|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 
|
The public’s
assets We all want things to turn around, but we need to spend a little bit more time and By Aasim Sajjad Akhtar Much has been made of the rapid deterioration of major public sector enterprises such as Pakistan Railways (PR) and Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) during the tenure of the present government. Not only have the ‘commanding heights’ plunged to unimaginable depths in financial terms, the quality of service delivery has also dipped alarmingly. This pathetic state of affairs has been held up as yet more evidence of the ineptness of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP)-led coalition at the centre. The neo-liberals in our midst have renewed calls for wholesale privatization of public assets. Parliament
versus the rest politics Civil-military-judiciary
deadlock Past,
present and future of debt trade
first
person Cabinet
cost
The public’s assets We all want things to turn around, but we need to spend a little bit more time and By Aasim Sajjad Akhtar Much has been
made of the rapid deterioration of major public sector enterprises such as
Pakistan Railways (PR) and Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) during
the tenure of the present government. Not only have the ‘commanding
heights’ plunged to unimaginable depths in financial terms, the quality
of service delivery has also dipped alarmingly. This pathetic state of
affairs has been held up as yet more evidence of the ineptness of the
Pakistan People’s Party (PPP)-led coalition at the centre. The
neo-liberals in our midst have renewed calls for wholesale privatization
of public assets. Any objective observer
will verify that PR and PIA – not to mention other state-owned
enterprises – have virtually reached the point of no return. Even the
most vociferous supporter of the PPP (or Awami National Party, whose
designated leader is Federal Minister for Railways) can sustain the claim
that the ruling party has played no part in bringing things to the present
impasse. But the decline of once proud organisations such as PR cannot be
put down only to the decisions of those currently in government. As with
virtually every other important policy matter in this country, in the
cases of PR and PIA too many ‘experts’ seem ready and willing to
ignore historical realities, presumably because it is simply easier to
heap all the blame on the present incumbents. First and foremost it is
necessary to state a fairly straightforward fact, namely that elected
members of parliament are not responsible for the day-to-day operation of
PR, PIA and other state-owned enterprises, unless one is to work with the
premise that anything and everything that happens within these quite large
bureaucracies is the responsibility of the relevant cabinet member. It is
civil servants who run these organisations, and while elected officials
surely do interfere in various matters, only those with a very shallow
understanding of the structure of authority in state institutions would
argue that elected officials enjoy the kind of control that is often
attributed to them. The relationship between
permanent state employees and the government of the day has indubitably
evolved over time, with Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s civil service reforms of
1973 a crucial juncture in this regard. Politicians – or military
officers, as the case may be – have over time come to exercise a great
deal more influence over the operation of state enterprises, yet the
empirical evidence suggests that they limit themselves to a mediation role
rather than one that affects the long-term policy direction of the
organisation in question. Given that mainstream
politics in Pakistan revolves around patronage networks, most elected
politicians enjoying executive authority over public institutions tend to
distribute favours so as to expand their established networks and thereby
enhance their possibilities of coming back to power in subsequent
electoral contests. Arguably the single biggest demand that politicians
face from their constituents is to provide permanent state employment.
Before going on to an analysis of what this has meant for public sector
enterprises, it is important to establish why exactly this demand is as
popular as it is. In a nutshell, the
political economy of colonialism was such that a primarily rural
population was expected to remain tied to the land, while a comparatively
small segment of society was to be accommodated in professional
occupations, as well as the state bureaucracy. With social change has come
a rapid increase in population and a shift away from the agrarian economy,
yet there has been no requisite expansion of employment opportunities in
the non-farm sector. The so-called informal economy has to an extent
absorbed the rapidly growing, employment-seeking mass, but by definition
there is no job security, guarantee of regular remuneration or basic
guarantees of humane working conditions. As it is a large number of
workers in the informal economy are self-employed. Not surprisingly, the
subordinate classes covet government jobs, and are always on the lookout
for a shortcut to secure them. Elected politicians are typically the
designated shortcut, and they are under tremendous pressure to deliver
jobs because this is simply how politics is done in Pakistan. One could
argue that this is a sure route to insolvency for state-owned enterprises,
and one would be right. But the fact is that there is a wider structural
logic at work here which cannot simply be put to one side in thinking
about potential solutions. Admittedly, it is the
responsibility of elected officials to plan for the long-run, and thereby
release some of the pressure on public sector organisations. But lest we
forget, elected officials should have foreseen the current energy
shortages, as they should have foreseen the potential blowback effects of
using religious militants as foreign policy proxies. Do the individuals
who are sent to the parliament to represent Pakistan’s 180 million
people simply not have the capacity to plan for the future? Here again it is
necessary to put things into historical perspective. Our elected
governments have typically been concerned less with long-term policy
matters than with matters of basic survival – this government being a
prime example in this regard. To the extent that certain regimes have
undertaken discernible policy decisions, they have faced the wrath of the
permanent state apparatus, and particularly the military. There is a
problem of will, yes, but we must also contend with the reality of the
balance of power within the state. This is not to suggest
that the incumbents should not be held to account for what has happened to
PR and PIA during the last four years. But it is just as foolhardy to
blame the current government for everything because such polemic leaves us
neither here nor there. Whoever comes into government next will not
suddenly be able to turn PR and PIA around. An intransigent permanent
state apparatus and a patronage-based political system are not the only
constraints that politicians face – the dagger of the international
financial institutions (IFIs) hangs over their heads uneasily, and while I
have not had the space in this contribution to outline how the IFIs have
contributed to the PR fiasco, for example, suffice it to say that the
champions of ‘good governance’ are just as culpable for the decline of
our state institutions as our own protagonists. We all want things to turn
around, but we need to spend a little bit more time and energy clarifying
exactly what needs to happen to rescue the PRs and PIAs from the abyss.
