Would Devolution Empower “We the People”?

Jay

Please leave us to our fate... we dont need to ingenious solutions thankyou very much ...

Love

Yasser

In response to tahmed321 (Reply # 211)
Dear Ahmed:

Your statement: “And I think you agree to the proposition that we should eliminate provinces. . . .”

Comment: I never said that we should eliminate provinces. I understand that any attempt to eliminate the provinces would be disastrous for our national cohesion.

Let me reiterate my position. In my post to you (Reply # 206) I said that any attempt to eliminate the provinces would be “unrealistic and intensely conflictual.” Then I said that “we need to work very very hard to slowly and gradually minimize the negative effects of the various bases of our multiple and contradictory collective identities.” I finally said that one major step toward the creation of a national “society that rests upon good human values” would be “to ensure equal and fair opportunity to every citizen of Pakistan.”

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Bilal Ahmed: As you say, we need the ``creation of a Pakistani society that rests upon good human values.`` This is long overdue, I think, and a prerequisite to our progress as a people. And I think you agree to the proposition that we should eliminate provinces, and have only two levels of government, at (a) the national level and (b) the community level. I wonder what you think of the proposition (discussed by me e.g. in post #171) that we should place basic issues (including the one of limiting the various levels and roles of government, accepting the status quo on Kashmir, and so forth) before the people and having a referendum. Perhaps the referendum could place certain ``good human values`` (or ``self-evident truths``, as the US founding fathers called it) before the people: equal rights and no discrimination based on ethnicity, tribal affiliation (zat) or religion or gender; education for all children, economic opportunities for all adults; and so forth. I have a feeling the CE would be receptive to such ideas, although it would send chills up the spines of the politicians.

In response to Fuzair (Reply # 208)
Dear Fuzair:

I am unable to understand the link between your post and my post to Ahmed (Reply # 206). Please explain.

Fuzair, you incessantly refer to the liberal democracy. Did you consider the applicability of some other forms of democracy (such as pluralist democracy; consociational democracy; a combination of liberal and pluralist democracies) in the case of Pakistan?

Fuzair, do you see the possiblity of reaching a unanimous national political agreement to form a friendly federation of the Pakistani people/nations with maximum provincial autonomy with a constitutional guarantee (with a guarantee to protect the Constitution from being defaced or abrogated)that all citizens of Pakistan will be allowed to become legal residents of any particular province and enjoy equal citizenship and human rights?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to krashid (Reply # 207)
Dear Rashid:

Is you post in response to my post to Ahmed (Reply # 206)? Please clarify.

With reference to the center-province relations, you maintain that the issue of interprovincial disharmony (I presume) “ needs to be addressed “just after the local bodies election”. Why after the local body elections, why not before (especially if the success of the Devolution Plan is dependent upon a resolution of the staus and power of provinces)?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Re: Bahmad #206

Interesting post, Professor. I seem to recall (again from faulty memory) that after the 1848 Revolution the Austrian Empire gave (reluctantly to be sure) a great deal of home rule to the Magyars in exchange for their support for the Empire and continued help in repressing the Slavs. The Magyars, previously considered a down trodden and oppressed group within the Austrian empire, promptly used their home-rule powers to increase the repression of `their` minorities. Its almost as if they were making up for lost time. Similarly, Jews, have been among the most persecuted ethnic/minority groups in history. But as soon as they got their own state again (actually, before that), the first thing they did was a little bit of Arab ethnic cleansing and then continued repression of the non-Israeli Arab Muslim population. The blacks in Africa, for decades oppressed by the white colonial masters, immediately after independence decided to oppress black ethnic groups who were not in power and any middlemen minority (i.e., Indians) whom they could find. I could go on much longer but I think you get the idea.

So if the PONAM people get their away and the Baluchis (to pick a group at random) have true home rule, can we be sure that they won`t turn on the Hazaras? Or the Bugti Sikhs? Or the Baluchi speakers won`t oppress the Brahui speakers (or vice versa)?

I think that a better solution (better than One Unit, anyway) would be to break up Pakistan provincially along district lines instead of One Unit. However, you can take this too far. Its alleged that the French Premier`s reaction to Wilson`s ridiculous 14 Points was on the lines of, ``Mon Dieu! Must every language have its own country?`` The British Premier is alleged to have said, ``Even God himself was content with only 10 Commandments!`` So we can take national self-determination too far. At some point you have to draw the line and say, ``Enough is enough. Minorities have to accept their minority status and adapt to the majority.`` I would probably draw the line at the demand for independence for Kashmir or the Pakistani Northern Areas.

