Would Devolution Empower “We the People”?

sadna #290 & bahmad #291

Sadhna, you’ve hit the nail right on the head!

In the land down under, Commonwealth of Australia (federal government of Australia) has recently introduced GST (Goods and Services Tax). The debate and discussions on this matter went on for almost 10 years and Liberal Party lost an election (which they were certain to win) on this issue. As a result they went back to drawing board and made several changes to their proposal to make it acceptable to masses. Corporate and big business lobby was always in favour of this Tax reform, but general public did not accept that basic amenities be Taxed in this manner. The current version of GST is acceptable to all parties.
Another interesting thing about the political structure in Australia is that States of Commonwealth have a lot of say in matters of national interest. For example, any amendments/changes to current version of GST cannot be made unless all states unanimously agree to them. And btw, New South Wales (NSW) is the majority state (something like Punjab, and Sydney is the capital of NSW) but NSW still has one vote in the commonwealth on matters of national interest. The tenure of State and Commonwealth governments is 3 years as opposed to 5 years in Pakistan/India…this is something I find interesting from the sub-continent perspective where oppositions usually get very restless when they have to wait for 5 years for the next elections.

The point I am trying to make is that discussions and debates do work. However, we don’t seem to have this tradition in sub-continent. This is probably, as Bilal puts it, due to a lack of understanding, on the part of our political elite, of the significance of a transparent political process. Or perhaps, they don’t see any need for this process at all since this would be contrary to their modus operandi. Uff! I am getting cynical again :)

Also, I find the argument unacceptable that Pakistani/Indian people are illiterate and have limited capacity to understand the complex political/administrative processes and therefore should be kept out of or given limited access to decision-making processes. If we look at the history of politics in Pakistan, we see that people of rural Pakistan have shown more wisdom, and maturity when it comes to politics. For example, despite G. M. SYED’s stature, and position in rural Sindh, he and his party were rejected in all elections due to G M SYED’s extremist views. Similarly, Jamat-e-Islami was always defeated in rural Pakistan hands down, whereas (prior to the arrival of MQM) it won almost all the seats in Karachi and some seats in urban areas of Punjab. Anyway, lets not get into that… sorry about he digression…

I am all for an open/moderated interactive debate/discussion on devolution plan … I think it’s a great idea!
It would be good to have somebody from the opposite side (representative(s) of the people who are against this plan) as well.

From the Olympic city where I am having a swell time! :)A bit crowded, and you have watch out for the yankee tourists who are used to the upside down traffic rules :)

BAhmed#289

I appreciate your effort and time.

I enjoyed your comments on Altaf Gauhar article. To put it in layman terms. Since people are not civilized enough, so they should not run their affairs. (But 50 years history proove otherwise. May be a poor persons son who is educated might write better than Altaf Gauhar)

I can understand your irritation, being a professor to be more methodical and stick to point. I will try to.

AA was actually AAA (Army America Awam. I abbreviated it)

You have raised many questions. I will try to present my perspective. Majority of people have their lives revolve around economics. For a system to be successful and to have involvement of all people for National development and cohesion they should perceive the advantage for being part of it.

From the very beginning, Pakistan has been snatched by priviledged class, whose advantage was the disadvantage of majority. And who with the support of state religion and curbing down on press and patronizing (giving the right as priviledge) pitted different people against each other and so the dominant discourse was created by them.

In my opinion, only alternate way of visualizing the world comes from our reality. For example. Food, Clothing, Housing, Education and a better future is the primary neccesity for anyone and majority of population does not have access to it. Moreover, uneven development between provinces and betweeen rural and urban areas and even in urban areas has complicated the issue. So the discourse which will appeal to people should arise from this reality.

As far as people made into demiGod, I think it is because people are not knowledgeable enough themselves and entrust the job to someone who they think will take care of their interest or at least fight the domination of other people`s interest.

I did not allege that Benazir failed. She did what any person will do in the kind of democracy we had (And I gave example of 1977-1999) To keep AA happy, and be in their good book, because voters can be moulded and if not angels can come and vote. (Neither do I think Benazir is extraordinary, although she realizes the limitation of our ELECTED OFFICIALS)

The way BRAVE ARMY is alienating different groups, once things start warming up they will join hand against army. That is the lesson I have learned so far.

If Army is sincere, it should try to produce a consensus rather than enforcing its version. For example local bodies election, will be contested by all parties and can be a good starting point.

In response to sadna (Reply # 290)
Dear Sadhna:

You have put the finger right on the spot. This is what the National Reconstruction Bureau (NRB) should have done on its internet site. This is what various political parties should have done on their internet sites too (I need to check if they have already taken any step in this direction). Furthermore, in view of an attack on their performance and integrity, the political parties need to inform us – We the people of Pakistan – how and why the party-based elections (local or otherwise) would ensure greater freedom, security, and well being to the people of Pakistan.

My political understanding and cynicism suggests that our political elite are not prepared to adequately understand the significance of a transparent political process and political legitimation.

Sadhna, I nonetheless support your suggestion wholeheartedly. Chowk staff, is it too difficult to arrange?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahamd

bahmad #289

Your posts especially this one and #273 raise several valid questions regarding the devolution plan. It would be great if Chowk could arrange to have a moderated interactive discussion with a knowledgeable and responsible official associated with the plan, to answer queries of concerned citizens live or off-line.

Sadhana

VETERAN BUREAUCRAT ALTAF GOHAR ON DEVOLUTION

Altaf Gohar (henceforth A. G.) , one of the most well-known Pakistani bureaucrats, published his “Devolution or destruction” in a recent edition of the Frontier Post (September 16, 2000). I want to reproduce excerpts from his opinion piece with my brief critical remarks.

A. G. wrote: “Unfortunately our policy makers have traditionally been western educated or influenced elite who have no or negligible experience of our rural life, where 65 per cent of population lives. By few visits to a number of villages where groundwork for the reception is arranged by their beneficiaries, they start thinking that they have understood the dilemma and dynamics of the village life. Hence they, with their best intentions, bring even more miseries to those people.”

Comment: I think, A. G. is making a case, perhaps inadvertently, in favor of the devolution of power since the centralized efforts to make policies were not conducive to the rural life in Pakistan.

A. G. wrote: “Since independence in 1947 this nation has only gone through the experiences which made their lives miserable, created instability and restlessness. This nation is also unfortunate that our leaderships (political parties) in order to please their masters (west or communist) always tried to implement their systems of government, sometimes it may be parliamentary or sometimes presidential.”

Comment: A.G. blames the politicians and political parties for the plight of Pakistan. He deplores their imitative (and thus unimaginative and uncreative) approach toward politics and political institutions. Please remember that A.G. occupied a very important position in Pakistan government, particularly during Ayub Khan’s regime. In the 1960s, it was commonly (and as far as I know erroneously) believed that he was the actual author of Ayub Khan’s autobiography (“Friends Not Masters”). Is he now criticizing Ayub Khan for introducing the presidential form of government in the 1960s? Does he consider Ayub Khan and Zia-ul-Haq as military dictators or politicians?

A. G. wrote: “We have gone through the basic democracy of Ayub khan, Zia’s Shura, and parliamentary systems, etc. Further it is pity that in the past all governments including interim ones desired to change the policies not only foreign policy but even education and trade, etc.”

Comment: Is A.G. making just blanket statements? Or, is he complaining about the poor performance of various regimes that developed new (bad) policies to replace the old (good) policies? Here we need to understand: How policies were/are made in Pakistan, by whom, and with what consequences?

A. G. wrote: “The present military-led setup is also not lagging behind but is going to surpass all the past governments by completely changing the governing setup which will not suit our on ground situation, an intolerable society which even don’t understand the meaning of difference of opinion and are always ready to axe the opponents to death.” He adds: “In the present setup the so-called representatives of the poor lot, ranging from union council members to MNAs and what to say of Ministers, use administration and police as they wish to tease the opponents. This side of the face of elected members is not known to the military officers and if these people are made all powerful and the whole administration including deputy commissioners etc, and police force is put under their control what will be scene then?”

Comment: A. G. has made a few interesting observations. He argues that the Pakistani society is intolerant because the people have no respect for the difference of opinion. He also maintains that the elected representative misuse the power of the administration and police to undermine their opponents. He also thinks that the military officers (such as Ayub, Zia, Musharraf and their compatriots) were/are unaware of such ground realities of our Pakistani society. I suspect, the main underlying concern of A.G. is to somehow make a case against the expected decline of bureaucratic power at the local level. I am not sure if he is trying to warn us that an independent bureaucracy (including police) would still be better than the one that is controlled by the elected representatives?

A. G. writes: “The success of the plan depends on its elected members how they treat every citizen or voter whether their supporter or opponents, the front on which we have hitherto failed utterly. Again it will be the responsibility of the government of the day to ensure the implementation of the plan in its true spirit and no member even the chief mayor should be allowed to commit any injustice to any citizen.”

Comment: If devolution means virtual autonomy of the provinces (given their existing power structures), some arrangement/agreement needs to be made between the center and the autonomous provinces to guarantee the protection of the citizenship and human rights of each individual in every part of Pakistan. I, without doubt, prefer a voluntary political arrangement/agreement over any form of top-down imposition. It is unclear if I and A.G. are thinking on the same plane.

