WITH militancy, lawlessness and the economic slide showing no signs of abatement, the Pakistani state is faced with a momentous crisis.

Its military is bogged down in an unending conflict with tribal militants in the north; Balochistan, in the west, is seething with unrest. Coupled with a deteriorating economy, the state seems to have no solutions in the offing. In such an imbroglio, governments do not count, as the crisis looms large over the very survival of the state.

The Pakistani federation in its present territorial form has been struggling to keep itself intact against heavy internal fissures and external threats. Interestingly, a similar federation is prospering by its side though it has more nations and ethnic groups in its fold. This has brought into focus an important question: why a federation consisting of Muslim political units is teetering on the brink when a neighbouring federation professing a secular polity is marching towards success as a major international player with nuclear prowess?

The problem should not defy a solution if we look into the basic elements of statehood. In the post-colonial period, nation-states replaced colonies and empires lorded over by western powers. The modern federation is the product of a constitution and the rule of law. It presupposes an elaborate organisational set-up for various nations and ethnic groups who have opted to become part of it. Compared to a federation, the organisation of unitary nation-state is simple as it enters into a single contract with its citizens to share duties and responsibilities.

The federation has to enter into a political contract with its constituent units as well as citizens. This consequently entails strict observance of all agreements. If the constitution and the rule of law are not adhered to, such a federation essentially turns into an empire that is controlled by powerful ethnic and social groups.

The Pakistani federation is based on a limited and legally questionable social contract. The Constitution of 1973 was not framed by a constituent assembly. After the framing of the constitution, the so-called National Assembly never dissolved itself and continued to serve as parliament of the federation arrogating to itself the role of the constituent assembly as well as the legislature. Conventionally, the constituent assemblies stand dissolved as and when they finish the job of constitution-making. The violation of this legal norm paved the way for martial law.

Federalism and feudalism are mutually antagonistic. Feudal and military barons are the vestiges of empires. They can’t co-exist with the regime of the rule of law unless tamed and subdued to the will of the people. Feudalism, in its very essence, perpetuates lawlessness and disorder as it dispossesses a vast majority of people from its source of livelihood through force and coercion. This can be gauged from the fact that the last land reforms in 1977 fixed ownership limit of land at one hundred acres for a family but feudal lords continued to hold hundreds of thousands of acres in open violation of the law.

For all practical purposes, feudalism is the antithesis of law and constitution. India abolished it in the very beginning, as feudalism and federalism cannot co-exist. They cancel each other out. In Pakistan, feudal and military barons are controlling the levers of political power, as a result the federation has been turned into an empire where the will of the sovereign — the people — never counts. The smaller nationalities are reeling under subjugation because the federation established under the constitution exists no more.

When any state is faced with the crisis of this magnitude, it struggles to find its strengths. The strength of the Pakistani state lies in a strong political system and an independent judiciary as envisaged in the constitution. Both have been rendered weak by the actions of the feudal-military partnership, as a result the country is descending into a deep crisis of statehood.

At present, Musharraf is representing the interests of the military and the ruling government stands for the feudals. Their presence is attacking the fundamentals of the federation with each passing day, as both do not believe in the rule of law or the constitution. The rule of law empowers the lower and middle classes, the weak and the vanquished. A military general or the parties representing feudalism can’t adopt it.

The Pakistani state is being forced not to stand on its feet by embracing a strong political system and its dethroned judiciary. The forces denying these strong tools to the state want to impose their own order, which will lead to further anarchy and mayhem. This is not the failure of the state but the betrayal of the ruling classes denying the country its right to exist, when the federation badly needs to exercise that right.

The lack of political will and the rule of law is sapping the confidence of the federating units as well as the masses. They are living in fear of losing their fortunes. The ensuing economic slide is the result of this political uncertainty.

The state cannot carry out its present policies of war on terror as well as pursue its nuclear policy unless it puts its own house in order and strengthens itself to face regional and international challenges. The borrowed strength on the basis of temporary political tactics will only delay the process of decay. It can’t be counted as the real power of the state.

The conflict between the military and the feudals over authority and power to save their interests is another contradiction. The tussle is turning ugly. The president representing military establishment, in his recent address to industrialists and traders in Karachi, took exception to his recent role. He announced to break his silence which clearly meant that final authority to send a government packing rests with the military and it will not forgo it for the sake of the nation.

Similarly, the PPP-led coalition has refused to restore the judges as it loathes any checks on its governance. Though the judiciary may not be a holy cow in this land of the pure, its principled stand against the usurpers of state authority and power, for the first time on such a large scale, infused hope and confidence among the masses. It strengthens their belief in the collective destiny. If this hope is allowed to evaporate, the ship of the state cannot be salvaged.

The writer is a Karachi-based barrister-at-law

barrister_zamir@hotmail.com

AFTER its first hundred days in office the PPP government has been receiving most uncomplimentary notices, possibly less charitable than it deserves.

The reason perhaps is not so much its failure to deliver on its promises, as the public impression is that it has not tried seriously enough. Besides, authority and the common citizen seem to be operating on different wavelengths.

Perhaps it was improper to make promises to achieve specific targets in less than four months because such gestures sometimes arouse expectations that cannot easily be met. It might have been better to pledge earnest attention, in general terms, to the complex issues inherited from an administration that was known to have mined the politico-economic terrain and then periodically report on the scale of accomplishments.

Given the circumstances in which it took over, the government has not done badly. It began by accepting the need for understanding among political forces professing allegiance to democratic norms. Apart from trying to ease the economic hardships of state employees and wage-earners, it has given much needed priority to dismantling the more oppressive features of authoritarian rule by easing the curbs on workers and students, by relaxing the system of media control (except for a foolish incident), and by moving away from the tradition of bludgeoning protesters such as lawyers. It also took important steps to end Pakistan’s indifference to international mechanisms for the promotion of the people’s basic rights in both economic and civil categories and for their protection against torture.

These modest initiatives, however welcome to middle class advocates of people’s weal, are not enough to convince the masses of a positive change, particularly when a steep rise in the cost of living caused by huge jumps in food prices and gas and power tariffs has pushed them to the edge of despair. Coupled with the fact that militancy is still threatening to hijack the state and tear the social fabric into shreds, the common citizens are getting the feeling that the government lacks the capacity to enforce its will in their interest. The government has increased its difficulties by giving the impression that it could quickly discard some black laws, such as IRO-2002, the Frontier Crimes Regulation and the Pemra Ordinances.

A few lapses in the area of democratic management have compounded the government’s problems. There is need to ensure the initial show of rule by consensus among democratic-looking parties continues. Authority must throw up the image of a self-reliant collective, and erase all signs of absolutism, active as well as dormant. It should discourage solo flights in favour of broader platforms of action, e.g. constitutional reform. As done to some extent in energy and poverty-alleviation sectors, it should look for the benefits governments derive by telling the people of the progress of their initiatives.

However, nothing has harmed the new government more than its prevarication on the twin judges and presidency issues. There seems to be little room for speculation on its hazy line of action. The judges are not to be restored in a hurry and not in the manner demanded by the lawyers, and President Musharraf is to be worn down to a point that he throws in the towel in disgust. The assumption is that while the judges issue can be solved in a jiffy that means the president will have to depart and that is something the PPP high command cannot afford or does not at the moment want. There is good reason to re-examine this vacuous thinking.

The arguments in favour of restoring the judiciary to the Nov 2, 2007 status are irrefutable. The cause of constitutionalism apart, the matter has given rise to a spectacular movement to turn Pakistan into a legitimate state. For over 16 months the lawyers have been fighting a battle to establish the supremacy of the people’s democratic will over authoritarianism, giving citizens the hope that they are not incapable of shaping their destiny. They have given the world a new face of Pakistan — the face of a vibrant political entity capable of standing by its convictions. To frustrate them now will amount to abandoning a good opportunity for Pakistan’s resurrection.

The objections to the return of the judges placed under extra-constitutional restraint have lost force. Many, including good lawyers, may have reservations about this judge or that but personalities do not matter, no longer at any rate. References to the past sins of the judiciary, including their making too many oaths (to recall a Justice Kayani phuljhari) are of little use. True, the judiciary failed the democratic-minded people many a time.

However, fairness demands that the Gilani government’s point of view should not be dismissed without being heard even if its counsel is found wanting by some stalwarts in black robes. What the government and the lawyers both have to realise is that an understanding between them is vital to the continuance of the democratic experiment. Neither of them may survive a return to an extra-democratic rule.

As regards the presidency too, the PPP leadership may be wrong in assuming that it could beat the president at a game of attrition. Indeed, Gen (retd) Musharraf has gone on the offensive. He chose Karachi and the company of his fellow street-fighters to sound the bugle for a battle royal (or perhaps a police encounter). Not content with announcing that the army will never discard him, he chose to discuss the national economy and the prospects for a government of like-minded parties with the Pir of Pagara, though this act not only compromised the non-partisan status of his office (in theory at least) but also exposed a chink in his armour.

The days of Iskander Mirza may have passed but the PPP cannot afford to ignore the straws in the wind. A wave of religious turmoil is threatening to engulf the whole country, traders are baring their teeth, nuclear hawks are regaining their speech, and poverty is being discovered by those who have contributed to it. The PPP may have moved far away from its 1970 moorings but the phalanx of Shylocks it had taken on four decades ago are in no mood to forgive it.

Governments do not always rise and fall by their deeds and misdeeds alone. A more important role is played by public perception of matters. The public perception last Sunday was determined by two events — the blast in Islamabad, which revealed the grim challenge to the state, and the clubbing to death of three small children by their miserable father in a village in the ‘prosperous’ and ‘educated’ Punjab, which showed the abyss of hopelessness Pakistan’s poor find themselves in. It is never too soon to start minding the gap between a government’s claims and the common perception of its performance.

ROMANIAN environmentalists have launched a campaign to speed up creation of a national agency for protected areas (ANAP), which the government has been postponing since 2005.

In the absence of a proper administrative body, valuable natural sites around the country, including the last remaining intact forest landscape in temperate Europe, are being damaged in the quest for development.

Many of the protected areas are currently managed by ROMSILVA, a financially independent institution affiliated to the Ministry of Agriculture, which is also in charge of administering forests as a profit-generating resource.

Before Romania’s entry to the European Union (EU) in 2007, about seven per cent of the country’s territory had been granted protection status by national authorities. With Romania’s adherence to the EU programme Natura 2000 (a European-wide network of sites to be preserved for their rich biodiversity), 17.84 per cent of land received protected status. But environmental organisation Greenpeace says these sites are still not protected effectively because of poor administration.

In June 2005, the Ministry of Environment drafted a law on the status of protected areas in the country, calling for the creation of ANAP. Since then, however, the government has been dragging its feet in adopting an ordinance to set up the agency.

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Environment said that because ANAP is a “new and complex” institution, “this project has generated numerous problems.” While the process of creating the institution is under way, the spokesperson said all the ministries connected with ANAP must give their consent, and this takes time.

In a public statement on June 18, Greenpeace Romania called this delay “a catastrophe”, and “at the very least dubious.” It said the creation of ANAP is crucial to the conservation of protected areas in Romania. “Forests have already been mutilated all over the country with the consent of decision-makers and public workers from the Ministry of Agriculture,” said Gabriel Paun, a representative of the green group. “The threat to biodiversity in this country is greater than ever.”

One widely disputed case is the construction of national road DN 66 A through National Park Retezat in the Carpathian Mountains in western Romania. Work on the road started in 1999, but was repeatedly halted because of lack of proper permits and funding. Construction was resumed in July 2007.

The managers of the Retezat National Park have been forced to moderate their position over time and accept compromises.

Ecologists working for Greenpeace, on the other hand, can afford to express more ‘radical’ views. The group has launched a campaign for the protection of Retezat-Godeanu-Tarcu, an area of 97,926 hectares of land.

Greenpeace calls this “the last remaining intact forest landscape in Europe south of the Arctic circle.”

The concept of intact forest landscape was launched in the 1990s, and refers to an area including forest and non-forest ecosystems where human intervention has been minimal, and which have a surface of at least 50,000 hectares.

Specialists consider such large tracts to be especially important for three main reasons: first, only sufficiently large areas can conserve populations of large animals in their natural state and survive natural disturbance dynamics such as fires and storms; secondly, large intact areas can serve as references to better understand and manage already degraded or fragmented areas; finally, large intact areas are often comparatively cheap to conserve, as they tend to rely on remoteness as their main guarantee of protection.

Preserving intact forest landscapes is important for safeguarding biodiversity, and can alleviate some of the negative impact of climate change, experts say. n —The IPS News