Would Devolution Empower “We the People”?

bahmad #61, ``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 dissatisfaction is not imagined. And what exactly do you mean by disaffection?

I love my country, just wish we`d stop with all the gibberish and do something. How about reading Ras Siddiqui`s article on the front page of Chowk?

We need more of that than this mumbo jumbo.

Seriously, enough talk already! Is that all Pakistanis can do?

I don`t mean to offend you, you have the right to speak up and write what`s on your mind. I`m just expressing my opinion on what I perceive as never-ending game of words.

bahmad
Thanks for a thought-provoking article.

Regarding devolution/decentralization of power, there is the objective, and then there are the mechanisms.

Hopefully, the objective of decentralizing power is sincere and Pakistan is committing herself to it for the really long haul and its not merely current expedience or a short term experiment. This will make all the difference between eventual success and failure, irrespective of the mechanisms, IMHO.

About the mechanisms, here are some point of views. Mainly, my POV is there are no simple one-shot solutions.

Anyway, take the banning of political parties. There can be two apprehensions regarding this. Firstly, that political party members(and more likely the smaller ones) will on paper cease to be party members, fight elections and keep their old affiliations, defeating whatever purpose is served(I`m not sure what that is) by banning their organisations.

Secondly, the concept of political party itself. Its difficult for constituents of each consitutency to separately pursue accountability in several and disparate cases against the several individuals who would be elected as their representatives. With a political party, the party and its prominent faces are held accountable for the deeds of lesser known functionaries. So the absence of parties may make accountability(political) of local representatives(and their opportunistic groupings) more difficult to pursue. Can you comment on this aspect?

Next, the powers vested in the local bodies.
``The head of police in each district will be directly answerable to the district nazim``. Is there any other chain of command?
I believe a lot can be learnt from the local town/county government structure in the US. I have these visions from US Western movies, where the mayor, and the sheriff(police chief), both are elected but are in the pay of the town goons :-). The fact is that there are many mechanisms to prevent such a scenario, local media and local political activism is a necessary but insufficient part of it. The federal and state government do play important roles in preventing local misgovernance, corruption and crime.

Crime in local unit: the civil liberties and justice bodies of the federal/state government can and do step in, if it seems injustice is being committed, eg racial profiling in some states.

Financial corruption in local unit: Audits by higher/ state and federal authorities are independent, and `centralized` and play an important role in preventing or punishing misdeeds.
Misgovernance: Poor/good governance maybe a function of local awareness, but the local state representatives are answerable to their party bosses, too, if they happen to run close elections. And what else is pork-barrel spending ? Perhaps you could comment this?

Wrt India`s Panchayati Raj, references are already being posted. Just a random anecdote about `tiers`. Recently Chandrababu Naidu , CM of Andhra Pradesh was trying to get the AP house to pass a bill to allow indirect election to one of the upper tiers of the zilla parishad system as opposed to direct election.(I think he didnot succeed). The speculation is he wants his party(which may be dominating the lower tiers) to gain control on the upper tiers. Now he may be politically-motivated or it may be because things willnot get done otherwise(too much political dissent), it could well be either.

Anyway, I wish the devolution plan all success.
Sadhana

Fuzair (#63)

Dear Fuzair:

Thank you for your detailed comments. I would avoid getting personal, but would counter each and every of the issues you have raised. At the outset I appologize for one mistake I had meant removal of President is with Senate and Power to impeach is with the house.

``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.``

To begin with please review the following, I can certainly provide inumerable references to Emergency Powers of the President.

References:

Powers of the Presidency,

The publisher, Congressional Quarterly Press , April 21, 2000

“What authority did Dwight D. Eisenhower have to send troops to help integrate a public school in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957?”

“Powers of the Presidency is a clear and understandable overview of the formal and inherent powers of the presidency. Clearly organized and detailed, the book traces the constitutional roots of presidential duties and goes on to explain the six contemporary roles of the modern president: chief executive, legislative leader, chief diplomat, commander in chief, chief of state, and chief economist.” -Amazon.Com

Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents

by Richard E. Neustadt

Other quotes:

1993 War and Emergency Powers Act:

“[t]he 1933 ``War and Emergency Powers Act,`` placing the U.S. in a state of emergency and thereby giving the President instant powers to suspend the Constitution has never been repealed. Therefore, it is possible, according to some researchers and scholars, for the U.S. President, at any time, to declare a ``state of national emergency`` and thereby suspend Constitutional rights.”

1973 Senate Report 93-549, 1973:

“In the introduction to Senate Report 93-549, in 1973, and entered into the Congressional Record is: ``For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency.`` And, the Senate Report`s opening statement says: ``Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes. Under the powers delegated by these statues, the President may: seize property, organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and in a plethora of ways, control the lives of all American citizens.`` Apparently, at any moment the President decides to do so, he may determine that ``a national emergency`` exists and activate any Federal agencies he desire to ``handle the situation,`` including circumventing such basic protections as the ``Posse Comatatus Act`` which forbids the use of the military against U.S. citizens.”

You will shortly get more references and support data on all other issues you have raised also.

As some of the articles are suggesting, that Pakistanis have taken trampling of their rights lightly throughout history is a folly.

Even in the initial years of Pakistan, Bengal has been at the fore front of democratic struggle. And NAP in West Pakistan was very active party.

After a few years of Ayub Khan`s rule opposition started demanding elections and although Fatima Jinnah was defeated, but the same movement with addition of Bhutto later caused the downfall of Ayub Khan. I remember the things from 1970 onwards few of the things were. 1- Suppression of Baluch movement by Government. 2- Toppling of elected assembly of NWFP by Bhutto. 3- PNA movement. 4- MRD movement against the highly tyrranical Zia Regime. 5- promulgation of MQM in Karachi by Agencies. 6- Imposition of operation clean-up in Karachi against MQM and later Governor rule by Nawaz Sharif.

So throughout history of Pakistan, people have not taken lightly trampling of their rights and have resisted forcefully against the State apparatus.

The time has now come where military was reluctant to take power in its hand, even with opportunity to do so because of public disapproval (as evidenced in first sacking of Nawaz Sharif). People are more conscious of their rights and rights of provinces. Particularly, the recent buckling down on KalaBagh is just a manifestation of it.

People don`t want to elect leaders to fill their coffers.

Only the time will tell the success or failure of plan. (As a side note, people were very optimistic about 2nd coming of Nawaz Sharif which proved wrong, as this plan may).

But, I think it is important to have constitutional rights and whether it is delivered by military Govt. or anyone else, I would approve of it.

Also why the elected representatives, for 12 years could not do such a basic thing as elections in colleges and schools. Because their main purpose was to ensure their grip on power. And until they were sure that they will be in power, they would not do a thing. That is just antithesis of democracy.

In this regard, it is also important to think, what options are left. Sind is not going to accept the previous arrangement. Nor is Baluchistan.

People of Pakistan have long struggled and long suffered, we have to reach a consensus.

That is why it is amateurish to talk of multiple provinces at this point. Punjab is not going to accept its division, nor is Sind, neither Baluchistan can be divided in Pukhton and Baluch area. It will lead to such a civil unrest and ethnic tension that the State will shatter completely.

That stage of division into multiple administrative unit might come, once there is economic prosperity and opportunities for people. But right now the most important things to tackle are provincial autonomy and role of center.

The problem of Sind needs to be found in an appropriate manner without alienating the two major communities. But as long as devolution plan works and ensure development of Mohajir areas current status quo is to remain, with little more political power to rural Sind.

Pent up tension in small provinces, should not be taken as approval, otherwise East Pakistan was broken up in one year from a very calm place.

I disagree with Amit regarding the hold of religious parties. They will win from very small pockets, possibly 1 or 2 percent, but still that might be beneficial. Because once they win, they have to work for people otherwise, they will lose their support quickly.

Fuzair (#63)

On the U.S. Constitution regarding Impeachment, War Powers, Interstate Commerce and budgets, please refer to the following web-site:

http://supreme.findlaw.com/documents/constitution.html

I am quoting from it for convenience:

``Impeachment

The Constitution confers upon the Senate the sole power to try all impeachments. If the President of the United States is being tried, the clause additionally directs that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside. A conviction requires the votes of two-thirds of the Senators present.

Read more in Article I, Section 3.

Also check out: Federalist Paper No. 69``

``War Powers

While the President is the Commander in Chief, Congress holds the power to declare war, to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a navy, and to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

Read more in Article I, Section 8 and Article II, Section 2.``

Please note Congress has not repeales 1993 War and Emergency Powers Act, and it merely passed a War Powers Resolution in 1973, even this resolution did give six-months of emergency powers to the President.

In response to scout (Reply # 65)
Dear Scout:

It seem that my reply # 61 has caused some misunderstanding. I think, I was not carefully enough in my rhetoric.

