Would Devolution Empower “We the People”?

Re: bahmad # 39

Thanks for your reply!

I think that the plan has a serious flaw in the sense that it is counting, foolishly, on the bureaucracy to decentralize the powers it has enjoyed since we exchanged our imported colonial masters for the domestic kind.

Lets forget about noble intentions and utopian dreams and the oft repeated lie of ``serving the people of Pakistan`` for a second. Politics, in its most basic sense, is about power and the ulilization of that power to make others do things they normally would not. This plan if implemented, a very big if, will change the traditional gravity of the power circles in Pakistan.

A reasonable question would be to ask whether the traditional Pakistani troika or the quartet wants to give up its power? Do the vested interests in Pakistan want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg?

In an academic sense, the plan might work and in the same sense, hypotetically, the sun can also rise in the west! :)

In real terms, the problem is not that the plan will fail, but what happens after it fails? The present system in Pakistan is dysfunctional and this devolution of power is intended to restructure it; but instead of restructuring, it is seeking to replace it.

The the first results about the success or the failure of this plan will start to emerge within 18-24 months after its implemention. That is roughly the same time period CE/COAS has left to him and hence, it would seem to suggest that CE/COAS exit will coincide with the initial results of this plan. This then raises two questions. One; will CE/COAS extend his stay to see the plan past its birthing pangs and mid-wife this plan to a mature pre-pubscent stage? Secondly; if the first is not an option, then will the CE/COAS vacate power and leave the development of the plan to the intentions of the political set up which will replace the present interregum?

How do we know that plan will be carried to its logical end or will it be reversed in mid stride by the next political fuhrer of Pakistan?

If the second option is opted for, what organizational framework will govern Pakistan? The devolution plan or the plan it is supposed to replace? If both plans cancel themselves out in a political power play, what will replace the political vacuum in the Pakistani polity created as a result?

This intention of devolution of power raises more questions than it answers!

Ciao!

In response to scout (Replies # 21, 23, 24)
Dear Scout:

I don’t disagree with your two important points. You suggest that: (1) governments need to be curtailed (Reaganism); (2) common people need to play an active role. I am not sure if Musharraf’s devolution plan would reduce the size of government. I am also not sure if it would reduce the power of Islamabad. However, the devolution plan “may” provide the common people a better opportunity to assert themselves at the level of experience (at least in some localities). It may/would divert the imagined/potential arena of conflict from the national level to the regional and local levels. We must not forget that the people of Pakistan are normally used to passive and calculated resistence in their everyday lives. What difference will the change of arena make in the people’s politics? I don’t know.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to ylh (Replies # 25 and 44)
Dear Yasser:

In multicultural societies, a pluralistic form of democratic organization seems to work better. Centralization and decentralization are two sides of the same process. We need to ask: How much centralization/decentralization at what costs and benefits.

In Pakistan, our state has long been highly centralized. We have seen the problems associated with too much and inept centralization. We still don’t understand (or perhaps don’t want to understand) the dialectic between centralization and decentralization (despite the fact that Musharraf has made an effort toward some kind of decentralization).

East Pakistan was lost partly because we failed to understand the multicultural nature of erstwhile (united) Pakistan. We need to remember that existing Pakistan is also a multicultural (multinational) society. We, therefore, need to find peaceful and creative ways to enhance national integration and reduce/mollify so-called ethnic nationalism. Is the task easy? I don’t think so.

Your suggestion regarding centralization with equal opportunity is interesting. The problem is that some sort of decentralization is necessary for good governance. You maintain that “we just cant have sindhis punjabis pakhtuns baluchis mohajirs etc.” The reality is that we have all of them, and we have so far failed to create a Pakistani nation through our official nationalist discourse and danda shahi. We have even failed to create a “Pakistani” army, let alone a truly Pakistani society.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. For my views about equal opportunity, please see my Chowk article on “Citizenship Rights . . . .”

fairdinkum #35, ``Well, they did resolve the issue once and for all, by dismembering Pakistan.``

Who`s talking about dismemberment? All I`m saying is that we can help the poor out by doing various deeds for them. Do we always have to rely on the government? I believe that until there is a great revolution (as t-bhai mentioned in his post) the governments of Pakistan will continue their cosine curve antics.

