Would Devolution Empower “We the People”?

SOCIAL RELATIONS OF DEVOLUTION?

We are still talking about the role of army, the politicians, the bureaucrat, and the general public in isolation, though the reality in Pakistan is more a product of the role of all of these collective bodies together. The army is trying to do what it is not capable of doing. The armed forces are acting under the deception that this institution is the real benefactor of Pakistan. Politics is a game (good or bad) that army has failed to play well. The following opinion piece shed’s some light on what needs to be done, in addition to any military-inspired, but meek, devolution plan.

Sincerely, Bilal

Of good money & bad governance
By Mohammad Malick
Dawn, November 20, 2000

A deceptive all-is-well calm prevails in Islamabad. Same as a hotel lobby where a forced serenity hides the frantic activity going on behind the closed service doors. But the similarities end here.

Unlike the orchestrated chaos of a well-run hotel, the government`s management appears more rudderless than controlled. In terms of political strategy, there seems none. Its financial bosses are at odds with one another on how to cope with the economic woes. The much touted devolution system threatens to prove a non-starter. The latest changes regarding the union council level elections further defeat its professed purpose of bringing power to the ``local`` level.

The Rs5 billion Nadra voters list only adds to the list of costly blunders. The activities of NAB are proving the most effective disincentive for all business initiative. National morale is low while inflation is fatally high. Sugar prices crossed the bitter Rs 40 per kg price line as these lines were being written. And this canvas of wasted opportunities and withering hopes just keeps getting bigger.

It is indeed an unfortunate situation. Because leaving aside the legal aspects of the rise of Gen. Musharaf led regime to power, few doubted the sincerity of purpose of the maverick general. But how long can he continue to draw from this rather limited and fast dwindling reservoir of people`s goodwill is anybody`s guess. Within the mere span of one year, the military government`s perception has changed from a possible messiah to a probable mess. Even the chief executive himself was forced to admit his dipping popularity. But it is still not too late, provided the government shows the requisite courage to take remedial measures.

For starters, it must make a drastic review of its approach vis-a-vis economy and accountability. Thanks to the puritan antics of its most corrupt revenue collection authority of CBR, the country boasts the most business unfriendly environment in the world. Instead of providing greater incentives for the new and experienced entrepreneurs to galvanize trade and industry, wealth has instead been turned into a symbol of corruption and nothing more. Just as during China`s cultural revolution anyone possessing a book or money was branded as being ideologically and morally corrupt, here too anyone possessing wealth is being turned into an icon of corruption and thereby a symbol of popular spite.

How can the government expect old money to stay in the country or young enterprising talent to try creating their fortune in such an environment? No economy in the world experienced a boom because of the tyrannical theatrics of its revenue departments.

Economic progress took place in only those societies where the potential of their enterprising classes was allowed to realize itself and where wealth was viewed as a reward for hard work and not a sign of moral turpitude. This despicable attitude on a more dangerous level, is further dividing our poor nation on the lines of haves and have-nots. If things carry on like this, a day will surely come when an economically handicapped individual may consider it his moral right to take away by force ``his share`` of the wealth of the ``corrupt wealthy lot``. Desperate people do desperate things. History tells us so.

What the military rulers need to do is to leave the business community alone and instead focus on the lifestyles of the functionaries of its revenue services and it will be evident where the real rot lies. The CBR people are hell bent upon painting everyone else corrupt because their own survival lies in deflecting attention elsewhere.

In one breath the government talks of billions in evaded taxes and duties and yet to this day how many colluding CBR corrupt officials has it exposed? Just start by checking the school bills and other basic expenses of this honest lot and the truth will start falling out of their dark closets. Instead of killing the business enterprise of the nation, the military government should do a ruthless dissection of the real corruption sore, the CBR.

On another level it must take the bull of politics by the horns. There is simply no eschewing the political process or denial of political realities. It`s a historic fact that regardless of which part of the world we live in, not even the strongest of military regimes or civilian despots can forever banish serious political parties, or their leaders, from mainstream politics. Look at Chile, Argentina, Iran, Serbia, Philippines etc. But an intelligent military regime can surely ordain a workable political order e.g. Turkey. There is a clear division of thought process in the top khaki circles with one favouring controlled revival of assemblies and the other opposing it out of fear of a rejuvenated parliament, no matter how subdued momentarily, turning upon its military benefactors.

Each has merit in its respective argument, but only to a certain limit. Our chequered history of collusive statecraft shows that politicians have always abided by the terms of their power-transfer agreements reached with various military regimes. That those agreements did not preclude future military incursions was more because of their flawed designs rather than the politicians backtracking on agreed agendas.

Therefore, to apprehend that a revived assembly could ultimately scrap the agreed terms of democratic revival and pull a fast one on the armed forces is to give far more credit than due to our martial law(s) wizened parliament.
Besides, in the event of the civilians acting cheeky the khakis can always ride back in their jeeps. It isn`t as if they have to ask parliament or the government of the day for doing so.

But the time for the military government to reach a workable formula with the political forces is now, when it can still negotiate from a position of relative strength. The political parties, which were the rulers of yesterdays, are today in the opposition. Any student of political science can tell the rulers that opposition never wins the day, it`s only the government that loses. All these political forces have to do is to wait for matters to grow worse, for the public`s hardships to increase, for unrealistic hopes to be replaced by all-too-real despairs and to then exploit the public sentiment. It happened with Ayub, Yayha and then Zia.

Why will it not happen again? Forced victories on the political front are always of transitory nature. The MRD movement in Sindh was crushed by the army in 1983 and the political forces appeared to be the losers then. But, can the army claim to be the winner even today? If anyone has a doubt all they need to do is take a walk in the bazaar leading up to the mazaar of Shah Abdul Latif Bhittai and they`ll have the answer.

It only takes a curfew in a few cities, a handful of dead demonstrators, and military rulers can see their strength evaporate like the morning mist. This has happened before in this very country, between the same mass of people and the same armed forces. Who can say with certainty that it cannot happen again.

This, God forbid, does not mean that such a development is inevitable or desirable but at the same time deliberately ignoring our past imperils our future even more. The government must stop talking about the political forces and instead start talking to them.

RIGGING CHARGES

How serious is the current military regime in conducting fair and honest local body elections? The following news clipping raises doubts in our minds. If these charges are true, what action PML and other political parties are going to take in the next month or so? How would the military regime respond to any organized political protest? If Musharraf succeeds in the first round (out of a total of four) of local elections, would that tantamount to a virtual death of the major political parties? Are the political parties already virually powerless?

Sincerely,Bilal Ahmad

New electoral rolls bid to rig polls: PML
News Network International; November 15, 2000
ISLAMABAD (NNI): Pakistan Muslim League Tuesday said that the new electoral rolls prepared by National Database Registration Authority (NADRA) had exposed the military government’s intention to rig the coming general elections in order to block the way of the mainstream political parties from staging a comeback.

Secretary Information Pakistan Muslim League Mushahidullah Khan said in a statement here that the new electoral rolls had shaken the confidence of the people adding that in the fresh electoral rolls prepared for Shikarpur, Jacobabad and Larkana, districts of the province of Sindh did not contain three lakh voters then what would be the state of affairs in the other provinces. He said that the electoral rolls have been prepared malice afore-through by the military rulers to manipulate the coming general elections and install a future set up of their choices so as to win approval of all their illegal acts.

He said that right from the October 12 military coup every move of the military rulers vindicated their intention of finding a save exit from a troublesome situation which they may face if any of the mainstream political parties got a landslide majority in case of fair, free and transparent elections.

He said that elections conducted on the basis of the new electoral rolls would add to the serious law and order situation in the country thus bringing everything at a standstill to the detriment of the country. He said that if the new electoral rolls were rechecked and authenticated by the army monitoring teams and the other bodes concerned then the move could only be translated as a pre-planned measure to rig the coming general elections. He said that the wholesale reference against Nawaz Sharif and other leaders of the party and their disqualification were part of the military government’s move to install future political set up of their choice.

He said that after their failure to deliver the people, the military rulers were basing all their success on the Devolution Plan to give nation ``an honest and competent`` leadership through ``transparent and impartial elections,`` which is nothing but to sell the entire nation down the river.

Mushahidullah demanded constitution of an independent and impartial election commission to prepare electoral rolls afresh and ensure free, fair and transparent elections in the country. He said that elections under the military regime could not be fair and impartial as these would damage the vested interests of the military rulers. He asked the superior judiciary to take suo moto notice of this deliberate attempt to rig the elections and set up an independent election commission consisting of judges of impeccable repute to preparation of genuine electoral rolls and holding of fair elections.

In response to Hassan:
Dear Hassan, Assalam o Alaikum:

Governance in Pakistan has always been top-down (and peculiar). I have often discussed this in many other places. You are right that the army-bureaucracy (and bourgeoisie) alliance is already strong. It is also plausible, as suggested by you, that the devolution plan may not add further to the power of the center. I also agree that we need an effective form of local government. But, I cannot agree that additional power to the center will not affect the effectiveness of local governance.

If the choice is between no local governance and local governance, I will opt for local governance even if it is somewhat lame. Your reference to Dr. Gibbon’s paper (and various quotes from it) are fine. As you are well aware of, there is an extremely large theoretical and empirical literature available on local governance, devolution and decentralization, federalism, etc. A lot of this literature is situated in economically advanced (and less-advanced) democratic countries/systems. Western expert on these matter, when invited to advise in less-developed countries, fail to come to grips with the economic, social, and political realities of the host countries. Nevertheless, in most democratic countries (including India), there is no army to take over power and to desecrate the constitution.

After each coup, in Pakistan, we take a new start without adequately realizing what politics and democracy really entail. A lame local polity is likely to weaken the local-center and provincial-center relations in favor of the center, while displacing the existing tensions to the local (and regional) arena. Even if this is true, I will opt for greater local autonomy as far as it is somehow guaranteed. I suspect that an effective system of governance is not possible without prioritizing the spirit of freedom and democracy.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Dear Bilal Sahib

As Salam Alaykoum wa Rahmatouh Allahu wa Barakatouh

In respect of the following paragraph of your response:

“I, however, remain unconvinced that you have really addressed Rabbani’s concerns. Is the devolution plan going to make Islamabad (and thus the army) much more powerful? If so, are the benefits much greater than the costs? Are the cost/benefits acceptable to the people in almost all, if not all, parts of Pakistan? Is this plan going to provide an equal/equitable empowerment opportunity to the people in all parts of Pakistan? If the answers of the first and last questions are yes and no, respectively, then the whole exercise is simply farce and meaningless.”

As to whether the devolution plan will make Islamabad and/or the army more powerful – I do not think this is an issue. We need an effective form of local government whether or not it makes the centre powerful. (Besides it has been displayed that the army and the centre are already very powerful (both in times of democracy and under military rule). It is unlikely that the devolution plan will add further to their power.)

As to those who are supposedly concerned about the erosion of provincial autonomy such as Rabbani - I think Mr. Zia Ul Islam’s article covers these points very well and I am in broad agreement with him ( although I do not share his enthusiasm for the effectiveness of the current accountability process – I think it is pretty ineffective).

An interesting paper on the position of local government in multileval federal systems has been presented by Dr. Roger Gibbins, Professor of Political Science at the University of Calgary. This is available at

http://www.ciff.on.ca/ciff_html/documents/bg_papers/docbg_gibbon.html

Extracts of the paper are reproduced below:

“ When federal constitutions first emerged in the United States (1789), Canada (1867) and Australia (1901), local communities were very important. Yet despite the fact that cultural, economic and social life took place for the most part within a local context, local communities and their governments were not incorporated into the representative character or principled foundations of federal institutions. Instead, new federal communities -- states or provinces -- were created, often based on pre-existing colonial boundaries.

……..The failure to reflect this reality in the design of federalism will erode the effectiveness and legitimacy of federal institutions as we move into the 21st century.

……..Indeed, it has been argued (perhaps too stridently) that the federal system established at Philadelphia “terminated the last vestiges of cities’ political independence,” leaving them as the “creature[s] of the state.” Constitutional entrenchment is seen as a measure to ensure local governments “financial security, autonomy, powers and protection of local authorities from dismissal by state governments.”

…In Germany, the right of municipal governments to regulate local affairs is expressly guaranteed by the Basic Law. A special situation is created by the fact that three of the sixteen German states (Laender) also have the status of local governments: the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, the Free Hanseatic City of Bremen, and Berlin.

…The German exceptions are interesting because they represent a rare case of municipalities being incorporated into federal institutions (such as Senates). It is perhaps not coincidental that the most contemporary of the five constitutions noted above carries the most explicit recognition of local government, although such governments in Germany have roots deep in pre-federal antiquity.

…in Canada, federal-municipal relations are at best embryonic. An ill-fated federal Secretary of State for Urban Affairs was created in the early 1970s with this end in mind, but it was quickly disbanded. Today’s relationships are informal and episodic. Provincial governments have effectively imposed themselves between local governments and the national government, with only a small trickle of money flowing through or around this barrier.

…international cities are becoming more prominent features on the global landscape. Many if not most states and provinces pale in economic, social and cultural power beside such cities as Sydney, Los Angeles, New York and Toronto. These cities, moreover, are not content to speak through their state or provincial governments; Sydney is not New South Wales, and California is not Los Angeles. However, international cities find no reflection in federal theory or constitutional design.

…Local communities and their governments will play a larger role in the lives of citizens in federal states. The continued neglect of this reality in the institutional design of federal states threatens the normative appeal of federalism as a system of government, the legitimacy and relevance of federal institutions, and the efficiency of federal public policy practice. It is therefore worth considering whether federal institutions and practice might be redesigned to harness local governments and international cities more effectively to federal visions. “

Regards,

Wa Salam

Hassan

Will devolution take away provincial autonomy?
By Zia-ul-Islam
Dawn, Opinion, October 24, 2000

THE strongest case being made against the district government is that it is a conspiracy to take away provincial autonomy. Politicians seem unanimous in demanding the devolution of powers to the provinces rather than the districts. Their contention is that Pakistan is a federation and local government, being a provincial subject, should be left to the provincial government.

The point is well taken. The arguments are convincing. ``How can meaningful devolution take place if it is being thrust from the centre. Of course, imposition of decentralization from the centre is a contradiction in terms.`` There is obvious logic in their statements. The trouble is there is also another side of the story and that side, unfortunately, has not been highlighted enough, either by the press or the government.

Suppose devolution is first implemented at the provincial level, as is being demanded. Local government is a provincial subject, so the present government leaves it to the provinces. Since there is no political representation in the provincial government at present, this obviously means that the issue is left alone so that future elected government may settle it in their own way. What would they do?

If the past 52 years` experience were any guide, they would rather have no government at the local level at all. No doubt half the 52 years went to military dictatorship. Irrespective of the quality of their intentions both Ayub and Zia introduced strong government at the local level. As soon as the elected representatives came to power, they suspended or maimed local government institutions. In all probability this is exactly what they will do again, at the first opportunity.

Political governments in Pakistan cannot tolerate effective government at the local level because of obvious reasons. They hate to share power with other elected representatives. We have seen again and again that whoever comes to power in this country, whether elected or otherwise, begins to think sooner or later that he or she is the only indispensable panacea for the country. Thus, the Prime Minister at the centre and the chief minister at the head of a province, assume dictatorial powers governing becomes a one-man show.

In the province this means brutal exercise of power with no holds barred. And, as we all know well, this includes allotment of plots, awarding of contracts, harassing of opponents and bulldozing the due process of law wherever it comes in the way. If bureaucrats come in the way they are removed summarily or won over.

If fellow politicians pose a problem they are bribed if ``in``, or chased away by handpicked police officers if ``out``. Other politicians, who have been elected independently in their own right, however, pose serious impediments. These, essentially, are people elected at the local level. In the present set-up, these people are ``disposed of`` by the chief minister with a stroke of the pen, merely by suspending the local body that dares come in the way. In the new set-up, life will be difficult.
District governments will provide the much-wanted check on the hitherto unlimited powers of the provincial chief ministers. The land they are so fond of giving away, the contracts they so lavishly award to friends, and other favours they bestow upon favourites all belong to one or the other district. District governments, now deriving strength from the Constitution rather than the pleasure of the provincial governments, will not allow this to happen in their respective districts. No doubt they will not be angels either. Their motives for obstructing the chief minister from giving away land or another favour at the expense of their district may not necessarily stem from pious intentions. The obstruction nevertheless will be there, and that, at this point in time, is what matters most.

The whole nation is up in arms against corruption, especially massive corruption in high places carried on by the rulers in the past two decades. Accountability bureaus are doing their best to bring to book the politicians and bureaucrats who colluded in treating the districts as if they were their personal fiefdoms. Now that a system, which has an in-built capability to halt this morass, is being brought in, opposition to it is surprising. The unrest among the politicians who aspire to come to power at the provincial or national level is understandable. By Pakistani standards, what use would coming to power be if you cannot even oblige a friend or two without running into difficulties? For all other well-meaning citizens, district governments need to be welcomed as the only effective tool that might finally bring sanity to society and balance in political life of the country.

For those who feel that powerful district governments confronting the provincial governments would cause friction and chaos, let them have no fear. Friction is better than corruption. It is also better than the calm and tranquillity of dictatorship. Friction and debate between politicians are the essence of evolution of indigenous systems. Debate is what has been lacking in Pakistan.

It is important to see how district governments would make life different from the way it is now. At present, the chief minister can and does directly order the civil servant posted in the district to carry out his orders. He may pick up the phone or direct the provincial chief of the department to pass on the orders. The district level officer is forced to carry out the order if he has to stay in his post. When district governments come into place, this officer will have to report to the District Nazim. So, when he receives an order from the province, he will take it up with the District Coordination Officer and through him with the District Nazim.

Every action that affects the district will be watched and debated. The site where a school or hospital is to be built will not be decided in the secretariat at the provincial capital but in the district headquarters. At present, elected representatives who represent constituencies that are part of a district lobby with the chief minister and then follow up with civil servants in the provincial secretariat for development projects and release of funds in their constituencies. When the devolution plan has been executed, all this action, including funds, will shift to the district itself, which, of course, is closer to the common man than the provincial capital.

Many people are not fully aware of the impact of the elimination of the post of the deputy commissioner. If this institution is truly abolished, life in Pakistan will begin to undergo a revolution. The biggest surprise is awaiting those who think that the devolution plan is a conspiracy to take away provincial autonomy. The reverse might actually happen.

The deputy commissioner, surprisingly, is more a representative of the federal government in the district than the provincial government. The chief ministers in the past have been happily utilizing his services for their own petty benefits. They never looked beyond their noses to realize that the federal governments were utilizing ``their`` deputy commissioner a lot more than they did.

There are more central laws under which the D.C. is bound and empowered to act on the directions of the federal government than there are provincial laws. Under these laws, the federal governments have been giving direct orders to the deputy commissioners, making a complete mockery of provincial autonomy.

To give just one example, under a scheme during the last government, deputy commissioners were made project directors to carry out certain development projects for which funds were placed directly at their disposal! The provincial governments had no wind of why, how and by whom the projects were selected and at what cost they were completed. Most of these projects were actually political bribes given directly by the federal politicians to woo people at the district level over the heads of the provincial government. If that is not an insult to provincial autonomy, nothing is.

These games are possible when you have an omnipresent instrument like the D.C. sitting in the district. With the institution gone, all the functions being performed by the D.C. would be entrusted to one or the other district level officer reporting to the district government (administratively) as well as to the provincial government (technically).

An objective analysis of the situation brings out clearly, therefore, that provincial autonomy will increase rather than decrease as a result of the proper implementation of the devolution plan. It does look as if the powers of the provincial government will decrease somewhat. In reality, they will not decrease but be shared with their elected colleagues in the districts. The federation will not usurp the powers of the provinces, as the politicians would have us believe with their continuous statements. The opposite will happen. The powers will trickle down nearer the people. Which brings us to the real benefit of the plan.

Given reasonable time, district governments will become the bulwark against future military takeover. Until now, people have not known what democracy looks like except for the feasts and festivity of election days once in a few years. They are as far removed from decisions affecting their every day lives during democracy as they are during dictatorships. They can hardly tell the difference between the two because there is none as far as the grass roots are concerned. Once they have tasted real power by changing things around them with their own votes and hands, they will understand why and how democracy is better than dictatorship. There would be, for the first time in the history of this country, a true vested interest spread all over the nation in each and every district to stand up and fight for democracy.

A paradox is in the making. The military government is introducing a factor that will, by its very nature, prevent future hijacking of democracy. Let it happen!

-- Dawn, Karachi

In response to humsub (Reply # 318)

Dear Humsub (interesting acronym!):

In Urdu, a Jiyala literally means ``brave, courageous, valorous or brave-hearted male person.`` In English, macho also comes close to Jiyala. A female would be called ``Jiyali`` but this expression is not often used (not that women are not considered brave and courageous). I think, in standard/sophisticate Urdu, Jhansi ki Rani will not be described (at least in writing) as a Jiyali.

However, when Hasan used the word ``Jiyala,`` it was meant as a derogatory remark. In his usage, if I understood him correctly, Jiyala is a mindless diehard supporter (and go-gether) of a particular politician and/or party.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Bilal ji

What is meant by `Jiyala`?

AUSTRALIAN INTEREST IN THE DEVOLUTION PLAN

Dawn (October 14, 2000) reports: “The Australian High Commissioner in Islamabad Mr. Howard C. Brown said here on Friday that although his country had never supported any military and undemocratic regime in the world we were satisfied with the Musharraf government`s devolution of power plan and the accountability process.



Talking to newsmen at Eric Foundation, an Australian voluntary agency, the Australian diplomat said: ``We not only appreciate the reforms introduced by the military government, we are ready even to extend every monetary and technical help to make it a success.”

Could any opponent of the devolution plan explain why Australia is supportive of the devolution plan? Why Australia wants to provide monetary and technical help? What is Australia’s gain/interest?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

STRUGGLE FOR TOTAL DEVOLUTION:

GHINWA STYLE

Ghinwa Bhutto has consistently supported the need to devolve power. Perhaps the backbone of Ghinwa regarding devolution is Dr. Mubashir Hasan. I wonder if he agrees with Ghinwa`s stepwise strategy. Is Ghinwa really interested in grassroots democracy or she is desparate to win political/electoral power at the local level?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Ghinwa backs devolution plan

By Our Correspondent

Dawn, October 13, 2000

HYDERABAD, Oct 12: Ghinwa Bhutto, the chairperson of the PPP-SB, has said devolution of power may be the one step through which the hardships of the people could be minimized. She was talking to newsmen in Qasimabad on Thursday where she had gone to attend the chehlum of the father of Dr Mazhar Memon, a leader of the PPP-SB. She said a continuous political struggle was needed for the total devolution of power. She said the problems that Pakistan was facing could only be tackled by bringing about radical changes in the system of governance. She said the government had not paid due attention to the law and order situation and cited the murder of Sardar Wahid Bukhsh Bhutto in Larkana just one example of it. She said the state continued to provide protection to the criminals in the Murtaza Bhutto case and said the governor and the interior minister should explain why the case was not being proceeded in the court. About the government performance she said some improvement could be witnessed in offices where the bureaucrats came on time and grievances of the people were also redressed to certain extent. However, she said, this was not enough and not to the desired extent.

In response to hassans (Reply # 314)

Dear Hasan:

I have no difficulty with the main thrust of your post. Hasan, I have also observed the behavior of many “Jiyalas.” Let me give you another example.

A Provost of Karachi University Hostels (a senior Associate Professor; and a Jiyala at the University level) once asked a pro-Jamati Student Prefect of the Hostels to make arrangements for the admission of two young adults in the University on the sports quota. The Prefect agreed and the students were admitted (please note that they were not sportsmen). The moral of this story is that decadence is bound to take its course if and when the highly educated and privileged people also internalize the politics of hook or crook in their everyday lives in any particular society.

I, however, remain unconvinced that you have really addressed Rabbani’s concerns. Is the devolution plan going to make Islamabad (and thus the army) much more powerful? If so, are the benefits much greater than the costs? Are the cost/benefits acceptable to the people in almost all, if not all, parts of Pakistan? Is this plan going to provide an equal/equitable empowerment opportunity to the people in all parts of Pakistan? If the answers of the first and last questions are yes and no, respectively, then the whole exercise is simply farce and meaningless.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Mr. Rabbani`s remarks on local government are not even worthy of serious comment. His party`s own record on local democracy and the `smaller provinces`has been abysmal. Bhutto was the grand architect of the attempted suppression of East Pakistan. Both him and his daughter dissolved the Baluchistan assembly. Benazir unleashed a war of attrition against half the population of Sindh. She did not allow local body elections during her term in office, appointing her own `Jiyalas` as members of local body `advisory boards`. I met one of them - right in front of me he aked one of his cronies to `purchase` a Matriculation Certificate for one of his friends for Rs. 5000.

The point about the army is valid to an extent. We need a small highly professional army. Concrete measures must be taken to change the culture of the army - moving it from a `Punjabi` to a professional `Pakistani` culture. Measures must be taken to ensure minority groups (i.e. non punjabi/pathan) are comfortable in the army. Admission procedures must be reformed to ensure equal opporunity to all groups to be recruited on a purely meritocratic basis. After all there are plenty of capable Sindhi/Baluchi officers/ sipahis in the provincial police forces. Why are there not any in the army.(However there should not be any quotas - minorities must be allowed to compete on a level playing field rather than through affirmative action programs which create regret, injustice of another kind, lead to the recruitment of incompetents and are open to gross abuse (70% of all new recruits to the Sindh police during Abdullah Shah`s reign of terror came from his own Dadu district inviting regret from Sindhis in other districts). But these measures can only be done by a group of sincere leaders, not Mr. Rabbani or Mr. Sharif and their `Jiyalas` and their `biradari walas`. this is because the re-engineering of the armed forces will probably be the most delicate and potentially dangerous thing to happen in Pakistan and if done incorrectly could break Pakistan`s last institution rather than improve it, and accelerate the nations own demise. I am more confident that this `reengineering` can be done correctly by Gen. Musharraf than anyone else.

DEVOLUTION AND LAWYERS’ CONVENTION

A lawyers convention in Lahore on October 10 called for “an immediate end to military rule and restoration of undiluted democracy” (Dawn, October 11, 2000). Are the lawyers challenging the Pakistani Supreme Court which gave a thre-year long lease to the army regime? Is this contempt of the Supreme Court of Pakistan?

A resolution adopted at the convention said that the devolution plan is a new version of the discarded BD system which was meant to groom a new leadership subservient to the military rulers.

The Dawn report futher points out that: “Suspended senator Raza Rabbani said smaller provinces were fed up with what they perceived as interventions by `Punjabi army`. Time has come to decide once and for all whether power rests with the people and their representatives or the military. The devolution plan will effectively abolish provinces and set up 106 small `states` under a strong centre, he claimed.”

Are the lawyers creating unnecessary political mess? Or, was the coup of October 12, 1999 a planned effort to control the power of state for the institutionalization of army’s upper hand in Pakistan’s polity (and higher level decision-making)? I think, the coup was guided by the army’s desire to reproduce itself effectively irrespective of its costs upon the civilian sector. Remember, the army is guided by survival of the fittest logic.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to ahmedb(reply no 10)

Thank you for your reply.

It is heartening to know that important matters such as local government are finally being seriously debated whether through chowk or other media.

MONEY FACTOR AND NON-PARTY INDIRECT ELECTIONS

Mohammad Waseem, in the following opinion piece, suggests that non-party local body elections lead to: (1) an extravagant use of money; (2) an increase in the power of local influentials/elite; (3) a lack of linkage between the party workers and their counterparts across districts and provinces, and thus cost them heavily in terms of their source of strength as a collectivity; and (4) turns the office-holders of local bodies into the vassals of local MNAs and MPAs.

Waseem argues that in non-party elections the power of local bourgeoisie is institutionalized because only they are able to finance an election campaign. Direct elections, he maintains, “involve a very large number of voters who cannot simply be bought and sold easily, and certainly not a majority of them. On the contrary, indirect election is a sure recipe for purchase of votes in the case of at least a majority of the small electorates at the apex.”

Waseem`s piece suggests that the issues of non-party and indirect elections need more attention than what the National Reconstruction Board (and of course General Musharraf and his advisors) have paid so far (to satisfy their agenda. whatever it entails).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Money factor in local bodies elections

By Mohammad Waseem

Dawn, Opinion, September 3, 2000

THE conventional wisdom shared by both politicians and political intelligentsia is that non-party elections of both local bodies and national and provincial assemblies lead to extravagant use of money. The National Reconstruction Bureau (NRB) wizards believe otherwise: that non-party elections of local bodies scheduled for December this year will minimize the role of money. Thereby hangs an argument. How to win elections without a deterministic potential of money? Examples from elections at higher levels abound. When the people vote for a party, the money factor declines. This happened in the case of vote for the PPP in 1970 and for the MQM in 1988, 1990, 1993, and 1997. In these and similar other cases, organizational resources effectively displace financial resources as the leading determinant of election results. This happens because choice formally shifts from local influentials to political parties which provide the extra-local resource input. The lock-gates on the popular vote which are controlled by money in a non-party set-up are instead controlled by a supra-individual entity - party - in the party-based model. Electoral de-alignment which is the perverse outcome of a non-party election only serves to perpetuate the process of conversion of social privilege into political power, unmediated by recourse to public ethos. In the process of elections, social status and local influence are augmented by public office. In this way, just the opposite of what is billed as the purpose of non-party elections happens. Thus, a further increase in the power of local influentials is the net result of such elections. In the past, successive governments insisted on a non-party pattern of local bodies elections. Both the bureaucracy and politicians maintained that an extra-local institution such as party should be kept outside the locality. They feared that it would destabilize the local privilege structures. Political elites believed that party-based elections of local bodies would provide an independent source of legitimacy to contestants who were otherwise dependent on their patronage. Non-party elections typically cut off party workers from their counterparts across districts and provinces and cost them heavily in terms of their source of strength as a collectivity. These elections turned office-holders of local bodies into vassals of local MNAs and MPAs. If district mayors and deputy mayors are elected in a non-party election - as envisaged under the NRB plan - only the rich people would be able to finance an election campaign, even if the electorate is as small as councils in the district. Only, the price for each vote will go up manifold. Direct elections involve a very large number of voters who cannot simply be bought and sold easily, and certainly not a majority of them. On the contrary, indirect election is a sure recipe for purchase of votes in the case of at least a majority of the small electorates at the apex. In the absence of party, there will be no space for issue-based politics in the political landscape of Pakistan. It will lead to de-institutionalization of politics whereby public officials would not be obliged to be responsive to public demands in a collective way. In other words, the joint responsibility of office-holders will never be established if they do not belong to one party or a coalition of parties installed in office by the public. One can mention that a preparatory function of the local bodies elections to be held in the year 2000-2001 is for subsequent elections at higher levels. For that, people must learn to choose parties according to an order of preferences. In party-based elections, different `distance relationships` with parties will lay the foundation of a relatively stable process of party identification. People must identify themselves with the perceived party space along the continuum of left-right, liberal-conservative and traditional-modern dimensions in terms of charting out a path for policy-making as well as for access to the state`s power-wielding institutions in the locality. The electoral context in established democracies entails the requirement that an electoral candidate is not economically dependent on some local rich people and therefore is not their client or crony; that he has the financial means to run a campaign inasmuch as it involves expenditure on arrangements for meetings, vehicular mobility and telecommunications among other things; and that he can appreciate the concerns for both propertied and working classes. Thus, the issue is how to rationalize the role of money in a way that does not violate the spirit of public service. In other words, money should not be allowed to be an instrument for advancement of vested interests through political power. Secondly, the source of campaign finance has emerged as a potent issue in recent years. In Pakistan`s context, this involves two aspects of public behaviour: one, the criminality factor via laundering of drug money and using it for running candidates on behalf of certain mafias. As far as local bodies elections are concerned, the issue of clandestine funding has been restricted to a few areas of the NWFP where drug czars have been active. Secondly, the use of foreign money has been a source of funding the activities of sectarian groups according to the government`s secret and not-so-secret information channels. At last one political leader, Benazir Bhutto, has publicly expressed fears that sectarian parties would dominate certain local bodies in their areas of concentration on the basis of these resources. Indeed, the run-away expenditure on election campaigns in certain localities has acquired scandalous proportions. The tribal-feudal-industrialist elite invests money and later seeks to recover that money with interest. Members of these elite groups often manage to win elections because of a combination of the following factors: manipulation of the people`s loyalties by co-opting brokers and vote-deliverers with the help of money; winning over supporters or opponents through an expensive campaign; and providing operational facilities in a pre-election or election-day scenario. The conventional wisdom seeks to put restraints on extravagant use of money by requiring declaration of the sources of campaign-finance and putting a ceiling on expenditure. However, this so-called legal approach has failed to have the intended effect. It is known that electoral candidates continued to spend money far beyond the prescribed limit. They managed to beat the law because the legal machinery was inefficient, slow and corrupt. Also, the cases of overspending are not pursued in earnest once elections are over. The idea is: let bygones be bygones, especially if the results are to the liking of the incumbent government. This happened after 1983 local bodies elections when President Zia gave amnesty to all over-spenders. A basic flaw in the legal approach is that it is post-facto in nature. It does not forestall electoral malpractices and bar their way. What is needed is an in-built mechanism which continues to shape the contours of the election campaign as it proceeds from one step to the other. This mechanism is none other than party-based elections for local bodies. The past tradition of non-party elections ensured that private benefit, and not public ethos, motivated the political dynamics in the locality. These elections are by definition cyclical, - that is, repetitive and directionless, because these are based on interpersonal relations. Only party-based elections can pave the way to responsive and responsible interaction between the government and the electorate.

One can conclude by suggesting the following:

1. Elections for local bodies should be held with the participation of parties.

2. Legal provisions of punishment for expenditure beyond the prescribed limit should be effectively implemented.

3. The tenure of local bodies should be 1-2 years. This will bring down the level of financial input because the period is too short for the recovery of funds.

4. Restrictions on campaign expenditure should be rationalized in terms of size of posters, rallies and meetings as well as canvassing through the media.

5. A code of behaviour should be worked out with the consent of the political parties which should then be held responsible for any breach of its provisions.

6. Conversion of power into money after getting into public office should be minimized through the expansion of the net of accountability to the district and local levels from the current macro-level activity in this regard.

In response to hassans (Reply # 309)

Dear Hasan:

The new plan indeed has some components which make it very unique and interesting. I would, however, hesitate to call them a revolutionary attempt at empowerment.

I agree with you that the jobs of DCOs cannot not be limited to those with town planning and architecture background only. The job of District Coordination requires basic but broad-based university education with specialized education/training in administrative management and conflict resolution. The DMG mentality definitely needs to be changed. I suspect, many DC jobs will actually be filled by unqualified ex-army personnel.

I have also raised the issue of implementation in my article. How this plan will be implemented correctly? Implemented correctly? From whose viewpoint? Army, DMG, politicians, intellectuals or the people? If latter, what kind of people and to what degree?

The reservation of 33 percent seats for women is indeed a revolutionary idea, on paper, as far as empowerment is concerned. Do women in all/most parts of Pakistan enjoy the kind of freedom that their actual participation would really empower them? Are they, for example, going to bring a significant decline in the practice of honor-killing and other violation of women’s rights?

The question of reforming the police is also very difficult. The idea of independent police is both good and bad. In Pakistan, the police is likely to be misused unless it is strictly audited, reviewed and monitored at both local and supralocal level by Commissions/Committees rooted in people sensitive democratic (not merely electoral) organization.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Mr. Gilani is right to criticise Abida Hussain for making uninformed remarks about the plan just like all the other politicians etc. The plan truly is a revolutionary attempt at empowerment. I also agree with Mr. Gilani that DMG officers should not be made DCOs. Instead DCOs should be from architecture and town planning backgrounds or the other fields listed by Mr. Gilani but with management training. However while the thinking and intentions behind the plan are correct there are serious flaws in the plan. No matter how good an idea is, if it is not implemented correctly, its likelihood of failure is high in which case its detractors and opponents will have ammunition to criticise it and prevent it from coming into being. One of the faults is that the police is not independent and therefore open to being misused. Secondly there is no sufficient independent audit, review and monitoring function which should exist at federal level ( such as the UK`s Audit Commission whose job is to monitor and audit the operations of local government). With these two flaws the doors to corruption by at the district level are wide open.

In the letter to the Editor of Dawn, Feroz Shah Gilani shows his confidence over the devolution plan as a means for establishing democracy at the local/district level. Comments welcome

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Democracy through devolution
Dawn, Letter, September 29, 2000

IN her article, `Option before the military government` (Dawn, Sept 24), Syeda Abida Hussain has strongly opposed the devolution plan saying it is a way to ``disenfranchise the people``. She has equated it with Ayub Khan`s `basic democracies`. I wish she had studied the Plan more carefully. Ayub Khan had kept the colonial style bureaucratic stranglehold intact while General Musharraf`s devolution plan aims at empowering the ordinary people which is a sine qua non for a democracy.

In all the democratic countries any local government coordinator is answerable to the elected head. In the United States he is called `manager` and he is appointed by the local government itself. Similarly, police officials are also appointed by the local government concerned. None of the above officials is appointed by any federal or provincial government (state in the case of USA).

If in Pakistan some bureaucrats have to be sent on deputation to the local governments as a matter of initial necessity, then the officers belonging to the DMG group (formerly CSP) are least suitable. This particular cadre is a replica of the colonial days` ICS. The concept of community service is against their grooves.

If at all government servants have to made DCOs they should belong to other cadres like the Audit & Accounts, Education service and engineering services. It will be still better if the DCOs (managers) come from the private sector. They may be bankers, industrial managers or ex-servicemen. It should be a five-year tenure appointment, approved by the district assembly.

FEROZ SHAH GILANI

bahmad #308

I anxiouly await your article on this issue.

In respone to krashid (Reply # 305)
Dear Rashid:

You have asked a key question. Let me rephrase it. The people of Pakistan in each province should be asked if they want to stay together as an “imagined community” (a la Benedict Anderson). Rashid, I am actually writing a short article on this line (please wait).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

BAhmed #304

I also agree with you regarding role of army.

Whether you agree to my premise.

1- If a certain arrangement is advantageous to a group at the expense of other group, the first group somehow justifies it, whether it is just or unjust does not matter.

2- Although democracy is the better form, but it is essentially the requirement of Industrial, Capital interest and in our case it is sub-ordinated and subservient to the interest of foreign Capital.

Taking these two premises, with Punjab holding 55% population, any democratic or dictatorial experiment will be disadvantageous to small provinces as is evidenced in past. The solution is consensus. That is the reason of me saying strengthening and direct election of senate. (We are talking about Federation).

It is also clear that International capital to perpetuate its interest interferes in the internal affairs of different countries and its people to their advantage and to the disadvantage of majority of population. As is evidenced from China, Iran, Malaysia etc, only a strong Nationalistic Government and strong Nationalistic institution can stand for the advantage of people of that country.

We have to start what we have.

Can our elected representatives stand up to pressure? With the kind of National and provincial assembly which is going to be elected, I doubt that. As past experience shows, they will just perpetuate their own interest.

We need strong political parties. In current scenario, the best chance for us is local bodies election on party basis. Which will be a very effective check on party leaders.

We need to strengthen our institutions. Whether it is judiciary, or press or political process. How to do that is open to question. But one thing for which I am sure that the election for National and Provincial assembly and leaving everything on them is not going to solve the problem.

Otherwise what is the necessity of Pakistan, if people can live the same way or probably better without Pakistan.

In response to krashid (Reply # 303)
Dear Rashid:

Pakistan has historically suffered from several constitutional crises. Democratic values suggest that the worst constitutional crisis is one when the Constitution is unilaterally abrogated/suspended. Needless to point out that the army has been the greatest source of our constitutional crises. I reckon, this process will continue until the army occupies a strong controlling position within our political setup (particularly through its role in the national security council). With this kind of politically agreed constitutional arrangement, army will be able to fearlessly reproduce itself as an institution. What costs and benefits would this accrue to the federation? I really don’t know. I, nevertheless, suspect that it may create further tensions between the Punjab and the smaller provinces as long as our defense budget is significantly lowered vis a vis the entire national pie. Conflicts will not reduce significantly even if the army turns into a perfectly eqalitarian national institution.

I personally have no serious difficulty with guaranteed provincial autonomy provided the regional/provincial power elite: (1) help institutionalize a kind of pluralistic form of democracy and the rule of law; and (2) the citizenship and human rights of any Pakistani are not violated within any part of Pakistan (which means that all Pakistanis should be able to live and work peacefully and happily in any province of Pakistan surely under some well-defined and just rules).

Rashid, I agree with your view that important constitutional changes need to made first. Such changes, in my view, must be made through a transparent democratic, political process.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

BAhmed #301

27 years -10 years are enough to see the falsity of Qayyum`s premise.

We have to determine why country is important? It is because people can progress. It is not that country is important so f--- the people.

If 1973 constitution does not prevent Z.A.Bhutto from sacking the NWFP and Baluchistan assembly. If it cannot prevent Nawaz Sharif from imposing operation clean-up in his first tenure and putting Sind under Governor`s rule in the second tenure, what is the guarantee that it will now be successful in giving the rights to provinces.

Moreover the same system has been successfulin forming and strengthening the same faces, with a musical chair game. I don`t see any solution of two main concerns. Provincial rights to be safeguarded. Senate to be more important and elected body. Even with above ammendments, it will lead to hegemony of provincial elites. How can we trust the people elected in National and provincial assembly to relinquish their power to local levels, when all experience in past has been otherwise.

I think important constitutional changes needs to be done to safeguard the powers of local level, before embarking on provincial question with direct election of senate.

As I said before the beaten horse of Nazariati or Gugraphiae Sarhadain is dead. People in small provinces want their rights or seperation.

GENERAL BEG ON DEVOLUTION . . . .

According to the Dawn (September 24, 2000), Former army chief and leader of Awami Qiadat Party Gen. Mirza Aslam Beg said (inter alia) that: (1) the present military regime lacked support base; (2) the induction of persons representing NGOs in the government would further deepen the national crisis; (3) the country needed a democratic platform because democracy had an in-built quality of correcting itself but restive and vested interests don`t give time to the elected people to complete their tenure; (4) no movement against the military regime would be successful because it had never happened in Pakistan before; (5) political parties were themselves responsible for army intervention because they had urged the armed forces to play their role; and (6) local bodies elections would be good thing but first the devolution of power from centre to the provinces be decided after which the parameters of devolution to the grass-roots level be worked out.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

WILL DEVOLUTION BE DELUSION?

In his short newspaper article “Will Devolution be delusion?,” Muhammad Qayyum (I personally don’t know him) made a number of interesting observations based upon Lt. General Naqvi’s recent visit to the USA as a member of Musharraf’s entourage (Frontier Post, September 23, 2000).

Qayyum seems to suggest that General Naqvi had gone to further study the American system of local governance as if it resembles the Local Government Plan 2000. Qayyum reminds us that “under the US system the states are autonomous and the federal government can only intervene in their internal affairs when there is complete break down of law and order or a calamity befalls a state.” He further adds that, in Pakistan, the power/subjects that needed to be transferred in accordance with the 1973 Constitution are “still very much under the feet of the federal government.”

Qayyum questions if devolution would empower the poor at the grassroots, given the fact that some 75 percent Pakistanis still live under the whim of the feudal class (perhaps in view of their poverty and a dismally low level of education). He further points out that traditional clan and ethnic bondage (structure of biradari) will play a crucial role in determining the results of any election at the local level.

In using a mind/brain (province), feet (locality) and body (country/nation) analogy, Qayyum maintains that the mind/brain is the determining agent in the performance of all body (country/nation) functions, and if the brain is deranged the person goes berserk losing control over all his/her functions and has to be quarantined to prevent him/her from being harmful to the society. He suggests that the devolution plan would: (1) make the feet to dictate to the brain in certain administrative, financial, and legal responsibilities affecting the people; and (2) naturally lead to conflicts with the resultant derangement of the political body of the country.

Qayyum then makes the following noteworthy statements:

(1) “To believe that by enabling the deprived majority to self-rule, something impossible, true democracy will be ushered in Pakistan is to say the least is a vainly wishful thinking by those whose job is not the administration of politics.”

(2) “To hope by the devolution the erstwhile political heavy weights’ would be sidelined is impossible without first cleansing the society of the corrupt through impartial accountability, and enforcing of land reforms, to cut the feudals to size.”

(3) “Our experience of the last fifteen years, not to speak of the earlier eras, when Zia introduced non-party elections thereby facilitating the corrupt rich to purchase votes, has so vitiated the thinking of the mostly illiterate electors that, it will be a miracle if they would defy their ‘benefactors’, the feudal, the business tycoons, the narcotic goons and the smugglers not to speak of industrialists turned politicians with stacks of hidden money.”

(4) “The desire and the declared intent of the NRB chief that the corrupt will not be allowed to make a come back can only be a chimerical vision grounded in unfulfillable imagination! Surely the regime can not prevent any one from planning and organising his/her political scheme to either get elected, or if not possible under certain conditions then to field proxies, who may be either the progeny, a relative, or some trusted henchman.”

(5) “To expect that the erstwhile players in politics, most of whom belong to the rich classes, will allow the scuttling of their traditional power bases is tantamount to being ridiculously over-optimistic.”

(6) [If] “the scheme is a repeat drama of the basic democracies of Ayub, and of the Shura of Zia, then it is bound to meet the same fate as those experiments by the two dictators.
But if implemented the devolution scheme will have a far deeper political fallouts, with disastrous consequences, especially in Sindh, where the MQM with its long declared policy of separation from Sindh and creating ‘JINNAHPUR’ for the so-called ‘muhajirs’.”

(7) [The devolution plan] “may generate tendencies and conflicts at local level, which may endanger the very edifice of the federation.”

(8) “The nationally agreed Constitution of 73 if truthfully implemented, and not interpreted in parochial interests, then there can be no reason for it not to serve true democratic dispensations.

The only condition that must be enforced in the effective implementation of the 73 constitution should be that the provinces be given the promised autonomy, and an amendment be issued as a presidential ordinance stipulating that after the general elections and elections to the provincial assemblies are held, elections to the local bodies must be held within three months. Also the local bodies may be given some more powers to raise minimum essential taxes to finance their administrative commitments locally. It is not the fault of 73 Constitution but it is its non-implementation by successive govts both civil and military, which has led to the sorry state of affairs prevailing in the country. To find escape routes of political expediencies instead of following the 73 Constitution will be the opening of Pandora’s box with unpredictable consequences for the nation. The devolution may prove an unbearable delusion.”

Chowkwallas: Do you find Qayyum’s arguments convincing? Does he provide a more fail safe approach than the one proposed by the National Reconstruction Bureau? After reading Quyyum’s views, would you still concede (if you ever did) that the devolution plan is a revolutionary attempt to establish grassroots democracy in Pakistan? Would the devolution plan “prove an unbearable delusion”? Should we consider a strict implementation of the 1973 Constitution (assuring provincial autonomy) as a first true step toward true devolution? What guarantees does the 1973 Constitution provide for a fair and effective protection of the human and citizenship rights of all Pakistanis in all parts of Pakistan?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

WOULD THE GENERALS YIELD TO THEIR DEMAND?

At present, the top district administrator is the Deputy Commissioner (a very powerful Grade 19 officer), but according to the Local Government Plan 2000 the power of District Coordination Officers will be reduced somewhat drastically (though the pay scale will increase from 19 to 20). According to the Local Government Plan 2000:

“The district administration will be co-ordinated by a District Co-ordination Officer who will be a Civil Servant (BS 20).”

“The provincial government will post the District Co-ordination Officer, District Police Officer and district officers to the district.”

“In his [?] interaction with the provincial government the DCO will not by-pass the Zila Nazim.”

“The Zila Nazim will have the authority to transfer the DCO prematurely but only after giving him a formal warning. In such an eventuality the Zila Nazim will state his reasons for the transfer in writing to the Chief Secretary, who will be obliged to transfer the DCO within a week.”

“The Zila Nazim in consultation with the DCO may prematurely transfer any officer of the district but only after giving him a formal warning. In such an eventuality the Zila Nazim will state his reasons for the transfer in writing. In case of a difference of opinion between him and the DCO, the Zila Nazim will prevail.”

“The Zila Nazim being the head of administration will initiate the performance evaluation report of the District Co-ordination Officer (DCO). The technical reporting officer of DCO will be the Chief Secretary, and the counter-signing authority the Chief Minister.”

After Altaf Gohar`s initiative to oppose the Local Government Plan 2000, several top Pakistani bureaucrats have maintained that they don’t want to work under the District Nazims (see the report below). Chowkwallas, kindly make critical comments and provide some supporting information.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad


Dawn; September 24, 2000
Bureaucrats not ready to work under district Nazims
Bureau Report

ISLAMABAD, Sept 23: Top bureaucrats of the federal government have demanded that the district coordination officers (DCOs) in the proposed district governments should not be made answerable to district Nazims. The demand was made at a meeting of the federal secretaries committee here on Saturday. The meeting was presided over by the cabinet secretary, Masooma Hassan and attended by over two dozen federal secretaries and additional secretaries in charge. He said the major issue discussed at the meeting was how to provide protection to the DCOs, who had been placed directly under the control of the district Nazims. Since the DCOs would be from the DMG [District Management Group], it is understood that the bureaucracy is not happy with the plan to place them under the control of the district Nazims in the devolution plan. The senior bureaucrats, he said, suggested that the DCOs should be given the same protection, as had been provided to the district police chiefs under the new plan. Initially, the district police officers were placed under the district Nazim but later it was decided to make them answerable to an eight-member district public safety commission. The bureaucrats, the source said, were of the view that placing the DCOs under the district nazims could severely jeopardize their independence and make them vulnerable to political pressure. They maintained that considering the past experience, when bureaucracy was used by the politicians for their personal ends, the possibility of misusing the DCOs in future could not be ruled out. They committee, he said, had suggested to the government that instead of placing DCOs under the control of the district nazims, they should be made answerable to the public safety commission, like district police chiefs. He said that the demand had been sent to the cabinet division, which would place it before the cabinet.

DEVOLUTION AND GRASSROOTS POLITICS

In his recent critique of the devolution plan, Altaf Gohar (one the leading, now retired, Pakistani bureaucrats) maintains that: (1) previous local body elections generated an entirely new generation of political leaders whose performance remained suspect; (2) each successive local body elections led to greater conflicts and enmities (see Reply # 289).

In an authoritarian, neo-colonial state, the rule of top-down danda is usually established to keep the masses in control and to create a sense of deference. Local elections in the context of such social relations are likely to generate enough conflicts. How many of such conflicts are really a product of the divided and rule policies of the power elite themselves? Nonetheless, the common people in Pakistan need be educated about their rights and duties and the ways to resolve the conflicts peacefully and amicably.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

DEVOLUTION, AWARENESS AND FINANCIAL STABILITY

In my Reply # 289, I posted the thoughts of Altaf Gohar on the devolution plan (Frontier Post, September 16, 2000), where Gohar seems to suggest that Western grassroots democracy fails to work well in the absence of “awareness among the public and financially stable government.”

Is this a rejection of the “Western” grassroots democracy? If not, what kind of public awareness is needed? What do we need to do to create and/or sustain public awareness and financially stable governments? If we have failed to create civic consciousness among our masses, is it essentially a product of too much centralization of the state power within a neocolonial socio-political structure? How could governments be financially stable if they are not somewhat autonomous to do the needful?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

DEVOLUTION AND BUREAUCRACY

In my Reply # 289, I posted the thoughts of Altaf Gohar on the devolution plan (Frontier Post, September 16, 2000).

In concluding his thoughts, Gohar writes: “Bottom line is focus on what we already have and make it more transparent so that corrupt are automatically identified and committed are rewarded.”

Gohar need to inform us clearly his understanding of “what we already have,” and what kind of doable/successful reforms does it need.

Gohar, being one of the leading Pakistani bureaucrats, needs to tell us: Did he play any noteworthy role in making the Pakistani political/administrative system (more) transparent? Did he also try to keep the public well informed? If the answer is in negative in either case, what stopped his from doing so?

Furthermore, in order to take his views about devolution any seriously, he needs to inform us in details: Why our political/administrative system is so corrupt, inefficient, and unresponsive? What role does geography play in matters concerning an efficient, effective, and equitable distribution and provision of national resources and goods and services? (Side note: Gohar’s wife was a professor of geography at Government Women’s College, Karachi. She moved to Rawalpindi/Islamabad after the transfer of Capital from Karachi).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

sadna #295

Sadhna,

Ok, I will pray for India too :) And if they win, I will sing saray jahaan say accha Hindustaan hamara for you. Cool? :)

fairdinkum #293, bahmad #291

I agree with you that debate and discussion not only clarifies important issues through two-way communication, its gives a feeling of effectiveness and control, also two-way.

As bahmad says rightly, ``our political elite are not prepared to adequately understand the significance of a transparent political process and political legitimation. ``, very applicable to India, too.

In India, there is too much discussion on some topics and too little on others. The Indian press doesnot help when it chooses to concentrate on the spectator sport of who said what to whom and what will happen next and not on throwing light on matters of more immediate importance to the general public.

Speaking of spectator sports, fairdinkum, hope you are having fun and do kindly spare a few prayers for `you-know-which-team`, too:-).

Sadhana

Faridinkum #293

Although I agree with you that people are pragmatic when voting.

But G.M.Syed and his party I think has a contribution towards awakening and education of Sindhis.

sadna #290 & bahmad #291

Sadhna, you’ve hit the nail right on the head!

In the land down under, Commonwealth of Australia (federal government of Australia) has recently introduced GST (Goods and Services Tax). The debate and discussions on this matter went on for almost 10 years and Liberal Party lost an election (which they were certain to win) on this issue. As a result they went back to drawing board and made several changes to their proposal to make it acceptable to masses. Corporate and big business lobby was always in favour of this Tax reform, but general public did not accept that basic amenities be Taxed in this manner. The current version of GST is acceptable to all parties.
Another interesting thing about the political structure in Australia is that States of Commonwealth have a lot of say in matters of national interest. For example, any amendments/changes to current version of GST cannot be made unless all states unanimously agree to them. And btw, New South Wales (NSW) is the majority state (something like Punjab, and Sydney is the capital of NSW) but NSW still has one vote in the commonwealth on matters of national interest. The tenure of State and Commonwealth governments is 3 years as opposed to 5 years in Pakistan/India…this is something I find interesting from the sub-continent perspective where oppositions usually get very restless when they have to wait for 5 years for the next elections.

The point I am trying to make is that discussions and debates do work. However, we don’t seem to have this tradition in sub-continent. This is probably, as Bilal puts it, due to a lack of understanding, on the part of our political elite, of the significance of a transparent political process. Or perhaps, they don’t see any need for this process at all since this would be contrary to their modus operandi. Uff! I am getting cynical again :)

Also, I find the argument unacceptable that Pakistani/Indian people are illiterate and have limited capacity to understand the complex political/administrative processes and therefore should be kept out of or given limited access to decision-making processes. If we look at the history of politics in Pakistan, we see that people of rural Pakistan have shown more wisdom, and maturity when it comes to politics. For example, despite G. M. SYED’s stature, and position in rural Sindh, he and his party were rejected in all elections due to G M SYED’s extremist views. Similarly, Jamat-e-Islami was always defeated in rural Pakistan hands down, whereas (prior to the arrival of MQM) it won almost all the seats in Karachi and some seats in urban areas of Punjab. Anyway, lets not get into that… sorry about he digression…

I am all for an open/moderated interactive debate/discussion on devolution plan … I think it’s a great idea!
It would be good to have somebody from the opposite side (representative(s) of the people who are against this plan) as well.

From the Olympic city where I am having a swell time! :)A bit crowded, and you have watch out for the yankee tourists who are used to the upside down traffic rules :)

BAhmed#289

I appreciate your effort and time.

I enjoyed your comments on Altaf Gauhar article. To put it in layman terms. Since people are not civilized enough, so they should not run their affairs. (But 50 years history proove otherwise. May be a poor persons son who is educated might write better than Altaf Gauhar)

I can understand your irritation, being a professor to be more methodical and stick to point. I will try to.

AA was actually AAA (Army America Awam. I abbreviated it)

You have raised many questions. I will try to present my perspective. Majority of people have their lives revolve around economics. For a system to be successful and to have involvement of all people for National development and cohesion they should perceive the advantage for being part of it.

From the very beginning, Pakistan has been snatched by priviledged class, whose advantage was the disadvantage of majority. And who with the support of state religion and curbing down on press and patronizing (giving the right as priviledge) pitted different people against each other and so the dominant discourse was created by them.

In my opinion, only alternate way of visualizing the world comes from our reality. For example. Food, Clothing, Housing, Education and a better future is the primary neccesity for anyone and majority of population does not have access to it. Moreover, uneven development between provinces and betweeen rural and urban areas and even in urban areas has complicated the issue. So the discourse which will appeal to people should arise from this reality.

As far as people made into demiGod, I think it is because people are not knowledgeable enough themselves and entrust the job to someone who they think will take care of their interest or at least fight the domination of other people`s interest.

I did not allege that Benazir failed. She did what any person will do in the kind of democracy we had (And I gave example of 1977-1999) To keep AA happy, and be in their good book, because voters can be moulded and if not angels can come and vote. (Neither do I think Benazir is extraordinary, although she realizes the limitation of our ELECTED OFFICIALS)

The way BRAVE ARMY is alienating different groups, once things start warming up they will join hand against army. That is the lesson I have learned so far.

If Army is sincere, it should try to produce a consensus rather than enforcing its version. For example local bodies election, will be contested by all parties and can be a good starting point.

In response to sadna (Reply # 290)
Dear Sadhna:

You have put the finger right on the spot. This is what the National Reconstruction Bureau (NRB) should have done on its internet site. This is what various political parties should have done on their internet sites too (I need to check if they have already taken any step in this direction). Furthermore, in view of an attack on their performance and integrity, the political parties need to inform us – We the people of Pakistan – how and why the party-based elections (local or otherwise) would ensure greater freedom, security, and well being to the people of Pakistan.

My political understanding and cynicism suggests that our political elite are not prepared to adequately understand the significance of a transparent political process and political legitimation.

Sadhna, I nonetheless support your suggestion wholeheartedly. Chowk staff, is it too difficult to arrange?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahamd

bahmad #289

Your posts especially this one and #273 raise several valid questions regarding the devolution plan. It would be great if Chowk could arrange to have a moderated interactive discussion with a knowledgeable and responsible official associated with the plan, to answer queries of concerned citizens live or off-line.

Sadhana

VETERAN BUREAUCRAT ALTAF GOHAR ON DEVOLUTION

Altaf Gohar (henceforth A. G.) , one of the most well-known Pakistani bureaucrats, published his “Devolution or destruction” in a recent edition of the Frontier Post (September 16, 2000). I want to reproduce excerpts from his opinion piece with my brief critical remarks.

A. G. wrote: “Unfortunately our policy makers have traditionally been western educated or influenced elite who have no or negligible experience of our rural life, where 65 per cent of population lives. By few visits to a number of villages where groundwork for the reception is arranged by their beneficiaries, they start thinking that they have understood the dilemma and dynamics of the village life. Hence they, with their best intentions, bring even more miseries to those people.”

Comment: I think, A. G. is making a case, perhaps inadvertently, in favor of the devolution of power since the centralized efforts to make policies were not conducive to the rural life in Pakistan.

A. G. wrote: “Since independence in 1947 this nation has only gone through the experiences which made their lives miserable, created instability and restlessness. This nation is also unfortunate that our leaderships (political parties) in order to please their masters (west or communist) always tried to implement their systems of government, sometimes it may be parliamentary or sometimes presidential.”

Comment: A.G. blames the politicians and political parties for the plight of Pakistan. He deplores their imitative (and thus unimaginative and uncreative) approach toward politics and political institutions. Please remember that A.G. occupied a very important position in Pakistan government, particularly during Ayub Khan’s regime. In the 1960s, it was commonly (and as far as I know erroneously) believed that he was the actual author of Ayub Khan’s autobiography (“Friends Not Masters”). Is he now criticizing Ayub Khan for introducing the presidential form of government in the 1960s? Does he consider Ayub Khan and Zia-ul-Haq as military dictators or politicians?

A. G. wrote: “We have gone through the basic democracy of Ayub khan, Zia’s Shura, and parliamentary systems, etc. Further it is pity that in the past all governments including interim ones desired to change the policies not only foreign policy but even education and trade, etc.”

Comment: Is A.G. making just blanket statements? Or, is he complaining about the poor performance of various regimes that developed new (bad) policies to replace the old (good) policies? Here we need to understand: How policies were/are made in Pakistan, by whom, and with what consequences?

A. G. wrote: “The present military-led setup is also not lagging behind but is going to surpass all the past governments by completely changing the governing setup which will not suit our on ground situation, an intolerable society which even don’t understand the meaning of difference of opinion and are always ready to axe the opponents to death.” He adds: “In the present setup the so-called representatives of the poor lot, ranging from union council members to MNAs and what to say of Ministers, use administration and police as they wish to tease the opponents. This side of the face of elected members is not known to the military officers and if these people are made all powerful and the whole administration including deputy commissioners etc, and police force is put under their control what will be scene then?”

Comment: A. G. has made a few interesting observations. He argues that the Pakistani society is intolerant because the people have no respect for the difference of opinion. He also maintains that the elected representative misuse the power of the administration and police to undermine their opponents. He also thinks that the military officers (such as Ayub, Zia, Musharraf and their compatriots) were/are unaware of such ground realities of our Pakistani society. I suspect, the main underlying concern of A.G. is to somehow make a case against the expected decline of bureaucratic power at the local level. I am not sure if he is trying to warn us that an independent bureaucracy (including police) would still be better than the one that is controlled by the elected representatives?

A. G. writes: “The success of the plan depends on its elected members how they treat every citizen or voter whether their supporter or opponents, the front on which we have hitherto failed utterly. Again it will be the responsibility of the government of the day to ensure the implementation of the plan in its true spirit and no member even the chief mayor should be allowed to commit any injustice to any citizen.”

Comment: If devolution means virtual autonomy of the provinces (given their existing power structures), some arrangement/agreement needs to be made between the center and the autonomous provinces to guarantee the protection of the citizenship and human rights of each individual in every part of Pakistan. I, without doubt, prefer a voluntary political arrangement/agreement over any form of top-down imposition. It is unclear if I and A.G. are thinking on the same plane.

A. G. writes: “To cut this debate short, following questions need to be addressed before implementing devolution of power plan.

1. Western grass root democracy worked well only when its two basic essentials were met e.g awareness among the public and financially stable government. Do we have any of these?

2. Previous local bodies elections brought entirely new generation of leadership, did it prove any way better than the past?

3. Is it not the fact that with each local bodies election, greater rift was created amongst the population at grass root level? Hence more cases were registered and new enmities developed. Do we want to improve quality of life or further destroy it?

4. Unaware leadership, new hopes and unrealistic demands of the grass roots will put even more burden on the government. Can the government provide roads, electricity, water, dispensary, and schools to scattered population of far-flung areas while economic viability of such projects is not foreseen even in next 100 years? Have we forgotten ghost schools, teachers, dispensers from previous era?

5. All over the world any new concept is tested before implementing and in our case our earlier attempts have miserably failed. What is new in the current scenario? Instead of earlier 6-8 stooges or thugs, we will have 18 in each union council including some women. Is it not like the city-state of Greeks where they used to have revolving members on fixed term bases so that everyone can participate in the government? Hence every new member used to make maximum out of his tenure. Ultimately Socrates stopped this practice by denouncing it and had to take poison as a punishment. Do we have leaders like him?

6. Is there a single NGO or its staff that is willing to work without external funds? If not, how come poor illiterate members are expected to work day and night for the Union Councils etc.?

7. Have you tested the new concept successfully anywhere in the country?

8. After all in every election, is it LB’s, Provincial or National people had voted for their members? The result has shown that they lack abilities to pick up the right guy for the right job, will this current devolution plan change this scenario?

9. For any new job, a job description is made. Then an assessment criterion established? Do we have these?

10. Is the selection team (masses) aware about the job description and the criteria for assessment?

11. As one can see there are too many unanswered questions and even greater number of assumptions. In any planning process, assumptions are very important to be evaluated prior to launching a plan. If even one major assumption fails the entire plan collapses, such assumptions are called ``killer assumption.`` Are there not too many killer assumptions in this plan?

Devolution plan is impracticable as better leadership is not expected, will create further social divisions, economically unsustainable, earlier attempts failed and new remains untested, over expectations from elected members without clear job descriptions and remuneration, unaware plus illiterate voters and finally too many ``killer assumptions.`` What happened to Russia, should be an eye opener for us.

Bottom line is focus on what we already have and make it more transparent so that corrupt are automatically identified and committed are rewarded. Do not be carried away by fancy jargons.”

Comment: A. G. has asked several important questions about the devolution plan. Let us deal with each of these questions discursively.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

http://www.dawn.com/2000/09/19/op.htm#3

Relevant to our discussion.

In response to krashid (Reply # 286)
Dear Rashid:

We are not making much progress. I wonder if you keep a copy of my post when you write a response. Let us talk about some concrete aspects of the devolution plan.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

BAhmed #285

I will start my discussion with a premise. That if a certain arrangement benefits the people as a whole, they will support it at the expense of other people. For example most of the people of US will support any oppression by America abroad as long as it is advantageous to them like bombing Iraq, embargo on Iran, utilization of resources of TWC.

In the same way, Pakistan has at one or another time, Punjabi-Mohajir or Punjabi-Pathan alliance and as you know who were the most vocal people in suppression of Bengal, the whole Mohajir and Punjabi nation (exceptions aside). I believe it to be true.

During first sacking of Nawaz Sharif, it was alleged by Hamid Sarfaraz with figures that resources of smaller provinces were exploited for Punjab. Also currently Chowdhury Shujaat is of the same opinion for second sacking of Nawaz Sharif in political terms.

It is simplistic to say although true, that a Punjabi is also oppressed as Sindhi or Baluch.

In the current setup, where these ethnicities are deliberately played up and lot of economic activity is related to this setup, what do you expect from people of other provinces. Except to find out their mentors from their ruling class, Wadera, Khans etc, who can fight for their cause (economics).

I think this setup is beneficial for rulers of Punjab where they control their own people by supposed economic advantage to them and control other provinces through their Wadera agents. That was the setup, I believe very strong at Zia`s time and is still there.

In this situation talking of National cohesion, and direction will lead to the fate of Abid Hasan Manto and Rashid Hasan Khan. (nobody listens to them except themselves).

(As a side note I believe that, constitutional rights are important to act as a reference for deviation and in current situation, not only universal rights of people, but rights of provinces are important).

What I believe regarding Benazir and Nawaz Sharif, that it is a musical chair game of ruling elite and fight among them for resources of Pakistan.

But as I said before that there is no escape from power structure in our society or any other society, but its political form needs to be changed to the advantage of people.

In response to krashid (Reply # 283)
Dear Rashid:

Your statement: “To be a prime minister, you don`t basically need support of people, but support of vested interest AA. Neither I am in favor or against Benazir.”

Comment: What is AA?

Rashid, as a concerned Pakistani, I want to know: Why have we Pakistanis persistently failed to learn from our past experiences in matters concerning our national development and cohesion? Why are we hooked up with our visionless dominant national discourse? Why can’t we successfully popularize some alternative ways of visualizing the world around us? Where have we failed and why? Why is there a lack of continuity? Why is there so much conflict and disturbance? What kind of responsibility should our so-called leaders, from Jinnah to Musharraf, assume?

I suspect, adequate answers may not come through from our somewhat hasty responses on the Chowk. To do the needful, we may first need to look at the existing literature fairly critically. This step is very important to talk some sense. If our existing literature fails to provide adequate answers, then we need to sort and sift all relevant itsy-bitsy available information and use it to critically figure out some plausible answers. The process of understanding and learning must not stop here, however.

To become a prime minister of a democratic regime, one needs to seek support from the people (the voters). In a country like Pakistan, one needs to seek the support of various power elite to: (1) get elected; (2) avoid unnecessary conflicts and disturbances; and (3) stay in power. Am I saying that people don’t matter? They of course do. People count as voters. And, in particular situations, they affect the process of political change through public opinion. But, we need to ask: Why and how public opinion matters in some situations and not in others? Shouldn’t we try to understand the process of public opinion construction? Are the people dupes, as commonly viewed by those who are involved in this process? Even if we assume that they are dupes, how come they develop some form of resistance against the power elite in some parts of Pakistan and not i