Would Devolution Empower “We the People”?

bahmad, SameerJB,Pankaj

On politicians, political parties and Musharraf:

Sameer mentions Veerappan. bahmad mentions sycophancy and the personal venality of politicians in response to Pankaj.

I`m taking the liberty of mentioning an Indian example, Jayalalitha or her predecessor MG Ramachandran(ex-CMS of Tamil Nadu). Jayalalitha is referred to as `Puratchi Thallaivi`(someone correct me if I got it wrong) or `Revolutionary Leader`. Party members touch her feet, put up huge hoardings, helped organise a most blatantly ostentatious wedding of her adopted son while she was in power. There are numerous real and contrived cases of corruption against her, but people immolate themselves when courts pronounce judgements against her. The adulation for MGR was not any less. In contrast in neighbouring Kerala, when a popular film star tried talking politics, he became the subject of so much derision he never tried again till his death.

But after all this, also contrast the industrial and economic development of Tamil Nadu and Kerala. There is a huge difference in Tamil Nadu`s favor. The poorer `sections` still benefit from noon-meal and other populist schemes. Jayalalitha was voted out of power when she ceased to serve the purpose of her constituents. And her ethical/legal excesses(many) havenot put her totally out of the game, because she still takes care to represent a large population`s political views on a number of subjects and provide a counterpoint to those in power.

The point is, sometimes corrupt leaders even while undermining the system can made use of, as vehicles of change in many people`s lives. Within an evolving system, it can possibly be counterproductive to completely eliminate them IF they represent the aspirations of many others who would otherwise be out of the picture. This might apply to Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif and their parties, too.

Lets distinguish here between corrupt people and corrupt practices. Corrupt practices (even if widely accepted) as fundamental basis of change are even less likely than corrupt people to be harbinger of good things to come, and Sameer is right to point it out with any amount of vehemence if the prognosis is not good where Musharraf is concerned. But `kabhi kissi ko mukammal jahaan nahi miltaa` .

IMO, what will make the decisive difference at this point is what informed Pakistanis take the trouble to clearly accept or reject from their leaders, including military dictators and their devolution plans.

Sadhana

Re: Bahmad Reply #162

``However, I do have some difficulty with your statement that: ``Pakistanis have rarely or never been allowed to boot out a malfunctioning government.``

Sorry, I meant Pakistani VOTERS have rarely or never been allowed to boot out a malfunctioning government... The point I was trying to make is that no elected government in Pakistan has ever finished its term as a result of another election -- this has deprived both voters and politicians valuable opportunities to learn from their mistakes. In India, for example, the quality of most politicians is so poor that retention of elected office is a very difficult proposition. In the process, I believe that valuable lessons are being imbibed by both voters and politicians. Voters are becoming savvy too -- voting in parties with a regional bent in state elections, and coalition governments at the Centre.

temporal: I apologise to you and all chowkwallas for being too crude and harsh on matters relating to the present set-up in Pakistan. temporal, I wish to have as polished choice of words as yours, but based on my track record, I hope to be forgiven or ignored.

It was little upsetting to me late last night to see only blunt criticism coming from RoohiAD in similar crude form as mine. We have been too acquiescing or plain indifferent to whatever has happened to us since Alexander the Great`s invasion of Sub-Continent.

I just do not see this set up being any better than the previous one. Thier record of past one year into office speaks for them better. Now that we apparently do not have feudal based government and no corruption; how are things in Pakistan? Is inflation rate down than last year? Do we have bulging foreign currency reserves in the absence of cheating and corruption by politicians? Is economy in any better shape or budget deficit reduced in spite of having bumper cotton crop and exports? Is rupee any stable now than before? Are there any plans for improving infrastructure? Any new universities, new colleges? Are relationships with neighbors and rest of the world are better than before? The only bright light I see is one lone ranger, Dr. Ata-Ur-Rehman Khan.

Sure, Ayub Khan`s, Z. A. Bhutto`s and Nawaz Sharif`s governments were malignant, but in each case change was brought about by active destabilization of the regimes by power hungary COAS with the help of military intelligence. Is ISI the best friend people can hope for? This has been the only modus operandi for change in Pakistan.

All of us want empowerment for people, some are not as hopeful with the current regime as others.

temporal, may be I should only interact about non-political issues. How about writing an article about the ``Best Man Ever Lived``.....Buddha?

In response to Fuzair (Reply # 141)
Dear Fuzair:

Your statement: “There is nothing wrong with the bureaucratic-authoritarian model of economic development as such.”

Comment: Are sure you that there was nothing wrong during the period of Ayub Khan or Zia-ul-Haq?

Your statement: “Why do we criticize the FM for his belief that simply transplanting Western-style democracy to Pakistan would not work? Was he wrong? Or is it because we have never had `true` democracy in Pakistan that we have failed? So where in the Third World has liberal democracy worked? Why hasn`t it worked? What is it in us that is lacking?”

