Would Devolution Empower “We the People”?

In response to krashid (Reply # 276)
Dear Rashid:

Your statement: “I think if you have reached the conclusions without involvement in politics, your theoretical basis will be strong.”

Comment: I am unable to understand your argument.

Your statement: “Benazir formed the Government, but . . . [had] to compromise with [the] establishment to form Government.”

Comment: Which establishment? Why she had to compromise with it?

Your statement: “It will be a folly even if one is against local bodies election to leave the field. I think our politicians are sane enough, and your mentioning of group forming is reminiscent of 1985 election when MQM stood as ``Haq Parast``.

Comment: By sane, do you mean materialistically rational? Are you aware of any systematic and sound study of the role of Pakistani politicians? Why there are so many political parties in Pakistan? What do various small political parties gain, and how do they survive, in spite of their inability to win the elections? Are some political parties just dummies (hoax organizations) and provide direct or indirect support to various regimes in return of a few goodies?

Why an increasing number of political parties have shown their desire to take part in the forthcoming local body elections? What is going on?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

BAhmed!

I think if you have reached the conclusions without involvement in politics, your theoretical basis will be strong.

Lets scratch the politics from 1977 onwards. (As I think Bhutto`s rule however autocratic was the only true democratic exercise by people).

Zia usurped power in 1977. Formed Majlis Shura in 1980 (probably) formed of all political orphans, who wants to impose their philosophy on common man.

Elections in 1985, boycotted by People`s party and all Government people got elected. I think Zia was sharp to make Junejo prime minister from Sind. Once the new Governemnt started to enjoy legitimacy and to improve its standing among people and took some independent decision it was sacked in May 1988.

Zia murdered in August 1988.

Elections held. ISI, establishment, political orphans and pimp of establishment JI all tried to form IJI to beat people`s party, but could not succeed. Benazir formed the Government, but has to compromise with establishment to form Government.

As soon as Benazir started to assert her, she was sacked in 1991. Man of establishment Nawaz Sharif brought to power, but as soon as started to assert himself to increase his vote bank, he was sacked and Benazir now knowing the rules of game again compromised. This time she was sacked on the insistence of unholy alliance. Nawaz Sharif also knowing what is the purpose of Government start amassing wealth and clipping the power of establishment sacked again.

Now they are trying to bring new faces. Lets see how long they are going to keep them.

People have never been wrong. Was first or second government of Benazir sacked by people. Was first Govt. of Nawaz Sharif sacked by people. (On second I have reservations against Nawaz Sharif particularly his dealings with press and juduciary).

On constitutional level, it is important not to leave the field. But also it is more important to form a mass party. The best solution is election of local bodies at party level.

It will be a folly even if one is against local bodies election to leave the field. I think our politicians are sane enough, and your mentioning of group forming is reminiscent of 1985 election when MQM stood as ``Haq Parast``.

As Umair is insisting that India already knows the result of election in Kashmir. Our establishment already knows the result of elections. (And that is why it is active in dividing political parties). But in free and fair elections my prediction would be, MQM two groups taking majority of seats in Mohajir areas, with some areas going to peoples party and Noorani group.

Sind interior mainly people`s party with few Qaum parast. Punjab, mainly going to Ham Khayal group (i.e Muslim league minus NS) and people`s party.

NWFP equally divided between Muslim League, People`s Party and NAP with few to FazlurRehman.

And Baluchistan mainly Nationalist and Fazlur-Rehman.

I don`t think apart from few seats people will vote for Tehrik-Insaf, Tahirul-Qadri etc.

Only disadvantage to establishment will be that fielding these candidates will directly benefit People`s party.

But other possibility of actively interfering in elections by establishment is more, to bring the DESIRED RESULT.

Just a thought. I am away from country for a long time and things must have changed a lot.

DEVOLUTION & NON-PARTY ELECTIONS:
``SUB CHALTA HAY?``

I am unclear why Musharraf`s regime will not allow the political parties to contest in the forthcoming local body elections. Political parties are not allowed, while politicians belonging to various political parties are (?).

