Financing dams
IF we imagine the country to be a car, it needs wheel alignment to drive straight. No matter how powerful the engine, if each wheel decides to go its own way, the ride will be wobbly and bumpy, and the vehicle would be at constant risk of ending up in a ditch.
While we do not tire of repeating that each component of the state should stick to the role assigned to it by the Constitution, ask anyone amongst us as to who should supervise the general elections, and pat comes the reply — ‘the army’. Who should make sure that the population census is held properly? No prizes for guessing everyone’s preferred choice of institution — the army. This is true of even those who claim that an overzealous military tries to shine at their expense.
Of late, we have seen another hyperactive player, the superior judiciary. Who goaded it into this live-wire act? We. All of us. Something requires legislation, and instead of demanding the legislators get their act together, we knock on the courts’ doors. In case the political parties have differences amongst themselves, instead of debating it on the floor of parliament, petitions are filed in the courts. This is often seen to encourage the messiah complex to take over usually well-meaning but overreaching individuals. Before you know it, prices of sugar, fertiliser and petroleum products are all being determined by the judiciary.
The controversy over a particular dam has festered for such a long time that it has held hostage the entire discourse on water and power resources development. Suffer 18 hours of load-shedding? Blame it on not having dams. Come under a deluge not seen since the times of Noah? Blame it on not having dams. Experience a soul-sapping drought? Well, you’ve guessed it — blame it on not having dams. Since we found the ‘silver bullet’, the only remaining question was who would fire it? The ‘judgement’ is out, complete with directives to set up a bank account for the public to donate for the construction of two dams. The army as an institution has also announced its contribution to the cause.
Let us assume we donate generously. Is this the way to go?
This is all well and good, except that the vehicle in our analogy has been in a rut for such a long time that two of its wheels seem to have found their own synergy, while the other two feel the drag.
When it comes to donations and charity, Pakistanis are not just a very giving people but at par with developed nations. According to the Pakistan Centre for Philanthropy, the equivalent of about $2 billion is given in charity by Pakistanis every year. This is not limited to the well-to-do. Everybody, rich and poor, gives. Amazing that a country that has struggled to collect direct taxes from hardly 10 per cent of its population has 98pc of its people practising individual charity.
Why people have no faith in their government’s ability to put their tax money to good use is a subject for a separate piece but suffice it to say that it has never been explained and communicated properly, which just adds to the complexity of the state-citizen trust deficit.
So the court has ordered the construction of dams. Let us assume Pakistanis donate wholeheartedly. For argument’s sake, let us also assume no external financing is required. Is this the way to go? One very clear and present danger is that other public institutions will hide behind the order to circumvent good practice and due diligence. The chairman Wapda has welcomed the order, reportedly saying that it will help with land acquisition issues faced by dam construction projects. Could this mean that anyone who questions the compensation offered in return for land will be told that ‘this is a court order, you are committing contempt’? Environmental groups and civil society activists who would want to get involved for ensuring best safeguard practices may also be told they are inviting the court’s ire.
Lest anyone is dismissive of the importance of doing the dams well, please look at legacy issues dating back to Tarbela, that marvel from the ’70s. Land acquisition and compensation issues are still pending from that era. Special provisions were kept in the financing plans of the 1990s’ Ghazi Barotha project and the currently ongoing Dasu hydropower project to resolve the Tarbela legacy issues. Yet, the latter persist to this day.
A court order should in no way preclude full participation by the ministries of finance, water and power, environmental protection agencies, regulating bodies, civil society and local communities. Economic rates of return and revenue streams can all be supervised by a body of development experts like Dr Ishrat Hussain, Dr Faisal Bari and Dr Hanid Mukhtar, to name just a few. There is no dearth of able people in Pakistan. It’s just that ‘we the people’ should not be neglected like the spare wheel in the boot.
The writer is a poet and analyst.
Published in Dawn, July 22nd, 2018