Would Devolution Empower “We the People”?

Sitting tight in our air conditioned apartments and homes, we can only ask questions. Forget the government, expatriate Pakistanis have enough money and education to make a difference to the poor of Pakistan. If only we could get off our sorry arses, stop looking at each other, and take the initiative to do someting. Relying on the government hasn`t gotten Pakistan anywhere but down.

The devolution plan is nothing but an excuse to prolong jernaile Mutteraff and his gang of mutters rule. Don`t be fooled, see the writing on the wall.

Roohi A. Ditta

PROOF ONCE AGAIN OF PAKI TERRORISM:

Nepali cops intercept 35 kg of RDX meant for India: AFP

http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/sep/04nepal.htm

The police in Nepal have arrested three Pakistani nationals carrying 35 kg of the highly explosive RDX which was destined for India.

The three were heading for India via Nepal but were detained on Saturday night, police sources said.

``After a tip-off, the Kathmandu district police office arrested the three Pakistanis along with the explosives.``

The police received a tipoff that the three had brought the RDX into Nepal, and after an extensive search they were arrested at a hotel in Kathmandu along with the RDX.

``This is the biggest amount of RDX confiscated in Nepal so far by the police,`` the source further said.

The police discovered that the explosives were intended for terrorist attacks in India.

The last haul of RDX in Kathmandu, two years ago, totalled 19 kg, and was also found in a hotel in Kathmandu.

Dear Professor Bilal,

My 2 cents on your last question:

“Can Musharraf’s devolution plan realistically empower the people in each locality without a significant improvement in their overall quality of life?”

Without going into the intricacies of your question, let us look at some harsh realities.
Dictators, including Musharaf, are inherently weak leaders. Musharaf`s government is seen as a military dictatorship by most democratic nations. Any move to remove his government (no matter what the motives of the people behind such a move), will gain swift international support. You can well imagine his insecurities in that regard. On the other hand, signals coming from major international donor institutions like IMF and World Bank etc indicate that they are not happy with the pace and direction of economic reforms in Pakistan. Also, International investors have so far given his economic reforms a thumbs-down. In short, he has so far failed in his efforts to kick-start the economy through his economic reform plan. Who is responsible for its failure is not the issue, but the fact that it has failed. Economic revival was the most critical test on which depended his entire political career. The pie is getting smaller in size by the day.

Now, in the wake of his failure on the economic front:

Can he afford to empower people at the risk of upsetting the elite?

Scout:

I understand your frustration, and appreciate your concern.
However, before a society can embark on any political/economic/social reform, exchange of ideas leading to consensus of society in recognizing and then prioritising the areas where reforms are needed is of utmost importance.

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

It`s another matter if you think that too much talk and not enough action on chowks (this one and all other chowks in every neighourhood in Pakistan) is the real source of all our problems :)

Bilal:

[......is dependent upon the revival of the economy, payment of existing debt, balancing the budget, and improving the climate for venture capital at both local and supralocal levels.....]

YOu display great acumen most of the time. Here in this quote you missed the most obvious point, or assumed that it need not be mentioned ---- `.... is dependent upon ...the survival of the state and ....`

And one final comment.

Any country can have the finest and fairest laws on the books. But if its citizens and adminstarators only pay a lip service those laws would go the way of the laws of the Book.

Pakistan needs to go through a period of real revolution. [You my friend understand all the implications behind that word.]

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

sadly,

t

Re: Scout reply #1

Your reply has two assumptions ( both wrong in my opinion)

1. Unlike expatriates the people living in Pakistan ( or India for that matter) do not have money /resources/education and that is why they cannot/do not help the poor.

2. As a group the expatriates somehow have different interests/priorities/moral values than people of the country they originated from.

Dear Bilal,

Good question, may be we should ask the experts of islamabad, they should be more reliable than any on the chowk, at least, they make a living out of forecasting what many believe to be the future, which none on the chowk can claim. From the nation of today

Palmists` glibbery looting people

RAWALPINDI (PPI) - People have expressed grave concern over loot and plunder spree by the palmists carrying on their business at footpaths alongside Murree Road and all busiest roads of City. These palmists lay traps craftly to ensnare their victims, who are from the oppressed and illiterate classes and marginalised section of society.

They are seen occupying foot paths alongside Murree Road by setting up small tents laying sheets with displaying the boards inscribed with the attractive and deceptive slogans like Your beloved to fall to your ....

Bilalji,

True to your style (after reading many of your posts) you have posed a lot of questions.

I did expect at least a set of possibilities that would give an insight to your thinking. Unless ofcourse you yourself are perturbed by the questions you have posed and answers are difficult to come by.

You have put particular attention to Indo-Pak

peace. From an Indian point of view, peace with pakistan is going to strengthen the social fabric of this country. Decline of Security threat, militancy and unrest is secondary. Hindu fundamentalists do accuse Indian muslims of sympathising and abetting pakistan in many of it`s sinister designs.

That some form of support for pakistan exists is well known. { I myself know of some muslims who are quite candid in their support to pakistan }

But with peace, Muslims will no longer have to feel the need to prove their patriotism in every confrontation with Pakistan.This game of accusations and counter accusations {between Hindi and Muslim fundamentalists} will be the first casualty.

Peace can only enhance India`s claim to be a truly secular country. Not ironically it is quite dependant on Pakistan.

Added bonus would be India`s standing amongst the Muslim nations, which would improve. Though it is comfortably placed now.

Just these few reasons are enough to create a Vibrant and Strong India.

Adding to the plethora of questions, I add one more.

But what is the acceptable cost of Peace?





Pullu

Thank you, Layman and Roohi!

Back to our regular business...

Prof Ahmad, you seem to have restated the basic sketch of the devolution plan. However, I wish that you had answered at least some of the questions that you have raised in your fourth paragraph! Issues such as differences (if any) b/n this and Ayub Khans plans are important or us to be aware of, since one of the things major detractors against this plan state is that it will repeat the `Basic Democracy` experiment. It goes without saying, of course, that the `proof of the pudding`, etc, but first off, is the recipe for the pudding any better than before, or is it just as undigestible?

It`s all nice in principle. Will it work? Is it against basic human nature?

But look at this logic. Human beings essentially are pack rats or groupies or whatever. They tend to move in groups and seek and get validation by participating in such affiliations, be it the local religious group or social club or whatever, we need to belong to something.

I don`t know the details of the plan, but by electing a bunch of nonaffiliated individuals with disparate and personal/private interests, you are but ensuring the success of the dominating authority--the junta.

Elected representatives work best when they work in tandem or unison. that is the beauty of democracy--agreeing to disagree and disagreeing with other agreements.

so what will happen when certain groupings or affiliations start to evolve/form? Will they be split up.

The bottom line is that when there are fewer voices, the discussions will be heard. When there are hundreds of voices, all one hears is din and confusion.

Let me pose few questions that I hope some one will attempt to address: What does the army know of democracy when it is essentially a rigid, authoritarian authority? What qualifies the army to know what and how a true democracy is? And going by their past attempts to reengineer the process, why and how will this attempt succeed?

Don`t mistake me: the existing system did not work. But that was not the fault of democracy. Democracy needs time and nurturing. Unfortunately, it was also undermined by the very authority attempting to rewrite it under the cloak of reform.

Sometimes, it has to begin with a good consititution--one that one can build on over time, not pull down at every given opportunity. As much as my fellow Indians will start crowing about the virtues of our wonderful democracy, it has a lot of flaws, some very ugly. It has a lot of flawed institutions and individuals. They`ve attempted to reengineer the constitution many times. It takes a few honest people to stand up to the machinations, time after time. People with spine. That is what Pakistan needs. Go back to your original consititution and try to live in its spirit. You`ve lost that focus.

The bottom line: it`s probably part in good faith, but it strikes me as a cynical, self-serving situation--one that will ease the way for the CE to eventually be granted the mantle of presidency.

Bilal, you must be commended once again for attempting to foster a genuine discussion. i hope this does not get hijacked into the usual we are better than you and you stink/smell diatribes.

Re: Layman #3,

A sincere request. It`s bad enough that insinuations in on-topic responses take the discussion away from the main topic to India-Pak mud-slinging. In such a situation, you are explicitly trying to steer the discussion in that direction. I think every writer on Chowk deserves more respect than that, and more so (IMHO) Mr. Bilal Ahmad.

please refrain from cut and paste postings from newspapers.. and don`t start that India v Pakistan thing either..

Re: Bilal Ahmad

Your article has raised some very important points.

The whole intent of the plan is to empower the people by breaking up the concentrated monopoly of power in Pakistan. That is the plan`s basic flaw. By devolving power into a multipolar based political system, the idea of which seems to have been borrowed from the American system, it wants to impower the grassroot level of political participation in Pakistan.

If the premise, of the plan being based on the American model, is true then it pre-supposes that this plan, in order to work, will need the cooperation and compromise, a requirement of the American grid-lock system, to work. Sadly, given our timocratic political philosophy, cooperation and compromises in the Pakistan polity are two rare twins! It will create conflict, and given our confrontational, venal approach towards politics, it will not encourage an amicable solution to the problems!

Another element hammering in its death nail is education. Pakistani people, the target of this empowerment, are not educated enough to understand the grid-lock favors compromise nature of this plan and will see it as another manifestion of the self interested groups marginalizing the common person for their own egocentric aims!

This plan has serious flaws and the biggest of them is the bureaucracy itself. Who will implement it? The Army? Who will defend Pakistan`s borders? The bureaucrats! :)

Ciao!

Dear Chowkwallas:

In my article, I have tried to provide only a rudimentary sketch of the issue of devolution vis a vis Pakistan. I will ``try`` to address various issues and steer the course of discussion discursively. Intuition and introspection may also help.

If interested in specific details of the plan, please go to the NRB site (address provided in the article).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

The local democracy idea - union council, panchayat, what have you has a serious flaw in our feudal cultures. It establishes the paramountcy of the majority at the local level. And you know what that leads to.

Mithuna/fairdinkum

Well said!!

Layman, please cut the crap.

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

later

-sac

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

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

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

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

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

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

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

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

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

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

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

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

where reforms are needed is of utmost importance.``

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

jagdeep #6,

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

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

bahmad #18, ``The experience in Pakistan suggests

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

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

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

state to the common people.``

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

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

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

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

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

sorry about the long replies

Dear Bahmad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

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

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

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

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

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

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

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

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

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

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

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

``A revolution from above

By Ayaz Amir

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

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

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

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

Rdesikan, I think you have made some good points.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

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

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