GENERAL Parvez Musharraf is right in calling the Devolution Plan a silent revolution. Most revolutions tear the fabric of the status-quo but very few are able to deliver on promises as delivery mechanism is not a part of the revolutionary framework. Planners and managers usually deliberate on an evolutionary process of change avoiding the associated risks and threats of revolutions.

Pakistan is currently in the midst of a revolution brought about by the Devolution Plan as the implementation mechanisms are non-existent. The plan, if successful, will indeed bring about far-reaching changes never experienced before. The Nazims are the comrades of change in this revolution. But who will coach, guide and lead them to deliver results?

Our ‘Devolution Plan’ is designed on bottom-up basis instead of the traditional top-down approach. The Nazims are on their own. In order to exercise executive authority they have to rely on the district co-ordination Officer (DCO). The legislative power is with the councillors. There are no rules of business and no road maps. Finances are being provided for the uplift of the cities and towns but the Nazims are expected to make their own budgets and set their priorities. The old rules are no longer applicable.

The Nazims are expected to keep their paper work in order. Decisions have to be taken after a due process with documentary evidence. Budgets have to be approved and accounts audited. The records of councillor sessions and meetings have to be properly maintained. The files have to be moved and then properly stored. Public complaint and feedback mechanism have to be effective. Can the Nazims do all the above tasks on their own? The answer is a straight No? How can they be helped?

Most DCOs are experienced bureaucrats and know how to operate the existing system. As such they provided an important link with the administrative mechanism above. Interaction with the Nazim and the administration below has to be effectively established. If the revolution fails, the Nazims will be blamed while the DCOs will move on to counter future revolutions and change mechanisms. In other words, ‘if we succeed it is our victory but if we fail it is your defeat’.

Effective decisions require credible data. Unfortunately our information loops are flawed. The governor has formulated plans to visit all the districts of the province. The visit of the provincial chief executive (PCE) to the area can only be useful if the framework of data: collection, processing, monitoring and networking is properly implemented. Nazims must have access to correct information in order to effectively run their cities and towns. The PCE can act as a facilitator of the Devolution Plan.

The Nazims should be provided with guidelines to implement the revolutionary agenda in their areas. The NRB should have an ‘operations management group’ to prepare these frameworks and then monitor their implementation. In additional to the NRB guidance the Nazims should seek help from professionals in setting their priorities, preparing budgets and learning new management techniques including inter-personal skills and building consensus.

Empowerment of the masses and decentralization of authority is at the core of the Devolution Plan. Literacy is the basic building block of the nation. With a literacy rate of around 40% a major effort is needed in this area. After failing to meet the constitutional requirement of 100% literacy the Nazims are now expected to deliver on this important front. In order to lead the empowerment effort the Nazims must be empowered themselves. This calls for massive orientation and training for the elected representatives on the grounds of National Institute of Public Administration (NIPA), Administrative Staff College, Pakistan Staff College (Quetta), National Defence College (NDC), Pakistan Institute of Management (PIM), etc.

Decentralization is not abdication. Effective monitoring loops have to be developed for meaningful transfer of authority at the city and town level. Undue interference by the provincial or federal government is not called for but guidance and resources have to be ensured for the Nazims to function. If a legal opinion is sought or financial guidance is needed whom should the Nazim contact for quick answers. Again the NRB should be able to provide this professional expertise or the Nazims should be at liberty to appoint legal and financial advisers as the need arises.

In the 1973 Constitution there were concurrent areas that were eventually to be a part of the provincial set-up under an autonomous framework. The minister for law also acted as provincial coordinator to oversee the transfer of authority from the centre to the provinces. Now the cities and towns are becoming autonomous. There is a huge list of concurrent issues. The transition and transfer has to be planned to minimize the associated pain.

The PCE can play an important rule in defining the areas and then facilitating the transfer of power to the Nazims. Islamabad has enough experience of transferring power from the central to the provincial pool now that know-how can be utilized by the NRB in ensuring the decentralization of authority as required by the Devolution Plan. In addition to the ‘operations management’ group a devolution resource centre can also be established with head office at Islamabad and branch offices at Karachi, Quetta, Lahore, and Peshawar. The resource centre will be able to provide training and guidance at provincial level. Province-wide training programmes can be arranged to cover all districts.

The document archives at Islamabad is full of plans that never saw the light of day. Islamabad is strong at rhetoric and paperwork and weak at implementation. So far the NRB has acted independently with autonomy and resources.

Now that the plan is in the implementation stage it seems the NRB involvement has increased. Planners and architects have to be involved in all phases of development to narrow the gap between conception and delivery. In addition to devolution; the NRB is now getting involved in electoral reforms as well. Again the full implementation of these reforms including electoral rolls and elimination of constituencies will generate dissent and debate. So far the NRB has produced good conceptual frameworks now it must focus on the delivery mechanisms which are either inadequate or non-existent.

The people of Pakistan overwhelmingly support decentralization of power. The political parties have no major say in the devolution process. Judiciary is perhaps neutral as it largely remains unaffected. Bureaucracy, especially the future of the district management group (DMG) has been rendered un-certain by the Devolution Plan. The post of all powerful deputy commissioner (DC) has been abolished.

Most commissioners have become district coordination officers (DCOs). The linkages between the ‘Nazims and the bureaucrats have to be defined and established. Most elected representatives are finding it extremely difficult to move the administrative machinery.

Most elected representatives realize the relative limitations of time in authority and deserve to move fast. The bureaucrats are not driven by time constraints. The resulting tug of war produces ‘adhocism’ which is even more damaging than status-quo as it produces turmoil and chaos.

Adhoc measures have not worked in the past. The Nazims and the administrative machinery have to work in unison to produce results. The NRB has to provide this linkage for the system to function. Adhocism is usually a result of frustration and helplessness against the obstacles created by the status-quo. The Nazims should know that the old rules of business are no longer applicable and can be changed by a due process.

The changed methodology has to be developed by the NRB and handed over to the Nazims to be used extensively as needed. All resources must be pooled in for the success of this silent revolution. Can the NRB accomplish this task?

FOR the past 16 months, Israelis and Palestinians have been locked in a catastrophic cycle of violence, a cycle which only promises more bloodshed and fear. The cycle has led many to conclude that peace is impossible, a myth borne out of ignorance of the Palestinian position. Now is the time for the Palestinians to state clearly, and for the world to hear clearly, the Palestinian vision.

But first, let me be very clear. I condemn the attacks carried out by terrorist groups against Israeli civilians. These groups do not represent the Palestinian people or their legitimate aspirations for freedom. They are terrorist organizations, and I am determined to put an end to their activities.

The Palestinian vision of peace is an independent and viable Palestinian state on the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, living as an equal neighbour alongside Israel with peace and security for both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. In 1988, the Palestine National Council adopted a historic resolution calling for the implementation of applicable United Nations resolutions, particularly, Resolutions 242 and 338.

The Palestinians recognized Israel’s right to exist on 78 per cent of historical Palestine with the understanding that we would be allowed to live in freedom on the remaining 22 per cent, which has been under Israeli occupation since 1967. Our commitment to that two-state solution remains unchanged, but unfortunately, also remains unreciprocated.

We seek true independence and full sovereignty: the right to control our own airspace, water resources and borders; to develop our own economy, to have normal commercial relations with our neighbours, and to travel freely. In short, we seek only what the free world now enjoys and only what Israel insists on for itself: the right to control our own destiny and to take our place among free nations.

In addition, we seek a fair and just solution to the plight of Palestinian refugees who for 54 years have not been permitted to return to their homes. We understand Israel’s demographic concerns and understand that the right of return of Palestinian refugees, a right guaranteed under international law and United Nations Resolution 194, must be implemented in a way that takes into account such concerns.

However, just as we Palestinians must be realistic with respect to Israel’s demographic desires, Israelis too must be realistic in understanding that there can be no solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict if the legitimate rights of these innocent civilians continue to be ignored. Left unresolved, the refugee issue has the potential to undermine any permanent peace agreement between Palestinians and Israelis. How is a Palestinian refugee to understand that his or her right of return will not be honoured but those of Kosovar Albanians, Afghans and East Timorese have been?

There are those who claim that I am not a partner in peace. In response, I say Israel’s peace partner is, and always has been, the Palestinian people. Peace is not a signed agreement between individuals — it is reconciliation between peoples. Two peoples cannot reconcile when one demands control over the other, when one refuses to treat the other as a partner in peace, when one uses the logic of power rather than the power of logic.

Israel has yet to understand that it cannot have peace while denying justice. As long as the occupation of Palestinian lands continues, as long as Palestinians are denied freedom, the path to the “peace of the brave” that I embarked upon with my late partner Yitzhak Rabin, will be littered with obstacles.

The Palestinian people have been denied their freedom for far too long and are the only people in the world still living under foreign occupation. How is it possible that the entire world can tolerate this oppression, discrimination and humiliation? The 1993 Oslo Accord, signed on the White House lawn, promised the Palestinians freedom by May 1999. Instead, since 1993, the Palestinian people have endured a doubling of Israeli settlers, expansion of illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land and increased restrictions on freedom of movement. How do I convince my people that Israel is serious about peace while over the past decade Israel intensified the colonization of Palestinian land from which it was ostensibly negotiating a withdrawal?

But no degree of oppression and no level of desperation can ever justify the killing of innocent civilians. I condemn terrorism. I condemn the killing of innocent civilians, whether they are Israeli, American or Palestinian; whether they are killed by Palestinian extremists, Israeli settlers, or by the Israeli government. But condemnations do not stop terrorism. To stop terrorism, we must understand that terrorism is simply the symptom, not the disease.

The personal attacks on me currently in vogue may be highly effective in giving Israelis an excuse to ignore their own role in creating the current situation. But these attacks do little to move the peace process forward and, in fact, are not designed to. Many believe that Ariel Sharon, Israel’s prime minister, given his opposition to every peace treaty Israel has ever signed, is fanning the flames of unrest in an effort to delay indefinitely a return to negotiations. Regrettably, he has done little to prove them wrong. Israeli government practices of settlement construction, home demolitions, political assassinations, closures and shameful silence in the face of Israeli settler violence and other daily humiliations are clearly not aimed at calming the situation.

The Palestinians have a vision of peace: it is a peace based on the complete end of the occupation and a return to Israel’s 1967 borders, the sharing of all Jerusalem as one open city and as the capital of two states, Palestine and Israel. It is a warm peace between two equals enjoying mutually beneficial economic and social cooperation. Despite the brutal repression of Palestinians over the last four decades, I believe when Israel sees Palestinians as equals, and not as a subjugated people upon whom it can impose its will, such a vision can come true. Indeed it must.

Palestinians are ready to end the conflict. We are ready to sit down now with any Israeli leader, regardless of his history, to negotiate freedom for the Palestinians, a complete end of the occupation, security for Israel and creative solutions to the plight of the refugees while respecting Israel’s demographic concerns. But we will only sit down as equals, not as supplicants; as partners, not as subjects; as seekers of a just and peaceful solution, not as a defeated nation grateful for whatever scraps are thrown our way. For despite Israel’s overwhelming military advantage, we possess something even greater: the power of justice. —Courtesy: New York Times.

I WALKED past the Soviet Embassy the other day after President Bush made his State of the Union Speech.

Over the years, the Soviet Embassy was one of the most vilified buildings in Washington — and the most mistrusted.

There were several US Secret Service cars in front of the embassy at all times. The FBI rented apartments across the street for their cameras and listening equipment.

The CIA had even built a tunnel from a house on a hill that went right into the embassy. We listened to everything that Moscow was plotting.

All a president had to do to get a standing ovation in Congress was call the Soviet Union the “Evil Empire.” When criticized for our spy community’s vigilance, the State Department replied, “All’s fair in love and the cold war.”

I ran into Davidson, who took the same walk every morning as I did. I said, “It’s pretty quiet around here.”

“It wouldn’t be if Bush had blasted the Russkies in his speech last night.”

I said, “It is politically incorrect to call them Russkies anymore.”

“What would you call them now?”

“Our brave allies beyond the Iron Curtain.”

“But what happened to the days when we said the Russians were stocking nuclear arms and we had no choice but to do the same? That is why the president needs $200 billion for a new missile shield. The only enemies mentioned in Mr. Bush’s speech were North Korea, Iran and Iraq.”

I said. “The president should have said he needs the money to prevent the Russians from smuggling nuclear weapons in battered suitcases.”

“What made the Reds such an easy target for a State of Union speech in the old days was that nothing in their country worked, and it was always cold.”

“We had a real enemy in those days. All we have now are faceless terrorists who will never have an embassy of their own because just before they open one, they commit suicide.”

Davidson said, “I used to be afraid of Russian spies who hung out beyond those walls. Now when I see one on the street I imagine he is either a defector or someone going to the Safeway to buy a National Enquirer.”

“How did the Russians become the number one good guys so soon after they were the number one bad guys?”

“It is easy, because Bush can get Putin on the phone anytime he wants to — but Osama bin Laden never returns his calls.” —Dawn/Tribune Media Services