WHILE Gen Pervez Musharraf talks of the need to persist with the strategy followed by his administration to fight the war on terror and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz asks the world to find ways to eliminate poverty, some basics that perhaps impinge much more on the common citizen’s psyche demand attention.

Most of these matters relate to the persistent lack of accountability on the part of the government and its contempt for those who ask for an explanation of the policies being followed in the “national interest”.

Let’s take the small things first. Mr Shaukat Aziz on a visit to Karachi last month had asked the administration to curb street crime in the city within a fortnight. Scepticism at the deadline imposed on our poorly equipped, inefficient and incompetent police force was expressed even then. Now on Monday we had some figures published in a section of the press that show no noticeable decline in the number of car and motorcycle thefts, cellphone snatchings or roadside muggings. According to the relevant report, there were 733 cases of robberies in Karachi last week including 413 cases of mobile phone thefts. Around 25 cars and 39 motorcycles were taken away, and people were deprived of valuables in 256 incidents.

Has the prime minister made any effort in the past month to keep track of crime figures and see how his directive is being observed? Or was all that concern meant only for public consumption? And when is the prime minister going to fix a deadline for the control of crime in “parha likha” Punjab? The Sindh IG, who is supposed to implement the prime minister’s “hawai” (in the air?) orders, said in a newspaper interview on Tuesday that street crime had registered a gradual increase since last year.

Similar questions should be raised about Mr Shaukat Aziz’s orders to control prices during Ramazan. Much was made of those orders and the prime minister was shown visiting utility stores and checking prices of essential commodities. Did the prices come down or even hold at the level obtaining at the start of Ramazan? The Federal Bureau of Statistics says that inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index rose by 8.11 per cent in October as compared to the same period last year — and, here’s the rub: the increase in inflation was due to the Ramazan factor, according to the adviser on finance.

This is right in the supposed domain of the prime minister, economics. Does it not indicate that traders and shopkeepers totally ignored the government’s price fixation measures and shouldn’t those in power at least be worried about this fleecing of the public in a month during which all TV channels went overboard proving how pious we all had become?

Monday’s newspapers had a picture from Raiwind showing the chief ministers of Punjab, Sindh and the Frontier, the Punjab governor, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, and Mr Ejazul Haq, all broadly smiling, at the annual gathering of the Tablighi Jamaat in the spirit of Gen Musharraf’s enlightened moderation. Things spiritual edify our chief ministers and leaders more than the problems faced by their electors in daily life. The Frontier chief minister went from Raiwind to Peshawar to have the Hasba bill approved by his province’s assembly.

Now to issues at a somewhat different level but which are being treated by the government in an equally offhand manner. After the Karachi stock exchange crash, an inquiry was ordered by the Securities and Exchange Commission and reportedly a foreign consultant was also hired at a high fee. The report was finalised and was said to have named several leading brokers as being responsible for the crash. It was due to be presented before the National Assembly’s standing committee on finance and revenue, but this has been put off without any explanation.

The People’s Party has accused the prime minister of blocking the report to shield those named in it. Never before has any government given such legitimacy to speculation as the present government. This has bred corruption and lack of transparency and accountability. Special interest groups belonging to the private sector dominate trade and commerce, including the stock exchange. The government cannot touch this group of powerful people because if the private sector withdraws from investment and is alienated, the regime will be left with no support base.

But the prime minister at least owes it to us to explain why the SECP has delayed submitting its report to parliament. The reasons for the stock market crash and the identity of those who manipulated it at the cost of thousands of small shareholders need to be clarified to prevent future wrongdoing.

It is now clear that the Sindh government was not consulted when the federal government decided to give away two offshore islands to a UAE firm for development of a modern city. Initially, Sindh had shown its anger at being bypassed, but has now been left with no alternative but to spiritedly defend the sell-off in the face of opposition and civil society criticism. The Sindh governor is reported to have justified the sale by saying the other day that it was an “internal matter” between the federal and provincial governments. What about the fishermen who will be affected, what about the environment, what about Pakistani developers who might have been interested in bidding for the project if the islands were to be sold off?

Here again we have a case where transparency and public and parliamentary consultation have been ignored. Will someone now go to the Supreme Court on this issue also and the apex court then intervene, as it did in relation to the sale of plots in Gwadar? Everything, every decision that is taken, becomes an “internal matter” between the federal and provincial governments, and the latter too appear to be consulted only post ipso facto for form’s sake. The much talked about commercialisation and walling off of Karachi’s Clifton beach has also come in for heavy criticism from NGOs and public-spirited citizens. But do we get an answer from the government? No.

Balochistan government ministers say they were aware of the irregularities committed in the process of allotments in Gwadar and would have taken the same steps as ordered by the Supreme Court. Why didn’t they? Federal minister Zobaida Jalal has openly and squarely blamed the provincial authorities for the irregularities committed. Everyone has been talking of the alleged land grab going on in Gwadar for months, and yet it is the Supreme Court, not the president or the prime minister, that took action.

It is also the Supreme Court that has moved for the demolition of illegal structures in Murree, although environmentalists and the residents of Murree had long been complaining about how their hill station had become a replica of Lahore’s Gowalmandi. All for the sake of development and the creation of a flourishing housing market for the rich and the well off to live in comfort.

If, in these circumstances, there is a sense of despair and frustration among large sections of ordinary citizens, is it a cause for wonder? General elections are supposed to be approaching: the government party should realise that it will turn away more people if it persists in its arrogant disdain for the common citizen than by its bungling in the war on terror. It should, if it has any sense, make a concerted effort to adopt a more open and caring style of governance and stop being seen as catering only to an elite section of society.

Doesn’t it ever strike anyone in government that if it worked in a more responsive, accountable and civilised manner, it might win some genuine support from the people? As it is, even those who say they will back the general in his efforts to establish peace with India, fight religious militancy and establish a more open society are put off by the way his government conducts itself and they will be most reluctant to be seen as defending any of his policies.

What can be more ridiculous than that even in the case of the dengue fever, the authorities now appear to be waiting for winter to drive the scourge away. “Government awaiting winter to save it from dengue” — headline in a newspaper, Nov 13.

RECENT calls for provincial autonomy have focused on the Concurrent Legislative List of the 1973 Constitution. The emerging consensus appears to be that most if not all of the subjects included in this list — matters which fall under the legislative authority of both federal and provincial governments — should be transferred to the provinces.

What has been overlooked in this frisson of excitement is the track record of provincial governments in areas over which they already enjoy exclusive legislative authority.

The subject of “environmental pollution and ecology” appears in the concurrent list that is today the centre of attention. But natural resources — freshwater, land, forests, coastal areas, wildlife — are provincial subjects and the provinces have enacted a substantial body of law to govern these areas. Across the board, this legislation is problematic.

Take for example a basic necessity such as water. Provincial law covers most aspects of freshwater management — irrigation and canals, drainage and embankments, water supply, navigation in inland waterways — except for water quality.

While “fouling” and “corrupting” sources of water supply are listed as offences, the penalties prescribed are pitifully small and these provisions are in any case hard to enforce in the absence of clear definitions regarding specific types of pollution.

Land is another subject that, apart from land reform, is currently under the legislative authority of the provinces. Here again provincial laws deal with a whole range of aspects related to land use — acquisition, requisition, agricultural tenancy, colonisation, “improvement” and reclamation, “disposal” of urban land and plots — but in these laws land is treated not as a natural resource but a commodity. So it is not surprising that provincial laws fail to take into account the long-term effects of chemicals and organic pollutants that damage soil quality, or potentially devastating environmental processes such as desertification.

Wildlife, also a provincial subject, is governed by laws that are primarily designed to regulate hunting. Although certain species are awarded protection, these species vary from province to province.

The houbara bustard, for example, is protected by law in three provinces but may be legally hunted on an “ordinary shooting licence” in the Punjab. Even where protection exists it is weakened by the fact that officials are awarded discretionary powers to grant exemptions.

International trade in endangered species, and special protection for migratory species, are issues that are not even mentioned, let alone addressed in provincial legislation.

Forest management is another subject that falls under the exclusive legislative purview of the provinces.

By the government’s own admission, forest cover in the country has fallen from a paltry 3.3 per cent in 1990 to an even more disturbing 2.5 per cent in 2005. At this rate, Pakistan will have virtually no forest cover remaining by the middle of this century.

Now consider the fact that forest management in most of the country is carried out under a law framed in 1927. In the case of Balochistan an even older piece of legislation, dating back to 1890, is also in force.

Only one province, the NWFP, home to some 40 per cent of the country’s forests, has enacted new legislation for the management of forest resources.

This still leaves 60 per cent of the country’s forests at the mercy of a legal regime that is antiquated at best.

Not only are the country’s forest resources being depleted at an alarming rate, the writ of provincial forest laws is quite literally encroached upon by legislation governing other sectors. In Balochistan, for example, a 1992 law framed for the ‘development’ of the Ziarat valley awards the provincial government sweeping powers to execute “schemes” in an area that is home to one of the world’s oldest and largest juniper forests.

Similar concerns arise with regard to coastal areas, also under the legislative authority of the provinces. There is no provincial law governing the management and protection of coastal areas or mangroves. Instead, the coast is treated as prime real estate on which the government can turn a handsome profit. Coastal development laws in both Balochistan and Sindh focus on preparing these areas for industrial, commercial and recreational use with scarcely any provision for pollution control or the conservation of coastal ecosystems.

The one thing these provincial laws have in common is that they all focus on exploitation. By failing to enact legislation that meaningfully protects the nation’s natural wealth, the provinces have clearly demonstrated their priorities.

To gauge where provincial interests lie, consider this: the Sindh assembly in 2001 amended the provincial wildlife ordinance in order to permit drilling for oil within the perimeter of the Kirthar National Park. Meanwhile in July this year it was reported that over 80,000 acres of protected land within the Hingol National Park in Balochistan may be allotted to the air force and Suparco — a move which is perfectly legal under that province’s wildlife law, which provides for the creation of protected areas but does not state that once such areas have been declared, they cannot be de-notified. On November 15, Sindh legislators once again leapt into action, this time to pass a repealing bill which reportedly allows the province to dispose of government land at will, and at a throwaway price.

What is perhaps most disheartening about this legislative trend is the fact that these natural resources — freshwater, land, forests, wildlife and coastal areas — have been under the purview of the provinces since independence.

Indeed, legislative authority over natural resources has changed little since 1947, with law-making left mostly up to provincial governments.

This delegation of power dates back to the Government of India Act 1935, which served as the governing basic law for newly independent Pakistan.

The division of legislative powers specified in the 1935 law survived more or less unaltered in the constitutions of 1956 and 1962. With a few modifications, this pattern of subject matter jurisdiction was subsequently carried over into the 1973 Constitution. As such, the federal and concurrent lists of the 1973 Constitution reflect the legislative priorities of a colonial administration exercising authority in an age where stewardship of resources involved little more than exploitation.

These priorities have dated. Yet, in exercising their control over natural resources, provincial governments have remained trapped in a colonial mindset.

Under the legislative purview of the provinces, the natural wealth of the nation continues to be squandered. Provincial law governing natural resources has done little more than to allow resources to diminish rapidly.

There can be no argument with the assertion that the provinces should be allowed to reap the full benefits of resources located within their territorial jurisdiction. But it is no longer prudent, and is downright dangerous, to think in provincial terms when it comes to conservation. The need today, when provincial autonomy has become the focus of attention, is to ensure that this autonomy does not come at the expense of ecological degradation.