The cost of arbitrary rule

THE whole nation has been in the throes of turmoil for many days and the controllers of its affairs are in visible disarray. They are again trying to suppress the symptoms of discontent instead of addressing its causes, although it is now quite clear that all of Pakistan’s problems stem from arbitrary and secret governance.

A light-weight outfit has thrown the Pakistan cricket team out of the World Cup competition and a greater part of the population is howling in wild rage. Although the setback is not something unknown to the votaries of the game of glorious uncertainties, the players are being targeted for having failed the people’s expectations. Little attention is being paid to the fact that the Pakistan cricket has been in a state of decline for quite some time, and that the responsibility for the rot lies less with the players than with the organisers.

The bitter truth is that the Cricket Board has been afflicted with the same malady – arbitrary and secretive management – that has been eating into the vitals of the Pakistan state.

The process of replacement of professional task-masters with overbearing bureaucrats at sports bodies (the destruction of Pakistan hockey, for instance, is no small cause of public grief) has been going on for quite some time. All sport has also been commercialised. Monetary reward is considered the sole motivation for striving for happy results, though not always for playing the game as it ought to be played. One looks in vain for the pack-leaders of yesteryears who were weak in financial resources and strong in commitment to the spirit of sport. Above all, decisions, even critical ones, are taken secretly and arbitrarily.

The present phase of Pakistan cricket’s decline began with the Oval affair when it was found to have fallen into the hands of people whose knowledge of the game and capacity for crisis management both were suspect. Although many faces in the cast could be recognised only one character was axed in accordance with the arbitrary style lately developed in Pakistan. While both the set-up and the system needed to be shaken up, only a couple of scapegoats were targeted.

The public has little idea how the Cricket Board functions, what criteria is followed for the selection of its all-powerful boss, what the facts of doping and betting scandals are, and what arrangements are in place to ensure financial probity. The public will be satisfied if it is assured of collective and transparent decision-making mechanisms. Institutionalised bungling in sports bodies will cause Pakistan much greater harm than defeat in a game or two.

Around the same time that Pakistan cricketers were paying for their barons’ follies, another form of institutionalised encroachment on people’s rights was causing grave anxiety to the organisers of a regional conference of South Asians for Human Rights in Lahore because the intelligence agencies were dead-set against allowing Pakistan visa to Indian invitees. The delegates from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka had not faced much difficulty in securing visas, but no progress on Indian delegates’ applications was possible. Then the authorities relented to the extent that visas were granted to a few Indian delegates, such as former prime minister I.K. Gujral, former MP Kuldip Nayar and Justice (R) Rajinder Sachar.

An overall toughening of attitude towards the Indian visa-seekers was visible. The South Asia Free Media Association, an NGO that had almost always managed to get Indian visitors over to Pakistan, was forced to cancel its Punjab - Punjab gathering because visas to its guests from India had been refused. This was happening while the foreign secretaries of Pakistan and India were smiling broadly into TV cameras in Islamabad and relaxation of the visa regime between the two countries was being announced.

This silly business of visa restrictions has been going on for so long and has caused such great hardship to countless citizens that one may be allowed some public time (and space in these columns) to discuss it.

There is no denying the principle that a visa cannot be claimed as of right, and that states are entitled to restrict the grant of visas for a variety of reasons. Some of the South Asian states, unfortunately, impose greater restrictions in this regard on people from within the region than on others. India and Pakistan in particular have raised visa-barriers to each other’s nationals to absurd limits.

The most undesirable people in their eyes are neither warmongers nor communalist nor sectarian hate-preachers but journalists and human rights activists especially if they dare to hold joint meetings for promoting ideas of regional cooperation, peace and collaboration against neo-imperialists. The grant of visas to people in these categories is usually subject to clearance by the intelligence agencies.

Yet, hitherto it was possible for organisations and individuals against whom nothing was on record to get clearance from the government; that is, from a prime minister, minister or even from secretary in a ministry, over the head of the security apparatus. Now this window on reason is said to have been closed. The federal ministers in Pakistan protested in the instant case that they were under orders to respect the intelligence agencies’ veto power in matters relating to visas.

Finally, one-third of the invitees were sanctioned visas, though many could not avail themselves of these because of the long delay. There were then reports of intelligence personnel making indiscreet inquiries from foreign guests and warning some of them against opening their mouths.

Now, the government of Pakistan will not be blamed for consulting its intelligence outfit, but it is necessary to lay down a decent, rational policy. The task of intelligence agencies is, or should be, to make report to the government. They are not supposed to take final decisions on grant of visas, or in any other area for that matter, because that will mean making the country into a police state to a greater extent than is commonly believed. Secondly, no criterion for selecting 30 or so visa applicants out of 110 is visible. The exercise appears to be totally arbitrary, and hence unacceptable.

It is time the dangers of allowing the intelligence agencies unbridled powers were realised. A single intelligence department should have the authority to report on citizens, the rules of the game should be made public and the people should be informed of their ‘record’ so that actions against them could be challenged.

The cricket debate will be forgotten after some time. The disgruntled civil society organisations cannot offer any immediate threat to an establishment that has learnt to destroy political parties and frighten the media into acquiescence. But the state is unlikely to emerge unscathed from the crisis a reckless assault on the judiciary has created. In this case too the establishment is ignoring the cause of protest and is using brute force to crush public reaction to its actions taken arbitrarily and in secrecy.

At this moment it is neither necessary nor desirable to go into the chargesheet against the Chief Justice, who was first made ‘non-functional’ and is now said to be on ‘forced leave’, as the Supreme Judicial Council has prohibited such discussion. But the change in Justice Chaudhry’s status is not sub-judice. What the law ministry’s crude manipulation means is that an openly unconstitutional act is sought to be justified as a step allowed by a law that empowers the government to send judges on forced leave. It has been argued that the relevant measure is not in force, but even if it is enforceable, its invocation can be struck down on the ground of arbitrariness.

The administration is obviously following the stock formula to quell public unrest. It pretends that a junior functionary could have sent policemen in uniform to destroy a media centre or ordered the raining of teargas shells into the Lahore High Court compound or the beating up of lawyers and journalists. Regrets are expressed, compensation is promised and subordinate-level inquires are ordered. All this is for effect. The purpose of resort to wanton violence has been met – the critics and protesters both have been terrified into submission, at least they have recognised the virtue of moderation.

Even otherwise all conscious sections of society have become apprehensive of developments over the next few weeks. Whatever the decision on the reference, one organ of the state or another will have been mortally wounded. The consequences are bound to be grave.

It requires no great foresight to realise that the present crisis is the product of arbitrary and secret governance and if the jolt now received by the state can pave the way for return to transparent governance and rule by consensus, there may be reason to sustain hope.

Fair elections, the only way out

THE on-going inter-institutional crises involving the executive, the judiciary and the press – and affecting every citizen of Pakistan – leads one to ask how we can get out of the crises sooner than later and once and for all.

If there is a lesson to learn from history, the answer becomes simple: hold elections – all-embracing and absolutely fair and free. Let the electorate resolve the crises along with other long-pending, vital issues that are gnawing at the foundations of state and society.

The time has come for some deep introspection. Since 1970 when the first and last free and fair elections were held, much has happened. Half the country has been lost and we have had long years of military/quasi-civilian rule and the undermining of the democratic process has been in progress. Pakistan has tested nuclear weapons, there has been an increase in religio-political violence and partisan local governments have taken the place of relatively neutral district managements.

There has been a demographic shift from the rural to urban areas, the means of production and services have gone from state to private hands, and the water crisis has deepened. There is friction between the haves and the have-nots, and last but not the least, there is a widening gap between the federation and the smaller nationalities which voted for Pakistan on the eve of independence.

Over the years, the anti-Soviet Afghan war, the Kashmiri struggle, Talibanisation of Afghanistan, 9/11, and the current war on terror have profoundly enhanced Pakistan’s geopolitical significance.

In a strange twist, an old enemy, India, is coming closer. But old friends Iran and Afghanistan are moving away. The US continues to play a double role as a partner in the war but is never reliable. Two provinces face an insurgency-like situation and in both cases fingers are being pointed at outside powers. Balochistan’s crisis is a nationalist one, while the Pashtuns rally around religion – let’s not forget that nationalism and religion are historically the most devastating ideological weapons.

Therefore, elections must be held to eliminate all malignant tumors from our body politic. It’s time that the electorate reflected on all the above-mentioned issues, and on the two important relationships – civil-military and centre-provinces.

As to the first, with a coup d’etat being no more tenable, constitutional mechanisms have been devised in national security states like Pakistan and Turkey to maintain leverage over the civilian government. In our context, Article 58(2)(b) and the National Security Council (NSC) are such contraptions.

In fact, the NSC, being a creation of an act rather than the Constitution, can be done away with by a robust parliament. Thus, all boils down to Article 58(2)(b), which since 1985 has hung over every prime minister like a Damocle’s sword, and wielded with the approval of the armed forces. So far four elected governments have been decapitated by it. Even the current government owes its continuance to constitutional provisions which allow the president to continue in his military post.

Similar powers were vested in the governor-general/president under the Government of India Act 1935 and the 1956 Constitution which resulted in the dismissal of many civilian governments and led to the first martial law in 1958.

However, the proponents of such provisions consider these as a deterrent to Bonapartism and as the source of the continuation of civilian rule. Whereas what is important is not the continuity of a government but the quality of governance. Italy has seen 61 governments since 1946, yet there is no threat to its democracy. On the contrary, the Middle East has been continuously ruled by presidents and kings with long stints in power and there is no sign of democracy.

Be that as it may, let the electorate decide whether to retain Article 58(2)(b) or strengthen an independent judiciary to check the transgressions of an unruly executive. After all, it was the supreme court of India which thwarted Indira Gandhi’s emergency rule in India (1975-77), drawing on its doctrine of “Basic Structure” enunciated in the Kesavananda case of 1973. The recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the Steel Mills case also points to the judiciary’s powers vis-a-vis the executive.

Again, concerning the centre-province relationship, let the electorate judge for themselves whether the constitutional covenants between the federates and federation have been honoured and whether the federation is healthy. And if not, then what is required to remedy the situation.

No need to have goose pimples if this vital constitutional relationship is put to a popular vote. People revisit their social and political contracts with the state. The framer of the US Constitution James Wilson noted in 1787, “...people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them.”

History shows the many ways in which these “rights” have been exercised – through revolution, civil war, armed resistance, referendum and elections. The latter is by far the most preferred way. It is peaceful and internationally recognised and is the acid test of a nation’s coming of age and being able to deal with its problems.

Even Karl Marx admitted that elections could avert a revolution by enabling the state to “mediate between the antagonistic strata”. Britain realised this truth in the late seventeenth century and saved the empire. But Russia ignored it until the early 20th century and lost the empire to the Bolsheviks. Likewise, India realised it in 1947, but Pakistan failed to make use of it until 1970 and suffered the loss of one half of the country.

Indeed, free and fair elections are the distilleries of vintage leaders. The people’s collective wisdom ensures the return of such stalwarts and statesmen as could meet the need of the hour.

Imagine America without Roosevelt after the “great depression” through the Second World War, Britain without Winston Churchill during the war, France without Charles de Gaulle during the Algerian crisis, post-war Germany without Konrad Adenauer, or imagine the creation of Pakistan without Jinnah. They were all duly elected leaders who were called to play their historic role in the most testing of times, yet none of them usurped power on the grounds of “national security”.

Therefore, let the electorates elect the true leaders to determine the contours of their political, financial, social and cultural relationships within the federal framework. And then their decision must be respected. We made this mistake in 1970 when the establishment refused to “pick the mandate where it lay”.

In any case, the 1973 Constitution is more centralised than the India Act 1935 or the 1956 constitution. The former gave the federation 96 items of power, the latter 49. But the 1973 Constitution gave 114 powers to the federation. Therefore, the list is must now be reduced to the barest minimum.

Lest we forget, today’s multinational state plays no more dice with the destiny of its sub-national groups. Rather, it regulates their affairs subject to a well-accepted but ever-evolving document called the constitution. In 1995, Canada allowed Quebec to seek secession by a popular vote, but people of their own accord voted for Canada.New Labour-led Britain is more prosperous and stable after granting more autonomy to the Irish, Scots and Welsh. Switzerland’s centuries old multinational existence is proof of its participatory politics where referendums are held even for changing the design of a park. But the Indian constitution, despite several amendments, has failed to recognise the nationalities’ right of self-determination, and more so of the Kashmiris.

Thus, what is important is the motive behind constitutional amendments. Ironically, all 17 amendments to the 1973 Constitution were made either to legitimise military rule (both direct and indirect) or to strengthen the executive at the cost of parliament, the judicature and the people’s inherent civil and political rights. All over the democratic world, constitutional amendments are made to grant more political and civil rights to citizens. The US amended its constitution 27 times but there is not a single amendment to deny or take away any right enshrined in the constitution or Bill of Rights.

One hopes that the political parties would lead the electorate up the path of workable solutions and that the government, on its part, would pave an institutional way for holding absolutely free and fair elections. Otherwise, the floor would remain open for doomsayers to make increasingly unsavoury predictions.

Email: shahabusto@hotmail.com

Sectarianism will fail

TWO catastrophes have been in the making since President Bush and Tony Blair launched their war on Iraq four years ago. Both are epoch-making, and their resolution will shape regional and world politics for decades to come.

The first catastrophe relates to the political and moral consequences of the war in the US and UK, and its resolution is the urgent task facing the American and British peoples. The second concerns the devastation wrought by the war and subsequent occupation, and the lack of a unified political movement within Iraq that might overcome it.

Bush and Blair are in a state of denial, only offering us more of the same. They allegedly launched the war at first to save the world from Saddam's WMD, then to establish democracy, then to fight Al Qaeda's terrorism, and now to prevent civil war and Iranian or Syrian intervention.

Four years after declaring "mission accomplished", the US government is sending more combat troops to add to the bloodbath - all in an effort to impose its imperial will on the Iraqi people, and in the process plunging its own country into its deepest political-moral crisis since Vietnam. Under heavier pressures, Blair, the master of tactical subterfuge, is redeploying Britain's forces within Iraq and Afghanistan, under the guise of withdrawal. He has long known that British bases in Basra and the south were defenceless against attacks by the Sadr movement and others.

Bush, on the other hand, is escalating Iraq's conflict and threatening to launch a new war, this time against Iran. It is hard not to presume that what he means by an exit strategy is to install a client regime in Baghdad, backed by US bases. The Iraqi people will not accept this, and the west should be alerted to the fact that US policy objectives will only lead to wider regional conflicts, rather than to full withdrawal.

In attempting to achieve their objective, the occupation forces will escalate their war with the resistance forces within and north of Baghdad, as well as clashing with the popular Sadr movement in the capital and the south. The latter is, despite the ceasefires and political manoeuvrings, Iraq's biggest organised opposition force to the occupation.

Meanwhile, the destruction of Iraq continues apace and its people are subjected to levels of sustained violence unknown in their history. Overwhelmingly, the violence is a direct or indirect product of the occupation, and the bulk of sectarian violence is widely known in Iraq to be linked to the parties favoured by Washington. For example, forces in control of the various ministries, including the interior ministry, clash regularly.

It is not difficult to see how this violence is linked to the occupation, for it has spawned a multitude of violence-makers: 150,000 occupation forces; 50,000 and rising contracted foreign "mercenaries"; 150,000 Iraqi Facilities Protection forces, paid by the Iraqi regime, controlled by the occupation and engaged in death-squad activities, according to the prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki; 400,000 US-trained army and police forces; six US-controlled secret Iraqi militias; and hundreds of private kidnap gangs.

Pitted against some or all of these are tens of thousands of militias and resistance forces of various political hues. In total there are about 2 million actively organised armed men in the country. There are about 3,000 attacks on occupation forces every month, while tens of thousands of Iraqis languish in prison, where torture is widespread and trials considered an unnecessary formality.

The success of the occupation's divide-and-rule tactics and their insistence on basing the new political and military structures on sects, religions, and ethnicities is threatening the communal cohesion that was once the country's hallmark. This is a factor in the absence of a united movement, capable of leading the struggle to end the occupation. The occupation has sown divisions where there were none and transformed existing differences into open warfare.

And is it any wonder that the long-suffering Iraqi people find themselves at an impasse. Try catching your breath after decades of brutal dictatorship, 13 years of economic sanctions and four years of an obscene war .

But even in the absence of a unified anti-occupation front, the resistance of the Iraqi people has managed to thwart the world's greatest military empire. And there are signs of a mass rejection of these sectarian forces, and the possibility that public anger will translate into the very unity that is so desperately needed. Rage against corruption and the collapse of public services is sweeping the country, including Kurdistan. Similarly, the proposed corporate occupation of Iraq, disguised as a legal document to tie the country to the oil companies for decades to come, has reminded the population of one of the main reasons for the US-led invasion. It has also reminded them what a self-respecting, sovereign Iraq looked like in 1961, when the government nationalised Iraq's lands for future oil production.

In an opinion poll released by the BBC yesterday, 86 per cent of people are opposed to the division of Iraq. This and other polls also show majority support for armed resistance to the occupation. Four years into this terrible adventure, both the US and Britain must realise that it is time to pack up and leave.

—Dawn/Guardian Service

The writer, a political exile from Saddam's regime , is a senior lecturer at London Metropolitan University.

It’s time to break up the FBI

MORE THAN five years after 9/11, the United States still has a long way to go to create an effective and efficient antiterrorism agency. The FBI's latest missteps are being aired this week in congressional hearings in which the Justice Department's inspector general has vividly described the failings of the FBI process for issuing national security letters.

According to his estimates, the FBI improperly issued thousands of requests — which don't require judicial approval — for telephone logs, banking records and other personal information between 2003 and 2005.

Efforts to narrow the Patriot Act (which expanded the power to issue national security letters) are sure to follow, promising new layers of bureaucracy and judicial review. The Beltway scandal machine will demand scalps, perhaps including that of Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, already under attack for the mishandled firings of US attorneys.

But all this commotion — essentially over clerical mismanagement rather than wrongdoing — is a distraction from the real problem: The FBI has become overgrown and unwieldy.

Like a bloated corporate conglomerate, the FBI cannot execute its core missions with focus and flexibility. The FBI is rife with mismanagement. In recent years, it has lost weapons and laptop computers and has been unable to complete a $170-million computer system to manage cases.

In the financial world, markets identify companies that have become too large and should split up. Investment groups take over such companies and either streamline them or spin off units into new, smaller companies.

Federal agencies have no such creative destruction mechanism. Instead, Washington's knee-jerk reaction to every crisis is to encrust already dysfunctional bureaucracies with more layers — witness the monstrously large Department of Homeland Security created after 9/11, or the post of director of national intelligence created after pre-war intelligence on Iraq was found wanting.

It makes less and less sense for one agency, the FBI, to be grappling with Internet-savvy Al Qaeda terrorists while also dealing with drug trafficking, insider trading on Wall Street, copyright violations and industrial espionage.

The 9/11 commission in 2004 detailed the FBI's shortcomings in understanding, much less preventing, attacks by Al Qaeda. The next year, the Silberman-Robb commission, which analyzed pre-Iraq war intelligence failings, chronicled the FBI's ongoing difficulties in restructuring to fight terrorism.

But none of these calls for change have gone far enough. Almost all other democracies that face terrorist threats divide internal security from domestic law enforcement. —Dawn/Los Angeles Times

The writer is a former US Justice Department official.