| 31 January 2005 | Monday | 20 Zilhaj 1425 |
Ban on car premiums
Slashing women's representation
The Prime Minister's view that relations with America should not be of a transient nature but should have a long-term basis deserves to be noted by policymakers in Washington.
Speaking to corporate leaders at Davos on Friday, Mr Shaukat Aziz said it was time the two countries tried to consolidate their relations on "solid and firm grounds," so that it could be mutually beneficial.
Mr Aziz's remarks should be viewed against what he called "the ups and downs" in US-Pakistan relations. The "ups" have been as warm and mutually beneficial as the "downs" have been full of distrust and acrimony.
Nevertheless, one can never say that there ever was a time when Pakistan and America were really on the wrong side of each other. The golden period of their relations was in the fifties and sixties when Pakistan was a member of the chain of US-led anti communist military alliances.
In addition, Pakistan also had a bilateral military pact, besides enjoying America's military cover under the Eisenhower doctrine. However, Pakistan's coming close to China did not go well with America in those paranoiac anti communist days, when like today's "terrorists" there was a commie behind every bush.
The Sino-Indian war in the winter of 1962 and the Indo-Pakistan war of 1965 ended Islamabad's first honeymoon with the US, with all military and economic aid drying up.
Following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan on Christmas Eve 1979, Islamabad and Washington again discovered a community of mutual interests. While Pakistan agreed to act as the "front-line" state, the US started pouring billions of dollars in economic and military aid.
Irrespective of the consequences that followed, Pakistan spear headed the US-led anti-Soviet 'jihad' in Afghanistan. However, the moment the Soviets withdrew, the Pressler amendment became operative and all aid was cut off, the excuse being Pakistan's nuclear ambitions.
More than a decade later, the US came back again - or Pakistan succumbed to pressure - and the two became allies in the war on terror. Pakistanis are now justified in asking whether America will again abandon Pakistan after the war on terror is over.
Even though this is a war that is without frontiers and seems open-ended, Islamabad can never be sure when policymakers in Washington may re-order their priorities. The centre of gravity, too, is shifting away from Afghanistan and that may have consequences for Pakistan.
In the present situation, too, when Pakistan has been given the status of a major non-Nato ally, Pakistanis have felt uncomfortable about some aspects of America's policy - especially about its lack of support on some key issues in the subcontinent, and its silence on human rights violations in occupied Kashmir.
What Mr Aziz, however, should note are Pakistan's depressing domestic scene and the virtual absence of democracy in the country. Even though Pakistan's geographical location is an asset for it, this often loses value because of lack of political stability, fissiparous tendencies and, more recently, the menacing rise of religious militancy.
Thus, if Mr Aziz seeks a long-term relationship based on sovereign equality, his government must first develop a national consensus on major issues, including foreign policy, and effectively counter forces spreading ethnic and "religious" terrorism.
The world and America will feel comfortable in dealing with a Pakistan that is not only strategically located but also stable and democratic and poised to develop its economic and human resources.
Ban on car premiums
The State Bank of Pakistan's decision to prohibit banks and development finance institutions from financing car premiums over and above the factory price of a vehicle is a welcome step designed to reduce the influence of investors and speculators.
However, it will work effectively only if some additional steps are taken to reduce the influence of speculators in the automobile market. For instance, if no fines are prescribed under law for speculators, the SBP action could go against the interests of genuine car buyers.
Indeed, if the premium issue remains unresolved, then those who want to buy a car for their own use will have to pay the extra amount as premium but will not be able to obtain a bank loan for that purpose after this SBP directive.
As for the speculators, they presumably have enough funds for investment to be able to book cars in advance and hence the prohibition of using a bank loan to finance the premium amount is not likely to affect them.
Other than speculators, car dealers who facilitate the sale of cars at premiums should be warned and manufacturers should carefully monitor their dealerships to discourage the premium practice. Then, there is the issue of payment and delivery.
Car manufacturers ask for full payment at the time of booking but deliver it to the buyer several months later. For quite some time, manufacturers have been saying that vehicle production will be increased to expedite delivery but for customers not willing to pay a premium, the period waiting may spread over many months.
As an added measure, the manufacturers should consider allowing customers to pay in monthly instalments, with the period of payment corresponding to the time taken for delivering the vehicle.
The government, especially the ministry for industries and production, is taking an overly cautious approach on the premium issue, perhaps out of fear that any strong action might alienate the foreign investment in this sector. While this may be a valid concern, genuine car buyers deserve a break too.
Slashing women's representation
Many voices have been raised against the government's decision to slash the number of seats in the 6,022 union councils across the country from 21 to 13. There are also fears that the government is planning to reduce the number of union councils.
Both these moves with seriously effect women representation at the grass roots level, and are being seen as regressive at a time when the inclusion of women in the political and decision-making process is essential for progress and development in the country.
Decreasing the number of councillors would mean that when the next local government polls are held, the number of women (elected on the 33 per cent of seats reserved for them) would, according to one estimate, drop drastically from about 36,000 to 18,000.
One does not quite understand why the government is moving in this direction. But even if the purpose is to improve the working of the system as well as relations between the district and provincial governments, it is clear that the decision lacks logic, and appears to be based more on reasons of expediency than common sense.
That is not right and speaks of the government's non-serious approach to the devolution process. It is true that the system has many flaws, but the spirit behind it has always been hailed as one ensuring the political participation of the common people, especially women who, with their new-found power, had begun to escape the clutches of suffocating tradition.
They had begun to work alongside men, bringing with them a fresh perspective on important issues of the day. The government should have been encouraging them, especially in ultra-conservative areas where patriarchal set-ups frown on women's political participation.
Sadly, by reducing the number of union council seats, it has chosen to do the reverse, caring little for the negative fallout the decision is bound to have on half the country's population.