Alternatively, we could go for One Unit and homogenize Pakistan into a Punjabist state (not my preferred option, BTW). This would be similar to what the Singapore govt is in the process of doing to its Chinese majority. Mandarin is the officially approved Chinese dialect and gradually Cantonese/Hunanese/Hokka (sp?)/etc speakers are dying out to be replaced with Mandarin speakers. This is what the Pakistani governments have tried to do with Urdu--its worked in some areas--replacing the native languages of some Pakistanis. For obvious reasons, this has been a less than complete success.

In addition, all the focus on Islam-this and Islam-that is also to give us a meta-identity that will over-ride all other lesser (ethnic/linguistic/etc) ones. Obviously this has also not worked too well: look the 1971 fiasco.

It seems to be a natural/hard-wired tendency in all humans to favor in-group members at the expense of out-group members (I am happy to provide the references here if you want). From this it is an easy step to active repression of out-group members. I fear that we are never going to be able to curb this regrettable tendency in some/most people: hence the need for strong civil rights laws and constitutional protection of minorities (one of the key differences between vulgar democracy and liberal democracy).

BTW, haven`t virtually all ruling groups/cliques/factions used their power to mainly to benefit themselves? In the former USSR you have the nomenklatura; China has the Party millionaires; Pakistan has its Army; etc. Why pick on the poor Pakistani elites? They have only behaved normally? We would hope that our leaders would be a little bit better than we but, alas, we are usually disappointed.

Regards.

BAhmed!

The problem is not what I think.

My concerns are related to me. Since I am doing OK, why bother.

But I follow the newspaper closely and although, Jang newspaper is for common man, but following it gives a very good idea of politics of Pakistan.

I am talking about current trends in Pakistan.

For example, I completely disapprove of MQM and its politics of ethnicity, but I probably would vote for it or People`s Party. Who is going to provide leadership to people. How can a person in Sind trust center, when during two years of Nawaz Sharif rule, there was Governor Rule. In current job cutting exercise, in Sind most of the people affected are Mohajirs and Sindhis. (As you might be knowing that PIA and steel mills have large number of people from other provinces, but job cut is mostly for Sindhi`s and Mohajirs.) NWFP thinks that it is being mainly targeted by NAB ordinance. These are real issues on ground.

You can read recent articles by that great son of Kasur Irshad Ahmed Haqqani etc.

The power in Sind is People`s Party, the last hope of Federation, otherwise, if it changes its politics, where will anyone go. The recent meeting of POONAM members with MQM does not augur well.

As I stressed before issue is not that different Federalist are scattered equally in all provinces, but the issue is of provincial rights and role of center. Just after the local bodies election, that issue needs to be resolved, not only for survival of Pakistan, but for the progress of Pakistan.

In response to tahmed321 (Reply # 204)
Dear tahmed 321 (henceforth Ahmed):

Allow me to join you and krashid (henceforth Rashid) in your interesting dialogue. Rashid seems to argue that people in various provinces of Pakistan have conflicting interests. You disagree.

Ahmad, you maintain that the differences have been blown out of proportions since the problem is essentially one of survival and material-wellbeing. So far so good, and I sympathize with your position. The difficulty in your position develops when you use it to justify the abolition of provinces. Social relations in Pakistan, like most other parts of the world, are overdetermined. In using the notion of overdetermination, I want to argue that the low social position of an average Baluchi (for example) is overdetermined by his/her class position (material factor) and ethno-linguistic background (cultural factor), whereas the low social position of an average Baluchi women is overdetermined by her class position, ethno-linguistic background, and gender discrimination (patriarchical factor: a mixture of economic, cultural and ideological relations).

