Would Devolution Empower “We the People”?
Bilal Ahmad September 3, 2000
#129 Posted by fuzair on September 7, 2000 10:04:16 am
Re: Bahmad #125
I am glad that you like me in spite of my bloodthirsty tendencies! I reciprocate--in spite of your pacifist tendencies!
But seriously, Professor Ahmad, I would like to respond to some of the points you have raised. I for one do not consider India to be a functioning democracy the same way that Norway or the US or Canada is. Simply holding elections every few years or even voting out the occasional government is a necessary but not sufficient condition. In the various Freedom House and, I believe, Gastil studies, India usually rates a `partially-free` or so. This should put it in about the same category as Malaysia. I am sure you have read Farid Zakaria`s article in Foreign Affairs a few years back on `Illiberal Democracy`and Authoritarian Populisms disguising themselves as true democracies. Is India now a more mature democracy than it was in 1975 when Indira Gandhi could impose her State of Emergency? Yes certainly it is. But lets not get too carried away with calling India a `true` or `functional` democracy. If you look at the brutality of the Indian state in crushing internal dissent, it certainly is not in the same category as the Western Countries. It is not even in the same category as some of the former dictatorships in Latin America and Eastern Europe.
I was referring to the political economy literature that comes out of Economics and, to a lesser extent, Political Science. I apologize for not making this clear. The work in Economics and, again to a lesser extent, in Political Science, unlike much of the stuff that comes out of Sociology, the other social sciences and the humanities, is much more based on empirical work. Is it conclusive? Of course not. Nothing in the social sciences is ever conclusive but, unlike the theorizing done in other fields, economists occasionally look at data to see how well their theory fits the real world. No data set is perfect but it is the only way to `test` our theories. To use a phrase from a professor in one of my (nearly) forgotten econometrics courses, ``It doesn`t really matter if it is a biased estimator as long as it is a consistent estimator.``
Of course, there is a lot of `spurious rigor` in economics (what does the umpteenth paper on game theory add to the sum of human knowledge?) and the people who accept the rational actor paradigm in Political Science and Sociology, but I would argue that the sheer tripe content is highest in the humanities and lowest in the more `rigorous` social sciences.
Oops, to be continued later, have to run.
Fairdinkum: Thanks! Glad to be back!
Regards to all.
I am glad that you like me in spite of my bloodthirsty tendencies! I reciprocate--in spite of your pacifist tendencies!
But seriously, Professor Ahmad, I would like to respond to some of the points you have raised. I for one do not consider India to be a functioning democracy the same way that Norway or the US or Canada is. Simply holding elections every few years or even voting out the occasional government is a necessary but not sufficient condition. In the various Freedom House and, I believe, Gastil studies, India usually rates a `partially-free` or so. This should put it in about the same category as Malaysia. I am sure you have read Farid Zakaria`s article in Foreign Affairs a few years back on `Illiberal Democracy`and Authoritarian Populisms disguising themselves as true democracies. Is India now a more mature democracy than it was in 1975 when Indira Gandhi could impose her State of Emergency? Yes certainly it is. But lets not get too carried away with calling India a `true` or `functional` democracy. If you look at the brutality of the Indian state in crushing internal dissent, it certainly is not in the same category as the Western Countries. It is not even in the same category as some of the former dictatorships in Latin America and Eastern Europe.
I was referring to the political economy literature that comes out of Economics and, to a lesser extent, Political Science. I apologize for not making this clear. The work in Economics and, again to a lesser extent, in Political Science, unlike much of the stuff that comes out of Sociology, the other social sciences and the humanities, is much more based on empirical work. Is it conclusive? Of course not. Nothing in the social sciences is ever conclusive but, unlike the theorizing done in other fields, economists occasionally look at data to see how well their theory fits the real world. No data set is perfect but it is the only way to `test` our theories. To use a phrase from a professor in one of my (nearly) forgotten econometrics courses, ``It doesn`t really matter if it is a biased estimator as long as it is a consistent estimator.``
Of course, there is a lot of `spurious rigor` in economics (what does the umpteenth paper on game theory add to the sum of human knowledge?) and the people who accept the rational actor paradigm in Political Science and Sociology, but I would argue that the sheer tripe content is highest in the humanities and lowest in the more `rigorous` social sciences.
Oops, to be continued later, have to run.
Fairdinkum: Thanks! Glad to be back!
Regards to all.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#130 Posted by jay on September 7, 2000 10:16:34 am
TRUE NATURE,
YLH,
Stress always has the ability to bring out the true nature, to strip one of the facade. It always puzzled me what the jihadists think of killing the indian muslims, I even enquired with the great Asif, the muslim law giver about the victim muslims, can they also get a place in heaven. Now you have clarified, all indians are hindus. Interpretations, I accept from any one. How stupid of me not to have thought of this possibility.
Regards and thanks for not responding .
Jay
YLH,
Stress always has the ability to bring out the true nature, to strip one of the facade. It always puzzled me what the jihadists think of killing the indian muslims, I even enquired with the great Asif, the muslim law giver about the victim muslims, can they also get a place in heaven. Now you have clarified, all indians are hindus. Interpretations, I accept from any one. How stupid of me not to have thought of this possibility.
Regards and thanks for not responding .
Jay
#131 Posted by tahmed321 on September 7, 2000 10:16:34 am
shammi #107 You pick up on two points that I believe touch at the root of our problems: fear of India. Rather than sweeping these issues under the rug, we should confront them. And a referendum is about the best way I can think of for bringing these issues in the open and resolving them. Specifically:
First, you write that ``if religion as a public/personal matter is put to a test, then a question that immediately arises is `why even have a Pakistan?
In response, I think, we may have needed a justification for Pakistan in 1947, but we dont need one today. National boundries everywhere are based on historical accident, not logic. For example, there is even less ``justification`` for many Latin American, African, Arab countries, US/Canada to be separate states than Pakistan.
Second, you write that ``in Pakistan ... one of the few things that still binds the country is the issue of Kashmir and the associated vilification of India.``
I think if we are to forge a sense of community within Pakistan, then we need to look for something much more constructive and practical than vilification of India. From personal observation I can say that Pakistanis (Muhajirs, Panjabis, Pathans) in the US are closer together as a community than they are even in Pakistan. And this is despite the fact that many of them have shed their anti-Indian prejudices after working and living alongside them in the US. My vote (and think that of most Pakistanis like people anywhere) would be develop it around some common ideals and values: protection of the life, liberty and property of individuals, economic opportunity, and after that a focus on science and learning. Vilification of India has cost us dearly, and will do so in future (as we sow, so shall we reap in terms of a more violent and divided society). A referendum on such basic issues would make if very hard for anyone - including any military general - to go counter to these wishes.
First, you write that ``if religion as a public/personal matter is put to a test, then a question that immediately arises is `why even have a Pakistan?
In response, I think, we may have needed a justification for Pakistan in 1947, but we dont need one today. National boundries everywhere are based on historical accident, not logic. For example, there is even less ``justification`` for many Latin American, African, Arab countries, US/Canada to be separate states than Pakistan.
Second, you write that ``in Pakistan ... one of the few things that still binds the country is the issue of Kashmir and the associated vilification of India.``
I think if we are to forge a sense of community within Pakistan, then we need to look for something much more constructive and practical than vilification of India. From personal observation I can say that Pakistanis (Muhajirs, Panjabis, Pathans) in the US are closer together as a community than they are even in Pakistan. And this is despite the fact that many of them have shed their anti-Indian prejudices after working and living alongside them in the US. My vote (and think that of most Pakistanis like people anywhere) would be develop it around some common ideals and values: protection of the life, liberty and property of individuals, economic opportunity, and after that a focus on science and learning. Vilification of India has cost us dearly, and will do so in future (as we sow, so shall we reap in terms of a more violent and divided society). A referendum on such basic issues would make if very hard for anyone - including any military general - to go counter to these wishes.
#132 Posted by sadna on September 7, 2000 10:30:42 am
Dear bahmad,
I salute your patience and salute your replies.
Sadhana
I salute your patience and salute your replies.
Sadhana
#133 Posted by satyavadi on September 7, 2000 10:35:40 am
YLH:
In my first post I specifically requested you to not take it personally. It wasn`t a personal comment. And as for your family history, you had posted it before on Chowk and I was well aware of it. No thanks for posting it again.
As for my Arab or Persian blood, I dont have any. Thank you.
I would have answered some of your points, had it not been for Bilal`s request. Lets leave it for sometime later.
Krashid:
``Atleast you do(stink).``
I will take it as a compliment from someone, who only very recently called Hindus (or Indians, I forget) badbudar janwars.
Thank you.
Satyavadi
Chowk guys post this please. This is my last on this matter.
In my first post I specifically requested you to not take it personally. It wasn`t a personal comment. And as for your family history, you had posted it before on Chowk and I was well aware of it. No thanks for posting it again.
As for my Arab or Persian blood, I dont have any. Thank you.
I would have answered some of your points, had it not been for Bilal`s request. Lets leave it for sometime later.
Krashid:
``Atleast you do(stink).``
I will take it as a compliment from someone, who only very recently called Hindus (or Indians, I forget) badbudar janwars.
Thank you.
Satyavadi
Chowk guys post this please. This is my last on this matter.
#134 Posted by tahmed321 on September 7, 2000 10:35:40 am
krashid #124 I would say that the referendum should be held on an individual basis, and the results tallied for the nation as a whole, not by province. Thus, the question of majority opinion by province is bypassed. This is justified since our allegiance should in any case be to all of Pakistan and not just to our province. In any case, I dont think that opinions on some basic issues differ much by province. On others where they do differ (e.g. Kalabagh as you say, and revenue sharing), these are there today and will remain with us even if provinces are disbanded. The resolution of Kalabagh requires a certain level of statesmanship and far-sightedness that seems to have evaded our leaders to date. On revenue sharing, I think we may simply have to accept a certain level of dissatisfaction from people who see themselves contributing more than they receive from the center. These conflicts of interest are the price of building up a broader community, not just our district or our province.
#135 Posted by bahmad on September 7, 2000 10:54:00 am
In response to fairdinkum (Reply # 75)
Dear Fairdinkum:
What kind of biases do you see in the piece identified by you at the following address:
http://www.dawn.com/2000/09/06/op.htm#5
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
Dear Fairdinkum:
What kind of biases do you see in the piece identified by you at the following address:
http://www.dawn.com/2000/09/06/op.htm#5
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
#136 Posted by bahmad on September 7, 2000 11:10:17 am
In response to Urstruly (Reply # 74) Part I
Dear Urstruly:
I support devolution because it is needed in Pakistan. I wrote the following letter in support of devolution (remember it was before the coup of General Musharraf).
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
Frontier Post; Letter; July 2, 1999
Another Call for Devolution
Many Pakistani citizens have recently stressed the need for a change in the structure of power through devolution. Devolution refers to the transfer of power from the center to a subnational jurisdiction. In Pakistan, a call for devolution is basically a call for some sort of provincial autonomy. Interestingly, Benazir Bhutto has also shown her belief in the devolution of decision-making since it would provide a more effective government to our people (Letter to the Editor, Washington Post, June 28).
In her letter, she further maintains that “greater regional autonomy” would “help our people make the best use of available resources ... in tackling the problems of poverty, illiteracy and backwardness”. I wonder what she really means by “our people,” a select few or all Pakistani citizens irrespective of their class, gender, ethno-linguistic, religious, and other bases of individual and collective identities? Regardless of her real intent, the significance of devolution cannot be undermined since this measure may lead to greater citizen empowerment, a responsive government, and above all, national unity and security. If there is any merit in these expectations, then the issue of devolution must be placed on the forefront of our national agenda.
Bilal Ahmad
USA
Dear Urstruly:
I support devolution because it is needed in Pakistan. I wrote the following letter in support of devolution (remember it was before the coup of General Musharraf).
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
Frontier Post; Letter; July 2, 1999
Another Call for Devolution
Many Pakistani citizens have recently stressed the need for a change in the structure of power through devolution. Devolution refers to the transfer of power from the center to a subnational jurisdiction. In Pakistan, a call for devolution is basically a call for some sort of provincial autonomy. Interestingly, Benazir Bhutto has also shown her belief in the devolution of decision-making since it would provide a more effective government to our people (Letter to the Editor, Washington Post, June 28).
In her letter, she further maintains that “greater regional autonomy” would “help our people make the best use of available resources ... in tackling the problems of poverty, illiteracy and backwardness”. I wonder what she really means by “our people,” a select few or all Pakistani citizens irrespective of their class, gender, ethno-linguistic, religious, and other bases of individual and collective identities? Regardless of her real intent, the significance of devolution cannot be undermined since this measure may lead to greater citizen empowerment, a responsive government, and above all, national unity and security. If there is any merit in these expectations, then the issue of devolution must be placed on the forefront of our national agenda.
Bilal Ahmad
USA
#137 Posted by bahmad on September 7, 2000 11:41:06 am
In response to Urstruly (Reply # 74) Part II
Dear Urstruly:
Your statement: “I am all for devolution and less government. As a matter of fact this is one step that should have been taken half a century ago. I really wish that it works and brings grass root level democracy in our country.
Comment: No political system would ever work unless we want it to work. Devolution is not a panacea for all any major difficulty in Pakistan. Devolution may only provide hope and a basis to work upon. In view of an inadequate understanding and experience of the democratic process, the implementation of devolution may initially poses numerous difficulties. The people of Pakistan have a right to be educated about their rights and duties. They need to be encouraged to use their rights in as peaceful manner as humanly possible. This would require an environment that allows protest, resistance, dissent, and other peaceful forms of social movements. These political practices keep a check on the transgression of the government and its officials (elected or otherwise).
Your statement: “People do not have basic political education to comprehend the idea that they will be the ``master of their own destiny``; and also they do not have any idea on how to keep it from getting corrupt or hijacked. After all, it will only be the people who will be the protectors and keepers of this new system.”
Comment: Yes indeed, I agree. A guaranteed free and responsible media, particularly radio could educate people about their rights (and duties) in every nook and corner. Of course, with minimum expense.
Your statement: “The new system doesn’’t have a backing of an independent . . . judicial system.”
Comment: I am not clear about the backing part. I, however, agree that a just judicial system is a necessary precondition for peoples empowerment. (Please go through the plan and write more about this issue, if you desire so).
Your statement: “At the risk of being labeled as a Nazi Sympathizer, may I suggest an institution of a ``Benevolent Dictator`` to oversee the new system for a while, until it stands up on its own?”
Comment: No dictator, benevolent or otherwise, is likely to bring the fruits of freedom and liberty in a society. We don’t need quick fixes. We must start a process. A “relatively” slow, gradual, and uninterrupted process. For this, the army needs to go back to the barracks.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
Dear Urstruly:
Your statement: “I am all for devolution and less government. As a matter of fact this is one step that should have been taken half a century ago. I really wish that it works and brings grass root level democracy in our country.
Comment: No political system would ever work unless we want it to work. Devolution is not a panacea for all any major difficulty in Pakistan. Devolution may only provide hope and a basis to work upon. In view of an inadequate understanding and experience of the democratic process, the implementation of devolution may initially poses numerous difficulties. The people of Pakistan have a right to be educated about their rights and duties. They need to be encouraged to use their rights in as peaceful manner as humanly possible. This would require an environment that allows protest, resistance, dissent, and other peaceful forms of social movements. These political practices keep a check on the transgression of the government and its officials (elected or otherwise).
Your statement: “People do not have basic political education to comprehend the idea that they will be the ``master of their own destiny``; and also they do not have any idea on how to keep it from getting corrupt or hijacked. After all, it will only be the people who will be the protectors and keepers of this new system.”
Comment: Yes indeed, I agree. A guaranteed free and responsible media, particularly radio could educate people about their rights (and duties) in every nook and corner. Of course, with minimum expense.
Your statement: “The new system doesn’’t have a backing of an independent . . . judicial system.”
Comment: I am not clear about the backing part. I, however, agree that a just judicial system is a necessary precondition for peoples empowerment. (Please go through the plan and write more about this issue, if you desire so).
Your statement: “At the risk of being labeled as a Nazi Sympathizer, may I suggest an institution of a ``Benevolent Dictator`` to oversee the new system for a while, until it stands up on its own?”
Comment: No dictator, benevolent or otherwise, is likely to bring the fruits of freedom and liberty in a society. We don’t need quick fixes. We must start a process. A “relatively” slow, gradual, and uninterrupted process. For this, the army needs to go back to the barracks.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
#138 Posted by bahmad on September 7, 2000 11:59:19 am
In response to fairdinkum (Reply # 71)
Dear Fairdinkum:
The question of the viability of Pakistan has been over-emphasized by the dominant power elite. The state of Pakistan cannot create national cohesion (and thus strenthen itself) unless it is based upon a framework that is voluntarily agreed upon by all kinds of people/factions in various part of the country. Pakistan needs to construct a “new social contract” based upon the recognition that sovereignty lies in the people. Without the people, and the protection of their rights, Pakistan cannot become a truly viable state/society. Loyalty is a relative concept, and it not the same as disloyalty. Has the state of Pakistan failed to win the loyalty of the people of Pakistan? If yes, how? Would the devolution of power help us to ease some of our imagined, perceived, or real problems?
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
Dear Fairdinkum:
The question of the viability of Pakistan has been over-emphasized by the dominant power elite. The state of Pakistan cannot create national cohesion (and thus strenthen itself) unless it is based upon a framework that is voluntarily agreed upon by all kinds of people/factions in various part of the country. Pakistan needs to construct a “new social contract” based upon the recognition that sovereignty lies in the people. Without the people, and the protection of their rights, Pakistan cannot become a truly viable state/society. Loyalty is a relative concept, and it not the same as disloyalty. Has the state of Pakistan failed to win the loyalty of the people of Pakistan? If yes, how? Would the devolution of power help us to ease some of our imagined, perceived, or real problems?
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
#139 Posted by bahmad on September 7, 2000 12:52:25 pm
In response to krashid (Reply # 68)
Dear Rashid:
Your statement: So throughout history of Pakistan, people have not taken lightly trampling of their rights and have resisted forcefully against the State apparatus.”
Comment: I wonder if many resistence movements were really people’s movements since they were basically top-down. Yet we cannot conclude that the people of Pakistan always remained a silent, inactive partner in our national polity. In my view, the resistence of the people of East Pakistan against the perceived inequalities/inequities (and for the protection of Bengali culture).
Your statement: “People of Pakistan have long struggled and long suffered, we have to reach a consensus. That is why it is amateurish to talk of multiple provinces at this point. Punjab is not going to accept its division, nor is Sind, neither Baluchistan can be divided in Pukhton and Baluch area. It will lead to such a civil unrest and ethnic tension that the State will shatter completely.”
Comment: I fully agree. Separation/division is not a real solution. There is no end to it. We need to devise a way to effectively (politically, not militarily) deal with various interprovincial difficulties. This is topic that I would like to tackle in much more detail, at my earliest convenience.
Your statement: “I disagree with Amit regarding the hold of religious parties. They will win from very small pockets, possibly 1 or 2 percent, but still that might be beneficial. Because once they win, they have to work for people otherwise, they will lose their support quickly.”
Comment: The religious parties may win much more power in contemporary Pakistan. Why? Perhaps a lot of people (particularly in the Punjab) have lost their faith from the traditional setup. But, you still, never know. I have a hunch: I suspect that elections at the Union Council level (smaller jurisdictions) would enable the religious parties in many areas to avoid the kind of losses that they suffered due to the majority rule. Rashid, do you know if the seats won by the religious parties were commensurate with their proportion of the total votes. Please provide some verifiable evidence, if available.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
Dear Rashid:
Your statement: So throughout history of Pakistan, people have not taken lightly trampling of their rights and have resisted forcefully against the State apparatus.”
Comment: I wonder if many resistence movements were really people’s movements since they were basically top-down. Yet we cannot conclude that the people of Pakistan always remained a silent, inactive partner in our national polity. In my view, the resistence of the people of East Pakistan against the perceived inequalities/inequities (and for the protection of Bengali culture).
Your statement: “People of Pakistan have long struggled and long suffered, we have to reach a consensus. That is why it is amateurish to talk of multiple provinces at this point. Punjab is not going to accept its division, nor is Sind, neither Baluchistan can be divided in Pukhton and Baluch area. It will lead to such a civil unrest and ethnic tension that the State will shatter completely.”
Comment: I fully agree. Separation/division is not a real solution. There is no end to it. We need to devise a way to effectively (politically, not militarily) deal with various interprovincial difficulties. This is topic that I would like to tackle in much more detail, at my earliest convenience.
Your statement: “I disagree with Amit regarding the hold of religious parties. They will win from very small pockets, possibly 1 or 2 percent, but still that might be beneficial. Because once they win, they have to work for people otherwise, they will lose their support quickly.”
Comment: The religious parties may win much more power in contemporary Pakistan. Why? Perhaps a lot of people (particularly in the Punjab) have lost their faith from the traditional setup. But, you still, never know. I have a hunch: I suspect that elections at the Union Council level (smaller jurisdictions) would enable the religious parties in many areas to avoid the kind of losses that they suffered due to the majority rule. Rashid, do you know if the seats won by the religious parties were commensurate with their proportion of the total votes. Please provide some verifiable evidence, if available.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
#140 Posted by ferozk on September 7, 2000 12:57:27 pm
Re: Bilal # 96
Thanks!
I agree with your points to my statements and I think that your answers, given the context of the debate, are quite pragmatic in their assertions.
Macgupta has also raised some very valid questions and comments about the nature of the plan. In a sense, I would like to re-echo his post and suggest, once again, that the critical assumption here is the time line. You may be right, as you have suggested, that the military will find the means to justify its ends in the post-CE period. Still, that laudable sense of confidence fall far short of what might really happen and as this being a brain child of our bureaucracy is concerned, I have no faith in their intellectual fecundity!
Bilal, I really hope that power devolves in Pakistan and helps the people it is supposed to represent.
I will tell you a little aside. I took the liberity of emailing this article to a professor of mine and a friend who works for political activism groups in Germany. I also emailed this article to a friend who works for Republican Party`s grassroots efforts. This is what there responses were:
The professor - the plan is detailed in its scope and will work if it is implemented as per se with probable amendments in the consitution to safe guard its intentions. Implemention should not be considered as the actual litmus test of the plan, but rather whether the present political infrastructure in Pakistan is capable of sustaining this plan towards a well defined end. He also asked a very pointed question: According to him, what will determine this plan`s success or failure is, can the present Pakistani system devolve power peacefully and legally? In other words, is martial law still an option in Pakistan!
S the Republican - The biggest problem is that people will have to make a judgement call and given what is known of the Pakistani political debate, do they have the access to the info to make a valid choice? Grassroots isses are based on public awareness and in this case, is the press neutral or inclined either ways on this issue. The plan chances are on the Pakistani people and their levels of awareness to decide the issues and it will their awareness which decide the final outcome of the plan and not some top-bottom decision to implement it!
I am still expecting answer from my German friend. She is busy right now with all the anti-immigrant sentiment there and I guess, it will be a while before I hear from her!
Hope this helps!
Like you said, let us start asking the questions and then have the options to pick the best answer!
Ciao!
Thanks!
I agree with your points to my statements and I think that your answers, given the context of the debate, are quite pragmatic in their assertions.
Macgupta has also raised some very valid questions and comments about the nature of the plan. In a sense, I would like to re-echo his post and suggest, once again, that the critical assumption here is the time line. You may be right, as you have suggested, that the military will find the means to justify its ends in the post-CE period. Still, that laudable sense of confidence fall far short of what might really happen and as this being a brain child of our bureaucracy is concerned, I have no faith in their intellectual fecundity!
Bilal, I really hope that power devolves in Pakistan and helps the people it is supposed to represent.
I will tell you a little aside. I took the liberity of emailing this article to a professor of mine and a friend who works for political activism groups in Germany. I also emailed this article to a friend who works for Republican Party`s grassroots efforts. This is what there responses were:
The professor - the plan is detailed in its scope and will work if it is implemented as per se with probable amendments in the consitution to safe guard its intentions. Implemention should not be considered as the actual litmus test of the plan, but rather whether the present political infrastructure in Pakistan is capable of sustaining this plan towards a well defined end. He also asked a very pointed question: According to him, what will determine this plan`s success or failure is, can the present Pakistani system devolve power peacefully and legally? In other words, is martial law still an option in Pakistan!
S the Republican - The biggest problem is that people will have to make a judgement call and given what is known of the Pakistani political debate, do they have the access to the info to make a valid choice? Grassroots isses are based on public awareness and in this case, is the press neutral or inclined either ways on this issue. The plan chances are on the Pakistani people and their levels of awareness to decide the issues and it will their awareness which decide the final outcome of the plan and not some top-bottom decision to implement it!
I am still expecting answer from my German friend. She is busy right now with all the anti-immigrant sentiment there and I guess, it will be a while before I hear from her!
Hope this helps!
Like you said, let us start asking the questions and then have the options to pick the best answer!
Ciao!
#141 Posted by fuzair on September 7, 2000 1:20:45 pm
Continued...
So can you think of any liberal democracies that are not rich? And even the rich ones went through their intolerant phases. There is nothing wrong with the bureaucratic-authoritarian model of economic development as such. The success of Japan, S. Korea and Taiwan confirms this. The problem occurs in making the transition from `rich and undemocratic` to `rich and (liberal) democratic.` Taiwan`s was a relatively peaceful (`natural`) transition but S. Korea`s and Japan`s was not.
Why do we criticize the FM for his belief that simply transplanting Western-style democracy to Pakistan would not work? Was he wrong? Or is it because we have never had `true` democracy in Pakistan that we have failed? So where in the Third World has liberal democracy worked? Why hasn`t it worked? What is it in us that is lacking?
Irfan Husain of the Dawn (again from memory here but I can provide the exact citation) once wrote how outraged he was when the FM first made his pronouncement but now, many years, many coups and many democracies later, he had reluctantly come to the conclusion that the `old soldier` was correct: parliamentary democracy requires tolerance and we are not a tolerant people. So how does tolerance come about? I don`t know. I used to think that education was the answer but some of the most intolerant people have been the most educated ones (look at the proliferation of academic degrees among some of the Nazi Party hierarchy or the Catholic Church).
BTW, this is why I want a mullocaust. You cannot sit down over a cup of tea and calmly and rationally discuss matters with a fanatic. There is only one answer: his. And when you deal with religious fanatics, it gets even worse. When you know that God is on your side, even discussing things with the other side is going directly against God! That is why I support the eradicateurs in Algeria--in spite of the fact that they are no saints. I know the other side is worse.
If you drive up the KKH past Mansehra all the way up to the Swat turnoff and on from there, the entire road is plastered with signs for Jihad Training Camps and Jihad Headquarters and Lashkar-e-this and that headquarters. Are these people going to be amenable to reason and discussion? People like you and me will be among the first to be shot if our Talibanist friends ever take over. That is why I prefer to have them shot first before they have a chance to shoot me. Because I know they will if they have a chance.
So why are they so intolerant? So bloodthirsty? Friends and relatives of mine were remarking upon the difference between Hunza and the rest of the Northern Areas and Swat. Hunza is nice, clean, calm, peaceful; no one bothers you, you don`t get hundreds of filthy looks, people are not plotting murder in their hearts and actually welcome strangers/foreigners. You go down to Jaglot (south of Gilgit) and if looks could kill, you would be a dead man. Every now and then, they do go on a killing spree and ethnically cleanse a few Shia villages (Juglotis are Sunnis with a vengeance). John Keay`s books on the Northern Areas of Pakistan gives a few choice Shina phrases for greeting strangers (Juglotis are Shina speakers): ``Kill him now;`` ``No, beat him now, kill him later.`` Having lived and worked in the Northern Areas, I can attest to the veracity of Keay`s long dead German source.
At one level it is the fact that Juglotis are Muslims and Hunzakuts are not (they are Ismailis).
But wait, Hunzakuts were known for being the terror of the Silk Road, bandit raiders and slave traders par excellence (the dark skinned Ismailis are the descendants of slaves, the lighter skinned ones are the masters). What happened? How were they civilized?
But wait again, the Shina were known for being utterly savage barbarians before they became Muslims. Islam, their version of it, simply gave them an additional justification for their barbarism. Now, Islam has sanctified and codified their intolerance.
So, the answer is, ``I don`t know.`` All I know is that some cultures are inherently more tolerant than others. Religion can make things better or worse but it has to have an existing predisposition to work with. Probably, over time, religion can work a change. Tibetans are Buddhists but were not particularly nice or peaceful ones. Now it is a different story. The Bosnians were/are Muslims but used to be nice, tolerant ones; now it seems to be changing. (That was one of the real tragedies of Bosnia-Herzogovina: the destruction of the only secular Muslim culture on this planet.)
As for relying on memory, I agree that it may play me false but when I am at the keyboard, I don`t have too much access to reference material and I still tend to distrust much of what I find on the Web since any one can Web-publish anything he likes.
Regards.
So can you think of any liberal democracies that are not rich? And even the rich ones went through their intolerant phases. There is nothing wrong with the bureaucratic-authoritarian model of economic development as such. The success of Japan, S. Korea and Taiwan confirms this. The problem occurs in making the transition from `rich and undemocratic` to `rich and (liberal) democratic.` Taiwan`s was a relatively peaceful (`natural`) transition but S. Korea`s and Japan`s was not.
Why do we criticize the FM for his belief that simply transplanting Western-style democracy to Pakistan would not work? Was he wrong? Or is it because we have never had `true` democracy in Pakistan that we have failed? So where in the Third World has liberal democracy worked? Why hasn`t it worked? What is it in us that is lacking?
Irfan Husain of the Dawn (again from memory here but I can provide the exact citation) once wrote how outraged he was when the FM first made his pronouncement but now, many years, many coups and many democracies later, he had reluctantly come to the conclusion that the `old soldier` was correct: parliamentary democracy requires tolerance and we are not a tolerant people. So how does tolerance come about? I don`t know. I used to think that education was the answer but some of the most intolerant people have been the most educated ones (look at the proliferation of academic degrees among some of the Nazi Party hierarchy or the Catholic Church).
BTW, this is why I want a mullocaust. You cannot sit down over a cup of tea and calmly and rationally discuss matters with a fanatic. There is only one answer: his. And when you deal with religious fanatics, it gets even worse. When you know that God is on your side, even discussing things with the other side is going directly against God! That is why I support the eradicateurs in Algeria--in spite of the fact that they are no saints. I know the other side is worse.
If you drive up the KKH past Mansehra all the way up to the Swat turnoff and on from there, the entire road is plastered with signs for Jihad Training Camps and Jihad Headquarters and Lashkar-e-this and that headquarters. Are these people going to be amenable to reason and discussion? People like you and me will be among the first to be shot if our Talibanist friends ever take over. That is why I prefer to have them shot first before they have a chance to shoot me. Because I know they will if they have a chance.
So why are they so intolerant? So bloodthirsty? Friends and relatives of mine were remarking upon the difference between Hunza and the rest of the Northern Areas and Swat. Hunza is nice, clean, calm, peaceful; no one bothers you, you don`t get hundreds of filthy looks, people are not plotting murder in their hearts and actually welcome strangers/foreigners. You go down to Jaglot (south of Gilgit) and if looks could kill, you would be a dead man. Every now and then, they do go on a killing spree and ethnically cleanse a few Shia villages (Juglotis are Sunnis with a vengeance). John Keay`s books on the Northern Areas of Pakistan gives a few choice Shina phrases for greeting strangers (Juglotis are Shina speakers): ``Kill him now;`` ``No, beat him now, kill him later.`` Having lived and worked in the Northern Areas, I can attest to the veracity of Keay`s long dead German source.
At one level it is the fact that Juglotis are Muslims and Hunzakuts are not (they are Ismailis).
But wait, Hunzakuts were known for being the terror of the Silk Road, bandit raiders and slave traders par excellence (the dark skinned Ismailis are the descendants of slaves, the lighter skinned ones are the masters). What happened? How were they civilized?
But wait again, the Shina were known for being utterly savage barbarians before they became Muslims. Islam, their version of it, simply gave them an additional justification for their barbarism. Now, Islam has sanctified and codified their intolerance.
So, the answer is, ``I don`t know.`` All I know is that some cultures are inherently more tolerant than others. Religion can make things better or worse but it has to have an existing predisposition to work with. Probably, over time, religion can work a change. Tibetans are Buddhists but were not particularly nice or peaceful ones. Now it is a different story. The Bosnians were/are Muslims but used to be nice, tolerant ones; now it seems to be changing. (That was one of the real tragedies of Bosnia-Herzogovina: the destruction of the only secular Muslim culture on this planet.)
As for relying on memory, I agree that it may play me false but when I am at the keyboard, I don`t have too much access to reference material and I still tend to distrust much of what I find on the Web since any one can Web-publish anything he likes.
Regards.
#142 Posted by bahmad on September 7, 2000 1:27:06 pm
In response to sadna (Reply # 66)
Dear Sadhna:
Thanks for your appreciation. I agree with your distinction between the objectives and mechanisms. I also agree with your initial comments about the objective.
What is POV. What is IMHO? Many interactors use abbreviations that I don’t understand (and I can’t find in my dictionaries; only a casual search).
Regarding the mechanisms, you maintain that “there are no simple one-shot solutions.” I fully agree. Society and people are extremely complex and unpredictable entities.
In party-less elections, it is relatively easy for the elected officials to move away from the party platform and manifesto. The may become relatively independent and they could be easily bought/controlled by a dictator to serve his/her interests. Your point regarding accountability is fairly valid. However, there is a positive aspect of non-party elections, which allows relative freedom to some honest and dedicated people to serve both the supporter and opponents avoiding the difficulties created by strict party-line (in a poorly developed democratic culture). Despite this, I prefer the existence and participation of political parties in all kinds of elections.
Some sort of control of local bodies by higher level (democratic and responsible) bodies is always needed in any system. How to deal with pork-barrel spending? Perhaps slowly and gradually. Finally, Sadhna, thanks for your critical remark about the Panchayati Raj.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
Dear Sadhna:
Thanks for your appreciation. I agree with your distinction between the objectives and mechanisms. I also agree with your initial comments about the objective.
What is POV. What is IMHO? Many interactors use abbreviations that I don’t understand (and I can’t find in my dictionaries; only a casual search).
Regarding the mechanisms, you maintain that “there are no simple one-shot solutions.” I fully agree. Society and people are extremely complex and unpredictable entities.
In party-less elections, it is relatively easy for the elected officials to move away from the party platform and manifesto. The may become relatively independent and they could be easily bought/controlled by a dictator to serve his/her interests. Your point regarding accountability is fairly valid. However, there is a positive aspect of non-party elections, which allows relative freedom to some honest and dedicated people to serve both the supporter and opponents avoiding the difficulties created by strict party-line (in a poorly developed democratic culture). Despite this, I prefer the existence and participation of political parties in all kinds of elections.
Some sort of control of local bodies by higher level (democratic and responsible) bodies is always needed in any system. How to deal with pork-barrel spending? Perhaps slowly and gradually. Finally, Sadhna, thanks for your critical remark about the Panchayati Raj.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
#143 Posted by sadna on September 7, 2000 2:14:21 pm
bahmad #142
Thanks for your response. Sorry for those unexplained abbreviations IMHO: in my humble opinion, POV:point of view.
Sadhana
Thanks for your response. Sorry for those unexplained abbreviations IMHO: in my humble opinion, POV:point of view.
Sadhana
#144 Posted by bahmad on September 7, 2000 4:58:15 pm
In response to anamika (Reply # 80)
Dear Anamika:
You have compared two local government structures and practices in two different democracies. Thank you for such a comparison.
You are absolutely right that the strong and power have the capacity to capture power at the local level. Are the effects of the actions of local elite similar to those of regional or national elite? I would argue, yes they do. At the level of experience, the actions of local power elite become much more visible/transparent. Hence, in many cases, the local elite become a catalyst for positive social transformation. One could argue that such things happen in the western democracies only. Even if we accept such an argument, we need to understand why things tend to happen in Western democracies and not in non-Western democracies. One plausible explantion is the way ordinary citizens assert their rights and make demands.
Shouldn’t the citizens of non-Western countries need to break their silence and make their needs and wishes known? People need to learn from the experiences of other people around the world. Is is the local level one of the most appropriate arena to deal with our everyday life issues?
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
Dear Anamika:
You have compared two local government structures and practices in two different democracies. Thank you for such a comparison.
You are absolutely right that the strong and power have the capacity to capture power at the local level. Are the effects of the actions of local elite similar to those of regional or national elite? I would argue, yes they do. At the level of experience, the actions of local power elite become much more visible/transparent. Hence, in many cases, the local elite become a catalyst for positive social transformation. One could argue that such things happen in the western democracies only. Even if we accept such an argument, we need to understand why things tend to happen in Western democracies and not in non-Western democracies. One plausible explantion is the way ordinary citizens assert their rights and make demands.
Shouldn’t the citizens of non-Western countries need to break their silence and make their needs and wishes known? People need to learn from the experiences of other people around the world. Is is the local level one of the most appropriate arena to deal with our everyday life issues?
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- om_prakash: In this entire episode,... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- tahmed32: #72 harish_hyd: first, it... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- nkg: Re: # 69 dm... yeh, you... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- harish_hyd: #71 by tahmed32 If a... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- nkg: Re: # 1 kcs... when you... Karachi Riots! Who is
- tahmed32: DM#69 "Before any meaningful... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- nkg: I was reading an... Karachi Riots! Who is
- tahmed32: Goldfinger #687 you are... Mumbai Attacks: Shocking