All we (the average Pakistani) can do is go to Pakistan, and help educate the poor, at least try to, provide free health care, etc..

http://magnet.undp.org/events/gender/india/VYASULU3.htm

A very interesting article that raises more questions than it answers. While the discussion is about the empowerment of women, the issues are more general, including the problem of entrenched traditional powers, and whether democracy imposed top-down can work, and so on.

-arun gupta

http://www.epw.org.in/35-2829/edit2.htm

If sufficient care is taken, panchayati raj does not necessarily mean that the traditional powers in the villages grab all the benefits.

-arun gupta

I am glad someone at last wrote about the devolution plan.

On close reading the plan seems to be well thought out. Yes it has many lacunae such as the fact that the police will not be totally independent - however it is still better than what any government including the so called `peoples` governments have yet given Pakistan. It is the first time that Pakistan`s cities, towns and rural districts would be given real power.

In reality Pakistan should be divided into many small provinces (some commentators have suggested 12, others 19 or 20)instead of the four large provinces we currently have. Each of the large cities should be a province just like Delhi and Bombay in India, Hamburg and Berlin in Germany or some cities in China. Smaller rural provinces will also result in better administration as the distance between rulers and the ruled would decrease. Incidentally the newest federal constitution in the western world, that of Germany, is the only constitution that enshrines local government into its basic law. It is also the only constitution that recognises certain municipalities i.e. Hamburg, Berlin (and I think Bremen) as states (i.e. provinces). The constitutions of the USA, Canada and Australia were all formulated at times when mass migration to cities had yet to take off and hence it was envisaged that the large federal units at the time sufficiently empowered the people. With mass migration of the rural populace to the cities and towns of Pakistan, ideally a federation based on smaller units would be more appropriate. In the absence of such a set up, the current devolutiuon plan is the next best thing.

Bilal:

I submitted the following article to Chowk unfortunately, after accepting it, Chowk could not publish it. I see some similarity, and thought of publishing it here.

Your question with regards to devolution of Pakistan, correctly hits the issue. Pakistan`s problem is different than India.

Pakistani leadership feels insecure and threatened from democratic institutions. At every chance it had tried to subordinate democratic institutions to make the leadership supreme. These days I am reading a lot on Pakistan, because my knowledge is limited on Pakistan. I think after Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan, all Pakistani leaders tried to subordinate democratic institutions to themselves.

Evolution of democratic institutions and culture first is crucial to any devolution or autonomy to succeed. Reliance of Pakistani elite on army to evolve such institutions is unrealistic. I do not doubt well intentions of Gen. Musharraff, but somehow I am too much of a democrat to feel that Army or other organized segments can build democratic institutions.

The Indian and Pakistani senior military officers that I have met in my life are just as vulnerable to corruption as the civilians are, because we are all humans first.

In the last two years I had opportunity to interact on Pakistani press and have found it to be very bold, and may have handled more pressure than its Indian counterpart.

If a judiciary can produce independent Justices like Hamdoor and Qayyum (??) who investigated match fixing scandal, then Judiciary in Pakistan is as capable of developing independent branch as in any democratic country.

Legislative branch may be the weak link not only in Pakistan, but India also. I know criminals have found their way in Indian parliament. This problem becomes worse when executive branch, as in parliamentary system must be sub-ordinated to the legislative branch. Previous Vajpayee government was pulled down by one vote, and Nawaz Shariff was able to get important constitutional amendment repealed that diminished President`s power in Pakistan.

The questions that remains in my mind are: why India and Pakistan are so different? Can merely a more official role of a religion make that much difference? Being a non-religionist I find it hard to accept, especially when I see the fundamentalist of Hindu and Sikh variety showing just as much zeal as the fundamentalist of Islamic variety to threaten the basic fabric of the society.

THE AUTONOMY IS FOR INDIA

In post-dynastic democracy, greater autonomy for states is the only way to create a sustainable growth and stronger India.

