Would Devolution Empower “We the People”?

In a letter to the Editor, Lisa Ornasky wrote:

``I am a foreigner and have lived in Pakistan for the last fifteen years.``

``The parliamentary system in its present form is not workable in Pakistan. The social psychology and the political culture are not compatible with this set-up.``

``I am convinced that the new plan of devolution by the National Reconstuction Bureau (NRB) is the best solution. A new breed of young uncorrupted leaders will come forward through the scheduled local bodies polls and they would definitely provide the perfect alternative to the failed leadership. The present regime should carry on with their endeavors to improve the system.``

Lisa lives in Islamabad (I personally do not know her). We don`t know her background. She is oppposed to the politicians, including Nawabzada Nasserullah Khan.

Is Lisa too optimistic about the production of a new breed of uncorrupted leaders?

Why a foreigner, like Lisa, is concerned about the future of Pakistan? Is she representing the views of her predominantly Islamabad-based Pakistan friends. If so, what segment of the Pakistani population do they belong to? Let me assure that I am not trying to develop a conspiracy theory.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

bahmad #194 and sadna #195

A fatwa banning all women from politics would be the logical next step for JI/religious right in Pakistan too.
And this is not something new, btw.

Bilal,

If the devolution plan is aimed at empowring people (in the true sense of the word), then women of Pakistan deserve more than just 33% of all seats. It is irrelevant if we have enough women in all districts `WHO WOULD` win elections (I can elaborate on that if you like). JI`s opposition to women in politics is as symbolic as NRB`s decision to allocate 33% of seat all seats to women. Of course, JI and other such parties would be more organized and equipped to win these 33% of seats allocated to women. However, Qazi`s opposition is pointing to a larger issue i.e. religious right`s vision of Pakistan. It is common knowledge that religious right has no regard for more than half the population of the coutry i.e women. They consider women inferior beings incapable of making decsions. And as far as religious right is concerned, this issue of inferiority of women is not open for debate. So what is there to understand?

As for the participation of NGOs, I will talk about that later.

bahmad #194
From June 16 2000
http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/jun/15iype.htm
A new fatwa bars Muslim women from public life
Excerpt:
``An apex Muslim religious body in Kerala has issued a fatwa that bans the community`s women from entering political life and sharing a public platform with men. Muslim intellectuals and reformists say petty politics, rather than religious fervour, is behind the fatwa....``

Sadhana

In response to fairdinkum (Reply # 193)
Dear Fairdinkum:

I am not sure if the formal entry of women in local politics would break the stranglehold of JI and/or any other so-called conservative party. Do we enough women in every district of Pakistan who would win elections and work against the agenda of JI?

I would like to point out that: (1) we need to fully understand the viewpoints of various social groups who are both in favor or against the entry of women in politics; (2) the National Bureau of Reconstruction has failed to show why 33 percent of all seats should be allocated to women.

Would the direct or indirect entry of the NGOs in local politics empower women? What such empowerment mean in both short and long-terms?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

bahmad # 190
Re: Qazi Hussain Ahmad

Is it any surprise to anybody? Religious right will oppose (as they always have) all such moves which threaten to break it`s stangle hold on the power politics in Pakistan. Let`s see if Musharraf backs off (as he did on blasphemy law issue) on this one or not..

EXTREMISTS OF PAKISTAN,

One thing unique about pakistan is that all are extremists. The mullahs want the Kalifayet, other `educated` want a western style democracy. The reality of pakistan suggest that at present both are impossible and that is why the dictatorship, which negates both keep coming up.

Why not a pak version of theo-decto-cracy. Half will be elected by one person one vote, another quarter by the military and an equal number by the mullahs. Pakistan is on a journey from democracy to theocracy, no doubt about it, and the above is a half way home.

No, no takers on chowk, eating too much mackers, and having upgraded to industrial grade bleach on faces, they themselves are in a half way home.

TAhmed #171

I agree with your assertion, if we were one nation. (not on paper only). In which case there would be a difference in opinion equally scattered over all regions, with minor variations. But alas, it is not so.

Compare, the NWFP and Punjab, where you can say, political parties are scattered such. (Mainly an achievement of Bhutto)

In Karachi, election results are not heavily but completely tilted towards MQM and in Interior Sind and Baluchistan, the situation is not different from Karachi. (As you can judge that even Army men like Daudpota, Governor of Sind, decided to quit rather than give in to demand of Kalabagh dam).

(As a side note, I like politicians from Punjab, who are more soft and practical than from say other places). But the solution needs to be found on ground realities and not on our idealism. When you don`t have to eat, you procure food first rather than books for education.

Women’s Participation in Local Bodies

According of the Local Government Plan 2000, one-third (33 percent) of all councillors at each of the three levels will be women. Here are a few excerpts from the Plan:

“One third of the union councillors in a union will be women.”

“The total number of seats in a Union Council will be twenty-one. It will comprise twelve general seats, of which four will be reserved for women. There will be six seats for workers and peasants, of which two will be reserved for women. In this manner out of eighteen Union Councillors six will be women. The remaining three seats will be those of the Union Nazim, the Naib Union Nazim, and one reserved seat for minorities. Women`s seats, even if left uncontested and vacant, will not be open to men and will remain vacant until filled through by-elections to be held every year.”

“The Village Council will be responsible for assessing finances required for projects and mobilising contributions of the people, promoting civic education and community learning, organising recreational and youth activities, and promoting gender and women`s issues.”

“The number of general seats in a Tehsil Council will be the same as the number of unions in that Tehsil. In addition, thirty three percent of the general seats will be reserved for women, five percent for workers/peasants, and five percent for minorities.”

“The number of general seats in the Zila Council will vary depending on the number of unions in the district. In addition to the general seats, the Zila Council will have thirty three percent seats reserved for women, five percent for workers/peasants, and five percent for minorities. All the Union Councillors of the district will be the Electoral College for these reserved seats.”

Comment: Is this really a progressive move? Have women ever played such a role in electoral politics? What difficulties are they going to encounter in a society which is not only patriarchical but where women are increasingly subjected to a particular interpretation of Islam? Why there are 33 percent reserved seats for women? What good would it bring to the society in general and women in particular?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. The following news clipping provides one conservative political view about the role of women in local body elections (NNN, Friday, September 9, 2000).

Qazi opposes 33% seats for women in local councils

LAHORE (NNI): Jamaat-e-Islmai chief Qazi Hussain Ahmed Thursday said secular forces are trying to implement their agenda in the guise of working for women rights.

Addressing the new education block in Mansoora, Qazi opposed 33 per cent seats for women in the new local bodies system. ``The rulers want women to go to everyone and asks for vote.``

The JI leader feared that such an approach would destroy the unit of family. ``We have to see what agony West is suffering after the unit of family was destroyed there.``

Under the devolution plan, 33 per cent of the Union Council seats have been reserved for women.

Qazi said the JI is trying to get women their right to inheritance and also to give them education.

He said the secular forces want to eliminate religion from collective lives. ``Today everyone is talking about the women rights, but in fact women rights are being abused by very these people.`` He said veil is not a hurdle for women, saying it protects them.

The JI asked the students to keep themselves updated on latest developments in communication.

In response to Pankaj (Reply # 187)
Dear Pankaj:

Let us assume that “Democracy can be successful only in the presence of a politically active, well informed and rational middle class and an independent judiciary” (your thesis).

What is a middle class? Who is included in or excluded from this category? For the sake of simplicity, let us assume that the identification of the middle class poses not real problems. Now, add the phrase “rational” to it. What is rationality? Who is rational? Let us simplify once again, and reduce this issue to mere economic rationality and economically rational persons. I think, we have a lot of people in Pakistan who easily fall in the category of “(economically) rational middle class.”

Before we add the phrase “politically active,” we need to be clear about its meaning too. Once again for simplicity sake, let us consider all those people who engage in some form of democratic action (say in electoral politics) as politically active. I think, we once again can easily identify individuals and groups of people as “politically active rational middle class people” in almost every district of Pakistan. Finally, these people are arguably well informed too.

Permit me to conclude: If we have a substantial number of politically active, well informed and rational middle class people in almost every district of Pakistan, why do we have a “sham” democracy (to borrow a phrase from General Musharraf)? Why don’t we have a so-called “true” democracy in Pakistan? According to your thesis, it may be easily concluded that: Democracy fails in Pakistan because “we don’t have an independent judiciary in Pakistan” I think, your thesis is simple reductionist.

