Strengthening the federation

By Mohammad Jamil

In a federation like Pakistan, the only way to eliminate a sense of alienation amongst the smaller provinces and to guarantee unity and stability in the country is to ensure provincial autonomy, socio-economic justice, and devolution of power. Only then will the people of all the provinces find a true sense of participation. Unfortunately, for a greater part of its history, the federation has lived under a unitary form of government with absolute concentration of powers in the hands of the Central government. The formation of One Unit and the principal of parity in the 1956 Constitution contributed to a sense of deprivation amongst the smaller provinces. Although the matter of provincial autonomy has always been a festering sore all along, the imposition of Martial Laws created a crisis of confidence between the Centre and the smaller provinces. However, politicians, the military and the bureaucracy created conditions that were conducive to Martial Laws.

In a society imbued with democratic traditions and values, no one looks towards the army for resolving conflicts between political parties. However, when a feudal culture permeates all strata of society, when political parties conduct political affairs in an undemocratic manner, when the state apparatus falls victim to personal whims and self-aggrandizement and plays havoc with the treasury and other institutions, people start pinning hopes on someone who promises to emancipate them from misery, want and repression. The people of Pakistan have seen military governments, as well as civilian and elected regimes, but they could not differentiate between the two dispensations. They do not buy the idea or the cliché that the worst type of democracy is better than any other dispensation; which is why they are not willing to come out onto the streets against the president’s uniform. It should be remembered that Hitler and Mussolini were also elected representatives who were responsible for death and destruction unparalleled in the history of mankind.

A year before the 1958 Martial Law was imposed in Pakistan, Professor Keith Callard in his Political Study of Pakistan observed: “If representative government collapses it will be because the legs are not strong enough to sustain the body…It is too early to say whether those institutions are likely to mature.” It means that on the decadent infrastructure of feudalism, the superstructure of democracy could never be built. Meanwhile, internecine conflicts between the political parties and rows in the Assembly unnerved the bureaucrat-president Iskandar Mirza, who then asked General Ayub Khan to impose Martial Law. Ayub Khan introduced the system of ‘basic democracies’, and remained in the saddle for more than ten years. An alliance was then cobbled together to remove him from government and the reins of power were handed to General Yahya Khan.

In 1970, General Yahya Khan held elections on the basis of adult franchise and under a joint electorate system. Awami League in East Pakistan, and Pakistan People’s Party in West Pakistan with thumping majorities. Although Awami League had won an overall majority, the verdict of the people was rejected, leading to the disintegration of the country. The PPP formed the government as it was the majority party in the remaining Pakistan. The Constitution of 1973 attempted to resolve the issue of provincial autonomy and a compromise formula was evolved whereby the Concurrent List of subjects was to revert back to the provinces after a period of 10 years. Late Ziaul Haq’s coup in 1977, however, postponed its implementation for an indefinite period, and so the Concurrent List is still in existence even today.

Distribution of the federal divisible pool has been another source of contention between the federation and its units. The provinces require financial resources in order to maintain the social and physical infrastructure needed to provide basic services to their people. Since the bulk of the provincial resources come from the taxes of the federal government, they are dependent on the latter.It is, therefore, imperative to ensure an equitable distribution of financial resources between the federation and federating units, otherwise social and economic disparity between the provinces would grow and fan greater provincial disharmony. As regards the revenue sharing formula, the basis for all previous finance awards has been population. But in a federation where the federating units differ widely in terms of per capita income, population density, administrative infrastructure and the ability to raise taxes, the revenue sharing formula purely on the basis of population would not be fair. Therefore, appropriate weightage has to be given to factors such as revenue generation, backwardness and neglect in the past.

In 2002, just before the October elections, the National Finance Commission (NFC) was constituted with the then finance minister Mr. Shaukat Aziz as its head, including provincial finance ministers as its permanent members and the federal finance secretary along with four non-statutory members representing their respective provinces. The Commission finalized the proposals for the Sixth Award, but the final agreement was deferred till the establishment of a democratically elected government. Nevertheless, the Award worked out by the bureaucrats was not acceptable to the elected representatives. In 2003, President General Pervez Musharraf promised reconstitution of the National Finance Commission and finalization of the Award in pursuance of Article 160 (1) of the Constitution, but the bureaucracy continues to delay the Award on various pretexts.

During his marathon interaction with media men in February 2005, President Pervez Musharraf had asked the government to finalize a new National Finance Commission Award on 50:50 basis for sharing the federal divisible pool between the federation and the federating units. The announcement consoled the smaller provinces that have been demanding not less than 50 per cent share for the provinces.

Though the Financial Award has to be finalized by the Commission, the President’s advice should be paid heed to, as it would remove a major irritant in its finalization. The President was also reported to have said that he was a proponent of maximum provincial autonomy, and observed that the Concurrent List should be abolished, as it had given rise to Centre-provinces disputes and inter-provincial discord. Unfortunately, nothing has been done so far, and economic advisors and bureaucrats continue postponing the issue. One advisors came out with a formula of 47 per cent share for the federating units, thus nullifying the impact of this good gesture of the President.

During various meetings of the NFC, many fundamental differences between the Centre and provinces surfaced with regard to the criterion for sharing resources. Balochistan wanted the allocation on the basis of area, Punjab on the basis of population, and NWFP on the basis of backwardness. Sindh governments in the past have been persistent in their demand that the revenue sharing formula be based on revenue collection. But this arrangement would put NWFP and Balochistan provinces at a disadvantage. The fact remains that they had suffered from the lopsided development during the British Raj. Even after independence, no government in the past made any substantial allocations for the development of these less developed regions. In view of its importance as a port city, most industrial units were set up in Karachi, where entrepreneurs from all over Pakistan invested. And it should be borne in mind that when a port city or any region is developed with the funds of the federation, all the other federating units have equal right to the revenue collected from that region or province.

With a view to ensure distribution of resources equitably, the NFC should have a permanent secretariat with sufficient financial resources to conduct independent economic surveys to work out provincial GDPs. Secondly, Provincial Finance Commissions should also be set up for resource distribution to the district governments, as equitable sharing of resources at all levels is important. Otherwise the impact of devolving powers to the provinces and districts will be of little consequence. The government should also try to resolve differences over royalties on electricity and gas with the provinces. The Council of Common Interests should also be reconstituted, and it should be obligatory to convene its meetings twice a year to resolve inter-provincial as well as Province and Centre differences.

The writer is a freelance columnist. The Post

The water we drink

By Inayatullah

How good is the water we drink? Or how bad? Is it really potable? What does bad water do to the people of Pakistan? And what is the government doing about it. If it has not been doing much, isn't this neglect culpable?These questions, of late, have arisen in Pakistan because of shocking news about people dying of contaminated water in different places in Pakistan - in Hyderabad, in Karachi, in Multan, in Lahore, in Peshawar and even in Rawalpindi. In Karachi thousands of people were reported hospitalised and more than dozen breathed their last because of the water they have been drinking. Earlier there were dozens of casualties in Hyderabad. 15 people lost their lives in areas near the Bund Road in Lahore. A probing social activist found that water pipes in the area had fractured at many places as they ran alongside the sewerage drains. In February this year, the story of poisonous water being supplied in a number of Multan schools was highlighted. A large number of students had complained of skin allergy and irritation. Tests showed arsenic in the water at 100 PPB while the WHO has fixed 50 PPB arsenic resistance ceiling for the developing countries. WASA conducted a survey in the adjoining residential areas which confirmed 295 arsenic related deaths in the year 2001. A year earlier Kalanwala a village, near Lahore had hit the headlines where more than a hundred boys and girls had developed bone deformities because of the water they consumed which was contaminated with the waste discharged by the factories in the area. Reports have also appeared in the Peshawar press about people suffering from hepatitis and other stomach diseases because of the poor quality of the drinking water.Not that government has remained unresponsive after the occurrence of the tragic cases cited above. Some remedial steps were taken on an ad hoc basis at the local level. But there was no serious effort to formulate comprehensive plans to ensure that no such sad incidents happened again. Of late, both the Prime Minister and the President have been speaking about a country-wide programme for the supply of clean water. Projects to set up a large number of filtration plants have been approved. Billions of rupees are said to have been earmarked for the purpose. The promise is that all the people in Pakistan shall have access to potable drinking water by the year 2007 (the year of the next elections-no emphasis added). Will the promise be fulfilled or will it remain a pipe dream?For the answer, let us look at the magnitude of the problem and enormity of the complexity of it. Can the setting up of a few hundred filtration plants achieve the desired results?According to Senator Nisar Memon 75 million people in the country do not have access to potable water. Quoting a UNICEF report he told the Senate that more than 40% of the patients in the country hospitals are affected by water borne diseases. According to WHO 19 % of all deaths in Pakistan are directly due to water borne diseases and this also accounts for 60% of the infant mortality. Leave aside the rest of the country, under the very nose of the government of Pakistan, the Pakistan Council for Research in Water Resources have found that 70% of water in Islamabad and 94% of it in Rawalpindi is bacterially contaminated.Experts have observed that factors such as interrupted water supply and poor distribution system result in the sucking in of impurities from surroundings and this causes such diseases as diarrhoea, gastroenteritis, typhoid and hepatitis. A study conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency Punjab in the quality of sub soil water in 14 districts of the province has revealed that most of the samples taken even in Lahore were found unfit for human consumption. Thus it is not merely a question of providing funds for installing a certain number of filtration plants. Much more needs to be done as a part of an integrated plan. There is the problem of old pipes leakages with water mixing with sewerage seepage. Tube wells, cisterns and bores are bringing in ground waters contaminated by industrial waste, polluted streams and tributaries.One of the most useful studies on the question of quality, potability and availability of water in the city of Lahore was done by a committee consisting of experts from all concerned governmental and non governmental agencies in the year 2001 at the instance of the Civic Forum.Out of the 10 samples taken from different parts of the city as many as 6 were found not portable. These tests were carried out by PCSIR - the Pakistan Council for Scientific Research (Interestingly the WASA and Corporation laboratories had certified samples as fit for human consumption!).The committee cited the following 7 causes of contamination and impurities in the water supplied to the citizens.1. Whenever there is negative pressure in the supply lines, the possibility of sewage waste water mixing with drinking water cannot be ruled out.2. Loose joints in water pipelines, particularly in cases of illegal water connections.3. Industrial effluents at various levels of water supply.4. Untreated liquid waste disposal.5. Imbalance in the chemical composition of water caused by over-chlorination.6. Intrusion of saline water from peripheral areas (including Hudiarah drain area).7. Rusting and leakage of old and worn out water pipes installed by the water consumers.The committee also made a number of suggestions to ensure safe drinking water to the citizens as under:1. WASA must make necessary efforts to maintain adequate positive pressure in the water supply lines round the clock to prevent the inaction of pollutants like sewage water, industrial effluents, storm water etc. into this supply.2. Poor and loose joints of water supply lines which lead to the induction of pollutants, must be immediately repaired and monitored. A leakage points survey should be carried out every month and repairs done without delay. WASA should disconnect all illegal water connections.3. A regular system of monitoring the quality of water should be established at all the possible points of contamination i.e. the source as well as the distribution system. The private tubewells normally located at shallow depth should also be monitored regularly regarding the quality of their water.4. Consumers should be educated to maintain their internal water supply system properly. 5. The desired results cannot be obtained without creating public awareness on water management and conservation. The consumers should be educated about the importance of the water quality for human use as well as the health hazards of using polluted water.The committee further examined the question of sustained availability of potable water and made 5 concrete recommendations. The report of the committee has been gathering dust in the offices of the concerned departments for the many years.Mentioning may here be made of the complacent well-off citizenry who can afford to buy mineral water. They too may soon enough discover that even the bottled water is not safe as found in a number of cases. So many mineral water companies have sprung up with hardly any monitoring on the part of the authorities.It is time a commission appointed to examine in depth the multi-faceted questions of availability and quality of drinking water in the urban and rural areas of Pakistan. The commission should consist of experts from the relevant government, non-government agencies and media, as also eminent citizens. It should look into the findings of reports already prepared including the ones by the Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources and the Civic Forum committee.To atone for the years of neglect, resulting in poor health of the citizens and the misery they undergo because of the often fatal waterborne diseases directly affecting the quality of human resource in this benighted country, government must move fast and in right earnest to provide safe potable drinking water to the people of Pakistan. Rhetoric and rosy promises do not make for the urgently desired results. Nor will partial and ad hoc measures yield the benefits the teeming millions hope for.Bad water means bad governance. Is it too much to ask for good governance and good water?

The Nation

Peace should have fair chance in South Asia

By Riaz Missen

After the colonial masters left South Asia, they assigned Pakistan their traditional role to defend the western borders of the region. Pakistan did it all alone; rest of regional states just prospered in its backyard. When the testing times are over, Pakistan hopes to enjoy the benefits of peace, as well.
The Afghan government did not accept the Durand Line as a legal border with Pakistan; when Soviets came riding on tanks, India was nowhere to help its neighbour out - the Congress leadership just forgot Pakistan's reaction towards the Sino-Indian war (1962). From Kashmir to the Arabian Sea, the people of Indus Valley stood against the looming disaster; they could not afford to get history repeated: the invaders have so frequently crossed its territory to establish empires in the Ganges valley.
The Congress leadership did understand the security concerns of Pakistan but it chose to play the waiting game. It never showed sympathy towards the woes of Pakistani nation when the Red Army was knocking on its door. For half a century, India joined the rival camp; it had to fight three wars with the neighbour - the last one was deadly as it left Pakistan half-limbed.
Now when the Soviets are a history, America makes the neighbourhood of Pakistan through staying its forces in Afghanistan. Have realities changed for South Asia? Is it now more secure than in the past? Has Congress, now ruling India, changed its mind as it is up to befriending Pakistan? Has it softened its heart for the neighbour?Whatever is the answer to these questions may be, one fact remains constant in the history of nations: every state in the world has got its own interest to pursue.
True, it is important who stands with whom at a particular moment of history, though.Did Pakistan serve the Indian interest while defending its western borders? What was the cost to keep order unchanged? Pakistani nation braved the hostile Afghan governments, confronted the Red Army, lost three eastern rivers to India and suffered humiliation through the loss of its eastern wing.
The Land of the Pure, where Sufis have preached love for humanity, was infested with violence and anarchy as the country militarised itself to combat the danger. Pakistani leadership must bear these facts in mind while getting forward; it needs to be diplomatic while negotiating peace with the neighbour and beyond. Maximum care should be taken while setting conditions of peace.
Who knows better than this nation what war and strife means? What if it persists for long? Pakistan should not have tensions on its borders again. It should welcome India if it does not want hostile relationship with Pakistan and is ready to share its natural and technical resources to combat the problem of poverty and disease in the region.
"Pakistan needs gas more than India; we should stand together to face the world," was a catching phrase of the Indian minister of petroleum who recently visited Pakistan. The elderly Advani appeared in Karachi tracing back his roots. And, Kashmiri leaders visited Pakistan to insist they should be consulted before it signs treaty of friendship with India.
Pakistan, not strangely enough, welcomed all these people for all of them were in favour of giving peace a fair chance.Indian government is also ready to finance gaslines from the adjoining regions of Pakistan for the economic benefit of the people of both countries; Indian traders want to tread the historical trade routes leading to Europe (through Central Asia and Middle East). Their interests are concrete and genuine; there is no reason why Pakistan should not prosper through trade among the neighbouring regions.
It is an ideal situation for Pakistan that the neighbouring nations look at it as a hub of regional trade. China has signed a treaty of friendship with Pakistan in exchange of utilising the Gwadar Port; there is hardly any sector of country's economy that is not benefiting this friendly arrangement with the neighbour. The US is also friendly towards Pakistan. Since it is patronising Karzi regime in Afghanistan, Pakistan has to be receptive to its concerns as far the import of energy from Central Asia is concerned. Meanwhile, the US is grateful to Pakistan for extending support in its war on terror against the Taliban regime; the resistance is still there and the two countries are cooperating with each other to uproot extremism on both sides of the Durand Line.
