Would Devolution Empower “We the People”?

In response to jay (Reply # 42)
Dear Jay:

An interesting post! Thanks for suggesting a topic for another article.

I tend you agree with your implication that the people of Pakistan need to decide (at their/our earliest convenience; the earlier the better) whether they want to make Pakistan a theocratic state or a state that is based on all kinds of ground realities.

Is the devolution plan dead in the waters? Only time will tell. My capacity to predict is definitely much less than yours.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to fairdinkum (Reply # 41)
Dear Fairdinkum:

Your statement: “[Musharraf] . . . must be under enormous pressure to perform on two key fronts i.e., economic front, and political reforms front with a view to cleaning up, and ironing-out the flawed political structure/system of Pakistan, before eventually returning the power back to elected representatives.”

Comment: No existing (and working) political system is essentially flawed. It is what we make out of it. The trouble in Pakistan, in my view, are basically a product of misplaced priorities and a policy of danda shahi. We cannot clean up Pakistani state, civil society, and economy by rash, short-term measures (such as partial and one-time accountability). We need to educate our masses. We need to raise our civic consciousness by demanding our fundamental human and citizenship rights. Needless to say, rights come with responsibilities. Are we really interested in solving our (short and long-term) difficulties? Would the devolution of power make a dent in our state-civil society relations? I suspect it would provided we realize our duties and take some action to protect our rights (and the rights of other people). Remember we cannot protect the rights of other people if we not understand and protect our rights.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Re: Bilal Ahmad

Concerning my post # 49, am I getting an answer? :)

In case you do not reply back, I can understand! We all rather live in Oz than in reality! :)

I wish you all the best in your plans, schemes, hopes and dreams and aspirations for Pakistan!

What ever you do, don`t let reality slip into your world - you will be sorely dismayed!

Ciao!

In response to Amit (Reply # 38)
Dear Amit:

Your concern about the involvement of extremist organizations in a party-less local politics is not without some merit. Are these organizations in some way linked with (i.e. covertly supported by) one or more political parties? How much support do they have (through employment or other means) from various existing coercive state apparatus (i.e. the police or the ISI)? I, myself, don’t know. Would devolution generate new local and regional level tensions and conflicts? I suspect, it would. Would the new tensions/conflicts lead to the so-called balkanization of Pakistan? I have no reason to expect that it would. Would devolution generate a new force for separatism? I don’t know, it depends but most probably it will not?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Amit, tell us about the Indian experience of local politics.

Re: Anil, various posts.

Interesting. I thought that the Supreme Court had struck down the 1933 Act as being unconstitutional (which I would think it has to be). Thank you for clarifying that. However, it still does not change my basic point that the US Constitution contains no emergency provisions. If Congress can pass laws that suspend the Constitution, then the Constitution is subordinate to the Congress. Ha! Lets see how long it will take the Supreme Court to strike down that law if it is ever invoked and somebody files a case against it. My guess is, about 10 minutes flat.

You wrote: ``Therefore, it is possible, according to some researchers and scholars, for the U.S. President, at any time, to declare a ``state of national emergency`` and thereby suspend Constitutional rights.”

I think you`ve just proved my point here. The President does not have any clearly defined power to impose a state of emergency.

Does the 1973 War Powers Act (never actually invoked and thought by many to be unconstitutional) actually contain a domestic emergency provision? I thought it only applied to the use of US forces abroad?

I reiterate, the House of Representatives impeaches (Clinton was impeached) but only the Senate can convict (Clinton was not convicted). I think you corrected yourself in a later post.

Also, I fail to see the point of some of your subsequent posts in that they do not actually address the issues I raised about your analysis. I reiterate that I agree with your basic argument about a checks-and-balances system and separation of powers, I just think that your examples from the US have some serious errors in them. This was not meant as a personal attack upon you, but as a criticism of your research.

Regards.

bahmad #40

``You are trying to say something very important. Please elucidate

your main points and provide a few examples.``

Well, the point is that caste, feudal relationships are strongest at micro level. The de facto dominant section also becomes dominant de jure. The same upper (or dominant) caste that runs affairs informally becomes the formal power in local government. The moderating influence of large numbers and larger society are diminished under local democracy. I am afraid I cannot give you any specific examples other than to say that I have witnessed this first hand growing up in a small village.

What is the same, take the examples of local control of schools. That is when you have a Kansas school board deciding that kids don`t have to learn evolution as it conflicted with their (the board members`) beliefs. What happened subsequently in that case - some of the board memebers were defeated in the elections a few months later - is due to a robust political system which is absent in our neck of the woods.

