| 28 October 2004 | Thursday | 13 Ramazan 1425 |
Aspects of Bush campaign
Why secularism is resisted
Outlook for the Muslim world
A major reason for the widespread corruption in the country and low administrative efficiency is the poor salary structure offered to the government servants. And why the salaries are low is because of the relatively poor fiscal resources of the government also caused by corruption in revenue-earning departments, particularly in the taxation services.
Both are aggravated by the large number of people employed in public service - over 4 million. And they are divided almost equally between the federal government and the organizations under it and the staff of the four provincial governments.
The Punjab government has over a million staff and the Sindh government almost half a million. And now the ban on recruitment in Sindh is to be lifted and 42,886 persons are to be taken in. The federal government employs over 600,000 in the armed forces, including the civilians assisting them. Privatization does not seem to have reduced that number significantly. Anyway we are yet to be given the figures.
And yet the salaries have to be raised from time to time in view of the high inflation in the country over the decades. It came down during the last five years following stability of the exchange rate and the lowering of the interest rates in a high interest rate country. But now the inflation has gone up by 9.3 per cent within a year, causing great concern among the people, particularly the low income middle class.
The governor of the State Bank of Pakistan Dr Ishrat Hussain says inflation may exceed the official target of 5 per cent for the current financial year, while Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz says it will stay within single digit, which could even mean double the official target of 5 per cent.
The governor of the SBP wants to take some measures to checkmate the soaring inflation because of record oil prices, high food prices and rising house rent. The rise in dollar value will also push up import costs further, but his ability to contain the inflation is limited in view of the militancy of the market and the preference of the traders for higher profits.
The pressure for higher salaries in public service prevails in view of the high salaries and lavish perquisites in the multinational companies in Pakistan, and the tendency among qualified Pakistanis to seek employment abroad, although such opportunities are shrinking now.
Then, the people are also getting accustomed to a better standard of living under the influence of high pressure advertising by foreign owned hotels and restaurants in Pakistan, and the increasing number of TV channels. The pensioners too want higher pensions, unlike what was given to those who retired before 1994, and their number is very large. Two years ago the huge pension burden of the armed forces was merged with the civil pensions and that increased the pension liability enormously.
The salaries of government employees have been raised three times since Gen. Pervez Musharraf took over the reins of government five years ago. The last raise was given when Shaukat Aziz as finance minister presented the federal budget on June 12 this year. He raised the salaries of all government employees by 15 per cent and the pensions of those who retired before 1994 by 16 per cent and of those who retired later by 8 per cent.
That was an ad hoc increase, and he promised a pay and pension committee which will submit its report within six months. A 17-member committee has been set up under the chairmanship of Moeen Afzal, former secretary general of finance, and that committee is to submit its report by April 20 next year.
The terms of reference of the committee permits interim reports to be submitted before its final recommendations as such committees take a long time than usually allotted to it, in view of the various pressures on it and the inability of the government to accept over-generous pay increases suggested along with higher pensions.
Giving higher salaries or allowances to over 4 million people at a time in a small economy itself can be a self-defeating exercise. That much money pumped into the market, particularly food market, can increase the inflation and get the government employees less goods for more money. Hence the committee has to be cautious and not go for a self-defeating financial exercise.
In other countries when demand increases imports can make up the shortage. But in Pakistan imports become far costlier than local food items and other essential goods because of the high taxes and the higher profits which the traders seek.
A comparison of the higher salaries and perquisites of Pakistanis employed in foreign companies with the pay scales of senior government officers may not be very valid. Foreign companies here employ few senior executives and many of them work for very long hours. And there is no security of service, and no service tribunal to appeal to and no high courts to move. Compare that to the number of additional secretaries we have and there is no OSD in foreign companies.
The government is also toying with the idea of employing more and more officers on contract but has met with marginal success. Many among those who retire are given extension. While some people in government service are given short shrift, others with the right connections or instant flexibility have placed in better positions.
Increase in the salary of the public servants will have its ramifications in the private sector, too. Private sector employees too will clamour for a suitable rise in their salaries and allowances. And that cannot be denied altogether.
Now the Sindh government says that following its decision to lift ban on employment and employ 42,886 persons its development outlay of Rs 18 billion may be reduced and less development means less future employment.
The terms of reference of the 17-member committee are comprehensive. And the committee has to take care to ensure what it recommends by way of higher salaries is affordable by the government. And it has chosen a chairman in Moeen Afzal who is realistic and well acquainted with the financial limitations of the government. It has also the finance secretaries of the provinces as its members so that they can let the committee know what the provinces can afford by way of enhanced salaries.
An earlier report said that the 22 grades in the services are to be reduced to 12, and with a hundred per cent increase in emoluments and the pay for grade 22 may increase from Rs 80,000 to Rs 85,000. But that has not been confirmed and meanwhile the announcement about setting up the committee has come.
The government wants the committee to suggest living wages for all grades which reflect the market reality of the private sector salaries. It has also to take into account salaries in the countries of the region. The committee will "analyse job content in the public sector in comparison with the private sector and suggest a degree of comparability of their salary structures."
The committee may recommend the possibility of monetizing the perks, facilities, etc., and rationalise the existing pension system and remove discriminations, if any. Will the committee seriously take up this suggestion and suggest payment of cash as rent of their homes and also in lieu of the various automobiles provided to them. Let them rent any home they like with the cash that becomes available and let them have their own cars instead of having three to five cars and not the one permitted by the government. Even provincial secretaries have three cars or more at their homes. Their sons drive some of these official cars rashly and wreck them and get new cars in place of the destroyed. All that must stop.
And instead of being given free medical treatment in government hospitals let there be health insurance for all in the government and insurance companies take care of them when they fall sick.Apart from the large saving such a system can bring about, it will also keep them in touch with the market reality and make them part of the mainstream society. They will also be less indifferent towards the sufferings of the poor and our official inflation figures may become more real.
Only those in grade 21 and above now get the properly furnished homes, several cars in reality, and domestic servants, but not those below them who face varied hardships and rough treatment in ill-managed government hospitals.
In effect there should be as few distinctions between the government officials and the public as possible so that the officials will regard themselves as public servants and not their overlords. Nor should they regard what is done by them to acknowledge a citizen's rights as a favour done to him.
The issue is the large number of officials in the government sector to do a particular job compared to the few in the private sector who do the work and much quicker. There are far too many overseers in the government, too many men whose rubber-stamp is essential to make any paper or document valid.
Northecote Parkinson wrote about how bureaucracy multiplies in a series of books and how work increases according to the number of hands available. His works are valid in Pakistan today and the committee is well advised to look into his small volumes.
In Japan, for example, what matters is that an official completes his work and in time, and not the extra hours of work he puts in. So no one can see light in government offices late at night. Over here, instead of putting extra hours to complete an official's work he gets extra staff appointed or transferred to his section.
The fact is when there are too many officials red-tape increases and the files have to pass through too many hands and get quite many rubber-stamps affixed to it. But the fact is that you can't catch a thief through more paper alone. They are far more dodgy and much too enterprising.
Aspects of Bush campaign
George Bush has lost his country many friends, and won it many enemies. America is trapped in a war in Iraq that could easily turn into the next Vietnam: it is not trapped in Afghanistan, but it left the job there half-finished.
Domestically, the economy is in tatters - a record surplus has been turned into a record deficit; massive job losses; cuts in social sector spending that have hit ordinary Americans. The country is polarized to an extent not seen in recent years. And the war on terror - the defining mission of the Bush presidency - has categorically failed to achieve its goals: Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda and countless other terror groups flourish. Americans are less safe than they were when Bush became president, or than they were on 9/11 2001.
Judged by any measure, George Bush has failed. He should, logically, be miles behind in the polls. The outcome of November's election should be a foregone conclusion. 'Should be' - but isn't. The polls (taking into account the margin for statistical error) are a dead heat. Some even place Bush ahead of Kerry. Were it not for Kerry's impressive and Bush's unimpressive performance in the television debates, the president would be even further ahead. Why the anomaly? How can a president who has done so badly in his first term be so close to winning a second term in office?
George Bush's famously deep war chest has something to do with it. The president has been phenomenally successful at raising funds for his re-election. The depth of the chest becomes incredibly important when you have to churn out expensive TV ad after expensive TV ad, print posters, hold rallies... It would be no exaggeration to say that victory in the presidential race is as much to do with the ability to keep spending, as it is to do with the strengths and merits of one's arguments. You can be wrong but rich and still win: you can be right but poor - and lose.
Who has filled the president's war chest? Ordinary Americans who support his agenda, yes, but their contribution is small change. The real bucks come from those who have benefited hugely from the first Bush term in office, and who stand to gain even more should he be re-elected. Not ordinary Americans, but the ultra-wealthy corporate elite: those in the defence industry, oil, tobacco and other businesses that would suffer under an administration that prioritized people, values and long-term concerns like protecting the environment. Under the Bush administration, that puts the rich first, throws values out of the window and thinks solely about short-term profit, such businesses flourish.
Bush's massive funds have been used in large part to run a saturation TV ad campaign attacking his opponent. Kerry has been criticized for his voting record in the Senate, for being a liberal for flip-flopping on the Iraq war, and - perhaps most incredible given George Bush's own ignominious war record - for his service in Vietnam.
Negative campaigning has always been part and parcel of the American presidential race, but in this election the Republicans have taken it to new depths. Lynn Cheney, wife of the vice president, was widely quoted comparing Kerry to a pig in one rally - and that's mild compared to some of the other stuff coming out of the Republican camp.
Most of the charges being levelled against John Kerry are false, for instance, the one that he didn't rescue a fellow soldier in Vietnam, for example - made by ex-soldiers who weren't there and refuted by the man in the best position to know: the soldier Kerry rescued. But repeat a lie often enough and for some people, it starts to sound like truth: some come to believe it. It is this art of spin and message manipulation that the Republicans have mastered so well. The Democrats are belatedly struggling to catch up, but their parries remain essentially reactive, defensive rather than pro-active and offensive.
In a fully functioning democracy, one would expect at least some of that responsibility - the duty to question and point out lies and falsehoods - to be shouldered by the media. The United States today is not a fully functioning democracy: the media has been silent since the attacks of 9/11. The atmosphere of patriotism and enforced loyalty (with us or against us) fostered by the White House after those attacks did not allow for any criticism or questions. To challenge the administration was tantamount to a challenge to America itself: it was unpatriotic, disloyal, a boost to the terrorists who attacked the US.
Rather than defending its right - indeed, its duty - to speak out and ask quite justifiable questions of the administration, the media readily acquiesced in the Bush agenda. Print and electronic media ran stories supporting the war on terror, supporting the "war president".
Once America went to war - first against Afghanistan and then against Iraq - the media became even more unquestioning and supportive. To do otherwise would be to denigrate the courage and the sacrifices of US soldiers. Even when it became clear that the justification for the Iraq war was totally the opposite - unjustified - the media still stayed silent.
Whether on international foreign policy issues or domestic bread-and-butter issues, the US papers and news channels have failed to tell the American people the truth. Their failure has played directly into the hands of the Republicans.
All this is the "good side" of the Bush campaign: stuff that just about stays within the bounds of legality. There is another far more negative and disturbing side: stuff that moves well into the terrain of illegality. One example is the appointment by Florida Governor Jeb Bush (the president's brother, and the man who oversaw the subversion of democracy in 2000 that turned victory for Al Gore into defeat) of a staunch Republican as state secretary. Glenda Hood's predecessor Katherine Harris blatantly twisted the 2000 Florida election result in favour of Bush: Hood is already showing signs of doing the same.
Another example is Hood's attempt to deny people the right to vote if they didn't tick a box on their registration forms saying they are US citizens - even though at the bottom of the form they have to sign a statement declaring precisely that. Then, people are being sent absentee ballot papers with John Kerry's name removed, and Republican activists, purporting to be from the Election Office, are calling black voters to 'register them' - thereby allowing them to think they have registered (when they haven't) and ensuring they will not be able to vote on the day.
The attempts to disenfranchise black Americans have been incredible in the scope, degree of organization and planning, and sheer deliberateness with which they have been carried out. One would not be surprised to find such measures being enacted in a 'developing world' democracy like Pakistan but one should be surprised and alarmed to find them in the 'leading democracy of the free world'.
Finally, one should not diminish the strength of Bush's core support base: neo-conservatives and the religious right in America. This base is not only populous but dedicated - almost to the point of extremism. For them getting George Bush back into the White House is much more than a casual political choice: it is a matter of utmost seriousness.
These diehard supporters will vote Republican on November 2: they will turn out, and they will campaign for Bush in the months, weeks and days running up to election day. The passion of Bush's supporters could be considered admirable, were it not for the disinformation and ignorance that (in large measure) fuel it.
In short, should George W. Bush win on November 2, it will be for all the wrong reasons.
E-mail: iffatidris2000@yahoo.co.uk
Why secularism is resisted
The liberalist experiment in the Islamic world has been unsuccessful thus far. Though many might argue that the brand of liberalism implemented in Muslim countries has been a contorted form of the originally espoused ideal, it must nonetheless be conceded that its implementation is part and parcel of the whole scheme.
The Muslim world has had to go through a traumatic experience in the last three centuries. It witnessed the downfall of the mighty Islamic empire, vanquished by a superior West. With this conquest, the fusion of western ideals into Islamic polity was initiated.
There were two general responses to such an infringement of the West on the Islamic world. One set of Muslims, embittered by their loss of global dominance, feared the end of Islam itself with the demise of Muslim political might. As a result, they closed their hearts and minds to all western innovation, looking back wistfully at past Islamic grandeur.
They contended that the key to Muslim salvation and return to glory lay in a strictly literalist adherence to Quranic ideals, rejecting the cultural and even educational benefits offered by the western world. These ulema conveniently overlooked the fact that the precedent Islamic splendour that they idealized had been based on an acquisition of worldly knowledge and cultural pluralism. Theirs was a reactionary stance, and marked the commencement of defensive thought in Islam.
The second Muslim response to the western invasion was one of enchanted infatuation with western ideals. Numerous Muslim scholars found the western ideals of democracy, secularism and freedom as completely harmonious with the classless spirit of the Quran. They exhorted the application of these ideals to Islam, so that Muslims too could reap the benefits of modernity.
They had to suffer considerable distress, first having to struggle for the imposition of secularist ideals and then going through the humiliation of watching those values fail miserably. To their surprise, the very polity that had propelled the West to greatness, left Muslims in the lurch, lower than ever. Naturally, they took this failure of the system personally, subconsciously linking the collapse of the secularist model in the east to the inadequacy of the Muslims.
The real reason behind this failed endeavour is more relevant to the scope and time of this system. The initial Muslim proponents of this model had tried to limit the secular approach solely to the political arena, dismissing its involvement in the overall dynamics of the social system. Secularism is not merely a political system of thought, but encompasses all aspects of societal existence.
Therefore, the establishment of a truly democratic system would require a drastic change in the educational structure, a revaluation of social norms and a revisiting of archaic theological dogmas. Nationwide discussions would have to be initiated on issues such as separation of the state from religion and reconstruction of theological beliefs in the light of modernity.
Needless to say, the Muslim world was not ready then, and may not be so even now, to make such a drastic transition. Even the conception of such a digression from the generally conceived norm would require much larger public awareness than prevalent at present. Consequently, the Muslim world has to have a significant middle class, educated and pragmatic enough to realize the indispensability of the proposed system.
The implementation of such a system would require mass public approval. Arbitrary enforcement of secularist values is akin to forcing food down an infant's throat. Sooner or later, the infant throws the food up. Present day Pakistan is an apt example of this, where the military regime is bent upon the imposition of secularist principles, viewed with hostility by the public as authoritarian anti-Islamism. Egypt, Lebanon and Algeria have had a similar problem, where such values have been forced upon the people by dictators anxious to please western powers.
So distorted and forced has been the implementation of secularist ideology in the Islamic world that an overwhelming majority of the Muslims today regards it as some form of imperialist communism forbidding all religious affiliation utterly. Once again, their view is not without reason.
Secularism as experienced by the West is the freedom of all to practise their religion. No particular ideology would be favoured by the state, and conversely, no religion would be persecuted. The underlying concept of secularism is the severance of religion from the state, so that religion cannot be exploited by governments with an axe to grind. It encourages pluralism and tolerance, rejecting discrimination on any basis.
Moreover, the transition from the rule of the Church to a secular system in the West took a long time. It was established there only once the people had subscribed to the secularist ideal, assimilating the system into their belief system rather than the other way round. The institution of the secular ideal was therefore consensual.
On the contrary, the Islamic world has always witnessed the enforcement of modern systems on them by despots. Moreover, these systems have been rash reactions to the failure of preceding religion-based setups rather than a rational approach to the problem of the Muslim world.
Accordingly, such notions of secularism have always been anti-theology rather than pro-religious freedom. In post-World War-I Turkey, Mustafa Kamal Pasha closed down all religious madressahs, slaughtered the ulema and forbade the religious garb for women, all in the name of secularism. Reza Shah I (1921-41) of Iran banned Ashura processions in the memory of Imam Husain, forcibly removed the Islamic dress and banned Iranians from travelling for hajj. Similar measures were taken in other Muslim countries. Naturally, the Muslims began to regard secularism as a Satanic anathema rather than a reformative progressive system.
Moreover, Islam has not been given due time to cope with these modern notions. Where the western renaissance lasted for about three hundred years, Muslims are being pressured to accept imminently the very concepts which took the Europeans centuries to swallow.
If a Muslim reformation to a secularist system is to make a head-way, it has to be on its own terms, with the consent of the people. The proverbial gates of Ijtihad have to be reopened to accommodate the passage of the stream of time. However, the system has to be evolved in accordance with the egalitarian spirit of Islam. Forcing a western-style system on the Muslims would not do any good.
It is a transition which will take time. Nevertheless, it is a prospect that, if realized, may offer a lot in terms of Islamic revival.
Outlook for the Muslim world
Introspection and self-analysis among Muslims usually mark the holy month of Ramazan, and currently thoughts about the state of the ummah are far from cheerful. The sole superpower is engaged in hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries it targeted as a part of the war against terrorism, after it suffered the most serious attack on its mainland on September 11, 2001.
It attributed this attack to Muslim terrorists acting under the orders of Saudi dissident, Osama bin Laden, from his safe haven in Afghanistan. Even before the 9/11 terrorist attack on the US, western analysts had begun treating Islam as the successor threat to communism following its defeat in the cold war.
The practical implementation of this concept took place in our own region, when Pakistan, that played the role of a frontline state against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, was placed under the sanctions flowing from the Pressler Law, in 1990, and not only was all US aid cut off, but even delivery of arms paid for was stopped. India now emerged as the strategic partner of the US, because it shared Washington's perception of the threat from resurgent Islam.
As is well known, the US attitude towards the Islamic world was largely shaped by Israel, which felt a security threat from the support of the Islamic countries to the people of Palestine, who were struggling for their inalienable rights guaranteed in UN resolutions passed in 1967 and 1973. Regardless of which political party was in power in the US, the security of Israel has remained a constant plank of US foreign policy. Not only was Israel's development of nuclear capability facilitated and abetted, but the rigour of the non-proliferation regime was also applied with special harshness to the Muslim countries.
Though the US found it expedient to exploit Islamic jihadist sentiment against the Soviet Union, during a period when Osama bin Laden was viewed as a hero for mobilizing militants assembled from all over the Islamic world, Washington reversed its stance after its victory in the cold war.
Afghanistan was abandoned, perhaps in the expectation that the Mujahideen factions, who were all Islamic oriented, might bleed each other to a point at which secular forces might take over. This did not happen, and instead, the Taliban, who had fought against Moscow's occupation forces, took over most of the country. The US had drawn up plans to uproot their power, after they offered sanctuary to Osama bin Laden, who had now launched a war against US domination in the heartland of Islam, after the Gulf War of 1991.
Since 9/11, the US war against terrorism has assumed the character of a war against the Islamic world, since Islamic fundamentalism is seen to breed militancy, that leads advocates of Islamic resurgence to launch a "jihad" against powers considered inimical to them. However, while the US under President Bush may find this approach compatible with its unilateralist approach, it does not address the roots of the problem of terrorism, which lie in injustice, whether political or economic.
The plans of his neo-conservative advisers seek to ensure US hegemony in the world, in the 21st century, but the US experience, after pre-emption in Afghanistan and Iraq, has already raised doubts, whether the Bush doctrine will be conducive to peace and stability in the world.
The Bush agenda, for the Greater Middle East, stretching from Morocco to Pakistan, seeks to enforce US concepts of democracy and human rights, with a carrot and stick approach. If the ruling elites fall in line, oppose fundamentalism and extremism, the US will extend economic and technical aid to help them make progress, with large benefits going to US corporations.
In case of opposition, the US would use its power and influence to bring about regime change, and install pliable governments. After Iraq and Afghanistan, pressure is being brought to bear against Syria and Iran, while rebellion in western Sudan has opened up possibilities of regime change there.
The US is relying on pliant regimes, such as those in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, to pursue its agenda. However, pressure is being maintained against these friendly governments, by hints of resort to force, should they falter in fighting extremism and fundamentalism. In a television debate on a news channel associated with the conservative elements, experts were asked to identify the most serious threats to the US.
The threats identified pertained to either the oil wealth of Saudi Arabia or the nuclear weapons of Pakistan falling into the hands of fundamentalists. Thus contingency planning of the sole superpower continues to keep such exigencies in view.
The way the situation has evolved in Afghanistan and Iraq has led many western observers to conclude that the Bush doctrine of pre-emption is a thinly veiled assertion of a neo-colonialist approach, which is not likely to be palatable in this day and age. Indeed, Iraq is bleeding the US militarily and even financially, and world public opinion disapproves of this policy that is animated by hubris and arrogance. The Islamic world is resentful of the assumptions made about the religion of Islam, whose history brings out that it has preached and practised tolerance and peace.
It is pertinent to mention that President George W. Bush has an ideological approach that is in accord with the evangelists in the US, who constitute only 20 per cent of the American Christians. The evangelists believe that they have to help Israel win a total victory in the Middle East, for only that would make possible the coming of Christ. The evangelists are committed to supporting Israel against the Muslims surrounding the Jewish State. However, Islamic scholars have reacted to this approach by pointing out that historically, Islam has been more tolerant and accommodating than either the Jewish or Christian faiths.
The conduct of research into the Old and New Testament reveals that acts of great cruelty were authorized against enemies both in the times of Moses and the early Christian period. It is stated in the Old Testament that the Jewish army, in waging war against the Midians, killed all the men, and burned their towns and villages. They were ordered to keep the young girls for themselves. Yet Muslims do not accuse Moses and his followers of cruelty, but revere him as a prophet of God.
During two millenniums of Christian domination, many pogroms and "final solutions were carried out against the Jews. In his History of the Jews, Solomon Grazell writes that Europe, and western civilization had failed to treat the Jews fairly. On the other hand, under the Muslims, "the world Jewry entered into a new period of physical and intellectual expansion."
In the New Testament, Jesus is shown to have used strong words, urging that swords be used against enemies. Yet the Muslims have never called Jesus a violent man. Indeed, the Quran opposes compulsion in religion and considers war to be abhorrent, except in self-defence. The Christian attitude, during the Crusades, was marked by massacres, for instance in the conquest of Jerusalem. The record of Muslim conduct is much more humane.
Apart from a faulty and prejudiced view of Islam, the western attitude is determined by a resolve to maintain their hegemony, and to exploit the rich energy resources of the Islamic world. In response, the Islamic world, which is far from being a monolith, needs to adopt an attitude of enlightened moderation, in keeping with the ideology and spirit of Islam.
However, with the US on the path of expanding its power and its control of energy resources, the ummah needs to show unity, and to avail the available fora to expound its just causes forcefully. Apart from strengthening the OIC, the UN system should be reinforced as far as possible.
While the immediate outlook for the ummah may be daunting, we have to stand together and call for an order based on principles, rather then power. The Islamic world must show resilience and a capacity to adjust to realities. Extremism and terrorism cannot be the answer, since they are manifestations of despair. Our most urgent need is to build up our human resources, through education, and technology, while cherishing the eternal values of Islam, "the religion of peace and moderation".