Pakistan is getting crucial help from the US vis-à-vis its efforts 'to bring back its society on the normal course'. The jihadis are being debriefed and their network is being dismantled. Pakistan now is that ready to have dialogue with India and spell the conditions of peace. The Muslim League is confronting Congress now; history happens to repeat itself. However, contrary to the partition times, the Congress is in a friendly mood; Manmohan Singh, the Indian premier, wants to soften borders through relaxing visa rules and has expressed a desire to make the highest battle ground in the world, Siachin, the Mountain of Peace; Congress now admits that Kashmiris do need peace in the global age.
The Pakistan Muslim League should hurry to develop political consensus in the country to fulfil the promises it made to the people of Pakistan; it has now a supporting economy to translate Pakistan into a welfare entity as per its promise. The party should take initiative to pass the benefits of reforms on to the masses; the technocrats have done their job very well. The institutional reforms package needs to be implemented through an unparallel political will, for the resulting situation will bring funds from the friendly nations for poverty alleviation besides restoring the dignity of citizens.
The Opposition parties, too, have a reason to act on behalf of the people; they too need to realise that a functional parliament is more important than a full-fledged martial law. More they will take interest in legislation process, the more the sovereignty of the people will be ensured. Of course, they need extra efforts to wear a democratic look after living under the umbrella of military regimes for long.When the armed forces see no benefit in performing extra-professional responsibilities, the politicians need to change their habits as well. Pakistan's international standing will only improves, if the political parties develop a vision of a democratic and forward-looking state.
Pakistan should work with India to have common human rights standards for the region. Let the two neighbours bless the South Asian diversity with a commitment to adopt high standards of tolerance. Peace should not be wished away when there becomes the question of the people who have yet to find a proper place under the sun. The free movement of people across the subcontinent has the key to alleviate poverty: the best wealth is produced when people interact with each other with good intentions.

What brought Nawaz regime down?

By Shahid Anwar

Nawaz Sharif, like Benazir Bhutto, twice came to the office of Prime Minister but could not complete the either term. The immediate contexts of both dismissals might be different, but the long term dilemmas characterized by non-institutionalized and personalized rule remains the same.

During his first term, Nawaz Sharif was denied the legitimate political space by the extra-parliamentary forces—exerting influence through the president. He was removed at the end of the day. During his second tenure, Sharif enjoyed maximum political and constitutional powers, unparalleled to any prime minister of Pakistan. There was no powerful president, no formidable opposition, and virtually no informal checks and balances which usually exist in a democratic polity. Still he met the same fate.

Did Sharif stand on a solid or a shaky ground? A leader’s strength lies in the political organization, which connects him with the people—the ultimate source of legitimacy and political strength. The Muslim League was a coalition of various oligarchic interests, dependent on state patronage and Sharif rose to its leadership with transparent facilitation from the very establishment; he turned against, latter on.

Though earlier co-option does not forfeit the right of a leader to reclaim his authority, a leader does need a solid foundation to stand on. By not organizing the party, Sharif kept him deprived of the real source of his strength. The role of extra-parliamentary forces could only be restricted through building a party system, evolving a consensus among the political parties, and making cabinet and parliament real institutions.

At the heart of problem is not the lack of power of prime minister, but the lack of institutionalized power. It has been amply demonstrated by the second Sharif government that was rerun of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in many respects. Like Bhutto he got a real opportunity to put the parliamentary system on track by strengthening the institutions. Again like Bhutto, Sharif II emerged as a leader with mass following, he could have exercised moral leadership, but again like Bhutto, he ignored this option.

Sharif established a personalized rule through an autocratic control of the party and by employing the populist techniques. Instead of providing institutionalized governance, he fostered a culture of Khuli Kuchahris. His behaviour pattern manifested little tolerance towards the difference of opinion and criticism — both from within the party and without—press and opposition.

During the both of his terms in office, he demonstrated a strong tendency either to bypass cabinet, party and parliament or to dictate his own decisions. In a nutshell, Sharif’s rule was like running a democracy without democrats. Little surprise, if the people had lost distinction between democracy and dictatorship, and few resented the demise of Sharif government. To be a democrat in political wilderness seems hardly convincing.


Besides a number of controversial constitutional amendments, the second Sharif government engaged in a sustained conflict with the Supreme Court which culminated in a physical assault on the court. A number of factors caused the conflict: increased judicial activism by the Chief Justice, the government’s bid to establish anti-terror courts—independent of the Supreme Court’s control, the prime minister’s own pending cases in the court, and the ruling party’s belligerent attitude leading to contempt of court proceedings.

After the Judges Case in 1996, the Supreme Court under the Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah had acquired significant confidence which led to increased judicial activism. The Chief Justice took suo moto notice of government’s handling of a wheat-shipping contract from the United States, and also opened the cases of alleged illegal distribution of plots by the Prime Minister.

In 1997, the Parliament adopted the Anti-Terrorism Act, giving police unusual powers to use force against anyone committing, or believed to be about to commit a terrorist offence. Special courts, independent of the control of the superior judiciary, were established for summary trail of the persons charged with such offences. The Supreme Court’s disapproval of “the parallel justice system” furthered aggravated the ongoing conflict with the executive.

Sajjad Ali Shah had assured the Prime Minister, before the passage of the Act, that judiciary would deal quickly with outstanding cases. After the enactment of Anti-Terrorism Act, he asked the government to fill the five vacant seats in the Supreme Court, and named the judges for the purpose. The government responded with reduction in the strength of the Supreme Court by bringing the total number of judges down to the existing level.

Following a strong protest by the Supreme Court Bar Association, Nawaz Sharif had to step back, thus he retracted the Ordinance reducing the strength of judges. The Supreme Court by invoking Clause 190 of the Constitution, ordered President Leghari to intervene and notify the appointment of the five judges. The Prime Minister retaliated with an advice to the president asking for dismissal of the Chief Justice; the president refused to accept. Finally, the Prime Minister conceded the elevation of the judges as recommended by the Chief Justice, but it was not the end-game.

Meanwhile, opposition leaders flooded the Supreme Court with petitions against Sharif; the court invoked the doctrine of judicial activism and suspended the 14th amendment, believing that the amendment had violated freedom of expression. The government saw at as an attempt to stage a judicial coup, so, it retaliated with strong words terming the action of chief Justice as “illegal and unconstitutional”. When the court initiated contempt of court proceedings, the government “instead of tendering an unqualified apology—which is the minimum requirement for ending such cases of contempt—tried to gain political mileage out of the issue”, and amended the contempt of court law.

Encouraged by the government, some judges revolted against their Chief, as the Quetta bench of the Supreme Court suspended Sajjad Ali Shah, the Peshawar bench followed the suit, and it appeared as if there were two parallel Supreme Courts in the country. Sajjad Ali Shah remained stuck to his guns and continued with contempt of court trail against the Prime Minister. In the final show down, on November 28, 1997, the PML-N activists led by the party legislators stormed the Supreme Court building, and forced the trail to be abandoned.

The entire event, invasion of the court premises and intimidation of judges, was recorded by the security cameras at Supreme Court building. The final outcome was the resignation of President Leghari on December 2, 1997, and the forced departure of Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah. The President was asked to “de-notify” the Chief Justice, but he preferred to resign instead of signing the summary. So, Nawaz Sharif emerged victorious, and he claimed that it was the victory for parliamentary democracy. Some commentators anticipated an “elective dictatorship” rather than viceregalism. His position was further strengthened when Rafiq Tarar, a close friend of his father, was elected to the Presidency.

Similarly the accountability process (ehtesab), initiated by the Sharif government, entirely bypassed the judiciary and was put under the direct control of the prime minister, in accordance with a law passed by the PML-N dominated legislature. A close Sharif friend, Senator Saifur Rehman, chaired the ehtesab process. Highly partisan and selective manner of accountability derive made it appear to be an instrument for political arm-twisting.

In a similar squeeze, the PML-N government took major steps to curb press freedom. In February 1999, the government targeted the Jang Group, accusing it of tax evasion. The government simply refused to release the newsprint that the group had already paid for. Many independent observers believed that the government in fact had been pressing the newspaper owners to sack certain critical journalists. And the group’s refusal to oblige displeased the government, thus evoked this kind of response. The Jang Group contested the government’s accusation and filed a suit in a court. In another attempt to suppress information, in May 1999, the Pakistani authorities seized 4,000 copies of The Economist magazine featuring a cover story criticizing the government. The lead story in the magazine's Asia edition was titled The Rot in Pakistan and had focused on the Pakistan Government's crack down on press freedom.

The other high profile episode was the victimization and harassment of journalists who had cooperated in the production of the British Broadcasting Corporation’s documentary, dealing with corruption in the government and business concerns of the Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and allegations of money-laundering by his family. Najam Sethi, editor of the Friday Times was the most prominent journalist interviewed by the BBC in the documentary. He was picked and beaten by the government agencies for alleged anti-state activities. Other critical journalists were also arrested and beaten. In the same vein, Shahbaz Sharif, the younger brother of the prime minister, banned some 2,000 nongovernmental organizations, their assets were seized and bank accounts frozen. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan was also threatened with similar action.

Such kinds of actions, by the ruling clique, were widely perceived as a part of comprehensive plan to establish the personalized rule by subjugating the higher judiciary, suppressing the political dissent, and subduing the free press and civil society. His insatiable desire to grab more powers brought his government in conflict with the military.

So, the Nawaz Sharif’s ill-advised attempt to strengthen his grip on military by removing General Musharraf was a disastrous step too far. It brought the longest era of civilian rule to an end, as the country came under the military rule, yet again. And Pakistan was back to square one, there were no protest in the streets, over the dismissal of the most heavily mandated government of Pakistan’s political history, but a noticeable sense of relief and a few celebrations instead, leaving a big question mark over the democratic experience of Pakistan.

UN Expnasion and balance of power

By Aamir Hakeem

Expansion of United Nations Security Council (UNSC), the major issue of the forthcoming September summit, seems to be in doldrums as US and China, the two veto powers, have found reasons to oppose it. The so-called G-4 (Brazil, Germany, India and Japan) are urging for the expansion of UNSC along with African Union (AU), while on the other side, it is being argued that time is not ripe yet for change.

A deadlock has emerged, as the negotiations between G-4 and AU are not finalised. UN Secretary General Kofi Anan wants to see the ten years of debate reach some conclusion. The world media recently quoted him saying, "The 15 member Security Council needed to be expanded because it was no longer democratic...there is a democracy deficit in the UN governance that has to be corrected."

An expansion in the role of United Nations is being deliberated for the last many years. At the millennium summit, the speakers suggested enhanced role for the body vis-a-vis environmental governance, educational efforts for world peace and global governance etc. Gorbachev proposed radical expansion of the UN powers and reiterated his 1998 idea of Economic Council and Environmental Council with authority equal to the Security Council. The 9/11 incident and the US led Afghan and Iraq wars shadowed the debate for UN expanded role but now the issue of the expansion of Security Council is being raised again as the UN summit is approaching.
Currently, there are three different proposals for the expansion of the Security Council. G-4 is demanding addition of six permanent seats without veto power and four non- permanent seats. Veto decision for newly permanent members is suspended for fifteen years. G-4 demands four permanent seats for itself and two are delegated to African Union to get their support. Another group is seeking 10 non-permanent members only.

The African Union, a group of 53 nations, has proposed the expansion of Security Council to 26 members; six permanent seats with veto power and five non-permanent seats on the rotation of two years. The AU draft demands two permanent seats and two non-permanent seats for African Union. Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa are the prospective candidates for the African Union seats. Some recent reports claim that Nigerian Foreign Minister Adeniji, leading an 18-member team to resolve the differences over expansion, signalled AU's readiness to compromise the veto power.

The United Nation was formally created in 1945 and a balance of power was established by the victors of WW II by taking the permanent seats in the Security Council with veto power. Why the UN Security Council needs expansion and how can the expanded body guarantee world peace? The world's security features have changed after the communication revolution. World is heading towards globalisation. Decolonisation has paved the way for the third world to emerge on the canvas as sovereign and responsible nations. Japan, the victim of nuclear attacks and loser of the WW II, has proved herself a peaceful and productive nation. Now it is the second largest donor of the UN. The oil rich Middle Eastern states are also contributing significantly to the United Nations as the major source of funds for the UN is the contribution of member states based on their capacity to pay. The assessment criteria for contribution are several factors including the GNP and per capita incomes of the states.

The break-up of Soviet Union had great implications on the balance of power created after WW II. Balance of power is a system of international relations in which a nation seeks to maintain equilibrium of power with other states.

The criteria for the expansion of Security Council to maintain balance of power for world peace is not elaborated by expansion seekers; geographical area, contribution to UN, military and economic strength are the considered factors.

Interestingly, the physical expansion of the United Nations Head Quarter is also an issue as UN is in need of another building while the renovation of the existing one is also due. The United Nations Development Corporation plans to build a 35-storey building at a nearby park connecting the old tower through a tunnel that is being criticised by the local authorities of New York. A voice is also emerging for shifting the UN headquarters from the US. World Net Daily quotes former California Republican Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian as saying, "Blocking expansion (physical) is the best hope for getting the UN out of the US."

Apparently there is no international move to shift UN headquarters out of the US. The UN Development Corporation is seeking a loan of $1 billion from US to renovate the existing headquarters. But the structure and system of the UN decision-making is more important for world peace than the debate about renovation or relocation of its building. The more UN is functional, democratic and powerful, the better the prospects of world peace.

Though revamping the UN structure is the need of hour but the proposed expansion cannot guarantee world peace. World powers have different interests in different parts of the world. US initially signalled the inclusion of one or two states as permanent members of the Security Council as it wanted Japan to be given a permanent seat. But China has a different view on this matter. Indian humanitarian record and its regional conflicts are the stumbling blocks that impede her entry into the Security Council as a permanent member.

Instead of admitting new states into the Security Council, various organisations could be integrated in the process of war and peace and decision-making. European Union, Arab League, ASEAN, SAARC, African Union, OAS etc can be taken into account for the permanent seats at the UN security Council with limited veto power or consulted with regard to decisions for their respective regions. Veto power is entirely against the democratic norms. Instead of delegating this power to more single states, deliberations could be made to withdraw this power or to improve the criteria of veto i.e. the existing five veto powers make decisions democratically by getting three vetoes on one side.

The writer is an Islamabad-based columnist with a background in strategic studies.

The News International