RECENT developments in Pakistan can be summed up in three words: bizarre[عجیب], shocking, depressing. We have not seen a more fractured polity, defined by an acrimonious[زہریلی] debate for and against vested interests that are jockeying for power. Self-interest trumps [پانسہ پلٹ دینا] the national interest, tainted[داغدار] by a corrosive[جو گھلاتا جائے، ختم کرنے والا] narrative with certain buzzwords like ‘conspirators’, ‘traitors’ and ‘looters’ entering the political lexicon [سیاسی لغت] of the self-righteous ‘us-versus-them’ posturing.
The consequences of recent follies [حماقتیں] are being reflected in reputational costs to all the major national institutions, including the sacred cows. Pakistan today faces daunting [خطرناک] challenges: an economic meltdown, governance collapse, brazen corruption [بے شرمانہ کرپشن], violent extremism, virulent militancy[انتہائی نقصان دہ عسکریت پسندی] and organised crime. Who is going to stem the rot and how? That is the question.
I was in public service for about half a century, starting my career in law enforcement in 1973. For about four decades, I was part of the state apparatus that was dealing with challenges such as sectarianism, religious extremism, terrorism, drug trafficking, migrant smuggling, human trafficking, money laundering and cybercrime. All these reflect the nefarious [مذموم] nexus [اتحاد] between corruption and organised crime, weak rule of law and the involvement or collusion[جرم میں شراکت، ملی بھگت] of the state.
Lately, the horizon has darkened generally due to the nexus of organised criminal groups with corrupt and greedy stakeholders who wield [پکڑے ہوئے ہیں، حامل ہیں]influence and power in policy domains due to weakened institutional safeguards. We are living in ‘interesting times’ in a deeply divided society. Unfortunately, plutocratic [امراٴ کی حکومت] pettiness [گھٹیا پن] prevails in our land of pure hypocrisy. According to a recent — and damning — UNDP report, elite privilege consumes $17.4 billion of Pakistan’s economy wherein mafia-like corporate greed reigns supreme. However, ill-gotten wealth cannot buy admiration, respect and trust. But it can buy political power. We are seeing kleptocrats [چور ڈاکووٴں کی حکومت] rising against principled stakeholders and those who espouse the rule of law [جو قانون کا احترام کرتے ہیں] and want to promote good governance. This is the dilemma we face today as oligarchy[چند طاقتور افراد کی حکومت] has replaced the democratic façade[چہرہ، سامنے کا جلوہ].
People have seen through the Machiavellian methods at play.
The biggest challenges are corruption and the crisis of governance.
The National Accountability Bureau has failed to deliver across-the-board accountability. A controversial chairman, with an extended tenure of four years and eight months, caused irreparable damage to the institution; the resultant loss of public faith has given rise to the demand that NAB be either disbanded [ختم کردیا جائے] or replaced with a truly independent accountability commission.
Read: NAB not involved in political engineering, says chairman Justice Javed Iqbal
Institutions gain and maintain their credibility and public trust on the basis of two factors: a sound legislative framework and a head who leads with utmost integrity [ایمانداری], fairness and impartiality. Successive chairmen of NAB have contributed to the erosion of trust in the accountability process.
The institution has been perceived as the veritable[جیسا کہ حق ہو، جیسا کہ ضروری ہو] arm of our security establishment and has been misused for political engineering. Even strictures [سخت ریمارکس] passed by the Supreme Court were completely disregarded. Above all, the ruling political elite made legal amendments in NAO 1999 that turned NAB into a defanged [جس کے دانت نکال لئے گئے ہوں وہ سانپ] and toothless tool of person-specific accountability.
Both the politicians and the establishment are responsible for turning NAB into a coercive [زبر دستی کرنےوالا] weapon of vendetta [انتقام]. This farce [مزاحیہ اور پھکڑ ڈرامہ] cannot be sustained. People have seen through the Machiavellian [سازشی اور اخلاق سے عاری] methods at play. Enough is enough.
The nexus between organised crime and corporate greed needs to be addressed. Most real estate tycoons, big banks and transnational corporations fill the coffers of political parties. State land is doled out [خیرات میں دی جاتی ہے] to vested interests [ذاتی مفادات] as a quid pro quo [ادلے کا بدلہ]. Cases of funding of major political parties are pending before the Election Commission of Pakistan. Hopefully, some constructive results can be achieved.
The crisis of governance relates to both the governments and the string-pullers who want pliant [جس کو موم کی طرح جدھر چاہا موڑ لیا جاسکے] and weak political leaders to operate in a national security framework dictated by certain unelected but powerful heads of institutions that represent the state. The chief executives are propped up and brought down by powers that are the self-anointed guardians [خود ساختہ خدائی فوجدار]of our national interest.
The irony [ستم ظریفی] is that, in our history, no prime minister has ever completed his or her constitutionally stipulated tenure. Civilian supremacy can only be established provided the political parties and their leaders are willing to sit together and carve out a new charter of governance that establishes a genuine social contract between state and society.
Since retirement, now for more than a decade, I have had the opportunity to understand and deal with the challenges faced by civil society and the hapless [بد قسمت]victims of organised crime — manifest in the festering [ناسور جیسا] issue of the missing persons.
The chief justice of the Islamabad High Court has repeatedly highlighted this issue and has held the state responsible for enforced disappearances. The government has constituted a seven-member cabinet committee under the law minister to come up with policy recommendations.
Read: Missing persons bill has gone 'missing', says Shireen Mazari
Unless the missing law on enforced disappearances is placed for approval before parliament and a policy to deal with the issue is devised in consultation with the powers that be, as alluded [منسوب کیا گیا] to by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif during his visit to Balochistan last month, the grievances of citizens will keep recurring against the backdrop of the state’s follies.
I firmly believe that both state and society must foster a concerted [متفقہ] strategy to combat the complexities posed by threats from within, including governance fault lines. For this, all constitutionally mandated institutions must sit together and hold a national dialogue to forge a new path to true democracy, good governance and the strengthening of civilian institutions.
Holding free and fair elections is important but more urgent is the need to address the decay that has permeated [سرائیت کرگیا] the system. The conspiracy of privilege and power needs to be defeated. We should move beyond the outrage towards real reform. Let us rise above our personal and institutional differences to carve out a future for a peaceful, democratic and prosperous nation as envisioned by our founding father. It is never too late.
The writer is director, Centre for Governance Research, an independent think tank.
Published in Dawn, June 9th, 2022
IT has long been known that companies with gender-balanced workforces outperform those dominated by men. Having women in leadership positions and throughout an organisation brings a diversity of skills and perspectives. In Pakistan, companies have begun to appreciate this and are increasingly instituting gender diversity policies to better attract female talent to their organisations. At the same time, rules ensuring women are present on the boards of public companies have resulted in more women in leadership positions.
We know that many firms are increasingly looking for ways to promote gender diversity. But we don’t know how widely they are being implemented or how successful they are below board level, where there are some regulatory requirements around gender reporting. A survey conducted in 2021 by the Pakistan Business Council and International Finance Corporation, a member of the World Bank Group, highlighted the fact that only a third of companies polled publicly disclose gender-related employment targets and results. To help change that, PBC and IFC have developed a scorecard that measures firms’ performance regarding their gender diversity policies and how they disclose those policies.
Through this effort we hope to encourage firms to be more transparent about their gender strategies. The lack of publicly disclosed company information on gender-related policies and results has many drawbacks.
First, it deprives investors of the opportunity to evaluate the human capital and employment cycle of the companies they are putting their money into. Second, it means that companies face little pressure to promote gender diversity in their human resources policies since there are few benchmarks in the business community to compare with. Third, it makes it difficult for highly talented people to select where they want to work.
How widely are gender diversity rules being implemented by firms?
There are simple ways to address these challenges. Companies can disclose through their annual reports, their homepages, and their social media channels the types of policies they have in place to promote gender diversity. Such disclosures could include: the percentage of women in their workforce, including in senior positions; their policies around flexible hours, remote work, and in-office childcare; the mentoring opportunities they offer women; and their policies and practices for ensuring pay equity.
Firms can also go further than merely disclosing their policies. They can set gender-specific targets, measure results against these targets, and disclose their results publicly. Such transparency shows their commitment to creating a better, more equal workplace, helping them to attract the best talent. It also demonstrates to investors and consumers a commitment to being an employer of choice.
At a societal level, improving women’s access to job and career opportunities and creating more work- family-friendly workplaces can also propel economic growth. As of 2021, in Pakistan just 21 per cent of women were part of the labour force, compared to 78pc of men, according to World Bank data.
The IMF estimated that the country could boost its gross domestic product by 30pc, if women participated in the workforce at the same level that men currently do in Pakistan. For a country that is striving for growth, this type of gain would be highly significant.
Many companies in Pakistan have signed onto the United Nations Women Empowerment Principles and have been recognised for their gender diversity work, including, awards such as the IFC-PBC Employer of Choice for Gender Diversity Awards. Companies were judged through a scorecard-based approach on gender principles — promoting gender equality at leadership and policy level; ensuring a diverse workforce; eliminating gender pay gaps; creating an optimal workplace culture; and providing coaching and mentoring for women employees.
The scorecard based approach enables companies to identify where they stand and what needs to be improved for disclosure in terms of good practices. It has enabled them to identify and benchmark themselves against their peers. Many countries have developed workplace gender equity strategies. Australia, for example, has a dedicated workplace gender equality strategy with resources for companies identifying the management approach for good practices and methods for disclosure. This has enabled a measured progress in Australia.
Gender parity in the workforce needs to be targeted through initiatives which encourage a positive competition amongst companies. Initiatives like awards are a clear sign that Pakistani companies are beginning to level the playing field for their women employees. But to truly foster equality, firms must continue to improve the reporting of their gender-related policies. To borrow a phrase: disclosure, in this case, is power.
Zeeshan Sheikh is IFC’s country manager for Pakistan and Afghanistan. Ehsan Malik is CEO of the Pakistan Business Council.
Published in Dawn, June 9th, 2022
Asfand Yar Warraich Published June 9, 2022
WHAT we call the ‘right to protest’ in everyday parlance is essentially an amalgam of various civil and political liberties: the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, which allows us to gather in public or private or online spaces; the right to freedom of expression, which gives us the ability to declare our sentiments for all and sundry to take note; the right to freedom of movement, which provides us with the power to mobilise in the first place, and the right to non-discrimination, which makes sure that all citizens are able to enjoy the aforesaid without any distinction as to their religion, gender, ethnicity, political affiliation or ideology.
Protests are very tricky business. They are meant to challenge the status quo and hence, always carry with them a certain risk of disruption. This is to be expected, tolerated and protected, for without it, the right will be stripped of its essence. That said, all protests must be peaceful and must not threaten public order (a difficult term to define in practice, but which should generally be taken to mean the state of peace and security necessary for the public-at-large to carry on their lives). Sustained disruption, like the occupation of public highways or thoroughfares, cannot be allowed. Nor obviously can hate speech, incitement to crime or violence of any sort. And a revolution of course, can never be permitted to masquerade in the guise of a protest.
Policing such assemblies often requires a balancing act. State authorities have to ensure that protesters have the ability to congregate in a place of their choosing, preferably within sight and sound of their intended audience, with open access to media coverage. Reasonable restrictions may be imposed to safeguard the rights of the general public, but they must be legal, necessary and proportionate to the threat they intend to contain.
Unfortunately, the range of tactics we see typically deployed are anything but. Blanket bans are imposed throughout districts or entire provinces. Containers are commandeered and used to block and deter potential participants. Cellular services are jammed or disrupted. Raids and pre-emptive arrests are conducted to detain organisers. And the use of force is usually erratic and exceedingly excessive, something that has resulted in countless avoidable deaths, and at times, even full-scale massacres like Model Town and Kharqamar.
Our state remains armed with a colonial governing apparatus designed to crush protests.
A key problem is that our state remains armed with a colonial governing apparatus designed to crush protests, not to facilitate them. This has only been buttressed by successive periods of military rule, which have left problematic relics of their own. The first weapon of choice is always Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows governments to impose wholesale bans on assemblies using the flimsiest of pretexts. Once invoked, demonstrators can simply be picked up by law enforcement, shoved into police vans and later prosecuted under Section 188 of the Penal Code for disobeying an order issued by a public servant.
In second place is a gift from the Ayub-era — the dreaded Maintenance of Public Order. Devised by a dictator to take his dissenters to the cleaners whenever he wanted, no democratic government has had enough foresight or willpower to repeal it so far.
The draconian law allows for people to be preventively detained on mere suspicion of ‘acting in a manner prejudicial’ to public safety or order. No crime is required to have been committed and detention can last for months. It can also be used to exercise an Orwellian level of control over the movement of individuals, once again on nothing more than a whim.
Sadly, no party has been impervious to the temptations that it offers.
Complementing all this is a bouquet of vaguely defined and outdated offences — some that impose collective responsibility on every member of an assembly for acts committed by a few, and many others that place unreasonable restrictions on freedom of speech (like sedition, for instance, that awful crime of not loving the state hard enough). Taken in conjunction, these laws keep the right to protest dangling in very fragile territory, susceptible to arbitrary interference and constricted within a legal framework that blatantly violates international standards. In such circumstances, it is not principle but political expediency that determines who gets to protest and who does not.
Consequently, violent protests often go unpunished, while peaceful protests that rub the wrong quarters (or are simply not fashionable enough) are mercilessly suppressed. Over the past several years, the TLP was allowed to take the entire country hostage, not once, but on numerous occasions. Each time, the state capitulated to their demands, hastily signing agreements brokered by high-ranking officials. On at least one occasion, they were even provided bus fare home.
Editorial: TLP protests
Meanwhile, nonviolent protests arranged by students, farmers, teachers, health workers and government employees were routinely subjected to state-sanctioned thuggery, not to mention criminal charges on top.
It is also worth bearing in mind that when basic liberties are doled out as favours, it is always the marginalised who suffer the most.
Take the case of the PTM. Since its inception, it has been openly hounded by the state, censored from national television, snubbed by newspapers, branded as ‘foreign agents’ by the ISPR and slapped with sedition charges again and again. Most of its leadership has been in and out of jail several times, while one parliamentarian, Ali Wazir, has been languishing in prison for the past 18 months.
Read: Demystifying the PTM
A very similar attitude is visible in demonstrations organised by relatives of missing persons, which, though always peaceful, are harassed, intimidated, detained and permanently blacked out from mainstream media.
Political parties need to end their myopia. Whenever they are booted out of power, they become vocal champions of fundamental rights. Yet, as soon as they find themselves parachuted back into office, they immediately revert to their autocratic ways.
The right to protest must be secured for all. And parties must realise — the holes they refuse to fill up for others, are the very ones they will keep finding themselves in.
The writer is a barrister.
Published in Dawn, June 9th, 2022
F.S. Aijazuddin Published June 9, 2022
MY last article — ‘On reaching 80’ — evoked a startling response. Readers from across the world sent warm messages, fellow octogenarians took geriatric comfort in a shared condition, and a few wondered who I would like to meet in the next 80 years.
That depends on God, for life is in His hands. A long life is in the hands of one’s doctor. For the moment, I would prefer to enjoy today as if it is the first of endless tomorrows.
This year is more than my 80th; it is the 75th birthday of my country. In another 25 years, it will have completed its first century. Dare one conjecture what it will be like then?
It is improbable that even by then, it will have resolved its political dyslexia. The same dynastic political parties will dominate the landscape. By 2047, Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari (then 58) will have inherited the PPP. He will have broadened his appeal across the country, even though he may not have converted it into a nation-wide vote bank.
Dare we conjecture what Pakistan will be like in 2047?
In the PML-N, Mian Nawaz Sharif (now 72) and his younger brother Shehbaz Sharif (70) will not survive as long as Queen Elizabeth has. Their successor will not be Hamza Sharif who limps as chief minister, Punjab, but his feisty cousin Maryam Nawaz (48). She has the stamina, the pugnaciousness, and the determination to avenge the injustices meted out to her father. (shades of Benazir Bhutto.)
In the PML-Q, Chaudhry Shujaat Husain (76) is not well, his cousin Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi (76) has unassuaged ambitions but not enough time to fulfil them. Elahi’s son Moonis (46) has the disadvantage of a US education — in Lahore and then U-Penn. He has been used as a passive pawn in his family’s strategies rather than a combative knight.
The MQM has lost one leader (Altaf Hussain) but has not adopted another of singular stature. Its survival will depend on the negotiating intrepidness skill of its future leadership. It will remain though a provincial party, with a presence confined to Sindh.
Parties in Balochistan have yet to outgrow their tribal instincts. The Bugtis and the Jamalis are losing their potency. Jam Mir Kamal Khan Alyani (49), who heads the BAP, is the 13th Jam of Lasbela. It is unlikely the 14th Jam will have a place in Baloch politics in 2047.
For the younger generation who plan to celebrate Pakistan’s centenary in 2047, the only party that matters is the PTI, and the only leader who commands their blind loyalty is Imran Khan. He is almost 70 and however fit he may maintain himself, his body is unlikely to last until 2047. He is both the PTI’s strength and its inherent weakness, for in a nation that cannot see beyond the myopia of dynastic politics, he has no perceived successor, nor does he want one. His stalwarts are mainly escapees from other parties whose loyalties are malleable.
