| 13 January 2004 | Tuesday | 20 Ziqa'ad 1424 |
Good tidings & some bad ones
IT to promote development
How did Pakistan fare in 2003? It made some progress, particularly in the field of economics with the economy reviving and investor interest returning. There was also considerable progress on the diplomatic front with the easing of tensions with India. In the political area, some progress was made as the year closed.
This resulted in the passage of the 17th amendment to the Constitution which gave legal cover to most of the provisions contained in the Legal Framework Order issued earlier by President Pervez Musharraf. Finally, the country continued to struggle with the problem posed by the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and the impact it is having on all the other areas mentioned above.
Today we will review the progress made in the area of political development and in containing the further strengthening of Islamic fundamentalism. Next week we will discuss progress in the areas of economics, finance and diplomacy.
Let us begin with the "seeming" progress on the political front. We have put the word "seeming" within quotes since it is hard to estimate how the agreement reached by the old political establishment and the new religious parties will define the further evolution of the Pakistani political system.
In this context, we need to explore two things. One, what kind of political structure is most compatible in the countries that wish to be governed in ways that don't go counter to the teachings of Islam. Two, what are the motives of the political establishment and the new religious coalition as they get engaged in evolving a political system that would work for the country.
The current tussle among the different forces in Pakistan over the issue of governance cannot be separated from what is happening in other parts of the Muslim world. In the year 2003 we saw three developments. One, some relaxation of the rigid controls with which the rulers had managed the political systems in several Arab countries. The progress in this respect was most noticeable in the smaller Gulf states that allowed larger representation to the groups who were hitherto excluded from politics.
Some of these countries, for instance, are permitting women to enter the political system. Even Saudi Arabia, the most conservative state in the Arab world, announced that it would allow elections to be held at the local level. However, it is not clear whether the Kingdom will allow women to vote and to be elected to the local councils. In terms of giving political voice to women, Pakistan has already made progress by giving them a significant presence in the national and provincial assemblies.
The two experiments aimed at political reform that made some progress in the Muslim world and which will have some meaning for Pakistan were carried out in Afghanistan and Iraq. With the Islamic parties having gained considerable prominence in Pakistan in recent years, they are bound to watch with great interest the political evolution of Afghanistan in particular. Lessons will be drawn by Pakistan's religious leadership from Kabul's experience. It is therefore useful to discuss the emerging Afghan model and how it is evolving.
With the active involvement of experts from the United Nations and the United States, the government of President Hamid Karzai was able to prepare a draft Constitution for discussion by a council of elders. The draft was completed in September 2003 and was submitted for discussion to the 502-member Loya Jirga in December. The Jirga also included women, perhaps for the first time in the country's history.
The draft sought to reconcile some sharp differences among the country's many ethnic, linguistic and religious groups that had made nation building such a difficult job in Afghanistan. President Karzai and most of the Pushtun leaders wanted a strong centre controlled by a strong president. The smaller ethnic groups, in particular the Tajiks and the Uzbeks, wanted a much weaker centre, with considerable provincial autonomy and with a parliamentary system in which the voices of the minorities will not only be heard but will also need to be accommodated.
The "Pushtun versus the rest debate" on the political structure spilled into other areas as well. A number of questions were raised in this context. For instance: What should be the country's national language; in which language should the national anthem be written and sung; should there be some form of balance built into the system among the senior leaders - among the president and various vice presidents - if a presidential forum were to be adopted.
Then there was the dispute over the role of Islam in politics and governance. The conservatives wanted the explicit adoption of the Islamic sharia into the Constitution. The liberals did not want to concede anything more than the recognition that no laws would be repugnant to the teachings of Islam. Whether that was the case was to be judged by the judiciary - the Supreme Court.
Within the context of the role of Islam there was much debate on the grant of rights to women. Various women and human rights groups wanted equality between the two sexes to be clearly established within the Constitution. This was resisted by the more conservative elements, at one point even by the president of the Loya Jirga.
These debates got so charged that they, at one point, threatened the continuation of the Constitution making progress. The same drama was enacted in Pakistan's National Assembly throughout 2003. However, in the case of Afghanistan, intensive lobbying and intervention by the US and the UN saved the situation and the Loya Jirga was able to give its consent to the amended version of the draft submitted to it by the Karzai government. In Pakistan, the matter was resolved after President Musharraf made some concession to the religious parties.
The charter that emerged from the Loya Jirga deliberations will create a presidential system in the country with the parliament authorized to check the exercise of presidential power in some areas. Presidential appointments to some senior positions in the government, the judiciary and the central bank will need to be approved by the legislature. While Afghanistan will be an Islamic republic, the sharia will not be formally incorporated into the Constitution.
However, the country's laws cannot be contrary to the "provisions and principles of Islam." Afghanistan seems to have followed the device that exists in Pakistan's Constitution under what is generally referred to as the "repugnancy provision." The determination whether the laws made by the parliament or issued by the Afghan president conformed to Islamic principles will be made by the Supreme Court. The Islamists agreed to this concession knowing that the Supreme Court was headed by the arch conservative Fazl Hadi Shinwari.
How will the developments in the Arab world and also in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2003 affect the course of political evolution in Pakistan? While much of 2003 in Pakistan was spent in endless debate between the political establishment and the religious forces on a number of constitutional issues, Pakistan's case was much different than those of Afghanistan and Iraq. Unlike these two countries, Pakistan was not starting with a clean slate. It had a Constitution in place, albeit much amended and tempered with over the years.
Nonetheless, the country continued to remain attached to a form of parliamentary form of government, with both the liberal and conservatives supporting the continuation of such a system. The liberals favour a parliamentary system since they believe that it allows the scope for much broader representation. The conservatives - in particular those from the religious right - support a parliamentary form of government since that is the only way they can influence the evolution of the political system.
In 2003 the political establishment, however, was leaning towards a strong presidency within a parliamentary framework, a kind of hybrid that is working quite well, for instance, in France. By "political establishment" we imply the military leadership and a collection of politicians who, for a variety of reasons, are prepared to work with the men in uniform. Such an establishment was in place during the reigns of Ayub Khan and Ziaul Haq.
Ayub relied on the support of the Convention Muslim League which was later rechristened the Pakistan Muslim League. Zia depended on the rightist political elements. General Musharraf has the support of PML (Q) and a number of smaller parties prepared to work with the military. During the course of the year, the MMA developed into the main force of opposition, not prepared to allow the military to carve a role for itself in the political system through constitutional means and to separate General Pervez Musharraf from his uniform.
The question of the uniform became important for the religious parties since it was their view that in the Pakistani political system a president could only become strong if he was able to draw his power from the barrel of the gun.
The MMA was following a simple political strategy. It was convinced that the power it had gained through the electoral process was not a fluke. It represented a trend since the Pakistani citizenry was now much more conservative in outlook than was the case when the religious parties were able to marshal only a small amount of support.
The growing discomfort with the way Washington was dealing with the world of Islam gave the MMA component parties even more confidence that they would add to their strength in the national and provincial assemblies in future elections. Accordingly, they were not averse to the idea of the dissolution of the 2002 National Assembly if General Musharraf felt that that was the only option left to him.
The religious parties in 2003, therefore, campaigned hard and relentlessly for the retention of a great deal of power in the national and provincial legislatures, a strategy also adopted by their counterparts in Afghanistan. They hoped to use that power to bring religion more prominently into governance through the legislative process. They would eventually want the Islamization of the economy, the country's educational system and also much closer cooperation with conservative elements in other parts of the Muslim world. Will they succeed?
