Public contracts: a judicious decision

ACTING Chief Justice Munir A Sheikh made a highly perceptive point the other day when he suggested to the government to make all contracts and treaties public before they are signed. In the opinion of the acting Chief Justice, such a step would enable the people to know the merits and demerits of a contract being signed by the government. One can hardly disagree with this observation, since it is on behalf of the people of Pakistan that a government signs all its contracts and treaties. Once the government puts its signature on such documents, it becomes obligatory on the part of the nation to honour them, no matter what the price or the consequences. One can recall here a long list of contracts and treaties signed by successive governments without taking the public into confidence. These contracts turned out to be too costly, in some cases disastrous, for the country when their details were made public subsequently. In many of these cases, it was felt that the details were kept from the public mainly to make personal fortunes. In some cases, the government of the day seemed to have been taken for a ride by the other party because the former did not have the expertise to read the fine print of the contract. Perhaps, if such documents had been made public before being signed, a public debate would have brought out into the open the negative aspects of the contract or treaty.

No doubt, under government rules, a set procedure is followed before a contract or a treaty is signed. PC1s and summaries travel from one relevant desk to another, from expert to expert and from committee to committee, finally reaching the cabinet committees and then from there going to the cabinet itself, where draft contracts are discussed threadbare and a collective decision is taken. After this elaborate and time-consuming exercise, the possibility of being wrong or caught on the wrong foot is supposed to be minimized. However, if all such relevant summaries and committee reports which went to the cabinet during the last 50 or so years for final approval are declassified today, one would be shocked to see the number of times cabinet decisions were guided by personal whims rather than the public good. Lack of proper checks and balances is perhaps the reason for the failure of the procedure to protect national interests.

The truth is that the procedure itself has over the years come to serve as a tool for keeping secret from the general public the real factors that lead to the signing of defective contracts and treaties. Of course, there are a number of issues of a sensitive nature which cannot be discussed in public. But this excuse should never be used while finalizing financial contracts involving millions of borrowed dollars or billions of budgetary rupees; or treaties requiring the nation to follow conditions for obtaining loans on concessional rates from bilateral or multilateral donors. All this makes Justice Sheikh’s remarks relevant. If his advice is followed, the nation would be able to know what is being agreed to on its behalf, instead of lucrative kickbacks deciding the issue finally.

Terrorism in Lahore

THE ongoing terrorist violence took a turn for the worse when a prominent religious scholar was shot dead in cold blood in one of the busiest parts of Lahore on Tuesday morning. His chauffeur also died in the attack, said to have been carried out by some young men on motorcycles. One of the fleeing assailants is reported to have killed the administrator of a nearby imambargah, when the latter had caught him after he had hit his daughter in a desperate bid to escape from the scene of the crime. The shocking slaying of the religious scholar was obviously premeditated. The precise motive of the killers is still not clear, but since it has happened during Muharram, there obviously would be suspicions that a sectarian motivation could be behind the murder. Only a thorough investigation, however, can shed light on the matter. What is clear is that terrorism stalks the country, and the law-enforcement authorities are nowhere near stamping it out.

The latest outrage comes close on the heels of the gruesome terrorist attack on a church in Islamabad’s diplomatic enclave, which killed five and injured many others. The heinous crime, which puts a question mark on security arrangements in the capital, has once again highlighted the intensity and scope of the terrorist wave sweeping the country. Earlier, there had been a string of sectarian incidents, including the attack on a Rawalpindi mosque, which claimed many innocent lives and wounded scores of others. It coincided with the targeted killings of Shia doctors in Karachi and elsewhere which suggested that terrorists were acting upon a well-planned scheme to spill innocent blood and fuel sectarian violence. In the wake of the Islamabad church attack, the government has attributed it to various possibilities, including the reaction to its recent drive against terrorists and the crackdown on militants in the aftermath of the war in Afghanistan. These factors cannot, of course, be ruled out in Pakistan’s current situation, which warrants eternal vigilance and a definite strategy to check terrorism. That is also the message behind the incident in Lahore. Unless the security agencies unmask the faces behind the recent attacks, it is difficult to see how the war on terrorism can be prosecuted successfully.

Mujibur Rahman’s portrait

BITTER personal rivalry between Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina continues to haunt Bangladeshi democracy, as a standing committee in parliament decided to remove Mujibur Rahman’s portrait from all government offices and public buildings. The opposition Awami League, which has boycotted parliamentary proceedings since Khaleda Zia became prime minister after the general election in October last, now threatens to resign its 60 seats in a house of 300 if the government goes ahead with the move. It took Bangladesh 25 years to officially accord its founder-leader that status when, in 1996, Sheikh Hasina’s government made it mandatory for all public buildings to hang her father’s portrait. Back then, the move was approved by the Awami League majority in parliament but deeply resented by the opposition. Now that the two ladies’ fortunes have been reversed, the Bangladesh National Party-led government feels free to undo the decision.

Murdered in a bloody military coup within four years of his ascent to the new country’s presidency, Mujibur Rahman has, by turns, remained a popular and controversial figure in Bangladesh’s chequered political history. Now, as the government moves to downgrade his short-lived stature as the ‘Father of the Nation’ by removing his portraits from offices, schools and Bangladesh’s missions abroad, it only goes to show how Bangladeshi politics continues to be slave to emotive symbolism 31 years after independence. The Awami League’s resignations from parliament will accomplish nothing but deprive that party of its voice on the floor of the house, while the government will readily fill the vacated seats through by-elections. It is a pity that personal rivalries between the government and the opposition leaders should consign the real issues affecting the lives of millions of Bangladeshis to the backburner, and waste time on emotive symbolism instead. As for history, nobody can set the clock back and change the fact that Mujibur Rahman was the founder of Bangladesh, whether or not his portrait hangs in public buildings.