A. G. writes: “To cut this debate short, following questions need to be addressed before implementing devolution of power plan.

1. Western grass root democracy worked well only when its two basic essentials were met e.g awareness among the public and financially stable government. Do we have any of these?

2. Previous local bodies elections brought entirely new generation of leadership, did it prove any way better than the past?

3. Is it not the fact that with each local bodies election, greater rift was created amongst the population at grass root level? Hence more cases were registered and new enmities developed. Do we want to improve quality of life or further destroy it?

4. Unaware leadership, new hopes and unrealistic demands of the grass roots will put even more burden on the government. Can the government provide roads, electricity, water, dispensary, and schools to scattered population of far-flung areas while economic viability of such projects is not foreseen even in next 100 years? Have we forgotten ghost schools, teachers, dispensers from previous era?

5. All over the world any new concept is tested before implementing and in our case our earlier attempts have miserably failed. What is new in the current scenario? Instead of earlier 6-8 stooges or thugs, we will have 18 in each union council including some women. Is it not like the city-state of Greeks where they used to have revolving members on fixed term bases so that everyone can participate in the government? Hence every new member used to make maximum out of his tenure. Ultimately Socrates stopped this practice by denouncing it and had to take poison as a punishment. Do we have leaders like him?

6. Is there a single NGO or its staff that is willing to work without external funds? If not, how come poor illiterate members are expected to work day and night for the Union Councils etc.?

7. Have you tested the new concept successfully anywhere in the country?

8. After all in every election, is it LB’s, Provincial or National people had voted for their members? The result has shown that they lack abilities to pick up the right guy for the right job, will this current devolution plan change this scenario?

9. For any new job, a job description is made. Then an assessment criterion established? Do we have these?

10. Is the selection team (masses) aware about the job description and the criteria for assessment?

11. As one can see there are too many unanswered questions and even greater number of assumptions. In any planning process, assumptions are very important to be evaluated prior to launching a plan. If even one major assumption fails the entire plan collapses, such assumptions are called ``killer assumption.`` Are there not too many killer assumptions in this plan?

Devolution plan is impracticable as better leadership is not expected, will create further social divisions, economically unsustainable, earlier attempts failed and new remains untested, over expectations from elected members without clear job descriptions and remuneration, unaware plus illiterate voters and finally too many ``killer assumptions.`` What happened to Russia, should be an eye opener for us.

Bottom line is focus on what we already have and make it more transparent so that corrupt are automatically identified and committed are rewarded. Do not be carried away by fancy jargons.”

Comment: A. G. has asked several important questions about the devolution plan. Let us deal with each of these questions discursively.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

http://www.dawn.com/2000/09/19/op.htm#3

Relevant to our discussion.

In response to krashid (Reply # 286)
Dear Rashid:

We are not making much progress. I wonder if you keep a copy of my post when you write a response. Let us talk about some concrete aspects of the devolution plan.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

BAhmed #285

I will start my discussion with a premise. That if a certain arrangement benefits the people as a whole, they will support it at the expense of other people. For example most of the people of US will support any oppression by America abroad as long as it is advantageous to them like bombing Iraq, embargo on Iran, utilization of resources of TWC.

In the same way, Pakistan has at one or another time, Punjabi-Mohajir or Punjabi-Pathan alliance and as you know who were the most vocal people in suppression of Bengal, the whole Mohajir and Punjabi nation (exceptions aside). I believe it to be true.

During first sacking of Nawaz Sharif, it was alleged by Hamid Sarfaraz with figures that resources of smaller provinces were exploited for Punjab. Also currently Chowdhury Shujaat is of the same opinion for second sacking of Nawaz Sharif in political terms.

It is simplistic to say although true, that a Punjabi is also oppressed as Sindhi or Baluch.

In the current setup, where these ethnicities are deliberately played up and lot of economic activity is related to this setup, what do you expect from people of other provinces. Except to find out their mentors from their ruling class, Wadera, Khans etc, who can fight for their cause (economics).

I think this setup is beneficial for rulers of Punjab where they control their own people by supposed economic advantage to them and control other provinces through their Wadera agents. That was the setup, I believe very strong at Zia`s time and is still there.

In this situation talking of National cohesion, and direction will lead to the fate of Abid Hasan Manto and Rashid Hasan Khan. (nobody listens to them except themselves).

(As a side note I believe that, constitutional rights are important to act as a reference for deviation and in current situation, not only universal rights of people, but rights of provinces are important).

What I believe regarding Benazir and Nawaz Sharif, that it is a musical chair game of ruling elite and fight among them for resources of Pakistan.

But as I said before that there is no escape from power structure in our society or any other society, but its political form needs to be changed to the advantage of people.

In response to krashid (Reply # 283)
Dear Rashid:

Your statement: “To be a prime minister, you don`t basically need support of people, but support of vested interest AA. Neither I am in favor or against Benazir.”

Comment: What is AA?

Rashid, as a concerned Pakistani, I want to know: Why have we Pakistanis persistently failed to learn from our past experiences in matters concerning our national development and cohesion? Why are we hooked up with our visionless dominant national discourse? Why can’t we successfully popularize some alternative ways of visualizing the world around us? Where have we failed and why? Why is there a lack of continuity? Why is there so much conflict and disturbance? What kind of responsibility should our so-called leaders, from Jinnah to Musharraf, assume?

I suspect, adequate answers may not come through from our somewhat hasty responses on the Chowk. To do the needful, we may first need to look at the existing literature fairly critically. This step is very important to talk some sense. If our existing literature fails to provide adequate answers, then we need to sort and sift all relevant itsy-bitsy available information and use it to critically figure out some plausible answers. The process of understanding and learning must not stop here, however.

To become a prime minister of a democratic regime, one needs to seek support from the people (the voters). In a country like Pakistan, one needs to seek the support of various power elite to: (1) get elected; (2) avoid unnecessary conflicts and disturbances; and (3) stay in power. Am I saying that people don’t matter? They of course do. People count as voters. And, in particular situations, they affect the process of political change through public opinion. But, we need to ask: Why and how public opinion matters in some situations and not in others? Shouldn’t we try to understand the process of public opinion construction? Are the people dupes, as commonly viewed by those who are involved in this process? Even if we assume that they are dupes, how come they develop some form of resistance against the power elite in some parts of Pakistan and not in others?

In Pakistani politics, many people (particularly the sycophants) overwhelming focus upon personalities to the point of treating them as demigods. In doing so, they divert our attention away from more deep rooted political (and economic and social) structures.

Alavi’s writings rightly place various Pakistani political personalities in the context of our existing political/economic/social structures.

Rashid, rather than telling us that you neither support nor oppose Benazir (for example), please shed some light on her (positive as well as negative) role as a politician. If you argue that she had failed on two different occasions, then you need to inform us the main personal as well as non-personal reasons for her failure. Pakistan is both a unique and not so unique country. I am sure, one good way to understand the problems of Pakistan is to pay much attention upon existing social (including political) theory and upon the state of affair in some of our neighboring countries (particularly India, Iran, and Afghanistan).

Your statement: “It has been amply proven that from 1977 to 1999 whatever Government is formed has to satisfy the establishment and establishment interest. . . .”

Comment: Establishment is too vague a word. Who is included in the establishment? If it is army (for example), say it is army. Even if you identify the army as the main culprit, you may need to distinguish between the fat cats and the institution of army. I suspect, the problems of Pakistan are more as a result of the perceived reproductive needs of the institution of army and much less as a result of the generals. It is, however, important to realize that the perceived/imagined needs of the army are partly a product of the desire of the army generals to benefit from the kickbacks (and/or other favors) and partly by the perceived/imagined/constructed threats to our borders.

Rashid, according to a news report, General Mirza Aslam Beg has over a billion dollars outside Pakistan. Over a billion (but under what?)! What chances are there for a Pakistani businessperson or an industrialist to make a billion dollars honestly?

Your statement: “The question is will our Rulers relinquish power?”

Comment: If a member of the ruling class is corrupt and can manipulate the system to his/her advantage, the answer is definitely no. How many members of the ruling class, and under what conditions have they, relinquished power so far?

Your statement: “The way things are taking shape, it looks like that there will be confrontation once more and our BRAVE ARMY will be defeated by its own people once again.”

Comment: What the basis of your expectation? Is it based upon hearsay or you know something that I (and perhaps many others) don’t know? How strong is the PONAM?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Dear Fuzair (#63)

I am sorry I was preoccupied for the last couple of weeks, and could not get back with the rest of the research. I am quoting below from ``POWERS OF THE PRESIDENCY``, 2nd Edition, Congressional Quarterly, Inc., Washington D.C. Now that I have my book back in my possession, I would be delighted to send FAX you a copy of these pages, if you so desire.

Emergency Powers of the President are clearly defined on Page 49 - 56. The categories and example of emergency powers are listed on Page 50. These emergency powers are grouped in three categories: (a) Powers over Individuals, (b) Powers over Property, and (c) Powers over Communications. If you would like I can enumerate specific powers in each of these groups. Suffice to say these include, but not limited to confine individuals, suspend habeas corpus, declare martial law, fix wage and prices, allocate materials in ways necessary to aid national defense, withhold information from Congress and the public deemed potentially sensitive to national security, monitor and censor communications between U.S. and other nations etc.

Presidential Powers in Wartime are separate and are described on Pages 50 - 54.

The procedures for emergency orders are described on Page 51.

The famous Justice Jackson`s Test of Presidential Emergency Powers is described on Page 53.

President & U.S. Budget (Page 257 - 259) is worth reading. I quote: ``The budget is the most revealing document produced by an administration. Not only does it spell out the funding decisions of the White House, but it also is an important fiscal policy tool...``; ``As previously noted, the president had little effect on the budget-making process until Congress enacted the 1921 Budget and Accounting Act...``; ``Although presidents acquired control over executive branch budget proposals, Congress often has resisted presidential attempts at budgetary leadership. Legislators are not required to accept the president`s recommendations or even to use as a starting point. The power of presidents to affect budget legislation has depended on their ability to forge congressional coalition and generate public pressure on Congress to favor their initiatives and priorities.``

Presidential Powers and Regulatory Authorities including Federal Reserve Board (FRB) (Page 63 - 64). I quote: ``Congress created the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) in 1887 to regulate the nation`s growing railroad industry and later assigned it jurisdiction over trucking as well. After establishment of the ICC, Congress created other independent boards and commissions to regulate business trade practices (FTC), labor relations (NLRB) TV and radio broadcasting (FCC), sales of stocks and bonds (SEC), banking (FRB)...``

``The exact authority of these agencies varies. They possess power to make law through what is called ``rule making`` and to adjudicate disputes about the application of the law through quasi-judicial methods.``; ``Congress has given the president authority to appoint the principal officers of these agencies {including Chairman of Federal Reserve Board). Presidential authority to fire them, however, has been limited to reasons speified by law. These limitations have been upheld in the U.S. Supreme Court.``; ``Federal judges, including justices of the Supreme Court, are appointed by the president. That ends the president`s formal authority over judicial branch. By explicit constitutional provision, federal judges have life tenure and may not be removed from office except by the impeachment process.``

Presidential Authority to Command (Page 64), I quote: ``In addition to appointment and removal authority, the president possesses the authority to control the official behavior of certain officers of the government who are charged with law enforcement duties. Federal judges are an exception in that they enjoy independent status from the Chief Executive. Similarly, presidents lack command authority in most instances {including FRB} over officers of independent regulatory boards and commissions.``

From Page 267, I quote: ``The Federal Reserve System is relatively free of formal congressional or executive control.``, ``The Fed ultimately is answerable to Congress, but the only formal powers Congress has over the Fed are Senate confirmation of appointees to the Board and the passage of legislation restricting or revising Fed`s powers. Congress can neither pass judgment on, nor veto Fed policies. Since the Fed is self-financing, Congress also cannot gain leverage by threatening to withhold appropriations. The Fed`s independent control of monetary policy is a potent restriction on presidential control of the economy. Except for their power to appoint Federal Reserve Board officials, presidents have no formal means through which they can influence monetary policy.``

You are correct about the term of Fed`s Chairman, my intention was not to mislead. I wanted to state that Fed`s longivity is more than President`s term. I appologize for this confusion.

I believe I have addressed most of your concerns, if I have left out I would be delighted to address them.

On macro-level I believe what I am saying ``The Autonomy is for India`` is a solid visionary statement. I do not subscribe to your Argentina example. I will narrate a little story, a few years ago, Indian Finance Minister, P. Chidambaram (an M.B.A. from my alma-matar Harvard Business School), was visiting Silicon Valley, Stanford Business School arranged a round-table meeting with him and selected Indians. I was invited to this meeting. One of the professors from Stanford Business School raised a point of similarity between Indian reforms and Turkish reforms. Mr. Chidambaram told the audience of a visit to India by Turkish finance minister who had told Indian finance minister that if India goes through economic reforms then there would be very inflation like it was in Turkey as a result of Turkish reform. Mr. Chidambaram gave his reasons that such reforms would not be inflationary in India because of its democratic institutions would ensure that the government falls and reforms disappear if the inflation level ever hits 9%. His reason was that people living below poverty line vote in India, and would be greatly hurt when the inflation goes above 9%. Hence no government would ever increase the growth rate so suddenly or allow FDI to flow in so suddenly to cause inflationary increase in money supply. The time has proven Indian finance minister right.

Similarly, I believe that for the reasons stated in my earlier write-up, devolution of power would increase distribution of wealth and prosperity. Happy people rarely fight to destroy what made them prosperous and happy.

Unfortunately, the recent communication at Chowk have become increasingly nasty, and are probably interesting to those who just like to call names and pull the other down. I hope Chowk does something about it, else it would loose the advantage that was making it a popular place.

Regards and thank you,

ANIL KAPURIA

Anil@Kapuria.COM

So where it leaves us.

To be a prime minister, you don`t basically need support of people, but support of vested interest AA. Neither I am in favor or against Benazir. It has been amply proven that from 1977 to 1999 whatever Government is formed has to satisfy the establishment and establishment interest, because even their victories are dependent not upon people. In this scenario, it has also been proven, that the main aim of leaders of political party is to keep their constituent happy (i.e assembly members) against manipulation by ISI. In this scenario, this is the only way for political parties to survive.

The question is will our Rulers relinquish power? No.

There are only two solutions constitutional and agitational. I am in favor of Constitutional rights to people. Manipulating in electios is denying that right. Who should the people elect, is none of the business of establishment because primary importance is people of the country and not country. For example as POONAM said rightly in its rally recently, that people are living in this area for centuries and Pakistan is created 50 years back.

Political parties have many limitations. Z.A. Bhutto are born rarely (and once in Pakistan). Political parties have to interact with people, with other parties and to keep its workers happy who are the back-bone. That is an ideal situation.

Local bodies election, on party basis will strengthen parties in one sense, they will be democratized and therefore reduce the power of establishment. Who in the right mind from establishment is going to do that.

The way things are taking shape, it looks like that there will be confrontation once more and our BRAVE ARMY will be defeated by its own people once again.

In response to fairdinkum (Reply # 281)
Dear Fairdinkum:

Your statement: “I know all about the class struggle in Sindh, and how enslaved, exploited, and down trodden ordinary Sindhi people are. I still believe we can tackle feudal landlords/elite in Sindh relatively easily if they don`t have the powerful backing of Pakistan army.”

Comment: Please tell us about the class struggle in Sindh. You maintain how enslaved, exploited and downtrodden ordinary Sindhi people are. Do you think that common people in other parts of Pakistan share somewhat similar experience? If no, why not? If yes, then one could argue that the Sindhi people are as enslaved, exploited and downtrodden as the Punjabis, Baluchis, Pakhtoons, etc.

In Sindh, are the Sindhi people (Sindhi speaking and/or others) exploited and mistreated by the Sindhi elite and/or non-Sindhi speaking Sindhi elite? Are they exploited by a host of elite Sindhis (by residence) and/or Pakistani elite? Please tell us: Why the Pakistan army supports the feudal and non-feudal elite in Sindh? Isn’t Pakistan army predominantly a Punjabi army?

Is your comment based upon hearsay or you could provide sound (and perhaps verifiable) information about the situation in Sindh? I, personally, have doubts about the capacity of common Sindhi people to revolt against the Sindhi elite, as least in the near future.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

bahmad #279

Interesting analysis from Alvi. Thanks for reproducing it here. I am losing hope for a lasting solution to our depressing political setup. Peace, socio-economic progress, and justice for all in Pakistan seems like an impossible dream. How deeply entrenched political power players are in Pakistan… How powerful, manipulative, and cunning the existing power elite in Pakistan is. I often wonder what will it take to break their dominance? I look at the possibility of break up of Pakistan or autonomy for smaller provinces within the federation, but as you say: ``neither a strong and separatist form of regionalism nor a strong and highly centralized kind of (Pakistani) nationalism is good for the peace and prosperity of the people in any part of Pakistan.``
I know all about the class struggle in Sindh, and how enslaved, exploited, and down trodden ordinary Sindhi people are. I still believe we can tackle feudal landlords/elite in Sindh relatively easily if they don`t have the powerful backing of Pakistan army.


You also said in your reply #272:

``I have no reason to believe that any top-down strategy will ever (exceptions aside) break the dominance of the existing power elite in Pakistan. If so, why do I in principle support the devolution of power? Devolution of power is a means through which we may ensure a better access to various goods and services. Devolution is also a means to develop a sense of participation in matters concerning the ordinary, everyday lives of individuals like me and you. Nonetheless, the success of these expected benefits remains contingent upon several other factors.``

Which, I presume, means that this plan has been put together simply to ease some of the symptoms, but does nothing for curing the disease. Lets hope that at least some of the severe symptoms are eased as a result of devolution. However, the prospects of this are increasingly looking gloomy as political parties have decided to seize this opportunity to make a few quick rupees in times of tight money. Also, I think that NGOs should stay away from this devolution business. Involving NGOs in this is like mixing religion with politics - a recipe for disaster.

