Have the courage

IN a late night development, though the Law Minister Farook Naek claimed a breakthrough, it was still not clear what the committee tasked with finding a way to secure the restoration of the judges had exactly agreed to. Mr Naek said the restoration resolution was ready but also talked of divergent opinions of key committee members. Apparently, the PPP and the PML-N have still not been able to narrow the differences on key aspects and the matter has once again been referred to Mr Asif Ali Zardari and Mr Nawaz Sharif for a final decision. The PML-N has not changed its stance on the restoration of the judges, but it has made a concession to the PPP by agreeing to the retention of the PCO judges. The PPP’s position is awkward to say the least, and it is time the senior partner in the grand coalition took the nation into confidence on where it stands on this crucial issue.

One can understand that the PPP may not share PML-N’s hostility towards President Musharraf. For it is not a secret that a ‘deal’ with the then army chief was the reason which, perhaps, paved the way for an electoral exercise that wasn’t disputed. Even before that, the much-maligned NRO allowed the PPP leadership to return to the country unimpeded by court cases on mainly corruption charges. But the PPP would be aware that it has not come to power through the backdoor for it has once again won a general election. Instead of temporising and prevaricating, the party should draw confidence from the fact that it is the only national party with roots in all the four provinces and among all sections of the people. Whatever its relations with, and sentiments towards, President Pervez Musharraf, it has to stand by the commitments it has made to the people. However, seen against events such as the sudden postponement of the bye-elections and Rahman Malik’s mysterious ambiguity, the people seem to be holding the PPP responsible for the impasse and, to that extent, its moral authority seems to be eroding. The nation is still waiting for an explanation from the Government for the bye-election fiasco. In contrast, the PML-N is occupying the moral high ground, despite choosing to remain in the coalition possibly for that prize of prizes, the Punjab.

The PPP has to demonstrate now that it remains committed to the restoration of Iftikhar Chaudhry and other judges and that is why it signed the Bhurban Declaration. Having signed it, the party leadership now has no choice but to fulfil its commitment, or have the courage to say why it can’t. It is not a king’s party; it has a populist image and reality. It must get over with the judiciary issue and concentrate on giving the people what they want — flour, electricity, peace and, last but not the least, justice.

Building up wheat stocks

GOOD intentions alone cannot deliver the goods. On paper there can be no quibble with the government’s decision to import 1.5m tons of wheat, of which some 250,000 tons is expected to be procured on a priority basis. At a time when food inflation is driving the poor to suicide, any move that can help shore up supply and stabilise prices of a commodity as essential as wheat must be welcomed. But the real test will lie in monitoring and follow-up, for in this country imports do not necessarily translate into increased domestic supply. Take what happened during the sugar shortage which came to the fore in December 2004. To arrest the worsening situation — at least that was the story given out — unlimited import of raw and refined sugar was sanctioned by the Shaukat Aziz administration in February 2005. This was followed in August 2005 by a decision allowing imports from India. But mark the sequel: the market manipulators who had engineered the shortage snapped up imported sugar and hoarded that as well along with locally produced stocks. They were able to do so because of their political clout. A hushed up NAB report, eventually made public when it was presented before the Supreme Court in August 2007, lay the blame for the sugar crisis on both treasury and opposition parliamentarians but more specifically on eight ministers and their party colleagues. Given this track record, the move to import wheat could be just as easily manipulated.

Assuming honesty of purpose, the Economic Coordination Committee can avert this possibility through meticulous and frequent reviews that track the movement of imported wheat at every stage from the port of delivery to the market. Also, if the drive to build up food reserves is to be successful, there must be no repeat of the whimsical policies of the past where wheat was exported despite the State Bank’s warning that this course should not be pursued even in the event of a bumper crop. It is now being said that the rice yield far exceeds domestic demand. Before a decision on rice exports is finalised, production estimates must be checked, double-checked and checked yet again. Moreover, urgent action is required against smugglers and hoarders of essential food items who continue to make a killing under the watch of the police and paramilitary personnel. Commodity trading, which is thriving on the back of a negative trend at the country’s bourses as well as the rupee’s poor showing in the currency markets, also needs to be closely monitored to check speculative and monopolistic practices. Words without follow-up will not do the trick.

KCR alone may not work

THE recent decision taken at a high-level meeting in Islamabad to revive the Karachi Circular Railway project and turn it into a modern commuter system by 2011 is bound to be widely welcomed. But a word of caution seems to be in order. Pronouncements like this as well as the recent report about the initiation of the project’s Environment Impact Assessment need to be taken with a pinch of salt for they have a touch of déjà vu about them. Without going into the depressing details of previous ‘decisions’, suffice it to say that the key element missing in the equation has been the political will to manage urban transport along modern lines. The city attracts nearly 100,000 migrants every year from the rest of the country. This enormously strains the existing resources and facilities — including public transport — which do not expand at a matching pace. The revival of KCR, if and when executed in real terms, will go a considerable way towards bringing some semblance of sanity on the roads where private cars are growing at the rate of 13 per cent per annum.

The crisis, however, is of such magnitude that the KCR alone will not fully serve the purpose. By the time it becomes operational, the city’s pressing transport tribulations would have escalated. Even if it is integrated, as planned, with the road transport system through feeder services, the circular railway will fall short of the growing need for a dependable and efficient urban transport system. What an ever-expanding city like Karachi needs is a well-thought-out and properly integrated mass transit system that will take care of existing as well as projected future needs of the inhabitants. Though moving ahead with the KCR is not a bad idea, it would in no way mean the death of the Karachi Mass Transit Project which has been in the pipeline since it was first conceived in 1977. With a popular mandate behind it, the new government will, it is hoped, do better to improve Karachi’s transportation system.

OTHER VOICES - Middle East Press

Worst year for the press

Egyptian Gazette

MARKING World Press Freedom Day, the Committee to Protect Journalists in New York drew up a list of 13 dirty countries that target journalists. Iraq came top of the list as the most dangerous country in the world for journalists….

The report said that “journalists there have generally not died in combat… [M]ost are targeted for professional reasons and murdered”. The report omitted the fact that American forces targeted the premises of the Al Jazeera satellite TV in Baghdad … to curb its full coverage of the war crimes being committed against Iraqi civilians.

Nor did American analysts neglect Fidel Castro, their traditional enemy of journalists. Ironically, the list didn’t include Israel, whose forces of occupation are clearly hostile to mediamen, as the recent murder of a Reuters photographer in Gaza proves.

Curiously, the list overlooked Sudanese photographer Sami al-Hajj of Al Jazeera, who was released a few days ago, having spent the past six years locked up without a trial at Guantanamo Bay.

Commenting on this crime against humanity, the secretary-general of the Arab Press Federation, Salah Eddin Hafez, noted that … his jailing for six years without a trial was very shameful for a country that claims to respect … human rights… [A]nalysts worldwide all consider 2007 to have been the worst year in history for freedom of the press because freedom of expression seems to be on the decline, thanks to what the US has been doing since 9/11. — (May 6)

Still no light in the darkness

Gulf News

FIVE years after the invasion of Iraq by allied forces the situation ... is no better. Sadly, there is a significant minority of civilians … who claim that things are much worse than when Saddam Hussain ruled…. [This] is a poor reflection on the combined efforts of the allies … and underscores the complete failure of the US administration to fully prepare for events following its incursion into Iraqi territory.

The US points, selectively, to limited areas where a measure of success can be perceived, only to realise that some hours or days later there is a reversal of fortunes and the terrorists have taken the initiative and are in control once again. The constant swings of the pendulum of success sap the strength of the military and undermine their efficiency while discrediting their efforts in Iraqi eyes.

Despite promises by the US in conjunction with other western allies to train former Iraqi military and police into a fighting force to counter insurgents, the Iraqis are far from ready to fight, and unwilling to go against their own people. Such an attitude is fodder to the insurgents, who sow seeds of further discontent among Iraqis by successfully striking against them as, when and where they determine. The constant undermining of Iraqi authority, such as it is, brings chaos….

Recent criticism of the US for shelling a hospital in Baghdad and killing at least 14 people and wounding at least 28 does nothing to improve the reputation of the allied forces. — (May 5)

Ill-conceived wheat policy

THE objective of the government’s present policy on wheat is completely lost on this writer. Historically, the government of Pakistan has been operating a price support programme for wheat with the dual objective of minimising price instability faced by the farmers and ensuring food security.

This was done by establishing a minimum, remunerative price for crops and by keeping the price of food products low through the provision of low-cost wheat to flour mills.

This time around, however, given worldwide shortages in the production of a crop that is our staple diet the policy objectives are totally out of sync with market conditions.

If the purpose of the policy is to protect the farmer from a loss in earnings in a depressed market then obviously the policy is gravely mistaken in its assumptions. The procurement/support price on offer from the government (which is supposed to kick in as the floor price) is well below the prevailing market price. In fact, it is the lowest in the region. The declared procurement price has also singularly failed to serve as a signal to incentivise the production of wheat. This is partly because the price was announced after the crop had been sown!

Not surprisingly, the acreage devoted to wheat is lower by at least 10 per cent than last year. Owing partly to weather conditions and the rising cost of inputs, the crop yield is also expected to be poorer. Those more knowledgeable claim that the government has grossly estimated the crop size and that we will have to import in excess of two million tons of wheat, resulting in payments to US or Australian farmers of almost twice the amount we are willing to pay our own farmers. So much for this policy objective.

As for the objective to keep the price of wheat low for consumers, it is not quite clear why farmers are supposed to bear part of the cost of such a subsidy. Why does not such logic apply in the case of other equally critical consumer products like pulses, ghee, edible oils, etc? Why is the government not insisting that ghee manufacturers contribute to keeping prices low for the consumers?

If the government wants to subsidise atta prices, then as far as farmers are concerned it should buy their wheat at the market price and then release it in the market at whatever price it likes (depending upon the subsidy bill that it can pick up). Why should farmers be expected to stomach a part of this cost? Whether subsidised atta would then be available domestically in adequate quantities and not be smuggled out given the higher prices in our neighbourhood (India, Afghanistan, Iran and the Central Asian Republics) would be a moot point. Is the answer to the question not obvious?

Moreover, even the more affluent segments of the population gain from such a general subsidy whose bill for this year is going to cross Rs50bn (imagine, roti served at a five-star restaurant is also cooked using subsidised wheat). This cannot be the objective of the subsidy. Its benefit should really only be targeted to the poorest households.

The Punjab government’s decision to prohibit the inter-provincial/district movement of wheat as well as prevent other private traders from buying wheat from farmers directly is limiting opportunities for farmers to obtain a higher price for their produce. The restriction on the free inter-regional movement of wheat to enable the Punjab government to achieve the procurement target has resulted in the implicit taxation of farmers in the province, which surely could not have been the purpose of the policy. Moreover, is it realistic to expect that the government will be able to buy the target quantity of wheat at the price that it is prepared to pay when there are others willing to pay a higher price?

Imagine a situation where one walks into a shop and bans anyone else from buying the product that one is interested in while placing Rs60 on the counter and insisting that it is a reasonable price for the item — with the other buyer standing outside the door waving a 100-rupee note. There are no prizes for guessing the likely outcome.

While we are pleading with other countries in the world to sign free trade agreements with us we are not prepared to allow free trade within our own country. One wonders if Balochistan should have the right to restrict the flow of gas to Punjab if it cannot have free access to Punjab’s wheat.

Not only are the costs of managing such a programme massive, the main beneficiaries are the arthis (middlemen) and officials of the food department mandated to buy the wheat. Others include private traders who proceed to smuggle the wheat out, flour mills that get allocations of subsidised wheat based on quotas they are trading in the market without even bothering to grind the atta, banks that lend money to the government for these operations (easy lending is protected by government guarantees) and personnel of the border security force.

Farmers do not get a fair price and domestic consumers do not benefit as they end up paying a much higher market price than envisaged under the policy. There are better instruments to achieve the same objectives. For instance, the protection that the policy is supposed to provide farmers with in the event of a surplus crop can be addressed through alternative mechanisms such as private storages, crop insurance etc.

What is classified as the atta subsidy in budgetary allocations is only (and rather partially) a consumption subsidy. The bulk of the fiscal cost of the activities related to wheat operations comprises expenditures on incidentals – bagging, handling, storage and stock carrying costs, which go to subsidise the high cost of management, storage, wastage, pilferage and corruption.

Any relationship between the levels of poverty and allocation of the atta subsidy is at best tenuous; the subsidy simply increases with greater inefficiency and a rise in administrative costs because of overstaffing and salary enhancements.

Just a small proportion of the total fiscal cost of the subsidy on wheat actually accrues to the consumer. The economic subsidy works out to less than 10 per cent of the poverty line and around 15 per cent for households earning Rs3,500 per month. Therefore, in view of the expenditure incurred in the name of subsidy, benefit to the consumer is somewhat modest. In other words, the net adverse impact of the withdrawal of the general subsidy on wheat for consumers is expected to be marginal.

As has already been argued in these columns, the poorest households certainly need to be protected and the most effective way to do so, without penalising the farmers and discouraging future wheat production, would be to provide cash grants as the wheat subsidy is gradually phased out.

Why judges must be restored

DESPITE declarations and promises it is not quite clear whether or not Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and his fellow judges, who did not take the oath under the PCO of Nov 3, 2007, will be restored to their Nov 2 position.

Is this an important issue? Some people point to power and food shortages as well as the deteriorating law and order situation to make the point that the judiciary is not our real problem; that it is a pseudo-issue; and that, if at all it is a problem, it affects educated people and not the masses.

This view is simplistic. The restoration of the judiciary would mean that the powerful establishment, despite its tremendous power, has lost to the will of the democratic forces represented by the judges, lawyers, the press, students and members of civil society. If these forces win, it will be possible to assert the power of civil society over the ruling elite.

This means that decisions which have drained our resources, made us follow aggressive policies and facilitated the exploitation of the citizens and the resources of the state, will be questioned and even reversed. This, in turn, means better governance, more food, more power generation and better distribution of resources resulting in less poverty, better policing and better education for the citizens.

What exactly did Justice Chaudhry do? He said ‘no’ to a military ruler in 2007. No sitting chief justice has said such a resounding ‘no’ to a sitting military ruler in this country’s history. Indeed, they all either gave judicial recognition to usurpers or, if they were unusually brave, they resigned from their posts quietly and went ‘gently into the night’. Those who disagreed with military rulers and chose to be dismissed from service rather than take the oath under the PCO went ‘gently’ — as the poet Dylan Thomas would have it — because they themselves did not protest against the highhandedness of the executive.

But how could they? Judges usually speak through their judgments and they do not normally lead movements. This time, by sheer good luck, Chief Justice Chaudhry became the focus of a movement. While no judge had became an icon of anti-establishment forces this judge did. In short, while there have been brave and principled judges in the past, the public has unfortunately remained indifferent to them. This is our collective bad luck, but such are the facts.

So, now that the present dismissed judiciary is widely seen by the public as having been wrongly and unjustly dismissed in the first place, it is a public demand — vox populi — to restore it to its former position. This is something the public voted for in addition to good governance, of course, when they voted for the PML-N as well as the PPP. It is part of the mandate and if it does not happen, it will be tantamount to disregarding the people’s will.

Secondly, if the restoration does not take place the message that will go out to the public is that if anyone defies the establishment and has the courage to stand up to its most powerful representatives, then he or she will not be allowed to survive in the system. This is just the kind of message authoritarian power-wielders convey. And when this happens the courts become subservient and nobody can hope to get justice in cases where the establishment is involved.

Our courts have been subservient in the past and both the PML-N and the PPP have suffered on account of this. Whenever their governments were dismissed by the army or an overbearing president, the courts were too cowed to give them justice. Now there is a chance that a new kind of judiciary will provide justice. The question to all thinking citizens is whether this new-found courage and confidence should be squandered for petty, short-term gains?

But what does one mean by ‘restoration’? The answer is that ‘restoration’ refers to the powers and composition and terms of the office of the superior judiciary on Nov 2, 2007. Thus, if the judiciary is restored but its powers are diluted — by reducing the term of office of the chief justice or curtailing his powers to take suo motu action or composing benches etc — then that is not ‘restoration’. That would mean, once again, that bravery and independence are punished in Pakistan. It will be almost like not restoring the judiciary at all.

Similarly, if the judges who were sworn in under the PCO are also allowed to function, it will mean that standing up for principles and betraying them both get rewarded. Moreover, it will also dilute the powers of the independent judiciary because these PCO judges will influence the decisions of the non-PCO judges. This too will give the wrong message.

In short, there is only one way of restoring the judges, i.e. going back to the Nov 2 position. This has the important symbolic effect of negating the extra-constitutional actions of General Musharraf. These illegal actions of Nov 3 should be called clearly what they were — unconstitutional and, hence, null and void. Indeed, it is the only step which will give the PPP and the PML-N a good name. It will strengthen democracy and it will make the judiciary independent at least for the time being.

Maybe, this will also create a precedent for future judges. Maybe, one day we will have judges who, unlike Justice Munir, will declare acts of dictators null and void. Maybe, some day the PPP is again confronted with tanks on the lawns of the prime minister’s house — maybe, if this is the condition it will look up to a supreme court which will have judges who strike down the martial law and, declaring some future general’s action illegal, restore the prime minister. If this had happened when Ghulam Mohammad first dismissed the Constituent Assembly Pakistan would not have come to such a pass.

If the judges are restored now, we Pakistanis will be able to look back to 2008 as the year when — among all kinds of crises and shortages — we rewarded brave people for their bravery. We need a moment of glory. I hope we are not cheated of it.