Would Devolution Empower “We the People”?

In response to tahmed (Reply # 243)
Dear Ahmed:

Your statement: “In arguing for eliminating provinces, I am not arguing that it be replaced by a strong federation, as fairdinkum seems to believe. I am arguing that provinces be replaced by strong local governments. The federation would deal with internal affairs of the country in only the following ways: (a) human rights oversight: the oversight, prevention and redress of abuses of certain basic rights and privileges of individuals (along the lines increasingly accepted all over the world today) at the local government level; and (b) coordination and regulation of cross-local government economic activity and issues.”

Comment: We often use words, like Federation, in a manner that cause difficulties in the minds of very many common people. Your point concerning the elimination of existing provinces was clear to me from the very outset. The inadequacy of this proposal lies mainly in its acceptability by those people whose sense of identification remains essentially tied with regional (and local) and not the national level. Such people, however, cannot and should not be treated as traitors or enemies of the nation at large. They often perceive reality differently. Hence, their sense of reality is often a product of their perceived and/or actual economic position in relation to their perceived and/or actual economic position of people living in other regions/provinces.

Permit me to clarify the notions of Federal and Federation. The term federal government is used very loosely in political discussions. It is seldom given an unambiguous meaning. However, the main feature of a federal system are commonly known. Ramesh Dutta Dikshit, in one of his book chapters, maintain that “a federation is born when a number of usually separate or politically autonomous units (or unit with some pretentions to autonomy) mutually agree to merge together in order to create a state with a single sovereign central authority, but retaining for themselves powers of autonomous decision-making in matters that are predominantly of local and regional interest. In view of the division of powers and functions between the two levels of government, the merger of the constituent units is somewhat partial, and its degree may vary with differences in the spatial patterns of socio-economic and cultural-geographic relationships between the federating units in each case. The executive and legislative powers in a federation are divided between the central and the unit governments, each of which act directly on the people. In general terms, the central government is accorded legislative jurisdictions over all matters pertaining to general welfare, bringing about balances economic development across the state territory, international trade and commerce, maintenance of law and order, regulation of money supply, and internal and external security. The unit governments are endowed with legislative powers to formulate policies in regard to matters of more pronouncedly local and regional interest within the parameters of the country’s constitution . . . .”

While Dikshit fails to refer directly and clearly about human and citizenship rights, you have (perhaps inadvertently) excluded the role of federal/central government in matters concerning (at least) external security. What Dikshit has argued is a standard description of a federal system of governance. What kind of marker does Dikshit`s description provide to evaluate Musharraf`s devolution plan?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to Fairdinkum (Replies # 240 and 241)
Dear Fairdinkum:

It becomes very difficult to understand any argument if we take it out of its context (and if a respondent has to look for its actual source, i.e. the Reply #).

The issue of autonomy is not exactly identical to that of decentralization. What kind of autonomy is implied if a set of politicians demand for dismantling the existing political structure (a vague kind of federation) for a confederation based upon the Lahore Resolution? While Ahmed (tahmed321) calls for an abolishment of existing provinces to (once again) form a One-Unit, several others (including Bilal, Fairdinkum, and Rashid) oppose it. While Mumtaz Bhutto calls for a confederation, many Pakistanis would prefer to form a true Federation of Pakistan in which each province enjoys a reasonable level of autonomy with a reasonably strong sense of greater (Pakistani) nationhood (I include myself in this category). I must, however, emphasize that neither a strong and separatist form of regionalism nor a strong and highly centralized kind of (Pakistani) nationalism is good for the peace and prosperity of the people in any part of Pakistan. We also need to recognize that it is the domination of Punjab (both directly and indirectly) that the regional elite (and their supporters) persistently oppose in the present setup. This is a factor that General Mushrraff has recognized in his seven-point agenda.

