| June 17, 2003 | Tuesday | Rabi-us-Sani 16, 1424 |
MMA can’t have its cake and eat it
When the truth will out, Bush’d better watch out
Sindh’s demand for Rs200m
LFO likely to stay
KARACHI: Pakistan has been plunged into its present crisis of polarization because of Gen Pervez Musharraf’s declared intent to keep the two mainstream political parties led by Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif out of power. The MMA is trying to exploit the situation by trying to have its cake and eat it too. But in the end no one may get a slice.
ALTHOUGH the budget 2003-2004 is the first presented in the National Assembly after four years, it bears features similar to the outgoing 2002-2003 (revised) budget. One of these is that the 10 per cent cut in debt servicing as a percentage of total expenditure, which first appeared in 2002-2003, has been maintained in the 2003-2004 estimated budget.
Debt servicing is 31.78 per cent (Rs255,968m) of the total expenditure, which is about the same as that in 2002-2003, — 31.98 per cent (Rs257,434m). In contrast, debt servicing was 41.39 per cent (Rs320,114m) and 45.10 per cent (Rs308,102m) of the total expenditure in 2001-2002 and 2000-2001 respectively.
The 10 per cent (Rs62,600m) reduction in debt servicing from fiscal year 2001-2002 to 2002-2003 is probably due to the $1 billion debt cancellation by the US and the $47.9m debt waives-off by the Paris Club creditors, Denmark and Commonwealth Development Corporation of UK. When this debt write-off and waives-off were granted — after Pakistan’s cooperation with the West in post-September 11, which included taking a U-turn on its Afghanistan policy — there were criticisms within the country that Pakistan could have bargained for much more.
Some analysts are viewing with apprehension the recent reports that Pakistan is now asking the US to write-off a further $1.8 billion debt. They wonder if Pakistan can get another debt write- off without making another major compromise on its policies.
Another feature of the 2003-2004 estimated budget, which is similar to the outgoing 2002-2003 (revised) budget is that the drop in dependence on external resources for financing the country’s budget has been maintained. In 2003-2004, external resources make up 20.7 per cent of the total resources, and in 2002-2003, 20.4 per cent of the total resources. This is a 22 per cent drop from the previous year (2001-2002) in which external resources comprised 42.95 per cent of the total resources. In 2000-2001, external resources were 30.05 per cent of the total resources.
Some analysts are apprehensive about recent reports that Pakistan may soon be getting more foreign aid from the US totalling between $4 and $6.2 billion. Such continued foreign borrowing could nullify the progress made so far on reducing Pakistan’s debt servicing expenditure.
Apprehension about such loans has also been raised because of complaints that donor agencies usually dictate what projects or programmes the loans should go into. Under the Public Sector Development Programme (2003-2004) for instance, the foreign aid component for the crucial education sector (Rs181m) is only a measly Rs50m more than the foreign aid component for population welfare (Rs131m).
One noticeable feature of the country’s budgets is the consistent defence spending as a percentage of total expenditure, regardless of the political atmosphere in South Asia. Defence spending was 19.3 per cent of total expenditure in 2000-2001, 19.61 per cent in 2001-2002 and 19.89 per cent in 2002-2003. It is 19.9 per cent in the 2003-2004 estimated budget, despite the fact that tension in South Asia has reduced considerably since last year.
In monetary terms, defence spending has actually seen a persistent increase since 2000-2001: it was Rs131,637m in 2000- 2001, Rs151,669m in 2001-2002, and Rs160,139m in 2002-2003. In the 2003-2004 estimated budget, defence spending is Rs160,250m.
In actual terms, the defence expenditure is probably even higher because of the fact that the salaries of many top-ranking in-service defence personnel are not reflected in defence spending but instead reflected in the civil administration expenditure. These include those defence personnel who are holding positions in civilian organizations like NAB, NRB, NHA, Wapda, etc.
Also, the increase in civil administration expenditure from Rs92,630m in 2002-2003 to Rs100,569m in the 2003-2004 estimated budget does not seem to square with the government’s efforts at downsizing the bureaucracy. This is probably due to the pay rise granted to civil servants as well as to salary payments for serving defence personnel posted in civilian organizations.
Despite the drop in debt servicing spending, the fact remains that debt servicing and defence expenditure together make up over half (or 51.68 per cent to be exact) of the total expenditure in the 2003-2004 estimated budget. In 2002-2003, both comprised 51.87 per cent of the total expenditure. The increase in social service spending on the other hand can only be described as peanuts compared with the amount being spent on defence and debt servicing.
Consider the increase in allocation for social services under civil administration spending in 2003-2004, which is Rs2,777m from Rs13,625m in 2002-2003 to Rs16,402m in 2003-2004. Compare these figures of Rs2,777m, Rs13,625m and Rs16,402m with the whopping Rs160,250m allocated to defence spending or the Rs255,968m allocated to debt servicing. Even if, say, Rs5 billion could be each taken from defence and debt servicing expenditure and put into social services spending, imagine the difference this could make to the social services sector.
The increase in development budget of Rs28,357m (from Rs131,643m in 2002-2003 to Rs160,000m in 2003-2004) has only managed to bring development expenditure roughly on a par with defence spending, i.e., Rs160,000m and Rs160,250m respectively. Development expenditure has been lagging behind defence expenditure by Rs26 to Rs29 billion since 2000-2001.
But, the amount allocated for education and health under development expenditure (2003-2004) is again peanuts. For instance, the amount for education (not including higher education) is Rs3,107m while and that for population welfare is Rs3,115m. Considering the fact that education spending involves much higher structural costs in terms of schools, facilities and salaries for teachers, it is strange that the allocation for development spending on education is more or less the same as development spending on population welfare (read population control).
The amount allocated to development in population welfare in 2003-2004 also seems out of proportion compared with the amount allocated for development of health (Rs4,372m) and higher education (Rs4,477m) - both sectors involving high costs in terms of structures and facilities. In fact, the budgets that have been put into population welfare do not appear to be commensurate with the results achieved in this sector so far.
Finally, the 2003-2004 budget seems to lack emphasis on developing and improving two of the country’s most important assets: its manpower and labour, and its industries and production. Only Rs113m and Rs468m respectively have been allocated under the Public Sector Development Programme for these two sectors which are crucial for the development of Pakistan’s export industry, which in turn is undoubtedly the long term answer to the country’s debt problem.
The MMA had campaigned on anti-US slogans and enforcement of the Shariat. It now forms the government in the Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP) and shares power with the pro-Musharraf PML(Q) in Balochistan.
This is despite the fact that the MMA programme runs counter to President Musharraf’s pledges of reform which include promises to end religious extremism and promote moderate Islam. But it seems the general has opted to follow the path of his military predecessors, forging alliances of convenience with religious organizations to counter secular political adversaries. This arrangement seems to be under strain now.
The MMA’s anti-Musharraf rhetoric contrasts sharply with its earlier willingness to work with the PML-Q government. Initially, the alliance negotiated with the PML(Q) and the PPP to form the federal government. Its candidate for prime minister, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, won little support from either of them. The MMA then refused to support the PML-Q at the centre and in the Punjab Assembly while giving an assurance that it would not help the Bhutto or Sharif parties to destabilize the Jamali government.
But a new factor has been introduced by the recent action of the MMA-led government in the Frontier, and this appears to have made the federal government lose its cool. Threats have been hurled at the opposition, the most recent being Gen Musharraf’s criticism of attempts at Talibanization of Pakistani society.
The end of a government begins when the moral high ground it holds starts eroding. Then it becomes a government under siege and erects barricades to defend itself. Its attitude, which may be objective initially, automatically turns into a subjective one, aimed mainly at its own survival.
In Pakistan almost every government has been faced with this situation but no government has drawn the appropriate lessons. The structure of power which Gen Musharraf envisaged and imposed on the people of this country is today faced with a similar crisis. Perhaps the regime has not learnt from the mistakes committed by the Zulfikar Ali Bhutto government in bulldozing the provincial administrations in the NWFP and Balochistan.
MMA Chairman Maulana Shah Ahmad Noorani has reminded the regime of the consequences if the mistakes are repeated. Since the MMA has 70 seats in the National Assembly and 23 in the Senate, and also enjoys the support of PML(N) and PPP legislators, any federal government action against it would result in further cementing of the opposition’s unity.
It is generally accepted that only coalitions built on common objectives which reflect the aspirations of the people prove durable. There is a national consensus on democracy. Even those who promote a dictatorship or become lackeys of a dictator have to pay lip service to democracy. As a result of this broad consensus, political forces — including the religious parties which in the past always sided with the establishment — have shifted their loyalties to the democratic camp. There are, of course, differences in perceptions and clashing interests, and even those who make statements in its favour — like the PPP Parliamentarians and the PML(N) — are not sure whether the MMA has finally decided to adopt the role of a real democratic opposition or is simply playing the monkey with them and using them to pressure the general to come to terms with them.
It seems that the dilemma faced by the component parties of the MMA is that they are caught between their old association with the establishment and the pulls of democracy. The Shariat in the past provided them with a perfect camouflage for reaching an understanding with the establishment. But that was possible when the CIA also supported revivalist parties and promoted religious obscurantism. In the changed circumstances, this has become a liability of sorts for the establishment.
There is a perception also that the MMA raises the political temperature whenever Gen Musharraf is close to dealing with the Americans. Its anti-government and anti-American protests had helped Gen Musharraf portray himself as the sole and indispensable protector of American interests in Pakistan.
But the passing of the Shariat Bill in the NWFP has really embarrassed him, although it is a mere reiteration of constitutional provisions. The regime is now playing some of its last cards. The action in the Punjab Assembly was a message to the PPP and the PML(N). The resignation of district Nazims in the NWFP a day ahead of the Shariat Bill was a warning to the MMA.
It seems that while the MMA has not changed its anti-US rhetoric, it is not prepared to risk losing the military’s patronage. This became evident during the opposition’s protest over the budget presentation. Sources say that prior to that lukewarm and half-hearted protest, some of the MMA leaders had conveyed to other opposition parties in the NA— PPP Parliamentarians and the PML(N)— that the military regime had threatened them with winding up the system if they (MMA) continued with their alleged Talibanization policy and protest over the LFO and other policies.
The MMA leaders have justified their lukewarm stance by emphasizing that confrontation would not be beneficial and they would rather be content with pressuring the government by raising issues in parliament.
The MMA has also not really questioned the military’s right to formulate national security policy. “It is the federal government that takes such policy decisions. We are not part of the federal government. And our provincial governments will have to remain within the Constitution,” the JUI (F) general secretary was quoted as saying in a recent International Crisis Group report on Pakistan.
The MMA has to adopt a far-sighted approach to sustain the democratic dispensation. Its present stance will not serve the cause of the forces opposed to military intervention and supportive of parliament’s soverignty.
“Truth, crushed to earth, shall rise again,
The eternal years of God are hers;
But Error, wounded, writhes in pain,
And dies among his worshippers.”
THE other day during a heated political discourse someone asked: “Do you think any Democrat could beat President George Bush in the 2004 elections?” The reply was: “He will lose if history is any precedent.”
His father, George H. Bush, in the aftermath of Gulf War 1 was at the top of approval ratings which hit 91 per cent at one point in time. Governor Bill Clinton, then relatively unknown on Capitol Hill, focused on the sputtering and floundering economy with one slogan, “It’s the economy, stupid”, and despite trailing President Bush in approval ratings, won the election in Nov 1992. Those are the facts.
Mr Bush made his case to the American people to go to war against Iraq on the basis of getting rid of its weapons of mass destruction to save American lives. He also declared that Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda was linked to Iraq.
But it has been more than two months since the fall of Baghdad and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and according to every press report, American military units searching for WMDs have run out of places to look. The Osama ruse was simply a ploy to justify to the American people that putting more American lives in harm’s way had become necessary. There was never a connection.
Over here one is constrained to quote Senator Robert Byrd’s resonating and brilliant speech on the floor of the Senate on May 28: “Regarding the situation in Iraq, it appears to this senator that the American people may have been lured into accepting the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, in violation of long-standing international law, under false premises. There is ample evidence that the horrific events of September 11 have been carefully manipulated to switch public focus from Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, who masterminded the Sept 11 attacks, to Saddam Hussein, who did not. The run-up to our invasion of Iraq featured the president and members of his cabinet invoking every frightening image they could conjure, from mushroom clouds, to buried caches of germ warfare, to drones poised to deliver germ-laden death in our major cities. We were treated to a heavy dose of overstatement concerning Saddam Hussein’s direct threat to our freedoms. The tactic was guaranteed to provoke a sure reaction from a nation still suffering from a combination of post-traumatic stress and justifiable anger after the attacks of 9/11. It was the exploitation of fear. It was a placebo for the anger.”
Even now the Bush administration is unwilling to concede, amidst piling evidence, that it manipulated and distorted facts to wage an unjust war.
It just wanted to see what it wanted to see, to justify the designs of a coterie of defence department and state department officials, who wanted to control a part of the Middle East for more than just oil.
Not only that, it also severely underestimated the post-war problems that the occupation forces would be confronted with. When Gen Eric Shinseki, the US army’s chief of staff, warned that occupying Iraq might require hundreds of thousands of soldiers for an extended period, Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, one of the architect of the Iraq war hysteria, said he was “wildly off the mark”.
At this time the US and the so-called coalition forces have more than a 150,000-strong force which is stretched thin, facing increasingly frequent guerrilla attacks, and there are reports in the media that it may be two years before the US could think of handing over the reins of power to the Iraqi people’s representative.
But while all this is being written about in the press, the electronic media (both radio and television) dominated by right-wing extremists is dismissing it as liberal propaganda. Their contention is: “The US is number one again and all is well.”
But in Senator Byrd’s words, “the American people unfortunately are used to political shading, spin and the usual chicanery they hear from public officials.”
When the truth will eventually begin to dawn and the costs of an unjust war and loss of American lives in pursuit of a design to control the world begin to make their impact felt and economy flounders, Mr George Bush’s team will indeed have a hard time winning the 2004 election. It would be ironic if President Bill Clinton could be subjected to impeachment for lying to the American people about his affair with a White House intern, but the Bush administration, which as a whole has lied and misled the American people, should be let off the hook.
In the 1950s, an uncle read out a news item from the Indian Urdu film magazine, “Shama”. It said film actress Surrayya, who idolized Gregory Peck as an actor and wrote to him in Hollywood about her secret longing to meet him, was one day shocked to find the actor at her doorstep in Bombay.
It was a sizzling summer’s day and Surrayya had just bathed, or so the news item said. As soon as she saw Mr Peck, she started to sweat again. The actress could not wait to divulge all to the “Shama” reporter.
On Thursday, Gregory Peck, the lanky, handsome movie star, died. His long career included such classics as Roman Holiday, Spellbound and his Academy Award-winner, To Kill a Mockingbird.
Peck’s rugged good looks and measured speech contributed to his screen image as a decent, courageous man of action. From his film debut in 1944 with “Days of Glory”, he was never less than a star. He was nominated five times for the Oscar, and his range of roles was astonishing.
KAWISH this week takes up the issue of the divisible pool and writes that Sindh has received an additional Rs50 million on the basis of the 1998 census and demands that it should also be paid Rs200 million in compensation for its share denied for four years.
The daily writes that Sindh provides 70 per cent of federal revenue but does not get its due share. This is why it insists that funds should be distributed among provinces not only on the basis of population but revenue generation, backwardness and other factors also. This year, the province has deviated from its stance and supported the formula of population for disbursement of the divisible pool.
The paper adds that the results of the 1998 census were not accepted and distribution of funds continued on the basis of the 1981 census for a couple of years which meant a considerable loss for Sindh. Finally the 1998 census was accepted and a notification to this effect was issued in 2001 on the basis of which the province has received an additional Rs50 million.
Kawish says that the Sindh’s demand for Rs200 million as compensation for losses borne by it is a fair demand as the province has been suffering due to a discriminatory attitude meted out to it. It has not received its proper share of general sales tax revenue. Similarly, the federation is not bearing 50 per cent of the expenditure incurred on the deployment of the rangers in Sindh for which an agreement was made between the centre and the province. It should be given not only Rs200 million but also 50 per cent of the amount it has been spending on the rangers.
Ibrat writes that the Sindh government has decided to take up the issue of the Thal canal project with the federal development institutions and raise it at other forums. In this context, meetings between provincial departments of planning and development and irrigation are being held to prepare Sindh’s case.
According to the paper, it is expected that the Sindh government will ask the federal government whether there is any flood water to fill the controversial canal as it is said that the canal will be filled only when there is a flood in the River Indus. It is also expected to remind the centre that the same argument was given before the construction of the Chashma-Jehlam Link Canal, but after its completion, it has been handling the normal flow of water.
Commenting on the Legal Framework Order dispute, Tameer-i-Sindh writes that the ruling of the National Assembly speaker has wiped out the hope of a resolution of the issue. The opposition has threatened to table a motion of no-confidence against the speaker. Thus, the failure to resolve one issue has led to the creation of another.
The paper says that the recommendations of the government-opposition committee on the LFO and the points on which representatives of the government or the opposition backed out should be made public.
Referring to the Middle Eastern situation, Sach says that Israel’s launching of a war against Hamas has coincided with the announcement of a roadmap for the resolution of the Palestinian problem. If the US is really interested in restoring peace in the troubled region, the daily adds, it must force Israel to withdraw its war plan against Hamas as it will only increase the already prevailing anger among the Palestinians.
IF the happenings in the NWFP Assembly on Monday are any indicator, the centre-province tiff is far from over, the Jamali-Durrani meeting in Islamabad notwithstanding.
The Legal Framework Order, it seems, has come to haunt the present democratic dispensation. It does not seem to go away, no judgment and no ruling can shoo it away.
The Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal is blowing hot and cold. They appear willing to accept the LFO and let Gen Musharraf rule only if he would give them a definite cut-off time to take off his military uniform.
For the PPP and PML-N, Gen Musharraf is simply not acceptable as president, military uniform or no military uniform.
Therefore, when it comes to the NWFP assembly, the PPP and PML-N, which technically speaking are on the opposition benches, nonetheless continue to play second fiddle to the MMA.
The ANP is as directionless as ever. All that its parliamentary leader Bashir Bilour could do was to wear a broad smile amidst the uproar created by the PPP-S and PML-Q parliamentarians.
It is amusing to watch the Quaid-i-Azam League making vain attempts to pretend like the real opposition. No wonder then, most of its back-benchers MPAs were reluctant participants in the hullabaloo on Monday.
With the opposition in disarray, the entire job of opposing the MMA has come to the PPP-S. Murid Kazim Shah, the PPP-S parliamentary leader, like his PML-Q counterpart Mushtaq Ghani, unfortunately does not have the ingredients required for an opposition leader.
So it was Sikandar Sherpao who fired the first salvo by raising the issue of the LFO no sooner than Speaker Bakht Jehan had asked Finance Minister Sirajul Haq to present the budget for 2003-2004.
The din lasted only about five minutes before the vocal chords of the shouting MPs gave in and they could strain their lungs no more. But it was enough to drown the voice of Mr Sirajul Haq, who had to shout at the top of his voice and that too when the mikes of the opposition benches were switched off.
It was an interesting role reversal. If the MMA parliamentarians in the National Assembly had pushed Speaker Chaudry Amir Hussain to give a ruling on the validity of the LFO, it was the opposition in the NWFP assembly wanted a ruling from Speaker Bakht Jehan on the same subject.
Notwithstanding the opposition’s intentions, it was a clever move. If they could commit the speaker to give a ruling on the LFO, there could be two possibilities. Either he would uphold the LFO as constitutional, which is unlikely given the MMA stand on the controversial issue, or he would declare the whole thing unconstitutional. It does not require too much of an imagination to know the consequences of such a ruling.
Whether Speaker Bakht Jehan would fall into the trap or whether the opposition would persist with its demand is something to be seen in the days to come. But clearly the PPP-S and PML-Q combine has decided to make life difficult for the MMA if the religious alliance continues to show its belligerence towards the Jamali government in Islamabad.
The feel-good stories generated by the Jamali-Durrani meeting in Islamabad appearing to be losing their effect. Slowly but surely, the row is drifting towards a point of no return. If statements by Federal Minister Aftab Ahmad Khan Sherpao are anything to go by, it appears a matter of time when the federal government will decide to give a go-ahead to a no-confidence move against the MMA government.
But given its majority and the commitment of most of its MPAs, toppling the MMA government indeed looks like a near-impossibility.