|
| January 19, 2007 | Friday | Zilhaj 28, 1427 |
Cost of Taunsa breach
Survivors left out in the cold
Spirit of Islamic polity
The ‘surge’ move is a mistake
THE Islamic faith is rightly considered to be comprehensive in all respects. Universality being one of its chief requisites, it is compatible with all times and climes.
IT was axiomatic during the Cold War that presidents should not gamble with matters of national security. The stakes were too high. The Bush administration’s Iraq policy has long suffered from a lack of that prudence — and the misplaced gambler’s instinct is especially evident in the administration’s plan to to Baghdad.
THE nation’s worst fears have come true, for the cabinet finally decided on Wednesday what had long been talked about — Gen Pervez Musharraf will be re-elected president for another five-year term by the existing assemblies. The decision should not come as a surprise, for let it be said to the dubious credit of some of the ruling party’s bigwigs that they want to prepare the nation in advance for what by any standards is a joke with democracy. The irony of the situation is highlighted by Information Minister Muhammad Ali Durrani’s assertion that the decision was in conformity with the Constitution. The assemblies’ term expires on Nov 16. This means that the decision about who will be the head of state for the next five years will be taken by the assemblies which were elected for the five-year period ending in 2007. According to Mr Durrani, the cabinet was briefed on the legal and constitutional aspects of the presidential election (another version of the ‘Doctrine of Necessity’?) by a team of experts headed by Mr Sharifuddin Pirzada. Might we suggest to the experts that, if the mode of presidential election as announced on Wednesday is in conformity with the Constitution, the powers that be might as well take a step further and have the prime minister, too, elected the same way for another five years?
That the experts approve of this kind of presidential election does not hide the political and ethical negativity of the move. To be technically correct does not necessarily mean being morally irreproachable; in fact, the people of Pakistan and the world will be justified if they regard Wednesday’s decision as a morally bankrupt and ill-advised one which will destroy all hope of Pakistan’s return to democracy — democracy, as it is understood and practised the world over. The tough line taken by the president against the two mainstream parties — the PPP and the PML-N — can now be understood: the election that is to follow the presidential drama has lost all meaning. It does not really matter which party gets most votes and has a majority or a plurality in the National Assembly. President Musharraf — who in all probability will be the sole candidate — will rule and reign, with the prime minister’s principal duty being to cut inauguration tapes. Already, the Constitution stands seriously disfigured. It is no more the parliamentary type that was enacted by the National Assembly in 1973. Instead, it has become a presidential type in all but name — made still more odious by the fact that the president also happens to be the army chief. Then there is the National Security Council, the nation’s highest policy-making body, which is headed by the president, and then there is Article 58-2b. Introduced in the Constitution by Gen Ziaul Haq and later abolished by the political government, it was revived under the Legal Framework Order and made part of the Constitution. This Clause authorises the president to sack an elected government and dissolve the National Assembly.
Perhaps the nation could have put up with the amended Constitution and a strong president if the generals had not made a mockery of the rudimentary concepts of democracy by finally opting for the president’s re-election by the present assemblies. Democracy, it seems, will continue to elude the people of Pakistan. The cabinet decision deserves to be condemned by all those who want to see Pakistan emerge out of the dark shadows of long military rule and constitutional disfigurement.
THE cost in real terms of the 90-foot breach that occurred on Monday in a Taunsa barrage embankment in southern Punjab which has yet to be filled, will run into billions. The authorities say it will take the barrage a week’s time after repair is completed to return to its pre-breach operational level, which had already been curtailed because of the remodelling work being done at the barrage by the irrigation department. The breach will cause a delay of some 20 days in irrigation water supply to two districts in Punjab and to all lower riparian districts in Sindh. Additionally, because of the barrage’s reduced capacity to release more water downstream, inflows from the upstream Tarbela and Ghazi Barotha also stand reduced. This means a considerable reduction in power generation at Tarbela and Ghazi Barotha, causing a net 1,000MW shortfall in the supply of electricity countrywide. This has left Wapda and the KESC with no option but to resort to loadshedding.
It is unfortunate that no lesson was learnt from the hardship caused to farmers and all those dependent on the river Indus for their drinking water needs for nearly 18 months when cracks had appeared in the Sukkur barrage in 2005. This time the number of those affected by the Taunsa barrage breach is much higher because of its location upstream, and also in terms of the higher stakes involved: multiple water needs and power generation. The economic cost of the negligence on the part of the irrigation department and others concerned in terms of irrigation and industrial production time lost as a result is indeed enormous. One says this because the immediate losses caused by the breach at the barrage itself are estimated at nearly three billion rupees. In a country faced with chronic water and power shortages, this is simply unacceptable. An inquiry must be launched into the whole affair and those found guilty of negligence should be brought to book. That done, the need for putting in place a more effective and permanent maintenance mechanism for barrages and water reservoirs across the country can hardly be overemphasised.
MORE than a year after the Oct 8, 2005, quake in the north, the government appears to be least concerned about the plight of the survivors who are finding it difficult to cope in chilly mid-winter temperatures. The situation is particularly alarming in Balakot, one of the worst-hit towns, where people are still living in damaged tents as they wait for Erra officials to make good on their promise of providing them with durable shelters. There are few doctors to cope with the increasing number of patients seeking medical aid for cold-related ailments. Food prices have also shot up causing hardship for many families who cannot afford to buy essential items. It seems that ever since the relief agencies wound up their operations in Balakot, the government has sunk into lethargy as evident from its inaction on the building of shelters — a scheme sponsored by the Saudi government.
It is a pity that donor fatigue seems to have set in otherwise Balakot and other quake-hit towns could have seen a greater effort to reduce suffering. In the days and months following the quake there was a massive outpouring of support and aid from ordinary citizens and doctors who rushed to the devastated areas to offer their services to the victims. Unfortunately, that spirit of giving is missing now. Much of this has to do with the government’s inability to provide leadership or to prove that it is taking an active interest in the rebuilding of the affected areas. This has resulted in a sense of disappointment aggravated by reports of misuse of funds. Unless Erra officials act quickly to reduce suffering and win back public support by dispelling doubts about their performance, the fate of the earthquake victims will continue to be bleak.
Not only does it lay down the fundamentals and importance of worship as well as guidelines on how to live a morally sound and productive life, but also enumerates a workable political order based on three main principles i.e. tauhid (unity of God), risalat (prophethood) and khilafat (vicegerency).
The very essence of an Islamic state is that sovereignty belongs to God: “Blessed is He in Whose hand is the Sovereignty, and He is Possessor of power over all things.” (67: 01) The sovereignty exercised by the rulers in an Islamic state is a sacred trust bestowed on them by God: “Then We appointed you viceroys in the land after them that We might see how you behave.” (10: 14) The basic principle of Islam is that all human beings must, both individually and collectively, submit to the will of Allah: “He has commanded that you worship none but Him (i.e. His Monotheism); that is the (true) straight religion, but most men know not.” (12: 40)
Risalat or prophethood serves as the channel through which the law of God has been received and conveyed to mankind. Through risalat, we received two main sources of Islamic law and political set up i.e. the Holy Quran which is the word of God and the Sunnah of the Prophet which (i) serves to interpret the Quran and, (ii) in cases where the Quran itself is silent on an issue, a decision of the Prophet based on ratiocination serves as a guideline.
Thus the Quran and Sunnah, the two primary sources of Islamic law and principles, constitute one complete whole and are fundamentally interdependent. God defines the relationship between the two in the following words: “…Indeed, there has come to you from Allah, a Light (the Prophet) and a clear Book (AL-Quran)” (5: 15)
The third principle is khilafat. As mentioned earlier, sovereignty belongs to Allah alone, therefore, he who exercises authority on His behalf in this world is His vicegerent and has no authority to exercise any powers apart from the ones duly delegated to him. “Obey Allah and obey the prophet, but if you turn away, he (Messenger Muhammad) is only responsible for the duty placed on him (i.e. to convey Allah’s Message) and you for that placed on you. If you obey him, you shall be on the right guidance…” (24: 54)
The office of the caliph is granted to all those who are capable of fulfilling the responsibilities of this office with due diligence, honesty and dedication. Every person who is a part of the Muslim Ummah can exercise the authority of a caliph, therefore, vicegerency is not limited to a certain family, clan or class but extends to every pious Muslim. The Holy Prophet once said, “No one is superior to another except in point of faith and piety. All men are descended from Adam and Adam was made of clay.”
As all the affairs of an Islamic state must be transacted by counsel, the ruler of the state is also appointed through consultation: “And those who respond to their Lord and keep up prayer, and whose affairs are (decided) by counsel among themselves….” (42: 38) The most important example is the appointment of Caliph Abu Bakr, the first of the Pious Caliphs, by conducting ijma or mutual consultation. Once appointed, the ruler has to manage all affairs by consulting those around him. And those who give advice are required to do so conscientiously and judiciously, or refrain from giving the same. The public is also under an obligation to give sincere and beneficial advice to the ruler. Further, the view of the majority carries great weight in Islam and the ruler is bound to follow it.
It is important to note that obedience to a ruler is contingent on his imposition and enforcement of Islamic principles. Where the ruler deviates from the right path, he is no longer entitled to obedience of the people. In other words, if the government fulfils the requirements imposed by the Quran and the Sunnah, its claim to the allegiance of the people becomes absolute.
The Prophet said: “A Muslim has to listen to and obey (the order of his ruler), whether he likes it or not, as long as his orders do not involve disobedience (to Allah). But if an act of disobedience (to Allah) is imposed, one should not listen to it or obey it.” From the above-mentioned principles it follows that the people are duty bound to supervise the activities of the government, to give their consent to right actions, and to withdraw it whenever the government deviates from the right path. It also becomes evident that the accountability of the ruler of an Islamic state is twofold: (1) he is answerable to God, as power bestowed on him by God is a sacred trust; and (2) to the people who are his subjects.
The rules and precedents set by the Prophet, in accordance with the teachings of the Quran, regarding accountability of the government, were also observed and further elaborated by his successors. People would openly question the Pious Caliphs about the various actions and measures taken by them. The Caliphs, considering themselves answerable to the people, would then explain their conduct in question. There are even instances where upon valid objection by the people the Caliphs withdrew their orders and instructions. Unlike the western legal systems, in Islam authorities are not immune to the law. Even the head of an Islamic state may be challenged, in both official and private capacity, in the court.
Where the ruler is the custodian of public property and interests, the judge is the custodian of the law and responsible for implementing the same. The office of judge is independent of all executive control and he can exercise his authority without any form of interference from influential quarters. He decides all disputes in the light of the Quran and the Sunnah: “So judge between them by that which Allah has revealed….” (5: 49)
One of the questions often raised with regard to Islamic political order is whether it falls within the ambit of democracy or in other words, is the Islamic political system a democratic system? Democracy, a secular concept, categorically declares that sovereignty should rest with the people, whereas in an Islamic state sovereignty rests with God Almighty. Also, in a democratic set up, legislation is conducted by the people themselves while in an Islamic state laws given by God through the Holy Prophet i.e. shariah is to be administered by the ruler.
Yet, at the same time, the ruler is accountable to the people and the opinion of the public plays a prominent role not only in the appointment of the ruler but also with regard to his exercise of authority. The institutions of ijma and ijtihad also make room for law making within the guidelines and ethics of shariah. So considering, it would not be erroneous to define Islamic political set up as a democratic system.
President Bush’s “surge” is a mistake because it is piling more precious chips — more human lives — on what so far has been a losing bet. The public sent a clear message in the November election that it wants to take some of those chips off the table. That cautionary theme — that it’s time to reduce America’s bet on the long shot that Iraq’s sectarian mess can be fixed quickly — was ably distilled by the in its December .
Bush chose to go the other way, to pursue “an experiment based on high risks,” in the words of Anthony H. Cordesman, an analyst at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies who has written extensively about Iraq.
What prompted Bush’s decision, by the president’s own account, was his concern about the consequences for regional stability of an American failure in Iraq. To avoid the Baker-Hamilton problem of negotiating from weakness, Bush has chosen instead to signal American resolve in the region in various ways: by sending more troops to Baghdad; by seizing Iranian agents operating in Iraq; by sending additional warships into the Gulf; and finally, according to the well-sourced foreign policy Web site , by working covertly with Saudi Arabia to support the Lebanese government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora against the Iranian-backed Shiite militia Hezbollah.
These moves are especially risky now because they are played against the background of a Middle East riven by conflict between Shia and Sunni Muslims. This sectarian war is destroying Iraq, and a similar war is perilously close in Lebanon. In this larger arena, US strategy is hard to understand: We are allied with the Shia government in Iraq against Sunni insurgents; and we are allied with the Sunni government in Lebanon against Shia insurgents.
Edward Luttwak, a contrarian strategist, in the Wall Street Journal last week that by riding Shia and Sunni horses at the same time, we have accidentally hit upon the divide-and-rule strategy that “past imperial statesmen strove to achieve with much cunning and cynicism.” I fear that Luttwak is being uncharacteristically overoptimistic. The reality is that in neither Iraq nor Lebanon are we checking the rising regional power, Iran.
And it seems to me that our adversaries are doing a better job at this business of cynical alliances: Iran and Syria are the key supporters, respectively, of Shia death squads and Sunni insurgents in Iraq. Yet although they are backing different sides in Iraq, Iran and Syria remain close and effective allies. Two years ago, a pro-Syrian Lebanese warned me in an e-mail that the United States would be caught in a “sandwich strategy” in Iraq — squeezed by Sunni and Shia fighters who shared a hatred of American interference. His warnings have proved chillingly accurate. He wrote me a few days ago to reiterate that, for Arabs who oppose American intervention, the operating rule is: “You kill us, we kill you.”
The lesson of the Cold War was to be tough — but also to be careful. I wish I saw more evidence of that prudence now. When US officials encourage the Saudis to check Hezbollah by sending money to Sunni groups in northern Lebanon, do they understand that this region is a stronghold of Al Qaeda and that they are pushing Sunni-Shia tensions toward the point of explosion? When officials contemplate regime change in Syria, as the Bush administration again seems to be doing, do they understand that they may be creating a wider band of chaos that would stretch from Lebanon to the Iranian border?—Dawn/ Washington Post Service