Ground realities & strategy

GROUND realities, national interest and strategy are buzzwords of the Musharraf government. You name an issue and the government has a strategy to deal with it based, of course, on “ground realities” and in consonance with the “national interest”. The net result of all these strategies, however, is that the country is in a state of turmoil internally and exposed to grave external threats to its security.

This is because in most cases, these strategies are short-sighted in nature as they sacrifice enduring and long-term factors for the sake of transitory elements instead of striking a balance between the two. Moreover, they, assign a low priority to public welfare, undermine the rule of law, promote dictatorial tendencies and lack an overall design presenting to the nation a vision of the future and a clear sense of direction.

Law and order, which is the primary and the most important function of any government, has deteriorated during the rule of General Musharraf as admitted by him in public statements from time to time. The carnage of May 12 in Karachi, where hooligans and ruffians were let loose to do as they pleased, and the tragic mishandling of the Lal Masjid affair with alleged links to the underworld of intelligence agencies, are the latest examples of the incompetence of the present government to come to grips with the law and order problem.

This was, however, to be expected under a government in which the ruler has installed himself in power in violation of the constitution and his oath not to engage himself in any political activities whatsoever. Such a military ruler loses the moral authority to demand compliance with the law from others.

In fact, the message that filters down to the lowest levels of the administration is that laws can be violated with impunity if one is sufficiently powerful. The situation is aggravated by the misuse or manipulation of the law and order machinery by the government for political purposes. Little wonder that Pakistan currently is in the grip of a wave of lawlessness.

After law and order, public welfare is the next most important function of the government. Here again, the record of the Musharraf government is dismal to say the least. A few facts and figures from the Pakistan Economic Survey for 2006-07 make the point.Let us take the case of education which is the basic right of every Pakistani and the main driving force behind the process of economic development. No nation in modern times has attained high levels of economic development without assigning a high priority to education. Despite the foregoing, historically speaking, military governments have accorded a low priority to education.

For instance, during General Ziaul Haq’s military rule in 1980s, the nation spent only 0.8 per cent of GNP on education as against the international target of four per cent. During the 1990s, under civilian governments the ratio was raised to 2.3 per cent only to fall to 1.6 per cent in 2000-01 soon after the military takeover.

On average, under the Musharraf regime, the nation has spent only 1.8 per cent of GNP per annum on education since 2000. Another interesting statistic is that the number of primary schools in the country has gone down from 162,000 in 1999-2000 to 157,000 in 2005-06, despite the increase in the number of children of school going age.

The situation in the health sector is no better. Under Musharraf, the nation has spent merely 0.6 per cent of GNP on health annually. It is said that one can see the future of a nation in its children. If they are healthy and well-educated, the country can expect to have a bright future. Judged from this standard, the Musharraf government’s performance does not allow one to paint a rosy picture about the nation’s future.

As for the man in the street, the widespread and grinding poverty, growing inequalities of income and wealth, inaccessibility to the necessities of life (particularly food items) because of high inflation, acute housing shortage and the non-availability of safe drinking water have added to the misery of daily life.

While the Musharraf regime has utterly failed to attend to the welfare of the common man, defence allocation has been increased to Rs380 billion approximately in the budget for 2006-07 if one adds military pensions and the Rs60 billion received annually by the armed forces from the US.

While an average Pakistani is faced with grave economic and social problems, it seems all that the military establishment can think of is making a new GHQ at the reported astronomical cost of Rs240 billion and increase its perks and privileges. There couldn’t be more convincing evidence of the insensitivity of the present military regime to the basic needs of the common man in Pakistan.

The limited space of this column does not permit a critical evaluation of the claims of economic progress made by the Musharraf regime, which have been vastly exaggerated to say the least. Suffice it to say that our average GDP growth rate of 5.4 per cent per annum during General Musharraf’s rule is only marginally higher than the corresponding growth rate of 4.6 per cent achieved during civilian rule in the 1990s despite economic sanctions during that period because of Pakistan’s nuclear programme. The fact that India has achieved a GDP growth rate of 9.4 per cent should give Musharraf’s economic planners food for thought about Pakistan’s comparatively weaker economic performance.

But it is in the domestic political field that one comes across the most serious failings of General Musharraf’s regime. What we have now is a military government in Pakistan under the guise of democracy. The country is saddled with one-man rule with all its attendant adverse consequences in the form of political instability, the damaging of state institutions questions about the professionalism of the armed forces because of their growing involvement in politics, provincial disharmony, increasing corruption and lawlessness.

The situation on the external front is equally worrisome. During most of its history, Pakistan had to worry basically about the threat to its security emanating from India. The Musharraf government has worked itself into a situation where we are forced to deploy about 80,000 of our troops, a sizable part of the army, on the western border with Afghanistan while the long-term threat from India has not yet totally disappeared.

The presence of foreign forces in Afghanistan, our current unhappy relations with Kabul, the instability in our tribal areas, Pakistan’s tarnished image as the epicentre of international terrorism and the lack of the traditional warmth in our relations with Iran is in large part due to our military’s ill-conceived pro-Taliban policy pursued with total abandon from 1995 to 2001. In the process, Pakistan was dangerously isolated at the regional and international level and was destabilised internally. We are still facing the harmful consequences of that policy, despite the U-turn forced on us by the Americans after 9/11.

Our Kashmir and India policies also suffer from this syndrome of pre-occupation with the current realities to the neglect of their future trends. They also betray a lack of vision and a clear sense of direction on the part of policymakers and leaders. It is interesting to watch the architects of the Kargil disaster and of the hard-line taken at the Agra summit play the tune of Pakistan-India amity and cooperation. While sanity demands tension-free and good-neighbourly relations and mutually beneficial cooperation with India, we should conduct our India policy in a balanced manner keeping in view our short-term as well as long-term interests.

For instance, while it makes perfect sense to develop bilateral trade with India on a level playing field, it is not in our interest to join the project for the establishment of a South Asian Economic Union which would ultimately result in decisions about our economy being taken in New Delhi. This can be only a short step away from the loss of independence of action in the political and security fields. We should, instead, try to reap the benefits of an economic union within the framework of the Economic Cooperation Organisation.

In conclusion, the Musharraf government’s strategies in the internal political, economic and security spheres have engendered political instability, neglected public welfare, failed to realise our full potential for economic growth and development and encouraged lawlessness in the country. Externally, we seem to lack an over-arching design or architecture of foreign policy which would integrate its political, economic and security aspects into an integrated and harmonious whole best suited to serve our short-term and long-term national interests.

The need of the hour is for a grand strategy which would provide the vision and a clear sense of direction to the nation for the realisation of its aspirations in a well-planned manner taking into account the ground realities and their likely future shape. However, this can be accomplished only by a democratically elected, representative government enjoying the support of the people as demanded by the declaration adopted by the APC recently in London. Only such a government can successfully face internal and external challenges.

The writer is a former ambassador.
E-mail: javid_husain@yahoo.com

A positive role for religion

THE practice of strictly following the basic rules and teachings of any religion is called fundamentalism. However, in current usage this term has assumed negative connotations.

It is now used to portray religious bigots as fundamentalists, which is erroneous and misleading. There is nothing wrong in being committed to the teachings of one’s religion and wanting to follow its tenets strictly, provided that the basics of one’s faith are not distorted by the follower.

Paradoxically, the diversity of thought among the followers of the same religion is often justified on the basis of an individual’s freedom of choice. These people, however, tend to ignore the fact that the fundamental aim of a religion is the quest for peace that can be achieved only by creating unity.

There is ample evidence to suggest that some misguided elements under the guise of so-called fundamentalism not only undermine the moral foundations of society that are based on human values, but, in order to impose their perverted views on others, they do not even hesitate to use violent means that are a serious deviation from the basic belief of any religion.

It must also be noted that the vast majority of the population remains silent when religious extremists mount politically motivated hate campaigns against the followers of other faiths.

Religious bigots are generally not amenable to reason. They believe that they are right in their thinking to the exclusion of others’ views. Such thinking not only shows a lack of insight and pragmatism on their part but is actually an affront to the religion they claim to follow.

It is also important to note that these elements are divided into factions that do not always get along with one another and follow different routes in pursuing their objective. It is not difficult to visualise where such interpretations of religion would lead the world if those who subscribe to extremism are allowed to pursue their questionable ambitions with impunity.

Regrettably, no region in the world, not even one that is generally considered well ordered and that is fully integrated with the international community, is immune from the ominous influence of religious extremism. Anti-extremism is undoubtedly a rallying cry throughout the world but in most countries, particularly those belonging to the Third World, it is used only for political purposes rather than to provide a sense of direction.

As a result, these countries have been sucked into the vortex of religious extremism with disastrous consequences for society, Pakistan’s example being a case in point. The struggle against religious extremism in Pakistan has remained ineffectual because of the lack of attention paid by successive governments to disaffected young people who have caused the ranks of extremist outfits to swell.

There is ample evidence to suggest that a predominantly illiterate and gullible population is an easy prey for irrational beliefs. The role of religious education, therefore, could be made to contribute effectively to counter all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on the convictions of faith.

Unesco, in its report on the role of religious education, has recommended that it should be conceived as a tool to transmit knowledge and values pertaining to all religious trends, in an inclusive way so that individuals realise their being part of the same community and learn to create their own identity that should be in harmony with identities different from their own.

It is also important to focus on educational alternatives, including inter-religious understanding and cooperation, responding to needs for personal and communal transformation, inter-cultural enrichment and stimulus for tolerance.

Some international organisations sponsor special programmes on multi-religious education to prevent intolerance and promote peace and justice in pluralist communities. It is desirable that such programmes are sponsored by Unesco on a regular basis to contribute to a real culture of tolerance in countries that need one.

Religion has an enormous influence upon its adherents and should serve as a catalyst to regulate all facets of life. Regrettably, for centuries millions of people have gone through untold tyranny at the hands of bigots who exploit their religion to secure their own interests. However, in these modern times, religion should not be used to seek power and subjugate others.

Instead, it should play a positive role in promoting the unity of mankind, regardless of ideological differences. Governments and their people should not allow themselves to be overpowered by religious fanatics, but should make concerted efforts to fight bigotry and hatred.

There can be no global peace unless there is peace among the adherents of different faiths. The UN has launched an “Alliance of Civilisations” to bridge the divide between various religions and overcome prejudice, misconceptions and polarisation arising out of this.

So-called fundamentalists are too dogmatic in their worldview which contains the seeds of their own destruction. People have become aware of this. No wonder that obscurant thinking has failed to win over large sections of society. It is true that religious extremism is present in many parts of the world but its influence is declining. People throughout the world are now becoming oriented towards rationalism rather than being guided by emotions.

Religion, used positively, is an effective tool with which to harness the forces of unity. Events in this region and beyond have indicated the futility of employing a negative approach towards religion. A positive approach would be much more in keeping with good prospects for interfaith peace and harmony across the world.

The write is a former ambassador.

Privilege has its limits

WITH President Bush invoking executive privilege to prevent former aides from testifying about the firings of eight US attorneys, and congressional Democrats hinting at a cover-up, it seems naive to ask why the branches of government can’t just get along. Yet, even at this late date, it’s in the interest of both Bush and Congress to dismount their respective constitutional high horses.

To do so, they should embrace a compromise floated three months ago by Sens. Charles E. Schumer and Arlen Specter . Under the plan, present and former White House aides would testify for the record, but without having to swear an oath. That compromise would split the difference between the White House position that the aides be interviewed informally, with no transcript, and the enforcement of congressional subpoenas.

Admittedly, the two sides are still in a war of words. In a letter to the House and Senate judiciary committees, White House Counsel Fred F. Fielding sputtered that Congress doesn’t understand that “in order to fulfil his constitutional functions, the president … needs the protection of a principle that shields his close advisors from open-ended inquiry by another branch of government.” Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, lashed back by asking: “What is the White House hiding?”

Both sides are arguing from positions of weakness. For Congress, the problems are legal and practical. Just as the devil can quote Scripture, Bush can cite the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. The 1974 case of U.S. vs. Nixon is remembered mostly for its bottom line — that President Nixon had to surrender incriminating White House tape recordings to a special prosecutor. But in reaching that result, the court essentially held that the Watergate investigation was the exception that proved the rule.

Sounding like Fielding, then-Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote: “A president and those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately. These are the considerations justifying a presumptive privilege for presidential communications [that is] inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution.”

That’s not only the law, but also sensible. Presidents should be able to confide in aides and to solicit advice without it being made public. President Eisenhower memorably refused to allow associates to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee during its run amok.

There are limits to that privacy, however, and that too is appropriate. Burger said that presumption must yield when presidential documents were the subject of a subpoena issued by a grand jury in a criminal investigation. But Congress’ investigation of the US attorneys dismissals is likely to be viewed, especially by the current Supreme Court, as much less weighty.

So Congress has an incentive to compromise. But so does Bush. If he continues to thwart Congress’ investigation, Democrats will be tempted to demand that the Justice Department appoint a special counsel to probe whether at least some of the firings involved obstruction of justice.

The administration has insisted throughout this affair that no prosecutor was fired for doing his or her job, and even Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, one of the administration’s harshest critics, has acknowledged that “we have yet to find the smoking gun” of criminality.

— Los Angeles Times