Let me replace “and” with “or” and qualify my statement. The corrected statement should read: “We, however, need to provide an opportunity to all kinds of contributors (such as Scout) to show their imagined, perceived, or real dissatisfaction and disaffection toward the troubled state of Pakistan and her people.” I had used the word disaffection in a softer sense (not in the sense of losing loyalty). If you are still not satisfied by my clarification, I retract your name from the statement.

I think, I made a positive comment about your right to express your views without showing any disagreement with your feelings about the state of affairs in Pakistan.

You said that you “wish we’d stop all the gibberish and do something.” Do what? Please explain vis a vis the devolution plan.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Re:bahmad #61

Dear Professor Bilal,

I agree, we must provide opportunity to all kinds of contributors especially to contributors like scout to express their viewpoint. I am sorry if I sounded somewhat irritated in my posts. Looking at one of scout’s posts, I can see her point clearly now. I reckon her point is not only valid; it is quite relevant to our discussion here. What can we all do to help Pakistan? Isn’t that what it is all about?

Ok, let’s look at some of the questions you have posed:

“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?”

For starters, on the very existence of Pakistan. In the wake of deteriorating economy, complete breakdown of law and order situation, violent, corrupt and unstable nature of our politics/establishment, and unfair allocation (or the perception of unfair allocation) of resources, there is an uncertainty about whether or not some smaller provinces have any confidence, at all, in the federation. In my view, we must have consensus on the viability of Pakistan as nation state. This can only be achieved through a process of reconciliation, which recognizes past mistakes, and guarantees the viability of federation by devolving power in some key areas so that states/provinces have greater say/decision making power in matters of taxation, employment policies, education policies, health care etc. Don’t ask me about the finer details…. To be honest, I don’t know.

In response to krashid (Reply # 36)
Dear Rashid:

The sole purpose of any local government is to deal with local issues. Local government jurisdictions in the “Local Government Plan 2000`` (or the devolution plan) are defined without reference to any local level problem. Unfortunately, the service areas appropriate for various goods and services often fail to match the boundaries of most administrative units. Walter Christaller’s Cental Place Theory (developed in 1933) is one of the best source of knowledge about various central places (read urban centers), their functions and service areas. Different sizes and kinds of governments are necessary, and this is what we typically find in reality. Most areas of the United States have a hierarchy of governmental units, and each of the fifty states has its own laws concerning local government. Counties and municipalities share political space and responsibilities with numerous special purpose districts. Such jurisdictions are formed to facilitate the management of one or two services such as providing water and sewerage, operating libraries, running schools, and issues like controlling mosquitoes. The net result is a multi-layered patchwork quilt. But, the nature and dynamics of local government vary greatly with different political systems around the world.

Rashid, I would like you to inform us about the implications of non-party elections in more details based upon your personal experience/understanding of Pakistan’s local government elections. Please tell us how to verify your statements.

According to a news report, a majority of political parties (out of a total of over three dozen parties that took part in all-party conference) rejected Musharraf’s devolution plan (Dawn, August 16, 2000). Let me outline the views of a few politician (who perhaps represented their party positions):

Pervaiz Elahi of PML (suspended Punjab Assembly speaker and a former local government minister) rejects the plan because it is “full of contradictions and unworkable.” What contradictions? He does not explain. Has anyone asked him to explain? Shouldn’t he reach to the people and explain himself. Elahi argues that a different election method for the head of district government (i.e. district nazim) would be less expensive and would end the blackmailing of the union council members. What blackmailing? Is there a history? I, however, see a problem in his position because the district nazims will be elected by the “union nazims” not the “union council members.”

Abid Hasan Minto of National Workers Party criticized some aspects of the plan as reactionary and anti-democratic (such as non-party elections and separate electorate for religious minorities). He further added that this plan would “further depoliticize the people and shall strengthen the influence of biradaris (brotherhoods; communities of brotherhood) and tribes and promote the already entrenched feudal, economic and social mafias in society.” Minto maintained that “separate electorate was introduced by Gen Ziaul Haq to divide the people along religious lines. He claimed that “neither the mainstream Church leadership nor the intelligentsia of the religious minorities and their principal political parties had supported separate electorates. They wanted to play a role in the mainstream politics as members of a common Pakistani nation.” Minto suggested that the resignation of federal minister Derick Cyprian from the cabinet “does not only represent the reaction of the minorities but of all democratic people.`` Several questions emerge from Minto’s position: Why separate electorates for religious minorities? Was separate electorate demanded by an overwhelming majority of most/all religious minorities? How non-party elections would enhance the influence of biradaris and tribes? Did various biradaries and tribes play any significant role in our party politics? How non-party elections would promote the already entrenched feudal, economic and social “mafias” in society?

The issue of biradarism was also made by Khalid Kharal of the PPP. Kharal said that Musharraf’s plan resembles the basic democracy system. Hence, it is an “old wine in new bottles and may be used by the regime as electoral college for provincial assembly elections in future.`` In making several additional comments, Kharal maintained that under the new plan the provinces would lose whatever powers they had/have.

Farooq Leghari of Millat Party, former President of Pakistan, said that the government has removed only a few lacunas from its original plan (of March 2000). Leghari’s party submitted a detailed critique of the same.

Tahirul Qadri of Pakistan Awami Tehrik hailed Musharraf’s regime for giving a simple and workable devolution scheme. He announced that his party would participate in the (non-party) elections even if the Grand Democratic Alliance decided to boycott them. Qadri urged the government to cleanse society of the corrupt people/politicians in order to ensure the electoral success of honest candidates.

Ehsan Wyne of Awami National Party said that the government should hold party-based national and provincial assemblies` elections first. He further maintained that the new plan fails to recognize provincial autonomy, and it would affect national solidarity since it virtually attempts to revive the previously rejected one-unit system. Wyne argued that the clause of separate electorate would seek to appease the religious and fundamentalist lobby. Wyne drew parallels between the new plan and Ayub’s plan.

K. M. Azhar of JUP (Noorani group) said that the devolution plan would fails to provide self-government to the common people in the presence of tribalism in Balochistan and the NWFP and feudalism in Sindh and southern Punjab. He said that the local body elections would promote personality cult in the absence of political parties. Azhar called for holding party-based elections on the basis of proportionate representation in order to minimize the influence of tribalism and feudalism. Azhar said that reduction in the power of deputy commissioners would pose unnecessary problem changes in a large number of laws. Azhar said that his party would take part in the local body elections.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to Layman (Reply # 37)
Dear Layman:

Devolution in some parts of Pakistan may eventually reflect a kind of panchayti/jirga system. The following news clipping provides some reactions to the draft proposal of the devolution plan of March 2000.

“The Nation, April 24, 2000; Monday
Ranjha for Panchayat system

LAHORE (PPI)- Punjab Law Minister Dr Khalid Ranjha has emphasised the need to implement indigenous systems like Panchayat and Jirga in accordance with the taste of the people. He uttered these views while speaking at a seminar, here on Sunday. He said the problem was not with the law but with its implementation. Punjab Information Minister, Shafqat Mahmood said that the proposals of compulsory voting and joint electorates were under the consideration of National Reconstruction Bureau (NRB).

``These things are presently under consideration; The suggestions may be approved or not,`` he said while speaking at the seminar. The discussion was also participated by Members British Parliament, Lord Eric Avebury and Anthony Colman who gave details on the local government system working in the United Kingdom. Shafqat said that he would personally support compulsory voting.

He said, except the union councils membership, there should be some educational qualification fixed for the members of district councils and above. He said that the devolution of power would help address the issue of governance. He said the existing administrative structure inherited from colonial rule, by design, was not participatory in nature.

Shafqat said that there should be community based governments at grass-root level. Regarding baradarism, Shafqat said that he did not think that government should engage in any sort of social engineering to curb the society of this menace. Ranjha said that the political parties in Pakistan had been the extension of baradarism or tribalism as it was the groups or baradarism which mattered during the elections, not the parties.

Former Federal Finance Minister, Dr Mubashar Hassan appreciated the Chief Executive General Pervez Musharraf for coming up with a devolution plan. He said that people should be allowed to take part in adjudication process as most of the disputes could be settled at lower level. The convener of Friends of Pakistan, Naseem Bajwa and Editor The Friday Times, Najam Sethi also spoke on the occasion.”

Please record your views and reactions.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Dear Bilal,

Thanks for writing this article and for the important questions that you have raised thru it. I am all for devolution and less government. As a matter of fact this is one step that should have been taken half a century ago. I really wish that it works and brings grass root level democracy in our country. We have to start from somewhere.

BUT, there are two reasons, due to which, I think, that this plan will fail eventually.

1. People do not have basic political education to comprehend the idea that they will be the ``master of their own destiny``; and also they do not have any idea on how to keep it from getting corrupt or hijacked. After all, it will only be the people who will be the protectors and keepers of this new system.

2. The new system doesn’t have a backing of an independent and local judicial system. In addition, the independence of local judicial system cannot survive if there isn’t an independent central judicial system. (The emphasis is on the word ``Independent``).

Due to the above two reasons, even if the system has constitutional protection, it won`t survive or at least keep itself from getting corrupted. This system also threatens the power base of the political parties so they will try their best to corrupt it to their own advantage. In the end we will end up with something similar to Bhutto`s Islamic Socialism or Zia`s Islamisation,, not to mention Ayub`s ABDO etc.

At the risk of being labeled as a Nazi Sympathizer, may I suggest an institution of a ``Benevolent Dictator`` to oversee the new system for a while, until it stands up on its own?

http://www.dawn.com/2000/09/06/op.htm#5

For a somewhat biased, but acceptable analysis of NRB`s final version of the devolution plan.

Fuzair (#63)

Dear Fuzair:

You might like to review Federalist Paper #6 for Restrictions on States Rights.

BTW: In Britain, my understanding is Chancellor of Exchequor; and in India Minister of Finance is responsible for the budget and present the same to both houses of the Parliament. Both of them are part of executive branch, as I understand.

ANIL

For Pakistan to achieve its potential and for any empowerment or democracy scheme to be successful, I FEEL following steps need to be taken urgently: -

1. People should be made to realize that NATION comes BEFORE Religion. It is more important to be a loyal, devoted Pakistani then a good Muslim. Normally, these need not be mutually exclusive but since this is one aspect, which has dogged Pakistan since its birth, people need to realize that Islam may not recognize borders but borders are a reality. They need to learn to be proud Pakistani first and proud Muslim later.

2. Majority of the people in Pakistan are converted as everywhere else. They should learn to love their land and the land of their forefathers. Change of belief or faith should not have made people change their loyalties to distant lands.

3. People should compel the Government to rewrite history books depicting history correctly so that people can recognize their heroes rightly and stop admiring looters and plunderers of and in History. (This is being repeated again and again till now and that has made it possible for all the rulers in Pakistan to get away with their feudalism and plundering.) For admiring your conquerors, you don’t have to despise yourself.

I do believe that until and unless, the basic character building exercise is not changed, nothing will work out. India in spite of all these problems is surviving very well and this is because of its Forward looking approach inculcated by Nehru through all the Institutions he established. Today, Indians are looking at Gandhi Nehru and all other leaders critically. While their good qualities are appreciated and gloated over, the tendency to avoid criticism is also given up. So, people do analyze where these much-loved leaders went wrong.

Hence, even when this devolution plan looks good on paper, one has to consider the environment in which it has to function. Until and unless, this basic requirement is non-existing, success of the scheme is doubtful. In the present circumstances, ‘if you want to destroy any system, bring it to Pakistan.’

The only problem that I have with plan which has been announced is that it is going to be on Non Party basis. Being a keen student of History especially of the Zia years makes me skeptical of

the ``Non-Party`` basis.

On the other hand I am quite touched by the genuine sincerity that Musharraf seems to demonstrate. I hope he is not acting...

-Pakistan Zindabad

-QuaideAzam Zindabad

-Ataturk Zindabad

-Jiye Bhutto

-Imran Khan for PM

-Yasser Hamdani

Hamsab

I totally agree that Nation should come before religion. I also believe that we have to inculcate the spirit that QuaideAzam represented.

His words and not religion should be our guiding light. Unlike Gandhi (with his village Economies)

Jinnah`s theories were both pragmatic and forward looking. He envisioned a strong, forward-looking Modern, Democratic Pakistan which the rulers following him fell short of accomplishing.

I have said it many times and I ll say it again...

Turks were lucky that Ataturk lived long after the

proclamation of the republic... Pakistanis were unlucky that Jinnah died so early after Pakistan`s

birth.

Nevertheless, people who say that Quaid e Azam didnt say enough to define what Pakistan was to be are making a mockery of your intelligence. He said more than enough and his speeches are well documented.

-Pakistan Zindabad

bahmad #40

``You are trying to say something very important. Please elucidate

your main points and provide a few examples.``

Well, the point is that caste, feudal relationships are strongest at micro level. The de facto dominant section also becomes dominant de jure. The same upper (or dominant) caste that runs affairs informally becomes the formal power in local government. The moderating influence of large numbers and larger society are diminished under local democracy. I am afraid I cannot give you any specific examples other than to say that I have witnessed this first hand growing up in a small village.

What is the same, take the examples of local control of schools. That is when you have a Kansas school board deciding that kids don`t have to learn evolution as it conflicted with their (the board members`) beliefs. What happened subsequently in that case - some of the board memebers were defeated in the elections a few months later - is due to a robust political system which is absent in our neck of the woods.