In Pakistan, the provinces are imagined, perceived, and interpreted communal units. These units have been constructed socially over time and controlled by some vested groups to maintain their power and to maximize its associated benefits. The Pakistan Oppressed Nations’ Movement (PONAM) uses the present provincial setup to argue for the existence of five nationalities in Pakistan. These are: Punjabis, Saraikis, Baluchis, Pakhtoons, and Sindhis. The implication here is to divide Punjab into at least two parts: Northern Punjab (a mainstream Punjabi province) and Southern Punjab (a Saraiki speaking province). If this organization want to really create a province of Saraiki speaking people, then a Saraiki speaking province must consist of Southern Punjab, a part of NWFP, a part of Baluchistan, and perhaps a small part of Sindh. If such a province becomes a reality, then it may become a catalyst for additional boundary changes on the basic of ethno-linguistic considerations in other provinces. One such development would be the development of Pakhtoonkhawa out of the NWFP and northwestern Baluchistan.

A simple, but unrealistic and intensely conflictual, solution of the ethno-linguistic problem would be to revive Ayub Khan’s one-unit system (as per your suggestion that “provinces . . . should be eliminated”). I think, we need to work very very hard to slowly and gradually minimize the negative effects of the various bases of our multiple and contradictory collective identities. As a first step, we need to work for the creation of a Pakistani society that rests upon good human values. What do we need to create such a society? One major step would be to ensure equal and fair opportunity to every citizen of Pakistan (please see my Chowk article on the “Citizenship Rights for a Better Future”).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

krashid #191 Sorry for the delay in following up to your post. I agree that whatever we come up with should be based on realities and not on idealism. The question is: what are these realities? From your posts, it appears you think that the people in different provinces have conflicting interests. I do not think this is really the case, and that provincial differences (like national-level differences with India) are blown out of proportion. Let me illustrate:

a. What is the reality for the 20 year old youth? His concern is to become financially self-sufficient. The 40 year old is concerned about ensuring good schooling for his/her children. The 50 year old is concerned about providing for his/her old age. At all ages, a person is concerned about his/her life and limb; if the person is somewhat educated, he/she is also concerned about pollution of different kinds. It does not matter whether the person in question is a Panjabi or Pathan or Sindhi or Muhajir, or even nationality of religion. These are the realities that affect people. Things like inter-provincial water-sharing arrangements are too indirectly related to these issues to be of any concern, and in any case are best dealt with at the national level and not at the provincial level. It is for this reason that I think that inter-provincial differences are vastly overstated and the provinces can and should be eliminated. The simpler the government structure (e.g. through elimination of the entire provincial level of government), and the more limited the role of government in society (e.g. privatize all goods and services industries, and replace them with a rational regulatory structure that ensures proper rewards and punishments to private entrepreneurs) the better the chances that the government that does exist will work well. And the better the chance that concerns of all Pakistanis, as described above, will in due course be reduced to manageable proportions. Perhaps the next generation of Pakistanis will then start experiencing life as something joyful and not an endless process of worry and suffering.

Pankaj #199

I think contrary to your assertion, Pakistanis are much more politically conscious than Indians.

1971 East Pakistan debacle is just one manifestation, but during Bhutto era (Z.A. Bhutto), there were continuos demonstrations and riots. The 1977 PNA movement was started due to alleged rigging by Bhutto in elections.

Even in Martial law of Zia-ul-Haq there was a mass movement, called MRD especially in Sind.

The problem is complicated in Pakistan. People don`t trust political parties, because they know that every demonstration and movement will lead only to change in face, where one looter is replaced by another.

The direction which the people have taken is through N.G.O`s, regional parties, other private organizations and at individual levels. Considering the current situation what other options are left.

In response to rajanjua (Reply # 200)
Dear Janjua:

It is nice to see your post. It is indeed easy to assume but it is difficult to justify that the present dictatorship is insincere. Despite my overall dissatisfaction with the present regime, I am trying to understand and make others understand the positive role that this plan may play in our local level polity. Please tell us what you think about the specific components of this plan. Could you also explain how in your view the devolution plan would empower “We the People”?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to Pankaj (Replies # 199 and 201)
Dear Pankaj:

My deconstruction of your statement was guided by my desire to stress the inappropriateness of statements that tend to over-simplify complex social relations. In my response, I was also trying to show my reluctance for accepting a thesis that, I think, was a reflection of an essentially bourgeois worldview. There is very little scholarship in Pakistan that seeks to see the world from the viewpoint of ordinary, working-class people.

Like you, I am appreciative of the overall effort to devolve power. However, in view of my long detachment from Pakistan and her ground realities, I am unable to appreciate/understand if the apparent partnership of women in the political process would bring fruitful results in most parts of predominantly rural Pakistan. All apprehensions about the plan and its successful implementation, as ably summarized by you, are not totally baseless. I think, it is good that Pakistanis are becoming critical and that they have rightly developed a distrust and cynicism about the role of the state.

The power distribution structure in the devolution plan appears unsymmetrical to you. I think, it is little bit hasty on your part to assume that the common people may have little influence over policymaking and for drafting a vision for the future of Pakistani polity at the provincial and federal level.

The question concerning the allocation of funds/resources at the cental level is of utmost importance. On the face value, an equitable formula for revenue sharing will be devised, but no egalitarian allocation of resources would significantly alter the existing geography of development unless the size of pie currently reserved for the armed forces is drastically reduced. I sometimes suspect that Musharraf’s coup was actually rooted in the inability of the army to sustain itself due to the shrinking size of the national pie. It is, nonetheless, imperative that we ensure access to good quality education to all Pakistani children such that they understands the necessity of ensuring a good quality of life for their children.

My ideological and theoretical orientation forces me to disapprove dictatorship at the outset. I, however, think that Musharraf would do his best to legitimize his coup. For this, he may have to act like a benevolent dictator. If “we the people” could continue to exert pressure (which is somewhat limited, yet effective), Musharraf and his regime may take some good measures. A case in point is the devolution plan, with all of its defects and inadequacies.

Pankaj, the function of a local government is not to “take hard decisions at the central level to bolster the shattering economy.” I neither expect a revolutionary change nor do I expect that a whole “new generation of young leaders” will be produced as a result of the devolution plan. I also don’t expect miracles to happen if elections are conducted on a party basis.

Pakistan has long been controlled by the army-bureaucracy-bourgeoisie troika, in which the blessings of the army were/are a important factor in the sustenance of any political regime. Pakistan army, I think, prefers to maintain this indirect control rather than tarnish its image by taking power directly in its own hands. Despite this preference, there are moments when the army chiefs take charge on the premise of greater national interest.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. Chowkwallas address me in many different ways. On the informal domain of Chowk, I prefer to be called by my first name.

Dr. Bilal

In a rethinking about the article, I liked few features of the plan. Especially ensuring the partnership of women in the political process. To summarise, the doubts raised by the people can be distributed into three categories:- upon its implementation, the intentions of Musharraf, and about the practicality of a ``partyless system``. Some people also expressed the apprehensions about the future when Musharraf quits power. Will such a ``partyless`` system continue or will it again be replaced by the old political structure?

However I have certain additional concerns. The power distribution structure appears to be unsymmetrical to me. Although people have been given power to govern themselves through elected local bodies, the power of policymaking at a state level, and drafting vision for the advance of the Pakistani state seem to be eluding common people. The question arises who will decide at the central level about the funds that should be allocated to say education or defence. The power of formulating the vision for the state seems to be concentrated with Gen Musharraf. Although such a system of local governence might aid in smooth ``administrative`` functioning, it remains questionable if it can take hard decisions at the central level to bolster the shattering economy. If Musharraf is hoping for a new generation of young leaders to come forward to lead the country as a result of this scheme, it is again doubtful if it is possible considering the huge public support that is to be mobilised by such a person in the absence of a cadre based party. Moreover such people who basically govern at the district level, may not be able to appreciate the wide and nore critical gamut of problems faced by the center. Part system may have a lot of pitfalls but at least it prepares a line of leaders at the central level who graduate from the bottom and can appreciate problems at central level which are somewhat different from the local level.

Sincerely

Q: Would Devolution Empower “We the People”?

A: Yes!!

Instead of assuming that the present govt. is inscincere and a won`t accomplish anything one should ask the question how can we contribute, instead of bitching about it.

Dear Dr. Bilal

I being a student of science, liked the way you dissected my post. Infact I had not defined several specialised words in my premise and hence be easily criticised for vagueness.

By middle class, I meant an economical middle class who has access to reasonably good education, whose basic(food,cloth and shelter) necessities of life are met and hence can divert their attention to the ``higher human needs``(ref. Maslow`s hierarchy of needs) of enjoying social and political freedom. To be concrete let us say, people with an income level between Rs 4000 to Rs 50,000 per month in India.

By politically active, I mean this middle class should be aware of its right to be represented in the govt, right to freedom of speech, right to equal opportunities, etc and ready to fight for these. I said Pakistanese are not so politically active since there was no such mass uprisings against miliatry dictatorships as there were in India when Indira imposed emergency in 1977. It was the pressure of these mass uprisings for their political freedom that she was ultimately forced to declare elections and the Congress faced a complete route. Even though Naaz Sharif was extremely unpopular, there were no major public movements against him. People should have carried out ``Aandolans`` to force him step out of the office and order fresh elections instead of rejoicing over a military coupe. Democracy can not survive unless people are not ready to pay the price to defend it. Also historically, Indians particularly Hindus were ahead in carrying out major mass protests against British and fortunately they had some good political leadership.

By ``Rationality`` I meant not an economic one, but more of having a scientific temper to distinguish between false promises and ground realities. It also means rejecting the demagogues who incite public sentiments to further their own interests, to understand what policies are beneficial in the long run against being ``popular`` and pressurising their representatives to enforce them. This requires an educated mass and takes time to develop. I would say that a significant section of Indian mass is not ``rational`` although a large fraction is more or less rational.

Hope I clarified some of my points.

Sincerely

Women`s Empowerment, Devolution, and the Khan`s

The following news clipping provides some clues for a policy perhaps unwritten) of the Musharraf regime for the empowerment of women through both employment and political participation. Omar Asghar Khan, son of Air Marshall Asghar Khan, is the minister for labor, manpower and overseas Pakistanis. The role of Asghar Khan as the Chief of Pakistan Air Force, Pakistan International Airlines, and a politician is well known. He is believed to be, from at least the Pakistani standards, a very honest man. Did Asghar Khan play a direct or indirect role in the toppling down of Nawaz Sharif`s government? I have no personal knowledge. Is Omar A. Khan a dedicated person interested in the welfare of Pakistani people, particularly the women? It seems he is. Omar is also the Chief (?) of an organization, called Sangi Foundation, a Non-Government Organization (NGO). I e-mailed this organization for information. I received no response.

Omar has recently asked the NGOs to participate in the local body elections. What kind of political activism/participation is appropriate for the NGOs to remain free of politics? Has Omar actually called for the politicization of the NGOs. NGOs by definition should not be a part of the government. What is the role of NGOs in the Indian Panchayat system?

What kind of changes in local, regional and national politics are likely to occur with the active involvement of women in local politics (33 percent of all seats in various councils)? Are a substantial number of NGOs run/controlled by women? If yes, who are these women? What social class do they belong to?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Govt to ensure equal gender participation in Local bodies polls
Dawn, August 29, 2000

ISLAMABAD, Aug 28: The minister for labour, manpower and overseas Pakistanis, said on Monday that women would participate in the bodies elections. Speaking at the inauguration ceremony of a two-day workshop on ``Women employment concerns and working condition``, which was jointly organized by the ministry of labour, ILO and UNDP. The minister said: ``Women also deserve a better lot and more employment opportunities for an effective role in nation building.`` However, he hinted at various restraints being faced by the government in empowering the women. The minister said poor participation of women in trade unions, limited legal cover and insufficient wages had been retarding the broader women participation in different sectors. ``The government recognizes the situation and will explore ways and means of empowering more and more women,`` he added. He said 33 per cent seats in upcoming local bodies polls had been allocated for women and more representation of women in different institutions was also being looked into. However, he called upon women to elect true representatives instead of being swayed by the wives and daughters of influentials, Vaderas [landlords in Sindhi language]and the businessmen. He said the labour laws net would be extended to farm labour and it would definitely benefit women. Efforts are afoot to rehabilitate those having fallen victim to bonded labour, he said, adding that the government was distributing state land among the landless. The minister said at present the ratio of women workers stands at about 14 per cent of the total women in the country with 18 per cent in rural and 9 per cent in urban areas, adding, ``more gender participation in different sectors will also be ensured.`` However, the minister called upon the donors and the developed countries to be liberal in immigration laws and not to link trade with labour standards. ``They should rather lend a hand instead of imposing sanctions that could create more hardships for developing countries,`` Omar said. Secretary Labour, Farhat Hussain on the occasion said women are integral part of our society and their role is important in nation building. He said the women working in hazardous occupations must be equally protected, adding, the Ministry is also aware of the gender equality issue. Farhat termed the subject of high priority and assured, the government will seriously consider the workshop deliberations.-APP