|
| February 28, 2008 | Thursday | Safar 20, 1429 |
The first challenge
More refugees in Karachi
OTHER VOICES - Middle East Press
February elections and the US
THE most remarkable aspect about our elections was the element of surprise they contained. Virtually all stake holders, including the president and stalwarts of his ruling party, as well as opposition parties, were left bewildered by its outcome.
SO the magic number is 171, as revealed by the leaders of the PPP, PML-N and the ANP in Islamabad yesterday, which gives the soon-to-be ruling coalition a comfortable, possibly approaching two-thirds, majority in the National Assembly. The three parties’ leaders have called for the convening of parliament at the earliest. Asif Zardari, Nawaz Sharif and Asfandyar Wali put their hands together, assuring their respective voters that their coming together was for furthering the cause of democracy; it entailed no betrayal of their respective party position on any issue. The spirit displayed on the occasion went beyond bonhomie: it will be seen and remembered as a pledge to re-empower parliament as a sovereign, democratic institution and not one that has existed as a rubberstamp for a president armed with powers to send it packing at the drop of a hat. With the winds of change blowing since the Feb 18 election, erstwhile rivals have joined hands with the stated aim of restoring the sovereignty of parliament, rebuilding democracy. All three leaders paid glowing tributes to the contribution of Ms Benazir Bhutto to democracy. Let us hope the democratic cause does not require more such sacrifices. One hopes the camaraderie among the political stakeholders translates itself into a stable five-year term for both the legislature and the government. To do so, let the leaders also pledge themselves to depoliticising the intelligence apparatus and conforming to democratic conduct and the rule of law. A stable, broad-based government at the centre will have a positive impact on the formation and fate of the four provincial governments. With government formation out of the way, a daunting agenda awaits the leadership of the coalition. Restoration of the judiciary and dealing with militancy are but two such challenges. It is time the ANP’s demand to rename the NWFP, reflecting the province’s ethnic majority’s wishes, was accepted by all. In Balochistan, the need to apply a healing touch to the aggrieved and increasingly alienated unit of the federation cannot be stressed enough. For years, provincial autonomy has represented no more than a slogan, a cliché for the bulk of the country’s leadership. It is time to make it into a reality for only this will guarantee a harmonious, united Pakistan.
In perhaps a reflection of the spirit of the times, both the APDM and the leadership of the lawyers’ movement have sagaciously said they wish to place no extraordinary pressure on the new dispensation and will give it ample time to resolve some of the burning issues including the fate of the judiciary so contemptuously sent packing by General Musharraf on Nov 3 last year. The doom and gloom of the recent months seems to be lifting. A heavy responsibility rests on the shoulders of those enjoying the mandate of the people. Let them demonstrate that despair will be a thing of the past and optimism will mark the way forward.
IT is reassuring to know that the bureaucracy has already begun the task of drafting budgetary proposals in the normal course and in time. When the new government is installed, its first task would be to immediately provide political lead to these efforts. The winners, the PPP and the PML-N, which seem all set to form a coalition government at the centre are no strangers to this task. Many of the structural reforms which one saw taking root in the last nine years of the Musharraf government — helped by the fiscal room provided by the massive debt relief and generous foreign assistance following 9/11 — were actually launched by the previous governments of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. That is perhaps why the stock market sprung to life with such alacrity when the final results of the polls were being announced.
However, considering the current state of national economic health, conventional wisdom would demand that the new government should try to achieve a modicum of macroeconomic stability by strict demand management and not forget the immediate ‘relief’ aspect of their election promises. Wider fiscal and current account deficits will mean greater government borrowing. And then the government will also be facing the hard choice of either letting the fiscal deficit burgeon causing inflation to flare up further or cut the PSDP drastically. Both these actions would adversely affect the poorer sections. However, if spending is done for all-round accelerated growth while focusing on equity, efficiency and productivity, it is more likely that the new government would be able to avert the looming economic crisis. Those who are advising the new government to immediately increase the domestic oil prices should know that the final consumer price includes heavy components of taxes and large unearned margins of the marketing companies.
Here it would not be out of place to recall the advice of the IMF managing director Dominique Strauss-Kahn at Davos last month to countries facing recession to spend their way out of the crisis without worrying about fiscal deficit. This prescription should apply more to developing countries where an economic slowdown normally affects the poorer sections more than the rich. The governments in these countries try to achieve macroeconomic stability by cutting public sector development budgets while pushing up interest and tax rates increasing the cost of doing business. This again affects the poor as prices of essentials spiral out of their reach. But the new government in Pakistan could use a mix of the two — selective demand management and increased spending focused on development projects that would yield both better economic and social benefits.
SINCE Karachi has for decades played host to thousands of displaced persons and job-seekers, both from within and outside the country, it would be churlish to make the hundreds of Waziristan refugees pouring into the city feel unwelcome. As fellow Pakistanis, they have every right to seek the same socio-economic opportunities (commensurate with their skills and education) available to other Karachi residents. One hopes that the vulnerability of the newcomers as internal refugees is not exploited. It would be equally appalling if the police showed themselves to be predisposed to discriminating against them on account of their tribal connections. Already, some refugees are complaining of being viewed with suspicion and subjected to harassment by police officials. If they have migrated to the city, it is on account of the force of circumstances beyond their control. It would be a shame if government agencies here contributed further to their distress.
In fact, it should be the city government’s responsibility —NGOs can be of assistance too — to help them recover from the culture shock they face and facilitate their adjustment to their new situation. The refugees would have to share limited space and resources — amicably — with others and the already run-down civic infrastructure of Karachi will come under further strain. The Waziristan refugees would, however, enjoy certain advantages, such as proper health facilities, unavailable to them in their remote towns and villages. Also better access to quality education and interaction with people from diverse backgrounds can change their insular outlooks and expose their women to a degree of freedom unknown to them in their land of birth. When peace returns to Waziristan, it is unlikely that many would want to go back, unless, of course, the government delivers on its promises of development and socio-economic opportunities in the tribal areas — which it must if it wants to pacify the border regions and facilitate the return of the refugees.
Dealing with the Danish cartoons
Yemen Times
Once again, (blasphemous) drawings … have caused uproar in the Muslim world. This time, the reaction is confused because the issue was thought to be resolved until three angry Muslims in Denmark decided to take matters into their own hands.
Although the plot to kill one of the cartoonists failed… the Danish community… was shaken by the news, remembering that when you push the buttons of some fanatics, they resort to violence, regardless of their religion.
…. Another reaction is to boycott Danish products…. As a reaction to this, more Danish media – and others will follow – have republished the controversial caricatures…the whole issue is quite sad and somewhat pathetic. If we really loved our prophet and wanted to stand up for him, then we should’ve studied his actions in similar situations and used it as a reference for self-conduct. He was never a violent man, always displaying compassion and flexibility, even toward his enemies.
Islamic Sharia explains what to do when such insults occur. In this particular situation, the measure stipulated in Sharia law is to ignore and let go.
There’s no point in protesting when our youth are unemployed, when we hardly have any industry and when freedoms are oppressed in our countries.…Only by developing ourselves will we be able to prove to the world that Islam is a religion of logic and peace.... — (Feb 26)
Pakistan’s challenges
Khaleej Times
MONDAY’S suicide hit that took Pakistan’s surgeon general came as a grim reminder to a country celebrating a return to democratic principles of its most serious problem. This ought to prompt faster pace in negotiations as successful politicians form a viable, working coalition government comprising fierce political opponents from an era still fresh in many people’s minds.
Ironically, Pakistan’s biggest problem can also serve as the cure for its political ills, at least its politicians’ ills, to an extent. Suicide bombings have ravaged the country at an increasing pace since President Musharraf’s decision to offer ‘unstinted support’ in answer to President Bush’s ‘with us or without us’ threat in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. The numbers increased substantially after the Red Mosque incident last year.
…Former bitter rivals PPP and PML-N are advised to waste little time over political intrigues and go about supporting a possible coalition government with the prime aim of getting the extremism menace under control. They should make no mistake about it: the federation is at its weakest since the amputation of the country’s eastern wing more than three and a half decades ago...
The burden of command tasks those in charge with bringing about solutions. If there is a silver lining on the dark clouds surrounding Pakistan, it is that the gravity of the country’s predicament might just gel together formerly unruly elements, generating enough public backed momentum to tame the forces of evil. — (Feb 26)
All those who feared that elections would be marred by rigging as well as violence were proved wrong by the results.
While there are many who claim credit for this positive development, it is the people of Pakistan who have demonstrated a remarkable sense of maturity and responsibility, and deserve to be applauded.
The biggest casualty of their ‘wisdom’ was President Musharraf. Imagine that the very people who were once dismissed as not ‘fit’ for democracy should deliver such a powerful rebuff to the military ruler! Europe, recently accused of being ‘obsessed’ with democracy and human rights, can now appreciate the wisdom of its approach. Even in his worst nightmare, the president could not have imagined such a ‘wipe-out’ of his cronies who, having basked in the reflected glory of his absolute rule, were supremely confident of their triumph. This abject humiliation, delivered at the polls, should be a lesson to all aspirants to authoritarian rule.
It is, therefore, inevitable that election results are being viewed as a turning point in Pakistan’s chequered history. The outcome could have far-reaching consequences, possibly on a scale as profound as that of the 1970 elections. If the president and his foreign patrons fail to recognise the sea change that has taken place in the country’s political landscape, they will be making a mistake as grave as that committed by Gen Yahya Khan.Most Europeans saw the polls as proof that given the opportunity, people voted in favour of democracy and moderation over army rule and religious extremism. EU officials began focusing their future strategy on the elected leaders, as is evident in comments of Manuel Barraso, president of the European Commission, who says that EU was ‘ready to work with the Pakistani authorities, political parties, civil society and other stake holders to strengthen the rule of law and democratic institutions.”
The US, however, appears to have failed to appreciate the significance of the forces thrown up in the wake of Musharraf’s mauling of the Constitution and repeated assaults on state institutions, all of which helped breed defiance in civil society. Sadly, Washington remained a prisoner of its own past and thus unable to look beyond the narrow confines of the war on terror, the pursuit of which, in its view, has become synonymous with the person of Musharraf. This is a huge mistake though, if the past is any guide, it is very much in keeping with earlier American errors.
Admittedly, the US has powerful interests in Pakistan, given the country’s geopolitical importance and its pivotal role in the global war on terror. Over the past years, it has used Pakistan’s territory and military resources not only to pursue the war on terror, but also to prevent proliferation of nuclear and missile weapons, material or technology to extremists or non-state actors. Moreover, NATO’s widening presence in Afghanistan and its growing operations in the border areas are added reasons to secure Pakistan’s cooperation.
But having worked under an arrangement, the details of which have not been shared with the political leadership, the Bush administration is loath to have to now deal with a democratic dispensation, which by its very nature, will seek a more balanced and equitable relationship with the US. The ability of authoritarian regimes to offer ‘concessions’ to foreign powers is not available to elected representatives. It was therefore no surprise that the US would look with horror to this cozy relationship being disturbed and that too by people viewed as too ‘nationalist’.
The US feels that these objectives can be better achieved by ensuring that Musharraf retain control over the levers of power and thus its current emphasis on a ‘hybrid’ government in Pakistan. This also explains Washington’s inability to begin distancing itself from Musharraf. Bush has phoned Musharraf to reiterate his support for him, while Secretary Rice has come out with a strong endorsement, calling Musharraf the man the US has been dealing with and wants to continue doing so. She added that loss of parliamentary support should not necessarily weaken Musharraf, an embarrassing evidence of her ignorance of the Pakistani political landscape. The likely Republican presidential candidate, Sen John McCain, too, has rejected calls for Musharraf’s resignation calling him ‘a legitimately elected President’. Some Democrats also endorsed this view.
It would also appear that Washington is either ignorant of or oblivious to the real meaning of the elections. This is evident from Bush claiming that the election results are a ‘part of the victory in the war on terror’. Nothing could be further from the truth as evident from polls carried out by credible international organisations, such as the Pew Project and the International Republican Institute, which showed that 70 per cent of Pakistanis want Musharraf to immediately resign, another 89 per cent disapprove of the US war on terror and nearly an equal number are opposed to allowing the US or NATO forces to operate in Pakistan.
The US may continue to see Musharraf as the ‘bond’ that holds Pakistan together, but the country’s overwhelming majority see him as the cause of polarisation and a source of instability. Thus, there is a major chasm between the Bush administration and the Pakistani public and recent statements from Washington threaten to deepen this divide.
While it is true that no democratic government in Pakistan can provide a carte blanche to the US in the manner and to the extent that Musharraf has, mainstream parties are opposed to terrorism and their leadership consists of modern, moderate and progressive politicians. They are however convinced that military option is not the answer to the problem and may even be counter-productive. Instead, they advocate a more nuanced approach, in which the military effort would be complemented with economic development, social benefits and political dialogue. Incidentally, this is the approach being now advocated by Sen Biden, who wants the US to triple its non-military aid, sustain it for ten years and focus on schools, health care and roads. In other words, more diplomacy and resources and less force and violence
Washington needs to recognise the folly of having crafted a policy around the person of Musharraf, ignoring the interests of the people of Pakistan. If Washington has a genuine preference for democracy, it needs to cut itself off from its attachment to Musharraf. President Bush needs to recall the wisdom contained in one of his speeches, when he stated that “if people are permitted to choose their own destiny…then the extremists will be marginalised and the flow of violent radicalism to the rest of the world will slow and eventually end.”
How true and the US can make it happen in Pakistan. If the US wants peace and stability in Pakistan and a genuine ally, it should place its trust in the people of the country and step in with a strong and unequivocal support for the restoration of a democratic dispensation. This will not only enhance its moral standing, but also become a powerful message to other Muslim countries.