IT took a long time for policymakers in Pakistan to recognise that they were losing the ground that had become available to other populous developing countries as the process of globalisation began to reshape the world economy. This had been happening since various governments over the last several decades failed to recognise the importance of education for promoting economic growth.

Even President Ayub Khan’s reformist regime in the 1960s did not identify education as one of the areas of high priority. It set up a number of commissions to advise it on the kind of reforms it should introduce but education was not among such sectors. It was only with the advent of the Musharraf regime that the state focused its attention on this vital area of human development.

It is interesting that even in the case of General Pervez Musharraf, education was slow in being recognised as a sector deserving of government support and attention. It was not included in the seven-point plan the new military leader presented to the nation soon after taking charge of the country in October 1999. However, once he recognised that this sector had long been neglected by the state, that its development could not be left to the bureaucratic system, that some innovative programmes were needed to bring about change, and that the sector required his personal attention, President Musharraf launched a comprehensive programme under the direction of dynamic leaders.

President Musharraf appears to have recognised that a conventional approach of putting additional resources in the hands of the people and institutions that had failed to deliver in the past would not work. What was required was a revolutionary approach — and I don’t use the word “revolution” lightly — to reverse the course of history. One way of underscoring this point is to quote at some length from Stephen Cohen’s recent book on Pakistan.

“In the case of educational reform a sceptical attitude is warranted because of past performance, the limited technocratic vision of the senior leadership, a disdain for academic freedom and scholars, the absence of strong social pressure for better education from Pakistan’s citizenry, and above all, a still minuscule budget for education. Foreign assistance for education makes up 76 per cent of the government’s educational expenditure, and Pakistan still ranks among the 15 worst countries as far as education is concerned. The elite will manage for itself with a few choice institutions available to the wealthy and foreign education as an option.”

Some of this scepticism among foreign observers of the Pakistani scene has begun to dissipate but they will be looking for more positive developments and credible action by the government. It is important to watch how the world outside reacts to the initiatives taken by the government inside Pakistan. A series of positive developments in the sector of education in the country will help dispel the widespread impression that the country is plunging into darkness, that its social and political institutions have been commandeered by obscurantist forces, and that it has become a major exporter of Islamic terrorists and terrorism.

As Fareed Zakaria wrote in a recent article for Newsweek, while Al Qaeda has been weakened considerably in the last several years, the only activity that remains is by way of “Al Qaeda Central by which I mean a dwindling band of brothers on the Afghan-Pakistan border”. The current western interest in Pakistan’s educational sector, therefore, was prompted by some of these concerns. Not only were the donors prepared to put money into the sector. They were also organising seminars and workshops to understand the nature of the Pakistani malaise and possible cures for it.

It was at one of these workshops, held last year by the highly respected Woodrow Wilson Centre at Washington, that I came across the first positive assessment by an American expert about some of the recent developments in Pakistan’s educational sector. In a paper presented (and later published by Woodrow Wilson in its volume on the workshop proceedings), Grace Clark said that “this is a very exciting time to be involved with higher education in Pakistan because there is a revolution going on in academia in Pakistan.” But the revolution as I will discuss later was not confined to higher education.

There were three elements in the programme launched by the Musharraf administration that were innovative and worthy of notice. The first was to identify two areas in which the state needed to move expeditiously. They were capacity-building at the local level, the level at which most of the action takes place in the provision of basic education, and improving the capacity to deliver higher education. The second was to establish autonomous bodies to work in these two areas.

The work of capacity-building at the local level was entrusted to the Human Development Foundation of Pakistan and that of bringing about a quantum change in higher education to the Higher Education Commission. The third was to recognize that the educational sector needed a partnership between the public and private sectors. The government neither had the capacity or the resources to handle the colossal task alone; it needed to work with the private sector that had already demonstrated the imagination, passion and resolve to improve the level of education at all levels in the country.

I will start this new series of articles on education by first discussing the approach and performance to-date of the Higher Education Commission.

The commission began its operations in 2003 by first writing a programme for the five year period between 2005 and 2010. The Medium Term Development Framework identified four areas for emphasis. The first was access to the institutions providing higher education. In 2005, only 2.9 per cent of 13 million people in the age group 20 to 24 years were enrolled in institutions of higher learning.

This was an extraordinarily low proportion for a country at Pakistan’s level of development. India had more than seven per cent in similar levels receiving higher education. The countries which had succeeded in accelerating their rates of economic growth and became active participants in the global economic system — South Korea, Malaysia and Taiwan, etc. — started the process of economic and social transformation with a much larger proportion of the young in higher education institutions. They then went on to build a robust relationship between institutions of higher learning and the modernising sectors of the economy — industry, commerce and finance.

The commission wrote in its programme that it would pay particular attention to increasing enrolment in institutes of higher learning. This would be done in several ways: by encouraging students to go for higher education by giving them stipends, by increasing the capacity of existing institutions to take in more students, and by establishing new universities. In March 2006, President Musharraf announced that his government would establish six new universities, each with the help of a different donor. This would be done under the commission’s auspices.

It is expected that these initiatives will help to increase enrolment in higher education from 2.9 per cent to five per cent by 2010 and to 10 per cent by 2015. If this happens, Pakistan should have 1.8 million students attending institutions of higher learning. If the dropout rate is not more than 10 per cent, this would mean that the country will be turning out graduates at the annual rate of 1.6 million. This, of course, will be a quantum jump in the number of graduates coming out of schools and colleges.

However, increasing the supply of higher education facilities and the number of graduates does not necessarily mean an improvement in the quality of human resources available to society and economy. Pakistan does not have a programme in place for testing the quality of graduates at the national level but that notwithstanding there is an impression that the quality of education has suffered at all levels over the last several decades.

The commission’s Medium Term Development Framework states: “The present quality of higher education is very low. Not a single university of Pakistan is ranked among the top 500 in the world.” Accordingly, the commission began to focus on improving the quality of teachers arguing — I believe correctly — that the first step in any programme to improve the standard of education at any level was to have more qualified teachers available to the students. This was also the part of the programme that drew the most criticism, in particular from several members of the current faculties. This should have been expected since any change — and what the commission is intending to undertake is a colossal change — will be resisted by those who are likely to be hurt by it.

I believe that one of the most important changes engineered by the commission was to de-link the payscales of the teachers from those of the civil bureaucracy. Economists often talk about the law of intended consequences. This pertains to the outcomes — some happy and some not so happy — that are not expected by policymakers when they take certain initiatives. If the commission succeeds in establishing compensation for highly qualified teachers in the ranges considerably higher than those available to senior government officials and matching those the private sector is paying to qualified and experienced managers, it would create a career stream that would attract the best and the brightest to education.

If this trend continues and if, under the commission’s direction the public sector joins it, I can see a time when the country’s young will give a career in education very high priority. That, of course, will improve the quality of education. Some of this had already begun to happen in the private sector. On my visit to Pakistan in March, I was impressed with the salaries some of the private colleges and universities were prepared to offer in order to attract highly qualified teachers to their campuses.

However, the offer of high salaries must accompany the prescription of the strict criteria that would be used to identify those who will receive them. This the commission says it will do; this is also the reason for the unhappiness of several teachers already in the profession since under the established criteria they would not qualify for the new payscales. But the establishment of a new pay scale will not by itself improve the quality of teachers in institutions of higher learning. That, too, is the right approach. There are a number of other initiatives the commission has started. These will be the subject of my article next week.

THE future political landscape of the country will be determined by the next general elections to be held by the end of 2007 when the present assemblies complete their term, unless polls are held earlier.

All eyes are set on the shape and likely outcome of the next general elections. Once the budget is announced, both the government and opposition will concentrate on the upcoming polls. Political parties will forge new alliances and significant political realignments may take place.

However, the crucial question is whether the next general elections will be held freely and fairly and what steps will be taken to ensure that the electoral exercise is satisfactory.

The conduct of elections in Pakistan leaves much to be desired and there have been several instances of electoral fraud, manoeuvring, manipulation and palace intrigues. It started with the dismissal of the popularly elected Constituent Assembly in 1954 and has continued till today with only one exception. Only the elections held in 1970 by the military dispensation were considered to be free and fair, but in that case the mandate of the people was not accepted. As a result we lost half the country.

Politicians of various shades have been stating that the country is passing through a most difficult phase, no less critical than the situation on the eve of the 1970 elections. From that point of view the next elections are of utmost importance as they will decide the future political course of the country and its likely transition from quasi-military rule to full democracy.

After the appointment of a full-time chief election commissioner by the president, doubts are being nursed in the opposition ranks that polls cannot be fair and free in the presence of a uniformed president. Some parties have even announced that they may not take part in the elections while the presidential seat remains occupied by President Musharraf. However, the government has been arguing that it has taken a major step towards holding free and fair polls by fulfilling the opposition’s demand of appointing a chief election commissioner.

It has been proved during successive general and local elections in the country that the appointment of a full-time chief election commissioner as envisaged in Article 213 of the Constitution is only the first step towards the conduct of fair polls. The fairness of the general elections held from time to time in the country during the incumbency of full-time chief election commissioners has also been questioned which shows that even if the appointment is made by the president in accordance with Article 213 it may not establish the bona fides of the government.

No doubt, the power of the president to appoint the chief election commissioner is unfettered in the Constitution because there is nothing to suggest consultation with the opposition or anyone else. But when the opposition questions the legality of the office of the president itself, it becomes necessary that the government should dispel the apprehensions of the opposition regarding the conduct of polls.

It is beyond doubt that the chief election commissioner has all the necessary powers to conduct elections freely and fairly. Article 220 of the Constitution unambiguously states that:

“It shall be the duty of all Executive authorities in the Federation and in the Provinces to assist the Commissioner and the Election Commission in the discharge of his or their functions.”

But despite this extraordinary provision in the Constitution, successive election commissions of Pakistan have been made a laughing stock by the executive authorities of the country. The reason behind this is that the election commission has no authority to object to the composition and constitution of the caretaker cabinet, which is appointed by the president in his sole discretion under Article 48(5) (b) of the Constitution, and exercises executive authority during the interim period of elections.

This means that the appointment of an honest, impartial and non-political caretaker cabinet is an equally important step towards the conduct of free and fair elections in the country. We do not find such a parallel constitutional provision in the Indian constitution or the constitutions of the majority of other countries as the incumbent cabinet stays during the conduct of general elections in the country. But despite the insertion of this extraordinary provision in the Constitution of Pakistan, elections are not always free and fair which proves that there are other reasons for the manipulation of the electoral process.

When fair and free polls can be held in India, which has a population of more than a billion, in the presence of a contesting cabinet then why should the fairness of elections in Pakistan be questioned even in the presence of a caretaker cabinet?

The constitutional provision of a caretaker cabinet was made after the 1977 general elections as a result of which democracy was derailed and an 11-year military rule imposed.

But how far this important provision has been acted upon in letter and spirit can be gauged from the composition of caretaker set-ups before various general elections. The composition of caretaker cabinets from 1988 to 1997 will show us that this provision has been adhered to only on a few occasions.

The appointment of a caretaker cabinet is the second most important step for free and fair elections. If the government wants to dispel the doubts of the opposition, it can assure them of the appointment of an honest caretaker set-up after the dissolution of the present assembly.

The 1990 general elections were held under a partial political administration and the outcome was criticised by all and sundry including foreign observers. But the elections in 1993 were held under a neutral caretaker cabinet headed by former caretaker prime minister Moin Qureshi. The results were accepted by local parties as well as foreign observers.

As mentioned earlier, under Article 220, all executive authorities of the country have to assist the election commission in the discharge of its functions. We should see the efficacy of this in the light of another provision of the same nature in the Constitution provided in Article 190. It stipulates, “All Executive and judicial authorities throughout Pakistan will act in aid of the Supreme Court”.

It is worth mentioning that when the tussle started between the judiciary and the executive headed by former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif and the then chief justice, Syed Sajjad Ali Shah. The latter wrote a letter to the president (a copy of which was sent, along with a note, to then chief of army staff General Jahangir Karamat) requiring, under Article 190 of the Constitution, the army to come to the aid of the Supreme Court in the face of security threats. The request was declined.

But in October 1999, when one of the military chiefs was dismissed and a showdown ensued between the prime minister and the army, the whole country was taken over within hours.

This proves that what matters is not the insertion of fine provisions in the Constitution but their strict adherence by the executive authorities. For example, the executive authorities in the provinces and federation do not assist the election commission in the discharge of its constitutional functions under Article 220 and the chief election commissioner, instead of resigning in the presence of mass disobedience and manipulation by the executive, stays in his job while the electoral process is being thwarted — that provision is of no substance at all.

Executive authorities have done this in the past by not providing protection to the Supreme Court under Article 190 of the Constitution and there is every likelihood that they can repeat this in future. To avoid this, the government must assure the opposition that the appointment of the caretaker cabinet will be transparent and judicious. We witnessed a very strange situation in 1998 when the sitting chief justice was removed in a judicial coup through an extraordinary method not provided in the Constitution. A sitting high court or supreme court judge can only be removed by the Supreme Judicial Council, which was never activated. The executive refused to carry out the orders of the sitting chief justice who bowed out.

We also observed that both the elections in 1990 and 1993 were held under full-time chief election commissioners, but that the outcome was totally different in both cases for the reason that the composition of the caretaker governments was different in each case which again establishes that the induction of an honest, impartial and apolitical caretaker cabinet is as important as the appointment of a full-time chief election commissioner.

barrister_zamir@hotmail.com

RECENT events in Iraq and the Middle East have revived the hoariest of academic debates — between the so-called realists in foreign policy and the idealists.

Realists, who come in both Democratic and Republican varieties, argue that the Bush administration has been naive to promote democracy in Arab countries, as evidenced by ongoing sectarian violence in Iraq, recent gains by Islamist parliamentary candidates in Egypt and Hamas’s victory in the Palestinian elections. They suggest that, in the storm-tossed atmosphere of the Arab Middle East, democracy will do less to extinguish terror, as President Bush predicts, than to ignite it.

It is customary for politicians and commentators to distance themselves from those responsible for foreign policy setbacks. Because Bush is increasingly viewed as overly ideological and out of touch, the herd will increasingly want to appear hardheaded and realistic. My fear is that, in the process, a new conventional wisdom will emerge that promoting democracy in the Middle East is a mistake. It is not.

We should remember that the alternative to support for democracy is complicity in backing governments that lack the blessing of their own people. That approach confuses the appearance of stability with the reality, betrays Arab democrats and smells of hypocrisy. America cannot refurbish its tarnished reputation as a global leader by abandoning what sets it apart from the likes of China or Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

At the same time, we should keep a rein on our expectations. Bush has said that America “has a calling from beyond the stars” to proclaim liberty throughout the world. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice argues that the democratic transformation of the Middle East is the only way to guarantee that men do not fly airplanes into buildings. Such rhetoric is overblown. Just because the denial of political freedom is bad, that doesn’t mean that the exercise of freedom will always be to our liking. Democracy is a form of government; it is not a ticket to some heavenly kingdom where all evil is vanquished and everyone agrees with us.

If Arab democracy develops, it will do so to advance Arab aspirations based on Arab perceptions of history and justice. The right to vote and hold office is unlikely to soften Arab attitudes toward Israel or to end the potential for terror, just as it has been unable to prevent terrorist cells from organizing in the West. Democracy should, however, create a broader and more open political debate within Arab countries, exposing myths to scrutiny and extreme ideas to rebuttal. Though some may fear such an opening, Americans should welcome it. For if we fail to value free expression, we forget our own history.

The “realists” are right to bemoan the invasion of Iraq, but that misguided operation cannot be used to indict the promotion of democracy. The purpose of the invasion was to seize weapons that did not exist and to sever a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda that had not been made. The failures were of leadership and intelligence, not a too-fervent commitment to democracy.

In Egypt, although the Muslim Brotherhood is officially banned, candidates associated with it nevertheless achieved startling success in last year’s parliamentary elections. The government’s response has been to crack down further on political opposition — both religious and secular — a move sure to engender even greater anger. President Hosni Mubarak seems intent on bequeathing power to his son, but the more the regime is seen to rig the odds, the less that inheritance is likely to be worth. If America values its standing with the Egyptian people — and it should — its support for democratic reform ought to be unwavering.

As for the Palestinians, let us be fair — elections did not create Hamas. Voters turned to that group only because prior Palestinian governments didn’t deliver. Now, precisely because of the elections, Hamas will be tested as it has never been before, and it will be required to do what it has never done. This will create pressure on the organisation to refrain from violence and to moderate its policies toward Israel. Democracy did not create Hamas, but it may cause Hamas to change — or to fail. Either outcome would be an improvement on the status quo.

The debate between idealism and realism in foreign affairs moves back and forth like a pendulum because neither extreme is sustainable. A successful foreign policy must begin with the world as it is but also work for what we would like it to be. On a globe this complicated, even the purest of principles must sometimes be diluted. Still, we get up in the morning because of hope, which cold-blooded cynicism can neither inspire nor satisfy. If all America stands for is stability, no one will follow us for the simple reason that we aren’t going anywhere.

The time has come to start looking beyond the Bush administration to its successor. Our new leaders, of whichever party, will face daunting challenges, including that of redefining what America stands for in the world. Their “to do” list is sure to include winning the battle of ideas — as we should have long ago — against the likes of Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, halting nuclear proliferation, devising a sensible energy policy, and restoring America’s reputation as a supporter (and observer) of international law and human rights. At the top of that list, however, must be a reaffirmation of America’s commitment to liberty and respect for the dignity of every human being. Without such a commitment, all else will be in vain. — Dawn/Washington Post Service

The writer was secretary of state under President Bill Clinton.