RATHER characteristically, we seem to be caught up in yet another controversy: this time, about the merits and demerits of the referendum held on April 30. In the process, facts are being distorted, passions are running high, friends of Pakistan are confused and our antagonists delighted. It would appear that we, as a people, have a special talent for tearing ourselves apart.

The arguments are multifarious. The issue is being debated from several points of view: constitutionality and legality; democratic principles and practice; transparency and credibility of the voting; the role played by the official machinery; and the quality and objectivity of the news media coverage. There are few points of convergence and it looks like an open field where one can believe any version that one likes.

In the midst of all this sound and fury, one approach could, perhaps, be to judge matters from the perspective of Pakistan’s national interests. In the context of foreign policy, it is undeniable that the last two-and-a-half years of General Pervez Musharraf’s rule have seen a change for the better in Pakistan’s international image. Internally also, the economy has improved and many reforms have been introduced.

The process of accountability has been far more effective than ever before. Musharraf has shown himself as a patriotic, intelligent, articulate and strong leader. Perhaps no Pakistani leader has made a mark in the international arena to the extent that he has succeeded in achieving. The positive foreign news media he has received is probably unprecedented for any Pakistani leader. These are pretty solid achievements.

It is clearly in Pakistan’s national interest that there is no reversal of the gains made in this particular period. This can best be achieved by his continuing to remain at the helm of the government. One may or may not have a liking for him, but the national interest ought to take precedence over all other considerations.

Now, let us try to examine the nature of opposition to him. First, there are the political parties and individuals who have lost perks and privileges by his remaining in power. In particular, those who had tasted blood are baying for his ouster. These people are driven by an unquenchable lust for power. It is beyond doubt that many amongst them had ruthlessly plundered the country. There was rampant misrule under both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. In fact, while the PPP was in power, this was the precise allegation of its opponents and when Nawaz Sharif was in power, this was the main criticism of the PPP. Moreover, each described the other as a security risk. Nawaz Sharif used to say that the PPP and Pakistan couldn’t survive together.

However, now that both are out of power, they have no scruples whatsoever in making a common cause against Musharraf. They now swear by democracy, but each had previously described the other as the enemy of democracy. Of course, both of them assume that the people have a short memory and, judging by the writings of our liberal gurus, one would have to say that their assumption has validity.

Next, the opposition is coming from the religious extremists. They were hoping to convert Pakistan into a Jihadist society. In particular, after September 11, they were egging on Pakistan to take on the US on behalf of the Taliban, which, incidentally, was also India’s fond hope. What destruction this would have caused to Pakistan is of little concern to them. The fact that Musharraf did the opposite remains unpardonable in the eyes of these head-in-the-sand mullahs and fanatics. Their balloon was pricked when the xenophobic Taliban regime collapsed suddenly. The religious extremists also lost a lot of their steam in Pakistan. Since then, they have been waiting for an opportunity to hit back at Musharraf. The referendum thus came handy to them.

The opposition of these two broad groups is perverse but understandable. The greater area of concern is the group of political scribes, the so-called liberals, democrats and constitutionalists who have lately monopolized the news media to criticize the referendum. They are generally well motivated and, hence, their criticism merits closer attention. But, here again, the first consideration ought to be the national interests of Pakistan. Would the return to power of the two main figures accused of plundering the country — Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif — be in the interest of Pakistan? Would we like the religious extremists to have a free hand in Pakistan and establish the kind of fascist, intolerant regime on the Taliban model? Would we like the reversal of the present government’s reforms in various fields and an end to the process of accountability? If not, there is a strong case for continuity of the present policies by keeping Musharraf in place.

The liberal critics argue that we do not like a military ruler. This is not the way a progressive country ought to be ruled. They are, of course, right in their expectation. But then, we have to look at the objective realities. What we had in Pakistan from 1988 to 1997 was only a sham democracy, characterized by plunder and arbitrary and, indeed, dictatorial rule. Musharraf has no doubt a military background but he has acted much more democratically than the so-called democratic regimes. We have unprecedented freedom of the press at present. There has been devolution of power and local bodies are functioning. The country is set to have general elections by October this year and the return of parliament under a civilian prime minister. The bad eggs, who have been found guilty by courts would be — and should be — kept out of representative rule. There should be a system of checks and balances.

Let us stop comparing ourselves with countries that have had a far better record of running democratic systems. There is no use pretending that Pakistan has ever had any kind of genuine democracy, at least since 1951. It would be far wiser to proceed on the basis of actual experience and work out a system that would better suit our conditions. Otherwise, we will continue to have the vicious cycle of weak and corrupt “democratic” governments, followed by military coups. Experience and pragmatism, surely, should give us some down-to-earth lessons.

Some of our liberals argue that a poor democracy is better than any military regime. Some of them say that the cure for poorly functioning democracy is to have more democracy. The process of elections must continue and over a period of time the corrupt elements would be weeded out. Very good arguments, in theory, but how about the practice? We had four elections between 1988 and 1997 and each time the quality of those elected kept declining. The process of plunder and misrule kept growing. Does it make sense to go on doing that which has demonstrably failed, simply because this is what we learnt from the liberal circles of the West?

Evidently, it is fashionable to praise democracy and run down military regimes. Unfortunately, our historical experience shows that practice is very different from theory. It is undeniable — however unpalatable it might be to liberal souls — that the economic performance of Pakistan was better under the military regimes than under the rule of the sham democrats.

Regarding the legality of the referendum, one would have really hoped that the unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court should have settled the matter. On the one hand, one hears talk of the supremacy of the law and, on the other, the unanimous judgment of the apex court is evidently dismissed as inconsequential. The Election Commission, consisting of eminent figures from the judiciary, has declared that the referendum had a high turnout and the results were fair. But the determined opponents of the present regime would have us believe otherwise. The argument that there seemed to be few people queuing up at the polling stations, in contrast to the practice in our past elections, ignores the fact that this time, there were an unprecedented number of election booths.

Hence, forming up long lines for casting the vote was unnecessary. This was really a great relief to the ordinary voter. Practically, everyone that the present writer has talked to has confirmed that he or she did vote in the referendum. The argument that five per cent turned up for the referendum is simply ludicrous. In fact, an honest test would be to go out to the street and ask an average person as to what he or she thinks of Musharraf. The reply would dispel many of the assumptions made by the liberal gurus. Of course, there is no way one could convince the critics from the political parties.

PROVINCIAL autonomy has no real meaning without fiscal autonomy. In the absence of that the Centre has been collecting revenues that are rightly those of the provinces, and the provincial governments have been taking possession of the revenues that normally belong to the local governments.

And all of them are in financial trouble, with the Centre having large budget deficits despite the virtual monopoly over levying taxes. Until recently the total number of federal provincial and local taxes was 101, and their cumulative impact was stifling the economy at one end and over-taxation at the other. Regional leaders and economic experts have hence been stressing the need for financial autonomy along with fiscal devolution.

But because of the vast financial needs of the Centre and the sorely limited revenue because of the slow growing economy and pervasive tax evasion, it is not ready to give up any of its major revenues sources to the provinces, while paying lip service to fiscal autonomy.

The Centre prefers to collect most of the taxes and give a share of them to the provinces under the formula devised by the National Finance Commission. Ten of the federally collected taxes shared with the provinces are budgeted to yield Rs 190 billion to the provinces out of the total tax collection of Rs 457.7 billion. And when the federal revenues fall as they are expected by about Rs 40 billion this year, the provincial share will also drop multiplying the financial worries of the provinces.

Provincial governments then ask for larger grants, more loans and larger loan-write off, and seek more loans from the State Bank of Pakistan in the manner Sindh had raised Rs 9 billion from the Bank and later paid off.

Provincial budgets have become a shadow of the federal fiscal efforts and what makes them meaningful are the federal grants, loans and other forms of assistance. And now the provincial governments have been authorized by the Centre to seek loans from the World Bank which is offering 100 million dollars to Sindh and the NWFP province.

The fall of the share of revenues from the Centre enables the provincial leaders and officials blame the Centre. But in the kind of post-September 11 scenario that Pakistan faces in the economic sphere with its small growth the centre cannot do much more to collect larger revenues unless it resorts to draconian measures. That can lead to protests and agitation in the country which the government wants to avoid during these troubled political times.

Undoubtedly the provincial share of the federally collected revenues has been rising over the years in recent times, and has come to almost 40 per cent of the federal revenues. But the share of the Indian states from the centrally collected revenues is even higher.

The sales tax, for example, is a provincial tax everywhere in the world. But in Pakistan it is federally collected. It is the largest single source of revenue in the country. And out of Rs 185 billion to be collected this year the provincial share is likely to be only Rs 65 billion, along with Rs 1,970 million as share from GST on services. That means around one-third of the total GST collection comes to the provinces.

The fact is the provinces have too many responsibilities and they affect the people directly. These include the steadily deteriorating law and order, and the need to spend far more on the police and intelligence agencies.

Social sector development, particularly education and public health, is the primary responsibility of the provincial government. Providing for adequate infra-structure for trade and industry is the task of the provinces. Without such infra-structure, which include roads, water supply, drainage, proper transport system, the industries cannot function profitably and pay more taxes.

Protecting the environment which is receiving increasing global importance is the task of the provincial governments. And that means a great deal of money. The Centre may come up with policies and programmes in all these areas, but executing them and funding them is the task of the provincial government.

So the Sindh government collects the revenues from motor vehicle tax, which the KMC and now the city government, wants for itself. The Sindh government argues it has to pay for the traffic police as well, and the city government wants to take over the police department as well.

Now the World Bank, the IMF and the Asian Development Bank want stronger fiscal discipline in the provinces as well, and the federal government is committed to that. Meanwhile, the last meeting of the federal cabinet asked the National Reconstruction Bureau to formulate its fiscal devolution scheme for early implementation. That is being done as the district governments have no major source of revenues.

Will the work of the NRB conflict with the function of the National Finance Commission on which various demands are being made by the provinces and their supporters? When Shaukat Aziz became finance minister he said the number of federal taxes would be reduced to three and provincial taxes to 6 or 7 from 26 or 27. But the number of federal taxes has not really come down, except for abolition of the wealth tax as that saves the affluent persons from the hefty tax on their large landed or financial assets in the country and abroad. The number of provincial taxes is said to have come down but no clear picture is available. But in Sindh old duties like the stamp duties were increased considerably. And when collection dropped steeply they were lowered to an extent.

Under the new fiscal order the district governments may come up with their own taxes, while the provincial governments try to increase their revenues. If simultaneously the Centre does not give up some of its own taxes the cumulative taxation may be too heavy and ultimately become counter-productive for all. And the district government should not come up with hefty octroi as it seems to be in the offing judging by newspaper reports.

Federal excise should normally be a provincial tax as the provincial governments have to provide facilities for industry and trade but contrary to the earlier assurance, it continues to be a federal tax and the centre is expected to collect Rs 53 billion this year, but the actual will be somewhat less.

The problem for federal and provincial governments in Pakistan is not only inadequacy of resources but also their inefficient and non-productive utilization. And that is partly due to over 3 billion employees in the federal, provincial and local governments. Sindh government alone has 45,000 employees. And Punjab have double of that number. Too many employees on the rolls of the government means not only too much expenditure but also more of red-tape and larger corruption, with not only too many persons trying to put their hands into the official kitty but also wanting to get more money from the public to do any kind of official work. But downsizing, even if called right-sizing cosmetically, is not easy when alternate employment is not available and the economic expansion is too slow.

Meanwhile, Shaukat Aziz says the reforms to be introduced would broaden the tax base and increase the revenues. And that needs some waiting. We presume the reforms should begin now with the Central Board of Revenue which has been dubbed by the World Bank as the most corrupt organization in Pakistan along with WAPDA and KESC?

Can we reform the CBR to the extent that much of the 40 to 50 per cent revenues lost through corruption, as asserted by Mr Shahid Hussain, former vice-president of the World Bank, could be checked over a two or three year period? If that could be done the provincial revenues too could be far higher.

But those in the CBR say the revenues could raise by 10 to 15 per cent if corruption is eradicated from the CBR and not far more. What matters in this regard is not the promise or projections of the government but real collection. The fact is that as long as the taxes are high and varied, and the cumulative impact of the taxation is heavy there will be evasion and the taxation officers and the tax payers will share the rewards of large scale evasion.

So the Singapore government has decided to bring down corporate and personal taxation to 20 per cent within three years from the current level of 26 per cent. But our corporate taxation is 35 per cent and so is the personal taxation which need reduction if investment is to be promoted and industrialization accelerated.

CROWN Prince Abdullah’s unusual announcement of his plan for resolving the crisis in the Middle East centring around full normalization of relations between the Arab countries and Israel in exchange for withdrawal from all the occupied territories including East Jerusalem, has been welcomed in western capitals and the press.

Saudi Arabia and its leadership, enveloped as it is in a fog of misperception, deserves a fair deal in getting across its message to a peace-loving global audience. As one who has carried out his ambassadorial mission in Saudi Arabia for five years and had a lifelong involvement in the Middle East, I was agreeably surprised by the unambiguity of the peace initiative conveyed by a key figure in a country known for nuances in utterances and disinclination toward headline seeking publicity.

The Saudi peace initiative did not have an easy take-off and some time had to elapse before it gained momentum. It was endorsed by the Arab summit in Beirut which was eclipsed by the non-participation of Chairman Arafat, who was detained in Ramallah by the Israeli government. It elicited a favourable response from President Bush and has provided the basis for a joint strategy worked out by him and Prince Abdullah during their recent talks in Texas.

President Bush was struck by the sincerity of the prince as a peacemaker and recognized his pivotal role in launching the peace process. Sharing of burdens has been agreed upon among themselves in resolving the Middle East impasse with Bush leaning on Prime Minister Sharon during his visit to Washington and Abdullah exercising his persuasive powers with Arafat and other Arab leaders. The key elements in the peace strategy are a ceasefire, a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Palestinian areas and the convening of a Middle East conference by the US, Russia, European Community and the United Nations. The most critical problem in arriving at a peaceful settlement is the dismantling of Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian territory.

Saudi Arabia is visibly stirring itself into a constructive phase of diplomacy and it is worthwhile to get acquainted with the salient traits of the personality of its Crown Prince. To the outside world, he is largely unknown and remains somewhat wrapped in mystery.

In candid and wide-ranging talks with the Prince, I came to know him at a personal level through the lucky break provided by touching the right chord in him. Despite our different backgrounds, he exercised a gravitational pull on me by the depth of his emotions and sensitivity to the dictates of conscience. He is quintessentially an authentic figure rooted in his native soil. He is a robust nationalist and seeks peace with justice. He has not studied or lived abroad.

He is imbued with powerful emotions and makes no attempt to conceal them. In striking contrast to posturing politicians, he shuns manipulative use of emotions and utilizes them for rational choices. For him, reason is a regulator but not an annihilator of emotions and aided by a moral compass, steers them into productive channels.

He has to be understood within the framework of Islamic ethos and the environment in which he is exercising authority as distinct from power. Seen in that context, he is a tough-minded pragmatist, ‘turning away from abstractions and insufficiency, and towards facts and action.’ The quintessential Islam for him requires a balance between material and ethical dimensions. He will gladly endorse the Aristotelian doctrine of the golden mean, with virtue as the midway point between two ‘extremes’.

For him, ‘exclusivist interpretations of the Quran... that employ a rhetoric of hate and violence to attain goals are outdated in a global society in which relations between different peoples are best fostered on the basis of equality and mutual respect — a basic principle underlying the Quranic worldview.’

Crown Prince Abdullah is in is seventies, a stage in life when power-wielders have a discernible tendency towards long walks in the memory lane closing their minds. Such ego-centred leaders invoke the past to refurbish their credentials but are reluctant to act as a catalyst here and now in solving long-standing disputes which will brighten prospects for succeeding generations.

While taking legitimate pride in his Islamic credentials, he has no hesitation in saying that ‘we do not reject or hate the Israelis’, which brings to mind the elevated prose of Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil war, ‘We are not enemies but friends. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.’

The journey from the Arab summit in Khartoum in August 1966, stipulating no peace with Israel, no recognition, no negotiations to the Arab summit in Beirut on March 27 this year, where Abdullah launched his plan for establishing complete normal relations with an Israel that has withdrawn from all the occupied territories, has the making of a milestone. Faced with a courageous move from what is regarded in western circles, as the citadel of orthodoxy and conservatism in the Arab world, it is incumbent on the United States with the participation of the European community and Russia, to take a sustainable initiative targeted at the establishment of a viable Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel.

With the rising younger generation in the Middle East, watching a round-the-clock dance of death on the televised screens and continually fed upon a diet of hatred and revenge, the primeval roots of cycles of terrorism in history, the international community will be abdicating its responsibilities to halt the plunge of two gifted communities into immutable hostility and to usher in an era of enduring peace and reconciliation in a region psychologically depleted and scarred by insensate violence. ‘Man’s reach should exceed his grasp or what is heaven for?’ wrote the English poet Robert Browning.

I RARELY write a serious column, but warning — this is one of them.

Not only little Catholic boys, but also little boys of other faiths have been molested — not by priests, but rather by civilian pedophiles in the land.

There are thousands, no, possibly millions of men who, as children, were victims of sexual abuse. The majority never told anyone because they were so ashamed.

This is why I am coming out of the closet. I confess that as a child I was a victim of molestation, and it has left its mark on me.

I was 13 years old at the time and lived in Queens, N.Y. One Saturday I decided to visit a friend, Bill Mahler, at a prep school in Lawrenceville, N.J.

My means of transportation at that time was hitchhiking. The route I took was U.S. Highway 1.

After several short lifts, I was picked up by a man in a Chevrolet. I remember every moment of that trip to this day.

The man was well dressed and wore a sports jacket, shirt and tie. He was very friendly. He asked where I went to school, what sports I liked — and then he asked if I was interested in girls.

I said I was and he started to tell me a very erotic story. As he went into details, I became aroused. Then he put his hand on me.

I didn’t know what to do. Fortunately, U.S. 1 had traffic lights, and as soon as we stopped for a red light I jumped out of the car.

I ran into the woods and hid there for an hour, expecting him to find me.

I didn’t know what I had done, or why he had done what he had done, but my instinct told me this was not an ordinary ride.

Years went by and I never told anyone about the experience.

The only other time I was molested was as a 20-year-old Marine. I was on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific. The air raid siren sounded and I ducked into a space that could only hold two men. The other person was a Marine master sergeant. I couldn’t believe it, but he tried to kiss me. I fought for my life and finally escaped.

It was the most discouraging moment of my life in the Marine Corps. Whoever thought a Marine — a sergeant no less — would want to kiss another Marine on the lips?

I confess this now because I know there are so many people out there with similar experiences.

It is OK to advocate zero tolerance for priests when it comes to sexual abuse of children — but what about the rest of us? —Dawn/Tribune Media Services

THE Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, was in Washington while this was being written. His visit was preceded by unabashedly pro-Israel resolutions overwhelmingly adopted by the two houses of the United States Congress. The resolutions were approved on the same day as the New York-based Human Rights Watch said Israeli troops might have been guilty of war crimes in Jenin.

It is believed that the Bush administration had persuaded the prime movers of the resolutions in the Senate and the House of Representatives to postpone their moves till President Bush had met Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah and some agreement had been worked out to lift the siege of Ramallah and Israeli forces had withdrawn from Jenin. But the substance of the resolutions basically reflected the position adopted by the Bush administration itself, a position slightly modified only when Israeli actions in Jenin and Ramallah became totally indefensible. Crown Prince Abdullah made no public threats; he was cool, but correct , and his entire demeanour left no doubt in Mr Bush’s mind that the support of the so-called moderate Arab states could not be taken for granted, and this too might have influenced the administration.

The House resolution was passed by a vote of 352 to 21. The Senate resolution, among whose sponsors was Senator Joseph Lieberman, Mr Gore’s vice-presidential running mate in the elections of 2000, was adopted by a vote of 94 in favour with two opposed. There was no reference in the resolutions to the Israeli occupation of Arab lands or of the ever-expanding Israeli settlements. Israel was described as America’s ally in the “war on terrorism”, thus equating Palestinians with terrorists. In the House resolution, Arafat was dismissed as not being a “viable partner for peace”.

Mr Bush has said the same thing in another way: he has described Mr Sharon, whom the Arabs and many others consider to be a war criminal for the Sabra and Shatila massacres, as a “man of peace”, thus by implication calling Yasser Arafat a man of violence. The US president has so far refused even to consider the idea of meeting Arafat.

Apart from the resolutions adopted by the two houses of Congress, the leader of the Republican Party in the House, Dick Armey, said in a television interview on May 1 that he favoured Israeli annexation of the entire West Bank and for its Palestinian inhabitants to leave. When a reporter referred to this at a White House briefing as a proposal to ethnically cleanse Palestinians, press spokesman Ari Fleischer seemed visibly displeased.

The resolutions in Congress reflect the influence of the Zionist lobby. But they may go beyond that. A left-wing commentator says they also “underscore a political phenomenon of major significance, the increasingly open alliance of Israel and its American Zionist supporters with the Christian fundamentalist right”.

Needless to say, the creed of the “Christian fundamentalist right” is in full cry these days, inspired by the evangelist zeal of the president himself and the leadership of the Republican Party. Greater praise, therefore, to the few voices that were raised in opposition in Congress during the debate on the pro-Israeli resolutions.

Rep. Nick Rahall (Democrat) said: “Mr Speaker, here we go again. Here we go again. How many times has this body passed resolutions of this nature that are so unbalanced, so one-sided, that we become the laughing stock of the world? How many times have we passed resolutions of this nature? Do we have peace today? Do we have peace today? I support the state of Israel. I do not support the brutal humiliating policies of Ariel Sharon... Yes, Israel is our ally... But... we need other allies in the region as well ... The important question that we must ask is how Israel must protect itself. The first step is to acknowledge its role in creating the violent conditions in the region. The time has come to stop blaming everything on Arafat.

“Continued humiliation is not the solution. This is the method of operation of bullies, not of those who want to return to the peace process, to the negotiating table.

“The bottom line is we cannot dispossess a people and then attempt to govern them by occupying their land, by forcing them to subsist in refugee camps, by blocking roadways to their jobs, by refusing access to medical attention, by cutting them off from their schools and universities, and by discounting their humanity. This is not the roadway to peace.”

Rep. John Dingall (D): “Today we are debating yet another irresponsible Congressional resolution that does absolutely nothing to help end the violence that plagues the Israeli and Palestinian people. I rise in opposition to this resolution, which at a very delicate time undermines the Bush administration’s efforts to ease tensions, end violence, and bring about a fair peace that will be acceptable and beneficial to Israelis and Palestinians. This resolution sends exactly the wrong signal at this perilous time. It will only further fan the flames of violence, increase regional instability, and compromises our war on terrorism.”

Rep. David Bonior (D): “... this resolution blindly supports Israel’s actions against the Palestinians and wholly denies the generations of suffering of the Palestinian people. This would be wrong at any time, but in light of what has happened in Jenin, Bethlehem, Ramallah, Haifa, Jerusalem, Netanya — what continues to happen — this resolution is dangerous. Like most Americans, I support Israel. However, also just like most Americans, I do not support — and will not support — all Israeli policies. ... Where is the language (in the resolution) about well over a thousand Palestinians killed in the last 19 months — bodies found under the rubble? Where is the language about the thousands made homeless by the bulldozers in Jenin alone?”

Senator Robert Byrd (D): “Nowhere in this resolution is Israel called upon to fulfil its role in working for peace in the Middle East. This resolution condemns the Palestinian suicide bombings, demands that the Palestinian Authority dismantle the terrorist infrastructure in Palestinian areas, and urges all Arab states to act in concert with the US to stop the violence. Where are the demands that Israel withdraw from Palestinian lands and cooperate in the establishment of a Palestinian state? Where is the denunciation of the destruction of homes and water lines and roads and basic infrastructure?”

These are isolated voices. The mainstream media and official pronouncements continue to daily bombard the senses with totally prejudiced, one-sided and superficial views, and not having to live with such views all the time and to report on them makes the prospect of returning to Pakistan (soon) even more pleasurable (although there you will no doubt have to reckon with a daily chauvinistic dose of another kind).