| October 17, 2002 | Thursday | Sha'aban 10, 1423 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Terror’s new target?
Another oil price jolt
GIVEN the sharp political differences between the top three parties that have come out the winners in the election, one should not be surprised if government-making takes time. The parties are bargaining, probing each other’s minds and assessing their own chances. However, two points stand out. First, there will have to be coalition governments in Islamabad and the provinces (except perhaps the NWFP). Second, the parties that will control the federal government may not necessarily be those that will run all or most of the four provinces. Thus, by the very nature of a hung parliament and the split mandates in the provinces, the coalition governments that are formed will be required to show a spirit of mutual accommodation and compromise.
While the causes of the failure of democratic governments between 1988 and 1999 are many and complex, one major factor was the ruling parties’ failure to adhere to the norms and restraints of a federal system of government. The federal form is unavoidable in the case of Pakistan because of the country’s multi-ethnic and multi-cultural character. A federation sustains itself by protecting and promoting the economic and cultural rights and interests of its constituent units; failure to do so not only retards socio-economic progress, it also militates against the growth and consolidation of democratic institutions. Seen against this backdrop, successive governments have shown themselves incapable of grasping the imperatives of federalism and sticking to these as part of the working norms. For instance, after the 1988 election, the PPP formed the government at the centre while Punjab went to Mr Nawaz Sharif’s PML. This should not have been the calamity that it turned out to be had the Punjab government not adopted an outright confrontationist posture towards the federal government. The sorry spectacle was repeated after the 1993 election, when a fierce tussle between the ruling PPP and the rival PML(N) developed over the control of the Punjab government, pitting the federal Rangers and the police on opposite sides. The overall result of these clashes and squabbling was to provide space for interventionist forces.
Federalism presupposes pluralism and coexistence in a manner and spirit so that party interests do not come into clash with those of the nation or of democracy itself. There is no room for unilateralism or a maximalist approach in a federal scheme of things. Whatever the political make-up of one government, the other four must realize that they have to work with it because, like them, it, too, represents the people’s will. Similarly, any attempt by the federal government to unfairly obstruct a provincial regime of another party or alliance, or to try to topple it by unconstitutional means would be suicidal for both federalism and democracy.
The political parties carry the burden of the people’s expectations and trust. The mandate to govern presupposes respect for democratic norms, one of the most important one being federalism. This problem has plagued us ever since the creation of the country and led to the breakaway of East Pakistan in 1971. We have enough examples now to learn a lesson from.
THE three parcel bomb blasts in Karachi yesterday, injuring half a dozen people, could mark a new trend in terrorist activities. Two of the blasts occurred in police establishments, including a CID office dealing with Al Qaeda, and the third in the provincial home department. If it is established that these were terrorist acts, then the message is clear: from attacking foreigners, foreign installations and minority institutions, the terrorists are now contemplating targeting and intimidating police and government agencies. The aim is obviously to force the authorities to relent on their hunt for domestic terrorists and Al Qaeda or Taliban fugitives from Afghanistan. According to one report, Karachi Jail has been receiving threatening telephone calls asking for the release and better treatment of those held there on charges of terrorism. The blasts happened in the course of an hour, showing meticulous planning, and within a radius of about two kilometres. All the parcels were reportedly hand-delivered. Apparently, the police were not able to alert all their offices after the first bomb went off. But it is said that the third parcel bomb was opened in the presence of the courier service man who delivered it and who was being questioned. Based on his information, another parcel bomb was destroyed.
The timing of the blasts seems significant. They have come immediately in the wake of general elections, and could be the first salvo directed at the future civilian government. The religious parties, capitalizing on public sentiment against the US-led war in Afghanistan, have scored electoral gains, and are expected to lead governments in at least two provinces while exercising considerable influence at the federal level. The new incidents of violence can only be meant to embarrass them at a time when some of them have been seeking to assure the people and the world outside that they do not subscribe to extremist politics. It could also be a warning to them not to compromise. As usual, the police have been caught off guard, and their inability to get to the root of many terrorist and sectarian acts has again been underlined. They are still waffling about the last incident when seven people were killed in cold bold in the Karachi office of an NGO run by the Christian community. The police need to shed some flab and wake up to the dangers lurking around.
WITH the general elections out of the way, the oil companies advisory committee (OCAC) has increased the prices of all petroleum products by 2.50 to 5.32 per cent. The biggest increase is in the price of light diesel. During the previous two fortnights the prices were slightly reduced by cutting down the development levy in order to create a favourable impact on voters. The prices have now been increased to recover the revenue losses caused by earlier reductions and by the strengthening of the rupee against the dollar. However, the OCAC attributes the increase to the volatile situation in the Middle East which had the highest impact on the price of diesel. Because petroleum and its products are strategic to all economic activity, a price hike affecting a whole range of services and commodities is now likely. The incoming government will have to contend with this added legacy left by the present administration.
It would be easy for the government, if it realizes the centrality of energy products for the economy, to keep prices of petroleum products internally stable through adjustments in taxes. At present, these taxes comprise 50 per cent or more of prices of all petroleum products. The government need not treat POL products as purely a convenient source of revenue but should regard them as the key input for the economy. Already, electricity, mostly thermal, is more expensive in Pakistan as compared with neighbouring countries which are our serious competitors in the international market. Transport is also expensive and fares and freight may rise further. It is time policy-makers considered stabilizing prices of POL products for at least three months through tax adjustments. The government has set up an Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority which is supposed to protect the interests of consumers and investors. It has been prevented from becoming operational by withholding nomination of its members. This gives a free hand to the ministry of natural resources and the oil companies to determine the prices of petroleum products arbitrarily.