| 16 September 2004 | Thursday | 30 Rajab 1425 |
Democracy versus delivery
The myth of anti-Semitism
High cost of a large cabinet
As the world goes deeper into new violence and volatility and Muslim societies struggle to find new ways out of a pervasive dis-empowerment, definitions of terms and interpretations of words become more than academic, semantic exercises. How these are understood and perceived directly shape attitudes, and in most cases, motivate actions.
When particular words and terms are portrayed in a specific way and when this portrayal is popularized through textbooks in schools and colleges, through the mass media, through mosques and through public discourse and discussions, even incorrect, distorted and misleading representations become accepted as the actual meaning of certain phrases.
Some words are better conveyed when seen in context. For example, with reference to "conservatism" and "moderation", it may be accurate to say: The conservatives in Islam have custody of the mosques while the moderates have custody of their own drawing rooms. It is only when this situation is reversed that we will move closer to true Islam.
Definitions of terms like "fundamentalism", "terrorism" and "jihad" are important. Several significant clarifications about these terms have already been made in the columns of this newspaper, and elsewhere by other writers.
The clarifications have helped correct distortions historically perpetuated through the false "Orientalism" of the West, and more recently, post-9/11 through the mass media.
In this brief comment, it is intended to reflect on only three terms: "Muslim ummah", "enlightened moderation" and "secularism". Human beings exist on two basic planes: the spiritual and the physical. Seen as people who share the irreducible articles of faith in Islam, the term "Muslim ummah" correctly describes the spiritual affinity that all Muslims feel.
However, when the same term is applied to the physical dimension of visible reality, the commonality of the Kaaba as well as the mosque, for all Muslims, from Mauritania to Malaysia is disrupted by the differences and variety on the physical plane.
While being Muslim, and accepting the Holy Quraan as the word of Allah and respecting the finality of the Prophet (peace be upon him), the Muslim ummah is, in real terms, completely heterogeneous and divided on the basis of geography, ethnicity, cultural practices, languages, political systems, political viewpoints and economic systems.
Before the Muslim ummah can project itself in credible terms externally to the non-Muslim world, the Muslim world itself needs to recognize all the implications of enormous diversity.
On September 3, Dr Mahathir Muhammad at the Hamdard Conference on the Muslim Ummah in Karachi referred to the fundamental cause of the present poor state of the Muslim Ummah as being due to divisive sectarianism.
Yet even when the more destructive differences between Muslim sects are reduced or eliminated, heterogeneity and variety will always be the features of diversity in the Muslim ummah.
Thus, the term "Muslim ummah" implies a comprehensive similarity and unity which, in actual fact, does not exist - and is unlikely to, in the foreseeable future. To stress the heterogeneity of the Muslim ummah is to be realistic, not to be nihilistic.
We should acknowledge diversity and use it to our advantage. We should not attempt to ignore intrinsic differences and pretend that a similarity exists where there is no similarity.
Acceptance of diversity can energize the power of versatility. Denial of diversity can stultify and suppress capacity. The fraternity and unity of the Muslim ummah should be seen as desirable but distant stars - even as we keep our feet firmly on the ground and reach for the skies above.
The term "enlightened moderation" is an interesting formulation. It is useful in focussing public attention on the need to resist the continued attempts by extremism to hijack Islam. However, in this context the word "moderation" is redundant. Enlightenment is the only condition for which there should be no moderation.
Moderation is also an inadequate term. As a description of the virtues of balance and reasonableness, moderation is appropriate. But it is not comprehensively descriptive of the ideal condition we should aspire for.
In many respects, moderation is a virtue. Yet in some crucial respects, it can be another word for weakness, for vulnerability to coercion. The partial limitations of the concept of "moderation" are best evident when we remember that resistance to extremism and violence cannot be, and must never be: "moderate". On yet another level, the limitations become obvious if we switch the sequence to read: "moderate enlightenment."
Before enlightenment, there are several stages to accomplish. From raw data and facts, to processed information to refined knowledge to mellow wisdom. Each of these stages requires meticulous attention to details; intellectual discipline; open-mindedness to new information and knowledge and to fresh experience; above all, the presence of a passion to pursue new learning.
Ultimately, enlightenment comes from the fusion of mind and spirit to produce insight and humility. As enlightenment without limitation is the most preferable route to ethical actions and to practising the essence of Islam, the term "immoderate enlightenment" may be a more appropriate formulation.
One of the most important definitions needs to deal with the nature of any state in which Muslims are in a majority, with the kind of political system that they should adopt.
This aspect concerns the formulation that sets up an Islamic state as the antithesis of a secular state. Islam and secularism are defined in major discourse, for example in Pakistan, and specially in the Urdu press, as being completely separate and diametrically opposite to each other. The word "secularism" is translated in Urdu media as "atheism" or "Godlessness" which are entirely incorrect representations.
Secularism means that religion and state function separately. It does not mean a denial of the sanctity of religion as is misinterpreted in religious-political, and in Urdu media discourse.
Secularism means that all religions are to be respected by the State. On September 11, 1947, Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah presented his secular vision for a Pakistan in which Muslims would always be the vast majority but where non-Muslims would be equal citizens, a Pakistan that would not be a theocratic state.
A state can be secular and at the same time be guided by the principles of Islam, as well as actually practise them. Whereas a state may claim to be Islamic and yet be quite un-Islamic in principle and in practice.
Any state that prefixes its name with a reference to religion creates instant and insurmountable hurdles for itself because of the presence of differing schools of thought within a single religion, competitive clergies and futile attempts to recreate a past by applying interpretations made several hundred years ago in conditions vastly different from the 21st century.
Whereas a secular state can take the most positive facets of a religion without being shackled by the chains of dogma, of ritualistic thinking, and ritualistic practices.
No state, secular or theocratic, western or eastern, is perfect. Evolution and change are perpetual. The Misaaq-i-Madina or the "constitution of Madina" in the era of the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him) can be seen as a definition of how a Muslim-dominated state could also be a secular state. In references to the rights of the Jews of Yathrib/Madina, authoritative interpretations point out that this charter placed a minority like Jews as being part of the ummah.
Allama Mohammad Iqbal in his lectures titled: "Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam" said: "All that is secular is deeply sacred at the roots of its being". The Holy Quraan defines the inclusive, secular character of Islam by which the beliefs, actions and practical deeds of all believers are given an equal and equitable status.
Verse 62 of Surah 2 - Al Baqarah states: "Those who believe (in the Quraan), and those who follow the jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians - any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." (from the translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali).
The antithetical formulation of an Islamic state and a secular state is conceptually flawed. It distorts the direction of the debate which shapes the political development of Muslim nations.
At present there are at least seven different kinds of states in the Muslim ummah:
a) Hereditary monarchies without elections (Saudi Arabia); b) One-party dominated democracies (Egypt); c) Multi-party democracies with military domination (Pakistan); d) Authoritarian systems or partial democracies (Central Asian republics); e) Multi-party democracies with civilian supremacy (Malaysia, Bangladesh, Indonesia); f) Multi-party democracies with religious councils wielding veto powers (Iran); g) Secular democracies (Turkey).
Such a wide diversity of political systems wholely or partially explains the inability of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to go beyond lip service to act purposefully in applying collective force for the resolution of the crises facing the ummah.
Before attempting to restructure the OIC, Muslim states should initiate internal restructuring to make their political systems more participative, to bring their governance closer to the original democratic core of Islam.
Turkey is possibly the only dominantly Muslim country that has categorically adopted secularism as its basic political system. Yet in some respects, Turkey has gone to excessive and unreasonable lengths in the name of secularism such as by its own ban on hijabs. Even now, the military retains an ultimate veto power that is not in keeping with pure secularism.
There are some African countries, and some North African/Arab countries (Algeria) that may also come close to some aspects of Turkey. Of all the 50 plus members of the ummah, only two or three states show the capacity to combine their predominantly Muslim identity with truly Islamic values such as democracy, pluralism, respect for minorities, regularity of elections, peaceful transfer of power on a non-hereditary basis.
Two of these states are Turkey and Malaysia, with some reservations - for example, the suppression of Muslim Kurds in Turkey, the use of a draconian Internal Security Act in Malaysia.
Both countries are either overtly secular or quasi-secular. Is their relatively fast development and their progressive modernity due to their being secular or quasi-secular? Or, in other words, because both are more truly Islamic in practice than "religious" or theocratic states?