A problem of Pakistani democratic politics is its continuity. Why can’t we have democratic continuity (i.e. continuity of electoral politics in Pakistan)? And, if it is due to a lack of independent judiciary, what don’t we have an independent judiciary? Are independent judiciaries likely (I am not saying possible) to develop under a predominantly authoritarian state that suffers from a crisis of legitimacy?

The notion of rationality reminds me of two books that I read some 16-17 years back. One is Mansur Olson’s “The Logic of Collective Action. The other is by R. Hardin’s “Collective Action.” These book are an important part of literature that is seeking to establish the conditions under which separate individuals do engage in concerted action to strengthen or defend their situation. Olson employs the prisoner’s dilemma game to analyze the nature of collective action. He informs how, under some conditions, individuals would “free ride” gaining the collective advantages of the organization but not incurring any of the costs of membership or commitment. He argues that organizations (collective bodies) are likely to suffer from the free-rider problem. Hardin and many others have refined and expended Olson’s rather simple claims. They argue, among other things, that many actual organizations are of an altruistic sort and are not based on such obvious self-interest at all. But, if the Enlightenment thinkers were right in their declaration that human mind and human society tends/seeks to be as rational as the other operations of nature and as amenable to scientific reason, we may still have to understand what we actually mean by rational and rationality.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Fuzair #183, Pankaj #187
You both missed my point entirely. If a population chooses a leader when he/she satisfies their aims when required and disposes of him/her when he/she ceases to meet their purpose, that system has lot better future and scope for improvements than some elite debating society sitting and deciding on behalf of all. (Vaise, JFK got elected with the help of bootlegging money and Chicago gangsters. The press he got was rather reverent about him throughout his tenure and later)

You have to work with what you have, the key in diverse societies at the start is to have as many people participate in the process as possible.

Sadhana

Re to Sadna, Sameer and Bilal Ahmad

Democracy can be successful only in the presence of a politically active, well informed and rational middle class and an independent judiciary. Accepting this as the premise, let us analyse the POVs of Sadna and Dr.Bilal. If people can be easily fooled by false promises of corrupt politicians like Nawaz Shirif or Jaylalita, it does not augur well for the success of democracy. Since in my understanding Pakistan lacks a strong politically aware middle class and public protests are rare, Dr Bilal may be justified in thinking Pakistan not suited for democracy. However Sadhana(am I right in spelling your name) says that even such people may represent a section of people. I say that these corrupt politicians do not represent the wishes of the people who worship them, only take advantage of their blind adulation to further their own interests.

So what is the solution? If devolution plan is successful in preparing a more politically aware and strong middle class, it will overthrow the corrupt rule of authority be it democratic or autocratic. If Musharraf has right intentions of transferring power to people and the plan is so implemented it will do Pakistani public some good. But I do not have faith in such altruistic motives of those in absolute power. This exercise might end in futility if beareaucracy-military nexus ultimately seizes further power in absence of strong public protests to advance their own interests. ``Power corrupts people`` and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I wish Musharraf has good intentions and the plan is implemented properly but this might be a wishful thinking.

Cheers

In response to shammi (Replies # 184 and 185)
Dear Shammi:

Thank you for two useful posts. Your reply # 185 supports what I exactly meant when I wrote to Fuzair that “I have never claimed that India is a true democracy. . . .”. There is no such thing as a true democracy. When we say true, we refer to something relative (not perfect). And, our sensibilities of democracy as a political system (and its actual existence) are often a product of our imagination and interpretation. Thanks again!

I wonder if the so-called think tanks in the National Reconstruction Bureau ever observed the the Indian panchayats in action.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Re: Bahmad # 177

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

Bahmad, democracy is an imperfect form of government. The US democracy is far from perfect, too. It is a lot better now than it was in 1789 when slaves, women and the landless were not allowed to vote, but there is still room for improvement (as always). Recognizing the imperfections, Thomas Jefferson wrote in the US constitution the following phrase:

``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...``

This phrase was deliberately chosen. The choice of a `more perfect Union` was carefully made to reflect the imperfections in the US democracy in the late 1700s, and also to account for the fact that civil standards change with time and are not stagnant. The term `more perfect Union` then calls upon succeeding generations to continue to improve the Union. Jefferson was farsighted enough to forsee that perfection could never be attained, yet the struggle to achieve should always go on.

