ON assumption of his office as the new UN secretary-general, South Korea’s former foreign minister Ban Ki-moon faces many challenges and an uphill task in restoring the UN’s lost “credibility and authority.” As the world’s CEO, Ban Ki-moon is required to breathe new life and a fresh ethical impulse in the UN which stands today totally marginalised with little or no role on global issues of peace and security.

No doubt, each secretary-general must define his role in keeping with the nature and gravity of the challenges that he faces or expects to face during his tenure. Since the UN’s biggest failure has been its inability to uphold the principles enshrined in its own Charter, it was heartening to see the new secretary-general illustrating his faith in the Charter by placing his left hand on it as the “sacred” document while taking the oath.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon recognises the need for “strengthening of the three pillars of the UN, namely security, development and human rights” in order to build a more peaceful, more prosperous and more just world for our succeeding generations. While outlining his “core” tasks, Ban Ki-moon said that his first priority would be to “restore” trust so that the UN lives up to its name.

Hopefully, he realises what lies ahead of him. Perhaps he also understands that these are exceptional times warranting exceptional responses. The need for a strong multilateral institution capable of meeting the challenges of the new age has never been greater than it is today. Unfortunately, today’s UN is no more than a debating forum, producing voluminous and repetitive documentation without any tangible results. Being the world’s largest consumer of printing paper and also the largest producer of waste paper, no wonder, some critics now like to see it as a “dustbin of history.”

As the UN’s chief administrative officer, Ban Ki-moon inherits a “cash-strapped” organisation and a legacy of systemic “poor governance, mismanagement, over-staffing, corruption and sexual abuse.” Plagued by scandals of fraud and corruption over the multi-billion-dollar Iraqi oil-for-food programme, the world body that Ban now leads “is also suffering from a crisis of conscience.”

Unlike his predecessor, Kofi Annan, who rose through the ranks of the UN system to its upper most echelons through an exceptional “survival” instinct, Ban has had no experience of the UN system but he does have better political skills and seriousness of purpose acquired over his long diplomatic career. While Kofi Annan used his “political activism” for building his own image and clout, Ban Ki-moon’s main asset is his “quiet, low-profile” approach and his avowal to be a “harmoniser, balancer and mediator”.

If he really means what he says, and he says that he is a “man on a mission” and that his mission is to restore trust in the organisation, he must distance himself from the seemingly palatable legacy of his predecessor, no matter how exceptionally generous he may have been in sharing his “wisdom and guidance” with him during the final days of his tenure. He should also not be awed by the enormity of tributes paid to his predecessor or to his “courage and vision.”

He must not get caught in the gummy nettle of the UN’s sterile rhetoric of mutually exchanged complements and oft-repeated clichés of “high ideals, noble aspirations and bold initiatives” which were the hallmarks of Kofi Annan’s two consecutive terms in office with almost nil output. If anything, the world is more turbulent than ever. The only visible “fruit” of Kofi Annan’s second tenure was the 2001 Nobel Peace Prize with which he and his scandal-ridden and crippled UN ran away without changing anything in the crisis-ridden world.

The post-9/11 world has witnessed unprecedented erosion in its authority and legitimacy which has been circumvented by the unabashed use of power in the name of self-defence. Iraq is still burning. Afghanistan has yet to breathe peace. Palestine is tired and has given up. Kashmir is devastated and disillusioned. The world had never been so chaotic and so complacent.

Once hailed as “mankind’s last best hope” the UN has never been so helpless. Under Kofi Annan’s “prize-wining” and “well-rewarded” leadership, it was completely bypassed for the military adventure against Iraq, and also stood completely paralysed in the face of the recent Israeli aggression against Lebanon. Its record on other major issues, including the aggression and genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the massacres in Rwanda and Srebrenica, the conflicts in Kosovo, Kashmir, Somalia and other places in Africa and Asia is no less dismal. The UN’s peacekeeping operations have been used only to perpetuate status quo in conflicts at an exorbitant dollar budget with no serious focus on conflict prevention and conflict resolution.

Emerging from the ashes of World War II, the UN was meant to save humanity and its succeeding generations from the scourge of war. It was also meant to provide a moral edifice for a new global system, which was to be based on justice and equity and governed by rules, laws, values and cooperation. Unfortunately, our world today is neither just nor equal and inspires no confidence among its member-states. There is no let-up in violence. Injustice and oppression continue unabated. Poverty, hunger, disease and, above all, human rights violations and denial of basic rights and democratic norms, are endemic in most societies. Terrorism is the new scourge afflicting our world. Unfortunately, the war on terror has not gone beyond retribution and retaliation.

The Global development agenda has been set aside, if not shelved. Internationally agreed development goals and commitments have been overtaken by new priorities and preoccupations driven by overbearing global security agenda. Humanity finds itself divided along economic and religious lines. Dialogue among civilisations is almost dead.

With growing complexity and magnitude of inter-connected global challenges, the despair over the UN’s capacity to manage these has been increasing. What aggravates this bleak scenario is the growing inability of the international community to respond to these challenges with unity of purpose. There is no global consensus on major peace and security issues or on how to address them. The UN General Assembly, despite its universal character, has no role or authority in decisions of global relevance and impact. The Security Council is in no position to respond to these crises and conflicts in an objective manner. The overriding vested political and economic interests of the more influential and powerful players limit its role in “conflict prevention and dispute resolution.”

The Security Council has been reduced to a dramatic club with no reality or credibility to its actions. Its meetings and deliberations are mere theatrical spectacles, some in public and some in camera, choreographed in advance to conform to what the outgoing secretary-general in his own profound wisdom described as today’s “realities of power.”

For Ban Ki-moon’s UN, its multiple challenges lie in the global legacy of armed conflict, unresolved disputes, military occupations, invasions in the name of self-defence, wars of aggression and attrition, human tragedies and humanitarian catastrophes, massacres and genocides, which continue to define the “new world disorder.”

Ban Ki-moon seems to have started well by setting an “ethical” example for his organisation. He has made a financial disclosure of his assets and holdings, and should now be establishing a competent Ethics Office to promote the values of “transparency and accountability” that the UN has been preaching to the outside world without practising in its own system. He must give the UN a new robust culture of systemic “ethics, efficiency and effectiveness.”

The question of UN reform has been the greatest challenge for the outgoing secretary-general and remains so for Ban Ki-moon. Kofi Annan seemed to be in a hurry and tried to rush with his reform process. In his recommendations for dealing with the contemporary threats and challenges, he chose to focus only on the symptoms rather than the disease. He ignored the actual root causes of the threats to global peace and security and their cost in terms of human life and misery.

On the question of the expansion of the Security Council, Kofi Annan did not facilitae the task by espousing the “realities of power” and advocating a divisive approach. Some countries even blamed him for promoting artificial deadlines to accelerate a decision on the expansion of the Council. Ban Ki-moon is aware of the pitfalls in this whole process and must not succumb to pressures from any quarters aimed at undermining the reform rationale.

In operating from the 38th floor of the UN, Ban Ki-moon will be better off following his own country’s example and legacy of “rising” from the ashes of a destructive war and becoming a model of phenomenal resilience in the form of unrivalled socio-economic development. One can visualise his own mission bearing fruition only if he remains focused on his own approach rather than on anyone else’s legacy. He must not stay the “bedeviled” course.

Ban Ki-moon knows his path is narrow and steep, transcending geographical boundaries and partisan interests. any would stumble along the way, or like his predecessor, take easier detours. But if he has to repeat what is known as the “Korean miracle” at the UN, he will have to skillfully harness the “realities of power” by building consensus and taking the entire UN membership, including the major powers along on all global issues. In recent years, the cause of democracy in most developing countries has been neglected. Many of them continue to suffer authoritarian regimes and corrupt rulers. Ban Ki-Moon must address these maladies and help promote fundamental freedoms and democratic norms wherever these are missing.

No doubt, his is the world’s most difficult and thankless job. As straitjacketed head of the world’s largest inter-governmental organisation, he will often find his “freedom of action” limited by global “political realities,” including divergent and sometimes conflicting interests of major powers.

His biggest challenge will be how he manages these realities. Will he stand up to the P-5’s monopolistic pressures and manipulations? Only time will tell but in the end, this is what will matter. Of course, the world will be watching very closely how he acquits himself as its chief administrative officer and top spokesman.

The writer is a former foreign secretary.

UNDER the Constitution of Pakistan as it now stands the president can get rid of a prime minister with whom he does not get along by dissolving the National Assembly, if in his opinion “a situation has arisen in which the Government of the Federation cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution” — Article 58(2)(b).

But if the prime minister, for a similar reason or motive, wishes the president to go he has to muster the support of a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly as well as in the Senate to remove him from office “on the ground of physical or mental incapacity” or impeach him for “violating the Constitution” or for “gross misconduct” – Article 47.

There is a strikingly bizarre aspect of this unusual constitutional scheme. While the elected executive head of government can be dismissed (even when he commands a parliamentary majority) if the president feels he is not doing his job well, to remove an unelected ceremonial head of state the prime minister has to allege that the president is either insane or has committed treason — for that is what violating the Constitution means. And then, he must carry two-thirds of the members in both Houses of the parliament with him.

How heavily the constitutional provisions weigh in favour of an unelected president is borne out by historical record. No president has ever been removed but there is hardly a prime minister who wasn’t. In the interregnums when the power of the president to dissolve the National Assembly was taken away, the prime ministers were ousted by force by the army chief.

The failure to find a balance between the role of the president and the powers of the prime minister has plagued both Pakistan’s politics and governance since independence. It does no less now. Despite Gen Musharraf’s claim that he had corrected the balance for all times to come it remains tilted and uncertainty persists.

When the president did not have the power to dissolve the National Assembly two prime ministers — Z.A. Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif — denied to the president even his traditional role to counsel and warn the government (recall the pathetic figures that Chaudhry Fazal Elahi and Rafiq Tarrar cut in their times). Their parliamentary parties were also too obsequious to check the authority and arrogance of the prime ministers. The army intervened to end what was practically their one-man rule — but for its own reasons.

During the periods that the presidents had the power to dissolve the National Assembly they used it without much restraint. Particularly reprehensible was Ziaul Haq’s dismissal of Mohammad Khan Junejo who, it was then universally acknowledged, was indeed working within the confines of the Constitution. It was Ziaul Haq who could not reconcile to the diminished status he had defined for himself and struck back to once again become the dictator that he had been for eight years.

At present, the country is in the midst of its fourth experiment with yet another variant of democracy in which the serving army chief is expected to be elected president by the electoral college comprising the federal and provincial legislatures. But Gen Pervez Musharraf will not be president in the mould of Fazal Elahi or Rafiq Tarrar nor even that of Farooq Leghari or Ghulam Ishaq Khan. Besides the power to dissolve the National Assembly, such are now the president’s constitutional powers relating to the appointment of generals and judges that the challenge to his actions is unlikely to arise either from parliament or from the prime minister or any other organ of the state.

In putting together the current constitutional structure Gen Musharraf (it is entirely his handiwork) was quite obviously influenced by the behaviour of an authoritarian prime minister who relieved him of the army command while he was on a plane and who had earlier also arbitrarily cut short the term of his predecessor. Musharraf struck back only to save his job and life but then went on to devise a system in which he as the president is no less authoritarian than Nawaz Sharif was as prime minister.

Musharraf’s doctrine of checks and balances has imposed checks on the prime minister, the parliament, bureaucracy and every other institution but none on the president. He has in fact further buttressed his authority by decreeing that he would also remain chief of army staff for as long as he considers it necessary. Some may be prepared to condone his retaining both jobs but he would hardly find a taker for his view that the military uniform has nothing to do with democracy.

It is unusual for an unelected president to lord over a parliament that appoints him and then also to dissolve it at his sole discretion. But it is altogether a travesty of democracy for him to be commander in chief of the armed forces and president at the same time.

The “Basic” and “Islamic” brands of democracy introduced respectively by Field Marshal Ayub Khan and Gen Ziaul Haq had a short life and left a bitter trail of legacy because both were less representative and more authoritarian. Every prefix to democracy conceals some kind of insidious design to impose a curb on the civil rights and liberty of the people and to provide immunity to the authoritarian rulers from accountability. Musharraf’s “real” democracy is no exception.

Challenges to Musharraf’s brand of democracy will soon emanate from the streets if elections are delayed or rigged and from parliament itself if they are free and fair. To avoid the ensuing conflict which the country already torn by a variety of conflicts may not be able to withstand, he should restore the balance of power in the system. If he wants to retain his authority to dissolve the National Assembly and other executive powers that he has acquired through the seventeenth amendment the least he can do is to get himself elected by the direct vote of the people in an open contest before elections to the assemblies.

A woman MPA of Sindh elected on a PPP ticket who later joined the ruling Q League and now acts as special assistant to the chief minister states that Pervez Musharraf’s uniform means prosperity. So it has been for her at least. The lady’s fortune also underlines the real problem of Pakistan’s democracy — it is not constitutional but pork barrel politics.