| August 20, 2003 | Wednesday | Jumadi-us-Sani 21, 1424 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Need for change in Saarc
Accepting blame
IF one returns so soon to the country’s parliamentary and constitutional crisis after writing about it just a couple of days ago it is only because Monday’s conclave between the president, the prime minister and ruling party legislators did not unfortunately display the sense of urgency that the crisis requires. It was hoped that the president would outline steps that his supporters could take to break the persisting deadlock between the government and the opposition. However, reports of the closed-door meeting give no indication that the participants appeared unduly worried about the fact that parliament has done no legislative work since it was elected last November and has actually met for just 47 days in sessions either devoted to mere formalities or lost to opposition protests and no- confidence motions. This means that, as one of our reporters has pointed out, it has to be in session for 83 days in the next 88 days to meet the requirement laid down in the Constitution.
A session has now been called for today (Wednesday). The opposition’s strategy has not been disclosed, and there is apparently some discord between the MMA (which was earlier reported to be ready to requisition a session) and the ARD. The opposition’s right to protest on questions that large sections of public opinion also consider as inimical to the establishment of a genuinely democratic system is undisputed. But whether the protest should totally stall parliament is something that should be carefully considered. The government has shown itself to be extraordinarily stubborn on the LFO, and continues to believe that it has the numbers that can prevent any significant changes in this arbitrarily-imposed document. But the opposition also has the numbers to refuse to provide the general acceptance and legitimacy that the government wants. Now that a session is due to be held, it should be the effort on both sides of the political divide to find a way in which protest can be registered and at the same time parliament enabled to proceed along constitutional lines to begin legislative work while negotiations on the LFO continue.
Problems that need to be debated and sorted out by the National Assembly and the Senate are mounting. Two recent instances should help underline the point: a functional parliament would have tackled both the oil slick disaster and the sabotage attempt on the rail network with greater concern, and if nothing else, forced a greater sense of accountability on ministers and officials. What is happening now is that, in the absence of a national agenda, ad-hocism is rampant in policy- making circles, and there is no one to answer for what is being done or not being done. The Senate’s inability to meet has had a particularly disturbing dimension in that the feeling among the smaller provinces is growing that their views on projects that deeply affect their destinies are not being heard and have been confined to press statements. Though the Musharraf government never fails to tick off its achievements in the field of foreign policy, even here civilian political input and parliamentary consensus are required for the sake of coherence. On India, the foreign office’s tone is distinctly far more hawkish than the prime minister’s, and we all often give the appearance of talking at cross-purposes with each other. A parliament is supposed to subject government policy to a thorough appraisal, and policy gains from it. Whether today’s session also proves abortive or sets a positive tone for the coming weeks will be seen as the big question.
WHILE inaugurating the seminar on major powers and South Asia in Islamabad, President Pervez Musharraf lamented the dysfunctional state of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. No one would disagree with what he had to say, especially if it is recalled that this seven- nation association has been paralyzed by the disputes between its two largest members. No wonder, the modicum of agreement reached by Saarc on some issues — such as free trade — remains unimplemented. What better proof is there of the ineffectiveness of Saarc than the fact that the regional trade accounts for less than five per cent of the total trade of its members. Small wonder the association has, unlike Asean, failed to make much of an impact on world politics.
The president identified the “disproportionately large size” of one of the Saarc members as the reason for this failure. It is true that a spirit of good neighbourliness has been impeded by India’s preponderance in the region. New Delhi has attempted to use its clout to establish itself as a leading power in the region. As the president pointed out, this undermines bilateralism and the principle of sovereign equality. But a way has to be found round this problem.
By normalizing relations between them Pakistan and India can make Saarc functional. General Musharraf also suggested that the Saarc charter should be modified to allow it to address disputes between its members. When Saarc was founded in 1985 it was specifically denied this function at the behest of India. New Delhi has always been sensitive to any third party involvement on the Kashmir issue. An effort to moderate this approach seems timely. But one cannot be certain that the involvement of the other smaller South Asians in India-Pakistan disputes will create any pressure for change on the big-two. The need of the hour is for Pakistan and India to normalize their ties so that the political climate in the region improves. It is encouraging that the two governments are taking some steps in that direction.
THE resignation of France’s surgeon- general over his government’s handling of a severe heatwave is proof that in some countries state functionaries do have a conscience and are ready to take the blame. The extreme weather in France has killed 5,000 people, mostly senior citizens, and has also led to a public criticism of the way the French health ministry handled the crisis. The French official’s attitude is in sharp contrast to the tradition in our country where elected politicians as well as bureaucrats try their best to evade responsibility and blame.
The hamhanded way in which state functionaries have managed the post-rain relief effort in Sindh and the Tasman Spirit oil spill provides ample proof that the officials concerned lacked the moral courage to accept blame. The flood relief effort has been going on in fits and starts and has been widely criticized for being poorly managed and politicized. In fact, reports have now come in of at least one truckload of relief goods being sold to local shopkeepers. As for the oil spill, the federal communications minister refuses to acknowledge the massive damage done to the shoreline, while the head of the Karachi Port Trust persists in his stubborn refusal to admit that his agency made a complete mess of the situation. The issue boils down to one of approach and attitude. Our elected representatives and government functionaries have a colonial outlook and seem to think that they are the rulers of this country, when the fact is that they are there in their position of authority to serve the people.