Comment: Transplanting any system may not work. To use a gardening metaphor, the transplanter must be dedicated, knowledgeable, perceptive, and honest. Transplantation requires a careful understanding of the domestic environmental conditions. You cannot simply grow anything anywhere (other than in well-managed greenhouses).

Did Ayub Khan create a political culture for the success of his basic democracy plan (in the interest of the people at the level of experience)? Ayub Khan, came in power, when the United States and her allies badly needed our help to protect their interest (imposing heavy indirect penalties on us, such as our so-called defense expenditure as a proportion of our total budget; it also created a fictitious economy and society that perpetuated conspicuous consumption and a culture of dependency).

Additional comments: Irfan Husain (if he wrote what you attribute to him) is right in his statement that “ parliamentary democracy requires tolerance and we are not a tolerant people.” He, however, had failed to tell us how we had/have become increasingly intolerant overtime (whatever intolerance means, and whosoever is included in the category).

Is Mullahism partly a product of our failure to provide opportunities to our masses? If yes, who is responsible? Could there be jihadi camps without the tacit consent of Pakistan army (and other vested interests)? Why the religion of Muslims has become so regressive (if it has)? Was Islam ever progressive? If Pakistan has really become a hotbed of militant/political/intolerant Islam, then let the results of Pakistan’s local body elections (if properly conducted) show the true face of Pakistan.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to Fuzair (Reply # 141)
Dear Fuzair:

You are welcome! Please continue to write and make a dent. The problems of India are multifarious and rooted in her complex history. India cannot be compared with Norway, Canada, or the United States. Nor could Pakistani democracy be judged essentially by the way the Indian democracy works. In India, however, democratic practice entails more than simply holding elections. I am not an champion of the Indian-style of democracy, yet I understand that a lot of Indians are struggling hard to sustain their existing democratic institutions and culture. You are absolutely right that voting is a necessary but not sufficient condition.

No, I am not aware of Farid Zakria’s article. I would love to read it.

I have never claimed that India is a true democracy, though there is an element of truth in the belief that the Indian democracy (whatever its form) is functional.

My conception of true democracy is linked with the economic, political, social and spiritual emancipation of an overwhelming majority of people. Emancipation, however, is interpreted in a wide variety of ways. Realistically, emancipation is not context-free. It is a process of social change toward an ultimate goal. There is not such thing as ultimate emancipation (it only imagined).

Why brutality exists in India (or Pakistan or any part of the world)? Why internal dissent is crushed? Are such practices universal in one form or another? Is the lack of tolerance an essential product of a “politics of scarcity”? Why affluent nations are relatively less brutal in their internal affairs? How about the external affairs? No easy answers are available. What is available to us is our inherent capacity to bring a change, at least in our own lives.

A scholar of political-economy believes in the unity of the social relations of economy and politics. He/she adopts a multi-disciplinary approach to gaining knowledge. I cannot imagine a student of political economy to be a pure and simple positivist/empiricist. By the way, econometricians are not students of social reality and society is not a constant (there is not such thing as equilibrium; society is always in a state of disequilibia/flux). Fuzair, knowledge is limitless, keep learning. Despite my critical remarks, and apparent disagreements, I am happy that you have a positive attitude toward learning. Good luck (I am not patronizing you)!

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to shammi (Reply # 146)
Dear Shammi:

The fears of Pakistani people are imagined, perceived, and/or real. We need to remove/reduce them. For this both India and Pakistan would need to learn to live peacefully like good neighbors. Persistent tensions are damaging the health of our two nations. The difficulties are so ingrained that a concerted effort to understand our problems is much needed. Imagined and perceived fears will easily dissipate if we start the process of reducing the real fears. This cannot be achieved by the so-called bus diplomacy alone. One way is to help our governments is to develop forums where ordinary, but intelligent and insightful, people need to figure out peaceful and honorable steps to reduce the tensions. This indeed is an extremely difficult task. Look, how quickly the Indo-Pak bickering starts at the Chowk where most participants are formally well-educated and economically-socially fortunate. We cannot afford to be intolerant, especially in more difficult situations.

You have asked several basic questions in good spirit. What exactly do Pakistanis fear from India? What can be done as a practical matter to eliminate the fears? Do Pakistanis fear invasion, subversion, creation of a vassal state, big-brother syndrome? You maintain that if “these fears are at the core of Pakistani policy, then they will ultimately affect the devolution of powers plan also (amongst several other aspects of Pakistani life). It does not help India or Pakistan in anyway to have fearful neighbors.”

I appreciate the rest of your insightful analysis. Shouldn’t we learn from our past follies? I think, we have no other choice if we want to progress and prosper as descent and respected nations. Would grassroots politics help in changing the course of history? It may divert some of our attention toward the betterment of our immediate surroundings, our true level of experience.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Re: Temporal # 174

The correct name was Lord Acton, and not Lord Action! Oh, the blissful joy of correcting Chowk`s resident critic! :)

Re: Fuzair # 172

Thank you for setting the record straight!

Re:Rsaxena

Sorry, bud! No hard feelings I hope! :)

Bilal:

Thanks for the reply!

Ciao!

SameerJB #155:

I was a little taken aback by your post. There are a few here who express themselves carefully. You, Sadhna, Bilal, tahmed, SR, Amit etc. are that rare breed who weigh their words carefully before hitting that enter key sending them into eternity.

You said [Can Musharraf be taken seriously?] and [Before any discussion of devolution plan, we must consider the track record of its propagator.] and then went on to list six reasons why he cannot or should not be trusted
I will completely agree with you on points 1-4 and partially on 5-6 if you amend you basic assertion and say this -- CAN ARMY BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY?

Musharraf is only the front man for the ‘most organised political party’ in Pakistan.

As for devolution I will repeat in different words what I had said earlier. Laws and Plans are only as good as their implementation --- a willing partnership between those who implement the intent, (the administrators) and those who are affected and bear the brunt of the ‘good’ intentions of the establishment/legislator/enforcer (the public.)
A good administrator can take the sting out of a bad law, and a bad administrator can blow the good law into smithereens. The latter is unfortunately the rule in most third world fourth rate governments.

Power devolution is needed. Ordinary citizens must be given power to act out their destinies. But MORE importantly, what is needed is a mechanism to STOP the abuse of power by those at the top who frequently indulge in with NO checks or restrictions. (Recall Lord Action --- power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely?)

But scholarly dissertations aside, who will bell the cat, my friend?

regards,

temporal

Dear Chowkwalas,

I plan to attend a presentation by Dr. Atta-ur-Rehman, IT Minister, next Monday on the subject of IT policies now being implemented in Pakistan. I would be grateful if you could provide any good ideas (or questions) that could be brought up there. While I may not get the chance to ask any question at all (since there will be other people there as well), I will try and pass on any good ideas you may have (ideas/questions from our Indian friends on chowk are welcome too).

Re: RSaxena #147

I`m the guilty party, not Feroz. I was not saying that we should not have a liberal democracy, I was simply saying that we have never been able to make it work. I will repeat what I have said in other fora: there is nothing inherently desirable about democracy as such; it is only liberal democracy that I think is worth trying for.

Re: Mithuna #145

Thank you for the correction.

krashid #156 you wrote: ``Things need to be decided by consensus and not referendum. In this regard, at Federal level there should be a directly elected senate, rather than indirectly elected.`` Consensus is the goal, to which there are various means: Referendum is one way to determine the prevailing view, while a directly elected senate is another way. Both ways have their pros and cons and are non-exclusive: you can have a referendum to establish some initial conditions which can then be overturned by an elected senate later on. The reason I think a referendum is useful is the failure to date of the political process to throw up better candidates before the Pakistani voters. I explain why I think the political process failed in my earlier post (i.e. due to lack of due process and democracy within political parties).

Rashid Sahib #164

I suspect what Sameer Sahib was trying to point out was the inability of the Army to let Pakistani polity grow on its own. The fact that Nawaz Sharif`s downfall was celebrated by almost 100% of the population is neither here or there. The downfall of an elected government is not really cause for celebrations, however venal and corrupt it may have been. The army, by taking direct control, has again cut out the legs from under this adolescent Pakistani polity. Surely, a strong presence on the NSC (the Turkish model) would have been much more appropriate than direct take-over? In the short term, the polity growth has been reset to zero and it seems that Pakistani polity is condemned to go through an eternal cycle of adolescence, pimples, frustration, inability to take the long term view and unrealistic policies.

Sincerely

bd

In response to Ferozk (Reply # 140)
Dear Feroz:

I am also skeptical about the intellectual fecundity of the army and the bureaucracy. The people of Pakistan have a right to enjoy economic, social and political rights.

Regarding your professor’s comments, I cannot say with certainty that another martial law will not be imposed in the years to come, and the Constitution (new or old) will not be abrogated in one form or another. We could only hope for a change and keep writing critical posts.

Regarding the Republican activist, I must admit that the common people in Pakistan have no clue about the devolution plan. I agree with his comment about awareness. I, however, use the notion of implementation in a broader sense, entailing the creation of awareness.

Thanks for your interest.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahamd

In response to Pankaj (Reply # 163)
Dear Pankaj:

I tend to agree with your post on a theoretical level. No doubt, political parties and opposition is necessary to keep a check on government.