Recently, The Economist wrote “While [Indian] GDP has grown by an average of 6% annually in the past ten years, this translates into an increase in income per person of just over 4% after allowing for the increase in population.” The best example of India’s ability to do better are provided by those few parts of the country that are growing much faster than the national rate. Some of these states are larger than many countries: Gujrat, the fastest growing state, has around 50M people; Tamilnadu has 65M, and Maharashtra 85M. Clearly, several Indian Tigers are buried in the sea of Indian population. Many of such states even have non-tiger like increasing fiscal deficits and strong dependence on subsidies. By contrast, Bihar and U.P. are among the laggards because of their collapsing infrastructure and poor governance. Bihar has the honor of declining per person GDP since early 1990s. Due to increasing fiscal deficits and strong dependence on subsidies, even the best run states are unable to build the infrastructure needed for sustainable growth.

Interestingly, the central government in India is free to determine its own deficit; whereas strict limits are placed on the amount of money Indian states can borrow directly from the money markets. This has helped maintain some fiscal discipline on states but has given freer reign to the center. Indian economic reforms so far have taken the form of lower tax rates, but without any reduction in bloated bureaucracy or pork barrel subsidies. Tamilnadu provides free power to farmers, so does the Punjab, along with water for irrigation, while their state electricity boards pile up losses and are unable to timely pay their suppliers. The inter-state commerce in India is mired in archaic excise and tax structure, which slow down the movement of raw material and finished goods, thus further burdening the feeble infrastructure.

The software and diamond exports, which do not rely on movement of heavy goods, are the only two major industries to achieve respectable levels of exports. Still these industries alone can neither generate sufficient jobs nor export earnings to fill the shortfall in foreign direct investment (FDI). Creation of jobs is essential to reduce 33% dilution of growth in GDP (from 6% to 4%). The surprise is that some Indian states have achieved so much with so little. They could be an example for the laggards if competition among the states can be created, provided the growths in leading states could be sustained without making them bankrupt.

The centralized governance and British modeled parliamentary system add further overheads; and distort and delay the decision-making. The beginning of reforms proves this point so well, because to start the reform process, India has heavily relied on ordinances rather than on democratic vote in the parliament.

The faster growing states send lesser number of parliamentarians to the Lok Sabha than the laggard states, and may not tolerate in the future the parliamentary veto the laggards enjoy over their destiny. Both the distribution of power and collected revenue must be equitable. Currently neither is fair nor equitable, and correction is over due. The present system worked when Nehru, his daughter Indira Gandhi, and his grandson Rajiv Gandhi had absolute power both at center and in the majority, if not all of the states.

The distracters and uninformed believe more autonomous states would weaken the center and hence weaken India. This is a wrong hypothesis; there is no merit in this argument. It merely lacks vision and courage to take bold initiatives. In this light let us analyze the recently passed Kashmir’s autonomy proposal. Kashmiri autonomy proposal demands:

1. exclusive right over all subjects, excluding, defense, foreign affairs and communications;

2. Chief minister to be called Prime-Minister;

3. Governor to be called Sadr-e-Riyasat (President);

4. Own flag;

5. Own Constitution and the right to amend it;

6. Authority to draw up fundamental rights;

7. Regulate all administrative and financial affairs without Central interference;

8. Beyond the jurisdiction of Article 365 on imposition of President rule;

9. Beyond the jurisdiction of Central Election Commission.

The exclusive right over subjects in the U.S. is known as states-rights. The exclusion list, in addition to the above, also includes, inter-state commerce, inter-state law and order, federal treasury (collection and distribution of federal taxes and revenue) and enforcement of federal laws. These additions to the federal responsibility are essential for a functioning country.

The proposal for titles for political posts in-lieu of chief minister and governor is not real, but thrown in the wish list. The U.S. states also have their own flag, but as long as the allegiance is to the nation under one flag is acknowledged and accepted. Each state can and should have its own state flag.

