Would Devolution Empower “We the People”?

On the face of it the problems seem insurmountable.The longer the army stays in power, more the chances that it becomes as corrupt as the rest of the institutions.All the plans for devolution of power since the inception of Pakistan have forgotten one critical factor. Pakistanis do not lend themselves very well to decentralized rule.It is not always the elite that is at fault. A strong center is essential for the current shape Pakistan is in. If that leads to a presidential form of government, so be it. If on the other hand the center decides to devolute(?) power, it has to be ready to make concessions to demands for autonomy without which the whole exercise would be meaningless.The army which symbolizes the unity of the country would be the last institution expected to do the needful.

later

-sac

P.S:I suggest politely ignoring the Indian posters on this one.Otherwise they will keep pestering us with their grand thoughts.

In response to scout (Reply # 1)
Dear Scout:

I agree with you that we need to take initiative and do something for the betterment of the people of Pakistan. In my case, I take initiative through my writings. The experience in Pakistan suggests that we cannot rely on the government (the power/ruling elite). However, the theory and practice of politics suggests that: (1) the power of the state could be used to bring much needed social change, (2) the devolution of state power is one way to bring the state to the common people.

We,however, cannot use the state power to our benefit if we leave it for the corrupt, selfish, and unresponsive ruling elites to usurp. We, the people, need to assert ourselves.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to RoohiAD (Reply # 2)
Dear Roohi:

Welcome back! You could very well be right that the “devolution plan is nothing but an excuse to prolong” the army rule (General Musharraf or otherwise; directly or indirectly). Please explain, why the General (or the institution of army) is not sincere and how they will prolong their rule? Also, tell us about the basis of your argument (so substantiate your arguments with concrete information).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to Layman (Reply # 3)
Dear Layman:

I appreciate your contribution. Unfortunately, it is not relevant. Please show us how the Indian experience of decentralized governance could help the people of Pakistan.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

fairdinkum #4, ``However, before a society can embark on any political/economic/social reform, exchange of ideas leading to consensus of society in recognizing and then prioritising the areas

where reforms are needed is of utmost importance.``

Excuse me? Don`t we know already where we are weak? Where we need reform? Has anything come out of it? NO. Instead of beating around the bush, wasting our time trying to see where to penetrate, why don`t we just delve into the bush with all the resources that we have?

``How can you take practical steps to resolve a problem, if you are not even sure what really is the problem?``

I don`t think there is any easy or logical way to approach the issues in Pakistan. It just doesn`t work that way. Knowing the mentalities of Pakistanis abroad and in the country itself, we need to approach the problems as warriors (without guns), not strategists. Strategies work in the West, not in the East. That`s our shortcoming. Of course we can satisfy our egos by engaging in such pseudo-nationalistic, pseudo-intellectual discussions. But the facts remain the same, the problems remain the same.

In response to fairdinkum (Reply # 4)
Dear Fairdinkum:

Permit me to answer my question myself first. I asked: “Can Musharraf’s devolution plan realistically empower the people in each locality without a significant improvement in their overall quality of life?” My question assumes that devolution may empower the people in some localities. It, in addition, suggests that the issue of empowerment is linked with a significant improvement in the quality of life in some other localities. Hence, the National Reconstruction Bureau needs to inform us about: How devolution would help in the improvement of the overall quality of life in each locality? What additional measures are needed to enhance the quality of life in at least those localities that are poorly developed (and are thus less developed/privileged)? I will try to provide answers of these questions in my future posts.

Fairdinkum, you maintain that: “Dictators . . . are inherently weak leaders.” This is what we like to believe. But, we need to qualify this statement even in the case of Pakistani politics. Foreign governments, the IMF and World Bank, and the international investors may not be satisfied with the economic progress of Pakistan under Musharraf’s dictatorship, but this regime has successfully managed to ``reschedule`` our national debt. I am not adequately convinced that the present regime has failed so far, though the performance is dismal. What options do we have at our disposal? What costs will each option impose on us? Do we need to continue with our conventional approaches? Or, do we need to take some bold and creative measures? Maybe Pakistan’s economic problems are much more political in nature than what we tend to believe. Maybe the present regime needs to develop a strategy of national cooperation, national consensus, and thus a new national social contract. I think, the current policy of exclusion (such as the exclusion of politicians from the political process) needs to be replaced by a policy of inclusion. The current regime needs to resolve the conflicts politically.

If I am on the right track, what kind of policy of national inclusion do we need? What kind of political action is needed to develop a workable policy?
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

t-bhai #5, ``Pakistan needs to go through a period of real revolution. [You my friend understand all the implications behind that word.]

There is too much discord...too much inequity...too much unjustice...too many resources...too many people...too many plans...too many ideas...too little time.....``

I agree totally! It`s a scary thought, and the implications are great, but I personally don`t see anything else that we could do.

jagdeep #6,

Unfortunately most of the people living in Pakistan (who have the power and wealth to make a difference) are too busy filling their Swiss bank accounts and building their estates. OF course not everyone is like that, but the majority is.

As to your second assumption, I know the moral values of expatriates aren`t highly altruistic, but there are educated Pakistanis living abroad, who need a push towards helping others, not just themselves. The advantage that they have is that they aren`t as disillusioned as people living in Pakistan, and have a solid educational foundation.

bahmad #18, ``The experience in Pakistan suggests

that we cannot rely on the government (the power/ruling elite).``

EXACTLY. So maybe, we can make a difference if we start playing a more active role.

``However, the theory and practice of politics suggests that: (1) the power of the state could be used to bring much needed social change, (2) the devolution of state power is one way to bring the

state to the common people.``

When the state is corrupted and it`s destiny is corrupt (judging from the history of Pakistani politics), who needs it? ANd if it`s there, can`t we curtail it and try to take steps to improve the situations that we are capable of. I`m no suggesting anarchy, but I think we should stop looking towards governments for help. Let`s do it ourselves, as common people.

``We,however, cannot use the state power to our benefit if we leave it for the corrupt, selfish, and unresponsive ruling elites to usurp.

We, the people, need to assert ourselves. ``

So what do you think we should do? Round them up and jail them? The Bolshevik Revolution comes to mind. I know and you know, that we can`t get rid of them. Their roots are deeply embedded in Pakistan.

I agree with you, we need to assert ourselves. Along with asserting ourselves, we should take initiatives too.

sorry about the long replies

Dear Bahmad

I have a question... we often criticize centralization of the country but how can national consolidation be achieved through a decentralized country ...

I know we lost Bangladesh ... and it can be blamed on centralization but there were other problems there ...

Dont you think centralization with equal opportunity is a better option...

See I am not hooked on to the idea of having a centralized state but national consolidation is an important objective ... we just cant have sindhis punjabis pakhtuns baluchis mohajirs etc ..

In response to temporal (Reply # 5)
Dear Temporal:

I am also concerned about the survival of Pakistan. Pakistan is persistently heading toward a point where we may end up with a full-blown civil war. This is point that most Pakistani elite do not seem to entertain. The elite will continue to exploit Pakistan as long as the conditions would allow for the same, otherwise they would most probably find a safe haven outside the present boundaries of Pakistan.

Temporal, I don’t want to link the issue of good governance with the issue of the survival of Pakistan. Perhaps I am not cynical enough or I am too naive to be still hopeful about a positive change. I, therefore, maintain that “Pakistan needs to foster [a national] discourse that prioritizes the values of humanity, freedom, justice, and peaceful coexistence.” It is such a discourse that would, I think, ease our apparently insurmountable difficulties over time. But, we have yet to figure out a much bigger problem: How to construct such a discourse? Can the army or bureaucracy or bourgeoisie or their alliance(s) do the job? My answer is no, simply no. Why not? Because, none of these institutions (power blocs) recognize the inherent power of common people in the making and breaking of nations as nation-states.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to jagdeep (Reply # 6)
Dear Jagdeep:

Thanks for your input. I reject the first assumption completely. I have mixed feelings regarding the second assumption, though many expatriates would like to invest their hard-earned money in Pakistan, provided they receive a reasonable return and more importantly their investments remain safe.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to jay (Reply # 7)
Dear Jay:

Interesting post, but it doesn’t seem relevant. Thanks anyway. Why don’t you inform us about the Indian/Kerala experience of decentralized governance. Is there any movement for devolution in India?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to pullu (Reply # 8)
Dear Pullu:

Isn’t it funny? I raise more questions than what I answer. You are right, it is really very difficult to predict about the political turns and twists in Pakistan.

I will prefer not to start a debate about the Indian Muslims (or Hindus) on this board/forum. The issue of peace between India and Pakistan also needs to be tackled separately. Long-term peace between India and Pakistan, however, is in the greater/greatest interest of people in both countries. Please tell us about the Indian grassroots democracy vis a vis the issue of devolution in Pakistan.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

There is an American TV ad in which two kids want to test a breakfast cereal. Instead of trying it themselves, they pass on the cereal to their friend Mikey becasue, ``He likes (or eats; i don`t remember) anything.`` A similar comment can be made about the Pakistani journalist, Ayaz Amir: give it to Ayaz, he hates everything (that has anything to do with any Pakistani leadership). So lets see what Ayaz Amir has to say about the devolution plan:

``A revolution from above

By Ayaz Amir

FOR once in our national experience reality outstrips the hype. The devolution of power/local government plan announced by General Pervez Musharraf is not a smoke conjurer`s trick, promising the moon and delivering a dunghill. It is the most serious attempt at restructuring the Pakistani state in our history.

If the import of it has not sunk into most minds, I suspect it is because most people have yet to read the text. Newspapers could have helped to lighten the fog but by writing slipshod and superficial editorials on the subject they have not hastened the cause of national understanding. They need to re-examine this document with greater care.

As for myself I stand chastened. How many times must I not have taken gleeful swipes at General Tanveer Naqvi and his National Reconstruction Bureau, sincerely thinking that the wizards under his command purportedly burning midnight oil, being political tyros, would produce a mishmash of confusion and impractical wisdom. Regarding General Moinuddin Haider I thought that his police reforms (put together by a focal group headed by Zafar Iqbal Rathore) were no better than a pipe-dream. In the event the local government plan and the police reforms are so nicely dovetailed with each other that they make a seamless whole, creating a structure which is more real democracy than the facades and the blown-up images we have experienced in the past. To both the generals therefore I hereby tender (for what these are worth) my profoundest apologies.

But my humility comes with a rider. Will General Musharraf stick to this plan? I say this because over the last ten months his government has turned the notion of a slip betwixt the cup and the lip into an art form. So many bold decisions announced with great fanfare have been followed by the most comprehensive retreats. For General Musharraf`s sake I hope it is different this time.

But back to the plan. For most of our lives we have moaned about the over-concentration of power in the bureaucratic state. Well, here at a blow, the bureaucratic state stands denuded of its foundations. The office of district magistrate, the viceregal state`s representative in the field, stands abolished, with an elected office-bearer, the district nazim, becoming the executive head of the district. The mandarinate has taken the killing of democracy in its stride, indeed participating in the funeral rites whenever the occasion has arisen. Through upheavals and disasters it has remained unmoved, secure in the knowledge that even if the mountains walk to the sea its power and privileges will remain untouched. How then will this most powerful of tribal orders survive the death of the district magistrate?

Nor is this all. As if to prove that when misfortunes come they come not in single files but battalions, the office of commissioner has also been abolished. The death sentence is a model of brevity: ``The Division as an administrative tier will cease to exist.`` That is all. No extended obituaries. At a stroke the most redundant, the most useless, the most obstructive tier in the obsolescent administrative structure of the Pakistani state is hurled into the trashcan of history.

These reforms should have been introduced by the tribunes of the people, by the titans of democracy. This is what makes the heart weep. Out in the political wilderness these fearless souls fulminate in the harshest tones against the bureaucracy; in power they lose no time in falling into its lethal embrace. It now falls to a military dictator to herald these long over-due changes. Maybe his motives are suspect. Maybe he wants to prolong his rule (something which every wise man will take as a strong probability). But no matter. The spinoff effects of an invention are often more important than the invention itself. So I think is true in this case.

Whether or not Musharraf nurses the ambitions of a Caesar, the changes he has announced reverse a process rooted in the feverish climate of post-1857 India when, in the aftermath of the Mutiny or the War of Independence (take your pick), the British sought the security and preservation of the Raj in a powerful executive, from the district magistrate at the bottom to the viceroy at the top.

Just consider the sweep of the proposed changes. The deputy commissioner, stripped of his powers and in his new incarnation as District Coordination Officer responsible for overseeing the work of the various district departments, viz. health, education, highways, etc, and reporting to the district nazim. The superintendent of police also reporting to the nazim. In both cases the evaluation reports of these officers will be initiated by the nazim who, should the need arise, will also be able to have them transferred after showing due cause. At the district level this is a radical shift of power......`` (DAWN, Pakistan)

The remaining article is available at http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/20000818.htm.

This article is about as detailed an analysis of the plan as any I have seen in Pakistani newspapers. And if even Ayaz Amir, the habitual complainer, hater, and general disliker of anything coming out of the offices of the Pakistani governments` offices, likes it, then maybe the General is onto something.

In response to Assad_K (Reply # 9)
Dear Assad:

To the best of my knowledge, no Pakistani has yet made a systematic comparison of Musharraf’s devolution plan and Ayub Khan’s basic democracy plan, though many people have argued (as you have rightly pointed out) that there are some commonalities between them. Perhaps the new plan is the same old (but sour) wine marketed under a new and fancy package. Even if it is so, we cannot say with certainty that a new version of the plan that failed some 35 years back will or will not succeed in current times. Hence, we need to examine the new plan on its own merit but informed by the experience of Ayub’s basic democracy and other similar plans.

Although Ayub’s basic democracy was fairly unpopular in several parts of Pakistan, some well-known political scientists were fully of praise for his political planning and institution building (e.g., Karl von Vorys, 1967, “Political Development in Pakistan,” and Samuel Huntington, 1968, “Political Order in Changing Societies”).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to Rdesikan (Reply # 10)
Dear Rdesikan:

A sense of belonging to people and places is commonly shown/expressed/manifested. There exists a large literature on this issue (e.g. see the contribution of Raymond Williams, in general).

Non-party elections in Pakistan would in no way ensure that the elected representatives will be “a bunch of nonaffiliated individuals with disparate and personal/private interests. But, it is highly probable that they will rubber stamp the incumbent leadership/regime.

Rdesikan, I think you have made some good points.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad