|
| June 10, 2006 | Saturday | Jumadi-ul-Awwal 13, 1427 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Reconciling merit with quotas
Shops to close at 8pm
Defence spending and development
LATELY, there have been references to the link between development and defence. The prime minister/finance minister has expressed the hope that defence expenditures will decline, releasing greater resources for economic development. It is indeed high time that the country’s defence strategy and its political, economic and social implications were debated freely, seriously and thoroughly.
THE killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Baquba on Wednesday constitutes a major intelligence success for the US-led forces in Iraq, though it does not guarantee peace in that country since most militants happen to be nationalists and Saddam loyalists. Perhaps mindful of this fact, President George Bush said the Jordanian militant’s death in a US air strike had “delivered justice” but that he still saw “tough times” ahead and that he required the “patience of the American people”. That the Americans were able to locate his “safe house” and kill him should not surprise anyone. The Iraqis are a fractious society in which the three major groups — Shias, Sunnis and Kurds- do not see eye to eye on many fundamental issues. In the kind of anarchic situation that has prevailed in Iraq since the end of the Baathist regime, it should not have been difficult for the American intelligence to penetrate the Zarqawi network and gather precise information about his movement. However, what really cost Zarqawi his life was the sectarian colour he had of late given to the resistance movement. Besides targeting foreign troops and symbols of the Iraqi government which he considered to be no better than collaborators, Zarqawi attacked Shia targets, hoping that this would lead to a civil war. That there was no civil war must have disappointed him, for the senseless terror campaign against the majority community alienated him from the Shia majority. What must have shocked him was that, during the three electoral exercises, not only Shias but also Kurds and a large number of Arab Sunnis cast their votes. That showed that the majority of the Iraqi people wanted the democratic transition to run its course.
The future continues to be uncertain for Iraq. Abu al-Masari has been tipped as Zarqawi’s successor, and Al Qaeda has sworn to carry on the work of “prince Sheikh bin Laden”. To make matters worse, the Americans seem to provide a justification for Al Qaeda to continue its campaign. Baathist Iraq was never very kind to fundamentalists, and it is on record that Saddam Hussein refused to allow Osama bin Laden to make Iraq a base of operations for Al Qaeda. However, thanks to all that has happened since the end of the war in April 2003, fundamentalist militancy has found a base in Iraq. This is just one of the results of the many blunders Mr Bush’s administration has made in Iraq. The demobilisation of the Iraqi army was a big one, for this has left nearly a million people without any means of income and swelled Zarqawi commandos’ ranks. Worse still, Washington has still not given any timeframe for the withdrawal of occupation forces, thus strengthening the resistance’s resolve to carry on with its campaign.
The American death toll in Iraq has reached nearly 2,500, and there is no doubt that it will continue to mount by the day, making the Republican party’s chances in mid-term elections in November even bleaker. The occasion also provides food for thought for the Al Qaeda-led groups. Senseless terror against fellow Iraqis will only worsen Iraq’s political and social scene and is unlikely to lead to peace for the Iraqi people who have suffered so much during the last three years of war and occupation. The only choice before all Iraqis is to make a success of the political process now underway. A failure of the democratic process could lead to Iraq’s dismemberment, and that will be a tragedy for itself and the Arab world.
DR ISHRAT Hussain, who now heads the National Commission on Government Reforms, has made an intriguing statement. He has said that the government should enforce “hundred per cent merit” and adequate regional representation for the reforms to succeed. How he plans to reconcile two contradictory factors is not clear. The point is that in the conditions prevailing in the country if there is an insistence on merit as the sole criterion for appointment in jobs, it is unlikely that all regions will have an equitable share of these. Pakistan’s biggest failure has been its inability to provide adequate socio-economic development to all the provinces some of which continue to be shockingly backward in the fields of education, social progress and training of skills. The Constitution provides for quotas in many fields so that no region suffers from a sense of deprivation because it does not qualify for jobs on merit. But the idea of the architects of the Constitution was that the quotas should be for an initially specified period in which efforts should be made to bring all regions of the country at par with each other.
Regrettably, this requirement has not been met. Disparities and inequities continue to mark the national socio-economic scene. This is confirmed by Dr Hussain’s statement that regional representation must be enforced to “ensure inter-provincial harmony”. If grievances of some provinces being discriminated against continue to exist it means that the fruits of development have not been equitably distributed. One therefore agrees with Dr Hussain that political wisdom demands that the government should be mindful of regional representation in jobs. In that case, merit cannot be adopted as the criterion at least at this stage. The government could try to make up for the shortfall in merit for a reasonable period by providing for in-service education and training of people who are recruited for various government jobs. This is an age of “continuing education” and there is no reason why the government cannot offer short courses, workshops and programmes for its own employees — to bring them up to the required level of competence. Meanwhile, it is important for the government to address the issue of uneven development and help the backward regions by focusing on their educational and economic progress.
THE Sindh government’s decision to advance the enforcement of the Shops Act from June 9 instead of June 15 points to the magnitude of the electricity crisis affecting Karachi. If it is able to strictly enforce this decision, the city should get some respite from the long power outages it has been experiencing for several weeks. However, just this step alone will not solve the problem. The new KESC management will have to seriously address the long-standing problems that have plagued the power supply situation in Karachi. It will have to reduce the high line-losses and rampant power theft that contribute to the frequent and intensity of power outages. It also has to upgrade the archaic power installations. The expected improvements cannot be achieved in haste but the task must nonetheless be taken in hand. However, an immediate step is to raise awareness amongst the consumers on the role they can play in conserving energy. Simple tasks such as ensuring that each family member or domestic employee switches off the lights when leaving the room can go a long way in conserving energy. To get the maximum result on this front a media campaign can be launched to make the consumers aware of the do’s and don’ts to be observed during the present power crisis.
If the administration strictly enforces the Shops Act, it will no doubt reduce the impact of the current shortage. Earlier closure of markets will also reduce the traffic flow as fewer people will need to be on the roads in their cars the evening hours. But then the crucial factor is the effective enforcement of the 8pm deadline for shops to close. Any laxity in this will defeat the purpose of power conservation. In fact, a right approach will be to seek the cooperation of the business community in strict observance of the prohibition under the Shops Act while dealing strictly with all cases of violation.
To begin with, we may attempt to delineate the strategy for national security, pursued by the establishment, with the apparent approval or acquiescence of the nation:
— The principal or perhaps the only threat to our sovereignty and territorial integrity is from India.
— The threat is to be assessed on the basis of capability, and not intentions. This means that the current thaw in Indo-Pakistan relations is irrelevant for long-term defence planning. The position may change if basic causes of hostility are removed.
— To ensure national security, the country must maintain a minimum deterrent which, according to classic military doctrine, means that a ratio of one to three between military forces of the defender (Pakistan) and the aggressor (India) is essential for the safety of Pakistan. In actual fact, the ratio at present seems to be nearer 2.2 to three. The active duty uniformed strength for India and Pakistan was 1,325,000 and 620,000 persons respectively in 2004. Of course, measurement of relative military strength now includes, apart from manpower, considerations of weapon technology and nuclear capability, which is difficult to quantify.
— In case of war, substantive assistance from the UN, regional organisations and friendly countries cannot be relied upon.
— The use of a national militia has been thought of but has never been regarded as a substitute for conventional military force.
The implications of the defence strategy may now be considered. Minimum deterrence requires Pakistan to support a military force equal to at least one third of India, when the size of Pakistan’s economy is about one seventh of India. (Figures for the size of GDP in 2004 reported by World Bank are $691 billion for India, $96 billion for Pakistan). Clearly, the defence burden on the Pakistan economy is twice as much than on the Indian economy. As a corollary, India has more resources, as a proportion of GDP for socio-economic development, compared to Pakistan. India already has an edge over Pakistan in economic and social indicators and this will tend to widen in the long run.
International comparisons also show that the defence spending in Pakistan is much higher than the average. The low income group of countries to which we belong spends only 2.2 per cent of GDP on the military as compared to nearly five per cent by Pakistan. The claim made by the prime minister that defence requires only 3.7 per cent of GDP is grossly misleading as the recent reduction in the defence budget has been secured by transferring military pensions which account for 25 per cent of the defence budget to the general account. A computation of military spending, in accordance with internationally accepted conventions, would show that the ratio of military spending to GDP is near five per cent.