Parliament
versus the rest After the recent
decision of the country’s military and intelligence top brass to make
the elected government answerable to the Supreme Court in the infamous
Memogate case, filed by Nawaz Sharif and heard by Chief Justice Iftikhar
Mohammad Chaudhry, some people say that the infamous judiciary-military
alliance seems to have been mended again.
There is a historical
context to this analysis. Pakistan’s judiciary has a long history of
facilitating and rubber-stamping successive military dictators since the
days of General Ayub Khan. By teaming up with General Ziaul Haq following
his July 1977 coup, the judiciary-military nexus committed the “judicial
murder” of a popular prime minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. The judiciary
again validated General Pervez Musharraf’s October 1999 takeover, with
the current chief justice also inking the verdict as a member of the bench
that was headed by Chief Justice Irshad Hasan Khan, having already taken
oath under the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO). Confronted by an
ever-powerful and aggressive security establishment, the judicially active
Supreme Court and the opposition, the PPP government seems to be facing
the toughest crisis since assuming power after the 2008 elections. Prime
Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani sees the fabric of the democracy under
threat with the Supreme Court’s decision to initiate contempt
proceedings against him over his refusal to reopen corruption allegations
against President Asif Zardari. Although the danger of a
military takeover has faded a bit for the time being, following the
January 14 meeting between President Asif Zardari and Army Chief General
Ashfaq Kayani after an unusual gap of two months, the establishment keeps
asserting its power over the civilian government which too seems adamant
this time not to allow other state institutions encroach upon the
authority of the parliament. As the Memogate case was
filed in the Supreme Court by Nawaz Sharif, the government circles allege
the superior judiciary has an obvious soft corner for the prime minister
in waiting. These circles further say that the judges owe their current
position to Nawaz Sharif whose 2009 anti-government long march played a
key role in their restoration. Sharif had called off his long march
towards Islamabad after General Ashfaq Kayani assured him on telephone
through Aitzaz Ahsan that the deposed judges would be restored within 24
hours. In fact, having directly
and indirectly managed the country’s affairs and tasted political power
for more than half the period of its post-independence 60-year life, the
Pakistan army has ceased to be apolitical. But having succeeded Musharraf
as the Army Chief, General Ashfaq Kayani had made it known to all and
sundry that he would remain apolitical come what may and would never
indulge his institution in politics. Asking his men in civvies not to
indulge in politics, the COAS had reminded them in an official memo of
their oath that each one of them is bound to observe. Kayani’s predecessor
too had taken the same oath: “I, Pervez Musharraf, with a sincere heart
and God as my witness do solemnly swear that I will be faithful to the
State of Pakistan and protect the Constitution of Pakistan which reflects
the wishes of the people of Pakistan. Further, I will not indulge in any
political activity and will perform my duties in the armed forces with
full faith and honesty. I will go where and howsoever I am ordered to by
land, air or sea and that I will obey all lawful orders given to me by my
superiors without regard to any dangers and threats to my personal safety.
May God be my protector and witness! Amen”. Yet, being someone who
had first-hand experience of serving with an army chief-cum-president of
Pakistan and having seen his valour and glory as an WikiLeaks further
disclosed a conversation between former US Ambassador to Pakistan, Anne
Patterson, and army chief Kayani, in which the latter expressed
unhappiness over a clause in the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Bill which was about
to curtail the autonomy of the Pakistan Army. Kayani told the then US
ambassador that he could have overthrown the Zardari government during the
long march — staged by the Nawaz Sharif-led opposition for the
restoration of the judges who were deposed by Musharraf in March 2009. It was subsequent to
these meetings and the pressure exerted by the establishment as well as
the anti-government movement launched by the Nawaz Sharif-led opposition
that the Zardari regime had to reinstate the 100-plus deposed judges of
the superior courts, including the incumbent Chief Justice of Pakistan,
Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry. All the sacked judges were finally restored on
March 16, 2009, almost two years after their sacking by Musharraf. The
keen interest shown by the establishment in the restoration of the deposed
judges was attributed to the military’s desire not to give a freehand to
President Zardari and his government and to keep them under check through
judicial activism. It was a year after the restoration of the deposed
judges that General Kayani managed in July 2010 a second three-year term
as the army chief — something no elected government in Pakistan had done
before. And it is the same
troika of the army chief, the chief justice and the opposition leader
which is giving a tough time to the besieged PPP government that is
apparently not going to back down without a fight this time.
politics In the last 20
odd years of our national life, politics has been defined by electoral
battles being waged between the PPP and various forms and factions of PML.
