ajpirzada
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2008
- Messages
- 6,011
- Reaction score
- 11
- Country
- Location
I did not intend to write on this subject because decades of public service have taught me the value of restraint when it come to publicly commenting on meetings with the head of state.
More so, when these are designed for, as stated by the president, brainstorming and benefiting from the collective wisdom of former members of the bureaucracy. However, last Sundays article The advent of Asif Zardari by my friend and senior colleague Kunwar Idris who was also invited to meet the president has persuaded me to set aside this unwritten taboo.
The meeting was unusual. Never before had a head of state invited so many retired bureaucrats and asked them to speak their mind on national issues. The mere fact that several dozen retired bureaucrats, who could no longer influence decision-making, were invited to the presidency for a frank discussion showed that the incumbent valued good counsel.
Each former bureaucrat had served past governments in different capacities, acquiring expertise, perspective and knowledge from which any government could benefit. After all, there is no monopoly on the truth and wisdom that emerge from discussions among a large number of people. Each individual lays claim to a bit of the reality. The feeling that the president saw merit in drawing from this pool of knowledge was reassuring. A striking feature in President Zardaris discourse was his emphasis on developing genuine consensus among different political forces and interest groups. Kunwar Idris has concluded that in his passion for consensus Zardari has ignored the huge cost involved, and points to the jumbo-sized cabinets.
If I recall correctly Zardari himself sought to explain it by saying that not only had the population increased manifold since partition, the nature and multiplicity of problems too had grown over the years. It was no longer possible to run the state effectively with only seven ministers as was possible at the time of independence or with 13 ministers later in West Pakistan. Not the most convincing argument for jumbo-sized cabinets but the president had a point.
This, however, is not the most important issue on which to judge the president in a parliamentary democracy.
A meeting of a few hours is not long enough to pass judgment. But it does permit one to observe the compass. President Zardari seemed to be breaking new ground on certain critical national issues. His frank talk that evening, particularly about militancy, was most refreshing. He appeared desperately to be looking for solutions. A former senior bureaucrat said that the militants were not controlled because the civil bureaucracy had weakened over the years. The president was quick to dismiss this in a frank manner.
Zardari said he thought that the militants and extremists had emerged on the national scene not because the civil bureaucracy was weak. In fact, they had been deliberately created and nurtured with the help of the international community as an instrument of policy in the 1980s. He then went on to advise the former bureaucrats to be truthful to ourselves and make a candid admission of the realities. It was refreshing to hear him say that the terrorists of today were the heroes of yesteryears until 9/11. They then began to haunt us.
Although it is common knowledge that the militants were deliberately created the state has been in denial. Zardari has broken new ground in the fight against militancy by admitting that they were a product of deliberate policy.
It is true that while the threat from home-grown extremists and foreign militants grew the civil administration weakened. Mr Idris has a point in asserting that Musharrafs seeking to change the system with the nazims and making them responsible for law and order as well had undermined the civil administration. But then it would not be fair to blame Zardari for what Musharraf did, particularly now that the provinces are seeking to reclaim their powers to make changes in the local government laws.
The president did not agree with the suggestion of holding fresh elections. But this should not be held against him. It is hard to appreciate fresh elections just because Musharraf has exited the scene or theres tribal violence or because the nation had seen its worst judicial crisis. Not many in the country would want general elections within 18 months of the last one.
During dinner, the president spoke of harmony and was against the concentration of power in a few hands. We want to keep all the political forces together in a harmonious relationship, he said, adding that we were at the brink and could not indulge in political games for personal gains. He said that he knew that if he concentrated too much power in his own hands it would last for too short a time. For power to be effectively used for long-lasting public good it must be diffused. He also appeared to appreciate the prime minister over the way he handled the difficulties of a coalition government. This was no small talk.
On balance Zardari appeared keen on a consensus, open to suggestion, interested in learning about different perspectives and willing to learn from past mistakes. He seemed almost impatient to break new ground in domains that have slipped out of the hands of the civilian leadership.
The point is not to assert that he is free of controversies. He has been mired in many since his marriage to Benazir Bhutto, especially when the latter became prime minister. He has been the butt of jokes and innuendos and the subject of some serious allegations. But then which public leader has not been accused of errors of omission and commission? The point is that as president a new aspect of Zardari is coming to light. He has been in the driving seat for less than a year and deserves to be given time before being judged in a hurry.
The writer is a former federal secretary
DAWN.COM | Pakistan | Meeting the president
---------- Post added at 11:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 AM ----------
i think he has improved a lot after judiciary crisis
More so, when these are designed for, as stated by the president, brainstorming and benefiting from the collective wisdom of former members of the bureaucracy. However, last Sundays article The advent of Asif Zardari by my friend and senior colleague Kunwar Idris who was also invited to meet the president has persuaded me to set aside this unwritten taboo.
The meeting was unusual. Never before had a head of state invited so many retired bureaucrats and asked them to speak their mind on national issues. The mere fact that several dozen retired bureaucrats, who could no longer influence decision-making, were invited to the presidency for a frank discussion showed that the incumbent valued good counsel.
Each former bureaucrat had served past governments in different capacities, acquiring expertise, perspective and knowledge from which any government could benefit. After all, there is no monopoly on the truth and wisdom that emerge from discussions among a large number of people. Each individual lays claim to a bit of the reality. The feeling that the president saw merit in drawing from this pool of knowledge was reassuring. A striking feature in President Zardaris discourse was his emphasis on developing genuine consensus among different political forces and interest groups. Kunwar Idris has concluded that in his passion for consensus Zardari has ignored the huge cost involved, and points to the jumbo-sized cabinets.
If I recall correctly Zardari himself sought to explain it by saying that not only had the population increased manifold since partition, the nature and multiplicity of problems too had grown over the years. It was no longer possible to run the state effectively with only seven ministers as was possible at the time of independence or with 13 ministers later in West Pakistan. Not the most convincing argument for jumbo-sized cabinets but the president had a point.
This, however, is not the most important issue on which to judge the president in a parliamentary democracy.
A meeting of a few hours is not long enough to pass judgment. But it does permit one to observe the compass. President Zardari seemed to be breaking new ground on certain critical national issues. His frank talk that evening, particularly about militancy, was most refreshing. He appeared desperately to be looking for solutions. A former senior bureaucrat said that the militants were not controlled because the civil bureaucracy had weakened over the years. The president was quick to dismiss this in a frank manner.
Zardari said he thought that the militants and extremists had emerged on the national scene not because the civil bureaucracy was weak. In fact, they had been deliberately created and nurtured with the help of the international community as an instrument of policy in the 1980s. He then went on to advise the former bureaucrats to be truthful to ourselves and make a candid admission of the realities. It was refreshing to hear him say that the terrorists of today were the heroes of yesteryears until 9/11. They then began to haunt us.
Although it is common knowledge that the militants were deliberately created the state has been in denial. Zardari has broken new ground in the fight against militancy by admitting that they were a product of deliberate policy.
It is true that while the threat from home-grown extremists and foreign militants grew the civil administration weakened. Mr Idris has a point in asserting that Musharrafs seeking to change the system with the nazims and making them responsible for law and order as well had undermined the civil administration. But then it would not be fair to blame Zardari for what Musharraf did, particularly now that the provinces are seeking to reclaim their powers to make changes in the local government laws.
The president did not agree with the suggestion of holding fresh elections. But this should not be held against him. It is hard to appreciate fresh elections just because Musharraf has exited the scene or theres tribal violence or because the nation had seen its worst judicial crisis. Not many in the country would want general elections within 18 months of the last one.
During dinner, the president spoke of harmony and was against the concentration of power in a few hands. We want to keep all the political forces together in a harmonious relationship, he said, adding that we were at the brink and could not indulge in political games for personal gains. He said that he knew that if he concentrated too much power in his own hands it would last for too short a time. For power to be effectively used for long-lasting public good it must be diffused. He also appeared to appreciate the prime minister over the way he handled the difficulties of a coalition government. This was no small talk.
On balance Zardari appeared keen on a consensus, open to suggestion, interested in learning about different perspectives and willing to learn from past mistakes. He seemed almost impatient to break new ground in domains that have slipped out of the hands of the civilian leadership.
The point is not to assert that he is free of controversies. He has been mired in many since his marriage to Benazir Bhutto, especially when the latter became prime minister. He has been the butt of jokes and innuendos and the subject of some serious allegations. But then which public leader has not been accused of errors of omission and commission? The point is that as president a new aspect of Zardari is coming to light. He has been in the driving seat for less than a year and deserves to be given time before being judged in a hurry.
The writer is a former federal secretary
DAWN.COM | Pakistan | Meeting the president
---------- Post added at 11:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 AM ----------
i think he has improved a lot after judiciary crisis