Hamsab

I totally agree that Nation should come before religion. I also believe that we have to inculcate the spirit that QuaideAzam represented.

His words and not religion should be our guiding light. Unlike Gandhi (with his village Economies)

Jinnah`s theories were both pragmatic and forward looking. He envisioned a strong, forward-looking Modern, Democratic Pakistan which the rulers following him fell short of accomplishing.

I have said it many times and I ll say it again...

Turks were lucky that Ataturk lived long after the

proclamation of the republic... Pakistanis were unlucky that Jinnah died so early after Pakistan`s

birth.

Nevertheless, people who say that Quaid e Azam didnt say enough to define what Pakistan was to be are making a mockery of your intelligence. He said more than enough and his speeches are well documented.

-Pakistan Zindabad

The only problem that I have with plan which has been announced is that it is going to be on Non Party basis. Being a keen student of History especially of the Zia years makes me skeptical of

the ``Non-Party`` basis.

On the other hand I am quite touched by the genuine sincerity that Musharraf seems to demonstrate. I hope he is not acting...

-Pakistan Zindabad

-QuaideAzam Zindabad

-Ataturk Zindabad

-Jiye Bhutto

-Imran Khan for PM

-Yasser Hamdani

For Pakistan to achieve its potential and for any empowerment or democracy scheme to be successful, I FEEL following steps need to be taken urgently: -

1. People should be made to realize that NATION comes BEFORE Religion. It is more important to be a loyal, devoted Pakistani then a good Muslim. Normally, these need not be mutually exclusive but since this is one aspect, which has dogged Pakistan since its birth, people need to realize that Islam may not recognize borders but borders are a reality. They need to learn to be proud Pakistani first and proud Muslim later.

2. Majority of the people in Pakistan are converted as everywhere else. They should learn to love their land and the land of their forefathers. Change of belief or faith should not have made people change their loyalties to distant lands.

3. People should compel the Government to rewrite history books depicting history correctly so that people can recognize their heroes rightly and stop admiring looters and plunderers of and in History. (This is being repeated again and again till now and that has made it possible for all the rulers in Pakistan to get away with their feudalism and plundering.) For admiring your conquerors, you don’t have to despise yourself.

I do believe that until and unless, the basic character building exercise is not changed, nothing will work out. India in spite of all these problems is surviving very well and this is because of its Forward looking approach inculcated by Nehru through all the Institutions he established. Today, Indians are looking at Gandhi Nehru and all other leaders critically. While their good qualities are appreciated and gloated over, the tendency to avoid criticism is also given up. So, people do analyze where these much-loved leaders went wrong.

Hence, even when this devolution plan looks good on paper, one has to consider the environment in which it has to function. Until and unless, this basic requirement is non-existing, success of the scheme is doubtful. In the present circumstances, ‘if you want to destroy any system, bring it to Pakistan.’

Fuzair (#63)

Dear Fuzair:

You might like to review Federalist Paper #6 for Restrictions on States Rights.

BTW: In Britain, my understanding is Chancellor of Exchequor; and in India Minister of Finance is responsible for the budget and present the same to both houses of the Parliament. Both of them are part of executive branch, as I understand.

ANIL

http://www.dawn.com/2000/09/06/op.htm#5

For a somewhat biased, but acceptable analysis of NRB`s final version of the devolution plan.

Dear Bilal,

Thanks for writing this article and for the important questions that you have raised thru it. I am all for devolution and less government. As a matter of fact this is one step that should have been taken half a century ago. I really wish that it works and brings grass root level democracy in our country. We have to start from somewhere.

BUT, there are two reasons, due to which, I think, that this plan will fail eventually.

1. People do not have basic political education to comprehend the idea that they will be the ``master of their own destiny``; and also they do not have any idea on how to keep it from getting corrupt or hijacked. After all, it will only be the people who will be the protectors and keepers of this new system.

2. The new system doesn’t have a backing of an independent and local judicial system. In addition, the independence of local judicial system cannot survive if there isn’t an independent central judicial system. (The emphasis is on the word ``Independent``).

Due to the above two reasons, even if the system has constitutional protection, it won`t survive or at least keep itself from getting corrupted. This system also threatens the power base of the political parties so they will try their best to corrupt it to their own advantage. In the end we will end up with something similar to Bhutto`s Islamic Socialism or Zia`s Islamisation,, not to mention Ayub`s ABDO etc.

At the risk of being labeled as a Nazi Sympathizer, may I suggest an institution of a ``Benevolent Dictator`` to oversee the new system for a while, until it stands up on its own?

In response to Layman (Reply # 37)
Dear Layman:

Devolution in some parts of Pakistan may eventually reflect a kind of panchayti/jirga system. The following news clipping provides some reactions to the draft proposal of the devolution plan of March 2000.

“The Nation, April 24, 2000; Monday
Ranjha for Panchayat system

LAHORE (PPI)- Punjab Law Minister Dr Khalid Ranjha has emphasised the need to implement indigenous systems like Panchayat and Jirga in accordance with the taste of the people. He uttered these views while speaking at a seminar, here on Sunday. He said the problem was not with the law but with its implementation. Punjab Information Minister, Shafqat Mahmood said that the proposals of compulsory voting and joint electorates were under the consideration of National Reconstruction Bureau (NRB).

``These things are presently under consideration; The suggestions may be approved or not,`` he said while speaking at the seminar. The discussion was also participated by Members British Parliament, Lord Eric Avebury and Anthony Colman who gave details on the local government system working in the United Kingdom. Shafqat said that he would personally support compulsory voting.

He said, except the union councils membership, there should be some educational qualification fixed for the members of district councils and above. He said that the devolution of power would help address the issue of governance. He said the existing administrative structure inherited from colonial rule, by design, was not participatory in nature.

Shafqat said that there should be community based governments at grass-root level. Regarding baradarism, Shafqat said that he did not think that government should engage in any sort of social engineering to curb the society of this menace. Ranjha said that the political parties in Pakistan had been the extension of baradarism or tribalism as it was the groups or baradarism which mattered during the elections, not the parties.

Former Federal Finance Minister, Dr Mubashar Hassan appreciated the Chief Executive General Pervez Musharraf for coming up with a devolution plan. He said that people should be allowed to take part in adjudication process as most of the disputes could be settled at lower level. The convener of Friends of Pakistan, Naseem Bajwa and Editor The Friday Times, Najam Sethi also spoke on the occasion.”

Please record your views and reactions.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to krashid (Reply # 36)
Dear Rashid:

The sole purpose of any local government is to deal with local issues. Local government jurisdictions in the “Local Government Plan 2000`` (or the devolution plan) are defined without reference to any local level problem. Unfortunately, the service areas appropriate for various goods and services often fail to match the boundaries of most administrative units. Walter Christaller’s Cental Place Theory (developed in 1933) is one of the best source of knowledge about various central places (read urban centers), their functions and service areas. Different sizes and kinds of governments are necessary, and this is what we typically find in reality. Most areas of the United States have a hierarchy of governmental units, and each of the fifty states has its own laws concerning local government. Counties and municipalities share political space and responsibilities with numerous special purpose districts. Such jurisdictions are formed to facilitate the management of one or two services such as providing water and sewerage, operating libraries, running schools, and issues like controlling mosquitoes. The net result is a multi-layered patchwork quilt. But, the nature and dynamics of local government vary greatly with different political systems around the world.

Rashid, I would like you to inform us about the implications of non-party elections in more details based upon your personal experience/understanding of Pakistan’s local government elections. Please tell us how to verify your statements.

According to a news report, a majority of political parties (out of a total of over three dozen parties that took part in all-party conference) rejected Musharraf’s devolution plan (Dawn, August 16, 2000). Let me outline the views of a few politician (who perhaps represented their party positions):

Pervaiz Elahi of PML (suspended Punjab Assembly speaker and a former local government minister) rejects the plan because it is “full of contradictions and unworkable.” What contradictions? He does not explain. Has anyone asked him to explain? Shouldn’t he reach to the people and explain himself. Elahi argues that a different election method for the head of district government (i.e. district nazim) would be less expensive and would end the blackmailing of the union council members. What blackmailing? Is there a history? I, however, see a problem in his position because the district nazims will be elected by the “union nazims” not the “union council members.”

Abid Hasan Minto of National Workers Party criticized some aspects of the plan as reactionary and anti-democratic (such as non-party elections and separate electorate for religious minorities). He further added that this plan would “further depoliticize the people and shall strengthen the influence of biradaris (brotherhoods; communities of brotherhood) and tribes and promote the already entrenched feudal, economic and social mafias in society.” Minto maintained that “separate electorate was introduced by Gen Ziaul Haq to divide the people along religious lines. He claimed that “neither the mainstream Church leadership nor the intelligentsia of the religious minorities and their principal political parties had supported separate electorates. They wanted to play a role in the mainstream politics as members of a common Pakistani nation.” Minto suggested that the resignation of federal minister Derick Cyprian from the cabinet “does not only represent the reaction of the minorities but of all democratic people.`` Several questions emerge from Minto’s position: Why separate electorates for religious minorities? Was separate electorate demanded by an overwhelming majority of most/all religious minorities? How non-party elections would enhance the influence of biradaris and tribes? Did various biradaries and tribes play any significant role in our party politics? How non-party elections would promote the already entrenched feudal, economic and social “mafias” in society?

The issue of biradarism was also made by Khalid Kharal of the PPP. Kharal said that Musharraf’s plan resembles the basic democracy system. Hence, it is an “old wine in new bottles and may be used by the regime as electoral college for provincial assembly elections in future.`` In making several additional comments, Kharal maintained that under the new plan the provinces would lose whatever powers they had/have.

Farooq Leghari of Millat Party, former President of Pakistan, said that the government has removed only a few lacunas from its original plan (of March 2000). Leghari’s party submitted a detailed critique of the same.

Tahirul Qadri of Pakistan Awami Tehrik hailed Musharraf’s regime for giving a simple and workable devolution scheme. He announced that his party would participate in the (non-party) elections even if the Grand Democratic Alliance decided to boycott them. Qadri urged the government to cleanse society of the corrupt people/politicians in order to ensure the electoral success of honest candidates.

Ehsan Wyne of Awami National Party said that the government should hold party-based national and provincial assemblies` elections first. He further maintained that the new plan fails to recognize provincial autonomy, and it would affect national solidarity since it virtually attempts to revive the previously rejected one-unit system. Wyne argued that the clause of separate electorate would seek to appease the religious and fundamentalist lobby. Wyne drew parallels between the new plan and Ayub’s plan.

K. M. Azhar of JUP (Noorani group) said that the devolution plan would fails to provide self-government to the common people in the presence of tribalism in Balochistan and the NWFP and feudalism in Sindh and southern Punjab. He said that the local body elections would promote personality cult in the absence of political parties. Azhar called for holding party-based elections on the basis of proportionate representation in order to minimize the influence of tribalism and feudalism. Azhar said that reduction in the power of deputy commissioners would pose unnecessary problem changes in a large number of laws. Azhar said that his party would take part in the local body elections.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Re:bahmad #61

Dear Professor Bilal,

I agree, we must provide opportunity to all kinds of contributors especially to contributors like scout to express their viewpoint. I am sorry if I sounded somewhat irritated in my posts. Looking at one of scout’s posts, I can see her point clearly now. I reckon her point is not only valid; it is quite relevant to our discussion here. What can we all do to help Pakistan? Isn’t that what it is all about?

Ok, let’s look at some of the questions you have posed:

“Fairdinkum, I agree with you that we need national consensus and national reconcilition. But, what kind of consensus and what kind of national reconciliation for what?”

For starters, on the very existence of Pakistan. In the wake of deteriorating economy, complete breakdown of law and order situation, violent, corrupt and unstable nature of our politics/establishment, and unfair allocation (or the perception of unfair allocation) of resources, there is an uncertainty about whether or not some smaller provinces have any confidence, at all, in the federation. In my view, we must have consensus on the viability of Pakistan as nation state. This can only be achieved through a process of reconciliation, which recognizes past mistakes, and guarantees the viability of federation by devolving power in some key areas so that states/provinces have greater say/decision making power in matters of taxation, employment policies, education policies, health care etc. Don’t ask me about the finer details…. To be honest, I don’t know.

In response to scout (Reply # 65)
Dear Scout:

It seem that my reply # 61 has caused some misunderstanding. I think, I was not carefully enough in my rhetoric.

Let me replace “and” with “or” and qualify my statement. The corrected statement should read: “We, however, need to provide an opportunity to all kinds of contributors (such as Scout) to show their imagined, perceived, or real dissatisfaction and disaffection toward the troubled state of Pakistan and her people.” I had used the word disaffection in a softer sense (not in the sense of losing loyalty). If you are still not satisfied by my clarification, I retract your name from the statement.

I think, I made a positive comment about your right to express your views without showing any disagreement with your feelings about the state of affairs in Pakistan.

You said that you “wish we’d stop all the gibberish and do something.” Do what? Please explain vis a vis the devolution plan.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad