Malicious obedience

When the men who run institutions are always under the line of fire for going against the grain of people who can fire them, then institutions become contests for political muscle mania

How can those you rule go by rules that are against you? How can those who report to you give reports that are against you? How can those who obey you take actions that are against you? This seems to be the classic duel going on between the men in charge of the country and the men in charge of the institutions of the country. In this duel the obvious winners will be those who rule the country but the obvious losers will be those under their rule, including the public at large. The state’s institutions are supposed to be independent and empowered enough to demand explanations and actions from all involved in any relevant case or matter. However, when those who rule think that rules are made for those who are ruled but not those who rule, then institutions become victims of power play and politics.

The recent overspeak by Speaker National Assembly Sardar Ayaz Sadiq is a typical example where, displeased by the Elections Commission (EC) for even entertaining a petition against the voters’ list of the recently held NA-122 election, he lashed his fury at an institution that his party had defended despite pressures from the opposition. He called them incompetent and people with mal-intention, and warned them that this was a soft warning and harsher things may follow. What was this furor about? It was about the NA-122 petition filed to the ECP by the PTI that at least 30,000 votes had been transferred before the election and only 7,000 of them had a valid record of transfer. This is not the first time Mr Speaker spoke with disdain about institutions questioning him and his party. The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) was similarly warned about its “misconduct” on enquiring into high up affairs. He warned that a reference would be filed against NAB for informing the Supreme Court (SC) that it was pursuing 150 mega scams involving a colossal amount of Rs 428 billion. This included reference against the Prime Minister (PM) and Chief Minister (CM), and many other illustrious names of his party from Punjab.

A similar fight is now going on between the Rangers and Sindh government. Dr Asim is the present bone of contention. But there is a larger matter at stake. Dr Asim’s confession of involvement in terror facilitation and corruption has links to the top ranks of the party. Dr Asim must be saved to save the bosses. Thus, the Rangers, who had become symbols of saviours in Karachi, have now been declared by the Sindh government as encroachers and destroyers of the “legal boundaries” of the institution. From Qaim Ali Shah to Khursheed Shah to Maula Bux Chandio the typical plea of being unlawful, unconstitutional and undemocratic has come to the fore. The only question to this political chagrin is why is this great defence of the sanctity of institutions and their boundaries, and their legality always limited to incidences where the big guns are gunned by their own subservient.

This just about tells the story of what has gone wrong with the country’s ability to grow and develop. Countries depend on institutional development. Institutional development depends on system development. System development depends on merit based leadership development. When the men who run institutions are always under the line of fire for going against the grain of people who can fire them, then the institutions become contests for political muscle mania. Politicians have in the past threatened institutions and individuals running these institutions to the extent that either the individuals have resigned or the institutions have become lame extensions and execution wings of political parties. Some outstanding institutions reduced to mediocrity by this forced threat technique are the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) whose chairman, after being removed and restored many times due to disobedience to the rulers, finally left the country to save this family. He is now helping the US government to develop a system that Pakistan could have immensely benefited from. Similarly, the tribunal judge who dared to give a sentence against Ayaz Sadiq in NA-122, Kazim Ali Malik, reported that he had been threatened by the law minister, Rana Sanaullah, and when he refused to bow was duly retired from his post.

This is a form of autocratic democracy where all institutions like parliament and public regulators are used to keep up the label of democracy while inside prevails an autocratic grey matter of “do as I say or...” If all institutions have to work on their dictate then it is very difficult to keep up the democratic facade. Recently, the spat between the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) and ministry of water and power is just one of the many examples of this attitude. NEPRA’s very purpose is to highlight gaps in the energy sector to help the ministry improve its performance. However, while the government has been advertising massively on its progress in the energy sector, the NEPRA report clearly pointed out that the energy sector was not progressing. When this report was published the ministry of water and power launched an attack on NEPRA and there were reports of the NEPRA chairman’s job being on the line.

