Compromises in politics

MR ASIF ALI ZARDARI has said recently (April 18) that the army was a “permanent reality” in the country’s governance, that the PPP would value its opinions and take it along, but that it would make no compromises on principles. We shall return to this intriguing observation a bit later.

Looking for a book on my shelves the other day, I saw John Viscount Morley’s volume, On Compromise, that Mr Jinnah had once commended to his audience at Aligarh Muslim University. As I flipped through is pages, I came upon a passage from Edmund Burke’s famous speech on ‘Conciliation with America’ that Lord Morley had quoted. I reproduce it below:

“It is a very great mistake to imagine that mankind follow up practically any speculative principle, either of government or of freedom, as far as it will go in argument and logical illation. All government, indeed every human benefit ... every virtue, and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter. We balance inconveniences; we give and take; we remit some rights that we may enjoy others.”

Democratic politics is the art of resolving issues by reasoning together, giving some and taking some, making compromises. It assumes flexibility in contending positions, a measure of scepticism concerning the finality of any of them. When absolutes are arrayed against each other, violence and war, not politics, will ensue.

Nobody wants to be called “unprincipled.” Many a businessman will say that he acts pragmatically, but that he does so “within the framework of strict business principles.” I have encountered pragmatists who say they advocate pragmatism in politics to further a set of principles. Some of them want to increase personal liberty to the extent possible, and reduce the size and scope of government to the extent possible. They recognize that their goals will be reached by incremental steps, not by revolutionary change.

Not every issue involves a principle. But where it does, we have to ask how much of an adjustment in the application of the relevant principle to the situation at hand is to be made. If the concessions demanded are such as will amount virtually to its repudiation, the wiser course may be to walk away from the negotiating table.

Let us now see how principles and compromises work in our politics. I cannot think of any political party, or even an individual politician, that does not claim to be guided by principles. In terms of assertiveness in this regard, the ideologically committed groups, such as our Islamic parties, will come to mind more than the others. But their actual practice shows that they are not unalterably opposed to compromise.

The MMA subscribes to the principle of the military’s exclusion from governance. But in 2002 it agreed to the deactivation of this principle for a time in return for General Musharraf’s undertaking that he would quit his army post by the end of 2004. In making this deal the MMA had not abandoned the principle in question; it made a compromise, expecting that the principle would be restored to operation after a brief lapse.

The ulema’s willingness to compromise may be seen in their recommendations to the Constituent Assembly in 1951 and 1953. They wanted the president, once in office, to serve for life. Failing that, he should be allowed to serve as long as successive parliaments continued to vote confidence in him. If a specific term of office must be appointed, they would go along with one, and would recommend a term of five lunar years. They did not want women members in parliament. But if they must be admitted, they should be over 50 years of age and covered according to the Islamic code of modesty.

Not all nations make a whole lot of fuss over principles. The passage from Edmund Burke’s speech quoted above may be taken as fairly representative of the British disposition in this regard, particularly that of the conservatives. They have always been wary of theoretical formulations. Content with the considerations of practicality, they have over the centuries built quite an expertise in the art of “muddling through.”

Let us see if we can identify the principles intended to guide politics in Pakistan. The listing of fundamental rights in the Constitution is not an entirely satisfactory source, for the state is authorized to abridge several of them in the interest of public order, national security and integrity, the country’s foreign relations, morality, and in one case (Article 19 relating to freedom of speech and that of the press) the “glory of Islam.”

The Objectives Resolution refers to democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance, and social justice as “principles” which the state is to observe. Enabling Pakistani Muslims to order their lives according to Islam, religious freedom to the minorities and the protection of their rights, provincial autonomy, and independence of the judiciary provided for in this document may also be reckoned as principles.

Chapter 2 in Part II of the Constitution is specifically entitled Principles of Policy. Beyond the principles that may be deduced from the Objectives Resolution and the listing of fundamental rights, the following stipulations in this chapter are noteworthy: Eradication of parochial, ethnic, sectarian, or regional prejudices; full participation of women in all spheres of national life; spread of education, both general and technical; inexpensive and expeditious justice; removal of disparities between the country’s regions and affirmative action to bring the disadvantaged area on par with others; decentralization of governmental authority; preventing the concentration of wealth and economic power in the hands of a few; reducing disparity of incomes in society; full employment and social security; equality before law and of opportunity for all citizens; access of all citizens to the basic necessities of life.

Commitment to the public interest, approbation of public service, honesty and dedication to duty, loyalty to institutions, and tolerance of the dissident may also be included in one’s list of approved principles relevant to governance and politics in Pakistan.

The principles noted above do not have binding force. Their implementation is subject to the availability of resources. One cannot even be sure that they are taken seriously. The president is required to submit to the National Assembly each year a report on the government’s observance and implementation of these principles, but no law or action of the state may be challenged on the ground that it does not accord with them. In actual practice, no government has paid much attention to them.

Where do our major political parties stand in relation to principles? The MMA professes firm dedication to all of the Islam-related principles; it will endorse the requirement of probity and dedication to duty on the part of public officials (but not their political neutrality); it does not subscribe to the principles relating to the rights of religious minorities, tolerance of the dissident, and women’s right to full participation in all spheres of national life. It is probably indifferent to most of the others listed above.

Mr Zardari says the PPP will not compromise on principles. But note that instead of compromising, as the MMA had done, he has simply abandoned the principle of the military’s subordination to civil authority. His party had shed socialism many years ago, and since Benazir Bhutto’s assumption of its leadership it has been a non-ideological party. If asked, it will probably endorse all of the above principles, but it will not go out of its way to implement any of them. It will compromise on them if the exigencies of acquiring and retaining power so require. The same can be said, with even greater assurance, of the “king’s party” (PML-Q).

Mr Nawaz Sharif’s sponsorship of bills and a constitutional amendment designed to make the Shariah the supreme law of the land might lead one to think that his faction of the PML entertained a firm commitment to the Islam-related principles. But upon considering that his government did nothing to enforce the Shariah, which the law he had sponsored required him to do, one might have to conclude that his and his party’s commitment in this area was more apparent than real.

The position of PML (N) with regard to the other principles mentioned above is probably the same as that of the PPP. It is willing to set them aside when and, to the extent, necessary. Their actual practice when they were in power indicates also that neither of them has much use for the ideal of public service, and notions such as the primacy of the public interest, probity and dedication to duty.

Availability of resources as a condition for implementing principles makes sense. But there are principles (such as equality of opportunity and that before law, freedom of belief and expression, protection of minority rights, tolerance of the dissident, among others) that do not cost money to implement. Bias, prejudice, hate and similar other ungenerous passions prevalent among certain political forces in society, and not the insufficiency of resources, are the reason for their non-implementation.

There is nothing wrong with compromise so long as the relevant principle is not altogether abandoned. Principles supply goals for action and ideals that should guide conduct. But goals and ideals are never fully achieved. If they were, they would become the day’s routine and no longer worthy of mention as guides to action. I an inclined to think that the fewer the publicly professed principles we have the greater is the chance of our being true and honest with ourselves and with one another in the public domain.

Primacy of the public interest and the commitment to serve it honestly and diligently should do as guides to conduct in politics and governance. We will have to leave it to the majority of the people’s elected representatives to spell out the specifics of the public interest from time to time. True that on occasion the majority can be wrong, but that is a risk we must take (hoping that in time it will see the light), for an aristocracy of the unerring wise and righteous is not an available alternative.

The author is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, USA. E-mail: anwarsyed@cox.net

From conflict to consensus

NEITHER President Musharraf’s politics nor his reforms have gone the way he had planned or hoped for. His political grandstanding aside, the majority of the people, moderate in their views and tolerant of dissent, are not rallying round him.

The constitutional innovations he has introduced such as the National Security Council, district government and the balance of power between the president and the prime minister have proved more divisive than binding factors in public life.

It has, therefore, come as no surprise that he is now inclined and willing to review and modify the whole gamut of his policies and doings of the past five years. The surprise indeed is that it took him so long to realize it. Mere haranguing or rebuking the parliamentarians and PML-Q bosses will not heal divisions in their ranks nor squelch individual ambition.

Even if he takes the fateful decisions that must be made — some straightaway, others before the general elections — he needs a much wider base of parliamentary and popular support than he is able to provide at the moment. In fact, with the support of the prime minister the president has to evolve a national consensus on a number of critical issues ignoring the henchmen around him who have vested interest in the present arrangement.

Among the issues ripe for resolution and other festering ones which might imperil the solidarity of the country, the foremost is Kashmir followed by autonomy for the provinces, the future of the district governments and a time-frame and rules for fair and free elections.

The resolution of these four and some other connected issues are possible and binding only if all political parties, the intelligentsia and the armed forces were to participate in the debate and negotiations leading up to it. (Keeping the armed forces out of the fray would be desirable but in the current circumstances this is unrealistic).

To bring it about, the president has not just to “get hold of” (as he put it in a cavalier fashion) the PPP leadership alone but invite every other major party to discuss a defined agenda in a spirit of urgency and mutual accommodation. Musharraf has also to concede their enduring representative character especially of the PPP, the Nawaz League and the MQM. They, in turn, must concede the fact, howsoever unpalatable, that in the present situation no one else but Musharraf can lead the way. The position of their leaders sent into exile, indicted or disqualified can itself be a subject of negotiations. Their return to public life, however, should be as much on the bargaining counter as Musharraf’s presidency.

Musharraf feels confident that “this whole issue (Kashmir) can be put behind in 12 months.” Perhaps it can be, the fervent hope is that it will be. But it cannot be without the involvement not just of the moderate but all the conservative and radical elements of every stripe in the country.

Any solution other than plebiscite (and it can only be some other solution) is bound to fall victim to rabble rousing if it does not get majority support across the national spectrum. In negotiating a compromise solution, Musharraf should be worrying more about the opposition in his own country coming in particular from Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif and Qazi Hussain Ahmad than from India’s Vajpayee, Advani or Joshi. The representative credentials of Manmohan Singh’s government are much stronger than Musharraf’s.

Musharraf’s hunch that the moment for a settlement on Kashmir is “fleeting” is widely shared. It would certainly not wait for a more representative government to emerge in Pakistan two and a half years from now. Anyway the Congress and the BJP are both prepared to deal with Musharraf and the whole world is encouraging them.

If the Pakistani leadership balks at clinching a settlement now, even our friends — China, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia foremost among them — may deny us sympathy much less extend support. India, too, is after all their friend and more attractive to their investors and tourists. And once the war on terror is over, the United States, Europe and Japan would once again look at Pakistan more as a nuclear proliferator than as an ally.

It is agreed by all, and the prime minister and the State Bank governor have articulated it well, that the true economic potential of Pakistan will not be released until the Kashmir dispute is put out of the way. But the government cannot do it alone. It hasn’t been able to do lesser things like the abolition of regressive laws and reprehensible social customs. Kashmir is a much bigger and more sentimental issue. Putting ego, hubris and vengeance aside, the government has to persuade every leader of public opinion and all organized political and professional cadres to join in this venture which might turn out to be the last hope for peace in the subcontinent.

The president says he is for “maximum” provincial autonomy. The fact is that the constitutional and administrative changes he has made have deprived the provinces of whatever little autonomy they had earlier. So much so that even the districts and lower councils have passed under central control. For quantum of autonomy, India among the developing countries and Canada among the developed ones can serve as models in discussions with the political parties. Both have parliamentary governments in the Westminster tradition and, like Pakistan, are members of the Commonwealth.

A constitutional agreement on the redistribution of subjects between the federation and the provinces would inevitably lead to the repeal of the local government and police laws foisted on the provinces by the centre which in the past three years have severely impaired the efficiency and discipline of the public services. Autonomous provinces would be able to lend greater support to the central leadership in negotiating with India than the vassals as they are now.

All efforts directed at building national consensus on Kashmir and provincial autonomy may come to nought if no agreement is reached on the schedule of elections and doubts persist about their being free and fair. Excluding the top leaders of the opposition from the contest might lead to a make-or-break situation. But as in Kashmir, a solution acceptable to all three parties to the conflict may emerge once they start talking — the parties here being Pervez Musharraf, Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto. Maybe all three agree to give the country a break by opting out of the contest in 2007.

On the right track

THE journey from Lahore to Hyderabad is smooth, the train leaving Lahore Station on time, making its way past the densely packed squatter settlements which seem to spill over onto the tracks. Children run along narrow lanes, skirting around puddles of stagnant water, dogs bark at the passing train as if it were an intruder in their domain.

From the window of my compartment I see the chaos of urban living, drooping electricity wires connecting overloaded transformers to shops and businesses, the visual cacophony of bill boards advertising soap and cooking oil and air conditioners, products designed to make life livable.

There are people everywhere, sitting besides the tracks, loitering outside tea stalls, waiting patiently at the railroad crossing. There are ill-fed horses and long-suffering donkeys standing beneath the open sky, carrying their burden from place to place, resigned to destiny. And there are women, in veils, covered, hidden from view, carrying young children or the day’s grocery, breathing the toxic air of the city which shelters them.

I am travelling by Karachi Express, offering my support to the country’s largest civil organization in its effort to provide health care to under-serviced populations. Under the able leadership of the chairman, Pakistan Railways Board, this is the first initiative of its kind where a public sector organization reaches beyond its expressed purpose to provide a service to those who have been marginalized from the process of development in the country. This is also a wonderful example of public and private sector collaboration for the welfare of our citizens.

Pakistan Railways, with a roll of 86,000 staff members, is, after the ubiquitous armed forces, the largest employer in the country. In one year, the vast network of trains carries some 70,000 passengers over 18 million kilometres, traversing terrain which begins with Dargai nestled in the Hindu Kush to Keamari on the coast of the Arabian Sea. Pakistan Railways carries approximately 5,000 tons of freight over four million kilometres, passing through many of the 687 stations which punctuate the 11,000 kilometres of track weaving intricate patterns across the landscape of this country.

Currently, Pakistan Railways is engaged in the challenging tasks of laying a new track from the port at Gwadar to Quetta, and in replacing the 1.676 metre gauge track with broad gauge track between Mirpurkhas and Khokrapar on the border with India, a distance of 135 kilometres cutting through the shifting sands of Tharparkar. The railway line from Mirpurkhas to zero-point would pass through 130 bridges of which five are the major bridges over Mithrao canal, Jamrao canal, Thar canal and the Left Bank Outfall Drainage canal. This shall certainly be a feat of engineering, requiring great discipline, determination, planning and exceptional leadership.

The consequences of this link between Khokrapar and Munabao in India will be manifold. Other than building people to people contact, the link would enable the trade of commodities and the exchange of ideas across the border. The establishment of a broad gauge track and the renovation of seven railway stations along the route shall also foster economic ties and boost the concomitant social development of a region long neglected by the state and its functionaries.

In this last month, another initiative taken by Pakistan Railways is perhaps even more challenging than that of establishing rail links within and across the borders of our country. This challenge is daunting indeed, if not in terms of logistics then certainly in terms of the imagination and the infinite possibilities held within.

In the first week of May, at the height of the summer in Tharparkar, Pakistan Railways set up two medical camps in the desert for two days, staffed by twenty PR employees and volunteers. Supervised by the divisional medical officer Karachi, Dr Mushtaq Ahmed Qureshi, the camps were held at Pithoro and Khokrapar stations. Railway carriages were put to use for the administration of intravenous drips, the station master’s office at Khokrapar became a reception room for patients, and the entrance hallway at Pithoro served as a vetting area for patients who would be registered and then referred to one of the several specialists volunteering their time and energy for this activity.

The specialists, lady health visitors nurses, skilled birth attendants, technicians and ward boys were drawn from the staff of the Hassan Hospital run by PR in Karachi. One specialist, Dr Arif Majid, volunteered his services from the private sector, carrying with him 500 pairs of glasses which were to be donated to the community after the requisite eye tests were conducted in the well-furbished “eye lab” set up at Pithoro railway station’s waiting room.

Everyone involved in this effort seemed to share one vision: to provide health care to the citizens of areas that lie between the realm of the neglected and the desolate. An idea which grew out of a conversation held several years ago with Mr Shakil Durrani, now chairman of the Pakistan railway board, bore fruit despite the odds and the barren environment of government indolence. Before taking on his current assignment at the ministry of railways, Mr Durrani had served as secretary, ministry of population welfare. At that time I served as a goodwill ambassador for the United Nations Population Fund, and had held a discussion about the deplorable health profiles of women living in remote rural areas.

Mr Durrani was keen to mobilize mobile service units to serve these areas, and I had suggested that the government should utilize existing infrastructure such as the railways to motivate people towards planning their families and towards improving the health profiles of mothers and children. Several years later, that vision became a possibility. In his capacity as chairman, Mr Durrani mobilized Pakistan Railways to set up medical camps in the region of Tharparkar, putting to work in a novel way the apparatus and infrastructure of a system which serves to connect remote regions to the urban metropolises of the country.

Despite the fact that the Railways’ health budget is limited, Pakistan Railways made available, free of charge, thousands of bottles and tablets and tubes of medicines. Lab equipment was carried from Karachi for blood grouping, haemoglobin testing and investigative purposes. Railways electricians were on call constantly, standing by to ensure that the apparatus and air conditioning were running smoothly.

At Pithoro, in two days, a total of 1,862 male patients were registered. Of the 1,230 female patients who sought medical help, 44 asked for tubal ligations which were performed immediately at the DHQ hospital in Pithoro. Through the data collected it was apparent that chest diseases, particularly tuberculosis, were rampant, as were water-borne diseases such as gastroenteritis and diarrhoea, particularly amongst children. Eye diseases afflict many of the people of this region, possibly due to the blowing sand and the lack of water.

Most of the patients attending the camp owned no land and worked for a wage on the vast tracts of land owned by local landlords. Some had paid up to Rs. 300 in taxi fare to come to the medical camp, a reflection of the desperate need for health care and the miserable failure of the government’s rural health programme. I had worked in Mirpurkhas several years ago and had come to know that a hari’s total remuneration for a month’s work on the wadera’s land amounts to two sacks of grain. I remember being told that invariably one sack was sold to buy medicines as a result of ill-health. With one sack of grain left, a hari was to provide for his family of between six to eight or more people.

The horror and injustice of this truth stood in sharp contrast to the Oxbridge accent of the nazim of Pithoro who welcomed the Pakistan Railway’s endeavour to link Khokrapar to the main line. This gentleman reiterated his belief that such a link would invigorate the economy of the area by encouraging trade. I asked him how the people who tilled his land would become a part of the market economy when they had nothing to live on and even less to invest in trade. There was no answer.

That silence accompanied me on my journey to Khokrapar, the desert stretching endlessly before me like an unanswered question. How do these communities manage to survive with no basic facilities, hardly any jobs, no land to till, and scarce water to drink? How do those who rule the land justify their lifestyles, the fat on their bodies, the rot in their souls, when all around one there is nothing but hunger and despair? The vehicle carrying myself, the divisional superintendent, PR Karachi, Mr Junaid Qureshi, and the director health and medical services, PR, Dr Aitzaz Ahmad, broke down several times, its wheels unable to find traction in the shifting sand.

While we waited for the engine to cool down, I listened to the sound of the desert, and heard beneath that silence the lament which spoke of inequity and injustice and the inability of the government to see beyond the blinkers meshed out of macro economic indicators. In the distance I could hear the rhythmic clattering that broke through that haze of despair, the gentle chugging of the train carrying doctors and technicians and medical supplies to Khokrapar, that last outpost of our country which had been forgotten and forsaken until the peace process gained enough momentum for our leadership to recognize the needs of the hour.

It is that recognition which needs to be considered seriously for its impact both within and outside the country; it is the strength embodied in the power of one which needs to replicated so that each one of us becomes the agent of change so desperately required in such desperate times.

The final frontier

THIS was, by any standards, a momentous week in the affairs of Europe. But of which Europe do we speak? It is never easy to answer this question.

Definitions of the continent are notoriously blurred by context. For instance, Europe’s first major event of the week — the Eurovision song contest — took place in Kiev, while its second — the Champions League final between Liverpool and Milan — in Istanbul.

Both Kiev and Istanbul have played decisive parts in European history (they are, indeed, joined at the hip by the conversion of Prince Vladimir of Kiev to Christianity in 988 after negotiations with Emperor Basil II in Constantinople). Nevertheless, to many citizens of France, neither Ukraine nor Turkey is truly a European nation.

Defining Europe’s boundaries is a notoriously inexact science. As far as the organisers of the Eurovision song contest are concerned, both Iceland and Israel belong to Europe. Clubs from both countries take part in European football competitions, too. Yet neither Iceland nor Israel presses to join the EU, as Ukraine and Turkey now do.

If Turkey becomes a member of the EU, the union will have land borders with Iran and Iraq, a prospect that may alarm some French voters who remain unfazed by the fact that the EU already possesses a land frontier with Brazil. Yes, really.

The most widely accepted definition of Europe remains that of “Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals”, of which General de Gaulle spoke with approval. It was in the late 18th century that the Russian government erected a boundary marker on the road from Yekaterinburg to Tyumen, at which tsarist exiles would kneel to scoop up their final handful of European earth before continuing their march to Siberia.

By this definition, the heart (or at least the midpoint) of Europe lies in Lithuania, which probably does not find many takers in France either.

—The Guardian, London