Ever since the end of the Zia Regime, the PML-N has formed the government
twice in the Centre and Punjab, and the PPP has formed the government
thrice at the Centre. But the state of the economy and governance in the
country has continued to deteriorate. The current government is mired in
crises, although on the constitutional level, the Federation in spite of
the Balochistan crisis, has become stronger as a result of the 18th
Amendment, and the 7th NFC Award. Both of these are considerable
achievements in themselves, however, the worsening of law and order, the
overall weak governance and failure of public bodies to perform
efficiently and non-availability of basic service delivery has resulted in
hardships for the public and the economy. People seem unhappy with the
performance of the provincial governments as well. There is a perception
that both the main political parties, like many others in the country,
don't have a democratic ethos within their parties. Many commentators view
the parties to be like family holdings, with only family members expected
to inherit leadership. In this background, the
electorate and the youth in particular want to try something new.
Resultantly, people have been long looking for a third alternative. Imran
Khan has been positioning himself and his party just for that, since 1996.
However, now his time seems to have eventually arrived. The Lahore jalsa
catapulted him into mainstream national political scene, while the
December Karachi jalsa, cemented his position in the national political
arena. Concurrently, politically winnable candidates have started joining
his party, in large numbers. This has changed his party from a party on
the fringes to a possible contender for power. Although there is still
debate about how much of his new found support can be converted into seats
in the assemblies, at the Centre and the provinces. In addition, there
remains the question, that if voted into power, would he be able to
deliver on the promises made? So the question with
regard to Imran and his PTI, is whether his Party can be an electoral
success and whether it can deliver. The PTI has
traditionally never been able to make a mark in the national politics. It
is because of this that a lot of people felt that Imran's aspirations may
never become a reality. However, things seemed to have changed
dramatically in the last few months. The general misgovernance and climate
of political bickering and mutual name calling, between the two leading
players has disillusioned a sizeable section of the society. In this
background Imran is promising a clean and efficient government. Corruption and good
governance are two related but separate areas. Imran Khan may be able to
deliver something on corruption, although corruption is perceived to be
too deep rooted to be eradicated during the life span of one government.
However, even if the top echelons are honest, that itself is believed to
have the potential to save the country billions of rupees. However would
he be able to deliver on governance, that is the million dollar question.
The issue of SKMCH and winning World Cup is peripheral to this. Running a
government in a large and complicated federation is a different ball game
altogether. PTI is seen as a
personality-based party, which revolves around Imran Khan. His strength is
his own person and track record, not so much his ideology. His young
voters are going for a leap of faith. Thus the party is seemingly based on
personality cult; ideology seems to be secondary. The youth seem to
believe and trust that he will deliver; the how part is immaterial to
them. The other older electorate, which is a bit more skeptical about his
ability and experience is nevertheless willing to do so more on the basis
of the other parties' unwillingness or inability to deliver. Electorally, his main
strength is believed to be the Urban and peri-Urban educated youth, but in
addition, also many middle and upper middle class urbanite 40 somethings
are likely to vote for him. He is expected to get some votes on ethnic
basis as well; such as those of Pathans and people from the Seraiki belt. Many political
commentators are of the view that PTI as yet does not have a concrete
roadmap, beyond a promise of corruption-free government and good
governance. But how will the things be put in place. At the end of the
day, Imran Khan has to remember that he should not promise the moon; only
what he can deliver. Otherwise it may be a huge disappointment for his
voters. Some people feel that some of the agenda items Imran Khan has
highlighted show that they are not based on a realistic assessment of the
situation. For example, how can we elect thanedars; in the US this
happened in the Wild West of 19th Century. These days, the US has regular
police departments, such as LAPD, NYPD, etc. And if we do elect thanedars,
how would that depoliticize the police, wouldn't it politicize it. Then
what of the DSP, SP, DIG, and IG, would they also be elected? The point,
however, that the police does need to be reformed in a way that makes it
service delivery-oriented is valid. Then, with regard to making education
the same across board would require provincial legislation, as after the
18th Amendment it is no longer a part of the Federal Legislative List,
which means he has to form government in all the federating units, etc. Imran Khan is a welcome
addition to the political scene, considering that the electorate needs a
broader range of choices. He has changed the political discourse, where he
has put new emphasis on things like corruption, payment of taxes,
declaration of assets, merit-based appointments, etc, thus putting
pressure on the PPP and PML-N both. This has forced the opposition to
change its tactics and rhetoric, to move beyond Zardari bashing, and
beyond building roads and bridges and underpasses. They have realised that
they are not the only alternative to PPP, neither the sole one claiming
the mantle of reform. This seems to be having a positive effect on the
political discourse. Imran Khan has given
hope to many people, and they have high expectations from him. He must be
very careful in the roadmap and the people he chooses, from now onwards.
It is more than his own destiny which is at stake here. The writer is a Lahore
based lawyer and political analyst.
Civil-military-judiciary
deadlock The political
and constitutional crisis in Pakistan is a blind alley. Hence, the
repeated contradictory stance taken by the government — that there is no
crisis and that there is a state within state. The government suffered
a setback when the Supreme Court suspended the license of Dr Babar Awan.
Before this decision, the Supreme Court also called the prime minister
against the contempt of the court in the NRO case. It appears that the
ruling party has girded up its loins for a political fight. Its first
option is to go for a game of give and take; the other one is to smash its
rival with full force so that political martyrdom is attained and public
sympathy earned before the general elections. On the face of it, the
army chief and the chief justice have both made clear their stance they
are not working on any anti government agenda. As for PML-N leader Mian
Nawaz Sharif becoming a petitioner in the ‘memogate’, it has been
apparently done to restore his relation with the military establishment.