Thus, formal democracy in India being almost 150 years younger than the US, is even less evolved, and consequently less developed. However, it is the only form of government that India has that has been shown to work. It is not always pretty, it is noisy, frustatingly slow, sometimes violent, but it still is better than the alternatives - dictatorships, monarchies and kingdoms.

Re: Bahmad Reply # 161

``do you think that panchayat system has failed/succeeded in India``

Bahmad:

I think that the program has been an overall success. The most significant achievement of the Panchayati system is that for the first time a formal form of democracy has been adopted by nearly 600,000 villages, anywhere in the world. Each Panchayat (village council) has five elected members. Further, a certain percentage (I belive 2 members) HAVE to be women. Today there are over 2 million elected Panchayat members (village councillors) in India. The councils make decisions on taxation, and funding of local projects. This is not to say that things have always gone well - J&K and Bihar are some of the states that have not had Panchayat elections due to various reasons for over five years.

I can point you towards a few web-sites that will give you different perspectives on the functioning of the Panchayat system. Readers can reach their own conclusions:

http://www.okhaonnet.com/ - Okha village panchayat web-site

http://www.kar.nic.in/zpshimoga/ - Shimoga village web-site

http://www.iias.nl/host/ccrss/grsrtcom.htm - Grassroot socio-cultural action and development

http://www.undp.org/gender/resources/mono5.html - PANCHAYAT RAJ: WOMEN CHANGING GOVERNANCE

http://magnet.undp.org/events/gender/india/VYASULU3.htm - Women in Panchayati Raj: Grassroots Democracy in India Experience from Malgudi

http://www.frontlineonline.com/fl1712/17121180.htm - DEMOCRATIC DECENTRALISATION - Panchayati raj at work

http://www.nic.in/ninthplan/vol1/v1c6-2.htm - 9th Plan Cooperative Federalism and Decenteralization - Panchayati Raj

http://www.odi.org.uk/rpeg/baumann.html - UK Overseas Development Institute - Local Government Reform in India

Re: Bahmad #141

Why not compare India to real democracies? After all, don`t the Indians always proclaim that they are the world`s largest democracy and sneer at our coup-plagued little country? Might be nice to point out just how hollow their claims really are. Why do they continually compare themselves to us? IF they are so great, why not take on the big boys and see how well they do then? Sadna #181 gives an interesting account of how mature Indian democracy can be. Now they are grooming Priyanka Gandhi as the fourth Nehru-Gandhi to ascend the Gaddi (I assume that Sonia is never going to make it as PM). The US has its share of political dynasties (Bush won`t be the first pere-fils presidential combination) but here you have to work at getting the job, it isn`t yours as a birthright. The inability of the Congress to find any one other than a Gandhi to rule them five decades after independence doesn`t bode well for India`s political maturity. They still have a long ways to go, maybe not as long as we do but they are nowhere close to real democracy status.

``My conception of true democracy is linked with the economic, political, social and spiritual emancipation of an overwhelming majority of people. Emancipation, however, is interpreted in a wide variety of ways. Realistically, emancipation is not context-free.``

I couldn`t agree more BUT the only context in which India looks good is if you compare it with us, Afghanistan or the SLORC thugs in Burma (I refuse to call it Myanmar).

My point re econometricians and the social sciences was that at some point you have to take your theories and see if there is any correspondence between them and the real world. Clearly not all theories are equally valid. You have to look at a theory`s descriptive power and its prescriptive power and try to figure out how well it does what it claims to do.

Regression analysis (or other statistical techniques) are not perfect but it is better than no evidence at all. If you prefer not to test your theories, then you have some serious problems with your scholarship.

``Is the lack of tolerance an essential product of a “politics of scarcity”?``

Probably, but some of the most intolerant people we have are among the wealthiest! But seriously, I suppose that tolerance becomes a viable option only when life is not a zero-sum game. When you have plenty, you can afford to share.

