|
| December 27, 2007 | Thursday | Zilhaj 16, 1428 |
Dr Shah’s food remedy
Digitally yours
Are free and fair polls possible?
OTHER VOICES - Middle East Press
MS Condoleezza Rice has exhorted or possibly admonished General Musharraf to hold free and fair elections. The only relatively free and fair elections in Pakistan were in 1970 under Yahya Khan who, incidentally, was no champion of democracy but, for some reason, decided to go through this process.
THERE may be more than a grain of truth in the observation of the president that parties in the electoral run that anticipate rigging do so as grist for their campaign mills. It is also possible to see logic in PML (Q) statements that candidates fearful of defeat are raising doubts about results even before the voting process takes place. But doesn’t this also betray a lack of public confidence in the working of the Election Commission? After all, if the fears voiced by opposition parties were deemed entirely unfounded by the general public there would be no need for official blustering in denial. There is a visible background to the contestants’ fears that the elections may be — if not a no holds barred — a fewer holds barred for the favoured few. Thus, an impressively computer-savvy Election Commission has facilitated the dispatch of CDs containing electoral lists, but what happens when and if discrepancies emerge? So far, the Election Commission has been overshadowed by the will of the president.
The caretaker regime, too, can scarcely be deemed to be above suspicion or political meddling when the caretaker prime minister meets his highly political uncle and they discuss the matter of his (the caretaker prime minister’s) niece who is contesting from the very same constituency as the eminent uncle. Of course, officials are entitled to meet family members. Seat adjustments, too, are conventional practice. But to use an example: Mumtaz Bhutto’s discussing intra-Bhutto seat adjustments with family members would take on a different hue if he also happened to be discharging duties as the caretaker chief minister, let alone the prime minister. Similarly, our law-enforcement agencies are undeniably hard-pressed and over-stretched. Yet, law-enforcing modes are more efficiently supportive of some (usually pro-regime) campaigners than others. Likewise, local bodies may reasonably be expected to show the colour of their party affiliations. But they must not be allowed to impede the mobilisation of opposition parties’ support to candidates.
Above all, media restrictions affect the nature of electoral campaigning and its qualitative and quantitative coverage. The measures announced by the Election Commission will not reassure the opposition parties either. It has said that foreign observers will not be permitted to surprise-visit polling stations, or sample public opinion around them.
The plain fact is that the Election Commission and the caretaker regime have been surrounded by controversy and have yet to rise convincingly above it. And the more categorically the president declares that pre-poll rigging charges are baseless, the stronger are the misgivings about pre-election official integrity. There is much empty theatric by contestants all round; but when party heads themselves voice concern, matters should be given serious consideration. Brusque dismissiveness and shrugging off apprehensions without due cognisance do nothing to enhance faith in the electoral process.
CARETAKER finance minister Dr Salman Shah’s insistence that Pakistanis should pay the world prices for what they eat is not easy to stomach. He says the food inflation in Pakistan — at 10-11 per cent — is far less than the average hike of 20-25 per cent in world food prices. He asserts the prices will have to be brought at par with the global level sooner than later to boost the rural economy and increase farm incomes. Do we really need to increase food prices, particularly of staple foods like wheat, rice, etc, that we produce in sufficient quantities to meet our domestic requirements? Dr Shah has been saying this for long. This warped argument is what the government is left with to cover up its failure to control food inflation. Food poverty, which was unknown to the people living in the rural Punjab, for example, is now common in the area.
Dr Shah says wheat is available in the home market for Rs16 per kilogram compared to its international price of Rs30. True, but that does not justify the huge hike in its price at home, especially when the domestic production was claimed by the government itself to be record high at the time of harvest. The record increase in wheat and wheat flour we saw in recent months is the consequence of the government’s own blunder of allowing the grain’s export before the harvesting was over and its utter failure to deal effectively with the hoarders. If anyone has to pay the world price of wheat or for that matter other food grains, it has to be the importer in non-producing countries and not an ‘agriculture’ heaven like ours.
Dr Shah’s argument that the farmers will gain from the increased food prices is also far removed from reality. The experience of the past few years should be good enough to disprove his claim. Though higher prices of farm products pumped more money in the rural economy in recent years than ever, it benefited only a handful of big landlords. The urban poor were the other major casualty of the big jump in the prices of staple food. The fixed income groups witnessed a visible reduction in their living standards as food bills swelled. Dr Shah’s recipe will only add to the miseries of the poor and vulnerable groups living at subsistence level, and aggravate the living conditions of the middle classes. The best course would be to devise an effective mechanism to directly subsidise the farmers’ production cost and help enhance their farm yields for increasing their incomes rather than putting food beyond the reach of a vast portion of the population.
IT is hard to believe that the era of the letter may be behind us. However, the pain and glee that was tangible but often late and much lamented in the epistle of yore, has become fast and furious in the digital missives of today. This year alone cell phone users in Pakistan exchanged over 1.2bn short messages (SMS) on Eidul Azha with over 10 million cell phone to cell phone calls recorded during the Eid holidays. Although sms-ing may be disconnected from the more physical world, it does remain the most extensive mode of communication and of staying connected. Statistics of leading cellular companies soared despite connectivity breakdowns and complaints of poor signals.
However, its intangible obstacles notwithstanding, this ‘nomadic interface’ has become the order of the day. Undeniably, it brings loved ones scattered across the globe within reach at all times and the ones in the same vicinity come even closer. Not only is it an adequate blanket for the rushed, impersonal existence of the modern age, it is also far cheaper and less time-consuming than the old fashioned telephone calls, especially as mobile companies continue to drop their call and sms rates lest we return to the old warmth of a voice on the other end of the line or to the feel of a handwritten letter. Surprisingly, in certain areas of Europe such as Norway, Sweden and Finland texting has left the email far behind. But the fast paced digital life is not free of fallouts. Quick texts do serve a vast spectrum of functions, from plain contact to lifesavers to even Cupid. But what would one say about the first sms divorce case in the world, where a man in Dubai sent three
talaq texts to his 26-year old bride in Delhi — making her the first woman in India to get divorced via a message on her handset? Sadly, for some convenient technology also guarantees a pain-free escape.
One does not know why he refrained from managing the results of the elections but it seems that he probably did. Perhaps he was certain that no party would emerge with a majority. What induced him to change the parity formula to one man one vote, giving a majority to East Pakistan for the foreseeable future, still remains a profound mystery. However, all elections have subsequently been managed by the executive, the worst being the 1977 elections which were overand gave Z.A. Bhutto’s opponents a chance to mount a major agitation, possibly with support from the CIA. Bhutto himself acknowledged this by offering the opposition a certain number of seats. Negotiations, however, broke down.
After General Ziaul Haq took power, his referendum and subsequent elections appear to have been managed by the ISI and MI. Although they were not free and fair they generated much less controversy compared to the election under ZAB.
There are certain prerequisites which have to be met before one can reasonably expect anything like a free and fair election. The general opinion seems to be that all you need is a strong chief election commissioner. A strong chief election commissioner may be necessary but it is not sufficient.
What is needed in addition is a relatively free press and media which has already happened in spite of the emergency although people keep denying it. If we compare the condition of the press from 1958 to 1999 and today, in spite of the recent code of conduct there is obviously much greater freedom.
However, the most important factor is that the local administration must be nonpolitical and not influence the election process. Unfortunately this has been compromised by the introduction of nazims who are highly likely to try and influence the electoral process. Currently there are reports that nazims may be suspended for some time to prevent them from influencing the local elections. This, however, is not satisfactory because they will be returning to power after the elections and the local administration will have to take that into account.
An independent judiciary is also desirable as a support. Unfortunately, the judiciary had recently, for many reasons, gone to the other extreme and instead of being judicious had become vociferously anti-executive. The method of selecting judges will have to change if we are going to promote an independent judiciary.
We are trying to become a democracy — it is a wild assumption given our previous track record. General Jehangir Karamat, in his illspeech at the Naval Staff College in October 1998, suggested the formation of a National Security Council. He was asked to resign because he also recommended a “neutral, competent and secure bureaucracy and administration at the federal and provincial levels”. There was no question of Nawaz Sharif implementing any such thing. The present (military) government has actually made matters worse.
India, our next-door neighbour, manages to hold relatively free and fair elections. There are many reasons for this. But the underlying platform of support is a politically neutral administrative infrastructure. Some time ago I met a senior official of the personnel ministry in New Delhi to discuss this. He maintained that during elections the district administration generally remained politically neutral.
What has made this difficult in Pakistan? The government structure initially was the same in both countries. There were two elite groups: the soadministrative service or civil service and the foreign service. The other superior services performed rather more limited functions and their pay and prospects were somewhat lower.
In the Bhutto reforms of 1973, the elite nature of the two services in Pakistan was abolished and everyone brought at par. With regard to promotion and prospects, the government formally acquired the right to do as it pleased. The prime minister had complete control over all public servants. Even upright and dignified senior civil servants were reduced overnight to errand boys.
In view of the present structure, the general’s promise to hold free and fair elections is open to serious doubt. The Election Commission, generally headed by a member of the Supreme judiciary, has not covered itself with glory during the last thirty years. How do we get a strong and independent Election Commission now?
To add to the complications, the present arrangement of devolution will further muddy the election process. Something could have been ensured from a competent and upright district management. Unfortunately the NRB seems to have had a deep dislike for the deputy commissioner; one doesn’t know whether it was motivated by ideology or because of some unpleasant personal indignity at the hands of a more than usually pompous DC.
The Pakistan CSP officer tended to model himself on what he thought was the way of the British ICS officer. He regarded himself as very superior and behaved accordingly towards the natives. For the CSP this was caused by a serious lapse in the training process. We were taught criminal law, civil law, revenue law, the Evidence Act, etc. But there was no discussion of how the framework within which the civil service operated after independence had changed. We were no longer racist foreigners serving the government (in Whitehall) but Pakistanis employed by that abstraction known as the state which was sovereign and supposed to be democratic.
I have mentioned the CSP because they and the DMG are the people who come most in contact with the public. Members of other services have rather more limited and specific operations — but in their own way they are not necessarily any better in their attitudes. Whatever their shortcomings, the sudden discontinuation of the role of the DC is likely to result in worse governance.
Free and fair elections are not possible without an appropriately neutral administrative structure. The critical issues, as General Karamat pointed out, are security, competence and (political) neutrality. These are determined by conditions of service including financial and nonincentives, together with selection procedures for entrance and promotion. They have to be substantially independent of political influence, which the Indians appear to have achieved but which we obviously do not like.
Between false and genuine threats
AS the occupation and settlements continue, the link between settlers and the Israel Defence Forces becomes more symbiotic and twisted. The army has grown accustomed to turning a blind eye toward blatant violations of law by settlers, as well as extreme physical and verbal violence by settlers against the Palestinians. Now it has submissively accepted similar behaviour by rightists toward its own soldiers and officers. Therefore, soldiers wearing skullcaps are accused by rightists of treason, no less.
For almost 40 years, successive governments have allowed a handful of fanatics to dictate Israeli society’s political and economic agenda and lead it toward apparent destruction. During this process, the army has lost its ability to distinguish between genuine and false threats, identifying with settlers as allies even when they sabotage its work.
By passing on rightists’ hallucinatory threats to the executive branch, the army further worsens its image as a political problem.
The ball is now in the court of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who recently said Israel must allow the Palestinians to establish their own state. If he lets rightists continue to fool the army, even on the eve of US President George W. Bush’s visit to Israel, he will miss an opportunity that will not return.
Settlement evacuations are part of the commitments undertaken by Israel at the Annapolis summit in November. Any backtracking will prove that Israeli policy is being held captive by its own extremists. — (Dec 23)
US turns full circle by bid to engage Iran
THE United States now wants to ‘engage’ Iran, if the Islamic republic decides to stop its uranium enrichment programme. It has already been ‘engaging’ Syria, albeit through France, Jordan and other regional players, with regard to the Lebanese presidential elections, Iraq and the Palestinian National Authority.
Shortly after Bush came to the White House, in 2001, Washington decided to isolate Iran and, soon after the invasion of Iraq, Syria was added to the list of the ‘must be shunned states’. Years later, the Bush administration decided the whole exercise was futile and some sort of ‘diplomatic offensive’ was needed to salvage whatever [was] possible before Bush [left] the White House in a little over one year. Therefore, Washington saw the need to perhaps ease regional tensions and speak directly to all parties concerned.
Sounds familiar? It does, as it is exactly what the American bipartisan Iraq Study Group, led by former US Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, suggested in their famed report last year. Taking Iraq into account is now America’s top priority, it says, “Iraq cannot be addressed effectively in isolation from other major regional issues, interests, and unresolved conflicts. To put it simply, all key issues in the Middle East — the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iraq, Iran, the need for political and economic reforms, and extremism and terrorism — are inextricably linked.”
Bush, who had dismissed the report when it was published, is coming back to it to save his legacy, so far marred by Iraq and the war on terror. It may be too late — but then, who knows? — (Dec 23)