SINCE the Government of Pakistan is the largest organisation and the largest employer in the country, it therefore plays an important role in the social, economic and cultural well being of Pakistanis. It is basically Pakistan’s public service - federal and provincial that determines the quality of life of Pakistanis.

However, if the quality of life of the average Pakistani was to be rated on a scale of one to ten, ten being the highest score, the result can at best be a dismal two or three, judging by the increasing problems people are facing with respect to public services.

Whether it is electricity or water supply, drainage or sanitation systems, transport, health or education, the service that Pakistanis in general are being offered is certainly not what one would call value-for-money or world class. Most of our public services have been unable to introduce the basic changes necessary to meet the growing needs of Pakistanis.

Take for instance, public transportation in the twin cities. It is clear to every Tom, Dick and Harry that we are in desperate need of a more efficient and acceptable standard of urban transportation system to replace the existing and grossly inadequate system of dilapidated wagons and mini-buses. Yet for years now, the transport authorities have been dilly-dallying on this long-overdue change, thus causing considerable inconvenience and hassle to the general public, all of which could well have been avoided if the appropriate changes had been implemented in time.

Another example is air transport in the mountainous northern region. Air communication with this part of the country was being provided by a fleet of PIA Fokker planes, the whole fleet of which was grounded after one of these planes crashed near Multan in July this year killing 42 people. If we had effectively executed a reported 2002 plan of replacing our aging fleet of Fokkers with ATR aircraft, the July tragedy might have been avoided and the public would have been spared the inconvenience of having to travel on C-130 military transport planes, which have been put to service on some of the routes of the grounded Fokker aircraft.

The quality of public services in other areas like electricity, water supply and sanitation, as well as in the fields of health, education, etc., is well documented in the local press and electronic media. To quote one letter-to-the-editor in Dawn last week: We don’t need bombs from the US to take us back to the Stone Age. The KESC and Wapda can do the same job at home!

As it is structured, our public sector has not been able to efficiently deliver the necessary changes to adapt and adjust to changing public priorities. It has not been able to meet the growing public expectations for service, openness and accountability.

Yet, improving the management and working of the public sector ought to have been the fundamental objective of any leadership because ultimately, the quality of the public service is reflective of the effectiveness of the ruling government and Parliament.

That our prime minister realised this was evident in his statement made when he took over the reins of government in 2004 that the performance of ministers and other senior office holders of the ministries would be evaluated quarterly. How this was to be done is not quite known.

It might do us good to take a look at some of the measures which one developed country is in the process of adopting to strengthen its public service management and make it focus on citizen-driven service delivery.

The first measure is putting in place stronger financial controls to ensure rigorous stewardship of public funds. Effective control and monitoring systems on public expenditures are essential in ensuring that value-for-money is a core consideration in spending, review and management decisions. This applies to individual departments and agencies as well as to the government as a whole.

The second measure is the creation of a new cabinet-level Expenditure Review Committee responsible for reviewing all government spending. The mandate of the committee is to ensure that government spending is accountable, is closely aligned with the priorities of its citizens, and that every tax dollar (or rupee) is invested with care to achieve results for the people.

The third measure is assuring accountability and transparency through raising the ethical standards in the public sector. This involves strengthening the rules governing the prevention and sanction of mismanagement, which include criminal sanctions for breaches of the Civil Servants Act; making former public servants, employees and public office holders accountable for past breaches of the Act; and facilitating financial recovery in instances where mismanagement has resulted in the loss of public funds.

In addition, all Parliamentary committees, most of all the Public Accounts Committee, should have better information so that they can play a more active role in the estimates process and in providing broader oversight of government spending and management.

Assuring accountability also means clarifying the roles, responsibilities and accountability of ministers and senior public servants. For this there is a need to examine who is accountable for what and to whom, and what changes are needed to strengthen the accountability of ministers and other senior public servants.

The fourth and final measure involves building capacity in the public service. People are what make the government work, and for the government to work efficiently there is a need to ensure that the public service has the right people, properly trained and developed. A culture needs to be developed within the public service that rewards good management.

As it is however, most of Pakistan’s public services are poorly managed and often highly politicized agencies unable to come to grips with the problems in the respective fields. Thus, adoption of the above measures could help to transform our public services into more professionalised, service-oriented, high- performance agencies that run not on the bureaucratic culture but on the culture of serving the citizen. Adherence to a clear corporate strategy combined with an efficiency focus will help public agencies and departments to achieve this goal.

Pakistanis, as with all other citizens in the world, want good governance. They want to be able to hold parliament, the government and public sector officials to account for results - good or bad. This can only be achieved by a policy of modernising the public sector management and promoting practices that encourage public sector efficiency, transparency and accountability.

IF the Indian state doesn’t yield to reason, Mohammed Afzal Guru will die on October 20. Much is being said of the day the Kashmiri man will be hanged. It is Jummatul Wida, the last solemn Friday of the holy month of Ramazan. Some politicians keen to play to the galleries have argued that the hanging should be postponed as it could otherwise send a wrong signal to Kashmiri Muslims. The suggestion of course is meaningless, if also insensitive. There is no auspicious day to execute someone, legally or otherwise.

In the absence of another remedy, Afzal and his family will no doubt seek a presidential pardon even if this means grudging admission of guilt. The long-drawn mechanism involved for the president to decide could allow him to live for a few more weeks, perhaps months, if he is lucky. But he will live on the death row at Tihar Jail anxiously waiting though not prepared for the news he is likely to hear. In the prevailing atmosphere of hard-line measures to combat terrorism anyone taking a decision to spare his life would be mocked for the rest of their lives by the rightwing Hindutva hordes.

The one material defence that could save Afzal came not from his state-sponsored defence counsel at the trial court but from an account of the tragedy given by his wife Tabassum. It was published in the Kashmir Times on October 21, 2004. That appeal went unheeded at the trial court. Thus the most compelling arguments to free Afzal were never produced before the trial judge. Tabassum was not summoned as a witness even once. We’ll come to the crux of her harrowing tale in a moment.

However, at the heart of Afzal’s woes is the Indian strategy to combat terrorism. The signal to adopt a hard-line position has come from the very top. It is thus that we find former police chief K.P.S. Gill, of the Punjab notoriety, heading to the Indian heartland to exterminate Naxalites across the length and breadth of this great country. Extermination is the word used by Mr. Gill. The authority for the militarist enterprise has come from elsewhere.

Leading the international “war on terrorism” are two main dramatis personae — Messrs Blair and Bush. Blair is seen as the European face of the war, who claims his patch to be as much a victim of terror as the United States itself if not more. However, Britain’s constitution, like the rest of Europe, does not permit death penalty, which is just the opposite of the way Bush would like it. The United States itself is vertically and horizontally divided over the issue of capital punishment, with a dozen states banning it. The federal law endorses the death penalty, a source of joy for the present administration. Still the only person so far convicted in the United States of involvement in the 9/11 attack — Zacarias Moussaoui — was recently spared the capital punishment by the federal jury. We can take this as a slap on the face of the Bush administration which tried every trick in the trade to send him to the gallows.

Moussaoui would not be so lucky in India. He would have long ago made a detailed confession before specially invited TV journalists, who would have met him in the lock up where crime branch sleuths would serve them tea and biscuits. If the cameras focused on his hands they would see the handcuffs tightly secure around his wrists as he made the confession. Moussaoui’s testimony before Indian television cameras would be a repetition of what he would have told the police, valid evidence under then prevailing anti-terror laws. That the Supreme Court threw out the confession part is a tribute to its wisdom. The High Court too castigated Afzal’s trial by the media but that was too little and too late.

This is not to suggest that Mohammed Afzal Guru was blameless in the making of his own tragedy. The argument here is against the capital punishment which follows the laws laid down by India’s colonial rulers. As we know one of the charges against Afzal was that he had conspired to attack the Indian parliament on December 13, 2001. In legal parlance he had sought to wage war against the state. The same law was used against Gandhi and still continues to invite capital punishment.

So it is odd that India’s legendary democracy has refused to unlearn the lessons of colonialism whereas its erstwhile conquerors have moved on to cleanse themselves of the opprobrium by abolishing an inhuman law they had preached and practiced. There are of course indications that European nations too are becoming impatient with their civilised laws. This is to be expected in the face of grave provocations like the Madrid bombings and last year’s July disaster that struck London’s subway trains. But isn’t that what the terrorists want -– to subvert the famed western democracies?

India has reasons to draw lessons from its own experience with terrorism rather than lean on someone else’s methods of handing retribution. For example, it should ask, how did the state benefit from the hanging of Maqbool Butt in Tihar Jail 22 years ago. Butt’s appeal against his death sentence was pending since 1976. Then suddenly he was hanged on a February morning in 1984 and buried within the prison premises. Did the death of this erstwhile leader of JKLF and conspirator in the hijacking of an Indian Airlines plane to Pakistan in 1971 deter eventual violence in Jammu and Kashmir? Did the death of countless others in encounters and in torture chambers help the Indian cause? And what does death mean to the new genre of terrorism -– the fedayeen? They are there to embrace death anyway, so what can the poor Indian forces do?

Deprived of the spirit of Nehru or Gandhi, there is a bloody-mindedness in India today as never before. Television anchors are baying for blood and quick retribution. Rightwing Hindutva hordes are not alone in seeking shortcut methods that override constitutional safeguards promised to an accused. Even after the courts berated the media for carrying Afzal’s patently illegally acquired “confession”, the TV channels are still using the footage to beef up their TRP ratings. The “desi” versions leave the avowedly rabid Fox TV way behind in their one track obsession with consumable terror stories.

Where does all this leave someone like Tabassum? All over India, she wrote in the Kashmir Times, people have condemned the attack on Parliament. “And I agree that it was a terrorist attack and must be condemned. However, it is also important that the people accused of such a serious crime be given a fair trial and their story be fully heard before they are punished. I believe that no one has heard my husband’s story and he has so far never been represented in the court properly,” Tabassum said in her protest note.

“I appeal to you to hear our story and then decide for yourselves whether justice has been done. Afzal and my story is the story of many young Kashmiri couples. Our story represents the tragedy facing our people.” Anyone who cares for India’s democracy should read Tabassum’s appeal on the following website http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/miscl/afzal.htm and then decide whether she has a point or two make that can mark the difference between life and death for hundreds of thousands of Afzals.