Micro-finance an effective poverty alleviation tool: Sehba

More than a billion people today are living below the poverty line with less than $1 a day in the world. The year 2005 has been declared the “Year of Micro-Finance” moving the nations of the world towards the target year of 2015 by which time poverty would be reduced and half a billion of the poor would be made able to earn a minimum of $1 a day.

Micro-credit is now recognized worldwide as a powerful tool that can reduce poverty and reach 100 million of the world’s poorest families, specially women, by the year 2005. As compared to some countries in the region, like Bangladesh, which has become a role-model for other Third World countries, Pakistan is now recognized as the ‘third generation micro-financing’ country internationally.

Pakistan for the first time was invited at a high-level international meeting on the subject. The First Lady of Pakistan, Begum Sehba Musharraf, as the chairperson of the Regional Steering Committee, Asia-Pacific (RSC-AP) for the Economic Advancement of Rural and Island Women, attended the Micro-credit Summit+5, in New York from November 10 to 13. In her first ever interview to any newspaper in Pakistan, she documented her experiences and views on the summit with Dawn at the Army House in Rawalpindi. The following are the excerpts of her exclusive interview to Dawn.

“The summit provided an opportunity for Pakistan to find its footing on the global map of micro-finance,” Begum Sehba said while relating her “positive experience” that gave her an opportunity to interact at the highest level with more than 2,000 representatives from 110 countries in the summit.

The summit was first held in 1998, in which Pakistan was not a participant, although other neighbouring countries like India, Bangladesh and Nepal had been invited. It goes to her credit that Pakistan was not only invited to the conference, but Begum Musharraf presided over the event as well.

“Participation in such summits and conferences is seen, internationally, as an essential indicator of a living and active nation. What we really need is to get donors re-focus their priorities to lend it support,” she adds.

Micro-finance is a very powerful poverty alleviation tool. In Pakistan, the sector is small and needs to be built up, she observes.

“Keeping in mind the lessons learnt from the original and second generation models we devised a ‘third generation’ model on a multi-pronged holistic approach. As a result Pakistan is now internationally accepted as a ‘third generation’ micro-finance country,” she maintains.

As the access to micro-credit schemes is very limited, how will women from the far-flung areas benefit? The First Lady expects that “the holistic approach of having the Poverty Alleviation Fund, as an umbrella fund for NGOs; the National Rural Support Programme (NRSP) as a grass-roots network to organize the poor to receive the credit, get training to use the credit better and produce better products to their financial advantage and gain market access; and the Khushali Bank as the organized and secure micro-finance organization, all working under a regulatory framework we hope to make it workable to a wider community.”

Does she see women’s economic empowerment instrumental in gaining political empowerment for them?

“If women’s political leadership focuses on poverty alleviation using micro-credit as a tool we can have women’s economic empowerment just as we have their political empowerment with more than 40,000 elected women at all the three tiers of governance.”

As chairperson of RSC-AP, she feels committed to assisting women. “If I come across something in the media or something comes to my knowledge in which I feel some woman is not being treated fairly I make it a point to bring it to the notice of my husband.”

How can the first ladies together make a difference? “Leadership makes a difference,” was her immediate response. “They can intimidate the head of the government and certainly make a difference, tap assistance and resources as much as they can.”

As chairperson of RAC-AP, how does she plan to coordinate with other first ladies? “We had planned to hold a summit last year, but it was postponed due to 9/11. A summit is now scheduled for September next year,” she said.

She cherishes her short stint as an educationist when she was the principal of Army Public School, Kharian. “I wanted to make a contribution that was far reaching and helpful for the community.”

Dead against the system of learning by heart, she wanted to change the syllabus. “My aim was to emphasize on self expression so that the child is able to articulate in his own words in both the languages. In this day and age of information technology when independent thinking and critical analysis are so essential.”

“With the help of the wives of the army officers we reviewed and updated the curriculum. From the dull drab books we worked out a syllabus that was colourful, cost-effective and well presented.”

Finally the GHQ was asked to disseminate it as the standard syllabus and textbooks were ordered and substituted in all army schools.

Instinctively sympathetic to issues related to women, she believes “women empathize more than men.” She expresses her disappointment at the misconceptions about Pakistani women and blames media for projecting a negative portrayal.

She feels very strongly towards the women of this country and believes that they should never think of themselves any less. “We have confidence in ourselves. We have to be aware of whatever potential we have and how to garner the resources according to whatever talent or skills we have. Anything can be achieved.”

