Would Devolution Empower “We the People”?

In response to krashid (Reply # 122)
Dear Rashid:

The plan “Local Government Plan 2000`` provides the following information about taxes.

“The three tiers of local government will have tax collection machinery at their disposal and the specified schedule of local taxes for union, tehsil, and district that will fall under the control of these respective levels.”

“Prescribed lists of taxes will be finalised within the framework(s) of provincial fiscal transfers to districts. This will enable the Local Government to effect credible development and service delivery.”

The Zila Council will levy “taxes as per list of district taxes given in the Local Government Ordinance 2000.” The Zila Council will be able to raise or lower existing taxes.

“The integrated Tehsil Government will mitigate the prevailing rural-urban frictions by providing opportunities for representation in proportion to the population and taxation in proportion to the services and thus effectively address the rural-urban divide.”

“The tehsil municipal administration will receive revenue from two main sources: The first source will be budget allocations by the district government for functions specific to the tehsil administration. In addition, the Tehsil government may levy taxes from a specified list.”

“The Union Council will be able to taxes from a specified list.”

Rashid, I wonder if the Local Government Ordinance 2000 has been issued. The National Reconstuction Bureau site provides no information about it.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Sameer JB#

When Revolutionaries in French revolution were storming the Bastille (if I am correct). Were they extra-constitutional or wrong.

What is constitution.

To storm the supreme court.

To curb the press.

To amass wealth.

Why did people overwhelmingly supported the ouster of Nawaz Sharif.

Why did Nawaz Sharif in 10 minutes each session ammended constitution, so that he cannot be ousted by legal means. And when Supreme court tried, it was replaced.

Nawaz Sharif was not given the mandate to do what he did.

What is the difference between army rule and Nawaz sharif rule, when they are not going to listen to common man.

In the last, I would say Musharraf may be wrong, but he took at least one correct step. We don`t need more Zia-ul-Haques, whether elected or selected.

First of all, I will like to congratulate you for guiding us through an excellent discussion. Secondly Sameer`s reply in which he expressed misgivings about the success of plan due to Musharraf`s track record appear legitimate to me. In democratic set ups, Opposition plays an active role in keeping a check on govt and mobilising mass opinion against the wrong policies of the govt. Presence of an independent judiciary is another such authority which checks govt executive wing from misusing constitutional powers. However Gen Musharraf appear to be destroying any opposition to his plans be it political parties or judiciary. True, opposition many a times causes delay in implementing good plans but it is a small price to pay against corrupt use of power by some people in govt to further their own interests. By destroying the political parties, he is in fact destroying Pakistani polity, so that no one can oppose him. In absence of an active political opposition, the authority at local level may find it easy to amass money by corruption. A small section which raises its voice may be discouraged by a spineless judiciary. We must remember an ancient saying,``Power corrupts people``. The venal beareaucracy may enter into an unhealthy nexus with military keep real powers with itself instead of delegating it to masses. Only time will tell how far this plan succeeds. But I am a bit sceptical about this experiment.

Cheers

In response to shammi (Reply # 107)
Dear Shammi:

A well argued commentary. However, I do have some difficulty with your statement that: ``Pakistanis have rarely or never been allowed to boot out a malfunctioning government. In the process, I feel that both voters and politicians have not been given adequate opportunities to learn the necessary lessons.``

Pakistanis have on several occasions boot out a (perceived) malfunctioning government. The ouster of Ayub Khan, Z. A. Bhutto, and Nawaz Sharif are cases in point. Unfortunately, on each occasion the army came forward and somehow captured power. Yet, I agree with your statement that ``both voters and politicians have not been given adequate opportunities to learn the necessary lessons.`` One such lesson is that of democratic continuity (or the continuity of the democratic process).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to shammi (Reply # 110)
Dear Shammi:

Thank you for providing useful information and sources about the Panchayats in India. As most contributors here seem to believe that the devolution plan will fail, do you think that panchayat system has failed/succeeded in India. I should expect mixed results.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to macgupta (Reply # 99)
Dear Arun:

You have made several valid points. It is very hard to decide about the success or failure of any plan in view of an element of ad hocism in the Pakistani politics.

Your notion of powers-that-be seems to suggest that army has/had a little role in their making (depending upon what exactly constitutes the “powers-that-be”). Your position also seems to rest upon the belief that the nationally and regionally-based powers-that-be have (or will have) little control/influence over the new locally-based actors. I think, the role and attitude of the new actors will most probably depend upon the power of the central government (unless there is effective autonomy given to the provinces somehow). This point provides support to your conclusion that “a certain stability of rules is required for the new actors to start defying the powers-that-be.”

I agree that a rational person would not antagonize the “powers-that-be” if he/she expects the incumbents to lose power. I think, nobody could guarantee constitutional stability in Pakistan as long as the army is allowed to topple an existing government and/or an autocratic regime somehow develops a capacity to make ruthless (unfortunate) constitutional amendments. I further agree with you that “because the rules of the game are not fixed, the advantage always remains with the powers-that-be” (i.e. the army-bureaucracy-bourgeoisie troika). Pakistani political system under the previous two major dictatorships had lasted for ten or more years each. Would Musharraf find a way to prolong his (army’s) stay beyond three years? I think, it depends. Most probably, a pro-army interim government may take charge.

I think, the present regime would find a way to produce a Constitution if it succeeds in breaking the apparent intra- and inter-party solidarity and/or developing a compromise with most large and small parties. The workability of the Constitution would most probably depend upon the nature of the compromise reached.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahamd

Prof. Ahmed!

One of my post got lost in the way, somehow.

It is regarding non party and party based elections.

Narain has made valid points, as far as I can judge.

1- It is more than likely that in non-party elections, people like you or scout (sincere) will be watching from periphery and a new breed of people similar to previous assembly will come. With more power, there are chances of more corruption.

2- Since they will have no agenda except personal agenda in most cases, they will be replaced with equally corrupt individuals in next election in most cases. (In this regard you should remember that previous assemblies and power were created in the same way, which we now loath so much, rather than pointing at real culprit)

3- Political parties have an interesting interaction, which is lost after 1977. The local area workers or leader come in direct contact with people. They interact with higher tier and so on. It leads to correction and change in stance at both levels. To give you an example, when Jamat-e-Islami was actively cooperating with Zia-ul-Haq regime, there was a clear rift in party. At the same time its student wing IJT, was carrying out a movement for the restoration of students union against Zia regime. And you can see a clear shift in policies of JI with time, due to same phenomenon. At the students level, NSF in Karachi was a rival of IJT, with socialist pro chinese policy, but political interactions changed it into a progressive, nationalist party. And party was broken many times because there was a lack of vision on the part of leaders and more practical approach of workers. In this regard, the current rift in Muslim League is an eye opener.(What happens when leaders don`t hear their workers)

4- If the political parties are allowed to participate (even in non party elections, like a common election symbol etc), they are definitely going to change the political culture in parties. Also as pointed out by Narain, Party will be responsible for the actions of an individual.

5- If political parties are kept out, they will not perish, but start underground activities, which will from the start cause the system to fail.

6-If system fails, it will be presumed that like National level, people are not yet ready for local level elections, and so the usurpation of rights by maligning leaders at local level.

7- The Zila system will be given power. But they will not be united to assert their power in case of any problems.

8- All in all a good step. Constitutional devolution of power at local level has chances of failure.

I remember one of my employer, who used to say. ``If I cannot keep the current employee happy, what is the guarantee that I will be able to keep the new one happy and he will be better.``

But I will still support, devolution of power, with constitutional cover and enough power in whatever form they are given, because I don`t expect it from feudal-industrialist alliance at national or provincial level elections.

Going almost un-noticed in India, a law to amend the public distribution system (PDS = raions for the poorest . . .) so that upto a maximum of 4 people (husband, one wife and two children, no permutations exemptions EXCEPT if muliple children twins/triplets born) can get the benefit of cheaper food.

This will be implemented locally.

Education, over-population . . .

Bilal Saheb #150

Kudos` on an excellent article, and you were right, waiting for this discussion was definitely worth it. I can but apologise that I was away hence could not reply earlier. I just had one small comment on your #150 reply. Your statement that religion is a personal/private issue, to be separated from questions about nationality is creditable, but not achievable, specially when we are dealing with Pakistan. I am afraid any solution for the nationality question HAS to involve religion, otherwise it will fail. Whether it has been misused or not, whether it is right or wrong, religion IS a factor and its a major factor at that.

A point which has been made several times is the fact that the religious based parties never get more than 2-3% of the NATIONAL vote. Now, leaping forward to now, all political parties have been banned and only individuals can stand for election at the grassroots level. If political party ideology is absent, then what replaces this vacuum? Bearing in mind the political immaturity, lack of education and social mores, I suggest that the elections would be driven by feudalism, tribalism and religious based groups/parties/people. Why? because feudalism, tribalism and religion is not an ideology but a different kind of social structure. I have a strong suspicion that this devolution plan will hollow out the Pakistani polity. Think of this as a geometric structure, usually political systems show a pyramid structure, in this case, it has a very fragmented base (representing the districts), a very pinched in middle (representing the national level) and then again a broad reasonably cohesive top (representing the army). In other words, looks more like a hourglass with a wonky bottom. Perhaps that image is not a very good one, but it sort of made sense to me :-).

You are right, Bilal Saheb and others who argued for the continuance of the political party system. Even with the corruption and general incompetence of the parties, I personally believe that banning the political party system is fraught with dangers. I firmly believe that the Pakistani public would have learnt its lessons and would have slowly developed a stronger political system. The army is NOT meant for governing the state. Commanding a division or a corps does NOT train you to be a politician. I understand the exigencies of the historical issues and why`s and wherefores of Pakistan, but surely Turkey can be taken as a half way state?.

In my opinion, this plan, while being implemented with the best of intentions, is not going to succeed in the long run. In any case, simple logistics mitigate against it, in another 2 years or so, the CE has to hand over the reins (ok, so its theoretical and legal - the actual situation may be different). Who is he going to hand over to? this collection of nazims? The difference between governing a district and a nation is vast, and that difference is NOT getting bridged.

Again, Bilal Saheb, thank you for a very nice article and the responses have been very interesting and informative indeed.

Sincerely

bd

TAhmed!

On what pretext are you suggesting the bypassing of will of people in different provinces, when people in different regions have different perception regarding many things.

Whose greater good are you talking about?

Do the people in a province don`t have a right, and their good is not as important.

Why was election in 1970 not given sanctity for the greater good of the majority. Weren`t Bengali the majority of Pakistan.

Things need to be decided by consensus and not referendum. In this regard, at Federal level there should be a directly elected senate, rather than indirectly elected.

Considering the make up of Pakistan, consensus is the only option, to keep the integrity. That is the only solution for the overall prosperity for all the regions.

Can Musharraf be taken seriously?

Before any discussion of devolution plan, we must consider the track record of its propagator. We do not know a whole lot about Musharraf’s career and his thinking. But we do know the following items:

1) As a public servant, he refused to obey the order of highest administrative authority, when he refused to show up at Pakistan-India border to welcome state guests from India.

2) He sabotaged the civilian authority and credibility by starting the covert operation in Kargill. This unnecessary operation cost a large number of Pakistani lives and resources for absolutely no gain.

3) He refused his dismissal order which may or may not be fair but was not unlawful. Instead he broke the highest law of the land, the constitution, by overthrowing the civilian government.

4) He ousted all those Supreme Court Justices who could have given verdict against him.

5) He destroyed all records of cockpit records in order to make a hijacking case against the ousted Prime Minister.

6) His team is made up of mostly old hands who have been part of several previous inept governments, including the governor of Punjab who was a total failure even as Vice Chancellor of Punjab University.

This is not a comparison with any other person. This is the character of a person who used the power vested in him to bite the hand which fed him. He is not well respected and recieved by other governments and organizations for the reasons outlined above. Why should then we take his proposals seriously when all his track record is a record of a power hungry individual. There have been several articles suggesting it nothing but a back door attempt to legalize or justify him clinging on to power for many more years to come. The previous non-party based elections during Zia’s regime produced the most feudal parliament because the candidates essentially ran on brotherhood and caste (Biradari) basis; Musharraf’s will be no different. He will be able to make constitutional amendments which will serve him, his buddies and his institution well. That is all there is to his devolution plan.

People judge a person based on one’s track record. In India, Veerappan has made good proposals but they are rightfully not taken seriously because of his track record as a bandit although he has served his gang of bandits well. Pakistanis must not take dismissed General Veerappan seriously. Previous ruler from his class introduced Islamisation and “mohtasibs” and left behind only lower jawbone. This guy is introducing devolution and “nazims”, time will tell what will be left of him in due time.

If one wants to discuss these proposals as a suggestion by current Pakistani government, then we must ask the question: Can governmetn(s) in Pakistan be taken seriously or they can do good for the people?

The answer would be “no”, based on the track record of successive governments. Any institution coming in contact with the government is scathed by it. Good running banks, schools, colleges, industries and many other institutions are turned into dust due to the evil hand of corrupt and inept governments.

Actually it would be best for Pakistan to have minimum government influence on Pakistan and Pakistanis. Let the private organizations and NGO’s run the fiscal and social affairs of Pakistan until we have a saner and apt governance, if ever.

Try giving a city or district administration to a good NGO and you will see the results within few years. Devolution without public participation is meaningless. It should actually come from the people. Unfortunately we lost the most politically aware and active ethnicity in 1971. Among the rest, religious right is right now most active, for all the wrong reasons. Under such circumstances of public hybernation, NGOs can play the role of middle-man, netween government and people and try to keep Pakistani government and other hazardous materials out of reach of not only children but the adults as well because Islam-miltary spending-feudalism-corruption-Kashmir is a poisonous govenment potpouri. It should have been based upon peace-prosperity-progressive-public participation for a government to be respected.

shammi #146 You ask a good question: what India can do to lessen the fear of India in Pakistan. Not very much I think: one must come to grips with ones own fears and no else can remove them. But being nice (like Vajpayee`s visit) would certainly help :-)

You are right in recognizing the nation-state for what it is: a temporary phenomenon that came into being after the fall of kingships 300 years ago, and which current trends will almost surely erode. Then things like the Kashmir issue will become as meaningless as the Alsace-Lorraine issue is today in Europe.

Being too young to remember what was going on, I can only reflect on what I read and what little memories I have. What I read is the same old. Zia comes to power... hangs Bhutto.. gets Aid from the US... Economy booms.. war is waged... narcotics increase ... Zia exploits Islam... blasphemy law.. hudood ordinance.. elections on Non party basis ...referendum etc etc

On a personal level I remember meeting him and shaking his hand. I remember meeting him again in Gaddafi stadium. I remember my parents hating him ... they never trusted him. When he would come on TV they would curse at him for hanging Bhutto. I remember his sinister grin and warped logic... his

his one small eye and one big... I remember my father calling him Zia ul Batil... I remember his voice which we became used to growing up ... I remember Junejo .. I remember my mamoo contesting 1985 elections and losing... I remember when Benazir came back to address that mamoth rally ...

I remember being stuck in the traffic for 15 hours and feeling saved... to my naive mind she was my saviour. I remember my khala going to jail for being a PPP activist... I remember a lot of family

friends behind bars... I remember Zia saying that he will rule for as long as he wants.. I remember

a few days later the announcer announcing his crash and death ... inallillah wa ina illah rajeoun... I remember scaring my mom by waking her up and telling her the ``exciting`` news. I remember

the relief on my parents faces... I remember the 1988 elections... I remember my parents tears of joy.. I recall praying for Benazir`s long life ..

I remember thinking ``Now everything is going to be ok`` ... this was her promise ... this was the promise she never kept .. and we will never forgive her.

Jiye Democracy.

Yasser Hamdani

In response to narain (Reply # 89) Part II
Dear Narain:

Your statement: “Under the current devolution plan most provincial powers including law and order, administration, and infrastructure development are being transferred to the local bodies. It is not clear what the future role of the provincial authorities is going to be, or how much managerial authority they will retain over these local bodies. This will certainly weaken them so that they may not be able to resist the usurpation of their responsibilities [sic] by the federal government.”

“The local bodies in the best of cases are likely to be too small and self-absorbed to resist this centralization, and in the worst case may actually promote it by collaborating with the centre in getting more powers for themselves from their immediate bosses, i.e, the provinces. The implications of this for the federal structure of Pakistan need to be explored more deeply.