The role and jurisdiction of the Rangers is rightly being questioned by many analysts. Ideally it should be the police that have the capability of safeguarding the lives of people living in Karachi. However, it was the failure of the police that led to the Rangers being invited to clean up the city. The failure of the police both in Punjab and Sindh is a direct result of the politicisation of these institutions. An ex Inspector General (IG) Sindh confessed in the SC that the 50 top jobs in Sindh police are decided and divided as a quota between various parties, and they then become party guards and henchmen rather than public guards. The tragedy is that under such bosses the many who do want to do a competent and fair job become rebels to be crushed. Recent question marks on the sudden disappearance of Ayesha Mumtaz from the Punjab Food Authority are still unanswered. Some say she has been indefinitely sent to a food conference to rethink her adventure of declaring Hamza Shahbaz’s company unhygienic.

The Nekokara incident perhaps best describes what disobedience against wrongs can cost you. Mohammad Ali Nekokara was not only an officer with impeccable professional credentials but is academically very well qualified too. A graduate of public administration from Harvard University’s Kennedy’s School of Government, he was too competent and conscientious for the government. Instead of making him a role model he was removed from his service for disobedience against use of force on a protest. When obedience to rule of law is punished and obedience to rule of ruler is rewarded institutions and nations become playthings to be toyed with by those who are savvy at gaming in the house of thrones.

Read more...

Private deals

The government makes plans of privatising public sector entities with ordinances issued without consultation or debate on any forum of public representation

In a democracy this talk is dangerous. The government has been privatised. Its shares have been given to the Sharif group of industries. Parliament is just a political hangout. Senate is just a rubber stamp. These are some of the loud headlines in media that make breaking news. The government says this is a conspiracy by the opposition that is jealous of its development work. Analysts say there is truth in this. The opposition says it is a fact of governance in the country. Why has this controversy on the style of governance reached a level where the credibility of the claims of the government has become a matter of ridicule? Is it because of the selective use of parliament to suit its own requirement? Is it because of weak legislation that has made these upper and lower houses of government become a liability instead of an asset to governance? The question on governance is not new but what is new is that in recent times statements on the quality of governance by the army and the Chief Justice (CJ) himself have added fuel to the fire. Oblivious to this the government keeps on ignoring parliament and keeps on imposing taxes on the public. Dismissive of this the government makes plans of privatising public sector entities with ordinances issued without consultation or debate on any forum of public representation.

The state of governance in state owned enterprises has been pathetic. An estimated Rs 500 billion is leaking annually due to corruption and mismanagement in them. Unfortunately, whichever organisation starts with Pakistan in its name has an image of politicisation, zero merit and massive losses. This image has been built on years of horrendous performance be it PTV, PIA or PSM. These organisations have been subsidised heavily to survive and are a burden on the economy. The solution suggested by the government is: let us privatise them. Is privatisation the cure to all these problems? Is privatisation an admission of failure of governance by the government? Is privatisation a confession that public sector enterprises cannot be managed efficiently and honestly? Is privatisation a cure for all ills to the revenue shortfall due to tax, budget and trade deficit? Previous experience shows that without answering these questions privatisation turned out to be a loot sale of assets that were sold at throw away prices to people with clout in the ruling government.

Every analysis of these state enterprises has shown what needs to be done to turn around their performance. The PML-N government also promised that competent people from professional backgrounds would be hired on strict criteria to make the energy sector, the airline and the steel mill sustainable. Advertisements were also placed in the newspaper but neither the best were hired nor the criteria of merit adhered to. This was done to accommodate their own interpretation of what merit was i.e. friends and relatives of those in power. Take PIA’s case: President Zardari appointed his close friend Captain Ejaz as the head, which resulted in a huge protest by the PML-N and other opposition parties. However, as soon as the Noon government took control in 2013 it appointed a highly controversial man, Shujaat Azeem, as advisor on aviation to manage the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). He fitted on merit as defined by the party i.e. he was the brother of PML-N big wig Tariq Azeem and had impressed the Prime Minister (PM) with his loyalty to the family. In 2013, the Supreme Court (SC) had expressed concern over the appointment of Shujaat Azeem as adviser to the PM in the CAA, as he had been court-martialed by the Pakistan Air Force. In view of these concerns, he tendered his resignation. However, he was again appointed as special assistant. In recent times, the case has resurfaced again. The SC last month took strong exception of appointing Shujaat Azeem, a convicted person, as the special assistant to the PM on the CAA, the position equivalent to that of the status of a state minister and the case is still sub judice.

How can those very people who fail to manage public sector organisations manage their own similar businesses with efficiency? Is there no conflict of interest when people who are running competitive businesses are also policymakers? The minister of petroleum and gas is running a competitive airline, Airblue. Even Shujaat Azeem, apart from being the brother of Tariq Azeem, is the co-owner of Royal Airport Services at Islamabad, Lahore, Karachi and Peshawar airports. It handles terminal services, cargo/ramp and airport traffic control. Among his clients are Saudi Airline, Etihad Air, Gulf Air and Qatar Air. While their own businesses do well, PIA’s losses accumulate to almost Rs 300 billion as flights are late, services are poor and costs are high. So how would privatisation change this constant decline? The answer given is that it will bring revenue through shareholders investment. But the money was coming in any case from the government. Then what went wrong? It is the professional management that is missing. It is honest and merit based leadership that is missing. That itself means governance failure.

The severity of losses in these public sector organisations makes them case studies for sell off. The government has promised to sell off almost 60 organisations and IMF loan extension is dependent on it. But the problem is that the IMF will never care about the socio-cultural issues or national security requirements. Another problem is the sale price. When any asset becomes saddled with debt, losses, bad machinery and poor HR, it will be sold at junk value. That is why even when logic is given on how privatised banks have become more efficient, the counter question is that if they had been turned around and then sold off they would have fetched multiple increases in value. Thus, these continuous allegations on deliberate attempts to devalue them to buy them at cheap prices and then make phenomenal profits is given some substance by the National Accountability Bureau’s (NAB’s) cases on many such dubious sales.

The difference between private sector and public sector organisations is the shareholders’ ability to hold management accountable. In the private sector the shareholder directly makes every penny count while in the public sector the actual shareholder is public and the government is the custodian of their money. With the government entrenched in unaccountable nepotism and cronyism public money becomes a loot sale. Some say it is in the DNA of the public sector to be inefficient, but in reality it is in the DNA of the people in the government who lead the public sector that defames and devalues them to become disposable liabilities instead of assets.

Read more...

An indecent confession

What destroys a society is not when men of poor means resort to unfair means to make do but when men of high intellect and great opportunities choose to put their skills in place for manipulating the system to serve their own designs

Finally, an accused of top stature confesses to appalling crimes. The doctor admits to doctoring hospital facilities to facilitate criminals. The response to this confession is mixed. The media raised it as breaking news. The PPP dismissed it as a confession under duress. The MQM typically denies any linkage vehemently. The opposition parties — the PML-N and PTI — maintained their friendly and hostile postures. The overall reaction was lukewarm, not reflecting the seriousness of the admission. The admission is of medically treating people involved in terrorism. The confession does not touch upon the cases of K-Electric exemptions where ruling party ministers were involved. Thus, it is a confession but a partial one that gives enough space to accusers to be found right, yet gives enough room to the opposers to dismiss it as more of buckling under pressure than serious evidence.

Crime flourishes when justice perishes. That is exactly what we have seen in the country. We have seen innumerable confessions of culprits who have named many people as masterminds or accomplices in ghastly operations but these confessions are either dismissed as being planted or as vengeful and not much is heard after a while. This is normally the case when small timers point fingers at big names. If the media and public continue to highlight an issue for some time, a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) is formed and then, depending on how high the name is, the JIT is scripted to suit the desired decision. In Dr Asim’s case it is different. Dr Asim is a high-up himself, who was not just obeying orders out of pressure but is a very close friend of the ex-president and, thus, if he is saying something it should be taken in a different context.

Dr Asim also symbolises another segment of society that is actually more responsible for what has gone wrong with this country. He has a dream CV for any aspiring profile of an ideal Pakistani. He is an educated professional, with skills, resources and opportunities to make an extraordinary name and money based on his background. Dr Asim Hussain received his early education from the Karachi Grammar School and later enrolled in the Cadet College, Petaro. After serving a brief period in the army, Dr Asim Hussain retired as a lieutenant and chose to pursue an MBBS degree. He graduated from Dow Medical College in 1978 and went to Europe for further studies. He successfully cleared his MCPS in 1981 and continued his studies in Vienna, Austria. After returning to Pakistan, he entered politics and that is when his career took the fast track. He became a senator, advisor and federal minister for petroleum in President Zardari’s cabinet.

Thus, what destroys a society is not when men of poor means resort to unfair means to make do but when men of high intellect and great opportunities choose to put their skills in place for manipulating the system to serve their own designs. The damage that large-scale mindless wrongdoers cannot do is outdone by a few astute intellectuals whose polished and groomed demeanour keeps on deceiving and defeating any attempts to nail them down. Thus, Dr Asim is not a Faisal Mota, Tahir Lamba or Saulat Mirza. Dr Asim’s arrest and the ensuing confession is an opportunity for the country to crack down on the big fish that are not only not coming into the net but have traversed local sea shores and gone overseas. The question is whether this rather indecent confession by the seemingly decent doctor will be a passage to the crackdown on the high up ‘untouchables’. Looking back at history, the chances seem bleak.

Let us look at another indecent confession by an apparently decent man. It is Ishaq Dar and his affidavit on Sharif’s money laundering case. Again, Mr Dar has impeccable credentials. His accounting background and his loyalty to the Sharifs, which resulted in their children tying the knot, is legendary. His loyalty to the Sharif family is enough to make the Prime Minister (PM) condone his consistent destruction of the economy and award him not only the finance ministry but also charge of as many as 42 committees. But it is the same man who gave a recorded statement in the year 2000 on Sharif committing money laundering. According to legal experts, the senator’s deposition affidavit at that time was an “irrevocable statement” as it had been recorded under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). In that statement, Ishaq Dar accused Nawaz and Shahbaz Sharif of money laundering in the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case. At one point in the 43-page statement, Mr Dar said that on the instructions of Mian Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif, “I opened two foreign currency accounts in the name of Sikandara Masood Qazi and Talat Masood Qazi with the foreign currency funds provided by the Sharif family in the Bank of America by signing as Sikandara Masood Qazi and Talat Masood Qazi.” He said that all instructions to the bank in the name of these two persons were signed by him under the orders of “original depositors”, namely Mian Nawaz Sharif and Mian Shahbaz Sharif.

This confession has become history in the archive dungeons of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and has been gathering so much dust that the statement has been erased from NAB’s case menu. The honourable gentleman who made this irrevocable confession continues to represent the country’s best economic wizardry. These are no ordinary confessions. These are confessions made by the high and mighty against the high and mighty. These are confessions with legal evidence and documented proof. These are confessions made in front of credible witnesses. These confessions are not made by vengeful enemies but loyal best friends. Yet the chances of them becoming turning points in our justice system are as substantial as the Orange Metro Line train removing illiteracy in Punjab. As was the case in Ishaq Dar’s confession already, Dr Asim’s confession has been rejected as being under duress. One might ask what sort of loyalties and relationships are these that crack under pressure. That may be too deep and philosophical a question for a political culture where the basic principle is that there are no friends and no enemies in politics, rather, just common interests of uncommon people who share the mindset of turning might into right.

Read more...

Lawless justice

It is the lawmakers that need to be taken to task. It is the system’s architects that need to be faulted. It is the planners and resource providers that need to be shaken up

Asif Ali Zardarihas been honourably absolved of all charges.The court quotes lack of evidence as a basis for dismissing the case.The accountability court goes by the law and dispenses justice.Déjà vu of over four decades sets forth the feeling of glee in law twisters and feeling of despondency in law seekers.Justice has prevailed but the truth may have been derailed. This just about summarises the quality of justice that is being meted out to the big and powerful, and this just about summarises the quality of progress in the country. On paper it was all correct and appropriate. The case was filed, it was fought and it was dismissed due to lack of evidence. But the question that law and justice dispensers fail to answer is how do you protect evidence, how do you ensure witness protection, how do you tighten the ability of clever exploiters of taking refuge in rusty laws, discriminatory interpretations of law and, most of all, hapless and helpless justicesystems? The best example of this is the 18-year-old case of Asif Ali Zardari and the hardly eight-month-old case of Ayyan Ali. This stagnant legal journey shows the state of justice or rather injustice that has entrenched itself in this country.

Who is to be blamed for this foolproof system of protecting the accused who matter and others who matter to those who matter? Both Asif Ali Zardari’s case and Ayyan Ali’s case were fought by the PPP legal stalwart,FarooqNaek, and he managed to protect his clients and his client’s clients with the same ease he has practised in decades. The SGS-Cotecna case is the most famous case that brought the tag of Mr 10 Percent to Asif Ali Zardari. However, the famous National Reconciliation Ordinance(NRO) of Musharraf overtook dozens of such cases against politicians. The rest,the toothless National Accountability Bureau (NAB) did. The NAB head is chosen by the consent of the ruling and opposition parties. NAB has been recently shaken up as part of the National Action Plan (NAP) and 13-year-old references have been reactivated. But the NAB head has been as controversial as the previous appointees.

Take this particular case:the former deputy chairman NAB,HasanWasimAfzal, while recording his testimony, said that he himself brought the original documents that contained agreements with the offshore companies, details of bank accounts and their beneficiaries, some judicial decisions and other documents. He said he no longercarriedthe record with him since he is now retired and keeping the record with him would be a crime, adding that the record should be either with the Lahore High Court (LHC) or accountability court. During the proceedings, WasimAfzal maintained that he was a witness in 20 corruption references. The prosecution, however, did not record his statements in 19 cases while only in the SGS case his statement before investigation officer Gulshan Khan was recorded under section 161. Now that the original documents were being asked for by the court the same passing-the-buck game started. NAB said itdid not have them and maybe the LHC had them. The court says it does not have them and so, in this wild goose chase, the gander escapes.

Similarly, after umpteen attempts to file charges againstAyyan Ali, finally she has been granted her passport back with the warning that if she tries to leave the country a two million rupees fine will be imposed. This is a mockery of a penalty to somebody who is caught red handed with half a million dollars. Can we blame the judges? Not really, as the court goes on evidence and the evidence in Asif Ali Zardari’s case is nowhere to be found. Can we blame the lawyers? Not really, as the law is being followed. Then whom do we blame?

It is the lawmakers that need to be taken to task. It is the system’s architects that need to be faulted. It is the planners and resource providers that need to be shaken up. But why shake up laws, systems and plans that ensure more power to the powerful? That is perhaps an explanation for the perpetuation of a system that long has been criticised but reinforced. Lawmaking is the job of parliament and its record has been dismal. How do you expect the lawmakers to pass a law on tax defaulters when 70 percent of them donot pay taxes? How do you expect lawmakers to pass the accountability bill when nearly all prominent ministers and members of parliament have cases lying with NAB? How do you expect parliament to make asset declaration more transparent when nearly all of them are hiding 90 percent of their assets? Thus, when we are asking defaulters and wrongdoers to bring reforms, we are really just fooling ourselves.

And that is basically what feeds the rotting system of the country. Take any sector, from energy to the economy, and we see more of the same. The energy sector is bleeding as thewindow dressing of new projects diverts public attention from the main finding of every report that the same inefficiency and corruption continues to eat away at any improvement. The economy, for decades, has been fed on expensive borrowed money; this government has broken all records of borrowing internally and externally. There are no tax reforms, there are no health reforms, there are no judicial reforms, there are no educational reforms, there are no industrial reforms and there are no economic reforms. That is because reforms would mean upsetting a system that these lawmakers have perfected and customised for decades to ensure a political mafia that makes people like Asif Ali Zardari and Ayyan Ali become the most rich, the most powerful, the most famous and, unfortunately, the most attractive role models for the many who look at how to exceed laws and how to stampede justice.

Read more...

War for war

Whatever policies, strategies and actions the world has taken to suppress terrorism, it has in fact fuelled it to become bigger and stronger

Last winter it was Peshawar, this winter it is Paris. Last winter it was innocent school children, this winter it was the innocent public out for entertainment. Last winter it was intelligence failure in a country that is blamed for not doing enough against terrorism, this winter it was political failure for a country whose president happened to be part of the public watching that fatal football match. The response in Pakistan? Attack the hideouts of terrorists in Waziristan. The response in Paris? Attack hideouts in Syria. Hundreds of innocent lives lost and thousands of family members almost dying with grief is something that makes most eyes moist and many hearts heavy for a long time to come. The desire to kill and exterminate anybody and anything remotely connected with these incidents is duly justified. However, the question is: is that really effective in achieving the goal of eliminating terrorism?

The tragedy of Paris is a reminder of how terror has expanded and multiplied despite the war on terrorism that we have witnessed post-9/11. No subject has been debated more, researched more and focused on more in the last one-and-a-half decade than terrorism. World powers along with their allies have put together their best sources and resources to counter this menace yet it has increased in scale, depth and frequency.

France itself has a history of attacks that have multiplied over a period of time. The Algerian independence driven bomb attack in 1961 on a train was the most recent in memory. In the 1990s, Algerian insurgents called the Armed Islamic Group were responsible for an Air France hijacking and two bombings on Paris trains. A series of gun attacks in March 2012 targeting French soldiers and Jewish civilians came to be known as the Toulouse and Montauban shootings. Three soldiers, a rabbi and three Jewish schoolchildren were killed. In January this year, at least 12 people were killed by gunmen who opened fire in the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo. This alone is an indication that whatever the world and Paris have done to combat terrorism has been ineffective and needs a review and redo.

Compare the last attack on the World Trade Centre by al Qaeda on 9/11 and the war on Iraq and Afghanistan thereafter. The Taliban became the most popular brand of terror and Osama bin Laden the man who turned into a monster after the US/Russia conflict in Afghanistan. After 15 years, the three countries affected by this conflict — Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan — are still facing terror bombings, have ruined economies and are hotbeds of resentment against the west. The US has withdrawn troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, and is now desperate to bring the Taliban to the negotiation table in Afghanistan with the help of Pakistan. The effectiveness of operations in Iraq is evidenced by the fact that the UK and US now admit that there were no weapons of mass destruction and the war was the result of “some ill-informed and ill-advised policy making”.

Is this admission to such destruction enough for those millions who were killed in this war? Is this confession enough to absolve the west of its perception of Islamophobia? Is this realisation that a whole country was blown to bits and generations wiped off not going to have its repercussions? Well, it has had serious repercussions and these are in the shape of the birth of originally Islamic State in Iraq (ISI). ISI was formed in reaction to the US backed Shia government of Al Maliki and the alienation of Sunnis in the country in 2004. As the war in Iraq raged so did the jihadi narrative of IS. In 2012, as the Syrian conflict started, the organisation expanded to establish itself in Syria and was rebranded as Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). With the Charlie Hebdo killings it relabelled itself as Islamic State (IS), with a global mission.

It is not hard to assess from this analysis that whatever policies, strategies and actions the world has taken to suppress terrorism, it has in fact fuelled it to become bigger and stronger. The names may change and there may be temporary spurts of peace but they keep on coming back with ever more effective ways of defeating whatever intelligence or war skills that the world possesses. Does that mean that world powers should not hound and beat down terrorism? Does that mean criminals of this brutal nature should not be hounded and punished? No, it only means that focusing on the effect and not focusing on the cause will always result in making the cause so powerful that it will out power the terrorism annihilating the power resources of the world.

After 9/11 there have been so many studies that have proposed a multipronged approach. While you punish the terrorist, you focus on causes of terrorism and uprooting them. The main reasons for terrorism to rise are deprivation, alienation, occupation and imposition. Wherever there is perceived inequity and injustice, rebellion will be inevitable. All studies have revealed that without strategies of inclusion, engagement, education, participation and development, no rebellion in the world has been suppressed. The question thus is how much time, resources and effort have been spent on engagement strategies compared to destruction strategies? The answer is pretty simple: compared to spending on war it may be at best 90/10. The next question is: has this ratio borne fruits in making this world more secure and safe? The answer is no. World insecurity has increased exponentially.

The Paris bombing has Algerian, Moroccan and Belgian origin French involved but President Hollande’s first reaction is 20 bombs on Syria. This is almost déjà vu. The names have changed from Afghanistan to Syria and from al Qaeda to IS but the game of power versus power and war versus war remains the same. A question to ponder: while a terrorist kills people on brainwashed misinformation and ignorance, what do you call Tony Blair after confessing that it was misinformation and ignorance of the right facts that caused millions to die and decay in Iraq? If this is not a war crime and not punishable then what is? It is this perceived discrimination that spirals and fuels the unbeatable rise in rebels with a cause.

Read more...