“We must capitalize on our inherent strength. Our women are so hard working and steadfast. All they need is opportunity.”— Huma Khawar

New realities of a changing relationship

WASHINGTON: Pakistan is once again drawing a lot of attention in the United States, most of it negative. The media has begun to question its commitment to fight terrorism. A congressman is moving a bill in the House of Representatives, urging it to re-impose sanctions on Pakistan and claims that 30 other congressmen also support his move.

External pressure is also having an impact. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent statement that Pakistan is not capable of protecting its nuclear weapons received wide coverage in the American media, creating concerns about Pakistan’s nuclear programme.

Putin’s statement comes at a time when the American press is already blaming Pakistan for sharing nuclear technology with North Korea in return for Korean missiles. Even Pakistan’s strong denial has not suppressed “informed” speculations in the media about Islamabad’s alleged nuclear ties with Pyongyang.

India’s relentless propaganda that Pakistan is still sending militants into the Indian-held Kashmir is also eroding Islamabad’s image in Washington.

And the situation inside the country is not helping either. The MMA’s strong presence in the National and NWFP assemblies after the Oct 10 election had an unsettling effect on the United States. Pakistan’s efforts to present the MMA as a force that can be co-opted in the mainstream does not sound very convincing to the Americans when MMA leaders regularly issue anti-US statements.

There seems to be no realization in Pakistan that its uneven friendship with the world’s sole superpower is passing through a critical stage. Although the US government still considers Pakistan a key ally in the war against terrorism, the media and other instruments play a key role in shaping policies in a democratic dispensation.

Pakistan’s public image has already changed drastically since Sept 11, 2001, when Islamabad dumped its Taliban allies and offered military bases to the United States for operations inside Afghanistan. What Islamabad faces in Washington now are the new realities of a changing relationship. It is not a coincidence that when an Israeli hotel was bombed in Kenya last week, Pakistanis were among the first suspects to be arrested. When France launched a campaign against Al Qaeda suspects, there were several Pakistanis among those held.

Although the Pakistanis were later released, the move indicates another sad aspect of Pakistan’s worsening image in the West. Officially, Pakistan is not on the list of the countries classified as “sponsors of terrorism” by the US State Department. Unofficially, whenever a terrorist attack takes places somewhere in the world, Pakistanis are automatically seen as suspects.

Reports in the US media — including such mainstream newspapers as The New York Times and The Washington Post — often claims that people within the Pakistan government, particularly the ISI, still sympathize with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Pakistan’s denials are not always carried.

While the State Department says that there are no religious extremists in the new government in Pakistan, newspapers and television channels never tire of pointing out that the MMA controls a key province like the NWFP and can force the fragile central government to share power with it in Islamabad as well.

In a recent article, prominent journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave said that there were “several Taliban tutors” among the MMA parliamentarians. In another article, he complained that “friends and protectors” of Osama bin Laden were back in business “under the watchful eyes of President Pervez Musharraf”.

Pulitzer prize winning NYT columnist Tom Friedman recently expressed frustration at the Bush administration’s continued support to Pakistan. He wrote: “Pakistan has a nuclear bomb. Al Qaeda is full of Pakistanis and Saudis and they get visits to the White House.”

On Oct 24, Washington Post’s two-time Pulitzer prize winner Jim Hoagland called Pakistan “the most dangerous place on earth today”.

He wrote: “Pakistan’s role as a clandestine supplier shatters the Bush administration’s efforts to paint that country as a flawed but well-meaning member of the coalition against terror. Pakistan today is the most dangerous place on Earth, in large part because the (Bush) administration does not understand the forces it is dealing with there and has no policy to contain them.”

Since September this year, when the NYT first reported alleged nuclear links between Pakistan and North Korea, the attacks on Pakistan have increased.

Is this kind of democracy worth saving?

THE imposing National Assembly building in the heart of the Capital has a dismal track record: no elected government nor parliament has ever been able to complete its full five-year term in office since the building was inaugurated and occupied by the Junejo government in 1986.

This time round, many a newly-elected parliamentarian at the Centre and in the provinces, both from the treasury benches and the opposition, has expressed his commitment to save, at all costs, democracy from being truncated again.

This commitment was heard off and on during the month-long process of government formation at the Centre and when Prime Minister Jamali’s PML-Q-led coalition government finally came into being with only a single vote majority in the National Assembly, 10 of which came from a last-minute defection from the People’s Party Parliamentarians (PPP), who said they defected to save democracy.

