Lebanon in crisis

With the resignation of Mr Omar Karameh as prime minister, the situation in Lebanon seems to be moving towards a crisis. One does not know what the future holds for this tiny country, but the murder of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri could turn out to be seminal.

At stake is the 1943 French-imposed covenant - later altered by the 1989 Taif agreement - that created a delicate balance among Lebanon's religious communities. While the president has traditionally been a Maronite Christian, the prime minister's post is reserved for a Sunni Muslim, and parliament is headed by a Shia.

Over the decades, there has been a considerable demographic change in Lebanon, especially as a result of the influx of a large number of Palestinians. This has caused a lot of trouble and was one of the reasons behind the 15-year civil war that wrought havoc in Lebanon.

The Arab League summit at Taif provided for a 50-50 share of parliamentary seats for Christians and Muslims, and armed the prime minister with more powers. Mr Hariri's murder once again highlights the old question: can Lebanon's multi-religious population co-exist peacefully and work democracy? The issue is compounded by external factors.

Because of its large Christian population, Israel has always dreamt of creating a Christian Lebanon and turning it into a vassal state. In 1982, when he invaded Lebanon, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin misjudged the Lebanese people's commitment to Arab nationalism.

Israel, no doubt, took Beirut, and made Yasser Arafat and his comrades leave Lebanon but was hopelessly bogged down in a guerilla war. It was also during the Lebanese occupation that it added one more shame to its unparalleled record of massacres - Sabra-Chatilla.

Ultimately, Israel had to withdraw but it chose to occupy a strip of southern Lebanon - only to quit it in 2000 after suffering heavy casualties. What Israel grudges now is that, while it has been forced out of Lebanon, Syria is very much present there both militarily and politically.

The president, Mr Emil Lahoud, is pro-Syria, and so is Mr Karami, who has just resigned. Hariri's murder has, thus, come in handy for Israel and the US to end Syria's influence in Lebanon.

They have accused Damascus of Hariri's murder and asked it to withdraw its troops from Lebanon. During the Lebanese civil war, Syria moved in some 40,000 troops to guard approaches to Damascus through the Bekaa valley.

Since then, Syria has gradually withdrawn its troops, and today they number 14,000. However, both Israel and the US want Damascus to pull out even these troops. In the meantime, America has made the Security Council pass a resolution asking Syria to withdraw. As Mr Karami said last month, a hurried Syrian withdrawal could de-stabilize Lebanon.

With too many foreign powers interested in Lebanon, it is doubtful if its diverse population will be able to maintain its balance. There is too much pressure from all sides, and unless all powers pledge to leave Lebanon alone, there is a real possibility that things could go out of hand.

Almost all Lebanese parties maintain well-armed militias, and it is quite likely that even the slightest provocation from one or the other side could spark off trouble in a big way.

The only hope lies in the general election due in May. Nothing should be done to upset it. Any delay in the holding of the exercise or interference by outside powers could do incalculable harm to Lebanon's political structure and social fabric.

A sound move

The health authorities in Sindh finally seem to be heading in the right direction. In a move with far-reaching implications for the overall health set-up, they have decided to move a bill in the Sindh Assembly aimed at regulating the private medical institutions that are proliferating all over the province (as elsewhere in the country).

So far, the absence of a regulatory mechanism has led private health units to operate without any checks on the quality and cost of the services they provide. The draft bill, which has been approved by the chief minister, requires all health units - regardless of whether they subscribe to modern or traditional medicine - to register with the government.

The fee is to be revised under a government-approved structure. Moreover, health centres will not be allowed to turn patients away, even if they are unable to pay the fee or have been involved in an accident with legal implications - two reasons why private units routinely refuse to treat those in need of urgent medical attention.

Given the unethical and non-professional attitude of many private hospitals in the country, other provinces too would do well to devise similar rules. It is true that many doctors, obsessed with making money, will revolt against laws that may lead to a reduction in their fees.

This development might even open up various avenues of corruption for them. But, at the same time, if enforced properly, such regulatory laws should have a salutary effect on the overall health care system.

For one, it should bring down the number of quacks -600,000 according to one estimate - in the country, who, in disregard of all medical ethics, continue to play with the lives of patients.

For another, under the watchful eye of the government, medical units would be more particular about delivering their promised services to the people and refrain from short changing them.

The private health sector has been due for considerable streamlining for long. The proposed legislation should accomplish this, and also in still a greater sense of service in private practitioners who have all but commercialized health care.

Private exam boards

The federal education minister has yet again clarified that the establishment of an examination board in the private sector by the Aga Khan University is not tantamount to a secularization of the country's education system.

Speaking to journalists in Islamabad some time ago, he said that he has repeatedly spoken on this issue both inside and outside parliament but those opposing the AKU's board seem bent on repeating the unfounded allegations over and over again.

In fact, the matter has also been clarified by the head of the AKU at various forums but seemingly to no avail. Those opposing the move consist mostly of the religious parties and their student wings in the country's educational institutions.

The board, like any of the ones existing in the public sector, has a curriculum approved by the federal ministry of education, so the question of secularization on the part of the AKU simply does not arise.

Second, the issue of affiliation with the board has been left to each individual school's management with institutions free to choose between the public sector boards and the one set up by the AKU.

Third, thousands of students take O and A level exams paying UK-based boards hundreds of millions of rupees every year in exam fee. A private board managed by a Pakistani institution, especially one whose credentials are solid in the education field, would save most of it and also provide an alternative to parents to have a more affordable quality assessment of their children's education.

There are also some who say that instead of allowing private exam boards, the government should reform and improve its own existing boards. That is a perfectly valid demand but there is no reason why reform of government boards cannot go hand in hand with establishment of an alternative in the private sector.

Indeed the opposition to the AKU board seems to have a thinly-veiled sectarian colour to it. The elements who oppose the AKU board have issued provocative statements and threats, and the government must take this into account in deciding the issue.