Onward with the peace process

THERE is optimism in the air following the meetings between leaders from India and Pakistan to revive the peace process. When the Indian foreign minister, Mr Pranab Mukherjee, came to Pakistan over the weekend, the two sides gave clear signals that they were now ready to move ahead with the composite dialogue that had been stalled since last July when a series of bombs exploded in Mumbai. It is therefore a welcome development that the fourth round of peace talks will be launched in March. But before that the joint commission will bring the foreign ministers of the two countries together in New Delhi in February. Before the end of March, the first meeting of the joint anti-terrorism mechanism will be held. Other moves that have been announced should pave the way for friendly exchanges, such as the three accords to be signed in February, the willingness of the two governments to liberalise their visa regimes and the headway being made on Siachen, Sir Creek and the treatment of Indian and Pakistani prisoners. In view of the past impasse in their ties for long periods at a stretch, Mr Mukherjee’s visit has certainly lightened the gloom.

In Pakistan conventional wisdom has it that without a solution of the Kashmir dispute, relations with India can never improve durably. But what needs to be understood is that the conflict in Kashmir has been there for over half a century and it is unrealistic to expect a perfect solution to be achieved overnight. Any attempt to realise this will pose difficulties for both countries which have to deal with hawkish elements in their ranks. Moreover, to ask for the right of self-determination for the Kashmiris envisaged 50 years ago is not realistic any more. Much water has flowed down the Jhelum and both India and Pakistan will have to move on if a solution to the Kashmir dispute is to be found. For instance, the four-point formula suggested by President Musharraf may not offer a classical format for self-determination but it does take note of current realities. By envisaging free movement of people across the LoC, gradual demilitarisation of the state, self-governance and a joint supervision mechanism, the formula would ensure more meaningful engagement with the Kashmiris than ever before.

At the moment, most hopes are pinned on the backchannel negotiations taking place between S.K. Lambah and Tariq Aziz. Obviously it is Kashmir that is under discussion and common sense demands that the special envoys of the Indian prime minister and the Pakistan president talk discreetly about their changing positions on this ‘core issue’. If they decide to go public on this prematurely, the hawks who are already whining will create such a rumpus that the leaders will end up playing to the gallery. A more significant approach would be to induct the leaderships of both parts of Kashmir into the dialogue and win their approval for whatever formula is adopted. If the Kashmiris are fully involved in the peace process, it would be easier to sideline the hardliners on both sides who are not genuinely interested in peace and stability in South Asia. Their aim is to keep the Kashmir pot boiling so that they can extract maximum political capital out of the turbulence in a sensitive area in the South Asian region.

‘Temporary solution’?

DIVISIONS within Palestinian factions are contributing to the continued lack of progress on the peace process between Israel and Palestine. The Fatah-Hamas street battles, which have caused at least 30 deaths, threaten to derail the nascent Palestinian democracy. After winning elections last January, Hamas has faced two major challenges. One is external pressure in the form of a fund cut-off by Israel, the US and the European Union (Israel recently released the frozen fund partly). The idea was to make the Haniye government financially bankrupt so that it would not be able to pay salaries to its civil servants, leading to street protests and violence. Two, the greater challenge for Hamas and Fatah is to work democracy, and they do not look like making a success of it. Fatah has not yet reconciled itself to loss of power and has refused to cooperate with the majority party. Hamas too has failed to adopt a realistic policy that could have led to the formation of a government of national unity. Then President Mahmoud Abbas made a mistake by threatening to call a new election. This was a provocation to Hamas, which rightly claimed that it was not being allowed to settle down and work. Besides, the result of a new election is hardly likely to be different from what it was last year. Fatah has done nothing that could endear itself to the people in the post-Arafat period; Hamas, on the other hand, has a welfare network that helps Palestinian families affected by Israeli military actions.

No wonder, given this internal Palestinian scene, Israel should talk of temporary borders for a Palestinian entity. In talks with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, President Abbas on Sunday rejected Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni’s proposal that there could be a Palestinian state with temporary borders before a final solution was found. A “temporary solution”, he said, would not be viable. The motive behind the Israeli proposal seems to be to prolong the status quo, which enables Israel to strengthen its stranglehold over the occupied territories, its latest example being the decision to build new housing units on the outskirts of occupied Al Quds.

Another successful marathon

MERCIFULLY, the Lahore marathon this past weekend was a successful event. One was somewhat apprehensive given that marathons too have become a politicised event, with religious parties opposing the participation of women alongside men. Two years ago, religious activists violently disrupted a mixed marathon in Gujranwala and, a few months later, the police manhandled participants in another mixed marathon in Lahore led by human rights activists. What should have just been a sporting event was suddenly turned into a freedom of choice issue. Last year, the Lahore administration took pre-emptive steps and rounded up hundreds of religious activists a day before the event and took strict security measures. This year too the government refused to be browbeaten by narrow-minded elements which see events like the marathon as ones that spread immortality. Such ridiculous notions must be ignored and society encouraged to participate in activities that promote fitness, a healthy mode of competition and, above all, community involvement. Every town and city needs to promote more all-inclusive activities as they provide the people with outlets of fun in their otherwise stressful lives. Those who disrupt events like Basant, either by not adhering to strict rules on kite-flying or misbehaving, should be taken to task for their irresponsible behaviour. Those opposed to recreational activities have a right to voice their protests provided it is done in a peaceful and civilised manner.

Festivals like the ongoing ‘Hamara Karachi’ celebrations have shown that people are desperate for avenues of recreation and entertainment. It is events like these and the marathon that improve the country’s image, for they attract interested sportspersons and tourists from around the world to share in the festivities. The administration needs to ensure that security is beefed up during such events so as to prevent spoilsports from ruining the day.

Developing a national consensus

PRESIDENT Musharraf has been emphasising in his public speeches the great importance of the coming elections and that people should make the right choices to ensure continued stability and progress of the country.

Surely, no one would disagree with this sound advice, but the people justifiably expect from our leaders and especially President Musharraf to steer the country out of the current political quagmire and put it on the right course by placing the national interests above their narrow party or institutional objectives.

First and foremost, our leadership has to realise that Pakistan’s internal normalisation will only come about when the source of power is the people and not the armed forces. Countries that progress and are on the right course are those which follow the rule of law and not the rule of power. When countries slide into chaos, rule of force as a transitory measure may be justified, but in our case it has become the rule rather than the exception. This has totally distorted the foundations of the state. As we are dictated by the rule of force, a whole power structure has emerged on the basis of favoritism and patronage.

We hear of deals and power-sharing arrangements so that those in power can perpetuate their rule irrespective of what the verdict of the people would be. Those surrounding the rulers are seldom in a position to express their views candidly as they have no political base of their own and hold their existing positions entirely at the pleasure of one person. Although this is also true that in the past our political leaders have conducted themselves in a similar dictatorial fashion, at least the people could remove them with the power of the ballot.

Moreover, societies that prefer military or authoritarian regimes devote substantial resources to the acquisition and protection of power. Police, military and security agencies become the agents for ensuring the status quo and for advancing their group and individual interests rather than promoting public good. Privileged individuals and elite groups benefit at the cost of society and become the props for these regimes, but the majority suffers and this is what we are experiencing in Pakistan.

It is also understandable why in our country there is scarce incentive to save and invest, as lack of institutions creates uncertainty and smooth transfer of power becomes a chronic problem. In countries where merit is not always a priority, there is a heavy toll on human capital and one finds the best talent going abroad for jobs. Societies fail to foster long term investments in education in sciences, engineering, and medicine when they find prize appointments being taken away by appointees of favoured politicians or the military.

This also explains why Pakistan is lagging behind in developing professionalism as part of its national culture, although our people, when they migrate to the West or elsewhere, have invariably proven their professional competence in varied fields. It is also doubtful if extremism and terrorism can be combated by authoritarian regimes. At best, they can suppress these tendencies but in the long term they radicalise societies under authoritarian rule.

As the military dominates the state institutions and policies and expands its influence, the federal character of the state comes under severe strain. Military rule is inherently unitary in character and then President Musharraf’s style of governance has made it more centralised. Moreover, for historical and traditional reasons, the military’s demographic distribution is also heavily tilted in favour of Punjab, which compounds and aggravates the feeling of alienation among the smaller provinces.

Economic development undertaken by Islamabad for the provinces is viewed with suspicion however well intentioned and national in orientation it may be. This is so evident in case of Balochistan and from the persistent negative response of smaller provinces to the building of Kalabagh dam or issues related to the distribution of water resources. The fear is that if military rule is perpetuated, it would become difficult to establish the writ of the state over smaller provinces without the presence of large security forces, which currently is largely the case in Balochistan. The fact is that we are ethnically Sindhis, Balochs, Punjabis, Pushtuns and Urdu-speaking.

This diversity is our asset if we maintain the federal character of the state. As against this, a highly centralised state structure under a military dispensation brings out the worst and sharpens differences and ethnic divisions among the provinces.

The above-mentioned factors make 2007 a defining year for Pakistan and pose the greatest challenge to its military and political leadership. Foremost priority for them in the coming months should be to find ways of overcoming the strained relationship between the military and the main political parties, otherwise the stalemate is likely to get worse as we come close to elections. The nation can ill afford to dissipate its energy in this manner when daunting problems face us at the domestic and international level. It is for President Musharraf and the political leaders to find a way out. Having free and fair elections could provide an excellent opportunity for extricating the country from the current political quagmire.

President Musharraf’s belief that the National Security Council can act as a bridge and an overarching framework for transiting to democracy does not stand to close scrutiny. It cannot possibly be a substitute for an empowered parliament, as the locus of power in the Council still remains with the COAS and the military. In reality, it only acts as perpetuating the dominance of the military. The NSC has even failed to give President Musharraf the confidence to retire from the post of CAOS.

When President Musharraf himself has repeatedly claimed that the people support his policies and that some polls conducted by foreign agencies also endorse this claim. If so then there is no reason why he should hesitate to shed his uniform and seek elections through a normal constitutional process.

For Pakistani society to be stabilised, the political process and civil society have to be activated and the role of the army has to be reduced to the minimum in civilian affairs. The political agenda of the present military government perceives the army to be central to the stability and security of the state. This concept is in fact providing neither external security nor internal stability. The foremost requirement for ensuring national security is not nuclear deterrence, but national cohesion and consensus on fundamental issues confronting the state. Unless the public is supportive of the armed forces no wars or even battles can be won.

The political parties in the country are organisationally weak and fragmented and have failed in the past to provide effective governance that is capable of addressing the real problems of the broad masses. By not adhering to the basic principles of democratic behaviour and conduct and by using the military for advancing their narrow goals, they have further strengthened the hold of the military on politics. Political parties are perceived as mere chattel and suffer from the cult of personality. Political leaders who are willing to remain subservient to the military enjoy the benefits of power by being co-opted.

The charter of democracy signed between two major political parties is therefore a step forward for strengthening institutional structures, but already cracks have appeared in it and the people are disappointed. Hopefully, the mainstream parties will show greater maturity and move in a positive way by making it more effective by including other parties in it and eventually persuading the military leadership to accept its underlying spirit. Surely, history and the nation would judge President Musharraf by the legacy and institutions that he leaves behind to strengthen the nation and not by tactical measures that are meant to perpetuate the status quo.

The writer is a retired lieutenant-general of Pakistan Army.

Bundles of influence

THE most pernicious aspect of the relationship between lawmakers and lobbyists doesn’t involve skybox tickets or golf junkets. It centres on the role that lobbyists play in providing lawmakers with the campaign cash they need to survive. Lobbyists write their own cheques, which must be disclosed.

But lobbyists are even more valuable to politicians in their role as bundlers, tapping their clients and other networks to deliver campaign cash far in excess of what they are permitted to contribute personally. The master of the bundling game was President Bush, with his $200,000-and-up Rangers and his $100,000-and-up Pioneers.

Yet while you can be assured that lawmakers and their campaigns know who their big bundlers are, and that the bundlers keep careful track of how much they help bring in, the people aren’t let in on the news. That information ought to be made public, especially regarding those who make their livings seeking to influence Congress.

A provision that would require such disclosure is part of a strong package of ethics and lobbying reforms introduced this week by Sens. Russell Feingold and Barack Obama. It would require lobbyists to disclose not only their contributions but also the donations they collect or arrange, along with cheques going to presidential libraries.

—Los Angeles Times