The coalition government’s fragility was exposed much sooner than was expected when the 17-MNA-strong Muttahida Qaumi Movement announced its withdrawal of support for Prime Minister Jamali’s government at the Centre, as well as for the PML-Q’s effort to form a provincial government in Sindh, just four days after the prime minister and his 21-member cabinet took office.

This has naturally led to renewed political manoeuvrings at the Centre as the PML-Q tries to muster support from elsewhere, notably the religious alliance, the MMA, to replace the loss of support from the MQM’s 17 MNAs or tries to regain the MQM’s support before the two-months period expires during which time the prime minister has to seek a vote of confidence in the National Assembly. This, in effect, means the establishment will be dangling out more carrots (read: cabinet positions and freedom from NAB) to entice individual MNAs, and preferably the MMA as a whole, to join Prime Minister Jamali’s coalition government. This is probably why a second batch of names for the cabinet is expected to be announced at a later date.

The MQM is not the only group that Prime Minister Jamali has to contend with. Theoretically, the survival of Jamali’s government will be threatened by the numerous coalition partners, who can withdraw or threaten to withdraw support in order to extract benefits from it, particularly at crucial times like before a confidence vote.

But it is not only the coalition parties that can pose problems for the Jamali government. It looks like the prime minister cannot even take the support of all the MNAs within his own party, the PML-Q, or for that matter within the Grand National Alliance, for granted. Reports are already rife of differences within the PML-Q leadership and worse, of a forward bloc emerging within the PML-Q that may defect to the opposition, leaving the ruling coalition with fewer votes in parliament.

Such defections have become commonplace since President Musharraf’s roadmap for democracy was charted out and the promised elections took place. The political landscape in the country has been fragmenting into one party faction after another and, more recently, these are splintering further into forward blocs. MNAs and MPAs are being coerced through NAB and / or encouraged through rewards to join the establishment party or defect from their original party even after being elected on the latter’s ticket. The aim seems to be to keep all parties weak and the PML-Q on the leash.

Is this kind of democracy that is emerging after three years of military rule worth saving from another shock? What kind of democracy is it where governments at the Centre and provinces are being formed not on the basis of the Oct 10 election results but on the basis of post-election political manoeuvrings?

Take, for instance, the behaviour of the MMA. It did not vote for the PML-Q’s Jamali leadership at the Centre, where it was originally poised to head the opposition until recently. Similarly, in the Punjab Assembly the nine MPAs of the MMA did not vote for the PML-Q candidate for chief ministership, arguing that the PML-Q supports a president in uniform. But in the Balochistan Assembly, the MMA’s MPAs had no qualms about voting in as chief minister the PML-Q candidate. The MMA’s cooperation with the PML-Q in forming a government in Balochistan puts it in the same category as the PPP forward bloc members: the MMA had also put in its lot with the PML-Q in Balochistan after two of its members were released by NAB, throwing its vociferous demands regarding the National Security Council, LFO and Article 58-2(b) to the wind.

What kind of democracy is it where the MNAs and MPAs care two hoots for parliamentary norms and rules? Obvious examples were evident in the opening sessions of the Punjab and NWFP Assemblies last week, during which two major parliamentary violations were simply swept under the carpet: one, the sessions to elect the leader of the two assemblies were convened by the president instead of by the governor as it is provided for under the 1973 Constitution; and, second, copies of the constitution provided to the MPAs under which they took the oath of office contained the LFO as part of the document, although the LFO has not been made part of the Constitution yet, as per the constitutionally-required procedure of a two-thirds majority vote in parliament. A few MPAs feebly raised their voice against the blatant violations, and even staged a walkout, but only to sit back down again in quiet resignation when the majority was not bothered by the violations.

Is this the kind of democracy that the parliamentarians have been saying they are trying to save? Is this the kind of democracy really worth sustaining at all? Why is it that Pakistan has been given the choice of either this kind of democracy or no democracy at all?

Democracy is not an end in itself to be achieved at any cost — moral, constitutional and legal. The civilian political arrangement that is in place now is not the be-all and end-all of democracy. Democracy is only a means towards the end of good governance for the people. If the civilian political setup exists only for the sake of itself and it is not a vehicle for good governance, then it really is not a democracy at all.

The question is, can a government brought into power through political manoeuvring and whose constant preoccupation is further political manoeuvring to save itself from collapse — either by withdrawal of support from a coalition partner or a presidential invocation of Article 58-2(b) — be in any position to act like a democratic government should act and deliver good governance for the people and the country?

Pushing Sindh towards crisis

HILAL-I-PAKISTAN writes that the inaugural session of the Sindh Assembly has been postponed for the second time — this time for an indefinite period. According to a government statement, the step has been taken on a request by some political parties to lend them time to hold talks on the formation of a government in the province. However, according to informed circles, the assembly session was postponed on the request of Dr Arbab Ghulam Rahim, the Grand National Alliance candidate for the slot of chief minister, to allow him an opportunity to muster support of other groups / individuals to obtain the required majority.

In the Sindh Assembly the GNA has 14 seats, and its ally Pakistan Muslim League-Q 15. Even if we ignore the statement of Sindh PML-Q chief Ghous Bux Maher that Dr Rahim is not the consensus candidate of the two groups, the number of combined seats of the GNA and the PML-Q stands at 29, whereas the People’s Party Parliamentarians has 67 and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement 41 seats. Then the independent members have a couple of seats, the Mohajir Qaumi Movement one, the PML-F 13 and the Muttahida Majlis- i-Amal 10 seats in the 168-member House, five of whose members, who had also been elected MNAs, had quit their PA seats for joining the National Assembly.

How strange that the assembly session has been postponed on the request of the leader of a minority group whereas the majority party in the Sindh Assembly, the PPP, and the second largest party, the MQM, had not made any request in this regard! Before the postponement of the session, different parties had conducted negotiations on the formation of a government, and the PPP and the MMA had even reached an agreement.

On the other hand, the MQM has declared that it would sit on the opposition benches and its members would not vote in the election for the office of chief minister. After this development, PML-F chief Pir Pagara has announced his party will back the PPP, and that final touches are being given to an agreement between the two parties.

In these circumstances it seems that the Sindh Assembly session has been postponed to only prevent the PPP from forming a government because its position has improved after getting the support of the PML-F and the MMA. Even if the government succeeds in reconciling the MQM, it will not give the alliance of the GNA, the PML-Q and the MQM a simple majority. Hence the rumours that the PPP forward bloc leader Faisal Saleh Hayat has arrived in Karachi on a mission to create a forward bloc in the Sindh PPP, as he has already done at the central level.

As the situation does not augur well for newly-born democracy, the government is advised to review its strategy and convene the session of the Provincial Assembly immediately. Likewise, it should give an equal opportunity to all parties to prove their majority. If the parties opposed to the government are able to show the required majority, they should be allowed to form a government. Only in this way Sindh can be saved from a constitutional crisis. It will be senseless to push the sensitive province towards a constitutional crisis for the sake of an individual (Dr Rahim).

Kawish says that the tremor of the Sindh crisis has also been felt at Islamabad as the 16-member MQM has withdrawn its support to the government of Mir Zafarullah Jamali, which is based on a one-vote majority. To regain the MQM’s crucial support, the prime minister has talked to Altaf Hussain by telephone and offered his party three federal ministries. PML-Q parliamentary party chief Chauhdhry Shujaat Hussain has met Maulana Fazlur Rahman to muster the MMA’s support for the fragile Jamali government.

Sooner or later, this was bound to happen with a government formed through a process of forced majority and defections. Efforts are under way to resolve the artificial crisis in Sindh and end the instability at the Centre in an administrative, and not political, way. This may benefit a certain party for the time being but it is bound to prove harmful for the democratic process in the long run.

Tameer-i-Sindh writes that the Musharraf government had pledged that it would not allow the assemblies to become a marketplace and no assembly member would be allowed to change his loyalty. Contrary to the claim, the anti-floor-crossing articles of the Constitution remain suspended and the MNAs and MPAs are being tempted to betray their parties by being asked to act according to the “voice of their conscience”. In this way, the trend of lotacracy is being encouraged under the patronage of the government. Is this “real democracy” President Gen Pervez Musharraf had been talking about?

Awami Awaz deplores that though the construction of the Chotyariyoon Dam has been completed, the people displaced by the project have not yet been rehabilitated. Neither a proper survey of the displaced families has been conducted nor have the displaced people been paid any compensation. Owing to the construction of the dam in the Sanghar district, 992 families of seven dehs have been displaced but the authorities concerned have included only 399 families in the list of the displaced families. The survey should be conducted again and all the displaced families should be rehabilitated and paid compensation immediately.

Sach writes that the provincial government has failed to press the owners of the sugar mills of Sindh to start the crushing season which, according to the government notification, should have been done on Nov 15. Owing to the inordinate delay, millions of tons of sugarcane, standing on 900,000 acres, is being dried up. If the situation is not redeemed, the growers may feel compelled to stop sugarcane cultivation next year. The government must take immediate steps to resolve the problem.