Likewise each state in the U.S. has its own constitution and the right to amend it, as long as allegiance and ultimate authority of nation’s constitution is acknowledged and accepted. As a result no state on its own, can vote itself out of the union. Each state in the U.S. has its own constitution and fundamental rights that are given to its citizen. That is why there is no death penalty in certain states (like Wisconsin) for state crimes, even though for the Federal crime there is a death penalty. Oklahoma City bombing case, one of the accused was only given prison sentence in the Federal trial, while he awaits trail in the state court where he may yet receive the death penalty. The state-court of California almost acquitted the police officers of the brutality, while the federal court trial for civil rights violations resulted in guilty verdict in the infamous Rodney King case.

The states in the U.S. have their independent supreme court, whose decisions in certain areas cannot be challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court also. The two supreme courts cannot interfere; the state law related matters are adjudicated in the state supreme court, while federal matter can go to the federal Supreme Court. Microsoft’s anti-trust case relates to inter-state commerce, and therefore is a federal matter and hence was tried in the U.S. court and is now destined to be decided by the federal Supreme Court.

Each state’s legislature has authority to draw fundamental rights as long as neither the enacted fundamental rights nor the state constitution violate the U.S. constitution. Similarly, each state has complete authority over its judiciary to adjudicate and enforce its constitution and fundamental rights. As a result California law and legal procedure is different from say in the state of New York. Thus there is no death penalty in the state of Wisconsin, but there is one in California. In many instances person has two legal recourses to choose from, a state court and a federal court. The choice is entirely that of an individual.

Each state can regulate its administrative and financial affairs without interference from Washington DC. Currently, California is running a surplus at the state level, while the state of Mississippi is not. The separation is maintained even at the revenue collection level, the federal and state separately collect revenues. Many states have no income and or sales taxes while others have.

Even within the government, there is a separation. The legislature (lower house of representative) is responsible for the budget, the President (at the federal level, and likewise the Governor at the state level) can only exercise its veto to approve or disapprove the budget, but cannot propose an independent budget, only house of the representative can do it.

The separation among executive powers, legislature and judiciary is also well defined. Unlike in India, where the Prime Minister as political expediency had recommended a fall of state government; in the U.S. the President cannot remove the elected state government. During national emergency, the Federal Government can takeover the administration for a limited period, after which it must seek the approval of the legislative branch. In national emergency the President certainly has extra-ordinary powers, but impeachment by the Senate is a strong check and balance over President’s emergency powers. Such checks and balances keep the executive branch – the President and Governors honest to their oath.

The independence of judiciary and treasury is maintained. The President and the Governor respectively appoint the Supreme Court justices at the federal and state level; but they have no power to remove justices. The justices cannot be retired. They enjoy lifetime appointment and can only leave the office at their free will. The same is true for the head of Federal Reserve Board. Thus the executive can neither blackmail nor threaten the removal and use legislative or economic action to gain a favor.

The plurality in Indian society demands a fundamental rethinking of the system of governance. This system cannot be a carry over from the dynastic-period of Indian democracy. Greater education and greater economic freedom are resulting into greater wealth generation and shall transform the society at greater pace too. The changes that have taken place in the last ten-years are far greater than the changes that took place in previous forty years. Indian society is now demanding superior economic infrastructure, and soon it will demand efficient political infrastructure too. Autonomy within India is a powerful way to achieve the aspiration of future Indians.

India, like the U.S., is more than a nation-state. It is a system, where diversity must coexist and must feel proud to be part of India. In the U.S., for example, Silicon Valley is just as much part as the Deep South state of Mississippi. These two would be as contrasting as Bihar and Maharashtra, yet belong to the same system, the United States of America. India has yet to reach there. Its citizens must feel part and proud of it. Indian troops do not need to suppress its citizens, or storm places of worships. This system must show every Indian a reason to belong and dream.

Indian system will be its own biggest enemy if it must rely on suppression of any of its citizens, and storming of anyone’s place of worship. Indian democracy must showcase to the world the democracy is not just for the rich. President Clinton said in Pakistan that imperfect democracy is better than no democracy. This axiom is true, because it gives continuity to change and above all hope for improvement to people. A completely independent – rather than no election commission – is crucial to ensure all segments of the society enjoy fruits of democracy. The chief of the election commission should be a lifetime appointment, and can be removed through impeachment. Otherwise no one should be able to touch the chief election commissioner.

The next evolution of Indian democracy is greater autonomy.

About the Author:

Anil Kapuria is a Silicon Valley based high-technology entrepreneur and an angel investor, and can be reached at: Anil@Kapuria.com .

Dear Prof. Ahmad:

My guess is that, based on past experiences, this plan too will fail. In principle, I agree with both the Field Marshall`s considered opinion that democracy was not suited to the genius of the Pakistani people and Winston Churchill`s belief that democracy was the worst form of government ever tried... except for all the rest.

With the political economy literature (please don`t ask me for an exact reference yet, I`ve just moved and all my books are still in a complete mess), there is a general agreement on the view that no effective/functional democracy is possible when the GDP/capita is under $5,000. Whether this is measured in PPP or absolute terms is still debated but I would err on the absolute side. We in Pakistan (and India and all of the Fourth World) have a long way to go to reach this mark.

This is of course not a new belief. I think it was Barrington Moore, a leftie but one of my favorite authors nonetheless who said, and I paraphrase, ``No middle class, no democracy.`` And I don`t think his was the first statement of this proposition either. Wasn`t it Aristotle who said something about the middle class being needed to ensure good government (not democracy, of course, which he would have understood to mean mob rule).
While the past is not a perfect predictor of the future, it is by far the best predictor available. So I predict failure. If we can get the economics right and have a decade or two of political stability, sustained 6-8% real GDP growth, have a program of massive spending of primary and secondary education (emphasis on the former) and a mullocaust, I believe we might have a chance. However, I`m not going to hold my breath for this to happen.

Regards.

Chowk Staff:

I wish you had published Anil Kapuria`s article. It is very informative and must be read in conjunction with Mr. Ahmad`s article.

Thanks Anil for posting it here.

In response to Umairr (Reply # 30)
Dear Umair:

Thanks for your contribution. I wonder if Ayaz Amir hates “anything to do with any Pakistani leadership” for the sake of hate or he hates, if he does, perhaps because the Pakistani leadership has shown persistent inaptitude. Just a thought.

I am not sure if the devolution plan is the “most serious attempt at restructuring the Pakistani state in our history.” For this, I recommend a serious and critical examination of the “Local Government Plan 2000`` (please go to, http://www.nrb.gov.pk/). Amir complains about the “slipshod and superficial editorials on the subject” which have “not hastened the cause of national understanding.” In view of a “state legitimation crisis” in Pakistan, it is the responsibility of the National Reconstruction Bureau and other organs of the current dictatorial regime to win the trust of the people and create an environment of national understanding. But, in the absence of such a national understanding, it is too early to agree with Amir’s view that “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.”

Amir rightly asks: “Will General Musharraf stick to this plan?” He ask this question 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.” Is General Musharraf a spineless person? I personally doubt it. Maybe we need to look at the nature of our society and politics. If I am on the right track, a better course would to provide a basic framework and let the people decide themselves over time. But, we need to realize that social transformation rarely takes place through a “Revolution from Above.” If my argument has a basis, then need to transform the social relations of our existence through a process that rests upon the dialectic of social action from both above and below.

Amir shows his satisfaction over the abolition of the office of district magistrate and the transfer of power to an elected office-bearer, the district nazim. Is it enough that we replace an appointed official by an indirectly elected district nazim? What if the district nazim acquires the characteristics of the district magistrate? What steps are suggested in the plan to check the misuse of power by the district nazim? And, what provisions are made that he/she is checked by the electors themselves?

Like the district magistrate, the office of (divisional) commissioner has also been abolished. Hence, the division will cease to exist as an administrative tier. How about the office of the (appointed) district commissioner? Is it abolished too? Maybe it is, Maybe it is not? The plan strips the power of the deputy commissioner. How? This a topic that I will address later. Suffice it to say that instead of the deputy commissioner (an extremely powerful Grade 19 officer; an associate professor in a Pakistani university is also a Grade 19 officer, but with very little power), the plan provides for a District Coordination Officer (or DCO, a Grade 20 officer) who will be responsible for overseeing the work of various district departments (such as health, education, and highways) and report to the district nazim. The superintendent of police (SP) will also report to the nazim. Amir informs that the evaluation reports of both DCO and SP 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.” Amir seems right in his contention that these changes will reverse a process of colonial administration that was initiated for the security and preservation of the Raj.

Amir argues that it would be fallacious to draw comparisons between Musharraf’s plan and those of Ayub and Zia because in the new plan, unlike the previous ones, the power is really devolved in quite a radical manner from the bureaucracy to elected representatives. Hence, the “benefits of the military government are obvious” as the new arrangement will generate “a popular base which will have a vested interest in the success and continuity of the Musharraf regime.” This will also lead to a new political game “which will see not only the deputy commissioner but also the old political guard consigned to oblivion.” Amir indeed is very perceptive and hopeful! How easily the “old ways of thinking” will change? Eureka!

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

More URLs :

1. Teaching local body members about how things work :

http://www.frontlineonline.com/fl1708/17081200.htm

2. Panchayati Raj experiences in northern UP.

http://education.vsnl.com/phalguni/wpr.html

3. Editorial on panchayati raj issues :

http://www.tribuneindia.com/20000211/edit.htm#4

-arun gupta

In response to fairdinkum (Replies # 33 and 35)
Dear Fairdinkum:

Your excellent reminder of the complexity of Pakistani society is useful for the recognition that we need to adequately understand our problems and find a mechanism for the resolution of prevalent social conflicts. We, however, need to provide an opportunity to all kinds of contributors (such as Scout) to show their imagined, perceived, and real dissatisfaction and disaffection toward the troubled state of Pakistan and her people.

The chaos in Pakistan is partly a product of the lack of transparency in the way the Pakistan state apparatus functions and the way state power is used/misused by whosoever gets a chance to do so. In a devolved system of governance (under a reasonable democracy), political actions become a little bit more transparent, and the culprits are rather easily identified and even punished in a political sense. Would this happen in Pakistan? We can only guess based upon our gut reactions.

Fairdinkum, I agree with you that we need national consensus and national reconcilition. But, what kind of consensus and what kind of national reconciliation for what?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Musharraf is the new kid on the block. One
can hope that he is brighter than the last
General to rule Pakistan.
He has a friend of mine as a ``guest`` in a
Rawalpindi jail, something that I am not too
happy about.
Naveed Qamar is an old buddy of mine. Why
has he been kept jailed beyond 90 days? Is
legality or the law only for people who do not
wear a uniform in Pakistan?
Will devolution bring ALL Pakistanis into the
Power? Or will this farce of continue?

Ras

Re: Anil #56

This is an interesting piece but it contains some fundamental errors about how the US Federal and State level governments function.

``Even within the government, there is a separation. The legislature (lower house of representative) is responsible for the budget, the President (at the federal level, and likewise the Governor at the state level) can only exercise its veto to approve or disapprove the budget, but cannot propose an independent budget, only house of the representative can do it.``

This shows a complete misunderstanding of how US government works. It is only in the Westminister-style parliamentary form of government (which the author does not approve of) that money bills MUST originate in the lower house. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate can, and always do, submit their own versions of the budget (and all other) bills. In California, to use the state example that I know best, by law (the State Constitution) the Governor has to submit a state budget to the Assembly and the State Senate. So here money bills originate from the executive.

``The separation among executive powers, legislature and judiciary is also well defined. Unlike in India, where the Prime Minister as political expediency had recommended a fall of state government; in the U.S. the President cannot remove the elected state government. During national emergency, the Federal Government can takeover the administration for a limited period, after which it must seek the approval of the legislative branch. In national emergency the President certainly has extra-ordinary powers, but impeachment by the Senate is a strong check and balance over President’s emergency powers. Such checks and balances keep the executive branch – the President and Governors honest to their oath.``

The above passage indicates that the author has no idea at all of how the US government actually works. There is NO provision in the US Constitution for declaring a state of emergency. The President/Federal Government cannot dismiss/takeover any state government or legally/constitutionally suspend (national emergency or not) any state government. Abraham Lincoln certainly did take on many extra-constitutional powers to himself (suspending habeas corpus, preventing legislators from assembling, etc) but this was clearly in violation of the Constitution and--strictly speaking--he should have bee impeached for it. Of course, if the Russians had ever nuked the US, the President, if still alive, would presumably have declared a state of emergency and ruled by fiat but no one would likely have quibbled about it then. BTW, the Senate cannot impeach the President. That power is reserved for the House. The Senate can only find him guilty or not guilty of the charges.

``The independence of judiciary and treasury is maintained. The President and the Governor respectively appoint the Supreme Court justices at the federal and state level; but they have no power to remove justices. The justices cannot be retired. They enjoy lifetime appointment and can only leave the office at their free will. The same is true for the head of Federal Reserve Board. Thus the executive can neither blackmail nor threaten the removal and use legislative or economic action to gain a favor.``

Again this displays fundamental ignorance of how the US functions. Federal judges enjoy lifetime tenure but they can certainly be removed by being impeached. (Judge Hastings, now a Democratic Congressman, was impeached for corruption but resigned before his trial--it is to the eternal descredit of both the Democratic Party and the House of Representatives that this man was allowed to take his seat.) Every state has its own method of recalling judges. For example, the California State Supreme Court Chief Justice and two other justices lost their seats on the bench when they lost their recall elections. (They were against the death penalty and certainly violated their oaths to uphold the law when they consistently ruled againt capital punishment.)

Neither the Chair nor any other Fed Board member enjoys lifetime tenure. They all serve one and only one fixed 14 year term as Board members--they are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Chairman of the Board of Governors (currently Alan Greenspan) serves renewable 6-year terms as Chair. BTW, the Fed is not the ``Treasury`` if by that you meant the Ministry of Finance (if you did not, I apologize). In the Westminister-style parliamentary systems, the term ``Treasury`` is usually used to denote the government members in Parliament. The Fed is the equivalent of the State Bank of Pakistan or the Reserve Bank of India. In the US, the Treaury Department is very much subservient to the wishes of the President as it is one of his Cabinet offices.

``This problem becomes worse when executive branch, as in parliamentary system must be sub-ordinated to the legislative branch.``

Now, this betrays a lack of knowledge of how Westminister-style governments really function. It is true that, in theory, Parliament is sovereign but it is not true to say that de facto the executive is subordinate to it. This is because the PM is both the head of the executive (de facto if not de jure) as well as the head of the legislative. So how can the PM be subordinate to himself? Since the head of state is the de jure head of the executive branch, how can he (she in the UK) be subordinate to Parliament? See the problems here?

This is solved by making the de facto head of the executive branch and the de jure (and the de facto) head of the legislative branch the same person. Problem solved since presumably the PM can give himself orders that he will follow.

At the risk of making a grave blunder and being hoist by my own petard, I would suggest that the author of this peace first improve his knowledge of how the US government actually functions before using it to argue his points. In general I would agree with his basic argument that a formal separation-of-powers system is needed to help prevent autocracy but simply having the right constitution is not enough. Argentina, after winning independence from Spain, basically translated the US Constitution into Spanish and made it its own. What worked (if we ignore the US Civil War--Constitution did survive it) in the US failed miserably in Argentina.

Why is that? Well, the US had a long and glorious English tradition (Magna Carta, the Glorious Revolution, etc) to draw on. They also had that particular and peculiar Anglo-Saxon reverence for the rule of law that the Argentinians/Spanish lacked. Cultural intangibles do make a difference. Don`t forget, after the US Revolutionary War, Gen. Washington`s officers offered him the crown--King George the First of the United States! He refused it since he saw himself as a Virginia squire and not as the undisputed Lord of All the Americas. Some people have argued that if he wasn`t sterile and had children of his own (a son) he would have accepted the crown. Maybe, maybe not. He could have made himself President for Life but chose not to do so.

Re: Fuzair #63

No wonder dotcoms are going bust :)

Fuzair, welcome back!