A month or so back, Omar Asghar Khan urged/encouraged the NGOs to take part in the forthcoming local body elections. Ehtesab Group, Khidmat Itehad Group and other XYZ Groups are preparing for the elections? Are these some king of NGOs? Is it appropriate to politicize the NGOs (Non-Government Organizations)? Or, in Pakistan ``Sub Chalta Hay?``

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

JI forms ehtesab group to contest LB polls
By Our Correspondent
Dawn, September 17, 2000

MIANWALI, Sept 16: Almost all political parties have become active as local body elections are drawing nearer. The parties have unanimously decided to participate in the show with full vigour as they are holding frequent indoor meetings. Almost all the candidates are aspiring for the district nazim seat because of his vast powers. Dr Malik Muhammad Shakir, the chairman of Shabab-i-Milli, was the first to break the ice by calling a Press conference at the district press club where he announced that he would contest for the seat under the banner of Ehtesab Group. He claimed that his group would sweep the elections with a thumping majority and would emerge as the voice of the poor and middle class. He said it would block the way of capitalists, feudals and corrupt politicians who had looted the public exchequer. Dr Shakir appealed to the people to vote for the ehtesab group which, he claimed, would provide immediate relief to the people by solving their life-long problems. Later, Dr Sher Afghan, a former PPP federal minister, and former MNA Gul Hamid Rokhri held a joint Press conference and vowed to contest elections under the banner of Khidmat Ittehad Group. They claimed to have fielded their candidates on all seats of the district union council. However, they did not announce their candidate for the seat of district nazim. While PML group led by Abdul Karim Sajid alias Haki Bandanwala, a close friend of former MNA Inamullah Niazi, has become active by launching a door to door campaign in the city.

In my last post to krashid (Reply # 273), please replace ``against`` with ``again`` (last para). Thanks.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to krashid (Reply # 270)
Dear Rashid:

Thanks for your continued interest. Rashid, it is too early for me to conclude (the whole process is not transparent enough). I, however, want to submit as under:

(1) Pakistan cannot establish a “true” democracy (of any form and shade) if we fail to recognize that sovereignty lies with the people (all people, particularly the common people).

(2) The National Reconstruction Bureau (General Naqvi and his so-called think tanks) need to put a lot of additional effort to make the Plan a worthwhile document. They also need to sell their plan to the people. I reckon, the “Local Government Plan 2000`` is a typical bureaucratic effort.

(3) General Musharraf, the National Security Council, the Cabinet, and the National Reconstruction Bureau need to adequately understand why party-based local government elections are so prevalent within so many democracies. Even if we accept the allegations against the politicians and/or political parties as valid, the politicians and their parties constitute an important part of our presumably ugly political reality. A serious effort, therefore, must be made to develop a consensus over much needed political reform. It is imperative that any effort to reform politics must not be merely top-down and imposed (in view of the spirit of democracy that Musharraf is purportedly trying to establish).

(4) The effort to devolve power at the local level only is also against the spirit of devolution and the need to alleviate inter-provincial conflicts. If the Musharraf regime is sincerely and honestly working toward the promised seven-point agenda, it unfortunately lacks the capacity to devise adequate plans and policies to make the agenda a reality. The solution for this problem is once against greater opportunity and participation of the people who want to make a dent on the existing state of affairs.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to fairdinkum (Reply # 271)
Dear Fairdinkum:

There two parts of your post.

First, the Library of Congress description, as provided by you, suggests that “Basic Democracy” (BD) was the brainchild of Ayub Khan. Before we accept this, we should ask: How autonomous was Ayub Khan in his decision-making? I have some difficulty in accepting that he had full command over his rhetoric and/or his actions. I also wonder: What kind of understanding of democracy (both theory and practice) did he possess? What evidence is there to suggest that he understood the Pakistani people/society adequately? How could he tell what kind of decision making power was/is commensurate with what kind of ability of a person/group of people? What kind of two-way channel did he open between him (a dictator) and the common people through his BD system? What kind of social change did we experience as a result of his BD system?

Fairdinkum, there are a lot of living Pakistanis who view Ayub Khan’s period as the best in our national history. This may be true as far as economic development is concerned. In this regard, we need to consider: How, why, and with what social, economic, and political effects this development took place? I think, the following statement (as quoted by you) provides a few insights and a stepping-stone for further scratching the surface of Ayub Khan’s regime (and his Basic Democracy): “the system did not provide for the mobilization of the rural population around institutions of national integration. Its emphasis was on economic development and social welfare alone. The authority of the civil service was augmented in the Basic Democracies, and the power of the landlords and the big industrialists in the West Wing went unchallenged.”

Second, there is no way one could be sure about the (actual) intentions of any person. Although I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of either Ayub Khan or Pervaiz Musharraf in matters concerning our national development, I definitely doubt their capacity to transform their intended/expressed objectives into meaningful reality. National development actually requires a process of active partnership and participation between various actors within an intricately nested set of prevalent local, regional, national, and global contexts.

An important aspect of our context is the presence of the institution of army, which seeks to drain our national resources for its (enhanced) reproduction. I believe, it is the logic of the armed forces that has adversely affected the process of our national development as well as our national integration.

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. Nonethless, the success of these expected benefits remains contingent upon several other factors.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Bilal,

While discussing the AYUB KHAN ERA, U.S library of congress describes the Basic Democracies plan as follows:


“Ayub Khan did not believe that a sophisticated parliamentary democracy was suitable for Pakistan. Instead, the Basic Democracies, as the individual administrative units were called, were intended to initiate and educate a largely illiterate population in the working of government by giving them limited representation and associating them with decision making at a ``level commensurate with their ability.`` Basic Democracies were concerned with no more than local government and rural development. They were meant to provide a two-way channel of communication between the Ayub Khan regime and the common people and allow social change to move slowly.”

“the system did not provide for the mobilization of the rural population around institutions of national integration. Its emphasis was on economic development and social welfare alone. The authority of the civil service was augmented in the Basic Democracies, and the power of the landlords and the big industrialists in the West Wing went unchallenged.”

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+pk0029)

Based on the above, what are the similarities and dissimilarities in the intentions of Basic Democracies of Ayub Khan and the devolution plan of Mr. Musharraf?

Will the leadership, produced as a result of devolution plan, be able to challenge the power of landlords in rural areas of Pakistan?

If the intention is to groom this grass root political leadership to eventually take over the national leadership, how will it break the dominance of army-bureaucracy-bourgeoisie alliance in Pakistan?

This front is unusually calm. Although it is related to a very important issue.

What are your suggestions, conclusions, BAhmed.

I present few.

1-Local elections on party basis. (Meaning even if non party, political parties should be allowed). That will not only bring the desired result of democratization of parties (which is mother of all evil according to establishment).

Nafees Siddiqui has written a good article in today`s Jang, which is probably the theme of pseudo-intellectual and anarchist Altaf Hussain, regarding any party getting roots in people is sidelined.(partly true) by true RULERS.

2-Devolution of power to provinces.

3- Center limited to regulation, foreign policy and interprovincial trade etc.

4- Direct elections of senate.

One thing I am certain, that without involvement of political parties, at best we will have anarchy and at worst I don`t need to utter.

HOW STRONG ARE THE STRONG PERSONALITIES OF THE PAST?

Lawrence Ziring, in his book “Pakistan: The Enigma of Political Development” (1980, writes:

``Ayub Khan’s dependence on strong personalities entailed risks but the system he contrived left no other option. This also explains his embrace of the higher civil service and particularly of the Civil Service of Pakistan (CSP), the approximately four hundred civil officers who controlled the sinews of Pakistan government. The CSP has been the target of considerable criticism both from within the larger bureaucracy and in the more sophisticated elements of the Pakistani population. The grievances expressed by the non-CSP officials involved the distribution of choice posts, the remuneration received for similar services, and the overall privileges awarded civil servants. CSP officers were better treated, more respected and endowed with greater powers and influence, and this distressed the personnel of the other services. Society at large was incensed, more with CSP behaviour than performance. CSP officers were accused of harbouring a colonial mentality, of being little more than “brown Englishman” in the conduct of their duties. The CSP, by tradition, training and experience had become a closed corporation; a definite sense of superiority reinforced the notion that the CSP was the saviour of Pakistan and its dealings with the public only tended to exaggerate paternalistic instincts which grated the sensibilities of the attentive public. The CSP served a useful and a necessary purpose within the Ayub administration but there is also no question about its deleterious effect on the regime.”

This background is not sufficient to understand the powers that CSP officers enjoyed especially at the level of district administration. In Musharraf’s devolution plan, the post of Commissioners (grade 20 officer) is abolished and a new post of District Coordination Officer is created to replace the District Commissioners (very powerful grade 19 officer). Does this mean that the Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners are gone for good? I think, most DCO’s will be recruited from the cadre of these former CSP officers. If so, then most of them will enjoy a higher (honest) pay scale. But, why are they upset? The following piece provides some insights.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahamd

Dawn, August 17. 2000
DMG officers oppose devolution plan
By Ansar Abbasi

ISLAMABAD, Aug 16: A selected class of bureaucrats belonging to the District Management Group (DMG) terms the military government`s devolution plan a ``demolition plan``. The civil bureaucracy appears to be not in favour of the devolution plan formally announced by the Chief Executive General Pervez Musharraf on Aug 14. The DMG officers, in particular, are upset and opposed to the idea. Background interviews on the subject with members of the civil bureaucracy show that a vast majority of them is uncertain about the final outcome of the plan. However, there are many who believe that the devolution plan is a non-starter and is bound to bounce back if implemented. Some DMG officers say the devolution plan is a ``demolition plan``. They believe that an abrupt replacement of decades old system of district administration (district magistracy) by what they call a myopic plan will be disastrous. The DMG (ex-CSP), which has virtually ruled the country for the past 53 years, is the immediate victim of the devolution plan which does not recognise the offices of commissioner, deputy commissioner and assistant commissioner. The authority the DMG have been enjoying stems from the office of deputy commissioner (district magistrate) which has been identified as one of the major ills by the National Reconstruction Bureau. The plan says that the over-concentration of authority in the office of deputy commissioner besides leading to abuse of authority, diffuses operational focus and results in the expedient handling of routine functions through crisis management. Some upset DMG officers do, however, hope that the devolution plan may not sustain for long as it does not enjoy the support of political parties. They are also worried about their fate. Many DMG officers believe that all the posts of the proposed grade 20 District Coordinating Officer (DCO) under every district government, will be earmarked for their group. But sources in the National Reconstruction Bureau said that any government servant could be appointed as DCO. Under the present system fresh recruitment in grade 17 in the DMG is made against the posts of assistant commissioners. These assistant commissioners are mostly elevated against the posts of additional deputy commissioners, deputy commissioners and then commissioners. The DMG officers are also not clear that what would be the future shape of the DMG and what sort of posts the group will get in the future district government set-up.

ELECTIONS, NO ELECTIONS?

While the demand for more democracy (and human rights) seems to appeal the psyche of most middle-class, educated persons on the Chowk, there are a lot of other individuals in Pakistan who see greater advantages in having a relatively stable government (democratic or otherwise). The history of Pakistani politics shows that Ayub and Zia’s dictatorial regimes were fairly stable, at least on their face value. Dr. Muhammad Rehan has something interesting to add in this respect. Is his solution simplistic or more appropriate, from the standpoint of Pakistan`s ground realities?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

PML leader asks CE not to hold LB polls
Frontier Post, September 13, 2000
From SUHAIL KAKAKHEL

NOWSHERA - Dr. Muhammad Rehan a leader of PML and former senator has proposed that Chief Executive General Pervez Musharraf should not hold local bodies election at district level and said it would be better instead of LB polls the government should select well reputed persons for ten years as representatives of the people. “ I think it would be better that Chief Executive should not held any elections in the country for ten years and select all those persons having good reputation among the masses.

