LAST time round when I wrote in these columns I argued that we should grab whatever political process is on offer. I also argued that more of our educated people should, instead of just moaning, become part of this process by joining and thereby influencing mainstream political parties or professional trade unions.

The response I received was at one end predictable and at the other bewildering. At the predictable end: most people confirmed that they thought that political parties would never value them so they did not join them. At the bewildering end: the refrain was that our political leaders were to blame for democracy not leading to progress so they should not be supported.

Democracy should never be confused with progress. A famous quote springs to mind: “if voting could change anything they would make it illegal.” I am not entirely sure of the quote’s provenance and do not think it is entirely true but it does make two essential points — (a) that democracy is not a political programme in itself, and (b) the pace of change in a democracy may not be satisfactory.

In democracies, strong leaders who have pushed through programmes of reform have always evoked strong negative emotions. Margaret Thatcher’s policies in the United Kingdom and even Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s in Pakistan saw democracy being pushed to its limits. It survived in the United Kingdom but not in Pakistan (due to a greedy Zia lurking in the shadows).

The price of keeping democracy may well mean stalemate, corruption and giving up on essential progress. Most dictators have replaced democracy on this very basis, claiming that “democracy does not deliver but we will.” None of them succeeded where democracy had failed.

Democracy in reality is not about progress or improving life. It is about living together and balancing various forces in a country without imploding. Simply put, the test of democratic leaders is to generate political support for their programmes without imploding the democratic framework they are working within. If leaders at a given time cannot do so the best thing is to let democracy limp along until a leader who can make things happen arrives.

It was more than two thousand years ago that Aristotle captured the essence of democracy when he thought that the real challenge of politics was to balance the power of wealth and the power of numbers in a state. On the other hand, philosophers like Plato and Marx, who were perhaps more original and inventive than Aristotle, had little time for something as imperfect as democracy. They proposed systems which if implemented properly would arguably make us all happier and richer.

Plato, for example, thought that all children in an ideal state should be taken away from their parents and brought up in academies which should evaluate their merit and decide whether they would be leaders (philosopher kings as he labelled them), soldiers or common workers. His view of an ideal state postulated that justice meant giving every man his due. In effect what he meant was that it would turn out perfectly if everyone got the rewards their nature was best suited to.

While a poor person who has to sell his child for camel races in Arab countries may feel quite pleased with Plato’s proposition, it might not be as interesting to Pervaiz Elahi who may plan to sponsor his son for the chief minister’s slot in the Punjab rather than packing him off to the academy to become an artisan. These fetters on parental choice (mainly choices of rich parents) have probably proven the undoing of Plato.

Today, at least in the western world, there appears to be a political consensus that democracy makes for more stable societies than the views propounded by Plato and Marx. Political parties, freedom of speech, a free judiciary and human rights are all elements which are meant to balance the power of the wealthy with the rights of the general population.

Other than our military and the violent Islamists, we in Pakistan have traditionally also had a general consensus that democracy is the way forward. Due to the rich political diversity in the country, such has been our need for democracy that even our military dictators have ruled and lied in the name of democracy. They have hoped that the form without the substance will hold the polity together.

The difficult problem which military dictators and politicians alike have all had to deal with has been the balancing of the powerful military’s economic interests with the political interests of the country. While the scales have tipped in the military’s favour the country has suffered.

The traditional view from Punjab currently espoused by Shujaat Hussain (and before his last term by Nawaz Sharif as well) is that the rich/powerful generals are a reality and we need to live with them. In contrast, Benazir Bhutto and the Pakistan People’s Party have, while also acknowledging the reality of the military, sought to focus on formulas which provide for a gradual dilution of the military’s political role. The reality that all smart politicians now recognise, albeit reluctantly, is that Pakistan’s political system has been so badly damaged that it requires the military’s support at least in the short term to recover.

One hopes the political and social reality of the military is temporary but experience suggests that political and social realities can only be modified by struggle. Struggles can be political or armed. Since the military’s martial approach has dominated Pakistan’s political landscape, more and more of the struggles against martial rule are armed insurrections rather than political struggles.

The Mukti Bahini, the Baloch militancy, Murtaza Bhutto’s Al Zulfikar, the Sipah-i-Sahaba, the MQM’s militant wings and now the armed Islamist terror have all emerged due to the militarisation of society by martial law and martial action. All of these movements were declared criminal by the state but were reactions to the depoliticisation of society by Pakistan’s military.

Today we all have a choice. If like the Islamists we believe that armed conflict is the only way to decide issues amongst ourselves then we should all look for armed groups to join. If we believe that Pakistan and its provinces, although imperfect, are still a place where we can live and apportion our resources then we need to take part in whatever politics is available and try to develop and influence the political process through a political struggle together with one of the country’s political forces. Perhaps because I am not much good at armed struggle I propose to stay with the political one.

Let us treasure our main political parties as national institutions because they still have open membership and do not discriminate on the basis of race, religion or sex. Let us also celebrate the small mercy that they are permitted to exist at all. In a number of countries like Burma they are not. It might be imperfect but our political process exists. Let us participate and develop it rather than give up on it.

The writer is a corporate lawyer and political analyst.
lawgroup.q3@googlemail.com

ALL private medical colleges across the country recently increased their tuition fee, examination fee and other charges without engaging in any consultative process. It was a decision that came out of the blue, or was at least conveyed without warning to students and their parents.

They naturally have no choice but to comply. A medical college is not the kind of institution a student can leave abruptly to join another if it becomes unaffordable.

A medical student has to complete a five-year course, regardless of the circumstances, if he does not want his initial investment of time and money to be wasted. He has no choice if the quality of education deteriorates or the owners decide to up the fees. The protesting parents have to compromise for the sake of their children’s future.

Private medical colleges have become a big business in Pakistan. Powerful people with the right connections are involved in this lucrative trade, and it is easy to initiate a project and start making millions right away. In the presence of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC), a regulatory body, this should not have been the case. But given the Council’s pronounced bias towards private medical education, a college can be set up without fulfilling the basic conditions laid down on paper.

Some medical colleges lack a full-time faculty. There are others without proper infrastructure in terms of buildings, classrooms, laboratories and equipment. Medical colleges are known to exist that are either not affiliated with any hospital whatsoever or are linked to hospitals with inadequate facilities and patients.

The modus operandi for opening a medical college is simple. With the announcement of the inauguration of a medical college, the owners also advertise dates for so-called entry tests. They make money by selling admission forms and prospectuses at exorbitant rates. After securing admission, each student has to pay in advance for at least a year. Many institutions insist on two years’ fees in advance.

After completion of the entry-test formalities, many of these new medical colleges usually keep a few seats in hand. The idea is to oblige bureaucrats, politicians, influential media persons, the judiciary and the armed forces by offering their wards seats if they are needed. If any still remain vacant, they are auctioned in the name of donations to the college to students who failed the entry test but are eager to join the medical profession at any cost.

This year one medical college sold a seat for as much as Rs2.4m, excluding fees and other charges. Admission was guaranteed only after the candidate had paid this amount as a donation to the college concerned.

People with a vested interest in government medical colleges are not far behind in this new racket. The administration of Dow University of Health Sciences (DUHS), for instance, has decided to open a private medical college for students whose parents are ready to pay in dollars ($10,000-15,000 per annum).

This college comes at the expense of Dow and Sindh Medical colleges (DMC and SMC) as the basic medical sciences faculties were transferred from these institutions against the rules and regulations of the PMDC. One wonders why the DUHS administration is keen to open a private medical college when DMC and SMC are suffering from a shortage of staff and are practically part-time institutions with part-time faculties.

A similar attempt was foiled in Punjab when vested interests tried to open an expensive medical college for overseas students at the Lahore General Hospital. But the provincial government put its foot down after realising that this was not a good option and definitely not in the interest of the patients.

The business is so profitable that recently the Nawaz Sharif family decided to open the Sharif Medical College in Lahore and new private colleges are also coming up in Shahdadpur and Jhelum. The owner of a medical college in Karachi is meanwhile planning to open a branch in Balochistan.

The government is similarly inclined when it comes to providing low-quality medical education. While existing medical colleges are poorly run, the Sindh government has opened new ones in Sukkur and Mirpurkhas and is planning another at a Social Security Hospital in Karachi. The Punjab government has opened a new medical college in Lahore and is working on three more in different parts of the province. The federal health ministry has decided to open medical universities at the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) and the Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre (JPMC).

Obviously these plans are not in the interest of patients or the profession. These decisions have been taken either on political grounds or for the benefit of a small group trying to make easy and quick money.

Of course there is no harm in increasing the number of medical colleges because the country needs doctors in the thousands. But it also needs nurses and paramedics in the hundreds of thousands. The problem is that nobody is interested in training nurses and paramedics as these are not profitable propositions. The fact of the matter is that they are not interested in providing quality education to medical students either, even though this is a paying concern. Very soon the country will have thousands of glorified MBBS quacks who will play further havoc with a healthcare system already in a shambles.

The federal government and the provincial health authorities lack the power or political will to control the mushroom growth of medical colleges in the country. The owners of private medical colleges are powerful and influential. They should not be allowed to get away with this approach. The country needs a sensible medical education policy as per the requirements of our people. This will only be possible if the PMDC is made powerful and independent.

The government of Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz had no vision or knowledge of medical education and healthcare. They were not even aware of future challenges in the health sector. They played into the hands of the vested interests that were out to destroy the PMDC and the Pakistan Nursing Council (PNC). It is also very sad that no political party in Pakistan has a clear-cut, declared policy on medical education.

The government should understand that public healthcare cannot be delegated to the private sector. Private hospitals are unaffordable for the majority of Pakistanis. Nor should private colleges be allowed to exploit students in the name of medical education. The government must ensure that our medical colleges produce competent and efficient doctors and not glorified MBBS quacks.

THE recent string of losses in both cricket and hockey should surprise no one. After all, the national outfits have been on a downward slide for some time on the world stage, and nobody gave them a chance or had high hopes as they embarked on their respective journeys to India and Malaysia.

Contrary to general perception, however, the basic fault lies not with the players but with the lack of system that pervades all other spheres of national activity.

Take education, health, the economy, governance, anything. The characteristics of the system remain very much the same: absence of institutions, absence of accountability, ad-hocism, nepotism, across-the-board frivolity, lack of understanding and, on top of it all, a serious lack of intent to understand, perform and deliver. The only difference in the realm of sports is that, unlike most other sectors, it can find easy scapegoats — the players who take the flak while the administrators continue to make hay because for them the sun continues to shine, which is such a pity.

Come to think of it, sport has always been among the top few segments in our society that have played a major part in making Pakistan a country well-recognised in the world. It has been so from the very beginning. It was hockey and squash in the early years that introduced the country across the globe, and they were followed not much later by cricket and subsequently by bridge, snooker, boxing and even sailing in which our sportsmen excelled, winning regional and international laurels that earned recognition and goodwill for Pakistan.

The thread running through all these success stories, however, was that of individual talent. From Hanif and Fazal to Wasim and Waqar, from Shahnaz and Islah to Hasan and Hanif, and from Hashim and Roshan to Jahangir and Jansher, none of them — and of course the scores of others who can’t be named here individually — was thrown up by the system. They all made it big on the basis of their natural skill, individual effort and even personal investment in terms of initial training and grooming. Aisamul Haq, who has recently been on a winning spree on the international tennis circuit and represents the only positive story in Pakistani sports, is no exception on this count. The Pakistan Tennis Federation can surely take no credit for what Aisam has been able to achieve on the circuit.

There has never been any concrete effort to develop a system that can harness natural talent. Even the highest offices in the land poke their mighty nose in the affairs of various federations and associations, but all that is done for the sake of accommodating the blue-eyed. Beyond that, there is little concern for anything else. The net result is that instead of producing giants, the federations are churning out pygmies and using them as scapegoats to continue enjoying the goodies themselves.

Had the decline been confined to one area, we could have called it bad performance. Had it been so bad in a few games, we could have called it a coincidence. But the massive decline is no coincidence. The malaise definitely runs much deeper. And it is the same malady that plagues our very existence as a nation. By the same token, the cure has to be the same: put in place long-term systems that shall be professional and accountable. Easier said than done though.