Would Devolution Empower “We the People”?

Re: scout #21
“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? “

Scout,

Carefully look at your style. This is exactly the reason why; a rational, and reasonable approach to resolving any problem never works in Pakistan. If you conduct a survey of Pakistanis today, you’ll find that there is no consensus amongst people on what should be done to make things better… Army blames politicians (and more recently they have included the elite in their list as if they themselves are down trodden poor soldiers of Russia who haven’t received their salaries for 6 months) for all our ills. Politicians blame each other and the Army. Ordinary people are divided on this issue. Some believe that Islamic shariah should be the law of the land and that would resolve all our problems.. Others think that we should have a secular state, as that is what Mr. Jinnah envisioned for our beloved homeland. People like Umairr argue for a mixed system where religion is given its due role to reflect the desires of people of Pakistan…Some believe that every politician, wadera, choudhary, industrialist, rich, and powerful should be shot and that would solve everything. Some say we need to open up our markets and move towards a capitalist system with great strides. Others argue against it. Some argue that we need to develop IT industry as a matter of urgency because without it, Pakistan is not worth anything in the eyes of international investors. This would have security implications for Pakistan, as India is currently the biggest source of IT professionals and software development outside US. Some want to join the global community and have better relations with west. On the other hand people like urstruly argue that west is luring us into a global community without a global social contract.

You have to understand the grave situation Pakistan is currently facing. People of Sind blame Punjab for all the problems. Urdu speaking people of Karachi are unhappy with both Sindhis and Punjabis and regard them as the source of all the problems, which currently overwhelm Karachi. People like Dr. Sohail Rabbani go the extent of comparing Pakistan to Yugoslavia… In one of his articles published on this site he maintains:

“Islamabad Republic, seems to be heading the way of Yugoslavia with Punjab as its Serbia. Since 1971 the imperial military has engaged in covert and overt warfare with the native populations on one contrived ideological pretext or another. There have been repeated assaults in Baluchistan during the 1970s and in Sindh and Frontier in the 1980s. Few years ago the imperial military began fresh internal operations in Sindh. They called it ``operation clean-up``. That began a new era of internal military operations by the same armed forces that did not succeed in Bengal more than a quarter century earlier. Many people in The Punjab hail such strong arm tactics. “

Scout, we need national consensus and national reconciliation. By arguing for practical measures without consensus and reconciliation, you are actually negating your own desire.

In response to mithuna and fairdinkum (Replies # 12 & 13)
Dear Friends:

Thank you. It would be more rewarding if concentrate our efforts on more positive efforts.

Let me use this opportunity to provide some information about Ayub Khan’s Basic Democracy. In his first address to the nation, Ayub Khan announced that his “ultimate aim is to restore democracy but of the type that people can understand and work” (The Globe and Mail, Toronto, 28 October, 1958). The Basic Democracy plan (announced on June 12, 1959) allowed a limited participation of people’s representation in the management of Pakistan. The plan provided for elections on a five-tier basis with the village council forming the primary elected unit. It also allowed the successive election of representative for the thana or tehsil councils, the district councils, the subdivision councils, and the Unit (Provincial) Advisory Board. At each level the Government matched an equal number of appointed members. The authority of these councils was limited to the management of municipal affairs, while the matters of economy were controlled by the central government consisting of appointed members only (Pakistan News Digest, October 27, 1959).

Ayub’s regime believed that only a rudimentary system of governance was appropriate for a country fully of poor and illiterate people. The Government maintained that the system of basic democracy “will work from below gradually going to the top . . . and the councils will be free from the curse of party intrigues and political pressures that characterized the Assemblies in Pakistan in the past” (Pakistan New Digest, October 27, 1959). It was further claimed that the new plan will enhance the peoples access to the Government.

By February of 1960, some 80,000 members were elected by the Village Councils. 95.6 per cent of them voted to approve Ayub’s regime and his Presidency. Although Ayub’s popularity started fading soon, he managed to maintain his control over political power and was reelected in 1965 by defeating Fatima Jinnah (sister of Mohammad Ali Jinnah). The period after the reelection was one of increasing social conflict (for piercing comments, see Khalid Bin Sayeeed (1980), “Politics in Pakistan,” p. 63).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

PS: scout, If you look at the history of Pakistan (which is not ancient history, btw :)) you’d find that people argued against talks, exchange of ideas, and national consensus when Mujib proposed his 6 point plan. Enough of beating around the bush, generals of Pakistan army, and some politicians argued…..we need action to resolve this matter.. we need to go in with all our resources and resolve this matter once and for all…they said……… people of West Pakistan silently nodded in approval…Well, they did resolve the issue once and for all, by dismembering Pakistan.

