Revamping: setting priorities right
By Dr Shahid Siddiqui
THERE is no harm in admitting that education has never been our national priority. This can be blamed on the fact that Pakistan has experienced long periods of military rule. If we look at our budgetary allocation, defence was usually given the lion’s share.
According to the CIA’s fact book, from 1958 to 1973, the defence budget accounted for nearly 60 per cent of the total government expenditure.
This is indicative of the trend and tone set by our military rulers. This approach impacted on the subsequent budgets as well. On the other hand, for a long period education was allotted less than two per cent of the GDP. This extreme disparity suggests the harsh treatment education has been receiving in Pakistan. If we compare these figures with those of other countries, we realise that the minimum possible allocation is being allocated to education. On the other hand, relatively huge sums are set aside for military expenditures.
The most intriguing fact about the defence budget in Pakistan is that no break down was mentioned and only a certain figure was quoted in a single line. In the 2008 budget it is promised that from this year onwards the defence budget would be discussed in the parliament and a proper break down would be given of different categories of expenditure. Education, on the other hand, would get relatively smaller chunks of funds. In the 2008 budget, Rs24.6bn has been allocated for education (at the federal level). The exact percentage of GDP will be available later when provincial budgets are announced.
The former prime minister, Mr Shaukat Aziz promised that allocation for education would be ensured as four per cent of the GDP. This promise was never realised as last year it was only 2.1 per cent of the GDP despite the fact that we got huge foreign funding for education sector reforms. Low allocation is just one aspect of the problem. The real issue is that in education we have been making cosmetic changes and quick fixes. The result is that no meaningful, sustainable change could take place. Let us look at some of these strategies to inflate the figure of literacy and at the internationally accepted definition of literacy — ‘reading with understanding’.
A list of definitions of literacy adopted in different years is as follows.
1951: One who can read a clear print in any language.
1961: One who is able to read with understanding a simple letter in any language.
1972: One who is able to read and write in some language with understanding.
1981: One who can read the newspaper and write a simple letter.
1998: One who can read the newspaper and write a simple letter, in any language.
In 1951 we followed a literacy definition that did not include the condition of ‘understanding’. The result was 17.9 per cent literacy. But in 1961 the condition of ‘understanding’ was added to the definition. This would mean that people who could read the alphabets (the reading of Quran in some cases) without understanding could not be included in the list of literates. From 1981 onwards, the condition of ‘understanding’ was once again taken out which naturally inflated literacy numbers. This leaves a question mark about the validity of figures of literacy in Pakistan.
Another aspect of measuring literacy is that internationally, it is measured at the level of age 15 and above. Quite interestingly in Pakistan, the literacy figures, quoted in the Economic Survey of Pakistan, are at the level of age 10 and above. What is the difference in measuring literacy at two levels? If we measure literacy at the level of age 10 and above, the figure comes down to 55 per cent but if it is measured at age 15 and above (as is the international norm) it comes down to 52 per cent. If we want to make these statistics more reliable, we should be reporting figures at age 15 and above as is the practice in other countries.
The reported literacy rate of 55 per cent (age 10 and above) does not reflect some areas of very low literacy as a number of high and low literacy areas are averaged to get a final figure. This does not reflect the literacy distribution in the masses. This situation can be equated with the increase in figures of per capita income reported in the 2008 Economic Survey of Pakistan where enhanced income of a few rich people helped in raising the per capita income creating a false impression of distribution of income. Instead of making cosmetic changes, the government needs to face the challenge upfront and do some serious planning for real improvement in literacy. This also means bringing about a qualitative change. Education and development has a strong correlation but education per se is not development. It is quality education, however, that equips a person to explore and enhance his/her chances of progress.
Gender disparity is another concern in the education system of Pakistan. In the Pakistan Economic Survey 2008, the male literacy rate is reported at 65 per cent whereas the female literacy rate is only 42 per cent. This shows a gap of 23 percentage points between male and female literacy in Pakistan, which is too large. A gap of more than 10 per cent is internationally considered a serious point of concern. Needless to say, some real concentrated efforts are required to reduce it.
If the new government is serious about education they should not only enhance the allocation for it but also ensure proper utilisation of funds. The past tells us that almost half of the allocated funds remain unspent for various reasons. And even the 50 per cent that were spent were not used appropriately. What is needed is an effective monitoring system and an accountability mechanism.
Education, the backbone of socio-economic development of society, needs to be dealt with more seriously and with a certain political will. Unfortunately, the ministry of education has always been viewed as less important and unqualified people have often been appointed at the helm. One such example is a retired general of the army who was asked to bring a qualitative change in the educational system of Pakistan. Currently as well the ministry is not headed by a full-time minister. It is time we realised the significant role of knowledge economy and human capital and instead of cosmetic tinkering with the educational system, we should plan meaningful and sustainable changes in the qualitative improvement of education in Pakistan.
The writer is Director of Centre for Humanities and Social Sciences at Lahore School of Economics and author of Rethinking Education in Pakistan.
shahidksiddiqui@yahoo.com


Street fighting days
By Ghazala Rahman Rafiq
WHO in Pakistan believes elections mean democracy? Iraqis learned beheading Saddam heralded neither freedom nor democracy.
Even many Americans discovered they went to war ‘not in our name’ since WMD never turned up in Iraq. Worldwide it is possible to participate in seemingly free and fair elections, vote for a party and then face a government that doesn’t represent you.
However, despite its systemic historic/current flaws, Americans continue their engagement with democracy in numerous painstaking and persistent ways. One shining example is that 45 years after Dr King’s “I have a Dream” speech, America finally produced African American Barack Obama, (middle name Hussain) as their democratic nominee.
However, ‘direct democracy’ happens when citizens bypass representatives and legislatures and make policy and law decisions in person. An example is the New England Town Meeting where anyone can walk in, debate and then vote on town policy. (Imagine being able to do this in Karachi or any where else in Sindh!) But to continually fine tune local politics Americans realised that this form of direct democracy works only for some communities. Low attendance at many town meetings makes them somewhat undemocratic.
Being genetically innovative, some Americans then proposed a ‘new and improved’ (always!) way to ‘do’ direct democracy. They focused on widespread (high tech) voting schemes that captured almost continual voting by millions of citizens on whatever proposals surfaced. The method lacked organised public deliberation about issues in question. Apparently, this form of democracy led to mere gathering of opinion polls and not an exercise of citizenship. “Wise solutions to public problems won’t likely come off the top of a hundred million heads….”, is one problem associated with this type of democracy.
A third approach to direct democracy is the ‘initiative process’. It is practicable even in beleaguered Sindh as it is locale-friendly. This method allows anyone to propose a law, get it co-sponsored by fellow citizens (signing petitions) and voted upon by the entire electorate in the next election. But experience tells us that apparent empowering of grassroots is frequently a ruse. This process has often been co-opted by special interest groups; usually moneyed in the case of the US and gun-toting hoodlums in the Pakistani instance.
If all three approaches to direct democracy raise questions about how wise or democratic they are in practice then how does one satisfy democracy’s existential demand: participation by the broad citizenry or at least those affected by the decision? This may sound bizarre and naive in a Pakistani newspaper (since the lame duck president is still in his white house), but wisdom requires that now is exactly when, at this sickening, lurching juncture, Pakistanis contemplate and offer focused consideration to such issues. The consequences involved in various democratic options always require ongoing examination. Under prevailing conditions perhaps all we can manage is a virtual rehearsal for a viable democratic life. Perhaps this time around too, we (‘demo’: the ordinary people of a community or nation) can practice (‘–cracy’: rule, government, power) only in our heads; and that too late at night, or in the dream state, while holding some daytime vision of getting it right someday….
So where does wisdom come from? In a democracy, a vital source of collective wisdom is informed deliberation among people whose diversity approximates the diversity of their community or country. Democratic innovations that embody this understanding are uncommon in Pakistan but there was a shining moment in this country’s history. Talking about his ‘Street Fighting Days’ Tariq Ali (2008) said, that while many revolutions (e.g., Czechoslavakia) of the Sixties failed, “…There’s one country where they fought for three months, the students in Pakistan, against a military dictatorship. And the struggle began on Nov 7, 1968, went on ‘til March 10, 1969 … if you look at the chronology of that struggle … it gets bigger … white-collar workers join, lawyers … women … judges come out on the streets, prostitutes get organised … It became a massive social struggle every day, the number of people getting killed gets bigger …We still don’t have accurate figures of how many people the police and army shot dead in Pakistan…. “
“…finally, when … workers began to disrupt the railways … demand was very simple: end of dictatorship, and democratic free elections…. But … Field Marshal Ayub Khan, backed by Washington and London, was standing firm, ‘til he realised he couldn’t carry on. And in March, he was toppled.”
Can we extend the term ‘deliberation’ to de-tracking railways? But then what should an informed citizenry do under a dictatorship? Violence is never condonable but it is not so hard in the Pakistani paradigm (since alternate roads are perennially blocked) to view people’s struggle in 1968-1969 as a deliberation; a huge, unwieldy but magnificent deliberation. Such deliberation produces public judgment, a far higher form of collective intelligence than mere public opinion. It would be very nice to do things peacefully. It is still the case though that broadly recognised citizen deliberation and public judgment do bring public wisdom to public power. And this power is always bestowed by direct democracy. But this power is also always, particularly in Pakistan, crushed by autocracy, whether dressed in uniform or silk.
Still, such a combination of power and wisdom begins to approach an ideal democratic form. At a minimum, at least a semblance of a bearable public life emerges where the majority of people experience a shared timbre at the heart-mind level. This has occurred in a few, magical and unforgettable instances in Pakistani history. Sadly, the anarchy which accompanied the uprisings (that were only attempting to pry open an avenue of democracy) deteriorated into mobocracy. This then, as we witnessed, fed upon itself until it was spent or bent.
Mobocracy is the state we inherited in 1947, amidst the chaos of mass immigration that is now estimated at a million plus lives. Post dictatorships (military and civilian) and post 61 years of an impotent education system, no one expects a Gandhian political response in Pakistan. Still it matters that there are, on the planet, examples of small communities and large societies’ that practice a peacetime version of the level of advanced, though chaotic, democracy, like that winter-spring (1968-69) in Pakistan.