Historically, it is an outcome of policies that have been followed since
day one — allowing army leadership great freedom of operation and
autonomy not only in its own sphere but also beyond it. Another reason the
political forces are forced to negotiate with the army and play a
subordinate role to the non-political forces is that there is no democracy
within the parties. This crisis may come in handy to start a process of
re-evaluation; the political parties should take full responsibility of
their actions instead of living in a state of denial. At the same time we
cannot underestimate the impression of judiciary being pitched against the
elected government. The statements and remarks issued by the judges
confirm the impression that members of judiciary perceive that the
civilian government has not accepted their judgments and is not serious in
implementing them. Factually speaking, the
judiciary has got its intensions recorded in the six options it has
offered in the NRO implementation case. The prime minister has been
declared insincere to his oath. There is a clear sense that the judiciary
must operate in the constitutional domain without getting involved with
judicial activism. Option number six makes most sense. It is the
discretion of the government to hold election without taking pressure from
the judiciary. It is an established principle that political matters
should be handled by the political forces. It has now become even more
necessary. What has really helped
the cause of parliamentary democracy in the current crisis is the role of
the parliamentarians. We must appreciate the positive role played by
Asfandyar Wali Khan and Ch Shujaat Hussain in bringing a resolution
acceptable to all. It is equally heartening to see Maulana
Fazal-ur-Rehaman bridging the gap between president Zardari and Nawaz
Sharif. The president is determined to have the Senate election by all
means; that is his political and legal right. But Maulana has his own
agenda of getting some new political guarantees from President Zardari
with the help of Nawaz Sharif; he has hidden talent for arriving at a
compromise between President Zardari and Nawaz Sharif. The recent meeting
between the president and the COAS sends hopeful signals about ending the
crisis. Credit goes to the allied parties and Ch Atizaz Ahsan. The prime
minister Gillani should stop issuing fiery statements and be cool as
cucumber. The present government’s future is depending on the Supreme
Court proceedings in the coming weeks. Will it reflect the consequences of
reconciliation affirmed and promised by the government? Coalition partners of
the government are not ready to support the government in further
confrontation with judiciary and army. In these circumstances, the
government is left with only one choice — to accept the verdict of the
Supreme Court in letter and spirit. A very positive gesture made by the
government is its announcement to go for fresh polls after the Senate
election. The next big question
before us is: who will supervise the general election because the
political forces are not ready to contest election under the president of
Zardari. Unless and until they arrive at a workable formula, our fragile
democracy will suffer more and every single actor will be held responsible
for the consequences. (The writer is a
political analyst and can be reached at salmanabidpk@gmail.com) Past,
present and future of debt Those of you who
have been devoted students of economics, politics, business and related
fields are aware that a wealth of theories abound to explain phenomena
like inflation, trade and recessions. Chances are that you have studied
dozens of conflicting theories that converge to no universal truth and
reinforce the belief that economic hindsight is twenty-twenty and the idea
of being able to plan better for the future is ludicrous. On the surface “Paper
Promises” is a book about the past, present and future of debt. In fact
it describes itself as the story of the perennial tussle between creditor
and debtor. Through this prism, it attempts to explain the history of
money right up to the contemporary challenges our world is facing. It’s
an ambitious task to stitch together such a rich tapestry on to a simple
framework, but the author does a commendable job. The core idea of the
book is that debt is a necessary evil. Without debt, there is no way to
generate growth on a pervasive scale. But too much debt is unsustainable
so every society attempts to tread the precarious line between the two
extremes. Creditors need debtors to provide them with a return on their The early parts of the
book trace the history of money and make interesting reading for those
with a taste for anthropology and sociology. Money has existed in some
form through the ages and its control has allowed empires to rise and
fall. The emphasis in this stage of the book is on the emergence of a gold
standard and how it empowered some nations at the expense of others. We
learn about the limitations of this model and how it was gradually
displaced by paper money, then finally electronic money that was much more
convenient but also accelerated the growth of the money supply and made
debt fashionable. There are some intricate concepts being discussed here,
but chances are you will come away with a fairly good grasp of major
milestones in economic history. The middle portion of
the book zooms in on the present and allows the United States and Europe
to occupy centre stage. Much literature has already been inked on the
reasons behind the recession in the United States. The unique contribution
of this book is to provide a more insightful analysis of how the financial
system in the United States works with a special focus on banks, hedge
funds and private equity. It also provides a lucid description of the
conflicting economic ideology between Democrats and Republicans. There is
an explanation of why legislation in the United States has been designed
to cushion the pains of bankruptcy and how this too has been a
contributing factor to its present difficulties. The analysis of the
European Union deals with the most contemporary of issues. It considers
the trade-offs accepted by nations that entered the fold of the union and
compares and contrasts the situations in Germany, Spain, Italy, Greece and
Ireland. The conclusion of the book is rather pessimistic. It is accepted
that the quantity of debt in the developed world is beyond that which can
ever be serviced. Possible future scenarios are assessed. Though no
prediction is made on what is most likely to transpire, all are equally
unpalatable. It is clear that the major creditor nations of today
especially China are poised to have enhanced influence on economic policy
of the future and the dollar may lose ground in its dominance. But the
author refrains from making too bold a prediction in acceptance of the
fact that the United States has demonstrated a remarkable resilience in
the past and the rest of the world maintains a sense of faith in its
government and stability. If the book has a
central weakness, it is that it has summarized the economic history of the
world from a western perspective. We learn much about the United States
and Europe and see glimpses of China in action. But other important
swathes of the world are largely ignored. So it would be more accurate to
characterize the book as an explanation of economic policy in the western,
developed world. There are certainly some
sections of the book that delve into deep economic theory and take some
effort to understand. But overall you will find it is academic enough to
make you feel like you learned something while being accessible enough to
keep it readable. I would have to rate it as one of the most comprehensive
books in its genre and highly recommend it to anyone with even a
tangential interest in the field. trade Pakistan
produces abundant quality dry fruits like almonds, figs, pistachio,
walnuts, pine nuts, dates, raisins, dry apricots and peanuts. But its dry
fruits exports have been far less for lack of standardised packaging,
grading and value-addition and some other policy constraints. Mechanised grading and
packaging has started but, for lack of cool chain system, an estimated
30-50 per cent of the total fruit production is still lost during
harvesting, transportation, preservation and storage. Total annual loss of
dry fruits in term of rupees is estimated at Rs60 billion. Dry fruits exports in
the last five years, according to Federal Commerce Minister Makhdoom Amin
Fahim, were 505,124 metric tonnes. Total dry fruits exported were 81,387
MT in 2005-06 which rose to 99,936MT next year but then dropped to
92,082MT in 2007-08. These, however, rose to 110,885MT in 2008-09 and then
to 120,834 the next year. “The government has
taken numerous steps to increase dry fruit exports by encouraging the
private sector to develop dry fruits processing units in northern areas of
Pakistan, developing of solar processing units, initiating projects for
processing and drying of dates in Turbat, Khairpur and DI Khan and sending
delegations of exporters to international food fares and exhibitions and
potential markets of food items,” he had told the Senate in May last
year. Under the medium term
development framework, Pakistan targeted fruit exports of $238 million in
2010 and it reached up to $290 million. These can be increased even
further. But absence of
farm-to-market roads, outdated post-harvest techniques for unskilled
labour, poverty and ignorance of producers, non-market oriented
production, and lack of quality certifications are making it difficult to
improve the quality and quantity of exports. An integrated ‘Cool
Chain System’ project worth over Rs13 billion, being envisioned under
the national trade corridor improvement programme that aims at 10 per cent
reduction in post-harvest losses, is likely to save Rs6 billion annually.
But any export development initiative will not bear any fruit unless
linkages of stakeholders with international markets are established and
close collaboration between the public and private sectors are ensured. Negligence of the
government to tap the real potential of this treasure of Pakistan can be
gauged from the fact that out of dozens of projects of the Pakistan
Horticulture Development and Export Company (PHDEC), which are either in
operation, near execution or being considered for launching, not a single
one is meant for the dry fruit development in the country. Pakistan’s fruit
production is mostly organic and, therefore, acceptable to the world. But
non-compliance to the international standards and inability of
Pakistan’s 58 trade missions in 43 countries worldwide that are supposed
to work for promoting Pakistani exports in close collaboration with trade
development authority (TDAP) and PHDEC appear to have restricted its
exports and appeal for international consumers. Dry fruit development
also could not find any place in the 12 projects the TDAP intends to
launch for improvement of different fruits in the country. Dry fruits such
as fig, raisin, pistachio, dry apricot and pine nuts etc face insect
infestation at some stage of their storage and transportation. Food
Irradiation Technology (FIT) not only saves them from insect infestation
but also increases their shelf life. FIT also helps dry fruit exporters
meet international quarantine requirements. Though the federal
government had granted approval for the technology in 1996, FIT could not
deliver optimum benefits for lack of irradiation facilities in the
country. Pakistan’s fruit
exports will get a fillip once its products are produced and prepared in
compliance with certain export-related certifications such as the Hazard
Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP), Global Good Agriculture
Practices (GGAP), British
Retailer’s Consortium (BRC), Monitoring of Maximum Residues Limits (MRL)
and Fair-trade Labelling Organisations (FLO). With the world becoming
increasingly sensitive to food quality issues, Pakistan’s fresh fruit
export industry will have to ensure compliance with international
standards and certification mainly focused on food safety, traceability,
residues of different agrochemicals, lack of good agricultural practices,
reduction of post-harvest diseases and pests and issues pertaining to
safety of food packaging materials. The TDAP and PHDEC
should open its regional liaison offices in the dry fruit specific KP,
federally/provincial administered tribal and northern areas. The
government also needs to open common facility centres, dry fruit
collection points, processing plants, product testing laboratories and
guidance and counselling centres in the production areas. There is, regrettably,
not a single mention of dry fruit in the current KP’s horticulture
policy 2009 as if dry fruits are not part of the sector and as if not
produced in the province. Coordination between the TDAP and PHDEC and the
Chambers of Agriculture and Chambers of Commerce and Industry should also
be improved. The facilitation division in the TDAP needs to have closer
cooperation with exporters. A few training institutes for dry fruit
productivity/quality enhancement with funding from the export development
fund also need to be established. Cold weather and black
marketing by dealers leads to increase in prices of dry fruits as winter
comes. Per kilogramme prices of different qualities of walnuts at present
are between Rs120-350 for whole and Rs400-1000 for its kernel, of
pistachio between Rs600-1500, of almond Rs150-500 and its kernel at
Rs400-900, of fig Rs300-600, dry dates Rs100-250, peanut Rs 160-180 and of
chilghoza Rs1500-2400 in the open market in different parts of the
country. Despite extensive search
and contacts, the exact figure of countrywide production of dry fruits
could not be ascertained. Based on an average consumption of dry fruits at
nominal one kilogramme per person per month, total annual consumption
comes to 2040 million kgs or 2 million metric tonnes. However, Siraj Muhammad,
Deputy Director Information of the Agriculture Ministry Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa,
says the province produced 13000 tonnes of walnuts, 11500 tonnes of dates,
19000 tonnes of apricot and 25000 tonnes of other dry fruits. Pine nut is
Pakistan’s characteristic dry fruit. Several parts of KP, Balochistan,
federally-administered tribal and northern areas have plenty of pine trees
which could be further increased. According to an
estimate, the total production of pine nut in the country is estimated at
21,000 tonnes. With the current price of Rs70,000 per 50kg (Rs1.75mn per
tonne) in the wholesale market, the production is worth over Rs36 billion
per year. It could earn plenty of foreign exchange for the country
provided the commodity is produced on mass commercial scale. Walnut production is
around 20,000 tonnes per year — mostly produced in KP and Azad Kashmir.
With a price of Rs12000 per 50kg (Rs0.3mn per tonne), walnut’s total
income is Rs6 billion. That could increase to hundreds of billions of
rupees as, according to locals from Malakand division, over 90 per cent
potential of the area for walnut and other dry fruits still remains to be
utilised. The horticulture export,
according to the national trade policy, was to be made into an industry to
enable it to qualify for institutional credit and relief in taxation. The
government should announce a rebate in duties and a dry fruit specific
export finance scheme for dry fruit exporters. It should provide support
to fruit exporters to open their retail outlets in foreign countries.
Pakistan International Airline also needs to bring down it freight charges
for exporters. For
the supremacy of constitution Events since
March 9, 2007—Day of Defiance in judicial history—represent struggle
for rule of law and constitutionalism. On July 20, 2007, when the
judiciary declared unlawful action of sacking Chief Justice of Pakistan by
General Musharraf, there was great jubilation—a renewed hope in Pakistan
for an independent judiciary not subservient to military hierarchy. The
retaliation by General Musharraf through imposing Martial law on November
3, 2007 was declared as unconstitutional by a seven-member bench of the
apex court. In the history of Pakistan, it was the first courageous act on
the part of judiciary—disapproving repeated subversions of the
Constitution by men in uniform.
The military complex was
both bewildered and baffled. Such defiance was least expected from judges
approving Musharraf’s rule, going to the extent of giving him the right
to amend the Constitution. As usual, General Musharraf and his team (which
included many who are now posing to be champions of democracy) employed
the notorious policy of ‘Divide and Rule’—he secured endorsement of
his unconstitutional actions from his puppet parliament (sic) and
judiciary through the auspices of pro-establishment judges.
Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto
led all the political forces to exert pressure—using the lawyers’
movement—on the establishment to abdicate power and transfer it to
civilians. She paid the price with her life but her heroic struggle forced
Musharraf and his lackeys to hold elections. February 18, 2008, shattered
all hopes of the King and his party to retain control over power (what a
tragedy in history that leading men of King’s party are now sitting with
Asif Zardari).
The Neo-Colonialists, as
confirmed by Condoleezza Rice in her book
No Higher Honor, forced General Musharraf to promulgate the
infamous National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) in the late hours of
October 5, 2007, just a few hours before the presidential elections. The
Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani in his speech before the Parliament on
January 16, 2011, the day he received contempt of court notice from the
apex court, legitimately rightly raised the issue why the framers of NRO
were looming free and elected representatives were being punished for
something they did not enact. The NRO was ploy of Neo-Colonialists who
decided to dump Musharraf and control Pakistan by installing their puppets
in PPP as “rulers” (sic). What happened thereafter is obvious. The
government violated rule of law, gave the men in khaki extensions, created
confrontations with judiciary and above all set new records of bad
governance and corruption. But their gravest crime is not prosecuting
General Musharraf who destroyed all the institutions. Failure of government
and more importantly that of the parliament, to punish the imposer of
emergency on November 3, 2007 for his acts of subversion of Constitution,
removing judges and detaining them along with their families, weakened the
civilian rule from its inception. After nearly four years since March 9,
2007, we are still struggling for revival of constitutionalism – now the
government is openly defying orders of the Supreme Court to defend a law
that it earlier conceded was indefencible. It is also for the government
to punish those who framed NRO and subverted Constitution on many
occasions rather than blaming the apex court for selective justice.
November 3, 2007, was
certainly a disgraceful day, but what is happening now is equally
condemnable. Where is the respect of people’s will? Have they elected
the PPP and its allies to behave in the manner they have demonstrated of
late? Judiciary acted boldly for the first time on July, 20 2007 and
November 3, 2007 (may be in its own interest as alleged by the PPP
stalwarts), but the parliament did not even pass a resolution for
punishing the worst offender of the supreme law of the land.
What was behind the
bizarre episodes of March 9, 2007, November 3, 2007 and February 18, 2009,
obviously, a tussle between the proponents of cronyism and advocates of
rule of law? The cronies, ruling for the last four years, have done
everything to destroy State institutions and deny the masses their
fundamental rights. In the face of this grim reality, judicial activism
threatens rule of the corrupt. They cannot afford independence of
judiciary for obvious vested interests. The advocates of rule of law
rightly argue that dispensation of justice through an independent and
efficient judiciary alone can establish democracy, a responsible
government and an equitable social order.
It is now the sole
responsibility of democratic forces to galvanize and mobilize people to
counter any extra-constitutional move by any. Courts are meant to
interpret the law, whereas enforcing the will of people and countering any
despotic and undemocratic rule is always a political question that cannot
be resolved in the courts. Since our leadership has failed in the past on
this account, the entire society is facing devastating effects of
perpetual despotic rules – military and civilian alike. The main cause
of our present day socio-political and economic chaos is ineffectual
leadership, existence of inefficient, corrupt and repressive institutions,
which are anti-people, thus least concerned with the welfare of the common
man.
The constitution of a
country is a living and vibrant document that determines the future
direction of a nation, provided there is respect for the document and for
rule of law. In a country where the corrupt and incompetents rule, there
can neither be democracy nor constitution. It is high time that people in
next elections elect such persons that are capable of working for the
supremacy of constitution and rule of law. In a democratic set-up,
the electoral process ensures dominance of the people over those who hold
political offices. In Pakistan, forces of
status quo want
to determine it through a president lacking support of the masses. This
brand of ‘democracy’ is unknown to the students of constitutional law
anywhere in the world. One wonders what useful purpose this unjust and
unlawful process can yield! It is only bound to frustrate the verdict of
people, forcing them to believe that the entire electoral process was just
a farce. Earlier, Musharraf and his associates challenged elected leaders
on their promise of reinstatement of judges. Presently, Zardari and
company have assumed the same role—this confirms dominance of
undemocratic mind set and disrespect for people’s mandate. Pervez Musharraf has
portrayed himself In the Line of Fire
as a great saviour of the nation, whereas the reality is that under
his rule, the people of this country lost their lives in suicide bombings,
deprived of basic needs and sufficient food what to talk of fundamental
rights of access to free health and educational facilities, and
dispensation of justice, things which are only possible under a true
democratic structure. Attitude of Zardari and his cronies is not much
different from any other dictator. Every dictator desires to perpetuate
his unlawful rule proclaiming himself as the saviour of the nation and in
this process destroys the very fabric of national cohesion. This is what
is exactly happening now in the present government-supreme court-army
impasse. It is now for the masses
to resist the undemocratic mindset and struggle for real democracy.
Pakistan can never progress unless parliamentarians work for the supremacy
of the constitution in the country and all the state organs discharge
their functions within strict parameters and powers laid down in the
supreme law of the land. The only way to sustain democracy is by
establishing responsible government and protecting the rights of masses
guaranteed under the Constitution. Legislature is sovereign
but the supremacy of constitution is above everything— legislators in
fact exercise delegated powers given by the people within the framework of
the Constitution. We need a new Pakistan where parliament is sovereign
where the people of Pakistan are truly represented. To attain this goal,
masses will have to demonstrate determination and unity. Pro-democratic
forces, with the people’s strong support behind them, must wage an
all-out war for establishing a representative and responsible rule,
completely independent judiciary, responsible media playing positive role
for vigorous accountability, socio-economic growth and justice for all.
The writers, authors of
many books, are Visiting Professors at Lahore University of Management
Sciences (LUMS).
first
person Rashed Idrees
graduated with an LLB (Hons) in 1993 from the London School of Economics,
qualified as a Barrister of England and Wales in 1994 and is a Solicitor
of the Supreme Court of England and Wales. He has more than 17 years of
experience — with over 12 years in Asia and the Middle East —
including with international law firms Denton Wilde Sapte and DLA Piper
and was a partner with Deacons prior to joining his current firm, DFDL (www.dfdlmekong.com),
in 2010. DFDL is a full service international law firm with offices in
Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao, Myanmar, Singapore, Thailand and
Vietnam. Rashed is a partner and
the managing director of DFDL’s offices in Singapore, Bangladesh and
Cambodia and also heads the firm’s South Asia and Middle East practice
groups advising project sponsors, borrowers, trading companies and lenders
on projects and project finance transactions, international trade and
commodity finance, privatizations, bond issues, loan notes, corporate
finance and securities, integrated gas to power project development and
finance, IPP developments, water and waste water projects,securitizations,
receivables financings and other structured financing transactions. He is currently leading
DFDL’s teams acting for sponsors on numerous greenfield IPPs in
Bangladesh, lenders on M&A transactions in Sri Lanka, Indian investors
on outbound investments from India into South East Asia, concession
holders on copper mining projects in the Sultanate of Oman and
international off-takers of long term petroleum product supply from
refineries and GTL plants in Qatar. Recently, Rashed was on
a visit to Pakistan where he explored Pakistan’s
current economic and investment climate, interacted with
banks and business community
leaders and held parleys with public sector bodies like
the Private Power and
Infrastructure Board (PPIB) and the
Oil and Gas Development Company Limited (OGDCL). TNS talked to him on his
findings and the prospects of an
economic recovery and increasing foreign
investment in the country. Excerpts of the talk follow: By Shahzada