He said in this way we can bring a positive change, in society as the corrupt politicians would be stopped to contest any elections or to hold nay position in government office,” Dr. Muhammad Rehan said, while talking to Frontier Post. Regarding the devolution of Power Plan he said feudalism and strong democracy could not co-exist in the country, until feudalism was existing in the country no system of election could be useful in society.

He feared that only feudalists would be elected for the post of Nazem and Naib Nazem and poor people could not contest the election. He strongly criticised the role of Deputy Commissioner in the new Plan of Devolution of Poser as a district coordinator officer.

He was of the view tht the post of deputy commissioner was a symbol of colonial period and after independence, corrupt politicians were given more importance just to use them for selves in their own benefit instead of public. Regarding the internal rift of PML, he said as the leader of PML was behind the bar and it was feared that the party leaders might be scattered therefore they have to select another leader for running the party affairs. However, he added that the sacrifices of Chaudhary Shujat Hussain and his father Chaudhary Zahoor Elahi could not be ignored who not only fight against the then prime minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto but also in other critical situation faced by the party. About the seven points agenda of Chief Executive General Pervez Musharraf he said irrespective of political affiliation they have to appreciate his plan of government.

“We have seen that different big and corrupt fishes of the country were being arrested and he is trying his best to revive the country’s economy. He was of the view that the dust of 52 years could not be clean immediately. However, he stressed upon the government to speed up the process of accountability. The PML leader criticised the role of GDA Chief Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan and termed GDA as a gathering of 40 thieves and one Ali baba.

We are fully with the statement of chief executive that we do not want shame democracy.

We want true democracy in the country through which the problems of people could be solved immediately, he concluded.

DEMAND FOR A NEW PROVINCE

The issue of provincial reorganization fails to haunts most mainstream Pakistani politicians. Yet, it seems imminent in the minds of a few others. Taj Mohammad Langah, like his other PONAM compatriots, belongs to the latter category (see the clipping below).

What are the chances of such a demand to be placed on the national political agenda for serious consideration? If seriously considered, would it open the Pandora’s Box for similar demands by other ethno-linguistic groups? Should the provinces be viewed as legitimate units of particular ethno-linguistic domination? Or, alternatively, should the provinces be treated as facilitators of good governance?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. Sameer, I think you are one of the best persons to comment on this one.

Saraikis demand separate province
Frontier Post, September 14, 2000

LONDON (Online) - Taj Mohammad Langah, one of the leaders of the alliance of small minorities (PONM), has said there are five nationalities in Pakistan including Punjabi, Saraiki, Baloch, Sindh and Pakhtoon therefore the Saraiki people should be accepted as a nationality and should have a separate unit in the federation.

Talking to BBC here the other day, he said, “Unless we have a unit, our economic and social problems cannot be resolved.

Injustices have been done to us over the past fifty years and we have not given our due share.

We are not given any representation in the civil service, army and Punjab service.

We think that the conflict between Punjabis and Saraikis cannot be resolved without separate unit”. He further said, “We have succeeded in winning support of the regional parties of Sindh, Balochistan and NWFP.

We will convince people through struggle.”

fairdinkum #262 I second your vote of appreciation.

In response to sadna (Reply # 263)
Dear Sadhna:

Thanks again. I response to Passi`s conceptualization of the social construction (and transformation) of regions, you maintain: ``This may be a strong argument in favor of smooth and gradual transformations in `structures`. The abrupt transitions, like independence from colonial control or land redistributions or rehaul of administrative structure would need have a well-defined and well-canvassed purpose to be socially and politically sustainable.`` I fully agree. In our case, we need to bring such factors into Passi`s theory. As you know, all theories are based on some sort of contextual experience. Hence, future research needs to be theoretically-informed and informing.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Dear Chowkwallas:

If you are intrested in further discussion on Pakistani politics in general and Musharraf`s devolution plan in particular, kindly go to the Chowk Civic Center and add it (the screen) to your favorites. By doing so, you will have easy access to this article/board/forum.

