| 26 August 2004 | Thursday | 09 Rajab 1425 |
A sad reflection of today's world
Litany of military interventions
So much for free speech
Pakistan's population will touch 295 million by the year 2050 - 46 years from now, says a report of the Population Reference Bureau, Washington. That is about ten times the population figure we started from when Pakistan came into being 57 years ago. It means we shall have to take adequate and sustained measures to keep its growth effectively down.
According to the government figures, the population at present is 151 million, but the Washington Research institute puts it at 159 million. The government has been congratulating itself that the population growth has come down from 3.1 per cent per year to 2.2 per cent. However, the more reliable figure may be 2.5 per cent which too is high if compared to the Bangladesh figure of 1.6 per cent.
If the Washington forecast comes true, we may be seeing almost a doubling of the population in 46 years on an average growth rate of three per cent while the compound growth rate may be lower.
Are we going to maintain this growth rate for half a century due to religious misconceptions, bad administration in the population planning department and the traditional corruption? If it happens, will we have enough food to feed them because right now we are importing a variety of foodstuff, beginning with over a million tonne of wheat and much of the edible oil?
Will we have enough water for all of us? Already there is acute shortage of water in many areas, beginning with Karachi, and fatal water-borne diseases are on the rise. Even if we build one or two big dams as president Musharraf wants, still we will not have enough water for human consumption and cultivations.
How are we going to keep the figure of those living below the poverty line - one third of the population - in check if the population goes on increasing inexorably? Will we have enough living space for all with proper living quarters and essential domestic services? Or will we turn more of the farm-land into housing areas and reduce food production? And we may have far too many Katchi Abadis disfiguring our landscape with some serving as dens of crime.
Already two-thirds of the people are illiterate. Can we provide enough schools for all the children as Gen. Musharraf promises universal education? Do we have the means to provide health facilities to 295 million people by building hospitals and dispensaries and providing medical staff.
And will we have the environmental facilities with plenty of open spaces for parks and public gardens etc. Normally everywhere the population pressure adds to the pollution. Too many people by themselves are not an asset. It's the quality of life that matters.
The Washington report says that by 2050 India will be the most populous country in the world with a population of 1,628 million, while China's population will be 1,433 million, the current figure being 1,300 million.
Indian industry and agriculture may not be able to develop fast enough to usefully absorb that multitude comfortably. India will have by then about 600 million. It will have to reduce its margin of profit and wages to export more which is not easy because the labour is already too restive there.
If all the developing countries try to export more and more as China is doing now, will there be enough buyers around the world. The US is already accusing China of grabbing more and more of its market share and India too feels disturbed by the rising inflow of Chinese goods into its territory. If the race to industrialize and export more becomes universal, excluding some parts of Africa, the developing countries may blame each other for stealing their customers.
The developing countries, including the Asian tigers, are exporting largely to the West. But the population of the West or the industrialized states may not grow according to the Washington report. In fact, its growth is projected at four per cent of the population in the next 46 years. By then the industrialized states may have too many old people contributing less to the economy and consuming far more. They will be more inclined to save than spend or splash their savings and that can cut into the exports of developing countries, except cheap goods like China's.
In the wake of the larger role of the WTO in the world, global competition in trade has increased. Major exporting countries are cutting jobs and training the remaining workers to produce more. They are talking of the higher productivity of their economy and companies are making larger profits while the workers are getting lower wages and less benefits. The US has been talking of the increase in its productivity a great deal and lowering the exchange rate of its dollar to export more and more.
If the population of the West is going to be static with too many old people adding to the burden on the economy, the solution may be to welcome immigrants. But following the talk of heightened terrorism in the world and fear of Muslims in the West, the West is welcoming migration from Eastern European countries, particularly those who joined the European Community to take its total membership to 25.
Even the Gulf and Middle Eastern countries do not want their emigrant population to increase and their countries become too dependent on them. They prefer to employ their own people and give the necessary technical training to them after almost free education. Saudi Arabia has taken the lead in this area in view of the social unrest there.
Hence, openings for the Pakistani workers abroad are declining in number, particularly because of the fear of too many Al Qaeda operatives functioning in Pakistan. Too much publicity about the presence of Al Qaeda here, real or imagined, is not good for Pakistanis going on a visit or to work abroad.
As the 'Newsweek' study of August 23 shows permanent work in the industrial countries is going down and along with it the wages. In fact, in most countries the workers have to work for more hours and for less wages. In countries like the US and Germany workers prefer to hold on to their jobs after taking a pay cut rather than give up the job because of the pay cut. The earlier excitement of doing piece-meal jobs or self-employment has come down in many countries as their work opportunities became less and less. The uncertainties in the job market have increased many-fold and so workers prefer to hold on to the their jobs when they have to take a pay cut.
In such a global environment with soaring price of oil and a drop in the world economic growth projected earlier on that score, Prime Minister-designate Shaukat Aziz has promised a comprehensive development package within a couple of weeks for accelerating economic activities and improving living standards of the people. His admirers are having too much expectations from him. His prime task, along with promoting economic growth, is job creation.
When he presented the annual budget, he came up with the annual development plan with an outlay of Rs 202 billion which would create a million jobs. How many more jobs would be create now? Has he a specific target to work on and make his government achieve that goal? And how does he intend to achieve that target.
There has been a great deal of talk about public-private sector partnership with the private sector playing a major role. The private sector welcomed Shaukat Aziz's nomination as prime minister and his election to the National Assembly. Will they now help him and the country with large investment and adequate job creation? Will they make the economy more competitive? Will they give fair treatment to the workers and not exploit them as has been often the case.
If Mr Shaukat Aziz wants to help the poor and the down-trodden he will have to keep down the inflation in real terms. According to official figures the Sensitive Price Index which covers largely the food items has exceeded by 10 per cent. The profiteers are ready to push up prices at the drop of a hat. And when food prices go up all other prices too go up, more so in Pakistan where most of the low income groups' earnings are spent on food as large families are common everywhere. When the wages are low and the prices are high, the hardships of the poor increase manifold.
How is Mr Shaukat Aziz going to cope with the soaring oil prices which almost touched 50 dollars a barrel in New York before receding marginally? In the last financial year oil imports left us with a trade deficit of 3 billion dollars. The fear this year is the deficit would be 4 billion dollars as the higher oil prices have risen higher in the new financial year and we don't have the cushion of the Saudi oil subsidy which expired last year.
If the projected higher economic growth falls by one per cent around the world our exports will also fall, while the imports may cost far more due to the higher oil prices. In view of the high oil prices, we should hasten the laying of the gas pipeline connecting Iran and India via Pakistan. Iran is eager for early construction of the gas line, India is now anxious for it. And we need to supplement our gas supply with the gas from Iran which could also means a rent of 500 million dollars for letting the pipeline pass through Pakistan.
While the industrialized states will have four per cent population growth until 2050, the US population will go up from 294 million to 420 million by that year, half of that increase will be due to immigration. Could that mean that more Pakistanis would be able to go to the US? It may not be so because of the current prejudice in the US against Muslims for employment.
They may welcome more of Europeans and East Europeans who can assimilate with the Americans more easily. That means that we have to create far more jobs at home than before. That can make the task of Mr Shaukat Aziz very tough, unless the economy expands fast enough and take in the educated people. He really has a heavy burden to carry, and great results to deliver.]
A sad reflection of today's world
Tink of the headlines that have come out of the Athens 2004 Olympics. What springs to mind? Stories of close contests, sporting accomplishments, new records? Hardly any. Scroll through the Olympic headlines to date and you find them dominated by stories that have very little to do with the track, pool or other sports arenas.
The dearth of stories about sports is a reflection of the Games as a whole: they, in turn, are a reflection of modern times. Headline number one - which dragged on for months - was about whether the Greeks would get everything ready in time.
Looking at the many delays in completing building projects for the Olympics - not least the main stadium - not a few commentators were predicting that Greece would not make it.
The Greeks might not be justified in complaining about the substance of this criticism (they did leave everything to the last minute), but they have every reason to feel anger at the way it was expressed.
The sweeping critiques bandied about in the press about 'the Greeks' ('too busy drinking and arguing', 'what more can you expect', 'impossible-to-pronounce names', etc) had very little to do with the Games.
Shamefully, they had much to do with negative stereotypes about the Greek people. Delays in Olympic preparations were seized upon as an excuse for an orgy of Greek-bashing.
Greece might have given the international community many heart-stopping moments along the way, but in the end they did get everything done. This brings us - not in chronological order - to headline number two: the cost and the long-term utility of the many new facilities built by the Greeks. How many will serve a useful purpose after the Olympians depart? How many will become huge white elephants? Will the millions spent on them be justified?
Some Greeks - thinking beyond the few-weeks spotlight of the 2004 Olympics - are uneasy about the huge investment their government has made. They point to the many other pressing demands - in health care, education, roads, to name a few sectors - that could have benefited from those tens of millions of dollars.
The counter-argument could be that the Olympic spotlight will lead to greater tourism and hence boost the Greek economy. But as a country which is already heavily promoting and cashing in on tourism, that argument has limited validity.Preparation doesn't just entail building and physical infrastructure.
In the post-9/11 world it is also synonymous with security. Pre-Olympic press coverage pointedly examined Greece's anti-terror measures (headline number three). $750 million was one figure being bandied about as the bill for keeping the Olympics safe: a mind-boggling sum.
This is the first of many ways in which today's Olympics reflect today's changed world. Terrorism is a phenomenon that dominates, if not our private, individual lives, then most definitely our public lives.
No public event or gathering is free of the dark shadow of terrorism. No planning or preparation can be done without taking the terror threat into account. The Olympics are not unique in facing this sad reality.
Million on infrastructure, millions on security - offering to host the Olympic Games in the 21st century is no mean undertaking. While countries like the US, China and even Greece can afford (the former comfortably, the latter less so) to stage the Games, they are increasingly going out of the reach of developing countries.
Indeed, one could probably count on fingers and toes the number of countries that are in a position to put on such an elaborate spectacle. Another sad reflection of today's world, in which the gap between developed and developing, rich and poor is wider than it has ever been.
Headline number four was of course about drugs. On the eve of the Games two of Greece's top medal hopes - Kostas Kederis and Ekaterina Thanou - became mired in a controversy about drugs-testing.
The story grew more complicated as there were reports of a mysterious 'motorbike accident' which prevented the couple appearing for their test. The speculation and the controversy continued to grow, overshadowing the opening ceremony in which Kederis had been scheduled to light the Olympic torch. In the event, he and his partner withdrew from the Games in disgrace.
The poor Greeks, who had (eventually) worked so hard to prove the prophets of doom wrong, and had got everything ready in time, now had to endure the international drugs spotlight on their top athletes.
Even after Kederis and Thanou withdrew from the Olympic stage, the Greeks faced more shame: their bronze-winning weightlifter was stripped of his medal when he tested positive for testosterone.
Nothing undermines the theoretical (for it is hardly seen in practice) spirit of the Olympics - athletes competing on a level playing field to see who is the best - than drugs.
But Greece can take comfort from the fact that its shame over its cheating athletes was by no means its alone: so many other countries' athletes have been found/suspected of taking performance-enhancing substances that no one is in a position to throw stones. Indeed, so endemic has this problem become, that now every medal-winner is viewed with suspicion. This is a tragedy for the Games - and for contemporary sports in general.
Why do athletes take drugs? Because the stakes are so high. Because there is so much money to be made - through sponsorship deals, advertising contracts, media/public appearances. Winning gold today is about so much more than getting a medal for the trophy cupboard.
The commercialisation of the Olympics extends to the facilities and televising of the Games: corporate logos and ads are everywhere. Nor is it confined to the Olympics.
Sport in general has become a competition for money: whether tennis, football or boxing - no one talks in less than millions (and that's just the players' remuneration -the clubs make even more).
Even the once 'amateur' sports like cricket and rugby have become infected by money. Another reflection of our modern era in which any kind of fame (even any kind of notoriety) - sporting or otherwise - is a doorway to money: newspaper deals to sell one's story, interview deals, book and movie deals...everything is commercial.
And then we come to the headlines about the 'underdogs': athletes whose participation is in itself a miracle - either because their homelands are so under-developed or because circumstances there are otherwise difficult.
The 17-year old Palestinian swimmer grabbed the headlines for both reasons. Our 13-year Pakistani swimmer for the former. The Iraqi football team primarily for the latter - the fact that they were now competing for the glory of winning and not, as in Saddam's days, out of fear that they would be tortured if they lost. [George Bush wasted no time in trying to make political mileage out of their participation.]
These could be regarded as some of the more positive headlines to come out of the Olympics. They are - but they point to another disturbing trend: the growing impossibility of athletes from the developing world being able to compete on a level playing field with those of the developed world.
Not because the latter might be taking drugs, but because they have such infinitely better facilities and trainers - because they can prepare so infinitely more professionally.
As the Olympics draw to a close, there probably will be much to admire and look back on with pride. But the overwhelming feeling is of an event that has become consumed by commercialism, money, politics and the terror threat - in short, an event that is sadly an all too accurate reflection of today's world. .
e-mail: iffatidris2000@yahoo.co.uk.
Litany of military interventions
Some of General Musharraf's recent pronouncements demand that the record of history should be put straight and a national debate initiated on the course he is pursuing, as these policies will have far reaching impact on the future of Pakistan.
In a recent press interview, he once again expounded his vision by expressing in very clear terms that military shall remain the final arbiter of our national interest.
He said that whenever military felt that the affairs of the state were not being managed properly, being a patriotic institution, it had a right to intervene to restore order.
A few days later, replying to question in a TV programme, he went even further by implying that military coups were not mishaps in Pakistan's history and narrated the positive impact of each martial law period to the extent of defending General Yahya Khan.
He declared that there was nothing wrong with the induction of military officers in civilian departments, as in most cases not a single civilian was available who possessed matching qualifications. He warned that if his National Security Council was not retained there would be a new martial law in the country in ten to twelve years.
For reasons known to everyone, Pakistan's military is the most powerful institution in the country. It has been recipient of the largest share in national budget over the last fifty-seven years, it has enjoyed longest stints in government because of its close links with various US administrations, and it possesses a big arsenal of arms and ammunitions and a disciplined armed force. Domestically, no political or judicial institution can rival its physical power.
For that matter, militaries in most countries possess absolute physical power. If today military command decides to take over the government in the US, there is no political or judicial institution that can stop it.
If Indian military did not take over the government after Indira Gandhi's imposition of emergency in 1974 or during the years of coalition governments between 1993-99 when three elections took place in six years, it was not because it lacked the power to do so.
If in Bangladesh military has remained on sidelines despite extreme hostility between, and negative politics of, two leaders, Khalida Zia and Hasina Wajid, it is not because its military lacks the power to do so.
The fact is that despite their capability, militaries chose not to intervene. In some cases self-discipline and restraint, in others fear of law, while in yet others the realization that military solutions do not work prevented them from taking over.
Even in countries where military once enjoyed constitutional powers one finds that it is relinquishing ground to civil and political structures as in Indonesia and Turkey.
By the logic of "might is right", security guards of any factory, office, or house will be well within their right to throw out the owners of the company or house at gunpoint and occupy the premises as and when they feel that the affairs of the place are not being managed properly.
This principle is a recipe for disaster and anarchy, it can not become the norm of any civilized society or state. Therefore, General Musharraf's assertion that military is within its right to take over the country in disregard of the constitution as and when it feels like doing so is fraught with great dangers and negation of the basic principles and norms of governance.
How can there ever be rule of law in a society where breaking traffic sign is punishable but subverting the constitution goes unpunished. It is very unfortunate that while this lesson has been learnt by generals in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, our chief of army staff is seeking to further politicize the role of the military in Pakistan.
Normally, we are made to believe that martial laws are not the choice of the military but of politicians who create a situation where it is forced to intervene reluctantly.
If that were true, then we would not have seen frequent and long military rule in our history. If military had been forced into a political role, then one would have seen its early exit from politics because one doesn't like to engage in undesirable activities for too long.
But what we observe is that each military dictator wanted to rule for ever. They did not leave offices voluntarily but were removed either by personal or a national debacles under which continuing in power was no longer an option.
Ayub Khan after ten years of authoritarian rule did not want to leave power and left when a popular uprising. left him with no choice. Yahya Khan did not want to leave and after holding elections started playing both Mujib and Bhutto off each other to perpetuate his presidency.
In the process he dismembered the country and presided over one of the worst surrenders in military history and left when continuing further was no longer possible.
General Zia ruled for eleven years but never thought of relinquishing his uniform. But for an air crash which removed him physically from the scene, he would have liked to continue indefinitely as president and COAS.
Most recently General Musharraf held some form of elections for which he got three years from the Supreme Court but has given no indications of giving up either his uniform or his political role.
This clearly shows that military dictators have no qualms about military's political role. Their political ambitions and corporate interests actually bring martial laws.
When General Ayub Khan imposed the first martial law there was no political crisis in the country threatening its existence. If the elections due in February 1959 had been allowed to take place, the PML under the leadership of Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan would have formed a very stable government.
Likewise, the second martial law was imposed when under pressure of agitation General Ayub Khan wanted to transfer power to the speaker of National Assembly but his own army chief, General Yahya Khan, snatched power from him at gun point.
In 1977, before the imposition of the third martial law by General Zia, according to Prof. Ghafoor, a member of the PNA negotiating team, an agreement had already been reached between the leadership of the PNA and Mr. Bhutto.
The political deadlock stood resolved but it was sabotaged by a ranking PNA leader writing a letter to the military high command asking it to take over which it did. Likewise, on October 12, 1999, there was neither any political crisis nor any risk of default in the country except that prime minister had exercised his constitutional power to dismiss the COAS, which angered the military leadership which retaliated by an extra-constitutional step of suspending the Constitution and overthrowing the government.
When questioned on the BBC, General Musharraf categorically admitted that if Nawaz Sharif had not dismissed him, he would have continued as the prime minister. The fact of the matter is that the military leadership feared that if the order of the prime minister on Oct 12, 1999 was executed it world have tilted the balance of power in favour of political institutions.
In India two service chiefs were dismissed by the prime minister in the wake of its most recent confrontation with Pakistan but there were neither shock waves nor a martial law. It is this mindset which has not let democratic institutions take shape in Pakistan.
From 1958, the military has ruled for thirty one years out of forty six years directly while in the remaining period it allowed politicians to operate with limited authority. If as a state Pakistan faces serious problems today, it is the military establishment that has to accept responsibility because it has ruled the country for most of its history.
General Musharraf also counted on high growth rates achieved under military rulers as a success of military rule. But, he did not mention how this growth was achieved. This growth was the result of US patronage through foreign aid and showering of World Bank funds to reward the military rulers. When democracy was restored in 1988, Pakistan was subjected to Pressler amendment sanctions as it had lost its utility after the Soviet pull-out from Afghanistan in 1989.
Thereafter democratic governments were subjected to harsh conditionalities of the IMF and World Bank. Sudden cut-off in foreign aid, including military assistance, and the hard multilateral conditionalities pushed the country into a debt spiral. Moreover, no political government was allowed to function longer than two and a half years. If democratic governments were allowed stable tenures like military governments, the results would have been very different.
For sustainable development there has to be an even platform supported by economic, political, and social institutions and indicators, which have to go hand in hand. Otherwise, a single political or social upheaval can demolish the development of several decades as events in Iraq, Iran and Indonesia have shown.
Pakistan is a federation comprising four provinces. Smaller provinces do not have faith in a military dominated state structure. We need to preserve and strengthen our federation, which can only be done under a genuine parliamentary democracy in Pakistan. Presidential system has been tested by every dictator and finally scrapped because of our peculiar political realities.
Let us not waste more time as the twentyfirst century moves a thousand times faster than the twentieth century. Nations are in race for embracing the new knowledge revolution era while we are caught in centuries-old power game between the king and parliament.
The military leadership must critically look at its past policies. Pakistan needs a professional military not a politico-commercial military as its adversary.
The writer is a former MNA and deputy chairman of the Planning Commission.
So much for free speech
The presidential campaign has confirmed that, under the guise of "campaign finance reform," Congress and the Supreme Court have repealed large parts of the First Amendment. They have simply discarded what were once considered constitutional rights of free speech and political association.
It is not that these rights have vanished. But they are no longer constitutional guarantees. They're governed by limits and qualifications imposed by Congress, the courts, state legislatures, regulatory agencies - and lawyers' interpretations of all of the above.
We have entered an era of constitutional censorship. Hardly anyone wants to admit this - the legalized demolition of the First Amendment would seem shocking - and so hardly anyone does.
The evidence, though, abounds. The latest is the controversy over the anti-Kerry ads by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and parallel anti-Bush ads by Democratic "527" groups such as MoveOn.org.
Let's assume (for argument's sake) that everything in these ads is untrue. Still, the United States' political tradition is that voters judge the truthfulness and relevance of campaign arguments. We haven't wanted our political speech filtered.
Now there's another possibility. The government may screen what voters see and hear. The Kerry campaign has asked the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to ban the Swift Boat ads; the Bush campaign similarly wants the FEC to suppress the pro-Democrat 527 groups.
We've arrived at this juncture because it's logically impossible both to honour the First Amendment and to regulate campaign finance effectively. We can do one or the other - but not both.
Unfortunately, Congress and the Supreme Court won't admit the choice. The result is the worst of both worlds. We gut the First Amendment and don't effectively regulate campaign finance.
The First Amendment says that Congress "shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government" (that's "political association").
The campaign finance laws, the latest being McCain-Fein gold, blatantly violate these prohibitions.The Supreme Court has tried to evade the contradiction. It has allowed limits on federal campaign contributions.
It justifies the limits as preventing "corruption" or "the appearance of corruption." But the court has rejected limits on overall campaign spending by candidates, parties or groups. Limiting spending, the court says, would violate free speech. Spending enables candidates to reach voters through TV and other media.
Unfortunately, this artful distinction doesn't work. If groups can spend any amount on campaigns, their spending can easily become unlimited contributions. All they need to do is ask the campaign how their money ought to be spent - on what TV ads, for example.
To prevent this, the FEC imposes restrictions on "coordination" between candidates, parties and groups making "independent expenditures." John Kerry alleges that the Swift Boat Veterans and the Bush campaign "coordinated" illegally. Republicans see similar ties between Kerry and Democratic 527s.
But "coordination" is really "speech" and "political association." It's talking and planning among people who want to elect or defeat the same candidates. There's an indestructible inconsistency between the language of the First Amendment and campaign finance laws.
Why shouldn't veterans coordinate with Bush? Why shouldn't Democratic 527s coordinate with Kerry? The Supreme Court upholds the campaign finance laws simply by ignoring the First Amendment's language.
All the legal twisting has (so far) produced mostly self- censorship. Politicians try to comply with the law's letter and evade its spirit. To maximize its support for Kerry, the Democratic National Committee has set up a separate "independent expenditures" unit.
The unit's top officials aren't supposed to talk politics with the Kerry campaign or other DNC officials. In a recent Newsweek interview, DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe was asked about the unit's ads. Here's his abbreviated (for space) response:
McAuliffe: Legally, I cannot have that conversation... I cannot signal to the Kerry campaign what type of ads we're doing, how much money we're spending, because that would be deemed coordination...
Q: You can't tell him anything about what the themes of your advertising will be?
A: No sir, absolutely not ...
Q: Do these rules strike you as absurd?
A: Yes.
Of course they're absurd. A party and its candidates should talk about whatever they want. If the First Amendment doesn't cover that, what would it cover? It's also unrealistic to think - regardless of legal precautions - that "signalling" won't occur between support groups and candidates.
The media poorly describe what's happening. Campaign finance reform is a respectable cause. It's inconvenient to say that the First Amendment is being scalped. Few do.
The New York Times recently ran a story on two campaign lawyers - one Democratic, one Republican - who bring cases before the FEC to bend "the complex rules to their clients' maximum benefit." The story barely hinted that, once candidates need lawyers and rulings to say what they can do, their constitutional protections have disappeared.
But the truth cannot remain forever obscured. Campaign finance laws must fail at their larger aim of improving public confidence in politics and government. They breed disrespect for law, the Constitution or both.
If the laws are aggressively expanded and enforced - with more limits on contributions, spending and "coordination" - people will realize they're losing their rights of free speech and political association.
But if the laws are laxly enforced, as they have been, they will inspire continuing evasions and harsh condemnations by "reformers." Public confidence suffers either way. Americans will ultimately have to choose between the Constitution and a mere law - or watch both be damaged. -Dawn/Washington Post Service