It appears that the agreement finally reached between the establishment and the MMA will eventually strengthen the president and get the army to function as an overseer of the evolution of the political system. What we witnessed in 2003 in Pakistan is the gradual evolution of the political system towards a presidential form. Even when General Musharraf sheds his uniform, he would still have the support of the military and should acquire that of the more liberal forces in the country if the country continues to perform well on the economic and diplomatic fronts.
In 2003, the religious groups sought to tighten their grip on the country. They are not likely to succeed if the Musharraf government achieves its stated goal of modernizing the economy and the educational system. In other words, Presidents Musharraf and Karzai have arrived at about the same stage in the political evolution of their respective countries. They must follow a similar economic, social and diplomatic agenda to contain militancy.
Good tidings & some bad ones
"Composite dialogue" is a catch-all and is open-ended. There is no time-frame. Yet it is a positive development, in accordance with what Winston Churchill had recommended that it was better to yaw-yaw than to war-war.
It allows both Pakistan and India to tone down the rhetoric. Both sides maintain there has been no retreat from fixed positions. At the same time, there is acceptance that dialogue is a better option than bluster. This in itself represents a triumph over foolhardiness - the foolhardiness that sabre-rattling was holding both countries back. A major hurdle has been removed, for the time being, and both countries can devote their energies to their domestic agendas.
There appears to be no hurry for the level of the talks is bureaucratic rather than political and the bureaucrat is a long- distance runner rather than a sprinter. This is just as well. There is a huge backlog of mistrust that has to be undone. We cannot go from bye-bye to bhai-bhai in one giant leap forward.
We have to accept that relations between the two countries will remain fragile and there are hardliners on both sides and it doesn't suit them that a measure of normality should be created and it doesn't need much to get the pot boiling. Such has been the climate of hostility, not only at a political level but on a people-to-people level as well.
We have lived as warring neighbours from the time both countries got their independence and this takes in more than half a century. We have passed on this hostility from generation to generation. In this period, the rest of the world has moved on, old enemies have become new friends, the cold war has ended, power positions have shifted.
This is not to mean that it has become a better or a brave new world. Indeed it can be argued that it has become a far more dangerous world. All the more reason that Pakistan and India should not add to the danger which in the larger context is a local quarrel and which can cause a great deal of grief to both countries without facing and defeating a common enemy - poverty.
Pakistan finds itself in an unique situation. It is a front- line state in the war on terror and yet the Pakistani is viewed with the greatest suspicion by those who have arrogated to themselves the right to determine who is the good guy and who the bad guy. Pakistanis visiting or living in the United States are on the watch-list of the Homeland Security, which should properly be called, in Orwellian fashion, the Ministry of Fear.
Immediately after 9/11, a justification of sorts could have been made for the security anxieties that led to measures that in normal times would be associated with a police state and with which we who live in the Third World are well acquainted. But 9/11 should not have handed the terrorists a victory. A terrorist, by definition, is someone who spreads terror. It is not the act, bombings, assassinations, sabotage that are his main weapons. It is the response.
If he can create uncertainties, play on the peace of mind, instil fear, then he is succeeding. I have heard from many Pakistani friends living in the United States and they have been guarded in their views, as if to indicate that their correspondence will be read by others and noted, that their privacy has been sacrificed at the altar of some primitive patriotism. The right to privacy may seem puny against bigger dangers but if one's private life is being monitored by invisible agencies then it is the beginning of the unravelling of civil liberties.
I have no idea how Indian Muslims are faring. I would imagine no better for what is under suspicion is not nationality but religion. All that is needed is a Muslim name for alarm bells to go off. But then I have no personal knowledge that they too are being harassed whereas our own newspapers regularly report the treatment that is meted out to Pakistanis. The irony is that Pakistan too is a victim of terrorism.
During the " holiday" season, the United States went on an Orange alert which is the second highest in the rainbow of alerts. I have often wondered whether the loud announcement of security precautions is the most efficient way of fighting terrorism. Unlike justice which not only has to be done but seen to be done, Security must be done but not be seen to be done. Why show your hand to your adversaries?
In this category is the decision to fingerprint and photograph all visitors to the United States, exceptions being made in the case of some West European countries, Canada and Japan. Brazil has been the only country that has responded to this over-kill of security and what many feel is humiliation.
A judge in the state of Mato Grasso has, in a court order, described as blatantly discriminatory fingerprinting and photographing of visitors to the US from some countries while exempting others. This, he has added, is an infringement of human rights and human dignity. His indignation did not stop there. What the US was doing was xenophobic and reminiscent of the Nazi atrocities.
He decreed a tit for tat. US citizens too would be fingerprinted and photographed at Brazilian ports of entry. It remains to be seen whether Brazil can enforce this but it gives an indication of the resentment felt at the imperious and arrogant way that the United States is treating the rest of the world. What will the US immigration do with the information collected? Pass it on to the Homeland Security? And will this make the United States a safer place?
Eternal vigilance may be the price of liberty but what if no liberty remains and we are left with only vigilance. Two years have elapsed for the enemy combatants held at Guantanamo. At last count there were some 665 of them. In the meanwhile, George Bush wants to return to the moon and set up a colony there. Could it be that he has a penal colony in mind and future enemy combatants could be sent there?
Or, as some wag has suggested, that's where Saddam Hussain's weapons of mass destruction are hidden. Tony Blair would certainly not rule out the possibility.
IT to promote development
(The views expressed in this article are those of the writer in his personal capacity.)
I felt a sense of disappointment as I listened to the discourse at the Saarc summit. Surprisingly, given that the South Asian region is home to the powerhouses of the information technology world, there was hardly any mention of how IT could be used to alleviate poverty and promote human development.
This was in sharp contrast to the World Summit on the Information Society held in Switzerland last month where my thoughts, as I took my place in the grand conference hall in Geneva waiting for an assortment of venerable statesmen to share their views on how information and communication technologies (ICTs) could be harnessed for social and economic development, had been somewhat more positive. The surroundings could not have been better, nor could the arrangements be faulted, thanks to the famed clockwork precision of the Swiss organizers.
ICT4D, an acronym that must surely have been devised by a subcommittee of some agency of the United Nations, was being touted as the next best thing after sliced bread.
But as I surveyed my fellow delegates, all of whom I assumed were passionate about the cause that we had all assembled to debate and absorb over the next couple of days, I wondered as to how many of them, in particular those from developing countries with a similar socio-economic background as that of Pakistan, really believed that ICTs could have any role in improving the lot of the majority of their populations?
The promotion handouts for the world summit on the information society, the conference we were to participate in, were dramatic in their tone. "The modern world is undergoing a fundamental transformation as the industrial society that marked the 20th century rapidly gives way to the information society of the 21st century. This information revolution affects the way people live, learn and work and how governments interact with civil society. Information is a powerful tool for economic and social development and this summit will provide a unique opportunity for all key players to contribute actively to bridge the digital and knowledge divides.
"We are indeed in the midst of a revolution, perhaps the greatest that humanity has ever experienced. To benefit the world community, the successful and continued growth of this new dynamic requires global discussion.
"The first phase of the summit in general will hence adopt a declaration of principles and a plan of action for implementation by governments, institutions and all sectors of civil society to deal with the new challenges of the ever-evolving information society, specifically identifying ways to help close the gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" of access to the global information and communication network".
Heady stuff indeed, even though it was probably dreamt up by the ad agency awarded the contract to instil hype into the event. ICT4D, simply stated, implies using Information and communication technologies (ICT) for promoting human development, in particular the socio economic well-being of the underprivileged sections of society. This can take the form of using ICT for enhancing the delivery of public services to the citizens, a prime example of which is the issuance of computerized national identity cards in our Pakistani context.
ICT can also be used for harnessing the power of the internet to enable villagers to find out what the price of their crops is in the nearest market town, thus enabling them to obtain the best prices for their products. It can also be used to address one of the major causes of disputes and litigation in our society, that of land ownership records and transfer deeds.
Likewise, its use in the law enforcement agencies, in particular the police, can deliver benefits. The list is an endless one, and there are examples from across the world where ICT has been used to good advantage. However, the term ICT4D in particular is usually taken to mean the more narrowly focused area of utilizing the internet for promoting socio-economic growth within local communities.
The premise is an appealing one. Simply put, the assumption states that access to the internet is similar to opening a tap from which information starts gushing forth. This assumption of course is valid, in the sense that indeed the internet is a ready source of knowledge and information about literally everything under the sun. The subsequent assumption that is often not explicitly stated is perhaps not that valid, that once people have access to information, their world will change and they will be empowered to take decisions that will change their destiny. This in my opinion is where the logic breaks down. Being informed is the first and necessary precondition to being able to bring about a change.
Unfortunately it is not the only prerequisite. Take the case of a village which now has an internet kiosk set up, which people are able to access freely. In fact, there is an interesting case study available on the internet where a UK based researcher spent nearly a year in a small village outside Rawalpindi, observing the changes in the social and economic structures that took place as he introduced the wonders of the internet to the rural community that he lived in.
His conclusion, and this is borne out by other studies conducted in similar rural settings in the Third World, was that access to information by itself does not make much difference. It is the political will and the presence of social activists that enable any meaningful changes to take place. There are other case studies available that highlight this even more dramatically.
I come from a rural background myself, and the constituency that I represent is primarily a farming one. By virtue of the position that I have inherited in this tribal society, I am only too well aware of the problems and challenges that affect the lives of our people. When I try to imagine what issues could be resolved if the internet could somehow miraculously be made available to everybody in the community, I am hard pressed for an answer.
Does that mean that we should not invest in providing the infrastructure required for the internet to be available across my constituency? Not at all. We should give it the same importance that we give to providing other means of electronic community, such as the fixed line and mobile telephony.
But should we be looking towards the ministry of information technology to improve the lot of the common man once Internet access is universal? Not really. We should instead be forging a partnership between civil society and the state where the role of information technology is that of an enabler and not the end in itself. This in my opinion does not in any way reduce the importance of these new technologies, but rather channels them in the direction where they do the most good.
I am not alone in coming to this conclusion. Ironically, whilst the United Nations was planning this major world summit, one of its agencies, the United Nations Development Programme, had already recognized that Information and communication technologies by themselves were simply a tool that could be used, under certain circumstances, to enhance the efficiency and efficacy of their interventions in the development fields.
The early days when the internet was being touted as the panacea that could cure society of all evils were clearly over. Disillusionment has set in, and this is clearly reflected in the fact that the UNDP no longer has ICT as a primary area of focus.
So is IT a luxury that our nation cannot afford at this stage of its development? My own feeling, after having spent some time now in the ministry, is that we need to experiment more with introducing IT into the social structures of society, both rural and urban, and see what works and what does not in our peculiar social milieu. Drawing on lessons from countries in the region would also be very useful in enabling us to determine for ourselves the utility or otherwise prior to investing heavily in this particular area.
One thing, however, is clear. The old debate about whether the rural and urban poor should first be provided access to potable water, basic health care and primary education and only then should the government even start to think about providing them access to the internet is not a valid one anymore. The instantaneous feedback mechanism that e-mail and instant messaging provides, along with the networking of communities, is a major advantage that the internet enjoys over that of the unidirectional radio or television media.
This, coupled with the undeniable empowerment that comes about from simply being informed, means that waiting for health and education issues to be resolved before investing in the internet is no longer an option. However, it is critical that scarce resources are not wasted in a well meaning but unplanned push towards utilizing ICTs for development.
The writer is the federal minister for information technology and telecommunications.
E-mail: minister@moitt.gov.pk