to consider alter-natives, however imperfect, more seriously. Going forward, this experience will only lead Washington to reinforce channels that tend to reduce reliance on Pakistan.

But let us set aside this brinkmanship game.

The real issue is that if Pakistan is committed to peace in Afghanistan and wants to play a major role in the reconciliation process next door, it needed to re-engage swiftly. By dragging out the process, while it has certainly hurt the US agenda, it has not done itself any favours. The more time the two sides lose in terms of working together on Afghanistan, the lesser the likelihood of a sustainable deal and the greater the possibility of the dreaded civil war.

Nothing could be worse from Pakistan`s perspective.

There is no better indicator of the problems with the review process than the fact that the civilian and military authorities themselves opened up paral-lel tracks to reinitiate interaction with US officials much before parliament approved the recommendations. This was contrary to the initial stance of `no contact` till parliament agreed on a new course for the relationship. Heads of government have met; so have the Pakistani foreign minister and US secretary of state; as have the top military officials. Indeed, smart statecraft demanded this move. But it also undermined the sanctity of the review process.

Second, the very tenor of the debate, underpinned by emotive rhetoric rather than sound policy thinking bodes ill for parliament`s efforts to claim its right to oversee this business in the future.

Behind closed doors, some within the executive branch were wondering days ago how long the debate on the floor could continue before the executive would simply have to push for a closure to the debate and then determine a realistic set of final conditions for the relationship`s reset even at the cost of defying the mood in parliament.

This is still likely since in terms of the substance of the recommendations, the review has failed to balance politicking with the necessities of statecraft. The hawkish line has been pushed too far -to the point that the Pakistani position has been boxed in by rather dogmatic conditions. Some of parliament`s demands are ones that the civilian and military authorities themselves may be both unwilling and unable to implement.

The most obvious example is drones.

It is not at all clear if the military is as opposed to selective drone strikes as it portrays in public and it is fairly obvious that there is little it can do should the strikes continue. Consider Pakistan`s options upon the next drone strike: will the state remain mum and thereby defy parliament, or will it respond harshly and create a fresh crisis in the bilateral relationship? Other recommendations like disallowing weapons to pass through the Nato supply route may also be impossible to implement.

Looking to the days ahead, the state machinery will inevitably end up bypassing or disregarding some of recommendations in the interest of keeping the relationship going. But since this wouldbe done in defiance of parliament`s verdict, it would potentially widen the intra-civilian (government versus opposition) and civil-military divides.

Corollary: we are likely to witness far more politically motivatedmudslinging on this issue among the civilians and between them and the military in the days ahead. The right-wing rhetoric is likely to gain further as it bashes the authorities for having disregarded parliament to appease the US.

The parliamentary review was a great opportunity for the civilians to begin claiming back more of their rightful space in decision-making on security/foreign policy issues. But what could have been a precedent-setting event may now be seen as a reason not to try the parliamentary channel next time round.

As unfair as this outcome may be given that Pakistani politicians have never had a real chance to develop collective thinking on these issues and that much of the problems that beset the USPakistan relationship originated under the military regime of Gen Musharraf, empirical evidence from elsewhere nonetheless holds out a staunch warning for troubled democracies whose civilian enclaves miss such opportunities to impress too often. The odds are stacked against them and in favour of the status quo power institutions the military.

This is just the reality of it. • The writer is South Asia adviser at the US Institute of Peace, Washington, D.C.

A foreign-born scholar of Pakistani descent, Dr Azeem Ibrahim, a PhD from Cambridge University, a former Research Scholar at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and a World Fellow at Yale, world's top three seats of learning, has joined Imran Khan and has been named his Strategic Policy Development Advisor.
In a special article for The News, Dr Azeem said it was time the country achieved its "second independence" and threw off the denigrating suggestions that it is a failed state, a client state or a country on the brink of disaster.
He writes: "When Pakistan became independent in 1947, its founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah envisaged a democratic country embodying the essential principles of Islam, rather than being a theocratic state. "Sixty five years later, his vision of a democratic state has yet to be fully realized. Pakistan is still awaiting true independence - freedom from being a client state, freedom from fear of its neighbour India and freedom from economic disasters, military adventurism and political instability.
"To achieve these freedoms, Pakistan must look to new leadership - strong, informed and visionary yet pragmatic leadership. This is why I joined the team of Imran Khan, chairman of the Tehreek-e-Insaf party and likely the next Prime Minister of Pakistan. As a foreign-born Pakistani and independent academic, I look at Pakistan with pride in my heritage and great hopes for its political and economic future.
Pakistan has lurched from one unfulfilled democratic government to military rule and back again - each change bringing false hopes for meaningful change. Without respect for a strong constitution, Pakistan's leaders so far have been unable to rise above the enormity of Pakistan's problems and all in their different ways have failed to bring real democracy to the country.
The corruption and nepotism which has marred Pakistan's politics continues to offset the power struggles between mosque, military and political parties. Some of the most refreshing revelations came recently with the release of thousands of classified US State Department cables through WikiLeaks.
The published cables revealed that Pakistan saw the drone attacks as so effective that they wanted some of their own. President Asif Ali Zardari "made repeated pleas for drones to be put in Pakistan's hands, so that Pakistan would own the issue and drone attacks (including collateral damage) would not provoke anti-Americanism", one of the cables said. Another Pakistani leader is quoted as saying about the drone attacks," I don't care if they do it as long as they get the right people. We'll protest in the National Assembly and then ignore it."
Also revealed was the duplicity of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz leaders who had informed the Americans that, in spite of the party's demands to have the chief justice reinstated, they did not really care for Iftikhar Chaudhry and hoped to remove him once they had scored the requisite political points. Denials were immediately forthcoming but the many disclosures from WikiLeaks - often in less than diplomatic language - prove the duplicity and corruption of politics endemic in Pakistan today.
After a careful reading of the WikiLeaks cables relating to Pakistan, I established that Imran Khan was the only person who said the same thing in private that he said in public and I am convinced that this was a man and a movement I could be associated with as an independent academic and policy expert.
After meeting with Imran Khan on several occasions, I was even more convinced that he is the leader Pakistan needs to move the country forward, finally realizing the destiny that Jinnah had envisioned. Our long and detailed sessions discussing his plans for a new Pakistan, reveal a man with an unusual ability to absorb complex information and to ask the right questions. His recognition that there are no simplistic solutions is a necessary starting point - it is not the economy, the military budget, the lack of spending on education, jobs and healthcare - it is a combination of all of these within the global environment of diminishing resources that needs addressing. The changing nature of the European Community and the shifting economies of China and the United States all must be factored in to Pakistan's future and I believe that Imran Khan has the capacity as statesman, not just politician, to understand these complexities as well as to deal with national issues.
I feel privileged to be invited to be a part of the planning process, and to be considered a strategic policy adviser to the Khan campaign as it transitions from an opposition party to a government in waiting. I believe that Imran Khan is not only the best hope for Pakistan right now, but he is the only hope and his success in the next election- whenever that will be - will be an embodiment of the hopes and dreams identified by Jinnah for Pakistan those sixty- five momentous years ago.

A conflict zone

A conflict zone

By Mohammad Waseem | 12/13/2011 12:00:00 AM
 WHAT is most in jeopardy? Relations between Washington and Islamabad, between the civil and military wings of the state, between the executive and judiciary or between the PPP-led government and the PML-N opposition? Pakistan is fast turning into a conflict zone. Memogate has landed the country in the midst of a potentially lethal clash of institutions, not directly and immediately but in terms of setting the precedent for civil-military relations in future. The ultimate ownership of the state, whether in the hands of the army or the elected representatives, is again in question.

At the heart of the matter, this time, is not a Bonapartist general who committed the treasonable offence of violat-ing the constitution, as has happened four times in Pakistan`s history, but a civilian ruling set-up that allegedly sought Washington`s help in pre-empting a much-feared putsch after the Abbottabad operation. Some pointto the misplaced smartness of the protagonists while others see intellectual paucity in the whole venture.The crisis of civil-military relations was enmeshed along parallel lines of conflict when Nawaz Sharif filed a case in the Supreme Court for investigating the matter. Given the acute mistrust between the executive and the judiciary, this case can further discredit and weaken the civilian government in Islamabad and accelerate its downslide.

The court initially misfired. It established an inquiry commission, but the person in charge excused himself from serving in that position. The party in government launched a public campaign against Nawaz Sharif`s recourse to the Supreme Court, instead of parliament, especially as it is typically the prerogative of the executive to institute a commission of inquiry. On its part, the PML-N feared a loss of initiative in the case, and relied on the judiciary instead.

That raised political temperatures.

The Sharifs are concerned about the possible slippage of ground in oppositionist politics to the Pakistan Tehrik-iInsaaf. They feel obliged to safeguard their constituency in Punjab and make inroads elsewhere. They operated in theperspective of a breakdown of communication with the PPP. The two sides have no understanding on the rules of the game and no agreement on not undermining the strategic interests of the other.

All this is played out against the worst crisis in US-Pakistan relations in half a century. The two countries have had long periods of coolness, especially during the 1970s and the 1990s. But, their current relations have no parallel in terms of the lack of trust and loud expression of this through diplomatic and strategic channels. Both are unsure about the outcome of the current exercise in brinkmanship.

The loss of life in the Nato attack on the Salala check post, followed by the vacating of the Shamsi airbase by the US and the stopping of military supplies to the war machinery across the border is a symptom rather than the cause ofthe latest crisis in US-Pakistan relations.

At issue is the Afghanistan endgame.

The regional power structure is developing along certain lines which do not promise a role for Pakistan.

Islamabad had not been able to cultivate a non-Taliban Pakhtun constituency in Afghanistan, in the face of rival contenders for power led by the proIndia Northern Alliance. It has not fully appreciated the sense of disgust felt by both regional and global powers for the Taliban as the leading terrorist group of the world and a legatee of Al Qaeda.

This situation has led to ad hocism in policy and profile, which is more reactive than planned. The conference of Pakistan`s ambassadors and high commissioners in Islamabad this week has come too late after the signing of the India-Afghanistan strategic partnership and Nato plans to strengthen the Afghan army irrespective of the inconclusive deliberations of the Bonn conference.

Meanwhile, the spillover of Talibanisation in Pakistan has found fertile ground in the local political landscape. Various political groupings on the right of the centre have shied away from condemning the perpetrators ofviolence and distanced themselves from what is considered to be America`s war against terror. Islamic outfits have especially thrived on the new wave of nationalist upsurge.

A minority within the establishment circles feels appalled at the way the nationalist discourse has been directed towards an uncharted path. A debate on policy options has been foreclosed under the pressure of jingoist phraseology used by both the emergent political leadership and political analysts.

Policy outcomes are far less discussed than projected and claimed. This may cost the nation and its decision-makers an objective outlook, a commitment to getting out of regional and global isolation and the pursuit of thinking out of the box. For the purpose of evolving a set of productive and genuinely nationalistic policies, the pall of darkness over serious channels of public expressionmust be removed.

A serious development is the government`s agreement with T e h r ik -iT a li b a n Pakistan. It is underscored by the government`s public expression of gratitude for the Taliban for not car-rying out terrorist attacks on the Muharram rallies. It seems that the diplomatic isolation is now leading the powers that be to fall back on the Taliban since all other international channels are getting squeezed. This is a defeatist policy.

What is needed is a cool and objective analysis of the sources of insecurity for Pakistan, especially with reference to Afghanistan and India. There is a need to address questions as to what substantive re-evaluation in the policy framework can be undertaken, how we can cut down our losses and which regional powers we can approach with an open mind in order to develop a partial agreement on both the ends and the means.

