We have failed Pakistan

[Neo]

We have failed Pakistan​

By Javed Hasan Aly

LAST month a columnist pleaded in these pages for opportunity for politics (and politicians) as in his opinion politics has not been allowed enough space to be practised unhindered in this country, resulting in the crisis we face today of a rudderless state.

The underlying assumption can only be made under the misconception that bureaucracies, particularly the military, do not play politics during their continuing wielding of power, directly or indirectly. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Politics is a calling that is not pursued in a vacuum or in isolation. It is interactive, not only with the citizens directly but also with various state institutions, forces of reality and the international community. These interactions define and mould the shape politics takes in a society and also reflect the strength or otherwise of the participating politicians. So if politics by professional politicians failed in this country in quality and sustainability, it was not only because of the stranglehold of the civil-military bureaucracies’ nexus but also due to the poor capacity, and even poorer intentions, of the politicians themselves.

The military has practised politics, as a player or a puppeteer, right since the early fifties and the politicians have eagerly played into its hands satisfied with the lollipops on offer. It plays more politics than its ostensible role, with pliant, selfish politicians playing eager second fiddles. Politics has not been strangled due to lack of opportunity.

Barring most of the founding fathers and a noble and notable minority of exceptions we have all betrayed Pakistan in some measure and manner, particularly inasmuch as narrow, selfish motives have driven our energies. The country to us has been no more than a mere slogan used for politicking and as a deceitful cover for extraneous agendas.

Ethnic, sectarian, regional and economic divides have pitted people against people. The successful opportunists have amassed wealth and influence to further enhance their advantages to the detriment of the country and its people at large. The state apparatus is so geared to the security of the elite that even when, like now, the government is visibly inert, it continues to protect the interests of the powerful elite through an institutional momentum and habit. Vital national interests are of no concern to us.

Every group, vested interest or institution — be it the mullahs, the military, a political party or any coterie of corrupt interests — can have agendas in conflict or variance with the interests of Pakistan. Their aim is to pursue their self-proclaimed higher goals. Pakistan’s interests are irrelevant, or at best secondary, to them. To achieve their objectives they are ready to cajole the state and government through blackmail, selfishly and persistently.

Politicians have betrayed this country through poor governance, weak capacity and evil intentions. During the fifties they demonstrated a sheer lack of capacity to discern and defeat the manipulations of the bureaucracy. They were conveniently embroiled in infighting, intrigue and inveterate selfishness. For them Pakistan could be postponed.

Since then the military has taken over politics. It produces its own political progenies and trains them, tries them, manages them or dismisses them — not for the sake of Pakistan but for the sake of one institution’s supremacy. A vast majority of the current crop of politicians was sowed, manured, nurtured and harvested by their patrons in the military. For them Pakistan is secondary; their primary loyalty is to their genetic engineers within the armed forces.

Whatever the ex-servicemen’s society may now say in a futile attempt to rehabilitate the armed forces in the hearts of the people, the military has failed Pakistan as much as all of us have. Every time the military has acted beyond its mandate (and this has happened several times, the retired generals admit), it has failed Pakistan. For decades it has claimed to be the sentinel of our ideological frontiers, something that is not the charter of the armed forces. And the ideology it purports to protect is one of its own creation and not of the founding fathers who created this country.

The mullah as a political force was created by the army and America, and it flourished on the fertile soil of circumstance. Exploiting illiteracy and blossoming in a greenhouse provided by the military umbrella, obscurantist religious leaders have come to acquire an influence not justified by their personal endowments. They live in an imaginary world, feed on ignorance and are inspired by quixotic and unreal explanations of the world. Islam for them is only a slogan, something to justify an irrational explanation of religiosity. Pakistan as a nation state of tolerant Muslims is not their goal, and betraying it perhaps religious duty for them.

Now the bigots — any bandit with an unkempt beard and a flowing mane can claim to be a Talib these days — have acquired military weaponry to fight the state (of a garbled political conviction) and betraying Pakistan is part of a higher mission for them. Unfortunately they are guided by a half-baked scholarship of dubious intellectual content.

The irrelevance of Pakistan for such religious ‘scholars’ is revealed by a recent pronouncement of Umme Hassan, now an influential seminary leader. She has declared that Islam can only be established through khilafat and not through democracy. Obviously she finds some fundamental contradiction between khilafat and democracy — perhaps without comprehending either. For her these are terms of endearment, or the opposite; her knowledge is purely a product of propaganda, not learning.

The civil bureaucracy, true to its inclination and postcolonial heritage, is not to be left behind. It has demeaned itself to the depths of servility for the sake of some crumbs of authority and state largesse. They will gladly treat Pakistan as a cumbersome mother-in-law — any time, any day.

Civil society is perhaps the only hope. Energised by the struggle of the lawyers, it seems now to have discovered Pakistan as a purpose in itself. It could force politicians to change their objectives. All credit to the leaders of the bar, for Aitzaz and his noble companions have reinvigorated the elite with a compulsion to recognise and resurrect the purpose and function of a state.

Recently there have been attempts to belittle the lawyers’ struggle — it was suggested that the long march had petered out into a picnic party. Whatever the reasons for its less than dramatic finale, we cannot ignore its marshalling of national emotions and its repeated knocks at the consciences of state institutions to wake them up to a show of loyalty to this country.

DAWN - Editorial; July 24, 2008

 

[muse]

The boring thing called governance
Farish A Noor



For two weeks now, this political scientist has been sidetracked from his work on transnational religio-political movements by the controversy that erupted around the accusations of sodomy levelled against former Malaysia’s Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. This is not the first time I have been way-laid in the line of duty for scandals, controversies and conspiracy theories have the rather nasty habit of popping up when you least expect them in Asia.

Now this comes as an unwelcome change for me as I have spent half my life in Europe and the last seven years in Germany. Allow me to make a very simple (and admittedly general) comparison here. Politics in Germany, like much of Western Europe, tends to be dull, dull, dull. Politicians have less colourful lives than their Asian counterparts and it would be the event of the century if a senior German politician was caught with his pants down or accused of sodomy.

Indeed, one of the outstanding features of German politics — particularly on the level of local governance — is how dreadfully boring it is. It also happens to be painfully serious, and as someone who has seen local government at work in Germany I can tell you that it can put even the most imaginative among us to sleep in nary a second.

But this is what politics and governance ought to be like. Politics is serious business, and it ought to be taken seriously. Much of daily governance however is laborious and time consuming, but necessarily so. I have sat through local council discussions on road-widening projects, environmental campaigns, kindergarten fund allocations and such things, and I was struck by how every issue was treated with the utmost seriousness.

Furthermore, unlike the President of France whose wife has added considerable spark to French politics, Germany’s politicians are as grey as the suits they wear. They also tend to be a dour, humourless bunch that plod along as they read their files and write their speeches; and they tend to take every single word they read and write seriously. There were times during my seven-year stay in Germany that I felt that they were over-doing the ‘serious public servant’ role a bit, but in retrospect I feel that such a dose of seriousness is precisely what Asia needs at the moment.

Looking at South and Southeast Asia, we see that politics has been overtaken by political culture instead; and what a crass and crude culture it is too. Never mind the occasional bout of sodomy-frenzy in Malaysia. From Pakistan to India, Bangladesh to Sri Lanka, Malaysia to Indonesia, Thailand to the Philippines, the political culture of many South and Southeast Asian politics is determined by the behaviour and antics of politicians who often behave as if they are movie stars. Politics is seen as a demonstration of power and largesse, and power has to be demonstrated in the public domain in the most spectacular of manners.

Hence the tendency for Asians to leap on to the bandwagons of cult leaders. Our politicians walk the earth like demigods of the age of Dewarajas, our parliaments and local councils resemble colonial durbars with their hollow pomp and expensive pageantry.

In every single Asian country I have visited or worked on, politicians never shy from the camera. They would even pay to have it pointed in their direction. They cut ribbons, pander to the gallery, raise the political temper at will whenever it suits them.

Since the elections of March 2008, hardly a day has gone by in Malaysia without some ruckus or scandal erupting in the corridors of power. This reminds us of the shambolic mess that was Indonesian politics between 1998 to 2005 when a succession of populist leaders were heaved upon the political throne of the nation, only to be brought low again — President Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur) even left his office in his boxer-shorts, ostensibly to make a point though the effect was to heap even more ridicule upon an office that was losing credibility fast.

The President of the Philippines caused a scandal when she appeared on the cover of a popular magazine in the guise of a movie star; and the country’s politics inched one step closer to Bollywood in its emulation of froth and glitter with no substance.

Europe of course did not get to where it is today without plentiful reforms and even violent revolutions. But Europe’s success lies in its capacity to transform the revolutionary potential of these social upheavals into concrete institutional change, which today has consolidated and become routine.

Governance was not always a serious thing for we know that up to the 18th century European politicians were little more than robber barons and bandits. But as the revolutionary impact of these reforms were institutionalised, opening the way for the emergence of an independent middle-class and the industrial revolution, genuine and lasting social change took place.

Asian societies today cannot afford to stagger behind in this race for societal development. There is no point for the governments of Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, India or Pakistan to weave elaborate fictions or dream of development as long as our collective understanding and praxis of governance remains mired in the stagnant swamp of neo-feudal mentality, the cult of heroes and villains, the drama of farcical politics and the culture of conspiracies and rumours.

Sooner or later, these politicians have to learn, or be taught, that they were voted not to cut ribbons or make fiery speeches, but to govern properly: that means getting the drains to work, building schools, alleviating poverty and illiteracy, etc. That also means less talk and drama, and more parliamentary files and reports. It means less gala dinners and balls and more late night readings of reports on economic performance and alternatives for development.

It means doing that dull but necessary thing called governance.

Dr Farish A Noor is a Senior Fellow at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

 

[Logic note]

The boring thing called governance
Farish A Noor



For two weeks now, this political scientist has been sidetracked from his work on transnational religio-political movements by the controversy that erupted around the accusations of sodomy levelled against former Malaysia’s Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. This is not the first time I have been way-laid in the line of duty for scandals, controversies and conspiracy theories have the rather nasty habit of popping up when you least expect them in Asia.

Now this comes as an unwelcome change for me as I have spent half my life in Europe and the last seven years in Germany. Allow me to make a very simple (and admittedly general) comparison here. Politics in Germany, like much of Western Europe, tends to be dull, dull, dull. Politicians have less colourful lives than their Asian counterparts and it would be the event of the century if a senior German politician was caught with his pants down or accused of sodomy.

Indeed, one of the outstanding features of German politics — particularly on the level of local governance — is how dreadfully boring it is. It also happens to be painfully serious, and as someone who has seen local government at work in Germany I can tell you that it can put even the most imaginative among us to sleep in nary a second.

But this is what politics and governance ought to be like. Politics is serious business, and it ought to be taken seriously. Much of daily governance however is laborious and time consuming, but necessarily so. I have sat through local council discussions on road-widening projects, environmental campaigns, kindergarten fund allocations and such things, and I was struck by how every issue was treated with the utmost seriousness.

Furthermore, unlike the President of France whose wife has added considerable spark to French politics, Germany’s politicians are as grey as the suits they wear. They also tend to be a dour, humourless bunch that plod along as they read their files and write their speeches; and they tend to take every single word they read and write seriously. There were times during my seven-year stay in Germany that I felt that they were over-doing the ‘serious public servant’ role a bit, but in retrospect I feel that such a dose of seriousness is precisely what Asia needs at the moment.

Looking at South and Southeast Asia, we see that politics has been overtaken by political culture instead; and what a crass and crude culture it is too. Never mind the occasional bout of sodomy-frenzy in Malaysia. From Pakistan to India, Bangladesh to Sri Lanka, Malaysia to Indonesia, Thailand to the Philippines, the political culture of many South and Southeast Asian politics is determined by the behaviour and antics of politicians who often behave as if they are movie stars. Politics is seen as a demonstration of power and largesse, and power has to be demonstrated in the public domain in the most spectacular of manners.

Hence the tendency for Asians to leap on to the bandwagons of cult leaders. Our politicians walk the earth like demigods of the age of Dewarajas, our parliaments and local councils resemble colonial durbars with their hollow pomp and expensive pageantry.

In every single Asian country I have visited or worked on, politicians never shy from the camera. They would even pay to have it pointed in their direction. They cut ribbons, pander to the gallery, raise the political temper at will whenever it suits them.

Since the elections of March 2008, hardly a day has gone by in Malaysia without some ruckus or scandal erupting in the corridors of power. This reminds us of the shambolic mess that was Indonesian politics between 1998 to 2005 when a succession of populist leaders were heaved upon the political throne of the nation, only to be brought low again — President Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur) even left his office in his boxer-shorts, ostensibly to make a point though the effect was to heap even more ridicule upon an office that was losing credibility fast.

The President of the Philippines caused a scandal when she appeared on the cover of a popular magazine in the guise of a movie star; and the country’s politics inched one step closer to Bollywood in its emulation of froth and glitter with no substance.

Europe of course did not get to where it is today without plentiful reforms and even violent revolutions. But Europe’s success lies in its capacity to transform the revolutionary potential of these social upheavals into concrete institutional change, which today has consolidated and become routine.

Governance was not always a serious thing for we know that up to the 18th century European politicians were little more than robber barons and bandits. But as the revolutionary impact of these reforms were institutionalised, opening the way for the emergence of an independent middle-class and the industrial revolution, genuine and lasting social change took place.

Asian societies today cannot afford to stagger behind in this race for societal development. There is no point for the governments of Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, India or Pakistan to weave elaborate fictions or dream of development as long as our collective understanding and praxis of governance remains mired in the stagnant swamp of neo-feudal mentality, the cult of heroes and villains, the drama of farcical politics and the culture of conspiracies and rumours.

Sooner or later, these politicians have to learn, or be taught, that they were voted not to cut ribbons or make fiery speeches, but to govern properly: that means getting the drains to work, building schools, alleviating poverty and illiteracy, etc. That also means less talk and drama, and more parliamentary files and reports. It means less gala dinners and balls and more late night readings of reports on economic performance and alternatives for development.

It means doing that dull but necessary thing called governance.

Dr Farish A Noor is a Senior Fellow at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Typical medivial mentality - Justify Autocracy by picking problems in democracy .
May be he is pleasing his autocratic government of Singapore
Not all politicians are same ..
Present is a Part of Journey towards what we want the world to be ..

 

[muse]

Logic

I'm coming to the conclusion that you have not bothered to read the piece by Dr. Farish Noor --He is Malaysian, not from Singapore -- and he is a friend of democracy, not it's enemy -- he is a critic however; of those who use democracy as a excuse for self aggrandizement and failure.

 

[Flintlock]

Typical medivial mentality - Justify Autocracy by picking problems in democracy .
May be he is pleasing his autocratic government of Singapore
Not all politicians are same ..
Present is a Part of Journey towards what we want the world to be ..

What? Where is anybody justifying autocracy?

Just incase you don't know, Germany is a democracy dude.

 

[Logic note]

Logic

I'm coming to the conclusion that you have not bothered to read the piece by Dr. Farish Noor --He is Malaysian, not from Singapore -- and he is a friend of democracy, not it's enemy -- he is a critic however; of those who use democracy as a excuse for self aggrandizement and failure.

Dear muse

I have read the articale and what I see here is an attempt to prove that asian societies cant evolve good politicians ..
Sorry I dont agree .. Politicians are same acrosss the world
Germans are boody boring they suffer from perpetual guilt ask any other European citizen .
plus what do you expect from a country which is
uniform in its demography
economically developed
Population growth is controlled

you cant compare two societies and their behaviour patterns .

What? Where is anybody justifying autocracy?

Just incase you don't know, Germany is a democracy dude.

He is in Singapore , we all know the contempt towards democracy the Singapore government exhibits .

 

[muse]

Logic

Noor has nothing to say about the ability to develop politicians in Asia, he is only commenting on what our politicians are like -- he pointing to a understanding of politics that is at odds with the challenges we face.

How can one argue that diverse populations or diverse ethnicites and nationalites in a country means that they should less than effective politicians who deliver, who solve problems?

If we want democracy to be successful, politicians have to solve problems, and solving problems requires them to be informed and effective, not "stars"

 

[muse]

sorry poor choice

 

[muse]

Axing Amb Munir Akram
Ejaz Haider


Cowper famously wrote that God moves in a mysterious way; He indeed does or Mr Asif Ali Zardari’s jaw would have given in to his perpetual smile. And for those who need more evidence of God’s mysterious ways, Mr Zardari may even succeed despite rational scepticism.

The latest victim of Mr Zardari’s idea of political and institutional probity is Ambassador Munir Akram, Pakistan’s now-outgoing permanent representative to the United Nations. Amb Akram, a seasoned Foreign Service Officer, who was supposed to serve the country until 2009, has been replaced with former speaker of the Sindh Assembly, Mr Hussain Haroon.

And since practical wisdom and the idiom both recommend killing two birds with one stone, Amb Akram’s younger brother, Amb Zamir Akram, another solid FSO, who had been nominated as Pakistan’s ambassador to Beijing, has also been dropped.

Reason: if the report in this newspaper by Khalid Hasan is anything to go by, Amb Akram has been axed because — know as he does intimately the United Nations and its functioning — he had taken the correct but, now we realise, undiplomatic course of disagreeing with this government’s passion for taking Ms Benazir Bhutto’s murder case to the world body.

He first did so in a report which is routine procedure since as Pakistan’s PR to the UN it was his remit to inform his government of the pros and cons of any decision which is likely to have far-reaching consequences. He persisted with his opposition even after the government made clear that it wanted the decision bulldozed, thank you.

In March this year when Mr Zardari met Amb Akram, the latter tried to dissuade him from pursuing this course. Seeing that Amb Akram would not fall in line, the government (read: Mr Zardari) got rid of him. And pray, what did the younger brother, Amb Zamir Akram, do to lose the coveted and in his case well-deserved appointment as Pakistan’s ambassador to Beijing? Much, it would seem. He is (a) Amb Munir Akram’s brother and (b) made the mistake of being in government service under a dispensation which works in and through tribal passions and loyalties.

I am no idealist; if anything, I am a hardnosed realist. Political decision-making, especially in this country, happens close to the skin and often in disregard to larger-anything, call it national interest or what you will. Political governments bring with them political spoils; underhand appointments and deals abound, as do sinecures. Those who take seriously Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s homily about avoiding “nepotism and jobbery” live in the textbooks.

Much of this is accepted, and if one is a realist, acceptable, given a number of factors. Yet, for states and societies to sustain themselves and even progress, some key areas and positions need merit. Merit and sycophancy do not go together because merit, by its very logic, contains in it the sting of honest assessment and dissent.

But it works because smart exploiters do not maraud and burn down the area they need to pillage. It does nothing to kill the hen when it is better to keep her alive and well so it lays the golden egg every day. That is how globalisation and neo-colonialism are different from 19th century mercantilism and occupational colonialism.

In other words, if one is a clever marauder, he would keep the people and the cattle fat and healthy and the fields full of corn. He would also give out sinecures but retain for the best positions where merit and dissent are required for the marauder’s own good. This is why English colonialism, for all its exploitation, advanced merit where it was required.

I do not know either the two ambassador brothers personally or Mr Haroon. I attended a couple of IISS conferences with the elder Mr Akram many years ago and while I disagreed with some of his positions which I thought were strident, I found him to be a thorough professional and an intelligent man. His younger brother I came across a few times when he was Dr Maleeha Lodhi’s DCM in Washington — he impressed me less compared to his elder brother but I revised my assessment when I interacted with him at the Administrative Staff College where he was attending the course, and later during the 13th SAARC Summit in Dhaka.

Mr Haroon I have watched occasionally on TV. Like his brother Mr Hameed Haroon, he is extremely articulate and I am told a very suave and cultured person. He may well do a very good job as Pakistan’s PR to the UN. But that is not the issue here. The point is about the circumstances and manner of Amb Akram’s removal and also the victimisation of his younger brother — that goes against the grain of institutionalisation and transparent decision-making. Indeed, it unnecessarily casts a shadow on Mr Haroon who, as I said, may otherwise be suited for the job.

There are therefore two issues here: one relates to the decision to take Ms Bhutto’s case to the UN. That decision was and is wrong. I have written explaining why that is so and the government has done nothing so far to make me change my views on the issue. This position is also widely held by the FO and other legal experts. In fact, we lost another very seasoned FSO, our former foreign secretary, Riaz Mohammad Khan, who chose to step down before his contract was over, than to be part of a decision he opposed in the interest of Pakistan.

The second issue is about making such appointments. Could we have a transparent process for such deviations where a nominee can be verifiably judged for his or her worth to such a position? The United States, where the president is allowed his own team, has such a process of vetting appointments and while Congress normally does not interfere with the president’s choice, it can and sometimes does.

We have had some great non-FS ambassadors, the names of Jamshed Marker and Dr Maleeha Lodhi immediately come to mind; so, it is not that a non-FS appointee can never be more effective. But the point about vetting appointments remains valid; as does the earlier concern about the circumstances of and reasons for the removal of someone who was doing the job well.

After all, we need to do better than work on the basis of a primitive tribal sense of loyalty and hostility.

Ejaz Haider is Consulting Editor of The Friday Times and Op-Ed Editor of Daily Times. He can be reached at sapper@dailytimes.com.pk

 

[niaz]

No matter how much I dislike Mr 10%. Fact of the matter is that Ambassadors are supposed to carry out government policy.

Any new gov't in any country would appoint people who agree and implement their policy. I am against the UN probing any thing in Pakistan as IMO this compromises Pakistan's sovereignty. However PPP has every right to appoint people who follow the party's line of action.

 

[niaz]

deleted duplicate post. sorry

 

[niaz]

this was duplicate deleted

 

[muse]

Niaz

Ejaz is taking issue with whether or not PPP can replace the ambassador, note, does the PPP also have a right to attack the family of the ambassador as they did when the axed the ambassador's brother's appointment to Beijing?? And not just PPP, but any other have the "good sense to not disregard the overwhelming majority of the FO and Legal experts, their "right" not withstanding?? :

"There are therefore two issues here: one relates to the decision to take Ms Bhutto’s case to the UN. That decision was and is wrong. I have written explaining why that is so and the government has done nothing so far to make me change my views on the issue. This position is also widely held by the FO and other legal experts. In fact, we lost another very seasoned FSO, our former foreign secretary, Riaz Mohammad Khan, who chose to step down before his contract was over, than to be part of a decision he opposed in the interest of Pakistan.

The second issue is about making such appointments. Could we have a transparent process for such deviations where a nominee can be verifiably judged for his or her worth to such a position? The United States, where the president is allowed his own team, has such a process of vetting appointments and while Congress normally does not interfere with the president’s choice, it can and sometimes does.

We have had some great non-FS ambassadors, the names of Jamshed Marker and Dr Maleeha Lodhi immediately come to mind; so, it is not that a non-FS appointee can never be more effective. But the point about vetting appointments remains valid; as does the earlier concern about the circumstances of and reasons for the removal of someone who was doing the job well."