Would Devolution Empower “We the People”?

In response to Fuzair (Replies # 208 and 228) Part I
Dear Fuzair:

On thing that our ruling elite (army-bureaucracy-bourgeoisie) and other interested members needs to decide is whether or not they are Pakistanis or their existence is defined merely by their subnational collective identities. If it not “both,” then we have a serious problem.

Then in the case of Sindh, for example, we need to decide the definition of a Sindhi. If a Sindhi (and by extension a Punjabi, Baluchi, Pakhtoon, etc.) is one who speaks and prioritizes Sindhi (and by extension Punjabi, Baluchi, Pushto, etc.), then we have another problem.

All Pakistani citizens need to decide if they are living in the year 2000 and are forward looking or they are living in pre-Partition days and are backward looking. Discourses on such issues are imperative to construct (carve out) a relatively neat sense of our national identity (and other subnational collective identities) and to reach a set of necessary agreements for peaceful coexistence and for our mutual health/progress.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Re: Bahmad #208

I apologize for not making the connection clear--my only defense is that it was clear in my mind. However, that is something I have accused other writers on Chowk of doing--not editing their writing carefully and simply assuming that everyone can read their mind. Mine, however, was only a post, not an actual article, so mine is the lesser crime.

My post, Professor, was in response to your statement that:
These units have been constructed socially over
time and controlled by some vested groups to maintain their power and to maximize its associated benefits. The Pakistan Oppressed
Nations’ Movement (PONAM) uses the present provincial setup to argue for the existence of five nationalities in Pakistan. These are: Punjabis, Saraikis, Baluchis, Pakhtoons, and Sindhis.

And then PONAM`s belief (and I assume, perhaps incorrectly, your`s as well) that breaking up the existing provincial structures along dominant ethnic lines would make the Pakistani state less repressive and more representative of the different ethno/linguistic groups found therein. I was simply pointing out that history offers us no evidence to suggest that doing this would significantly reduce oppression of minority groups . It would simply change who is doing the actual oppressing.

As for the other portion of your post, I would suggest that any successful pluralist democracy is a liberal one in that there exist strong constitutional civil rights safeguards to ensure that the ruling majority cannot easily violate the rights of the minority.

Having said this, I am not entirely sure what you mean by consociational then. Pluralism as I understand it is the belief that autonomous individuals join interest groups that best correspond to their individual belief systems and that these competing groups then fight it out in the political arena to see who comes into power. The group that has the most members (votes) wins. If to this you add a belief in strong constitutional civil rights safeguards and an impartial Third Party enforcement system (the courts), so that the victors cannot despoil the losers or otherwise infringe upon their rights, you have a liberal democracy. I presume the term comes from the old 19th Century Liberals` belief in constitutional government.

I get the feeling that your interpretation of consociational would be along the lines of Social Corporatism? Am I correct?

Regards.

bahmah # 226

Mr. Mumtaz Bhutto has been demanding for confederation since early eighties. I, despite having personal dislike for this man, tend to agree with his views on confederation. I have attended a couple of meetings where he spoke of his desire for confederation. I agree with his view that it is the provinces, which collectively form Pakistan rather than the other way around. And it is in the long-term interest of Pakistan as a nation-state to have stronger and more autonomous provinces.

Also, after reading HRC report on East Pakistan, I fear that smaller provinces are vulnerable to a similar genocide attempt should they deviate too much from what Pakistan Army considers to be ‘loyalty’ to Pakistan. Army did not hesitate in massacring SU students mercilessly (thori phatak case being one example) and killed 100s of ordinary Sindhi civilians during MRD movement to quell the dissent in Sind against Gen. Zia’s rule. We are all aware how quickly and swiftly G.M SYED (much like Mujeeb-ur-Rahman) was proclaimed a traitor and his party a threat to Pakistan’s security as soon as he started raising his voice against the current form of federation, which in his view, was not the vision of founding fathers of Pakistan.

Urdu speaking people who do not identify themselves as ‘Sindhis’ currently dominate urban Sind…. They feel more secure in the current form of federation with Punjab, at the centre, playing a dominant role. A confederation of the sort Mr. Bhutto is demanding will not be very popular amongst the Urdu speaking Sindhis. And it would be extremely unpopular in Punjab and fiercely resisted by Army. This is my major concern. I believe that Urdu speaking Sindhis should be given some kind of constitutional guarantee to safeguard their rights before such a plan could be implemented. I don’t know whether or not Mr. Bhutto would be in favour of such a constitutional guarantee. However, I don’t see confederation succeeding in Sind unless Urdu speaking people feel secure and confident.
And I have no idea how one can sell this to Punjab or the Army.. It would take one of those sales men who can sell ice to Eskimos to achieve that :)

FEDERATION, NO; CONFEDERATION, YES. . .

There is no dearth of honest Pakistani citizens (like tahmed321) who want to eliminate the existing provinces. They see some advantage in the elimination. The current regime does not want to act upon such a plan (it is considering several options to give provincial status to the federally administered tribal areas). Sindhi politician Mumtaz Bhutto, however, wants Pakistan to be structured in light of the Lahore Resolution of 1940. Is Mumtaz Bhutto`s demand genuine? If Bhutto`s demand is seriously taken, what kind of conflicts it is likely to generate in Sindh? What kind of constitutional guarantees could Mr. Bhutto provide to the non-Sindhi speaking permanent residents of Sindh? Comments welcome.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Dawn
September 10, 2000
Mumtaz calls for proper use of Sindh`s revenues
By Our Reporter

KARACHI, Sept 9: The chief of the Sindh National Front, Mumtaz Bhutto, claimed on Saturday that only a confederal system could save Pakistan from further fragmentation and would ensure sovereignty of the provinces as enshrined in the 1940 Lahore resolution. Addressing the Karachi Bar Association, Mr Bhutto said this country was not created for the present federal system which, he said, was flawed and should be changed because of its failure to satisfy the aspirations of the people of the federating units. Referring to the Pakistan Resolution of 1940, he claimed that only in a confederal system provincial sovereignty would be ensured and the provinces would be master of their own resources. He claimed that the wordings of the resolution clearly indicated that a confederal system of governance was in the mind of the founding fathers. He said after independence a highly-centralized federal system, against which the Muslims of the subcontinent had struggled, was implemented. The Khan of Kalat had initially defied it, and as a result, language riots had erupted in Bengal, he said. He thought that the prevalent federal system had failed to put the country on the road of economic recovery and true independence. Democracy had been bulldozed by 26 years of military rule, he said. ``Sheikh Mujeebur Rahman`s six points embodied a confederal system. This system is now prevalent in Bosnia and was practiced in the US in its early days and is being successfully practiced in Switzerland,`` he claimed. Mr Bhutto referred to injustices with Sindh and said reality of a multi-national entity of Pakistan should be accepted. He said Sindh had an abundance of resources, and claimed that 75 per cent of the taxes people of this province paid were taken away by the federal government. On Kalabagh dam, he did not elaborate much but said that ``the people of Sindh do not trust Punjab which has total control of upstream water.`` He claimed that the government`s ``so-called`` devolution plan was not being implemented from top to bottom but the other way round. Provinces were being ignored, he said. Mr Bhutto was also asked to explain his position with regard to the language riots in Sindh and the killing of workers during his tenure as chief minister. About the language riots, he said the allegations against him were wrong. He said Urdu was already the national language. A bills was to be introduced in the assembly for making Sindhi the official language of the province. Sindhi was being used in various departments, even in the judicial system of the province even before. But even before the bill was introduced, vested interests generated the frenzy. ``If Sindhi will not be spoken and used in Sindh, then where on earth will it be spoken and used,`` he asked. He said that he acknowledged the sacrifices of those Muslims who gave sacrifices for this country, but added that those who had settled here and had no intention of going back, should be identified as Sindhis. After all, when people went to a foreign country, they sought its nationality and felt proud about it.

In response to tahmaed321 (Reply # 222)
Dear Ahmed:

The piece on “How Government Works? is indeed funny. Governments occasionally become too large and inefficient. The Welfare state, during the Reagan period, rolled back on this premise. There exists a vast literature on the issues of governmental failure, the crisis of the Welfare state, and privatization. It is, however, important to recognize that ideas, theories, policies and practice based on a particular society may or may not apply in the case of other particular societies.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Dear Dr. Bilal,

In connection with the suggestion to simplify government through eliminating the provincial layer, you ask ``But, what will happen if the military fails to achieve its objectives? And even if succeeds, at what costs?``

In response, I would say if the military fails to disband provinces, then we would be no worse off than we are right now. If it succeeds, then the cost would be the cost to the provincial bureaucrats of losing their jobs. This cost can be met by a generous special fund that compensates them for the job loss. This fund could be collected by selling off provincial government office buildings, the provincial governors` mansions and so forth. I know this sounds silly and simplistic the first time, but it was also simplistic in the fable where someone pointed out that the emperor had no clothes.

And we need to consider the great value of eliminating the provincial level of government, not just the costs.

In response to Truth (Reply # 221)
Dear Truth:

You have asked me to perform a somewhat gigantic task. I am, however, prepared to explain if there is a need. I would let Fuzair respond first.

The purpose of my post was to suggest to Fuzair that democracy has many forms and that a straight-forward liberal democracy is inappropriate for a country-like Pakistan.

Your analogy with Jinnah is also inappropriate. Why? Because, at the time of Pakistan’s creation, Jinnah was a viewed as the (de facto) “Sole Spokeman” (a la Ayesha Jalal) of the Muslims in India. In the Muslim League, neither Jinnah was ever criticized openly not Jinnah himself encouraged criticism. In my case, I want to engage in a discourse with other Chowk interactors (as an equal partner). My approach is critical, and I want to proceed slowly and gradually (unlike what happened in the mid-1940s).

The issue of how Pakistan transformed from Jinnah’s imagined secular Pakistan to a so-called imagined Islamic state requires far more space than what is available here. If the first generation Pakistanis (my father’s contemporaries) would have spent only a fraction of the time that we spend today in discussion, we would have lived in a different kind of Pakistan (or perhaps a different kind of India).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Bilal Sahib:

I think the piece below relates to the point I was making in my previous post, even though it is humorous piece aimed at the US public sector. The redundancy in the Pakistan public sector is of course even more unconscionable, and much less funny, given the vastly poorer circumstances we face.

How Government Works



Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress

said ``someone may steal from it at night.`` So

they created a night watchman position and

hired a person for the job.

Then Congress said, ``How does the watchman do

his job without instruction?`` So they created

a planning department and hired two people, one

person to write the instructions, and one person

to do time studies.

Then Congress said, ``How will we know the night

watchman is doing the tasks correctly?`` So they

created a Quality Control department and hired

two people. One to do the studies and one to

write the reports.

Then Congress said, ``How are these people going

to get paid?`` So they created the following

positions, a time keeper, and a payroll officer,

then hired two people.

Then Congress said, ``Who will be accountable for

all of these people?`` So they created an

administrative section and hired three people, an

Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative

Officer, and a Legal Secretary.

Then Congress said, ``We have had this command in

operation for one year and we are $18,000 over

budget, we must cutback overall cost.``

So they laid off the night watchman.

Bilal, you wrote:

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

Bilal, can you even translate this sentence into Urdu or Punjabi? You are making the same mistake Jinnah made - talking a language the average man cannot relate to. He kept talking about a secular state for Muslims but the average man made no distinctions between a state for Muslims and an Islamic state and both Bangladesh and Pakistan have ended up as Islamic republics.

Musharaf is a command and control type - his idea of partyless elections is a basic violation of freedom and is doomed to failure.

In response to tahmed321 (Reply # 219)
Dear Ahmed:

It wonder if you still fully realize the meaning and purpose of my statement that any attempt to abolish the existing provinces in Pakistan would be “unrealistic” and “intensely conflictual.”

Nevertheless, most common people in Pakistan would easily agree with your position that they need to be freed from the oppressive bureaucratic red-tape (which is presumably linked with the existence of so many layers of government). Rather than adequately looking at the nature and dynamics of existing structures and practices, you provide a simplistic solution to what you call the “bureaucratic red-tape.” In your solution, you seem to be calling for two kinds of simultaneous changes: (1) abolition of the provinces; and (2) a limited government (which is reduced to the “core government function of law and order). Then, you suggest that the military due to its coercive capacity could bring an end to the provincial tier. Yes indeed, the military has a (limited) capacity to coerce. But, what will happen if the military fails to achieve its objectives? And even if succeeds, at what costs?

The decisions to change the existing boundaries are political in nature requiring political resolutions, noting but voluntary and peaceful political resolutions.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Dear Bilal Ahmed (#212),

Sorry for mis-stating your views on abolishment of provinces. It would be ``unrealistic and intensely conflictual`` as you say. Let us analyze this a bit: I assume you say this keeping in mind the the powerful interests (provincial civil servants, would-be provincial governors, chief ministers and their entourages, and so forth). However, it would not be unrealistic in terms of being administratively impossible (Thailand, for example, has the type of set-up I mention as do many other countries) - indeed, by freeing Pakistan from the oppressive bureaucratic red-tape that so many layers of government result in we could well be making it much easier to focus on the core government function of law and order. We have civil service of 1 million strong, working under conditions that would have led Bill Gates to become a sticky-fingered customs agent had he competed in the Pakistan Civil Service Exam. However, we have 135 million Pakistanis - as well as their even more numerous as yet unborn generations - who would benefit from this.

Indeed, the cutting of the Gordian Knot of Red Tape (of which the unnecessary provincial layer is only one aspect) would probably be no more difficult than some other things that badly need to be done in Pakistan that I mentioned in earlier posts. These are things that a civilian government, however well intentioned and competent, will find very hard to do. However, a military government can be expected to take on such ``unrealistic and conflictual`` challenges, although it may mean setting up a fund to ensure that even the displaced civil servants are economically reimbursed for the greater good of society. If the military government succeeds in resolving such fundamental issues and then goes back to it`s barracks, the military will win back for itself the same love and affection that people displayed in 1965 and which was worn quite thin subsequently due to it`s shameful conduct in 1971 and under Zia.

There was a typo in my last post...

we dont need ``your`` ingenious solutions .

In response to rjanjua (Reply # 214)
Dear Janjua:

I am satisfied with your position regarding the need to devolve power. Your example of Karachi is good. I do believe that some sort of provincial autonomy is necessary for: (1) keeping some segments of our population satisfied; (2) diverting pressure from the central government toward the regional level governments where some matters are likely to be better addressed and resolved; and (3) maintaining our national cohesion. I , however, would hate to see the (exclusionary) regional forces becoming so powerful that Pakistan virtually dissolves into several virtually ethno-linguistically defined independent states with no sense and sympathy for our national-level solidarity and for the rights of other Pakistani citizens. A true and long-lasting federation of Pakistan is possible if we learn to deal with the dialectics of both local/regional and national level attachments and concerns.

I have not yet shown much dissatisfaction toward the present regime other than the fact that it is still virtually illegal and it is another attempt of the Pakistan army to satisfy its unsatiable desire to govern Pakistan in its own interest. Last year, I wrote a lot of letters against the state of affairs in Pakistan during Nawaz Sharif’s regime. I have not yet started the same as far as this regime is concerned. Apparently the present regime is working hard, though without much success. I am not sure if the problems during Nawaz Sharif’s regime were triggered and sustained by the ineptness of Nawaz Sharif (and his sycophants and hooligans) or by other vested interests (including the army, the pro-army faction of the ISI, and other pro-army religious/non-religious factions in our society).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In reply to hassans (Reply # 215)
Dear Hasan:

Please see my Reply # 103, and let me know if are dissatisfied with my response.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

I would be grateful for bahmed`s ( and others`) comments on my reply number 55

Dear Bilal Ahmad,

Devolution plan if implemented properly might have some positive effects. If the administration is handed over at local level, it would be easier to make the office-holders accountable. A simple example is that of Karachi. Dissatisfaction in this important city of ours is mainly due to lack of local governace. Taxes collected by the city are taken over by the Feds or the provincial govt. and very little is re-invested back into improving the city. Law-enforcement is also in the hands of either provinicial or the federal govt. If you live in the same community you will think twice about abusing your neighbour and so on. The main question ofcouse is not whether its a good plan or not, rather if it will be implemented. It won`t end the corruption but might put a damper on it.

I would`nt give high marks to our present regime myself but may I ask you why are you dissatisfied by it apart from the fact that its not democratic.

Regards,

Amir Janjua