IN the coming weeks and months a lot will be written about the firm grip of the IMF in which Pakistan will find itself. Writers will write about the state of our national coffers, our economy and the plight of the poor.

However, in this article I want to address a different aspect of the current crisis, which, if dealt with properly, can contribute to greater overall prosperity.

For many years, I have walked past the statue of Edith Cavell in St Martin’s Place opposite the National Portrait Gallery near Trafalgar Square in London. Cavell was a British First World War nurse who was executed by the Germans for helping Allied soldiers escape occupied Belgium to neutral Netherlands. She became the symbol of humanitarianism because, faithful to her profession, she also helped a number of German soldiers and, indeed, anyone else who needed help.

On the four panels of the white granite monument behind her statue are carved the words ‘Humanity, Sacrifice, Devotion and Fortitude’. These words are in line with Cavell’s beliefs and can be seen in what she said to the Anglican chaplain who saw her the night before her execution to offer her communion. She said, “Patriotism is not enough, I must have no hatred or bitterness towards anyone.” These words are also inscribed beneath her statue.

Walking past Cavell’s statue, I have always been reminded of the Three Swords (Teen Talwar) at the Clifton roundabout just past Clifton bridge in Karachi. Inscribed on the Three Swords is Jinnah’s slogan ‘Unity, Faith and Discipline’ which represents his idea of the building blocks for a successful and prosperous Pakistan. Words such as these are not just inscriptions on marble. They represent the moral stock of a nation, its norms and its character. A rigorous application of these norms can enhance a nation’s social capital.

The idea of social capital is not new. It goes back to the 1960s when Jane Jacobs used it in relation to urban life and neighbourliness and later Pierre Bourdieu brought it within the academic sphere when discussing social theory. Most recently, it has been advocated by Robert Putnam, a Harvard academic, in his book Bowling Alone.

Putnam describes social capital as “connections among individuals — social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them. In that sense social capital is closely related to what some have called civic virtue.” Recognising the importance of social capital, the World Bank has described it as the glue that holds together the institutions which underpin a society.

While aspects of Putnam’s research and arguments are, and will be, disputed, his basic message is clear and undisputed. Social interaction enables people to build communities, to commit themselves to each other and to knit the social fabric. This can be done through civic participation, volunteer groups, participatory democracy at the community level and such other activities that require social engagement by ordinary citizens.

The resultant advantages of such interaction and social connectedness are higher educational standards, better health and greater economic prosperity. Social capital allows citizens to resolve their collective problems more efficiently and in high social capital areas public spaces are cleaner, people trust each other more and the streets are safer. Individuals, firms and even nations prosper economically with the presence of high social capital. With the presence of higher social capital and greater social interaction, our awareness of the fact that our fates are linked with those around us leads to trusting connections and individual traits that are better for the society as a whole.If we analyse the state of Pakistan’s social capital in the words of Jinnah, we will find that with a civil war raging on our western front, we do not score particularly high on unity. Furthermore, name any kind of difference and we will find it difficult to distinguish ourselves from our neighbours, be it religious, ethnic or sectarian. We have plenty of faith but some quarters of our society have it misplaced in the realm of extremism. And, most will agree that Pakistanis do not score highly on discipline. We rank high on any corruption index of countries in the world and as individuals we will try and cut corners given any opportunity.

In his recent address to the board of governors of the IMF on Oct 13, 2008 our adviser on finance Shaukat Tareen said that “although the multiple crises have been difficult to face, they have given us an opportunity to undertake a soul searching exercise and identify the vulnerabilities that characterised [sic] our economy and society.”

As citizens and stakeholders in this democracy of 170 million, this is also a time for each of us to do our own soul searching. Economics is a social science and, by definition, it requires a social framework to operate within. The stronger the social framework, the better the economics. Creating and adding to our social capital is something each of us can do within our own communities and organisations. The more connected we are to each other in our villages, towns and cities, the more we will contribute to the social and economic condition of our country. If we can correct the imbalances that plague Jinnah’s doctrines in our own lives, we will go far in creating the sort of environment that is receptive toward economic progress and social prosperity.

We must take the lead here and lay the foundations. This is within our control and we can add value in this regard. As bankrupt as we are, we have no option and this may be our last chance.

Finally, one aspect of social capital that is not stressed upon by most western academics, perhaps because they take it for granted, is the precondition of peace. Without peace there can be no prosperity. We must find a swift and lasting solution to the war on our western front. No amount of economic aid or loans will pave the way for economic progress and economic independence without a swift resolution to this bloody war.

Without peace, we may as well throw in the economic towel and heed Ghalib’s words: “Chippak raha hai badan par lahoo sey pairahan/hamaari jaib ko ab hajat-i-rafoo kya hai” (my shirt is sticking to my body with blood, where is the need to darn my pockets now).

The writer is an international commercial lawyer.

IN 1999, when Gen Pervez Musharraf lost his surreptitious battle at Kargil, the commando chief of army staff unleashed his forces on the democratically elected representatives of the people of Pakistan and declared martial law in the country.

In 2007, once again, when Gen Musharraf lost his court battle against the Chief Justice of Pakistan and felt he was on the verge of losing his proxy ‘war on terror’, he subjected his countrymen to further military adventurism by proclaiming emergency in the country on Nov 3, 2007.

The Proclamation of Emergency was purportedly made in view of the “visible ascendancy in the activities of extremists and incidents of terrorists attacks” for which the blame was unjustifiably assigned to “some members of the judiciary … working at cross purposes with the executive and legislature in the fight against terrorism and extremism thereby weakening the [g]overnment and the [n]ation’s resolve and diluting the efficacy of its actions to control this menace”.

The Proclamation claimed constant interference by the judiciary in executive functions, including but not limited to the control of terrorist activity. It stated that “the police force has been completely demoralised and is fast losing its efficacy to fight terrorism and [i]ntelligence [a]gencies have been thwarted in their activities and prevented from pursuing terrorists” because “some hard-core militants, extremists, terrorists and suicide bombers, who were arrested and being investigated were ordered to be released.”

Furthermore, the Proclamation alleged that the increasing interference by some members of the judiciary in government policy had in particular adversely affected economic growth. The failing war on terror was thus converted into a more manageable war on the judiciary.

The Proclamation was followed by the Provisional Constitutional Order, which made the continued functioning of the courts subject to the judges taking a fresh oath under the PCO. In a move unprecedented in the history of Pakistan, a majority of the judges declined to take oath under this Order. These judges consequently found themselves forcibly ousted from office and Gen Musharraf achieved his objective of ridding himself of non-compliant judges.

The Gen Musharraf-installed judiciary — that consequently occupied the Supreme Court unconstitutionally — reaffirmed this perverse transmutation of the government’s war on terror into a war on the judiciary in its judgment in Tika Iqbal Muhammad Khan vs Gen Pervez Musharraf (PLD 2008 SC 178). In this judgment, the court held that the emergency measures taken by Gen Musharraf were primarily founded on two grounds: (i) incidence of terrorism, militancy and extremism beyond the control of the civilian government; and (ii) the erosion of trichotomy of powers in consequence of increased interference in the other branches of the government by some members of the superior judiciary, particularly the former Chief Justice of Pakistan.

The court took note of the national security issue raised by the prime minister and recounted some of the major incidents of terrorism which had occurred in various parts of the country. It also took note of the fact that government efforts to combat terrorism had borne no fruit.

It was apparent, however, that the underlying issue revolved around the presidential election and the erstwhile judiciary’s effort to thwart Gen Musharraf’s attempt to continue his illegal rule. Nonetheless, the court, on the pretext that “[t]he situation was being closely monitored at the international level, particularly in view of the position taken by the Government of Pakistan in the war on terrorism” treated General Musharraf’s extra-constitutional action as “inevitable” and validated the same.

The court’s judgment was thus predicated on rendering support to the government’s position on the war on terror. In doing so, the court conveniently put the burden of the government’s admitted failure on the shoulders of the ousted judges. The court held that “some members of the superior judiciary by way of judicial activism transgressed the constitutional limits and ignored the well-entrenched principle of judicial restraint.”

What and how serious were these transgressions that the PCO judges sought to justify the Proclamation, the PCO, and their oath thereunder? The court observed: “Instances of transgression of judicial authority at large scale may be found in the cases of determination of prices of fruits, vegetables and other edibles, suspension and transfers of government officials, frequent directions to enact particular laws, stoppage of various development projects, such as New Murree City, Islamabad Chalets, Lahore Canal Road and many more.” There is no apparent correlation between these instances and the allegations made in the Proclamation.

There is no proof in the judgment that the erstwhile judiciary worked at cross purposes with the executive and legislature in the fight against terrorism or interfered in executive functions or thwarted the efforts of the police or intelligence agencies in pursuing terrorists or released suspected terrorists non-judiciously. Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence that interference by members of the judiciary in government policy had adversely affected economic growth.

Nonetheless, the court unfortunately clung to the unsubstantiated allegation that “some former judges of the superior courts had transgressed their constitutional limits and taken upon themselves the execution of the functions of the executive or legislative branches of the government, thereby bringing the functioning of the [g]overnment to a standstill.” It, therefore, repudiated the reinstatement of ousted judges and consequently perpetuated the split between the bench and bar created by Gen Musharraf. This has brought the smooth functioning of the judiciary to a virtual standstill.

Applying the court’s own logic in validating Gen Musharraf’s unconstitutional action, would the current judges accept extra-constitutional steps being taken by the government to restructure the court in order to resolve the ongoing judicial crisis?

It seems that the court has unwittingly endorsed the government’s war against the judiciary. In doing so, it has not only compromised the independence of the judiciary but has also negated the supremacy of the constitution and rule of law — the very objects that it is mandated to protect.

Despite the fact that the present judiciary is working in tandem with the executive in the continuing fight against terrorism, there is no decrease in the activities of extremists and the incidents of terrorists attacks continue to mount. The war on terror continues to expand even though there is no interference by the judiciary in executive functions, especially regarding control of terrorist activities; and the economic down turn continues despite there being no judicial interference in government policy.

Mindful of this, one hopes that the new court, which now comprises of some of the ousted judges as well, will negate its erroneous decision on the alleged role of judiciary in the unabated war on terror and pave the way for much needed judicial reconciliation in the country.

The author, a former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, is a lawyer based in Islamabad.

thassan@ijurist.org.

IN these inflationary times, what is the least valuable item available? Sad but true, it is the life of the ordinary man.

The public massacre going on not only in the northern areas but in cities as well epitomises the degradation of all human values. This is the clash of insanity between the so-called developed intellectuals of the world, be it the American think tanks or the Pakistani decision-makers, and the brainwashed illiterate cult which believes that blowing away people will deter their opponents.

With no consideration to human values, and no regard to consequences, an unending vicious cycle of crime without punishment has engulfed the country. The blazing inferno at the Marriott symbolised the ruthless designs of these minds on both sides, and the ashes of a once-magnificent hotel epitomises the gloom and doom of the public at the mercy of these mercenaries.

The question remains, what are the objectives of this war on terror which increasingly looks like a war ‘for’ terror? Let us have a look at what this pursuit of revenge has done to the world in general and Pakistan in particular.

Weak leaders are weak decision-makers. The strength of leadership is tested at times of crisis. 9/11 exposed the weaknesses of many a leader in the world. Mr Bush, always struggling to make a credible and competent mark on the home-management front, lapped on this opportunity to show the world that America is a force to be reckoned with; his targets as usual were the weakest countries possible, Afghanistan and later Iraq. His limited vision made him believe that in a short time he will take over these countries, plant his stooges to run the show and have unlimited access to their oil reserves to bolster the American economy. That was not to be; thus he has spotted another weaker country, Pakistan, to divert attention from the total mismanagement of the American economy.

Similarly 9/11 gave Gen Musharraf the opportunity to justify and strengthen his leadership. With America’s backing he felt that his illegal existence will be legalised; and for a time period that is what happened. America, sensing Musharraf’s need to establish himself, pushed him in a corner and covertly, later overtly, ransacked Pakistan as the perfect excuse to infiltrate Afghanistan. The general, of course, compromised to save his skin.

Again, in doing so have these leaders emerged as winners? On the contrary it has been a lose-lose game for them. Both Musharraf and Bush have made themselves and their nations objects of aversion and derision with their economies in shambles and security in tatters.

History repeats itself. Nowhere have we seen evidence of this more than in Pakistan. Having got rid of the dictator and having given the democratically elected leaders another chance to change course, the hopes of the nation to find strong and courageous leadership have been dashed.

The president and prime minister have shown their subjugation to American designs; even while the two men are saying that they will not let Americans encroach on our territory, the Americans are pounding our northern areas. Again, due to weak leadership, with a lot to cover up in their past, they neither have the courage nor the skill to face American pressure — a fact the prime minister has openly owned up to in one of his statements. With no clear strategy to save the country, it is a hit-and-run approach where the president is running all over the world to avoid being at home while leaving the country vulnerable to attack.

The worth of a life is based on the position you carry. While the priority of any government ought to be to provide security to the public, it seems that the priority of our government is to secure their own positions and lives — and too bad if the public is hit in attacks against its leaders. The higher position you carry the more precious your life is. The interior adviser proudly claimed they had intelligence reports that the Marriott was going to be attacked and thus moved the prime minister’s iftar to another location. They should be taken to task for not sharing this intelligence with the hotel authorities, who could have protected their guests and employees.

Insecure men breed insecurity around them. Most of the decision-makers in the US and in Pakistan are insecure due to their own inability to rule on merit. When one is not confident about one’s ability to traverse difficult terrain to reach the destination, one looks for short cuts and deviations from the right track to somehow bypass principles and laws to find quick-fix solutions. However, short cuts lead to short-term solutions which give way to even more chronic problems. This is why the war on terror is becoming a monster out of control.

Conflict, aggression, suppression and subjugation will never produce sustainable peace and security. It has been proven that only by practising values of tolerance, justice and humility have people overcome the biggest hurdles in life and produced sustainable results. It is the likes of Mandela and Martin Luther King who practised these values to bring revolutions in difficult conditions.

As citizens of this world, and this nation, it is time to realise that if we want to live and leave a legacy of a peaceful world for our future generations, not only should we live by these humane values ourselves, but also ensure that leadership without these values is rejected.

The writer is a consultant and CEO of FranklinCovey.

andleeb@franklincoveysouthasia.com

IT’S fitting that the cynicism “vote early and vote often” is commonly attributed to Chicago’s Democratic boss, mayor Richard Daley, who famously voted the graveyards in 1960 to help put John Kennedy in the White House. In this 2008 race, it’s the American media that have voted very early and often. They long ago elected the star graduate of Chicago’s Democratic machine, Barack Obama.

I am not talking of editorials in newspapers, though Obama has the preponderance of the endorsements over John McCain. Obama certainly deserves the credit for recruiting impressive advisers and running a more efficient campaign machine than any one in the US’s political history.

What’s troubling to anyone old-fashioned enough to care about standards in journalism is the news coverage in mainstream media. Forget the old notions of objectivity, fairness, thoroughness, and so on. The nastiest rumours on both sides haven’t been published, but the coverage has been slavishly on the side of “the one”.

It has not just been anti-Republican. It goes without saying that after eight years of George Bush’s macho blunders, the disenchantment of even the conservative outlets was bound to show. Researchers at the Project for Excellence in Journalism report that in the six weeks since the Republican convention, McCain, once the darling of the media, got four times as many negative stories as positive ones.

Meanwhile, Obama got twice as many positive stories as McCain. The website Politico has also acknowledged that it had loaded the dice against McCain: 100 stories were more favourable to Obama than McCain; 69 were the opposite.

But the press bias towards Obama doesn’t represent a simple revulsion for the Republican party. It was on display in the Democratic primaries with the persecution of Hillary Clinton. Worst of all, in the primaries, the press let the Obama campaign get away with continuous insinuations below the radar that the Clintons were race-baiters. Instead of exposing that absurd defamation for what it was – a nasty smear – the media sedulously propagated it.

Clinton made the historically correct and uncontroversial remark that civil rights legislation came about from a fusion of the dreams of Dr Martin Luther King and the legislative follow-through by President Lyndon Johnson. The New York Times misrepresented that as a disparagement of King, twisting her remarks to imply that “a black man needed the help of a white man to effect change”. This was one of a number of manipulations on race by the Obama campaign, amply documented by the leading Democratic historian, Princeton’s Sean Wilentz.

Clinton came close to tears in a coffee shop in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, which many thought helped her to win an upset victory there. MSNBC television gave a platform to the Chicago congressmen, Jesse Jackson Jr, where he questioned her tears and claimed that she’d not shed any tears for the black victims of Katrina, and that she’d pay for that in the South Carolina primary, where 45 per cent of the electorate would be African-Americans.

On the web, the rightwing Drudge Report highlights anything that favours McCain, the Huffington Post does the same for Obama, and the more independent Slate has said only one of its staff intends to vote for McCain, the other 55 for Obama.

In the Democratic primaries, there was a pattern on CNN where the short news videos of Clinton rarely let you hear what she was saying, but the short news videos of Obama let his words come through. I mentioned this to a CNN editor who said, “Oh, that’s our young video editors, they just find Obama more exciting.”

The young and affluent liberals have been captivated by Obama’s charisma, the unstated notion that electing a black man will be absolution for the years of discrimination and prejudice, and the expectation that Obama’s undoubted appeal to the outside world will repair America’s image.

All the mainstream national outlets were extraordinarily slow to check Obama’s background. And until it became inescapable because of a video rant, they wouldn’t investigate the Reverend Jeremiah Wright connection for fear of being accused of racism. Now the LA Times refuses to release a possibly compromising video, which shows Obama praising Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi at a 2003 banquet, saying its promises to its source prevent it from doing so.

The British press is notorious for political distortions, which more or less balance out. But the American press likes to think of itself as more superior and detached than it actually is.

Let’s hope the consequences of electing “the one” will be as wondrous as the press has led the voters to believe.

The writer is former editor of the London-based Times and Sunday Times and author of The American Century.

— The Guardian, London