Of course there was plenty wrong with the Zia or the Ayub regime, all I was saying was that the model is not wrong. If you pick one or two examples and say that this proves that the model is incorrect, then this is clearly bad empirics. If every single case you have been able to find shows that the theory did not work, then you probably have to rework the theory. However, there is evidence to show that the model worked well in some cases, so we need to look at what else might have gone wrong. In comparative statics, economics makes the famous ceteris paribus assumption--all other relevant factors being held constant. If other factors change, then all bets are off. In dynamics, you turn everything loose, add in a time element and the math gets much hairier. Predicting the outcome when all variables are likely to change gets to be much more difficult.

The theory is still good (look at S. Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, HK, and, to an extent Thailand and Indonesia) but implementing it properly is the tricky part. The state can and often does get hijacked by some powerful faction for its own benefit.

Was Ayub Khan a greater/less-independent US client than Gen. Park or Chiang Kai-Shek or the Japanese? There are still US combat troops in Japan and Macarthur was called, by the Japanese, the last Shogun. The US actually had 30,000 plus combat troops in S. Korea all throughout the 1950s until now. S. Korea sent two army combat divisions and a reinforced Marine brigade to S. Vietnam. If this isn`t dependent client state status, I don`t know what is! (BTW, the S. Koreans made a huge profit on the Vietnam War, they are smart!) LBJ asked for two Pakistani combat divisions for Vietnam and Ayub Khan said no. (He also kicked them out of Baraber, however, if the US had backed us in 1965, the troops probably would have been sent and there would still be a US base at Baraber.)

How come these countries can, to use some Marxist terminology here, develop a national bourgeoisie but all we can manage is a comprador one? They all have a disproportionately large defense burden, close ties to the US and, as a consequence, are rich. So it turns out to be a result of the fact that they had good rulers and we had bad ones? Their good rulers chose an export-oriented strategy and ours chose, as per the best economic advice available, an ISI strategy (ISI=Import Substitution Industrialization, not the Army spooks!).

If the dependency you refer to is Wallerstein`s laughable World Systems theory, then a secondary ISI strategy is explicitly designed to combat it. No, I take that back. Wallerstein`s theory is not laughable. It really does explain the Soviet Union`s economic strateg vis-a-vis its domestic and international satellites, and that is about all it can explain. Fernando Henrique Cardoso, the much reviled `neoliberal` president of Brazil and paid agent of the World Bank, IMF, CIA and Wall Street, is the same Cardoso who was a leading Latin American dependista of the 1970s and then saw the error of his ways.

If you use dependency in the plain English meaning of the word, then I probably would not disagree with you. We are dependent upon alms and charity because we wasted or stole all of the aid that was given to us. As far as a culture of overconsumption goes, that cannot be blamed on Ayub or the Americans. We inherited that from our own ancestors. If you look at Mughal practices, all land belonged to the Emperor and upon the death of the Jagirdar, it reverted back to him. Thus any reinvestment of surplus back into the land (like the British landlords did) was a stupid waste of resources. However, the dead jagirdar`s jewellery, weapons, etc could go to his heirs. Hence the subcontinental obsession with conspicuous consumption. One of the things that Warren Hasting`s Act of Permanent Settlement was supposed to do was to create a class of Indian landowners who would treat their land the same way that English landowners did: improve it and continually reinvest the surplus back into it.

And I agree with you that our mullahs and jihadis are a result of the failure of the state to provide adequately for the masses in terms of education and economic opportunities. However, I would disagree with you in that the local bodies elections would return a Talibanist majority if the Taliban types are indeed in a majority in the population. As Lenin`s Bolsheviks showed, a highly organized and tightly disciplined cadre party can take over the body politic even if it could never win an election outright. I am sure that the JI types dream about just such an eventuality.

Sorry for the length of this reply.

Regards.

Re: Bahmad #171

My source for the Irfan Husain column is Dawn Wire Service, August 1, 1998, and the title is ``A Rootless Democracy.`` Probably the actual piece appeared a few days before that. I believe he is writing again and he is on email so he could send you the entire piece. I don`t have the entire article on disk but the relevant quotation is as follows:
``But many years, many elections and many governments later, one has to concede that the old soldier knew what he was talking about. Parliamentary democracy, above all forms of government, requires a level of tolerance and respect for other points of view that simply does not exist here.``

The Fareed Zakaria article is: ``The Rise of Illiberal Democracy.`` Foreign Affairs, 76 (November, 1997): 22-43.

Its a very interesting piece, I recommend it highly (for what thats worth!).

Regards.