To answer this question, there is a need for ijtehaad on this subject, through candid, tolerant debate in the Muslim ummah to reflect on the synergy between Islam and secularism: to galvanize a new level of participation and dynamism in the effort to shape a new kind of state and political system for the Muslim ummah.
The writer is a former senator and federal minister.
Democracy versus delivery
What is more important: democracy or delivery? Is the manner in which a government comes to power more important, or is what a government does in power - whether it delivers - more important? Ideally, of course, one would have both. But in a world where getting it all is too much to hope for, which should one choose?
Listen to politicians and commentators in this country, and the answer would definitely be 'democracy' - the process by which governments and leaders come to power. This is perhaps to be expected in a land that has known more military rulers than civilian elected governments.
Democracy has featured especially prominently in political discourse here since the October 1999 coup that ousted Nawaz Sharif and brought Pervez Musharraf to power.
Anti- and pro-Musharraf camps have been engaged in a vicious battle ever since for ownership of the term 'democracy'. The opposition parties claim the moral high ground, presenting themselves as democracy's soldiers desperately trying to ward off the military 'invaders'.
Musharraf and the PML-Q claim to be democratic too, but their claim is less to the substance of democracy as the form. The referendum, local government elections (especially for district and tehsil nazims), the October 2002 polls and the recent election of Shaukat Aziz are justified more on procedural than moral grounds. The letter of the law was followed, if not the spirit.
Perhaps recognizing that it is on weak ground, the Musharraf camp also makes liberal use of the "delivery" argument. How many times have we been told that our military president is acting "in the national interest"? How many times have we heard him berating the failures and corruption of previous civilian elected regimes? The implicit point being made is that it is what the government/ruler does that counts: not the manner in which it/he came to power.
The same arguments are being bandied around in the latest democracy controversy: over Musharraf's right to wear his military uniform while holding the office of president.
The main thrust of the opposition's argument is that the move is "undemocratic" and "unconstitutional": an army chief cannot simultaneously be a civilian head of state - the Constitution does not allow it.
The government's defence is based both on democracy and delivery. It is "democratic" because that's what the people want - 96 per cent of them according to General Musharraf.
It is "constitutional" because there are provisions in that document which can be manipulated to make it so. And it is justified because it will ensure the "sustainability of policies in the national interest".
Bottom line: the primary focus of president-government and opposition alike is over the manner in which the former seized and retains power. Musharraf is obsessed with legitimizing his rule, while the opposition is obsessed with exposing and highlighting its undemocratic roots.
But ask the same question - "democracy or delivery?" - of the people of this country, and you will get a quite different answer. The legal-constitutional debate raging in the National Assembly, the number of hats Pervez Musharraf has in his cupboard, the LFO and other such pressing issues at federal- political level, pale into relative insignificance when you get down to the grassroots.
These debates have little relevance to the daily grind of their lives. For those who populate Pakistan's multitudinous villages and urban neighbourhoods, delivery is the only thing that matters.
But not the "delivery" that Musharraf and Shaukat Aziz boast of: burgeoning foreign currency reserves, debt write-offs and reined-in Islamists. No, those at the grassroots are focussed on more basic indicators.
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's old campaign slogan "Roti, kapra aur makaan" pretty much summed up their definition of "delivery". The one element he omitted was security: of life, person and property. These are the aspirations of ordinary people: this is what they expect from their government - be it civilian or military.
If they had to choose between a government elected democratically but not delivering, and a military/undemocratic government that delivers on these issues, the overwhelming majority would go for the latter.
There is evidence from international practice to back this assertion. Compare Singapore with India under the last Vajpayee government. Singapore is an island city whose economy is among the strongest in the world.
It is a clean, modern efficient country in which the government surpasses itself in meeting the "roti, kapra, makaan - and security" needs of its people. Yes, it is far from tolerant of opposition and it does bear a very strong resemblance to "Big Brother", but that doesn't seem to bother most Singaporeans. They have a government that delivers: they can manage without full democracy.
India, by contrast, has a vibrant political arena and press all too happy to criticize whoever is in power. Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and his BJP-led government were democratically elected - in the world's largest democracy. But they failed to meet the needs of ordinary people: they failed to improve the life of the man on the street. In the elections four months ago they paid the price.
India and Singapore are strong arguments to support "delivery is more important than democracy". But in the long run, of course, democracy does matter. Promoting transparency and accountability, which in turn promotes efficiency and effective service delivery, leading ultimately to poverty alleviation - democracy is the only guarantee of good governance.
Without it, good governance becomes dependent on the will and whim of those exercising power. And there are too many cases of abuse by those in unaccountable positions for that to be relied on.
Returning to Pakistan, the irony - or rather the tragedy - is that people here get neither democracy nor delivery. No one could honestly describe our military president, planted prime minister and bought-off politicians as constituting a democratic government.
As for delivery (of the things that matter to ordinary people) the human development indicators of this country put it permanently at the bottom-end of the world league: education, health care, clean drinking water, sanitation, roads, gas and electricity supply - the figures are all appalling. In short, there are no choices, no options for the people of Pakistan: they get the worse of both worlds.
A final note: When asked in a nation wide survey who they would contact for a problem of personal safety or a threat to property, the most common response of households (more than a third) was 'Allah'. That one answer sums up the state of democracy and delivery in this country.
iffatidris2000@yahoo.co.uk.
The myth of anti-Semitism
In his opening speech at a seminar on "Anti-Semitism" organized by the United Nations recently in New York, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan expressed his indignation at the extermination of the Jews in Germany in 1930s and asked the UN-member states to combat anti-Semitism which, according to him, was once again rearing its head.
He also declared that the fight against anti-Semitism "must be our fight, and the Jews everywhere must feel that the United Nations is their home too. Kofi Annan's declaration, if viewed in historical perspective, shows his somewhat misplaced tilt in favour of Israel.
In 1948, the Zionists were allowed to create the first ever state of Israel on usurped Palestinian territories, in complicity with Britain and its allies and with the active support of the United Nations, on the pretext of the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe.
This perpetrated a dreadful outrage against the Palestinians. One only hopes that a reiteration of the spectre of anti-Semitism by the UN secretary-general was not intended to repeat history that may lead to the usurpation of the West Bank and Gaza by Israel on a permanent basis.
The racial discrimination, in any form, and the doctrine of racial superiority, in particular, is morally condemnable and socially unacceptable and needs to be eradicated by the international community.
However, anti-Semitism, which was a purely western phenomenon, has declined after the Holocaust in Germany and there has been a great improvement, particularly in Jewish-Christian understanding and, as such, there was no plausible reason or urgency to raise the issue of anti-Semitism by Kofi Annan, particularly at a time when there was a deep sense of revulsion, throughout the world, at Israel's barbaric act against the Palestinians.
The bogey of anti-Semitism is actually raised by the Zionists from time to time only to deflect criticism against their own racial policies towards the Palestinians. It is an irony that the Sharon government has recently denounced the mounting criticism against Israel's racial policies as anti-Semitism.
In his speech at the seminar, Kofi Annan also condemned the UN General Assembly's resolution of 1975 which equated Zionism with racism. He also vociferously opposed those who, in his opinion, continue to spread lies and stereotypical views about the Jews and Judaism or use the Palestinian cause to incite hatred against them in Israel and elsewhere.
Kofi Annan's criticism of the General Assembly's resolution in question belies the UN's stance on Israel's racial policies and practices which have been followed by it persistently.
It may, however, be noted that the UN continues to show its concern at Israel's racist policies, as reflected in its numerous resolutions and declarations even after the revocation of that resolution in 1991 under immense US pressure.
The world conference against racism, held in August-September, 2001, in Durban (South Africa) and attended by a number of prominent world leaders including Kofi Annan, expressed its deep concern at the escalation of Israel's racial practices and vowed to eliminate them.
In Israel's history, racism has always been a dominant factor as the adherents of the Jewish faith are opposed to the equality of the Jews with non-Jews and consider themselves racially superior.
The non-Jews, particularly the Arabs, living in Israel are being governed by laws and rules which have specifically been framed for them and are discriminatory in nature on grounds of race and religion. The successive governments in Israel virtually adopted the same policies towards the non-Jews as were followed by Hitler towards the Jews in Germany.
There is a long list of such discriminatory laws and rules promulgated by Israel. To illustrate this point, it may be mentioned that whereas every Jew, living anywhere in the world, is considered a potential citizen of Israel if he or she wishes to come to that country for permanent settlement there, on the other hand, an Arab, even though he or she may have been born in the territories now constituting Israel, cannot automatically claim citizenship of that country.
Moreover, even if an Arab is accepted as an Israeli citizen, he or she cannot move from one part of the country to another without prior permission from the concerned authorities.
This racial discrimination in Israel is also shown in various other ways. For example, a law enacted some time ago to prevent assimilation between the Jews and non-Jews, has completely separated the two communities in every sphere of life in that country.
This law is comparable with the Nazis racist Nuremberg laws. The Jews are also portrayed as different from the rest of the world community and are not supposed to honour the laws or any other universally accepted codes of ethics.
In a recently published book Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, its co-authors, Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky, have made startling revelations about the racial discrimination in Israel.
They have noted that one of the basic tenets of the Lurianic Cabbala, the school of Jewish mysticism that dominated Judaism from the late 16th to early 19th century "is the absolute superiority of the Jewish soul and body over the non-Jewish soul and body, and that the world was created solely for the sake of the Jews, the existence of non-Jews [being] subsidiary".
The authors have also pointed out that the respected Israeli sociologist, Baruch Kimmerling, citing evidence from a study conducted by other scholars, declared: "The value of the Jewish religion, at least in its orthodox and nationalistic form that prevails in Israel, cannot be squared with democratic values.
No other variable - neither nationality, nor attitudes about security, nor social or economic values, nor ethnic descent and education - so influences the attitudes of the Israeli Jews against democratic values as does religiosity."
This book should serve as an eye-opener to those who are not aware of the growing fundamentalism and racial tendencies in contemporary Israeli society and, therefore, show their concern over the irrational fears of anti-Semitism being projected by Israel and being blown out of proportion.
The writer is a former ambassador.
High cost of a large cabinet
The administrative disadvantage of having an unduly large federal cabinet and an unwieldy council of ministers and advisers have been agitating the concerned citizens.
The issue is not only the salaries of ministers and ministers of state and also the much larger perquisites which were recently doubled, but the fact that the limits set on the perquisites could be easily breached with impunity, as it often happens.
And yet there is more wasteful and needless other expenditure on them, the total of which can be staggering. A part of the burden falls on the provincial governments when the numerous federal ministers go on a visit to the provinces. The centre should be paying the cost of such visits, but in actual practice it does not and delays it as much as it can.
The number of ministers and advisers now totals 66. To these are to be added two more advisers and several ministers of state soon to meet the demands of political exigencies in a multi-party ruling system.
Add to them the 34 parliamentary secretaries on a monthly stipend plus a performance allowances and 34 more chairmen of the standing committees of the National Assembly for various ministries. That makes a total of 134, plus the speaker and deputy speaker.
That reminds one of the tradition of small Balochistan Assembly in which the majority of members were office holders - ministers and in many other capacities. So they could not be voted out from outside but could only implode from within as the small parties withhold support to the government.
Now following the sudden expansion of the cabinet the ministers have to be provided chambers. The ministers need personal staff who are usually four in number beginning with the private secretary and personal assistant.
The ministers can, in addition, get additional staff from their many attached offices. When the number of personal staff swells they too need additional office space.
All that ultimately leads to the demand for erection of additional office blocks which can meet future need of cars, officially one actually two or more. But they manage to get far more from their attached offices whose bosses are ready to oblige the minister.
A minister visiting Karachi often needs four cars - one for himself, another for his family for shopping, one for his staff and the fourth one for his friends to come and go.
A minister for production was once told by his young nephew, as a matter of surprise, that he had too many cars. "I have only 16, but am entitled to 64 - one for each unit under me." Now he is doing with just one old car.
Then, a new minister needs a house and finding a suitable house which meets the taste of the minister, his wife and the family is no easy task. Tastes differ and preferences vary. It appears several ministers approached the prime minister to get a house.
But he said the days the prime minister allotted houses to ministers were over. Now it is the job of the minister for housing. Once the minister is provided with a house he heeds domestic staff, including a cook, a gardener etc., at public expense.
And when the minister is on a tour to the provinces, other problems arise. The relevant provincial minister should be available to him. That is no problem in Punjab and Sindh which have an over-supply of ministers wanting to be in the limelight with a federal minister.
But the visiting minister should have enough number of police mobile vans in his escort wherever he stays or goes. But there are not enough mobiles and not enough cops.
Too many cops in Karachi are on VIP duties of assorted kinds to provide enough security to the visiting ministers. So the ministers wanted bullet-proof Mercedes for themselves as well, but there are not such cars although the Ruler of the UAE gave six of them to Pakistan as a gift.
For all the clamour for privileges and perquisites for the ministers there is a constant complaint from the members of parliament that the ministers are not in the House to listen to them or redress complaints of the people of their constituency.
Such protests come from the members of the ruling coalition as well. And the members on their part absent themselves so frequently or do not turn up in the house, and the House has to adjourn without a quorum too often or a session going smoothly breaks for that reasons.
For all that the house has to meet for a minimum of only 130 days in a year, almost for just one third of the year, unlike the civil servants who have to attend their offices regularly. That shows the lack of sense of responsibility on the part of the MNAs in a country in which we have an assembly only at times.
The sessions start very late for want of quorum and are adjourned abruptly and it is the same situation the next day. the attendance used to be much better and the sessions more orderly when they used to begin in the morning. The ministers then said they had office work to do and official meetings to attend in the morning, and so the sessions were shifted to the afternoon.
The problem with the afternoon sessions is that the members wake up late after taking a nap and come to the house late. Hence the sessions starts late. Then comes the call for Maghrab prayers and some of the members disappear. Then comes the call for Isha prayers and more members leave.
Somebody then points out that there is no quorum. The lobby bells are rung and for long and yet no member who had left the Parliament House returns. He is done for the day. The sessions is adjourned.
In the western countries where the session of parliament begins in the afternoon, prayers do not intervene in the evening or at night. Party discipline is much stronger and the members of parliament have a high sense of duty and voters keep a sharp eye on the more active members of the assemblies.
The record of voting by the members is also very well tabulated by the voters. Newspaper coverage of the parliamentary proceedings is far better and more comprehensive.
Now the ministers are allowed to retain their party offices, or get hold of new party offices if they have none. That will reduce the time available to the ministers to do office work.
In fact, the ministers will be spending government funds and using official facilities like cars and telephones and office staff to do party-work which is not proper. But propriety is not the prime concern under the system.
Top officials can perform Umra at the expense of state. In the past some performed Umra at their own expense but that can't be done now for security reasons. And the security has to be elaborate and tight and that is very expensive.
Former President Ziaul Haq used to say that in the plane he was using there was plenty of surplus space. So he filled it up with a large entourage. Then there are marriages to attend in various parts of the country and the journey must be marked for its tight security. All that costs a great deal of money to the state.
The rule is if there are heightened security hazards the top persons make the minimum of trips and expose themselves to the minimum of the people in this age of TV and IT.
In fact when most important persons move around under a stiff security cordon the people are greatly inconvenienced and eventually become resentful as the traffic jam worsens. Such situations should be avoided to the maximum possible extent particularly when they are on TV for long most of the nights.
The final item of expenditure is the legislator's development programme. For that the parliamentarians including the Senators are given Rs. ten million a year and provincial assembly members a half of that amount. And now the members of the District Council, too, are calling for development allowance for themselves and the government is inclined to agree to that.
Supporters of the government may get larger than this specified amount depending on their political pull and how close they are to the party chiefs. And the opposition members may find it difficult to get the money sanctioned and get the money late.
However ineffective, the standing committees of parliament for various ministries may be, their chairmen are well looked after by the government. They have got separate offices with the requisite staff and a brand new Toyota cars of 1300 CC for themselves. And yet it was reported before the end of last year that the parliament passed only two laws in a year.
All that makes the parliament a poor model for young politicians to follow. A National Assembly which is too often adjourned for want of quorum or want of interest of the members in the legislative affairs of the country is a dispiriting institution for its young members.
President Musharraf is all praise for the young members of the parliament some of whom he had taken with him on foreign trips. But the right way to reward them is not to make them ministers or ministers of state outright but to make them parliamentary secretaries.
And that should be done not for a brief period before they are elevated to ministership but for a reasonably long time. They should be put to work to solve some of the basic problems of poverty through field work and not by issuing directives.
We will not get a better parliament by paying its members lavishly but by making it meet for long hours and discuss the problems of the country and find their real solutions. We need a working parliament and not a dispersing parliament as few members have real interest in its debate or decisions.