In response to krashid (Reply 3 278)
Dear Rashid:

Your statement: ``I was referring to your personal experience. If you have been involved in politics to some extent that will augment your theories. But even if you have not, then your theoretical basis is strong.``

Comment: I must apologize, I am still unable to understand the meaning and purpose of your statement. Rashid, I have some experience of political activism, though I have never associated myself with any particualr student political group or any political party. Instead of gaining an essentially empirical knowledge, I focus attention upon a theoretically informed and informing understanding of our social reality.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to krashid (Reply # 278)
Dear Rashid:

In my last post to you (Reply # 277), I raised a few questions. In order to know the answers, a person need to be informed and critical. Hamza Alavi, in my view, is one such person. I wish to reproduce the following paragraphs taken from one of his articles, where he provides an interesting and informed analysis of Benazir Bhutto`s first term. Alavi writes:

Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto

``A return to elective parliamentary democracy after the General Elections of November 1988 resolved the crisis of legitimacy into which the Pakistani political system had been plunged by Zia`s action in dismissing his Assembly; indeed that crisis had already been building up because the `Partyless` Assembly had lacked credibility and the policy of so-called `Islamization` had failed. The PPP, the leading party of the opposition, on the other hand, already wore the mantle of legitimacy before its victory in the elections. Its electoral success gave it a national mandate.

Under Benazir Bhutto, however, the PPP had become a shadow of its old self. After a trip to the United States in 1984 when she was assured of influential support, she had began to purge the party of its leading radicals and was particularly intolerant of criticism of the United States. In awarding tickets for elections long-serving PPP activists were dropped in favor of recent converts, local `feudal` lords and retired army officers who had jumped onto the PPP bandwagon. The `Guardian` reported: `The reformation of the PPP in a new pragmatic form was a disillusioning and divisive business. The old populist rhetoric has given way to . . . a new realism. Acceptance of World Bank and IMF dogma, accommodation to the US regional priorities and, above all, the need to reassure the army. have become guiding principles. She had also begun to placate the military. Winding up her election campaign she said categorically that “Realistically it will be very difficult, given the present state of Pakistan, for any civilian government to survive without the critical backing of the armed forces. I suppose it will be more like an unspoken word, because we will not want to give any pretext for the army to intervene.”

For many months after being installed in office, in virtually every other speech Benazir Bhutto was full of praise for the Pakistan military leadership (in a political sense) and, ironically, she bestowed a special Award on the army for its “services to democracy”. This has gone a long way towards restoration of the credibility and legitimacy of the military as an independent actor in the Pakistani political arena. Indeed, there is no need for the army to take office. In the face of repeated calls by the opposition IDA for intervention by the army, General Mirza Aslam Beg, the new army chief, has declared repeatedly that he had rejected every appeal to impose martial law, for that cannot solve the country`s problems, which must be tackled and resolved by the political leadership that bears responsibility for them. That view has not deterred him from making important political statements from time to time and his weight in the political affairs of the country is widely recognized. The Financial Times noted that: `General Aslam Beg, the Army Chief of Staff, has already emerged as an influential backseat driver in the government. . . . General Beg`s public statements are seen as key policy statements in Pakistan.” The “Economist” noted that: ``the Army`s role in Government has been quietly institutionalized.``

Given Benazir Bhutto`s public and unequivocal surrender to the army, as well as to powerful US interests, the “establishmen”` should have no fears about her being in office. Indeed, she is a great asset to the establishment, for she presents a “democratic face” to the new order in which little has changed. True to the Sher Ali philosophy, it was necessary to have a political countervailing force to keep the PPP in its place; hence, the ISI went to great pains to devise a viable political alliance of nine right wing parties to oppose the PPP, the Islamic Democratic Alliance, the IDA (which is also referred to as the lslami Jamhoori Itehad, the IJI). The IDA acquired a majority in the Punjab and has formed the provincial Government there. The IDA Chief, Nawaz Sharif, Chief Minister of Punjab, has used that position to engage in an unremitting confrontation with the PPP Government that has paralyzed it. With the unedifying picture of politicians squabbling while the nation`s problems worsen, this has had the effect of bringing politicians once again into much disrepute with the public. This bodes ill for the consolidation, even the survival, of democracy in the country. The IDA has repeatedly called upon the military to take over power at the center, again legitimizing the role of the military as a proper arbiter in the country`s political affairs.

In installing Benazir Bhutto in office, the United States has once again played a key role in settling the issue of who is to govern in Pakistan. The US Ambassador Robert Oakley played an active role throughout, meeting all political groups, the President and the military chiefs and in working out an arrangement between the military and Benazir Bhutto. These matters were settled in advance before she could see her way to office. Several newspaper reports saw the role of the US ambassador as that of “smoothing the way for Benazir Bhutto by mediating with the military.” The fact remains that even after her victory in the elections it was left to a foreign power to install the victor in office.

Sadly, Benazir Bhutto has been prepared to grant everything that was demanded of her for the sake of Prime Ministerial office. The Economist thus reported that: “Ten days after the election a visit from the American Ambassador, Mr. Robert Oakley . . . gave the needed American nod. . . . In return for the Prime Ministership, however, she has accepted the rules under which she will have to work.” For a Pakistani nationalist and radical, this is a humiliating victory and questionable democracy. Benazir Bhutto`s Cabinet, which was announced on 4 December, was chosen in accordance with the wishes of the army, the President and the Americans. Besides the ubiquitous US Ambassador, two senior Americans, the Assistant Secretary for Defense Richard Armitage and his counterpart in the State Department Richard Murphy arrived to take part in shaping the final arrangements.

The most extraordinary choice for the Cabinet was that of Lieutenant General Yaqub Khan, Zia`s Foreign Minister for more than eleven years. He continues in Benazir Bhutto`s Cabinet in the same capacity in which he had served Zia. This imposed “choice” must have been galling for Benazir Bhutto. The Financial Times reported: “Ms Bhutto has bowed to the pressure from the army and the US to retain Sahibzada Yaqub Khan as Foreign Minister.” Retired Lieutenant General Yaqub Khan was not only Foreign Minister under Zia, whose record Benazir Bhutto had castigated in her speeches; ironically, he was also a candidate for the opposition IDA in the elections and was defeated. Benazir Bhutto`s other choices for cabinet appointments and senior advisers have similarly been constrained. On the other hand, she has herself shown little wisdom in appointing her mother and her father in-law to senior positions, which has left her open to the charge of nepotism and has served to undermine her image.

After more than a year in office the Benazir government has earned a reputation of doing nothing at all, indeed of being once again a government of corruption and incompetence. There are many pressing problems that the government was expected to get to grips with, not least that of rescuing Pakistan`s bankrupt treasury and decaying economy. We have no space to discuss these issues here. However, the Government seems to have ruled out two main options that it could have turned to for this. They are, first, a reduction in defense expenditure and abandonment of wildly expensive schemes such as missile production (incidentally, it was General Mirza Aslam Beg, instead of the Prime Minister, who proudly announced Pakistan`s successes in developing new home produced laser guided missiles). Second, a tax on agricultural incomes, which at the moment are free from income tax and the only major untapped source for taxation, is badly needed to generate urgently required fiscal resources. Benazir Bhutto is not likely to take either of these two options, because of her dependence on the power of the military and her political dependence on the landlord class, of whom she, too, is one. Nor does it look likely that she will do anything to reduce the lavish conspicuous consumption of Pakistan`s upper classes and corrupt officials; for example, by reducing imports of expensive cars and durable consumer goods and other luxury items, which absorb such a huge part of Pakistan`s scant foreign exchange earnings, diverting resources from productive investment in a country with one of the lowest savings rates in the world. But if she is not to have the power to do any of these things, what is `democracy` for? That democratic struggle has yet to be waged.``

(From Alavi, H. Alavi, H. Authoritarianism and Legitimation of State Power in Pakistan)

Dear BAhmed!

First on Benazir.

In his ``Daughter of East`` she has written in detail her life. Most of the time she was under arrest. And when she found opportunity, she started organizing her party from London. Before that she was a student. So in this regard Nawaz Sharif was already Chief Minister (I think) in Punjab and Benazir experience in active politics was organizing her party for a couple of years. IJI was formed with the backing of ISI, Govt. of time and people who matter. People`s party had behind it legacy of Z.A. Bhutto, and a politician with very limited experience. Inspite of all odds she won. But to be recognized as prime minister she has to accept GIK as President, I think SahabZada Yaqub as Foreign minister etc. And I can only guess that how her hands would be tied to do anything. I can argue both ways. If she had left the field, her party would be shattered. So the only option was to keep the assembly member happy and keep her Govt. intact.

In my opinion a political party, represents its constituency. Like Zia Himayat Tehrik, I would judge as people who want to consolidate Zia for SOME REASON. Similarly, JI represents lower or middle class urban people who wants to implement Islam for SOME REASON. Political parties are not formed overnight (except in assembly). They go through a lot of years of experience, sufferings, their ideological basis and changes in it with time which make them acceptable or wither out. It is possible as in the case of Altaf Hussain, and Nawaz Sharif, that they start with an agent of agency, but with time they change their thoughts.

I don`t think a pure middle class party like MQM can be formed for all of Pakistan, still it will act as an agent of Industrialists /Feudal. Like MQM supported by people has a heavy funding and support from Mohajir Industrialists. In rural areas situation is much worse and relates to the power and biradrism.

It is also my opinion that, Nationality question is a big problem and needs resolution with time. Also involvement of political parties is important to involve a large section for Nation building.

I was referring to your personal experience. If you have been involved in politics to some extent that will augment your theories. But even if you have not, then your theoretical basis is strong.