The need of the hour is to create a national consensus not on the basis of a one-dimensional assertion of our ideological position but on keeping our house in order. This would involve keeping civil-military relations on an even keel, holding back spoilers from destabilising the political landscape and putting in place a mechanism of damage control vis-à-vis foreign and domestic policy.

Lacklustre performance

Lack lustre performance

By Naseer Memon | 12/13/2011 12:00:00 AM
 PAKISTAN has slipped 20 rungs on the ladder of human development this year. Last year, Pakistan was ranked 125th on the Human Development Index (HDI) and was in the category of `medium human development`.

This year Pakistan has been ranked 145 and thus falls in the category of `low human development` countries. The latest annual Human Development Report of UNDP has ranked 187 countries on the HDI. Among the Saarc countries, Pakistan has performed better than Bangladesh (146), Afghanistan (172) and Nepal (157), whereas India (134), Sri Lanka (97), Bhutan (141) and the Maldives (109) have outshone Pakistan. No South Asian country is ranked in the `very high human development` category though nearby Iran ranking at 88 falls in the category of `high human development`. Sri Lanka and the Maldives are the only two Saarc countries ranked among the countries in the `medium human development` category.

HDI is a composite index made up of an assortment of indicators including gender inequality, poverty, environmental sustainability, impact of natural disasters, education, health, population and the economy. Each country is ranked on these indicators. A cursory look at a few indicators and comparison with closely ranked Asian countries would help in understanding Pakistan`s overall performance.

While an analysis of HDI rankings since 1990 shows that Pakistan has steadily improved on its scale, its annual average HDI growth is marginal at 1.12 per cent. Bangladesh, India and even Afghanistan have marked faster strides on this with annual average HDI growth rates of 1.69, 1.38 and 2.32 per cent respec-tively. This clearly shows that successive governments in Pakistan have not accorded due importance to human development; certainly not in comparison with regional countries.

On the `gender inequality index` female participation in secondary education and the labour force is lower in Pakistan compared to India and Bangladesh. In fact, the latter country has higher female participation in secondary education i.e.

30.8 compared to Pakistan`s 23.5 and India`s 26.6 per cent. Female participation in the labour force isalso higher in Bangladesh with 58.7 compared to India`s 32.8 and Pakistan`s dismally low 23.5 per cent. Even Afghanistan with all its socio-political odds demonstrated an impressive 33.1 per cent female participation in the labour force.

Iran, which is often derided as a conservative society, has a 39 per cent female population that has benefited from secondary education and 31.9 per cent female participation in the labour force. This indicates the gravity of gender discrimination in Pakistan. Both education and participation in the labour force are key indicators of women`s empowerment, social emancipation and political contribution.

On the `poverty index`, Pakistan has a smaller percentage of people living in severe poverty (27.4 per cent) compared to India (28.6 per cent) but Bangladesh fares slightly better at 26.2 per cent. Given that Bangladesh is a relatively younger economy and a chronic victim of disasters, its performance on this account is appreciable.

Environmental sustainability is another indicator of Pakistan`s dreary performance. Pakistan`s land under forest cover is a mere 2.3 per cent against Bangladesh`s 11.1 and India`s 22.9 per cent. The rate of deforestation in Pakistan is alarming. According to some estimates, the country loses some 66,718 acres of forest cover annually.In the areas of core human development i.e. water quality, education and health, Pakistan`s performance is a major reason behind its overall dismal ranking. On all three counts, Pakistan`s performance on several key sub indicators is the lowest in the region.

For example, only 55 per cent of population in the country is satisfied with the quality of water. In Bangladesh, the percentage is 69.5, in Afghanistan 60.7 and in India 62.7. In the Saarc region, the mortality rate of under-five years children at 87 per 1,000 live births is the highest in Pakistan compared to India`s 66, Nepal`s 48, Sri Lanka`s 15, the Maldives`13, Bhutan`s 79 and Bangladesh`s 52. The only exception is Afghanistan where this figure is 199 for understandable reasons.

Resource allocation on health and education is a signature indicator to fathom the state`s commitment to human development. On these, Pakistan fares preposterously low, in fact the lowest in the Saarc countries.

Public expenditure on education and health as percentage of GDP in Pakistan is 2.6 per cent. India (4.2 per cent), Sri Lanka (four per cent), Bangladesh (3.4 per cent), Bhutan (5.5 per cent), Nepal (5.8 per cent), Afghanistan (7.4 per cent) and the Maldives (eight per cent) are spending higher on education and health as a percentage of their GDPs. As a result of this, Pakistan today has the second highest number of out-ofschool children in the world and the infant mortality rate as indicated earlier is also deplorable.

The 2011 HDI shows that South Asia continues to be the cradle of human deprivation. Chronic conflicts, egregious governance, unstable democracies, malevolent natural disasters, rampant corruption, large population and a fast-depleting natural resource base are some of the maladies that preclude South Asia`s growth on the human development indicators.

Pakistan with perpetuating dictatorial regimes, punctuated by impressive spells of economic growth has yet to show its citizens political commitment. The country with its enormous human and natural capital possesses great potential for human development. However, misplaced priorities and weak political institutions have deprived the people of opportunities of growth and well-being. The country needs to veer its focus from illusive border security to the greater objective of human security by investing in its people

Intercession in Islam

INTERCESSION has become one of those controversial topics for which arguments are provided from both sides of the divide. The Quran says, `O you who believe! Fear Allah and seek a wasila to him`(5:35).

In Arabic `wasila` stands for a link, a means to an end or an intermediary. `Tawassul` or `shifa`a`, means intercession, or to seek a means to an end. It means to plead with somebody on behalf of somebody else, in this world as well as on the Day of Judgment. When the word `Shaafi`is used for God, it means one who gives permission for intercession.

Many verses have been misunderstood out of context and some people think that the Quran contradicts itself and says in some places that intercession is valid and in others that it is not.

According to the Quran, those denied intercession are the ones who did not believe, or those who transgressed: `The intercession of the intercessors will be of no use to them` (74:48), referring to those in hell. The Bani Israel are told, `Fear the Day (of Judgment when) ... No fine will be acceptable and neither will any intercession be useful` (2:123).

Some verses which make it clear that without God`s permission and promise, no one can intercede, also reassure that intercession will take place: `They will have no (claim to) intercession, except for those who have the promise of the Most Merciful` (19:87; 34:23). No one can act as intercessor except by His leave (10:3; 2:255; 21:28). `On that Day no intercession will matter other than his whom Ar-Rehman grants permission and accepts` (20:109). The Makkan belief that their idolswould intercede for them is refuted (30:13).

God tells the Prophet (PBUH): `And in the night, pray the tahajjud, which is additional for you for soon your Lord will raise you to the Station of Praise (Maqam Mehmud)` (17:79).

Recited in the middle of the night, this prayer was made obligatory for the Prophet, but is voluntary for his followers. The Prophet`s `Station of Praise` will be the highest human station on the Day of Judgment.

A hadith states that on that day people will be running to and fro looking for an intercessor, until they come to the Prophet Muhammad, who will answer, `I am for intercession`. The Lord will then ask him to `...intercede, for your intercession will be heard` (Bukhari).

One of the titles of the Prophet is `shaafi`, one who performs intercession. Other spiritual leaders who will act as intermediaries will be prophets, martyrs, huffaz of the Quran, angels and pious people whom God deems fit. Prophet Jesus` intercession for his people on the Day of Judgment is mentioned in the Quran (5:16-18).

According to Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah and others: `A blind man came to the Prophet and said: `I`ve been afflicted in my eyesight, so pray to Allah for me`. The Prophet said: `Go and perform wudu (ablution), perform two rakat salat and then say: `O Allah! I ask you and turn to you through my Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of Mercy. O Muhammad! I seek your intercession with my Lord for the return of my eyesight, that it may be fulfilled. O Allah! Grant him intercession for me`. The Prophet then said: `And if there is some other need, do the same` Tawassul can be carried out through a living as well as a dead person, as it refers to the permanent, positive status attached to that person, living or dead. Uthmaan ibn Hunayf taught this prayer to someone long after the Prophet`s death.

Praying to God for a particular need, using some honourable personality, such as the Prophet and other righteous believers, as a wasila or intermediary, without supplicating to that person, or thinking that he has the power to provide, is permitted by the four schools of the Sunni fiqh. Even Ibn Taymiyah believed that God would allow the Prophet and the spiritual leaders to intercede for believers. Since they will be alive on Judgment Day, their intercession will be effective.

If a person supplicates directly to the deceased, believing that the prophets and pious persons are independently in possession of the power to provide, then this would be shirk or polytheism, and would be equal to assigning partners to God in his attribute of Al Razzak or The Provider.

There are various types of intercessions: first, through the beautiful names (attributes) of God `Allah has beautiful names, so call unto Him through them` (7:180). Second, through the good deeds of the person. Three people were trapped in a cave. Each made a supplication to God to accept their prayers due to some good deed that each had done (Bukhari). Third, requesting the living, righteous people to pray for them, and, four, to make tawassul to God through the rank of certain individuals in the sight of Allah, alive or dead.

A distinction between the living and the dead in this matter is like believing in the perishing of the souls at the time of death. This is tantamount to denial of resurrection. The intercession on Judgment Day will be like grace marks given by God to a believer who tried but could not come up to the desired level. It will be the pleading by one to whom God gives permission, only for the one for whom God gives permission: `In God`s power is complete intercession` (39:44), and all power belongs to God. • The writer is a scholar of the Quran, and writes on contemporary issues.

nilofar.ahmed58@gmail.com

Imagining real democracy

  By Niaz Murtaza | 11/16/2011 12:00:00 AM
AKBAR Zaidi rightly argued in this paper recently that Pakistan`s governance problems under elected governments reflect failures of particular regimes rather than democracy, since Pakistan is yet to experience genuine democracy.

What is genuine democracy? Democracy is the government of the people by the people for the people. `Of and by the people` means that state power must be attained democratically through elections. `For the people` means that power is subsequently exercised democratically. Real democracy exists only when state power is attained and exercised democratically.

The concepts of democratic transition and consolidation help in unpacking the black box of democracy further.

Democratic transition represents the first move towards democracy. i.e. a country`s first free elections with near universal suffrage, competition and acceptance. Thus, it refers to how state power is attained.

Pakistan`s democratic transition started with the `Pakistani Spring`of March 1969 which overthrew Ayub and subsequently fostered free elections with near-universal suffrage and competition. Unfortunately, the transition was imperfect as the elections results were not universally accepted and caused Pakistan`s bifurcation.

Democratic consolidation consists of democratic stability and quality.

Democratic stability occurs when democracy is accepted as the only game in town, and free elections with near-universal suffrage, competition and acceptance are held regularly. Pakistan`s post-transition history poignantly reflects its struggles with democratic stability. Half of those 40 years have been spent under military rule. The seven elections held since then have all fallen short of global standards. Democracy is still not seen as the only game in town by the military and militants. It is not clear whether this government will complete its term and whether the next government will emerge democratically.

Finally, democratic quality means that power is exercised democratically after elections. It consists of six sub-dimensions. First, the elected government`s power must not be unconstitutionally fettered, functionally or geographically.

Functionally, Pakistan`s security policy always resides with the military while donors often exercise undue influence on economic policy. Geographically, parts of Pakistan often become `no-go` for governments while many rural elites maintain their own mini-kingdoms.

Second, the flip side of power not being fettered unconstitutionally is that it should be fettered constitutionally through its distribution. Horizontally, it must be distributed across the executive, legislature, judiciary and political parties.

Vertically, it should be devolved provincially and locally. Shore of considerable power unconstitutionally, Pakistani central executives become reluctant to share further power constitutionally. While the judiciary has succeeded in wresting some constitutional power, other horizontal institutions remain powerless. The 18th Amendment represents the first salvo in achieving provincial autonomy. However, local governments, toothless even earlier, are in limbo presently.

The third requirement is the rule of law, with clear, non-discriminatory laws and an efficient justice system to apply them to public and public officials.

Pakistan still uses many anachronistic British-era laws and has added other laws which discriminate against women and minorities. While the Supreme Court has breathed fire (two-pronged) into the judicial system, lower courts do not provide efficient justice while the police are notoriously corrupt. Finally, public officials escape justice because of NAB`s dis empowerment.

Fourth, elected governments should guarantee civic liberty and equality.

Beyond discriminatory laws, large sections of Pakistan`s population, especially women and minorities, have lost these rights to non-state actors, e.g. militants and landlords. Even elected governments exhibit neither the capacity nor the willingness to redress these usurped rights.

Fifth, real democracy requires policies which enhance economic equity, i.e.

equality of opportunities for all and safety nets for the vulnerable. Beyond populist rhetoric and makeshift programmes, economic policies even under elected Pakistani governments remain elitist, with little attempt to tax the rich adequately and implement socio-economic programmes.

Sixth, real democracy requires vigorous feedback loops from the electorate to the elected in between elections. These loops include electoral mechanisms and civil society activities. Pakistani media has definitely become vigorous lately though not necessarily mature. CNN transformed news from what had hap-pened in the past to what is happening presently through on-time ground coverage. Going one step further, certain Pakistani media outlets have miraculously transformed news into what will happen in the future, through armchair analysis. Consequently, much of their news consists of predictions, e.g., about when the government will fall.

So, it seems strange to blame democracy when Pakistan has never experienced it. Clearly, high democratic quality, as defined above, could help Pakistan resolve many knotty problems, e.g. corruption and poverty. Why has Pakistan struggled to attain real democracy? Some would argue, partly validly, that the frequent interruptions of democracy have undermined its quality.

However, more crucial is the absence of certain societal characteristics, i.e.

high education, incomes, urbanisation and meritocracy. These characteristics foster democratic quality by strengthenine the feedback loops unleashed by civilsociety activities.

These factors, in turn, are facilitated by increasing economic opportunities for common people. While poor governance hampers such opportunities in Pakistan, industrious Pakistanisescape this vicious circle of stagnation by migrating abroad and subsequently sending remittances, which create further opportunities. The process will be slow but such improvised opportunities represent Pakistan`s best chance of attaining real democracy and good governance.

Any mention of the fact that Pakistan`s societal characteristics may not be immediately suitable for real democracy provides fodder to imaginative minds looking forever for alternatives. Martial law has lost charm because of its repeated failures, but a controlled form of presidential democracy where the vast majority is disqualified from not only competing but even voting seems to be the current favourite. This option seems suspiciously similar to Ayub Khan`s failed experiments.

Another favourite in some circles is the `khilafat` option. In Muslim history, righteous khilafat lasted merely a few decades. Which is more likely to emerge in today`s Pakistan? Some people never learn from history it seems. To paraphrase Thatcher`s comment about capitalism, there is no alternative to democracy. While this slogan is certainly not true about capitalism, applied to democracy, there is no escaping from this simple truth. • The writer is a political economist at the University of California, Berkeley.

Higher education, lower incomes G DR PERVEZ TAHIR

The world's financial crisis and macroeconomic dif ficulties have adversely affected funding for education in most countries. Much like in Pakistan, while students are protesting, university spokespersons fear loss of competitive edge in knowledge-driven economies. In the process, some interesting analyses have emerged. Here in Cambridge this week, Haroon Chowdry of the Institute of Fiscal Studies in London made an interesting presentation on the funding crisis in the UK. Proposals like a graduate tax have been mooted.
Escalating costs have raised concerns about the impact on lower income groups. These groups are already underrepresented in universities, something that is very much in evidence in Pakistan. It should be obvious that higher costs would restrict access to higher education for students hailing from low-income groups. However, the presentation found a weak relationship between income and participation rates. Access to higher education is determined by the quality of pre-university education. In other words, if the poor go to bad schools, their grades will be no different.
Our own Higher Education Commission (HEC) lists quality, access and relevance -in that order -as the challenges it must face. While quality and relevance have not moved beyond rhetoric, the focus has been on access. This is not surprising as access is quantitatively defined and is related by the HEC to the physical expansion of universities, which itself is a function of government funding. As physical expansion slows down following deep budgetary cuts by a government repeatedly failing to keep its fiscal deficit within manageable limits, the HEC fears that the present lamentably low access is likely to stagnate or even fall. Access to university education is estimated at 5.1 per cent of the relevant age group. Education Policy 2009 fixes this target at 10 per cent for 2015.
But this policy also wants expenditure on education to go up to 7 per cent of GDP by 2015. If the future is guided by the present, 7 per cent of GDP looks more like the tax-to-GDP ratio of 2015! On average, public expenditure on higher education in countries that are part of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is one per cent of GDP. The UK is below this average at 0.6 per cent. Poor Pakistan has been spending about half of it.
But whose access is the concern of the HEC? One has not seen any serious analysis. There is a casual mention in the mission statement that the “HEC will improve equitable access through establishing campuses and universities in backward areas, in providing financial assistance to needy students and in introducing soft disciplines, such as social sciences, media and journalism, and fine arts to cater more to the female population so gender parity is further reduced.“ As can be seen, the HEC would achieve equitable access through physical expansion, albeit in backward areas. Physical access is the idea, no matter how backward the university. Interestingly, the HEC wants to improve gender equity by reducing `gender parity'. If this were inattention to detail, calling social sciences, media and fine arts “soft disciplines“ meant for women reminds one of the long discarded `sewing machine' view of gender justice, which stereotypes them, even as it seeks to empower them. The writer, a former chief economist of the Planning Commission, is at present based at Cambridge pervez.tahir@tribune.com.pk

Rotten fruits of democracy

By Jalees Hazir | Published: October 9, 2011

The MQM is back in the fold of the coalition government and would like us to believe that it has taken the decision in national interest. Similarly, the PML-Q's reservations regarding the government and the resignations of its ministers submitted in the last party meeting, disappeared in thin air after telephonic assurances were given to the party head by President Zardari. Once again, the government has a comfortable majority in the National Assembly and the partners in power are all set to benefit from cooperation in the upcoming Senate elections, which will help them rake in more seats in the upper house. In the midst of the routine wheeling and dealing for petty partisan interests that has become a hallmark of democratic politics in the country, the Supreme Court announced its judgement in the suo moto case on the Karachi situation, giving us hope that all is not rotten in the State of Pakistan.
‘National Interest’ is the magic term employed by political leadership of all hues to explain away their unexplainable somersaults and marriages of convenience. Take the case of PML-Q for instance. Senior leaders and parliamentarians from the party bitterly criticised the unpopular government and questioned the political wisdom of being a part of it. The ministers belonging to the party were not happy for another reason; they felt that they did not enjoy the power to run their ministries the way they would have liked to and that they were being denied the instruments of power and patronage that being in government brings with it. So what were the assurances that President Zardari gave to Chaudhry Shujaat that convinced him to shelve the reservations of his party and jump back into the government's lap? Was he told that the PML-Q ministers would be given the power, privileges and patronage possibilities that they were complaining about? Or did the President enlighten him about secret rabbits in his magic hat, policies that would make the PPP-led government popular and hence not such a bad thing to be a part of?
For all we know, the discussion could have been about completely different matters. The PPP critics would say that their conversation on the telephone had nothing to do with either of the two issues, but revolved around Moonis Elahi and his troubles, and what the government would do to alleviate them. On the other hand, PPP jiyalas would swear by the reconciliation charm of their big boss and talk about saving the system and democracy from undemocratic forces. Reporters hobnobbing with those in the power circle and armed with unnamed, but reliable sources would come up with inside information and tell us a juicier story. Since the main characters of the story don't feel accountable to the people they represent, and do not feel that they owe the nation some explanation, the people of Pakistan would be left to themselves to draw their own conclusions.
The contents of the dialogue between the PPP and MQM, and the dynamics of their on-again, off-again cooperation is similarly left to the imagination of shocked citizens, carefully decided in meetings between ace negotiators conducted behind closed doors and clouded by a smokescreen of statements that mean nothing. There is no word about Dr Zulfiqar Mirza's serious allegations, no attempt by the MQM to clear itself of specific charges he levelled against the party and no desire on part of the PPP to probe Rehman Malik whose dubious role in the Karachi crisis was boldly challenged by the former Sindh Home Minister. The two parties have obviously come to some understanding about sharing power, but they would not like us to know about the terms of that understanding. As they play their power games, they would like an uninformed electorate to have trust in them and play along.
Meanwhile, the opposition parties are divided due to their own petty partisan interests and are unable or unwilling to agree on a national agenda that addresses the problems of governance. There is a readiness on their part to raise issues of public importance, but there is no effort to enter into a dialogue with each other to create a consensus on the way out of the impossible situation that the citizens find themselves in. They raise a hue and cry about excessive loadshedding when the desperate citizens can't take it anymore and come out on the streets of our cities in violent protests against the insensitivity of the government. They shed tears about the plight of people displaced by floods. They make loud noises about the government selling out to the US interests. But they wouldn't cooperate on developing a strategy to put pressure on the government to address these issues or to throw it out.
So the democracy circus continues, as the problems confronting the nation mount. The political leadership continues in its power games that have lost all relevance to the public and its issues. The political bosses are deaf, even to the conscientious objectors within their parties, who bring their attention to their responsibility to the people and the dangerous outcome of the games they play. And when other, more democratically evolved institutions like the Supreme Court and the independent media manage to bring a perspective informed by the national interest into focus, they scuttle the possibility of acting in the direction by drowning out these voices of sanity in their loud partisan squabbles that are only aimed at point-scoring and furthering their petty political objectives. Interestingly, they would like the citizens to swear by democracy as an article of faith. Why would they?
The argument that our democracy has problems because it has been interrupted too often does not hold. We need to look deeper into the malaise of a system that is supposed to represent the interests of the people, but ends up bolstering the fortunes of the political elite and its privileged sponsors. After all, the system of democracy has had a smooth sailing in the US. Yet, the Occupy-Wall-Street initiative has unleashed an angry movement in that country against a system that the American citizens feel doesn't represent them. The students, labour unions, the unemployed, and the underprivileged and even conscientious citizens, who have not suffered directly due to the pro-rich and pro-war policies of their democratic government, are out on the streets to challenge a system that benefits a small minority at the expense of the vast majority. It is unlikely that they could be convinced that a few more elections would make things fall in their right democratic place.
The writer is an independent columnist.
Email: hazirjalees@hotmail.com

Pakistan – the way forward

Atta-ur-Rahman

We live in an age in which natural resources have diminishing importance. Knowledge has become the single most important factor for socio-economic development. Countries that have realised that their real wealth lies in their children and invested massively in education, science, engineering and innovation have surged forward, leaving others behind. Just one company of Finland (Nokia), a country with a population about one-fourth of Karachi, has exports that are double the entire exports of Pakistan! Singapore, also with a similarly small population, has exports of $351 billion, almost 18 times those of Pakistan. South Korea revamped its educational system, laying emphasis on higher education, science and technology, and increased its university enrolment from five percent of the age group in 1960 to 92 percent of the same age group in 2010. The result was an astonishing increase in its exports, from $32 billion in 1960 to $466 billion by 2010. (Pakistan’s exports stagnate at about $20 billion.) What went wrong in Pakistan? Since its formation in 1947 Pakistan has been facing one crisis after another. It is oscillating between successive democratic and military regimes. Regular military interventions were necessitated by corrupt governments which looted and plundered at will whenever they got an opportunity to do so, putting to shame the vision of Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah of a progressive, modern Pakistan. The military governments failed to punish those criminal politicians and bureaucrats who amassed vast fortunes abroad. In contrast, India brought in genuine land reforms and, guided by the vision of Jawaharlal Nehru, gave the highest emphasis to education, science and technology. In contrast, Pakistan – where a robust middle class did not emerge because of the absence of land reforms – has developed one of the worst school systems in the world. The powerfully entrenched feudals, who have a stranglehold on the cabinets and parliaments, gave education the lowest importance, with Pakistan spending only 1.2 percent of its GDP, which makes it comparable to Bhutan, Nepal or Togo. We are now ranked among the bottom 10 countries of the world in terms of investments in education, a shameful fact about a nuclear power. The result has been an illiterate and lawless nation, drowning in foreign loans while the powerful loot and plunder. What, then, is the way forward? Clearly, the British parliamentary system of democracy has been an abject failure. Military rule is also not an answer. Learning from bitter experiences, we need to adopt a system of governance which will root out and prevent corruption and promote the development of a strong knowledge economy. The following key proposals are made in this connection: 1. Governance Reforms: We need to bring in constitutional and governance reforms by abolishing the present parliamentary form of democracy (which is bringing up largely corrupt politicians – 51 were found to have forged degrees and the degrees of another 250 are suspect) and replace it with a presidential form of democracy. The cabinet ministers, who should be eminent experts in their respective fields, could then be appointed directly on merit by the president (who will be the chief executive), from outside parliament. The Constitution will need to be changed to make this happen. The revised Constitution should also ensure that parliamentarians are highly educated, as their primary job is lawmaking. Government secretaries should all be persons of international repute in the fields in which they are holding secretarial positions, and be selected on merit after open competition. The above measures will ensure that there will always be a competent government of technocrats. The positions of president, secretaries and parliamentarians should be screened by an Eminent Citizens Committee to be appointed by judges of the Supreme Court for “suitability” prior to their election/appointment. Persons judged by this committee as having “doubtful reputation” should not be allowed to contest any elections or hold any key positions in government or in government-controlled institutions. The heads and members of the boards of governors of public-sector organisations (PIA, the Steel Mills, etc.), as well as of such organisations as the Federal Board of Revenue, the FIA, the NAB, should be appointed by their respective boards of governors on merit after screening by the Eminent Citizens Committee, and not by the government. They should work as completely autonomous organisations reporting to their own eminent boards of governors and not to any government ministry or official. It is notable that the former federal minister of finance, Mr Shaukat Tareen, estimated corruption of Rs500 billion annually in the FBR alone! 2. Education: If we are to rid ourselves of the crushing poverty and the huge national debt, we must develop a robust knowledge economy. This is only possible if we make necessary amendments to our Constitution to force our decision-makers to give education the highest national priority. Malaysia has been investing 30 percent of its budget for the last 30 years – we must by a constitutional requirement do the same. The only way out for Pakistan from its myriad difficulties – law and order problems, corruption, non-functional democracy, poverty, industrial stagnation, etc. – is to make quality education the launching pad for a new Pakistan. With about 90 million young people below the age of 19, we have a tremendous potential human resource. This offers a unique opportunity for development. If we empower this huge young workforce with quality education and training, and provide opportunities for jobs in key economic sectors, then a wonderful future lies ahead. If we don’t, then this can become a stifling burden that will only lead to massive poverty, frustrations and crime. Massive investments in education at all levels will allow us to develop the knowledge workers that are needed in high-tech industries – engineering goods, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology products, metallurgy, information technology, electronics, high value-added agriculture products, defence goods etc. – so that we can compete in the comity of nations. A national technology policy directed at achievement of national self-reliance needs to be formulated and implemented so that we become a major global exporter of high-tech products. 3. Prompt Access to Justice: We must punish the corrupt and those responsible for terrorism. The normal legal system has failed in this respect, because of the life threats to judges and witnesses by the powerful, the corrupt and terrorists. This has to be initially done under independent military courts until cleanup is achieved and a proper functional police force is established. Those who have amassed vast amounts of national wealth in foreign lands must be forced to return it to the nation and spend the rest of their lives in jails. A major overhaul of the justice system would be needed, including a mandatory requirement that court decisions are made within three months by strengthening the courts. This will need to be accompanied by genuine land reforms and abolition of the patwari system through computerisation of land records, our courts are choked by land disputes. The decision is ours to make as a nation. We have the natural and human resources and creative, hardworking people. The dream of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the father of our nation, can become a reality if we are courageous and set a new path for ourselves through the above reforms. The writer is former federal minister for science and technology, former chairman of the Higher Education Commission. Email: ibne_sina@ hotmail.com

August 8, 2011

SNAPSHOT

Turkey's General Dilemma

Democracy and the Reverse Coup
Omer Taspinar
OMER TASPINAR is Professor of National Security at the National War College and a nonresident Senior Fellow at Brookings’ Center on the United States and Europe.The days of military coups in Turkey are officially over. Half of all Turkish admirals and one out of ten active duty generals are currently in jail for plotting against the government, and on July 29 the military's chief of staff resigned over a disagreement with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan about staff promotions. The same day, the heads of the army, navy, and air force requested early retirement. These developments are a paradigm shift for a country that has experienced constant military meddling and three military coups in the last half century.
Perhaps the most surprising aspect of last week's events was that they did not cause any public uproar or panic. Turkey's stock exchange opened to gains last Monday, and the government seems to be going about its business as usual. This is unexpected, as Turkey's armed forces have traditionally been well respected. The military was the first institution of the Ottoman Empire to modernize, adopting Western military strategy, weapons, as well as science and education methods. Almost all modern Turkey's hallowed founding fathers -- the Young Turks and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk -- were military officers determined to westernize and secularize Turkey's government, laws, education system, and even its clothes and alphabet.
Of course, Atatürk's cultural revolution was not universally embraced, especially among the pious rural masses. As a Kemalist slogan from the 1920s put it, the Turkish government ruled "for the people, despite the people." In the 1920s, the military had to suppress more than a dozen Kurdish and religious uprisings. These experiences traumatized the young republic's military leaders and left them suspicious of all things Kurdish and Islamic.
For the officers, then, democracy was a gamble. Kemalism had given the republic a secularist and nationalist political structure. According to the military, this political structure was the "realm of the state" and had to be protected from the "realm of politics." In other words, politics had to be properly monitored to prevent the rise of Islamism or other factions that would not uphold the republic's fundamental principles.
In 1960, 1971, and 1980, Turkey's powerful military launched coups to defend the realm of the state. In 1960, it intervened because it thought the government had become too authoritarian; in 1971 and 1980, it acted to put a stop to rising socialism. And in 1997, the army pushed Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan out of office in the name of defending secularism. Until recently, the military still routinely interfered in politics through the National Security Council, where the top brass exerted considerable political influence over the civilian cabinet.
The story of the military's fall is also the story of the consolidation of power of Turkey's Justice and Development Party (AKP). Although its roots lay in a banned Islamist party, the AKP was allowed to participate in national elections in 2002. Its victory that year was followed by a tense détente with the military that lasted until 2007. That year, Erdogan nominated Abdullah Gül, a well-respected foreign minister, to the post of president -- a position that, for the military, represented the last inviolable bastion of Kemalist secularism. For the generals, the move crossed a red line. In their eyes, Gül -- a man who once flirted with political Islam and whose wife wears a head scarf -- posed an existential threat to Atatürk's republic.
Soon after Erdogan announced the nomination, Yasar Büyükanit, the Turkish chief of staff, staged what a dumbfounded press dubbed an "e-coup." He posted a warning on the Turkish military's official Web site stating that "if necessary, the Turkish Armed Forces will not hesitate to make their position and stance abundantly clear as the absolute defenders of secularism." His note was a thinly veiled threat that a conventional coup might be in the offing.

Instead of backing off, Erdogan defied the military and called early elections, which he won with a landslide 47 percent of the vote. He appealed to the democratic instincts of the Turkish people and touted his economic record. (Between 2003 and 2007, the AKP government had doubled the country's per capita income, significantly improved its democratic record, and begun accession negotiations with the European Union.) Erdogan quickly swore in Gül as president, and Gül promised to abide by Turkey's secular principles and continue to steer the country toward the European Union. Even so, the top brass refused to salute him during his inaugural visit to parliament and stayed away from his oath-taking ceremony.

Since 2007, the Turkish economy has continued to grow, unemployment is at a record low, and Turkey's global stature has reached new heights. As revolutions shook the Middle East in the spring, reformers in Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Syria, and Tunisia cited Turkey as a model democracy. Last June, the AKP won its third consecutive electoral victory, this time with 50 percent of the vote.

In a sense, the generals' resignation was the next logical step in Turkey's political maturation; no true democracy can place the military's will above the people's. But troublingly, the country remains deeply polarized, with members of the opposition ever more concerned about creeping authoritarianism and Islamism. They call the government a civilian dictatorship and deplore its use of the judicial system to neuter the military, the opposition media, and rival political parties.

At the heart of the opposition's argument is a court case against Ergenekon, a shadowy organization with possible ties to the military. The judiciary launched the case in 2007, shortly after AKP's second electoral victory, claiming that Ergenekon had planned a coup. The prosecutor of the case accused hundreds of military officials, journalists, and political activists of being involved. According to leaked documents about the case, the Ergenekon network was allegedly behind a number of bombings and assassinations. It planned to use the chaos as a pretext for a coup.

The main problem with the case is that it has yet to reach a verdict despite the arrest of hundreds of suspects. Critics of the AKP argue that the government is using the case to silence its secular opponents, but the AKP responds that it does not control the judiciary and has itself been the court's regular target; in 2008, the constitutional court came close to banning the AKP party and Erdogan from politics for promoting an Islamist agenda.

Two week's ago, after the military's plans were revealed to appoint or promote 250 soldiers and officers who are awaiting hearings as part of the Ergenekon trial, Erdogan announced that he would not allow the military's scheme to go forward. This prompted the spate of military resignations. The fact that the generals chose to bow out rather than fight Erdogan's decision signals just how much power has shifted from the military to civilians. For his part, Erdogan swiftly named General Necdet Ozel acting chief of staff and commander of ground forces.

Supporters of Erdogan and his party, the AKP, argue that the resignation of the commanders is a sign of Turkish democracy's new maturity and its embrace of Western-style civilian supremacy over the military. Detractors, however, express serious concern about the disappearance of checks and balances that they believe have kept civilian governments from becoming authoritarian.
In fact, Turkey is not yet a liberal democracy. But it is certainly moving in the right direction. Those who argue that the military was an essential check on civilian politics should understand that Turkey is now becoming a "normal" democracy, where elections, public opinion, opposition parties, the parliament, the media, and civil society all exert more power. And unlike the military, these institutions have a legitimate role to play in politics.

Meanwhile, in order to prove that Turkey is not becoming more authoritarian, Erdogan must address the critical challenges facing the country -- the Kurdish question, human rights, and freedom of expression -- by creating a more democratic constitution. If he fails, he will have only himself to blame. For the first time in the republic's history, Turkey's performance is totally in the civilians' hands.

Copyright © 2002-2010 by the Council on Foreign Relations, Inc.