Should Musharraf be allowed to destroy the political parties? Not at all. However, the performance of our political parties has been less than satisfactory (if not dismal). This reminds me of an opinion piece by Abdul Hameed Chhapra, President of Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists, about political sychophants. My notes do not have a date for his piece (published about 15 months back in a Pakistani newspaper). Here are a few excerpts:

“Sycophancy is the order of the day in the land of the pure! Politicians of every shade and colour, mostly upstarts practice this art to butter and please the rulers in order to get favours. It seems that a competition has started between the sycophants of two big political parties i.e. Pakistan People`s Party (PPP) and Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) to outdo each other in praising their leaders (Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto).”

“Through their statements and speeches from various forums the Leaguers try to impress upon all and sundry that Nawaz Sharif (who descended on the political horizon of the country under the kind patronage of former governor of Punjab Lt. Gen. Ghulam Jilani and the third dictator General Muhammad Ziaul Haq) is going to transform the society. They claim that Nawaz is the man who will put Pakistan on the path of progress and bring prosperity. The ego boosters have inflated his balloon to such an extent that he has started behaving like a liberator.”

“Daily from dawn to dusk he attends various functions arranged in his honour in different provinces. From every platform in reply to the addresses of welcome full of flattery recounting his imaginary achievements, Nawaz Sharif declares that ``I have decided to change the fortune of the masses. I will do this, I will do that.””

“Unfortunately, the PML(N) chief has been brought up (politically) in such an atmosphere that he cannot comprehend that an individual is a helpless being. He cannot move mountains without the sincere support of people. And for extracting Pakistan from the present mess, Herculean efforts are required and these can only be mounted with the unconditional cooperation of all sections of the population, including the politicians.”

“It is also ironical that things with the main opposition party (PPP) are not different either. The followers of the twice fallen Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto (dismissed on the charges of blatant corruption and nepotism in August 1990 and November 1996) have taken upon themselves to indulge in bragging to such an extent that they forget that they cannot deceive people by calling Benazir Bhutto a revolutionary, which even her illustrious father and former prime minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was not from any angle. The tragedy with majority of Pakistani politicians is that they have little sense of history. What to talk of history, they are not even familiar with their past.”

“At a representative congregation of Pipians recently the leader of the opposition in the National Assembly Benazir Bhutto was unanimously made life chairperson of PPP. . . . It may be mentioned here that Papa Bhutto and Pinky Bhutto religiously refrained from indulging in the ``luxury`` of democraticising the party at any level during the past more than three decades.”

“Replying to a query about the logic of appointing Benazir Bhutto as the life chairperson, the deputy secretary general, Senator Raza Rabbani quoting history argued that in progressive parties the central leadership is not changed. Then came the bombshell from Raza Rabbani when he compared the personality of his beloved leader with the great revolutionaries of the twentieth century: Chairman Mao Ze-dong and Premier Zhou En-lai of the People`s Republic of China and the liberator of Indonesia and greatest orator of this century, Ahmad Soekarno.”

“No self-respecting person would stoop so low and resort to such naked flattery. But looking at the position of Raza Rabbani who started his career as a messenger of former leader and one time blue eyed boy of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, one can understand the logic behind the same argument.”

“Rootless persons like Raza Rabbani who in spite of being active parliamentarians do not have any following or constituency, survive on the sweet will of the leaders like Benazir Bhutto who only understand the one and only language of pampering.”

“PPP insiders reveal that Benazir Bhutto during her two stints as the prime minister (December 2, 88-August 6, 90 and October 19, 93-November 6, 96) never encouraged anybody to speak the truth. This tendency brought her premature downfall twice because of the excesses committed by her ``gifted husband`` Asif Ali Zardari and her greedy colleagues.”

“Men of wisdom say that speaking without thinking is like shooting without taking any aim. But Pakistani politicians have become habitual of indulging in inept shooting, as a result of which they never hit the target, create confusion and waste their energy and resources.”

Pankaj, I am not trying to deface any political party but it saddens me when I read commentaries of the kind Abdul Hameed Chhapra has written. By the way, Chhappra was a student of Karachi University in the early 1960s, and I recall a positive image of him.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Re: Rsaxena # 147

Are you sure that is quote by me or did you just make that one up! Please give me the references to that quote!

I will reply upon the verification that the quote was indeed mine.

Ciao!

Chowkwallas:

Here is a list of the (so-called) think tanks at the National Reconstruction Bureau (source: NRB). Any information about them, their education, their experience, and their research contributions will be appreciated.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Think Tanks at National Reconstruction Bureau
Presently Bureau has engaged the following Think Tanks [members] working on identified fields to develop ideas and formulate policies/strategies options/plans on devolution of power to District governments and local government reforms for reconstruction of the institutions:

Dr. Muhammad Afzal
Dr. S. Zulfiqar Gilani
Mr. Muhammad Ali Khan
Mr. Daniyal Aziz
Mr. Sultan Ali Barq
Mr. Ikramullah Ghauri
Syed Imtiaz Bokhari