Comment: Why can’t the political parties indirectly capture power at the grassroots level? I think, they can and they will. But, even if they can’t, what is so wrong about them? Is Pakistani politics more complex than what we normally believe? If there is much merit in your argument about the provincial administration, why do we need provinces? Why create an additional tier, other than the reason for historical baggage? However, there are several parts of the plan which maintain that:

Local Governments will function clearly within the provincial framework. Sustainable development and credible improvement in the delivery of services, through devolution of power and responsibility and decentralisation of authority, to the districts, will greatly enhance the image and effectiveness of provincial governments at the grassroot. This will strengthen the provinces and the country as a whole.

“The Zila Nazim may be removed from office by the Chief Minister of the province on a motion, stating the grounds for removal, to be approved by a simple majority of the total membership of the Provincial Assembly and subject to confirmation by the governor in his discretion. The governor may, however, send the motion back to the Provincial Assembly for reconsideration before according approval or otherwise.”

“on a motion by the provincial government, the provincial assembly may, by resolution stating the grounds thereof, passed by a simple majority of the total members of the provincial assembly, set aside a resolution of the Zila Council or an order of the Zila Nazim, if considered to be against the public interest. That resolution will be subject to confirmation by the governor in his discretion. The governor may however send the motion back to the provincial assembly for reconsideration before according approval or otherwise.”

“When one or more of these indicators are present the formation of a city district becomes imperative. When deciding to form city districts, provinces would do well to anticipate the need proactively, rather than reactively create city districts after breakdowns of urban governance have already occurred. A powerful check and balance in this regard will be the pressure of the citizens of the potential city districts who stand to benefit from the formation of the city district through greater capacity for urban planning, finance, administration, public investment, service delivery, and law and order. “

“Law and order will remain a provincial subject. The province will be responsible for raising, organising, equipping, training and maintaining the police for the district in all respects. The province will provide a police force to the district to suit the law enforcement needs of the district. It is to be manned by locals, as far as practicable, except officers of the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police and above.”

“The Provincial Public Safety Commission will have responsibility for co-ordinating the functions of all Public Safety Commissions within the province and also for evaluating their performance annually. The Provincial Public Safety Commission will select the Provincial Police Chief out of a panel of three suitable officers of the Police Service of Pakistan received from the National Public Safety Commission for the purpose.”

“The transfer and grant system has been weak. There is no formula for distribution of funds to districts and provincial budgets do not specify district expenditures. Districts do not know, with certainty, what they will expect from the provincial departments which affects planning negatively. This results in political machinations, ad-hocism, and lack of transparency. In order to accomplish a transparent, credible and fair system of transferring funds to the district level, a provincial finance commission will be constituted.

The principle of the formula for provincial to district transfers is that district and local government should generate their own resources to the extent possible. Incentives should always encourage financial self-sufficiency to the extent possible at each level. However, the current quantum of funds being used by the provinces will ensure the working of the district administration and the political system. Untangling provincial finances and simplifying funding processes and the financial plumbing will result in increased efficiency.”

“A formula for provincial fiscal transfers will be devised and implemented. The model provincial formulas will become part of the proposed new provincial finance awards and the resultant formulas developed in conjunction with the provincial governments will be subject to change in a similar fashion as the national finance awards.”

The district administration will apply “federal and provincial laws, rules, and regulation in areas covered by the administration.” Another provision reads: “In a district where the minorities is in excess of 10% of the total population reserved seats for minority communities shall be allocated in the manner prescribed by the provincial government. There will be direct elections for these seats for which only the minorities will be eligible to vote. . . . “

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to narain (Reply # 89) Part I
Dear Narain:

Your statement: “. . . I think that . . . the devolution package, by forcibly transferring powers from the provinces to the local bodies, may work to strengthen Islamabad at the cost of the provinces. The danger is that such ``decentralization`` may lead to even greater centralization of power than now.”

Comment: The National Reconstruction Bureau (NRB) needs to effectively justify its decision to transfer powers from the provinces to the local bodies. However, there is a snag in your argument. Provinces in Pakistan are not as free as you may think. A province in Pakistan is not an equivalent of a State in India. The Governors are appointed, and all top bureaucrats are appointed by Islamabad (if I am not wrong). However, there is a danger that the new plan may work to strengthen Islamabad, as you have rightly pointed out. We need to look at the plan carefully to understand the checks and balances, in this regard. The strength of local and regional governments will greatly depend upon the proportion of total revenue collected received by subnational bodies.

Your statement: “. . . the package will inevitably weaken all national parties, and thereby reduce political resistance to the role of the army in the current and future regimes.”

Comment; The national parties are already weak. The army has long been in control (directly or indirectly). We need to make this relationship much more visible. Do the party leaders have the courage and/or the capacity to do so? Why can’t people like Benazir Bhutto come forward? She knows, doesn`t she!

Your statement: “. . . with non-partisan elections getting institutionalized at the local level, national parties will face an erosion of their local cadres. These are however the strength of any political party.”

Comment: I doubt very much that the political parties will face an erosion of their local cadres. Local government may have the appearance of a party-less polity but the traditional bases/spaces of each party will (I think) continue to support the parties. But, even if your concern becomes a reality, what real difference will it make in the context of Pakistan. I, personally, am not sure about it. Maybe Rashid, Feroz, Temporal, Fuzair, Ras, Urstruly, Fairdinkum, Yasser, and a few others could provide a few insights.

Your statement: “And with weaker national parties, who will be able to fight the army if it wants a greater, maybe more direct role in government?”

Comment: Can’t you see that the political parties are already very weak. Did they really resist. Yes, in their drawing rooms. The army is in control. This institution has long been in control directly or indirectly. Isn’t the army a major source of Pakistan’s plight? But, what good would the parties do if the army decides to go to the barrack tomorrow?

Your statement: “Enough has been said about the harmful ``feudal influence`` in previous national democratic governments. How will devolution help remove these? In fact these influences are even stronger at the local level than they are at the national level.”

Comment: If the feudals don’t mend their ways, they will lose whatever legitimacy they seem to enjoy in some segments of our society. I think, the implementation of devolution may (perhaps would) provide a catalyst for social transformation. Feudal power may take a different form by combining benevolence to the feudalistic goals, depending upon grassroots action/resistence.

Your statement: “Winning elections requires power and/or money. With elections being non-partisan, political [sic] power cannot be a factor in local elections. Therefore money will speak all the more. At the local levels, who has the money?

Comment: I think, you are right.

Your statement: “Some devolution is good no doubt, but the nature and extent of this devolution has to be worked out through a political process, through consensus, and with some give and take. In Pakistan however this process is being administered from outside the political framework. This not only raises doubts about how stable it is going to be, but also about what its aims are. Both serve to undermine the whole process, and raise pessimism about its future.

Comment: I concur again (despite the fact that a few of my argument may appear contradictory to you).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to Humsab (Reply # 77)
Dear Humsab:

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

Comment: Religion and nationality are two different things: where religion is basically spiritual (a relation with God), nationality questions are more mundane and related with everyday life (and its materiality). Why do we need to prioritize? Religion is more a personal/private relationship, whereas national politics is more a collective relationship. If religion has been misused in Pakistani politics, maybe we need to make politics more secular (please see my Chowk article: Pakistan: A Failed State?).

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

Comment: This a propaganda, a strategy used against the Indian Muslims by the proponents of Hindutva (perhaps to subjugate them and/or to bring them in their fold). Please don’t confuse Hindutva with Hinduism. Attachment to religious places has nothing to do with (nationalistic) loyalties. If a Pakistani Hindu shows a religious attachment to the Ganges (Ganga Mata) or Kashi or any other religous place anywhere in the world, it does not make him a disloyal Pakistani.

Your statement: “People should compel the Government to rewrite history books . . . . “

Comment: It is not the job of the Government to rewrite history. History needs to be written and interpreted by those who are directly or indirectly trained for the job. Good history has always looked down toward the looters and plunderers. There is no point in recreating history to create hatred, in form or another.

Your statement: “India in spite of all these problems is surviving very well and this is because of its Forward looking approach. . . . Today, Indians are looking at Gandhi Nehru and all other leaders critically. While their good qualities are appreciated and gloated over, the tendency to avoid criticism is also given up.”

Comment: This is what we Pakistanis need to learn, and some of us are learning fast.

Your statement: “. . . even when this devolution plan looks good on paper, one has to consider the environment in which it has to function.”

Comment: You are absolutely right. What kind of approach do we need to create such a environment. I would argue, a combination of top-down and bottom-up, but more bottom-up than top-down. Belief in democratic ideals (even if myths) is a first step.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad