Would Devolution Empower “We the People”?

In response to shammi (Reply # 110)
Dear Shammi:

Thank you for providing useful information and sources about the Panchayats in India. As most contributors here seem to believe that the devolution plan will fail, do you think that panchayat system has failed/succeeded in India. I should expect mixed results.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to shammi (Reply # 107)
Dear Shammi:

A well argued commentary. However, I do have some difficulty with your statement that: ``Pakistanis have rarely or never been allowed to boot out a malfunctioning government. In the process, I feel that both voters and politicians have not been given adequate opportunities to learn the necessary lessons.``

Pakistanis have on several occasions boot out a (perceived) malfunctioning government. The ouster of Ayub Khan, Z. A. Bhutto, and Nawaz Sharif are cases in point. Unfortunately, on each occasion the army came forward and somehow captured power. Yet, I agree with your statement that ``both voters and politicians have not been given adequate opportunities to learn the necessary lessons.`` One such lesson is that of democratic continuity (or the continuity of the democratic process).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

First of all, I will like to congratulate you for guiding us through an excellent discussion. Secondly Sameer`s reply in which he expressed misgivings about the success of plan due to Musharraf`s track record appear legitimate to me. In democratic set ups, Opposition plays an active role in keeping a check on govt and mobilising mass opinion against the wrong policies of the govt. Presence of an independent judiciary is another such authority which checks govt executive wing from misusing constitutional powers. However Gen Musharraf appear to be destroying any opposition to his plans be it political parties or judiciary. True, opposition many a times causes delay in implementing good plans but it is a small price to pay against corrupt use of power by some people in govt to further their own interests. By destroying the political parties, he is in fact destroying Pakistani polity, so that no one can oppose him. In absence of an active political opposition, the authority at local level may find it easy to amass money by corruption. A small section which raises its voice may be discouraged by a spineless judiciary. We must remember an ancient saying,``Power corrupts people``. The venal beareaucracy may enter into an unhealthy nexus with military keep real powers with itself instead of delegating it to masses. Only time will tell how far this plan succeeds. But I am a bit sceptical about this experiment.

Cheers

Sameer JB#

When Revolutionaries in French revolution were storming the Bastille (if I am correct). Were they extra-constitutional or wrong.

What is constitution.

To storm the supreme court.

To curb the press.

To amass wealth.

Why did people overwhelmingly supported the ouster of Nawaz Sharif.

Why did Nawaz Sharif in 10 minutes each session ammended constitution, so that he cannot be ousted by legal means. And when Supreme court tried, it was replaced.

Nawaz Sharif was not given the mandate to do what he did.

What is the difference between army rule and Nawaz sharif rule, when they are not going to listen to common man.

In the last, I would say Musharraf may be wrong, but he took at least one correct step. We don`t need more Zia-ul-Haques, whether elected or selected.

In response to krashid (Reply # 122)
Dear Rashid:

The plan “Local Government Plan 2000`` provides the following information about taxes.

“The three tiers of local government will have tax collection machinery at their disposal and the specified schedule of local taxes for union, tehsil, and district that will fall under the control of these respective levels.”

“Prescribed lists of taxes will be finalised within the framework(s) of provincial fiscal transfers to districts. This will enable the Local Government to effect credible development and service delivery.”

The Zila Council will levy “taxes as per list of district taxes given in the Local Government Ordinance 2000.” The Zila Council will be able to raise or lower existing taxes.

“The integrated Tehsil Government will mitigate the prevailing rural-urban frictions by providing opportunities for representation in proportion to the population and taxation in proportion to the services and thus effectively address the rural-urban divide.”

“The tehsil municipal administration will receive revenue from two main sources: The first source will be budget allocations by the district government for functions specific to the tehsil administration. In addition, the Tehsil government may levy taxes from a specified list.”

“The Union Council will be able to taxes from a specified list.”

Rashid, I wonder if the Local Government Ordinance 2000 has been issued. The National Reconstuction Bureau site provides no information about it.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Chowkwallas:

Here is a list of the (so-called) think tanks at the National Reconstruction Bureau (source: NRB). Any information about them, their education, their experience, and their research contributions will be appreciated.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Think Tanks at National Reconstruction Bureau
Presently Bureau has engaged the following Think Tanks [members] working on identified fields to develop ideas and formulate policies/strategies options/plans on devolution of power to District governments and local government reforms for reconstruction of the institutions:

Dr. Muhammad Afzal
Dr. S. Zulfiqar Gilani
Mr. Muhammad Ali Khan
Mr. Daniyal Aziz
Mr. Sultan Ali Barq
Mr. Ikramullah Ghauri
Syed Imtiaz Bokhari

Re: Rsaxena # 147

Are you sure that is quote by me or did you just make that one up! Please give me the references to that quote!

I will reply upon the verification that the quote was indeed mine.

Ciao!

In response to Pankaj (Reply # 163)
Dear Pankaj:

I tend to agree with your post on a theoretical level. No doubt, political parties and opposition is necessary to keep a check on government.

Should Musharraf be allowed to destroy the political parties? Not at all. However, the performance of our political parties has been less than satisfactory (if not dismal). This reminds me of an opinion piece by Abdul Hameed Chhapra, President of Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists, about political sychophants. My notes do not have a date for his piece (published about 15 months back in a Pakistani newspaper). Here are a few excerpts:

“Sycophancy is the order of the day in the land of the pure! Politicians of every shade and colour, mostly upstarts practice this art to butter and please the rulers in order to get favours. It seems that a competition has started between the sycophants of two big political parties i.e. Pakistan People`s Party (PPP) and Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) to outdo each other in praising their leaders (Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto).”

“Through their statements and speeches from various forums the Leaguers try to impress upon all and sundry that Nawaz Sharif (who descended on the political horizon of the country under the kind patronage of former governor of Punjab Lt. Gen. Ghulam Jilani and the third dictator General Muhammad Ziaul Haq) is going to transform the society. They claim that Nawaz is the man who will put Pakistan on the path of progress and bring prosperity. The ego boosters have inflated his balloon to such an extent that he has started behaving like a liberator.”

“Daily from dawn to dusk he attends various functions arranged in his honour in different provinces. From every platform in reply to the addresses of welcome full of flattery recounting his imaginary achievements, Nawaz Sharif declares that ``I have decided to change the fortune of the masses. I will do this, I will do that.””

“Unfortunately, the PML(N) chief has been brought up (politically) in such an atmosphere that he cannot comprehend that an individual is a helpless being. He cannot move mountains without the sincere support of people. And for extracting Pakistan from the present mess, Herculean efforts are required and these can only be mounted with the unconditional cooperation of all sections of the population, including the politicians.”

“It is also ironical that things with the main opposition party (PPP) are not different either. The followers of the twice fallen Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto (dismissed on the charges of blatant corruption and nepotism in August 1990 and November 1996) have taken upon themselves to indulge in bragging to such an extent that they forget that they cannot deceive people by calling Benazir Bhutto a revolutionary, which even her illustrious father and former prime minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was not from any angle. The tragedy with majority of Pakistani politicians is that they have little sense of history. What to talk of history, they are not even familiar with their past.”

“At a representative congregation of Pipians recently the leader of the opposition in the National Assembly Benazir Bhutto was unanimously made life chairperson of PPP. . . . It may be mentioned here that Papa Bhutto and Pinky Bhutto religiously refrained from indulging in the ``luxury`` of democraticising the party at any level during the past more than three decades.”

“Replying to a query about the logic of appointing Benazir Bhutto as the life chairperson, the deputy secretary general, Senator Raza Rabbani quoting history argued that in progressive parties the central leadership is not changed. Then came the bombshell from Raza Rabbani when he compared the personality of his beloved leader with the great revolutionaries of the twentieth century: Chairman Mao Ze-dong and Premier Zhou En-lai of the People`s Republic of China and the liberator of Indonesia and greatest orator of this century, Ahmad Soekarno.”

“No self-respecting person would stoop so low and resort to such naked flattery. But looking at the position of Raza Rabbani who started his career as a messenger of former leader and one time blue eyed boy of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, one can understand the logic behind the same argument.”

“Rootless persons like Raza Rabbani who in spite of being active parliamentarians do not have any following or constituency, survive on the sweet will of the leaders like Benazir Bhutto who only understand the one and only language of pampering.”

“PPP insiders reveal that Benazir Bhutto during her two stints as the prime minister (December 2, 88-August 6, 90 and October 19, 93-November 6, 96) never encouraged anybody to speak the truth. This tendency brought her premature downfall twice because of the excesses committed by her ``gifted husband`` Asif Ali Zardari and her greedy colleagues.”

“Men of wisdom say that speaking without thinking is like shooting without taking any aim. But Pakistani politicians have become habitual of indulging in inept shooting, as a result of which they never hit the target, create confusion and waste their energy and resources.”

Pankaj, I am not trying to deface any political party but it saddens me when I read commentaries of the kind Abdul Hameed Chhapra has written. By the way, Chhappra was a student of Karachi University in the early 1960s, and I recall a positive image of him.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to Ferozk (Reply # 140)
Dear Feroz:

I am also skeptical about the intellectual fecundity of the army and the bureaucracy. The people of Pakistan have a right to enjoy economic, social and political rights.

Regarding your professor’s comments, I cannot say with certainty that another martial law will not be imposed in the years to come, and the Constitution (new or old) will not be abrogated in one form or another. We could only hope for a change and keep writing critical posts.

Regarding the Republican activist, I must admit that the common people in Pakistan have no clue about the devolution plan. I agree with his comment about awareness. I, however, use the notion of implementation in a broader sense, entailing the creation of awareness.

Thanks for your interest.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahamd

Rashid Sahib #164

I suspect what Sameer Sahib was trying to point out was the inability of the Army to let Pakistani polity grow on its own. The fact that Nawaz Sharif`s downfall was celebrated by almost 100% of the population is neither here or there. The downfall of an elected government is not really cause for celebrations, however venal and corrupt it may have been. The army, by taking direct control, has again cut out the legs from under this adolescent Pakistani polity. Surely, a strong presence on the NSC (the Turkish model) would have been much more appropriate than direct take-over? In the short term, the polity growth has been reset to zero and it seems that Pakistani polity is condemned to go through an eternal cycle of adolescence, pimples, frustration, inability to take the long term view and unrealistic policies.

Sincerely

bd

krashid #156 you wrote: ``Things need to be decided by consensus and not referendum. In this regard, at Federal level there should be a directly elected senate, rather than indirectly elected.`` Consensus is the goal, to which there are various means: Referendum is one way to determine the prevailing view, while a directly elected senate is another way. Both ways have their pros and cons and are non-exclusive: you can have a referendum to establish some initial conditions which can then be overturned by an elected senate later on. The reason I think a referendum is useful is the failure to date of the political process to throw up better candidates before the Pakistani voters. I explain why I think the political process failed in my earlier post (i.e. due to lack of due process and democracy within political parties).

Re: RSaxena #147

I`m the guilty party, not Feroz. I was not saying that we should not have a liberal democracy, I was simply saying that we have never been able to make it work. I will repeat what I have said in other fora: there is nothing inherently desirable about democracy as such; it is only liberal democracy that I think is worth trying for.

Re: Mithuna #145

Thank you for the correction.

Dear Chowkwalas,

I plan to attend a presentation by Dr. Atta-ur-Rehman, IT Minister, next Monday on the subject of IT policies now being implemented in Pakistan. I would be grateful if you could provide any good ideas (or questions) that could be brought up there. While I may not get the chance to ask any question at all (since there will be other people there as well), I will try and pass on any good ideas you may have (ideas/questions from our Indian friends on chowk are welcome too).

SameerJB #155:

I was a little taken aback by your post. There are a few here who express themselves carefully. You, Sadhna, Bilal, tahmed, SR, Amit etc. are that rare breed who weigh their words carefully before hitting that enter key sending them into eternity.

You said [Can Musharraf be taken seriously?] and [Before any discussion of devolution plan, we must consider the track record of its propagator.] and then went on to list six reasons why he cannot or should not be trusted
I will completely agree with you on points 1-4 and partially on 5-6 if you amend you basic assertion and say this -- CAN ARMY BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY?

Musharraf is only the front man for the ‘most organised political party’ in Pakistan.

As for devolution I will repeat in different words what I had said earlier. Laws and Plans are only as good as their implementation --- a willing partnership between those who implement the intent, (the administrators) and those who are affected and bear the brunt of the ‘good’ intentions of the establishment/legislator/enforcer (the public.)
A good administrator can take the sting out of a bad law, and a bad administrator can blow the good law into smithereens. The latter is unfortunately the rule in most third world fourth rate governments.

Power devolution is needed. Ordinary citizens must be given power to act out their destinies. But MORE importantly, what is needed is a mechanism to STOP the abuse of power by those at the top who frequently indulge in with NO checks or restrictions. (Recall Lord Action --- power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely?)

But scholarly dissertations aside, who will bell the cat, my friend?

regards,

temporal

Re: Temporal # 174

The correct name was Lord Acton, and not Lord Action! Oh, the blissful joy of correcting Chowk`s resident critic! :)

Re: Fuzair # 172

Thank you for setting the record straight!

Re:Rsaxena

Sorry, bud! No hard feelings I hope! :)

Bilal:

Thanks for the reply!

Ciao!

In response to shammi (Reply # 146)
Dear Shammi:

The fears of Pakistani people are imagined, perceived, and/or real. We need to remove/reduce them. For this both India and Pakistan would need to learn to live peacefully like good neighbors. Persistent tensions are damaging the health of our two nations. The difficulties are so ingrained that a concerted effort to understand our problems is much needed. Imagined and perceived fears will easily dissipate if we start the process of reducing the real fears. This cannot be achieved by the so-called bus diplomacy alone. One way is to help our governments is to develop forums where ordinary, but intelligent and insightful, people need to figure out peaceful and honorable steps to reduce the tensions. This indeed is an extremely difficult task. Look, how quickly the Indo-Pak bickering starts at the Chowk where most participants are formally well-educated and economically-socially fortunate. We cannot afford to be intolerant, especially in more difficult situations.

You have asked several basic questions in good spirit. What exactly do Pakistanis fear from India? What can be done as a practical matter to eliminate the fears? Do Pakistanis fear invasion, subversion, creation of a vassal state, big-brother syndrome? You maintain that if “these fears are at the core of Pakistani policy, then they will ultimately affect the devolution of powers plan also (amongst several other aspects of Pakistani life). It does not help India or Pakistan in anyway to have fearful neighbors.”

I appreciate the rest of your insightful analysis. Shouldn’t we learn from our past follies? I think, we have no other choice if we want to progress and prosper as descent and respected nations. Would grassroots politics help in changing the course of history? It may divert some of our attention toward the betterment of our immediate surroundings, our true level of experience.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad