Stable institutions build stable Nations
What about Pakistan?
Mike Ghouse
Commentator
I happen to read a column called Building Institutions by Abdul Kundi,it is quite intriguing and is one of the most powerful pieces written about Civic societies in general, and Pakistan in particular. The article follows my commentary.
The central theme of the topic is "Institution building as a basis for stable governments" That is the critical need of the day. There are great people out here who can write precisely how and what needs to be done.
Building democratic institutions in Pakistan.
The People of Pakistan are inherently democratic and secular by nature and have proved that time and again. Every time a choice was presented they have elected the non-religious, non-regional political parties and have always dumped the religious right. Every time a leader appeals for help, they have responded generously, I recall one such program " Muluk Bachao, Qaraz Nikalo". There was no follow up on that.
What can bring stability to Pakistan? What does it take to get people's own government? What is feeding the hunger in the Army Generals to rule? What makes them believe that they are immortal? Power is corrupting. What makes one immortal and indispensable?
Her non-awwami government pay gumaan huwa aakhri government ka,
Pakistan ki history may aisay kayee government aaye.
Based on a sher (poet unknown):
Her ek nishaan pay gumaan aakhri nishaan ka huwa
Rahay hayat may aisay kai nishaan aaye
I happen to read a column called Building Institutions by Abdul Kundi,it is quite intriguing and is one of the most powerful pieces written about Civic societies in general, and Pakistan in particular.
Mr. Kundi has nailed the issue of Pakistan very well; indeed it is the lack of established institutions.The fact that some of the laws were passed on the whims of the rulers rather than consensus of the public through their representatives, does not give any grounding to such laws. The Hudood Laws, the apostasy laws and changing holiday from Sunday to Friday and back to Sunday speaks the vulnerability of such passages.
When you play the musical chairs, the chair is constant, the sitter changes, in case of Pakistan, the chair gets modified to suit the sitter, thus generating a non-consistent factor in governance.
Mr. Kundi writes, "In Islam it is considered a highest honor to serve in the army to protect the ideals of the faith. For a professional soldier charged with zeal of faith it is disgraceful to be inspired by material possessions" and "Today our armed forces have to keep one eye on the borders while the other on the seat of power." This seems to be where the break down starts. Why should the army have the temptations to watch the seat of power? Wasn't the vacuum created by the army to begin with? A solid institution would have prevented all this eyeing business.
Institutions bring stability and consistency in governance. Who is going to do it?
President Musharraf gave a lot of hope to the people of Pakistan when he took over, but that hope is getting decimated every day. He is not setting up institutions, let alone a contingency plan. A nation cannot be run with secretive succession plans, public owns the nation and they need to be partners in the decision making process. No doubt he is doing the right things and is a savior of Pakistan, however, he is acting like our President Bush, doing thing on his own unilaterally, he has become the sole decider. He should think of the long term, when he is not around. He owes it to the people of Pakistan a smooth and a stable government
A democracy and democratic system won't happen overnight at the command "Open sesame". They are developed with Ijtihad and consensus, neither of the ideas have seen any foundational work yet.
President Musharraf can leave a great legacy for Pakistan, if he sets out now. Like all rulers in history, he is beginning to believe that he is immortal, and that is a betrayal to the future of Pakistan. All the things he has done are great and must be appreciated, but to complete the full circle of goodness, he needs to let the democratic institutions flourish, to his credit he had let the freedom of press survive, but what happened with Dawn was not good, neither the cracking down on the Internet. The most important of pillars of Awwami Hukoomat (public governance aka democracy) are; press, judiciary and the Internet. President Musharraf has influenced each one, no matter how good his secret intentions are, it is not healthy for a open society where people are partners in governance.
Musharraf may have the plans, but he has not put the manual to the public for review. He has got to trust the inherent goodness of the People of Pakistan. Pakistan needs a strong leader, an unselfish one who is not hungering for power, someone to set up a system and establish institutions. There are many, it is time for them to step up.
There ought to be leadership training across the nation, where the concerned citizens put 10 candidates in each city, let the debates begin in public sphere, and let each candidate be groomed and allowed to compete in open forums, a few best will emerge from them and if they do it for one full year, it will produce at least 10 competing individuals, and let there be seeds for two party system. That would be the first institution to begin with, then there ought to be a referendum that requires constitutional changes by the elected representatives.
There is hope, if each Pakistani determines that he or she will cause changes and place a self imposed moratorium on herself or himself not to pull other Pakistanis down, and encourage every one to compete with a belief that good ideas will chase bad ideas out.
Please feel free to share your ideas and thoughts on the idea of creating institutions to build a stable Pakistan. I would hope that the news papers, television and cable would expound on this idea. Once you have a good foundation, the nation can feel safe and at peace, then prosperity is the outcome.
Write your ideas in at least 200 words, let the focus be on "Building institutions for a stable Pakistan". I urge the writers to hold the temptations to go off tangent.
Her ek nishaan pay gumaan aakhri nishaan ka huwa
Rahay hayat may aisay kai nishaan aaye
I happen to read a column called Building Institutions by Abdul Kundi,it is quite intriguing and is one of the most powerful pieces written about Civic societies in general, and Pakistan in particular.
Mr. Kundi has nailed the issue of Pakistan very well; indeed it is the lack of established institutions.The fact that some of the laws were passed on the whims of the rulers rather than consensus of the public through their representatives, does not give any grounding to such laws. The Hudood Laws, the apostasy laws and changing holiday from Sunday to Friday and back to Sunday speaks the vulnerability of such passages.
When you play the musical chairs, the chair is constant, the sitter changes, in case of Pakistan, the chair gets modified to suit the sitter, thus generating a non-consistent factor in governance.
Mr. Kundi writes, "In Islam it is considered a highest honor to serve in the army to protect the ideals of the faith. For a professional soldier charged with zeal of faith it is disgraceful to be inspired by material possessions" and "Today our armed forces have to keep one eye on the borders while the other on the seat of power." This seems to be where the break down starts. Why should the army have the temptations to watch the seat of power? Wasn't the vacuum created by the army to begin with? A solid institution would have prevented all this eyeing business.
Institutions bring stability and consistency in governance. Who is going to do it?
President Musharraf gave a lot of hope to the people of Pakistan when he took over, but that hope is getting decimated every day. He is not setting up institutions, let alone a contingency plan. A nation cannot be run with secretive succession plans, public owns the nation and they need to be partners in the decision making process. No doubt he is doing the right things and is a savior of Pakistan, however, he is acting like our President Bush, doing thing on his own unilaterally, he has become the sole decider. He should think of the long term, when he is not around. He owes it to the people of Pakistan a smooth and a stable government
A democracy and democratic system won't happen overnight at the command "Open sesame". They are developed with Ijtihad and consensus, neither of the ideas have seen any foundational work yet.
President Musharraf can leave a great legacy for Pakistan, if he sets out now. Like all rulers in history, he is beginning to believe that he is immortal, and that is a betrayal to the future of Pakistan. All the things he has done are great and must be appreciated, but to complete the full circle of goodness, he needs to let the democratic institutions flourish, to his credit he had let the freedom of press survive, but what happened with Dawn was not good, neither the cracking down on the Internet. The most important of pillars of Awwami Hukoomat (public governance aka democracy) are; press, judiciary and the Internet. President Musharraf has influenced each one, no matter how good his secret intentions are, it is not healthy for a open society where people are partners in governance.
Musharraf may have the plans, but he has not put the manual to the public for review. He has got to trust the inherent goodness of the People of Pakistan. Pakistan needs a strong leader, an unselfish one who is not hungering for power, someone to set up a system and establish institutions. There are many, it is time for them to step up.
There ought to be leadership training across the nation, where the concerned citizens put 10 candidates in each city, let the debates begin in public sphere, and let each candidate be groomed and allowed to compete in open forums, a few best will emerge from them and if they do it for one full year, it will produce at least 10 competing individuals, and let there be seeds for two party system. That would be the first institution to begin with, then there ought to be a referendum that requires constitutional changes by the elected representatives.
There is hope, if each Pakistani determines that he or she will cause changes and place a self imposed moratorium on herself or himself not to pull other Pakistanis down, and encourage every one to compete with a belief that good ideas will chase bad ideas out.
Please feel free to share your ideas and thoughts on the idea of creating institutions to build a stable Pakistan. I would hope that the news papers, television and cable would expound on this idea. Once you have a good foundation, the nation can feel safe and at peace, then prosperity is the outcome.
Write your ideas in at least 200 words, let the focus be on "Building institutions for a stable Pakistan". I urge the writers to hold the temptations to go off tangent.
Building Institutions
Abdul Kundi April 1, 2007
For any nation to progress it has to build institutions representing the ideals of the community. A nation that fails in building these institutions is faced with chaos, confusion and ultimately breakdown of the society. Pakistan is one of the two nations in the world that were founded on ideological grounds. The founding fathers of the nation Allama Iqbal and Quaid-e-Azam envisioned a society where high morals preached by the religion of Islam are exercised in all spheres of life; where appointments to government posts were based on merit; where free market economy allowed talented people to exercise their talents; where no discrimination was allowed based on religion, caste, color or sex. Allama Iqbal saw the dream while Quaid-e-Azam led a constitutional struggle to make it a reality. This was also the difference between Mahatma Gandhi and Quaid-e-Azam. Gandhi believed in resorting to peaceful unconstitutional means like refusing to pay taxes or non-cooperation movement to gain independence from British while Quaid-e-Azam believed that independence could be achieved through democratic and constitutional struggle. Gandhi’s approach produced riots and violence while Quaid-e-Azam won the debates in the constituent assembly for formation of India and Pakistan as two independent sovereign nations. Ironically the dream turned sour as soon as the independence was achieved when the nation lost its visionary leader soon and opportunists gained control of the nation.
In a sovereign state armed forces, specially a voluntary force, plays an important role of shielding the nation from external aggression. Nation provides their hard earned income to finance such a force while mothers allow their sons/daughters to join the armed forces taking an oath to shed their life to protect the nation. In Islam it is considered a highest honor to serve in the army to protect the ideals of the faith. For a professional soldier charged with zeal of faith it is disgraceful to be inspired by material possessions, position and social status. In Pakistan first institution that was destroyed by politically ambitious generals was the army itself. Today our armed forces have to keep one eye on the borders while the other on the seat of power. This lack of focus is not only destroying the morale of a large number of professional soldiers but also creating a gulf between the nation and the army. Army has become an elite class of ambitious generals who have no regard for constitution or the masses. For the first time in the history of Pakistan militant groups have taken up weapons against their own soldiers. This is evident from the heavy loss of soldiers in Balochistan and NWFP. In both these provinces the situation is more political than militant. Poverty stricken people in both these provinces are tired of empty promises made by the successive military government. Tribal leaders that were strong allies of one military general are now considered traitors by another general. If we do not radically change this situation so that professional soldiers are not used for political purposes we will further undermine this institution.
Police is an institution that imposes the writ of law according to the constitution as well as implements the decisions carried out by the judiciary. Without a highly trained and resourceful police force it is a fantasy to believe that law order can be maintained in mega cities like Karachi and Lahore. Military government, considering police as a threat to their dominance, has ensured that police as an institution is deprived of merit, resources and pride. A police officer does not have the courage and moral authority to question an army officer or arrest them for breach of law. During the British rule police was used as an official channel for extortion and keeping the populations in control through extra judicial means. The same practice has carried on as government officials use police to punish political opponents. We have seen this element come into play when police was ordered to attack a TV channel office and later when the situation got out of hand those same low level policemen were blamed and punished while the politicians who were behind all this remained unaffected. If we want to strengthen our society we have to reform the police on modern lines and give them resources to implement law without prejudice or pressure.
Judiciary does not have the right to write laws but once a law is passed by the constituent assembly it is the right of the judiciary to interpret that law fairly for all citizens of the state. A free and independent judiciary is one of the basic requirements to create a civic society. Throughout our history all governments have tried to subjugate this august institution for their own political advantage. Appointments of judges were inspired by political affiliations to ensure they will interpret the law in government favor. Recent reference against the Chief Justice (CJ) of Pakistan by a military government is widely believed to be politically motivated. But the government has blamed the opposition for politicizing that event when they know that their own actions are politically motivated. It is the democratic right of the opposition to agitate against too much executive influence. Government ministers on live TV have blamed the opposition for same actions during their rule. But they forgot that two wrongs don’t make one right. If we want to maintain the social fabric of the society we have to ensure our judiciary is free and independent by appointment of judges on merit to the benches.
Government is tricky business where many competing ideas struggle for dominance. It is citizen’s right to choose which ideas gets implemented when they freely vote for candidates of their choice. Existence of political parties is an efficient way for like minded people to come together to form a government by securing votes from people. The key ingredient of any political party should be democracy so that qualified and deserving people can come through the lower ranks of the party to claim nomination for representation in assemblies. That ingredient is missing in almost all political parties in Pakistan. All parties are dominated by personalities who are not willing to relinquish power at any cost. This not only result in cronyism in the parties but also result in weak assemblies dominated by greedy and ambitious people. If we want to build strong democratic institutions we have to first build democratic political parties that have grass root support from the people only then it will be difficult for army generals to stage a coup.
Pakistan is struggling for its survival. It is pressured from both inside and outside to maintain unity which is getting weaker by the day. The reason for this weakness is directly related to our inability to build strong institutions. We still have time to get hold of our affairs and embark on a journey of creating a civil society governed by institutions created on solid foundations. If we fail we can not blame it on any external force but our own selves. When all else seems impossible we can pray “May God bless Pakistan”.
Posted by Abdul Q. K. Kundi Pakistan Politics Pakistan Politics Links to
http://www.democracyinpakistan.com
No comments:
Post a Comment