The tension between Punjab and the smaller provinces is a typical example of the core-periphery problem. A large literature exists on this topic/problems. This is a problem that Michael Hechter’s explains as “internal colonialism.” For insights, see his “Internal Colonialism: The Celtic Fringe in British National Development, 1536-1966” (1975) and his 1985 article “Internal Colonialism Revisited” in E. A. Tiryakian and R. Rogowski (eds.) “New Nationalism of the Developed West.”

It is important to recognize that Fairdinkum is basically calling for a rectification of problems that arise due to an unnecessary and uncalled for level of centralization. To make his position clear, he has cited a UNDP report ((http://magnet.undp.org/Docs/dec/global2.htm) on local governance. In this report, the word autonomy is used in four places, and where it is conceptualized in a sense that is (in my assessment) incompatible with Mumtaz Bhutto’s argument.

Fairdinkum, the issue of autonomy of the kind that Mumtaz Bhutto is demanding cannot be delinked with the issue of identity/identities.

Both Rashid and Fairdinkum presumably link the merger of Karachi and Bombay Stock Exchanges with the issue of local control. Could you please explain, how such an aspatial merger is linked with the nature and/or inadequacy of our existing federation (federal system)? Would the devolution of power (Musharraf style) help in this regard?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Dear Prof. Bilal: On your post #236, if I understand you correctly it seems that in addition to other things, geographical factors go towards forming a ``community. I agree with that, and note that in eliminating provinces we need to emphasize the role of local governments (and allow it to retain taxes for this) in everyday life: crime prevention, schooling, zoning, poverty alleviation, and so forth. In arguing for eliminating provinces, I am not arguing that it be replaced by a strong federation, as fairdinkum seems to believe. I am arguing that provinces be replaced by strong local governments. The federation would deal with internal affairs of the country in only the following ways: (a) human rights oversight: the oversight, prevention and redress of abuses of certain basic rights and privileges of individuals (along the lines increasingly accepted all over the world today) at the local government level; and (b) coordination and regulation of cross-local government economic activity and issues.

The Bombay-Karachi link mentioned by fairdinkum is a logical one, and similar links have already emerged in Europe (e.g. North Italy and the Southern parts of France and Germany). However, things are changing so rapidly nowadays that it is quite likely that while territory will probably remain important in terms of where we live and raise children, but may become irrelevent for purposes of significant economic activity (deterritorialization or ``death of distance`` is an increasingly important reality today). The bottom line is: National and provincial boundries are neither here nor there: too broad to form part of our ``residential community`` and too narrow to form part of our ``economic community``. It is only time before these political ``realities`` are rendered toothless by economic forces unleashed by technological advancements that are beyond control of any individual or even any one country or region.

Re` provinces or states as intermediate administrative, political or legislative units, I tend to agree with fairdinkum.

Take matters like revenue distribution and utilization. Who would decide how much money needs to be spent on what infrastructure :say roads, railroads, trade exchanges, power supply). Who would be responsible for coping with regional market/commerce conditions for regional industry or agriculture, say a bumper crop needs to be marketed and distributed at a acceptable price. There is also the responsibility for human condition like coping with natural disasters or endemic disease or a local drought or unemployment. The special needs of a region such as oppressive social practices, high birthrate, or poor educational/health facilities which may also be more effectively dealt with an region-integrated approach supplementing the local efforts. If allied with legislative powers and responsibilities, the people of the region can participate in these decisions and activities.

Hence, it makes sense to think in larger geographical terms than at just a local town/district level setup acting solely on its own behalf and relying on a single centralized control to be all ears and to do a fair evaluation of how to split a limited pie among so many.

Now if the entire geographical region shares an approximately common language, culture and history, the scope of regional identity gets broadened and and cannot be denied recognition. The apprehension that `recognising ones sub-ethnic origins and languages as also significant will lead to unresolvable contention within a diverse nation`. Well the counterargument is that a certain level of security of identity and connectedness among most is a more hopeful outlook for Pakistan or any country than general and widespread insecurity regarding preservation of identity and connectedness. This is something which is too close to peoples` hearts to ever go away, even in an highly integrated economy/political system such as Europe. Giving such assertion of identity a workable framework is the safest way to go. Imposing limits and mores on such regionalization may be easier after conceding it in concept. It seems Nehru was not in favor of the linguistic reorganization of states in India, but at least it allowed the language -regional identity question became much lower than priority 1 with time.