Is 2047 too far away on the horizon to consider our future as a nation? I believe not. No nation can use the rear-view mirror as a guide.
In 2047, our population will have expanded to 328 million — an accretion of 100m, compressed in the same land mass. Education, housing, employment opportunities, retirement obligations, even digging sufficient graveyards are predictable imperatives.
Water resources are not only finite but diminishing. Water tables are dropping and climate change has taken water management out of our hands. Provincial bickering over water usage will continue even into 2047. Incidentally, by 2047, someone will think of changing the name of Punjab. It is a misnomer. After the Indus Water Accord of 1960, only two out of the five rivers from which the Punjab derived its name are in Pakistan’s Punjab.
By 2047, the Chinese presence in Pakistan will go beyond CPEC and military self-sufficiency. It will spread into our agri-economy with mass production techniques designed to keep Chinese chopsticks clicking.
By 2047, we will be a nuclear power, with dentures. We lack the resources to upgrade our nuclear capability. We forget that it has been 24 years since we conducted our test at Chagai.
By 2047, when the world will be cloven into another Cold War divide, whose side will we be on? Uncle Sam’s or Dyadya Kremlin’s?
Three years ago, the World Bank published its forecast Pakistan@100: Shaping The Future. Detailed, comprehensive and evasive, it is worth reading, if only because it ignores the uneven relationship between the military and civil leadership, and the unequal allocation of budgetary resources. North Korea and Myanmar are glaring examples of countries where military might out-wrestles civilian right. There too, the non-security lifestyle of the establishment probably exceeds its legitimate defence needs. We cannot afford parallel governance.
Will those who live into 2047 celebrate a centenary, or a wasted past?
The writer is an author.
www.fsaijazuddin.pk
Published in Dawn, June 9th, 2022
Naveed Siddiqui | Dawn.com Published June 9, 2022
The military's media wing on Wednesday rejected claims made by journalist Shaheen Sehbai insinuating that PTI Senator Shaukat Tarin was asked to switch sides and abandon the PTI-led government at the centre.
Former finance minister Tarin also said he was never asked by "anyone in the establishment" to "leave" PTI Chairman Imran Khan, whose term as prime minister came to an unceremonious end in April.
"I categorically deny what has been attributed to me by Shaheen Sehbai. I was never asked by anyone in the establishment to leave Imran Khan and join [the] Shehbaz Sharif government," he said on Twitter.
Tarin's tweet appears to be a rebuttal to an early morning tweet by Sehbai, in which the latter had said: "NEUTRAL EXPOSED: I am going to write soon about WHY the Chief Neutral, proved by Shaukat Tarin as Non-Neutral as he asked Tarin to betray Imran Khan and help Shehbaz, is so sensitive and DEAD SCARED about his remaining four months in office. Something fishy, intriguing, alarming, unpatriotic."
Sehbai, however, in his tweet did not mention if Tarin was asked to resign or by whom.
The word neutral, used frequently by Imran Khan and his party, is now widely read as a reference to the military, which has been consistently claiming that it remained apolitical and had nothing to do with the mechanics of the no-confidence motion against Imran Khan. However, since Imran's ouster, the army leadership has come under criticism on social media platforms.
Meanwhile, the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) also took exception to Sehbai's remarks, calling them "baseless propaganda".
"The insinuations by Shaheen Sehbai and some others on social media quoting the former finance minister are baseless propaganda," a statement issued less than two hours after Tarin's tweet said. "The same has also been duly rebutted by Shaukat Tarin himself."
"Peddling malicious allegations and blatant lies against the institution and its leadership to promote vested interests is condemnable and [the] institution reserves the right to take legal action against those involved," it concluded.
Sehbai, in response, said Tarin himself had broken the news of being asked to assist the coalition government in dealing with the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
In May, Tarin had claimed that the PML-N-led coalition government sought his expertise to lift the crumbling economy, saying he refused to do so until a caretaker setup was installed and fresh elections were announced by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.
“Yes they [the current government leaders] did,” Tarin had said when asked during a press conference whether any request had been made by the leaders of the new coalition government for help to boost the economy.
“But I have made it very clear that I cannot do that. We believe that the time has come for fresh elections and if elections are called immediately and a caretaker setup is put in place, I will be there for any help,” the former finance minister had said.
