Flawed power plan

THE sins of the government are being visited on the people. For seven years the planners in Islamabad did next to nothing to increase power generation, and it was only last year that the government finally woke up to reality as the electricity shortage began to spiral out of control. Even then, supply is yet to improve as demand continues to soar. In the absence of alternatives, the emphasis now is on conservation until new plants become operational and hydroelectricity levels can be boosted through additional water releases. Top officials, including the prime minister, are quick to link the increased demand for energy — the water and power secretary calls it “prosperity-driven” — to the vibrant economic growth of recent years. Though correct in part, this claim ignores the government’s failure to plan for the future. As finance and later prime minister, Mr Shaukat Aziz focused on turning the economy around and to an extent he succeeded, even though the growth was top-heavy and failed to filter down to the poor. The consequences should have been foreseen by the planners — higher productivity would lead to a greater demand for electricity. Yet, despite this obvious correlation, total installed generation capacity increased by only 10 per cent between 1999 and 2005-06. Little surprise then the country is now facing a serious power crisis.

The need to conserve energy cannot be denied. According to the government, demand currently exceeds supply by almost 980MW and this gap could widen to 1,500MW in the next three weeks. Others forecast that the shortage may grow to as much as 2,300MW when summer is at its peak. In this scenario, the government’s load-management plan for the next three weeks would have been welcomed had it not been flawed. Invoking the Shops Act and shutting down commercial concerns by 8pm is tantamount to punishing the victims. Since electricity cannot be stored — it has to be used as and when it is generated — any power saved at night through this measure will have no impact on daytime supply. As such, the loadshedding regimen in the daylight hours will continue as is, meaning that shopkeepers will have to suffer outages through the day and then be required to pull down the shutters at 8pm. Passing on the benefits of staggering the weekly holidays in the manufacturing sector to commercial and domestic users may make a difference, but that is unlikely as the load will probably be redistributed within the industrial zones. The move will also adversely affect working people and their families who can conduct routine and other shopping only after office hours. Similar measures in Karachi last year failed to produce tangible results and, moreover, opened new avenues for graft.

A more sensible approach would have been to first determine how much energy can be saved by eliminating usage that is non-essential. Though billboards will apparently be powered off after sunset under the new plan, a lot more needs to be done. At a time of crisis, there is no need for floodlit mega parks and brightly illuminated monuments and historical buildings. Tower blocks housing both private and government offices remain lit up all night long and this practice should be stopped forthwith. Also, it has to be ensured that streetlights that sometimes remain on well into the day are switched off at sunrise. The government needs to begin with the basics.

Afghan refugees in Pakistan

THE UNHCR’s report on Afghan refugees released on Thursday should come as an eye-opener. Based on a 15-week registration exercise carried out by Nadra, this report finds that there are more than 2.1 million Afghan refugees still in Pakistan — after 2.3 million had returned in 2003-06. Of these 84 per cent do not wish to go back. This has created a dilemma for Pakistan which has been unequivocal about its policy of repatriating all Afghans by 2009. Those who have not got themselves registered face the threat of immediate forcible repatriation. The report confirms some significant facts that make it even more difficult to plan voluntary repatriation that would be an ideal solution. For instance, it is now revealed that 74 per cent of the Afghans in Pakistan are below 28 years of age. That makes it likely that most of them were born here and have no memories of or emotional attachment to Afghanistan. Nearly 71 per cent have no formal education and only a handful of them are active in the labour market. In other words, the Afghan refugees are an impoverished and under-privileged lot who could be a potentially rich source of human talent but in their present state they are a lia-

bility for the country of their residence.

The most significant deterrent to repatriation is the insecurity in Afghanistan which 41 per cent have cited as the main reason for their not wishing to go back home. Unfortunately, in the present conditions this is a factor over which Islamabad has little control. This provides an additional reason for the Musharraf government to cooperate with Kabul for the normalisation and pacification of Afghanistan. Meanwhile, Pakistan should persist in its policy of closing down the refugee camps in the border areas — four have already been shut down and four more will be closed by August and their inmates shifted to other centres. Thus, these camps will not become sanctuaries for the Taliban militants who are mainly responsible for the turmoil in the trans-Durand areas. While they are staying in Pakistan, the Afghan refugees should be provided education, healthcare and jobs, where possible. This is the least that humanitarian considerations call for.

Importance of air safety

IT shouldn’t come as a surprise but it is nonetheless shocking to hear just how poorly equipped the Civil Aviation Authority really is. Its air traffic control system, the backbone of all airports, is so outdated that it poses serious risks to passengers’ lives. This disturbing fact was revealed in the National Assembly on Wednesday after which the Speaker asked the parliamentary secretary for defence to submit a detailed report on May 15. If correctly presented, the facts are bound to make for depressing reading, for the report will document how ill-equipped and understaffed the CAA is and how overworked its air traffic controllers are. Two examples highlight this point: the CAA system was once unable to detect an Indian plane in Pakistani air space and lapses in air control apparently caused last year’s Fokker crash in Multan in which 45 died. This is criminal negligence on the part of the CAA. That it has done nothing to address these serious problems, or even smaller ones like ensuring that all airports are equipped with firefighting services, shows the CAA’s callous attitude. It is this approach that has caused the CAA’s deterioration. The same is true of PIA which seems to have learnt nothing from the recent ban imposed by the European Union on several of its planes for failing to meet international standards of safety. Passengers’ safety, as well as the safety of those working in airports, must be the organisation’s top priority.

The government needs to act fast to rectify the situation. Instead of spending billions on constructing fancy airports, it should provide funds for upgrading air traffic control systems. There can be no arguments about this critical task. It is equally important to ensure that CAA personnel are properly trained and equipped to do their jobs efficiently.

Prospects of government, PPP deal

AN old topic in Pakistan that has remained the focus of media attention and current political debate is whether President Musharraf is prepared to secure a deal with Benazir Bhutto and whether she is ready in return to support him for a second term in office in return for making her prime minister or chairman of the Senate in the next government.

Supporters of this theory point to the recent statement of Benazir Bhutto in which she has said that in the event of her party forming the next government, she will have no objection to General Musharraf remaining president for another term. She has also said on an earlier occasion that her party is prepared to talk to the government depending upon what is on offer at the time of negotiations.

On the other hand, senior leaders of the Pakistan People's Party have denied that there has been any deal and urged the people not to believe the rumours churned out by the government machinery, apparently to dishearten hard line PPP supporters and make them vote tactically. Unfortunately, the debate has not moved forward to consider issues that lie beyond this speculation.

In actual effect, the use of the term ‘deal’ in the present context is a misnomer. Political agreements are part of the fabric of democracy and government formation. Politicians invest substantial time and effort building support for themselves and their polices among the public and within the parliament. They also prepare public opinion by issuing deliberately contradictory statements as if to test the waters and adjust their policies according to public response.

This process gains momentum in every election year resulting in coalition agreements in the post-election period in the event of a hung parliament or when no party is able to form a government on its own.

Pakistan’s opposition parties seem to have calculated that given the recent political unrest and the government’s defensive posture, it will not be easy for the president and his ruling coalition to continue the status quo for long.

This is due to three factors:

(1) the president is now facing great difficulty keeping the popular support for himself which he has so far enjoyed more than any other political leader since Zulfikar Ali Bhutto;

(2) the current institutional structure of the presidency giving him two official roles as an exception will constitutionally become obsolete at the end of his first term in office with no sight of a pliant Supreme Court to authenticate a parliamentary extension, if granted by the outgoing National Assembly and other components of the disparate electoral college;

(3) the increasing view within the army that the changes required to improve society are so fundamental that it is in the best interest of the country to let the politicians bear the brunt of the reforms rather then place the institution of the army in the limelight with no exit plan in sight.

This raises the question about the moral justification for the president to enter into a coalition arrangement with the leader of the party whom he has previously discredited as a failed prime minister. But in the context of realpolitik; this is only a minor consideration.

In fact, Benazir Bhutto also has to cross the barrier of the charter of democracy which she signed with Nawaz Sharif in London in 2006 promising to restore democracy in Pakistan. Yet, an accommodation offers mutual benefits to both sides.

General Musharraf’s vision of an enlightened Pakistan is very close to the liberal ideology of the PPP. The president is as popular internationally as is Benazir Bhutto. The majority of Pakistanis are unlikely to find any substantive difference in the policies and direction of the country which the present government is currently pursuing and a PPP-led government were to pursue in future, in the event of the party’s majority in parliament.

Following the 2002 elections, Pakistan moved from a military regime to civilian rule represented by a functioning parliament and an elected prime minister but it was at best a hybrid democracy in which authoritarian practices symbolised by the policies of the army continued to exist with a formally representative democratic system. In 2007, the transition from hybrid democracy to deliberative democracy has begun to emerge.

In this transition, public deliberation, represented by an assertive free media and an active civil society, filled a range of discursive spheres and developed engagement with the state in a variety of critical and collaborative forms.

It is, therefore, no surprise that so many issues ranging from the lawyers’ protest to the media’s resurgence and demonstrations by extremists as well as supporters of moderation and secularism have all occurred this year almost at the same time.

These developments have ironically prevented the government from sinking into stagnation. If these challenges were not there, a politically settled regime free from creativity and risks would have become self serving and complacent.

The president is still listened to seriously when he addresses the people at home or his peers abroad. This is because he leads a country which is faced with serious threats and challenges. He has managed to induct in the government highly educated technocrats and professionally trained policymakers.

This is a plus point as the country benefits from their experience. But it can also be argued that this is not a good trend because it can undermine democratic governance and risk such standard democratic features as public accountability, checks and balances, effective political representation and transparency.

At a recent seminar in London which discussed Pakistan’s future security and economic prospects, it was clear that the focus on economic rationality and efficiency is so high in the minds of the technocrat administration in Islamabad that it tends to discount populism which gives social welfare policies priority or aims to create the popular support required to sustain and stabilise democratic societies.

It is no secret that when economic policies framed by technocrats fail to generate broader prosperity and remove inequalities and poverty levels, voters lose confidence in the very government that pushed reforms.

The results of the last elections in India where the BJP used the slogan ‘India Shining’ and in Sri Lanka where the UNP used the slogan ‘Regaining Sri Lanka’ did not return incumbent governments to power because the common man on the street never saw India shining or Sri Lanka regaining prosperity on his personal home turf.

A future coalition arrangement between President Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto suits the former more because in the event of a backlash of the people against the ruling PML-Q in the next election, he can always do business with the PPP if the latter can prove that it indeed carries the largest vote bank in the country.

The arrangement also suits Benazir Bhutto because she needs the army to lend support on such sensitive issues as a military push against the Al Qaeda in the NWFP, Balochistan and Fata, as well as the normalisation of relations with India.

In return for lending support to General Musharraf for getting re-elected for the second term and giving up his military uniform, Benazir Bhutto can also claim to have followed the letter and spirit of the charter of democracy which talks about making the military establishment subservient to representative institutions.

Given the cooperation that the MQM has extended to the president with occasional chidings to the Islamabad establishment on how to take democratic decisions in coalitions, it is most likely that the MQM will work out an arrangement with the PPP to overcome the grievances of the past about which it still feels very bitter.

The advantage of thinking out of the box politics is that it provides opportunities for discussing wider coalition agreements involving other parties. We know that the leader of MMA recently met Nawaz Sharif in London to discuss their respective parties’ approach to the next elections.

There is nothing unusual about such contacts. These are signs of a healthy political culture. The time has perhaps come for the component political parties in the ARD and outside it to move on and seek alliances on substantive policy issues, beyond the aim of restoring full democracy in the country.

Groupings are easy to form among parties when their manifestoes and action-oriented objectives coincide. This will be a good development towards the consolidation of political parties in the country. It is said that the US does not have two parties but 100 parties, two from each state. But they are known as Democrats and Republicans. Pakistan, too, can have two clearly defined political forces, one ranging from the extreme conservatism to the right of centre, and the other ranging from post-liberal to left of centre.

In between the ‘republican’ and ‘democratic’ mainstreams, there will always be other political parties claiming to be either neo-conservative or neo-liberal, but if they are small and lack popular appeal, they will never be able to form a government on their own without entering into coalitions.

The writer is a former special adviser for political affairs in the Commonwealth Secretariat, London.