FYI from the Indian Constitution:
Relations between Union and States
http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/const/p11.html
State List
http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/const/shed072.html

It would be interesting to know how provinces in Pakistan differ.

If topheavy bureacracy is a problem, its best to trim it down. Doing away with the entire concept of provinces looks like overkill.

Sadhana
PS: An `irrelevant aside` about the US: one may notice US as a nation-state is nowhere near declaring itself redundant, or prone to sacrificing its political sovereignity to a global identity. Nor yet is the US anywhere near declaring its state units to be irrelevant :-).

PS: I agree with Krashid`s view, that what Bombay has to offer in terms of opportunities of economic progress is far greater than what Karachi/Sindh can ever achieve in this federation. Imagine a merger of KSE with BSE.

Dear Bilal,

Let us leave the discussion on identities of people for another time.

My statement in relation to provincial autonomy: ``it means recognizing political and economic realities of today`` merely points to various studies (http://magnet.undp.org/Docs/dec/global2.htm - an example, and there are many other such studies available), which suggest that a highly centralized governments, such as the federal government of Pakistan, are not only inefficient (in economic terms), they are less responsive, likely to be more corrupt, and highly restrictive of citizens rights. If such a body (centralized govt.) is dominated by a certain ethno-linguistic/political/religious group, the difficulties get compounded. In addition to administrative evils, it also causes political dissatisfaction amongst smaller provinces/states/units of federation.

The seven point agenda of current regime clearly recognizes that federating units are dissatisfied with current setup of the federation.

``(2) strengthen the federation, remove inter-provincial disharmony and restore national cohesion``

tahmad`s formula to achieve the above objective is to totally abolish the provinces which, in my humble opinion, is rather like putting your head in the sand and hoping that the problem will go away.

I believe that devolution plan which aims to empower people by devolving power to district level, would be a fruitless exercise unless the federal government itself practice what it is preaching to the provinces.

Dear Chowkwallas:

According to the Dawn (September 13, 2000), General Moinuddin Haider (Interior Minister) said that a ban will continue on political activities till the implementation of seven-point military government agenda (in accordance with the time-frame allowed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan). In Haider’s lexicon “political activities” refers to rallies, public meetings, and demonstrations. How about covertly taking part in the local elections? Perhaps this is not a political activity. How about writing critical political commentaries in the news papers? How about posting anti-government material on the internet? The news report provides not clues. Am I engaged in a political activity? I am sure, I am. What should I do? Perhaps, like many Pakistani politicians, I should save my skin and stop writing on the Chowk.

As per the seven-point agenda, the military dictatorial regime will : (1) rebuild national confidence and morale; (2) strengthen the federation, remove inter-provincial disharmony and restore national cohesion; (3) revive the economy and restore investor confidence; (4) ensure law and order and dispense speedy justice; (5) depoliticize state institutions; (6) devolve power to the grassroots level; and (7) ensure swift and across the board accountability.

We all know that a period of three years is not sufficient for the implementation of the seven-point agenda. Should the Supreme Court allow three more year?

Depite my favorable attitude toward the devolution plan, the report “Local Government Plan 2000`` is not a well written document. It doesn’t reflect the hard word of many so-called think tanks. I will expand on this last point ASAP.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Dear BAhmed!

Pakistan was envisioned as a form of confederation. But I don`t think Pakistan can survive with confederation.

Faridinkum, probably does not realize that Karachi is no more the Karachi of 1970. Lots of water has flown since that time. Although alienation is not as bad as Sindhi`s but is there. Economic opportunities which Bombay presents to Karachiites, is more than what they can axhieve with federation. Similar remarks can be made regarding Baluch and Iran.

Although Pakistan in its present form is different parts interdependent upon each other, but that can change with available alternatives.

The only solution IN CURRENT SITUATION is Federation with minimal role for the center, provinces to be given more rights and devolution plan.

Apart from this the next best solution is confederation leading to break up of Pakistan.

The cow of Pakistan ki Nazariati or Gughraphiai Sarhadain has already been milked to the point, that there is hardly any drop left.

If you have any doubt regarding current situation, see the make up of political parties in different regions.

People`s party is a block on more radical elements in Interior Sind. In Karachi only a fool will think to beat MQM (either factions). In Baluchistan better than Bugti is Murree.

Until and unless there is more justice, it is wishful to talk about strong federation.

In response to fairdinkum (Reply # 231)
Dear Fairdinkum:

Your statement: “Yes there is exploitation of poor peasants by landlords, but what has federation [read, the state] done to free these poor peasants?”

Comment: There are several aspects of this problem. First, what else could we expect from a state that is essentially neocolonial, authoritarian, praetorian, and inefficient and unresponsive? Why so? Perhaps due to our history, our society, our political culture, and our dominant national discourse which we (the ordinary people) have failed to construct and transform through our struggles (peaceful or otherwise). Have we done our job of demanding our rights?

Your statement: “. . . provincial autonomy does not mean racial hatred or divison of Pakistan along ethnic or racial lines. It means recognizing the history, and recognizing the political and economic realities of today.”

Comment: We need to engage in a discourse on provincial autonomy? The proponents of autonomy need to provide a justification of their demand. Just reference to the Pakistan resolution is not a sufficient basis in the year 2000. If the demand of autonomy is due to the nature of our highly centralized state, then we need to deal with the issue of centralization (through decentralization). Regional languages and cultures are a part of our national and regional heritage. Considerable effort need to made for their promotion and development. What do we need to bring the various regional languages/literatures and other cultural aspects together such that they become a part of our national pride and treasure?

Fairdinkum, what do you mean by recognizing the political and economic realities of today?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to tahmed321 (Reply # 230)
Dear Ahmed:

In adopting a postmodernist approach, you ask: Are Sindhis [or Punjabis, Baluchis, Pakhtoons, Saraikis or Mohajirs] one people? You then rightly argues that identities of such groups cannot be defined in terms of the ethno-linguistic factor only. Why? Because the class position of individuals in particular ethno-linguistic groups plays a far greater role in their everyday life lives. Permit me to add a little bit more.

Many people in Pakistan assume (somewhat erroneously) that ethno-linguistic identities correspond unambiguously with existing provincial boundaries. Finnish geographer Anssi Paasi argues that for a given territory to become an important aspect of identity, it requires a “complex group of other elements” that interact with the territory. The nature of interaction is the key. The territory actively transforms the elements contained within it (adding an additional layer of meaning) and so achieving a specific territorial identity, which cannot be reduced merely to the regional identity/consciousness living in it. Thus, territory becomes a vital constituent of the definition and identification of the group(s) living within it.

Do the territories of Sindh, Punjab, Baluchistan, and NWFP provinces (individually or collectively) constitute the group(s) living within each of them? If yes, what does it tell us for the construction of narrowly defined meanings in each of them? Please remember that ethno-linguistic reality is much more limited territorially than the reality of class (rich and poor, privileged and not-privileged; dominant and subordinate; etc.). If there is some merit in my argument, a more equitable spatial (local and region) distribution of our resources along with an overall increase in the quality of life of people in each territorial unit would enhance our national cohesion. The success of the devolution plan, I think, depends heavily upon a fair allocation and distribution of existing resources as well as an increase in the size of pie (locally, regionally, and nationally).

I know, I have said nothing new but in view of the forgetfulness of our policymakers (and the ruling elite), this lesson needs to repeated as often as necessary.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

FAT GENERALS AND CROOKED BANKERS:

- I more concerned about too many fat generals and an army that needs to be downsized and adventures like Kargil. The amount of money squandered on Kargil could have really strengthened local infrastructures.

- And what about the handover of the country to Citibank and the globalization agenda that threatens the well being and the several million already in abject poverty. Just because Citibank is willing to hire a generals son does does entitle them to takeover the country. They have already enslaved more than 250,000 Pakistanis by dolling out credit cards carrying 42 % interest....

Great article with a lot of insight.

Rajbir

fairdinkum you write that ``Yes there is exploitation of poor peasants by landlords, but what has federation done to free these poor peasants?``

I agree that the ``federation`` should act on this and has not. Nor have the provincial governments.

And I see that you have ignored my basic point, which was that we need to focus more on certain basic living conditions for all, regardless of ethnicity or religion; and not on divisions between people based on ethnicity, religion and so forth. I mention Islam only in passing, and am willing to retract that mention (since Islam is everyone`s personal business anyway), and appeal only on the basis of common decency not to be misled by rhetoric of provincialism and even nationalism.

Bilal,

A very perceptive article. I do have reservations on your broad assesment.

Very frankly I have not studied your article in detail, and my comments at this juncture are more of `off-the-cuff` remarks: I will revert with more detailed comments later. For now I would like to reproduce a part of my reply # 75 in my article ``FAITH, RELIGION AND NATIONAL DIRECTION``:

``Incidentally I agree to your assertion that system of governance should be based on social justice, egalitarianism and humanism. I believe the persons who occupy the august place of supreme representation, should not be clods or dadas but with a modicum of base education and qualifications. Otherwise, we will continue to have Islamabad doling out ‘development’ funds which acts as justification enough to merrily build more RAIWIND palaces and ROCHESTER mansions. I think the ‘Local Bodies and Devolution Plan’ unveiled on 14th August, is a pretty good start towards getting the various tiers of peoples representation in perspective and, ultimately, proper administration leading to good governance.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT = PROPER ADMINISTRATION + SUPERIOR QUALITY OF LIFE

+ ENHANCED VALUES + LAW AND ORDER

PROVINCIAL GOVT = EFFECTIVE LAWS + BETTER ADMINISTRATION THROUGH COORDINATION + GOVERNANCE

FEDERAL GOVT = LEGISLATION + NATIONAL COHESION + FISCAL STRENGTH + GOOD GOVERNANCE``

Regards,

Mateen

Ahmad,

If by fundamentals of Islam you mean all the good things in life, then I think Pakistan stands for the very opposite of ``fundamentals of Islam``...

Btw, similar sentiments (to what you said in your post) were expressed against Banglis when they expressed their desire to have more say in matters relating to East Pakistan.. And perhaps they were our step brothers in Islam?

Yes there is exploitation of poor peasants by landlords, but what has federation done to free these poor peasants?

And while we are talking about unholy stuff, genocide of Bangalis was unholy.. I fear the holy Army for their capacity and tendencies to engage in unholy and hence my desire to see provinces as strong autonomous units...we don`t want a repeat of East Pakistan do we?

And, btw, provincial autonomy does not mean racial hatred or divison of Pakistan along ethnic or racial lines.. it means recognizing the histroy, and recognizing the political and economic realities of today.

And don`t get all emotional over it.. I am also interested in the well being of Pakistan...just a different view to yours.. that`s all.. why bring Islam into it?

fairdinkum: Are Sindhis one people? Ask the Sindhi peasants who are kept in private jails by Sindhi landlords, who live in fear of their daughters being taken away, if they are in fact brothers because they speak the same language? And that this landlord will represent his interests against the Panjabis, Muhajirs and Pathans? (Incidentally, in addition to being divorced from reality, such provincialism is also opposed to the fundamentals of Islam, if that means anything in terms of guiding us in real life and not just in theory). It is time we started focussing on the rights of the individual (whether he/she is Sindhi or Muhajir or Panjabi, rich or poor, Muslim or Christian), and stopped thinking in terms of groups. The latter benefits only those, like Bhutto, who seek to gain power and the unholy benefits that brings rather than to work towards making Pakistan a livable place for future generations.