As far as I am concerned, I think we have only barely scratched the surface (as an evidence please see Kaiser Bengali`s piece in today`s daily Dawn; reproduced here by Kant Patel. Thanks Kant).

I am thankful to Fairdinkum, Ahmed (tahmed321), temporal, Mateen, Sadna, and others for their kind thoughts and encouragement. I am also thankful to them and to Feroz, Fuzair, Arun, Hasan, Shammi, Pankaj, Janjua, Rashid and many more for taking time off from their busy schedules and for making useful contributions.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

As krashid says, there is a lot here to read and understand.

fairdinkum #244
Your informed and detailed post, as usual, clarifies many issues.
You say ``I want social pragmatism to take control.`` This is a very compelling statement, extremely relevent to Indians, too.

Please excuse me in advance for a rather `amateurish` reply. In my humble opinion, there neednot be a difficult transition from `social pragatism` at a regional level to `humanitarianism` at a national level or say `national pragmatism`.

Lets say the entrenched power structures of feudalism resulting from the existence of large landholdings happen to be a major impediment to large sections of a population improving their human/socio-economic conditions. Any amount of autonomy for a region so afflicted maynot solve this problem, though it might solve some others. A demand for `land-ceilings` within the region may more likely originate from power centers outside the region, speaking up in pursuance of national objectives.

My point is regional identity assertion and national identity assertion are ultimately justified only as a means to an end. For example getting a population from point A to a happier and more just point B, where B is defined as the objectives of the nation in its commonly and universally agreed-upon Constitution. If the Constitution or guiding principles are `socially pragmatic` and humanitarian in intent, region/nation entities can be mutually supportive and its makes a lot of sense for a region to be part of a larger whole. Thats where, as you rightly say, the `dominant discourse` of a nation comes in.

Sadhana

bahmad #250

Dear Bilal,
One really admires your extremely impressive and unmatched ability to provide a theoretical framework for the discussion of many topics. Thanks also for being so meticulous in your replies.

You say: ``Passi maintains that region-specific structures of expectations (such as regionalism, progressivism or nationalism) structure the way in which people organize their knowledge of the world and use it in the interpretation of new information, events and exigencies.``
Also:
``Passi?s conceptualization forces us to treat regions as a process and an ever changing entity.``

This may be a strong argument in favor of smooth and gradual transformations in `structures`. The abrupt transitions, like independence from colonial control or land redistributions or rehaul of administrative structure would need have a well-defined and well-canvassed purpose to be socially and politically sustainable.

You ask about the consequences of elimination of states in India? All I can say is I don`t know who can do it and why they would even attempt such an action :-). Firstly, it cannot be done without abrogating the Constitution in a major way and the `aware` section of the Indian public has become rather resistant to the idea of meddling with the Constitution on any `fundamental` issues.

On the question of protection of identity, in India, people tend to riot over even the issue of statues to be put up or pulled down(or desecrated), so the scenario which you describe is totally beyond the scope of my imagination :-).

Sadhana

tahmad #251
The delegation of powers to US states is accompanied by a right to their own Constitutions and judiciaries and extensive legislative powers. Such a dispensation makes them more effective and less dependent on the federal centre.

Re` the New Age, like India, in my opinion, Pakistan too `exists in many centuries` as in a popular saying. And both countries have to cope in the forseeable future with medieval/(even Bronze Age :-))conditions as well as modern conditions, whether in economic or social issues. As you say, figuring how to do it is nontrivial.


Kant Patel #259
It would be interesting to hear opinions about this article.

Sadhana

Before this article disappears into ``previous ten``, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Professor Bilal Ahmad for his efforts to educate all of us.

Bilal, I am profoundly grateful for your generosity!