Prof. Bilal Ahmed!

First of all, my thinking on devolution plan would be that its intent is to solve the problems at local level. Like sanitation, road, possibly education and justice system etc.

In this regards, RDesikan has made a very valid point regarding non-party elections and its implications. If this plan involves some participation of political parties (even in a non party election)1- it will distribute the power of political parties, which right now are acting as one family party,and 2- will also ensure the participation of political workers who are basically a back-bone in these kind running of things. The other scenario which is possible, is that after election these elected members somehow come under the umbrella of Army Government (under the alliance of Tahirul-Qadri, Tehrik Insaf, Maulvis and NAP), similar to BD members or in 1985 elections. Whatever the scenario arises, without participation of organized political workers, it cannot succeed. (A while back, I wrote that sinceerity of Army will be evident, how they conduct this election, whether politically or not). But overall something is better than nothing and I will support any devolution plan if given constitutional cover and enough power.

Second, the local councils will have limited power, regarding decision at provincial or National level. Local council cannot decide on a dam, cannot decide on banning Soomro textile cloth, or Chaudry Sugar mill product or banning the entry of certain people in their area or prohibiting army to defend its border. So limitation of councils should be realized, before taking it as panacea for all our ills.

The question of provincial autonomy and role of center are of increasing importance in the longer run. As I remember you saying that these are important issues.

Also you have to give consideration to the balancing act of people in elections. In America, usually Presidential hold and Congress hold is different. In 1993-94 (I forgot the date) people elected People`s Party at center and Muslim League locally.

All in all, I will take the risk of devolution plan provided it is given constitutional cover and enough power, rather than not. At the one end, it has a chance of positive change and at other spectrum, it will very soon expose the hypocrisy and malintention of Army. The second scenario we are so much accustomed that it will not bewilder us.

Congratulations on a good article.

mithuna #11, fairdinkum #12, bilal ahmed,

I apologise for the off-topic posting at message #3. I could not find an appropriate board current for that post... my intention was not to distract from the current discussion. apologies again.

Bilal,

On the devolution plan itself, I get the feeling it is similar to the panchayati Raj system. For any devolution plan to succeed, it must be devolution of responsibility accompanied by devolution of power (funds) and accountability. Else, the twin evils of bureaucracy and central (federal) politicians will block all initiatives.

Musharraf seems to be battling several issues at present - economy, Afghan, India, GST, documentation of the economy, intl relations, CTBT, devolution etc. Being a general, he should know the pitfalls of opening too many fronts at the same time.

Bilal,

While Musharraf has outlined an interesting proposal, the lack of political parties may result in a very ugly outcome. The various extremist organizations in Pakistan like Lashkar-e-Toiba, various Sunni, Shia extremists etc., will try to take over their respective district councils where they dominate. Earlier these people could not win elections but in a partyless environment, these people could formally get into government and control these councils. That could lead to a complete balkanization of Pakistan.

There is speculation whether Musharraf is controlling the jehadist elements in Pakistan or whether these elements are controlling Musharraf. He had to back off in the past when he tried to initiate some reform in the blasphemy laws. However, his latest reshuffling of the army top brass is interesting because the more extreme officers were moved out of the inner circle. Pakistan`s future depends upon whether Musharraf can manage to tame these elements.

In response to Ferozk (Reply # 13)
Dear Feroz:

Thanks for another interesting post. You argue that the “whole intent of the plan is to empower the people by breaking up the concentrated monopoly of [political] power in Pakistan.” This, in your view, is the basic flaw of Musharraf’s devolution plan. I am not sure if the idea is taken from the American system (as you seem to suggest), though there is a literature on subnational jurisdictional organization which cannot be confined within the boundaries of any single country.

In Pakistan, governance is highly centralized with little concern for the level of experience. A system of local/regional governments is a necessity for dealing with local/regional level issues– such as the provision of public goods and services. In recent decades, local governments in most Western countries have increasing become embroiled in the issues of local/regional economic, social, and spatial development. In the United States, changes in local governments have taken place gradually and usually with little centralized control. State constitutions normally set the rules. Changes in boundaries are generally determined locally, often through a plebiscite. Whenever changes are proposed for a jurisdiction, the arguments often pertain to either calls for centralization or calls for decentralization. Calls for increasing the size of a unit of government or for transferring power to a higher level of government (centralization arguments) are usually based on the issue of internalizing externalities, attaining economies of scale, and obtaining threshold population for the provision of any good or service. Calls for decentralization in the public sector are to increase accessibility, to prevent diseconomies of scale, and to enhance public choice.

Do we have a system of local government in Pakistan? The answer is yes. So, what is the problem? Why do we need to devolve power? The problem actually lies in the way local/regional governance is directly or indirectly controlled by a highly centralized system of national governance. It is this system that needs to be changed such that matters of everyday life are decided locally in a somewhat transparent manner. With the devolution of power, the national state will not cease to exist. It would rather concentrate on matters of greater national concern–such as the protection of national borders and the protection of human and citizenship rights in every nook and corner of the country/federation.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. Please treat my response as general (for all Chowkwallas). There are some aspect of your post that I will tackle in my additional posts/replies.

In response to anamika (Reply # 15)
Dear Anamika:

You are trying to say something very important. Please elucidate your main points and provide a few examples.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Re: Layman #37

Layman,

No worries! It may sound patronising, but I must say that as soon as you decided to make a positive contribution, you sound like an intelligent, mature, and articulate person.

I concur that opening too many fronts at the same time has its pitfalls. However, I don’t think that Musharraf is in position to leave anything for later. He must be under enormous pressure to perform on two key fronts i.e., economic front, and political reforms front with a view to cleaning up, and ironing-out the flawed political structure/system of Pakistan, before eventually returning the power back to elected representatives.

Keeping in mind the international pressure and pressure from within the country (from political parties as well as high expectations of people of Pakistan) to do well on those two fronts, can he afford to leave any of the two for later?

All the best!

Dear Bilal,

OK, so you want a non-flippant response. CEs devolution plan is dead in the waters, it will follow the fate of basic democracy of the earlier rulers. We are talking about significant changes to the constitution and it should be formulated by a constituent assembly. All that at best CE can do is to decide on the method of electing/selecting the constituent assembly members. The very fact that he hasnt cared to follow the path, to me is proof enough that he wants only some pretext for democracy.Decrees of dictator, can never deliver democracy, a lamb never came out of the womb of a wolf.

Then again, pakistan is an islamic republic, if Koran is the supreme law of the land, does it recognise a constituent assembly.

I know you want Koran and religion to be a private affair. Sorry you have missed the boat, the day Jinnah died, and the military took over, give and take a few years.

The tragedy of pakistan is the military coup that followed. This, in a single stroke demolished the moral fibre of the country, the vision of the greate martyrs who created pakistan, the legacy of the freedom fighters, above all a claim to the non-violent method of social change. With the men in uniform it was always command and obey which seem to suit all of islamic countries. Islam is a dictatorial religion, one that doesnt allow any interpretations, which has a built in defense mechanism through the fatwas, built in elaborate code of behaviour ranging from personal hygine to killing of kafirs, where the heaven, the rama rajya, is described in all its detail, sorry to disappoint you Bilal, democracy is the red flag to the islamic bull.

You must be familiar with the pioneering work by Max Weber, ``prostestant ethics and the rise of capitalism`` where he linked the capitalism to the values of the early settlers in the US. If I remember correctly, he also foretold the rise of China, with negetive connotations for India because of the other worldly hinduism.

There must be a comparable work, ``Islam and the collapse of Democracies`` By Bilal Ahmed. Forget about democracy as it is in india, sorry in the west, it is not necessary and may not be desirable. Think of the Kalifayet, how to coronate the Musharaff as the nth Kalif of pakistan. Asif, Zahra and even Krashid will be the Salapanchika. Hamid will change religion.

Regards

Jay

There`s at least one difference between Ayub Khan`s Basic Democracy scheme. One of the head honchos of the devolution plan clearly stated that there is no intention of creating an electoral college (to elect or confirm anyone in high office) out of the local-representatives. I`m unable to provide the reference at this time, but it was reported in Pakistani papers recently.

In this regard, I have two questions. Did Ayub Khan delare up-front that Basic Democrats will form an electoral college to elect the President or was that announced after the Basic democrats had been elected? Does anyone (Pakistanis) think that the current regime will change its mind later to try and use the local-representatives to get a confidence vote to prolong their rule?

Bilal Bhaijaan

Was my question that irrelevant that it didnot elicit a reply from you??

Yasser

Fairdinkum #41:

Well, there are a lot of things that Musharraf could do and could have done, the moment he took power on Oct 12:

- Arrest all politicians who have been ministers (in the past ten years). They were all corrupt anyway.

- Confiscate all their property (whatever they have not taken out of Pakistan) and that of their families.

- Fire excess staff in all over-staffed companies, govt bureaucracy, especially on grounds of inefficiency.

- Priviatise PSUs, govt monopolies.

- Hold a referundum that legitimises his coup.

- Sign CTBT, lay off the Taliban and Kashmir (at least for a while).

The point is that Musharraf is a dictator and should have behaved like one. Now he is reviled throughout the world for being a dictator, but Pakistan has not seen the `benefits` of one.

Having a free press, toning down on Kashmir, singing CTBT, sops to women and minorities would have brought the West to his side, despite his dictatorship.

When Indira Gandhi instituted the `Emergency` in 1975 (btw, this was done legally with a pliant President - the Constitution has a provision for it), all govt and PSU employees turned up for work ON TIME, something that has never happened before or afterward in India. The advantage of a military coup is the ability to push through your agenda without the fear of internal opposition. But this should be done and seen to be done quickly and effectively, along with the long term measures that he is now implementing (devolution, documentation etc). I am amazed that traders even DARED to strike for so long in a country that was under military rule. As far as I am concerned, being ``soft`` is the biggest mistake Musharraf is committing.

For a nation to work, I think you need consensus on a few basic principles.

Disagreement on specifics is fine -- one of the benefits of devolution is that everyone is free to work towards their specifics at the local level; the successful experiments will presumably be rapidly propagated.

Panchayati Raj is an on-going experiment in India, and so far has had mixed results. I will post URLs of articles and news-items on it as I find them.

Democratization, devolution of power, etc., is only preparing the soil, to use a gardening metaphor. It does not automatically solve anything. There is a tremendous amount of hard work that has to follow.

-arun gupta

I don`t know very much about Pakistan, but I feel having military personnel in political positions may not be a very bad idea. Musharraf may have got off on the wrong foot, but I think he has got the discipline and application which many professional politicians lack. This is true of politicians in India too, but in our country military rule is simply not an option.

As far as I can tell, Musharraf has outlined a plan for economic growth. My feeling is that it is not workable as long as Pakistan spends so much on maintaining the armed forces.

The current setup will work if:

1. The general decides to cut down on military expenditure. For this, he has to give India a sense of security eg. shutting down some terrorist camps, encouraging trade with India etc. Not a popular choice I`m sure.

2. The general decides to appease some western powers by giving in to some of their demands. Again, an unpopular choice.

3. After devolution, he appoints a steering commitee of representatives of all political parties and makes himself the president. That way, he maintains control as well as he can oversee how the administration is being run.

Bilalji,



The question of devolution of Power and decentralization has been a subject of heated debate in India. Late Rajiv Gandhi made it a sort of election slogan for the Congress.It is called as Panchayati Raj, where

the direct representatives will be incharge of the welfare of the people and not the district administration which is the unit of power at present. It is to be their duty to see that projects and programmes

benefit those sections of society for whom it is meant, with special emphasis on dalits,women and economically weak.

There have been success stories. And the most noted one has been in Madhya Pradesh. Chief Minister Digvijay Singh, against all odds has managed to noticably improve the lot of the poor villagers by power devolution and making them partly responsible of their own destiny.

Success stories are coming in from all parts from the country like

Karnataka, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu and many more. Initial doubt on whether women will be able to perform has been proved false to a large extent.

The idea of Local governance is not new.Panchayati Raj system took it`s birth in 1950 and became an institution of self governance in 1992. Ofcourse challenges do exist on the theoritical and it`s practical aspect. Particularly on the differnces between the Centre and the State with repsect to the amount of devolution,the status of the members of Panchayati Raj and on the way it has to be implemented. Though Panchayat elections are compulsory, it is actually

dependant on the way states respond to the idea. Many states like Bihar have hardly taken any action in this regard and are seen facing their own problems with respect to local governance like opposition from bureaucrats and bodies who will have to shed good amount of power. Pressure from various states has let to a lot of dilly-dallying and confusion in it`s implementation and hence the emergence of different patterns in it`s actual implementation.

But it`s benefits stand in no doubt and Panchayati Raj is making a slow albeit a steady and effective presence.

I hope this will suffice. Actually giving more info will take a lot of effort. :)

Pullu