Apart from the large quantum of resources allocated to defence, there has also been a privileging of military expenditures, which renders it immune from public scrutiny and debate. In the case of defence grants, the National Assembly is given the bare totals and the usual budgetary details are withheld. There can be no meaningful discussion either in the legislature or media or public on the defence budget or related significant issues such as new weapon systems, which in most countries are open to public debate.
The finance ministry’s arguments are practically restricted to the total amount to be given to each service. The apportionment and use of the funds is left entirely to the discretion of the service chiefs. Thus defence spending is exempted from the financial scrutiny which is mandatory for all public expenditures.
In actual practice, over a long period of time, the high priority given to defence has meant that from the limited resources that the nation has, the government has first met the establishment demands for security and only the residue has been available for development and other civilian purposes. The consequence of this policy (which has never been explicitly acknowledged) is the lopsided development of the country.
Pakistan is now an important military power, with the seventh largest army in the world, one of the nine countries with declared nuclear weapon capability and possessing missile and other advanced weaponry. On the other hand, the country ranks 129th in the human development index with a miserable record in literacy, basic health, etc. We have achieved great military strength but the economic and social base remains very weak. The country has failed to rise from the low income group of countries.
An important political consequence of a strong modern army in a low income country has been that Pakistan has been under military rule for 32 years in 59 years since independence. There have been other contributory factors, such as division and corruption in political parties but principally Pakistan has been a prominent illustration of Chairman Mao’s dictum that political power lies in the barrel of the gun.
A significant cause of the setbacks suffered in promoting democracy and in strengthening civil society has been the disregard for the rule of law. There were many weaknesses in the social system but prolonged military rule has aggravated them. The repeated imposition of martial law, and the overturning of the Constitution, which is the basic law of the country has made a host of illegal activities such as tax evasion, respectable and acceptable. This has strengthened the retrogressive elements of society e.g. the feudals and mafias and encouraged them to persevere in their oppressive practices.
Since the massive requirements for a military of the requisite size was beyond the country’s resources, despite an exceptionally large allocation of domestic funds, Pakistan has been compelled to seek foreign military assistance. Almost all developing countries have sought foreign aid for development, and aid always comes with strings attached, but the conditionalities were of an economic nature and did not significantly constrain the recipient countries’ foreign policy. The military assistance now obtained by Pakistan involves obligations both in respect of external policies as well as matters in the domestic sphere. The maintenance of a minimum deterrent, intended to safeguard independence, has involved some loss of freedom both in foreign policy as well as internal affairs.
On future prospects, it is clear that no significant change in security strategy is contemplated by the establishment. Plans for modernisation and strengthening the military are being seriously pursued. As for economic and social development, there is much rhetoric but little concrete action. The promises made for the eradication of poverty are unlikely to be fulfilled because of lack of resources.
In Pakistan, we have considerable capacity for economic modelling. If a model for the future is drawn up realistically, based on past trends, it might show that while our military strength will increase, the economic and social base may become too weak to sustain the load, and that we then risk a collapse. This is what actually happened with the Soviet Union.
If it is any consolation, the international scene is equally depressing. While globalisation and economic restructuring has brought great prosperity to certain countries and the corporate sector and certain segments of society have become immensely wealthy, the condition of the poor and powerless of the world remains as bad as ever. The US, which produces one third of global GDP, is spending over $100 billion on promoting democracy, through the military, on two developing countries Iraq and Afghanistan while it can only spare $20 billion for the rest of the underdeveloped world. The West spends over $800 billion per annum on the military and armaments but only $60 billion on development aid. Despite all the rhetoric, dramatic gestures, theatre and celebrity involvement, the realities of the Third World poor will remain as depressing in 2015, as they are today, despite the millennium development goals.
There are no easy or obvious solutions to the complex problem faced by Pakistan of confronting a major military threat with inadequate resources and ensuring national security while promoting economic and social progress. All that one can do is to raise the issues, plead for a free and open debate and endeavour to reach a consensus on strategy which provides a balance between development and defence and is sustainable.
If there is any hope for the poor of the world, it is in disarmament and reduction in violence in both the domestic and the international spheres. I end, by quoting from President Eisenhower’s speech of 16 April, 1963:
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its labourers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not the way of life in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.”