It's a little longer then planned, I hope you won't mind.
It is quiet a shame there are so many repetitive articles written in Pakistan each claiming to clear the fog and deliver the solution for which the nation has been waiting. The basic premise of this thinking itself sits on a weak platform, there’s in-built arrogance displayed by these writers. A cursory look at their ideas shows the obvious weaknesses that they themselves are blind to, yet are ready to preach to the nation.
Let’s look at this article, his initial rambling was far too boring and I had to rush forward to his solutions, so i’ll get to the point, and perhaps offer a suggestion or two towards the end, not suggestions that hold the magic formula, just ideas.
1. His first proposal concerns decentralisation to turn 38 existing divisions into the second tier of government, but he doesn’t actually use a describable term, which is childish, they have to be called states or provinces, but he chooses to stay away from using any term because as he goes on to point towards the trauma of reorganisation of existing provinces.
Does he not realise that converting the existing divisions into second tier is the process of reorganisation of exiting province that he wants to avoid, what is he talking about? He wants to avoid the very thing he is proposing, duplicity in the same paragraph, in the same proposal, this is extremely childish.
How can he refute his own proposal in the same paragraph? that’s what I mean, they come out with simple ideas without having thought through anything, and their only argument for the proposals are always based on, it happens there, it was tried here so it might work in Pakistan as well, no arguments for or against, nothing except simple comparisons with other countries form their whole argument.
A proposal should have arguments based on merits or demerits of any proposals, and only then, examples should be used to support your arguments, not use examples as the basis of your whole argument.
You simple cannot suggest creation of new second tier, which effectively is a province, and suggest that you want to oppose reorganisation of exiting province because it would create too much “trauma”, I am shocked at the lack of intellect being displayed by this author and the newspaper dawn.
2. His second proposal regards the devaluation of maximum powers to the newly created provinces, which he is already confused about. But the central point of his argument is about Bangladesh and it’s so called development, and I assume in his view an ideal governing structure that has delivered that development. This is frustratingly, beyond comprehension.
Bangladesh is a unitary state, all the powers are exercised by the centre, the centre holds far more powers then in Pakistan. How can he provide an example as a basis of his argument, but that example has a reality totally contrary to what he is proposing, a neurosurgeon needs to look at his brain to make sure all the connections are intact, not only is the proposal childish, but the argument on which his proposal is based is divorced from reality.
He also points towards the Gulf kingdoms as the ideal form of government, I seriously can’t even answer this point because it is ridiculous beyond measure. He is complaining about injustices of the centre, the assumption being that the Gulf states are far better justice based societies, you cannot even breathe without the permission of the monarch, and he thinks that is better. If anyone thinks Gulf societies are more fairer then Pakistan, that person deserves nothing but pity
The opposition in Bangladesh is under total government pressure, and the entire governance system, including the elections are seriously compromised far far more then in Pakistan, somehow he sees that as the ideal. I am sorry to say but this guy is an idiot.
3. His third proposal is with regards to governance, he starts by blowing the biggest fart in the history of mankind, by suggesting a monarchy as an ideal form of governance, failing which he is proposing using a system of “sortition” harking back to the ancient Greek civilisation. The modern nations of Europe have learnt from these early ideas and reformed them for their nations, and the modern age, but this guy wants to take Pakistan back thousands of years to use a system which magically will produce ideal rulers free from all realities of life, perfection in a box. This is a joke.
I have written enough already but someone needs to pay this guy to make sure he stops writing another piece about governance or provide any more ideas about Pakistan, he has constantly contradicted himself, and the entire basis of his arguments that form his proposals are silly examples and wishful thinking that has no basis in reality.
In my view the system is not broken, it is weak, yes, it needs to be strengthened, yes, but not radically changed because no system is perfect, look at all the mature nations of the world, the countries that are stable not just in governance but those that also have stable societies. The only constant you’ll find in those countries is the lack of change, they simply do not change, that is why many of those nations still have monarchies, but those monarchies are different, weakening and evolving towards extinction, because it is always about gradual change.
Constant radical change always, always creates instability, because no change is a fixed formula, you never know what you are going to get, until that change is implemented, the implementation is done by people, no matter how noble the the intentions, you cannot judge the final outcome until it reveals itself. When mistakes arise, and they will arise because perfection does not exist, then you’ll have to make more changes, or cry about another radical change, and on it goes, I hope you can see a circle developing, because this yearning for change is a never ending circle, providing constant instability.
The only way forward is to accept the exiting system, and look for weaknesses and improve on those, gradually, not radically, not sudden, not anything except gradual change within the same system, because that is the only way we will achieve stable and good governance. It will not happen overnight, it is not a magic bullet, try it for couple of decades, and see the results, because you will see positive results.
To address his points.
1.
We do need more provinces, but they can only be created through consensus, there is no magic formula, it has to happen through consensus, this is exactly how it happens in other countries, there is no other way, but to search for consensus you need stability, meaning no long marches, no constant crying, accepting election results, allowing governments to complete their terms, once these basic things happen, the consensus for new provinces will be built very easily, extremely quickly.
If you listen to the politicians, they already recognise the need, but how can you achieve this when they’re not talking to each other. Stability first, change will come naturally.
To achieve the above start by reducing the terms from 5 years to 4 years. 5 years is not suitable for our conditions, the politicians get a heart attack after each election, because they cannot stand waiting for that long before their next shot for power. That’s why after 3 years agitation starts.
Reduce the term to 4 years, this will also reduce the time available for governments to play with economic numbers, it seems, 5 years is long enough for them to play hide and seek with the economy, they get things right by year 5 to look good, but leave a need for IMF for the next government. Reducing the timeframe to 4 years will reduce the time available, it is likely to have positive overall benefits.
2.
The level of devaluation in Pakistan is already far more then required, actually some of the departments need to be bough back to central government. I won’t go in details, but personally I would like to bring back the concurrent list, because areas such a archeology have national and provincial importance. Having the concurrent list back means the system can remain as is, but it will allow more manoeuvring space for the central government, which at present is missing. A solution can be reached, further devaluation of powers is not the answer, it will create further deadlocks in our governance, they already hate sharing power, once given more powers you’ll just have permanent deadlock.
3.
If the above points are followed, the points under this section will fall into place.
Please keep in mind, there is no magic formula, it is always about gradual change. Issues exist in every country on earth, especially developing nations, but they don’t make a drama out of it, as much as we do. Please let’s just fight for gradual change, not radical change, otherwise this mess will never stop.
And, also, it is time for the army to stick with it’s constitutional duties, they have played their role in forming a strong Pakistan, for which we are thankful, now this nation has different ideals, paramount being that only the people have the right to decide and choose their rulers, no-one else.
@RescueRanger
asiatimes.com
timesofindia.indiatimes.com