Irfan Ahmed The News on Sunday: What
investment opportunities do you see in Pakistan? Rashed Idrees: I think
Pakistan is a very fertile market for foreign investors as it has a huge
consumer base of 180 million people. Whatever the conditions may be or are
perceived to be, people here need food, energy and other amenities to live
and, in some cases, thrive. For example, I see great potential in the
power and infrastructure sector and natural resources. There seems to be
huge scope for investment in hydel and coal-based power projects,
alternative energy like wind power and natural gas transmission from
foreign lands. The country also needs infrastructure, world-class
education systems, exploration of its natural resources and mechanization
of industries. Foreign investors can exploit all such opportunities and
the country can also gain in the meanwhile. TNS: Is the regulatory
environment conducive for foreign investment? RI: Yes, I think the
regulatory environment here is very conducive for foreign investment. I
have worked here in the past and have tried to better understand the
existing climate and opportunities during this visit.. I think of Pakistan
as a very good market for investment for foreigner investors, certainly
from a regulatory perspective. I do not think I am painting an unduly rosy
picture. With a population well-versed in English, there are no major
language barriers and from my previous experience working with local
Pakistani counsels on numerous cross-border transactions, I
understand
that the legal system is largely based on English law which suits
most international lenders and sponsors and facilitates funding issues
faced by prospective investors and that there are good laws, statutes and
court decisions and jurisprudence is far more developed — and certain
— than that in many countries we have experience working with. When we speak with our
Pakistan contacts, they seem to be very clear on the direction the economy
needs to take with certainty on procedures, timelines and rules of
business and processes, for example company registration usually doesn’t
take too long although I understand from some of our local lawyer contacts
that this is more of an issue as a result of recent initiatives. In 1997, I worked on a
cross-border securitization of a Pakistani originator which was one of the
most ‘cutting edge” deals of its kind at that time anywhere in the
world. Our firm is working with many foreign investors who are making
significant investments into far more, in our experience, challenging and
emerging markets. For example, Pakistan’s judicial system seems to be
functioning well and we understand that corruption in the higher courts is
now unheard of. I have worked in countries where this is very far from the
case and yet we see foreign investors literally flocking there. TNS: What is the biggest
factor that deters foreign investors from coming to Pakistan? RI: For me, the most
important issue seems to be the negative perception about Pakistan in the
international media. It seems that every time there is news about Pakistan
in the international media it is not positive with Pakistan often being
portrayed as a dangerous country where terrorists roam around freely
causing havoc and mayhem. There are dozens of conflict zones in the world
where human rights violations, crime and violence are a norm but none seem
to have been marginalised quite like Pakistan. I believe it’s the
collective responsibility of the citizens, the local media and the
government of Pakistan to help change this tide. I’ll cite the example
of Sri Lanka, which only very recently was the subject of a long and
economically — and other — damaging civil war and yet I recently
attended an investment conference for Sri Lanka organised in Singapore. It
was a very well attended event and some major investors from the region
were there and showed a keen interest in investing in Sri Lanka. I would
give a lot of credit to the diplomats and senior businessmen from Sri
Lanka for taking the initiative for such an event, presenting the
opportunities Sri Lanka has to offer foreign investors and inviting them
to their country. I think the Pakistani business community and officials
may wish to take a page out of their book. TNS: What plans does
your law firm have for Pakistan and the region? RI: Our firm offers
customised legal and tax solutions to our clients. We are the first
international law firm with a dedicated Bangladesh practice and we are
already advising on several high profile infrastructure and power projects
in that country. DFDL is the first international law firm specialized in
emerging markets with a pan-regional legal and tax expertise throughout
the Mekong region (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand, Myanmar, Vietnam),
Bangladesh, Indonesia and Singapore, and with a dedicated focus on other
South-East Asian jurisdictions, South Asia and the Middle East. With a
team of over 250 foreign and local lawyers, advisers and support staff
working closely together within a fast growing network of 11 offices in
Asia, we provide personalised, tailored and effective legal, tax and
consulting services and solutions. We usually advise
investors as both international and local counsels in major transactions
and thanks to our in-depth understanding and knowledge of local laws and
cultures in the region combined with international industry and sector
expertise, we are able to provide practical and commercially viable
solutions to our clients. The interface between
offshore and local laws and structures are often fundamental to the
success of projects in our core countries and areas of expertise so our
being able to bridge that gap through both offshore international
expertise with local on the ground expertise is intended to provide a
seamless service to our clients looking at investing in often very
challenging jurisdictions. We have brought and hope
to continue with the same model in South Asia and I will certainly look to
carry a positive message back to our regional and international clientele
to the effect that although things for 2012 (being I understand an
election year) may be relatively slower, opportunities are there and will
need to be leveraged moving forward. TNS: Do you see
international companies entering Pakistan in the near future? RI: I do not think I say
anything new by acknowledging that there is tremendous investment
potential in the country. Based on my interactions here in Pakistan, it
seems that many of the players are following a wait and see policy in the
short term. And yet despite the apparent “watching brief”, many of the
contacts I have met here on this trip remain cautiously optimistic and
have even suggested we might look to have an on the ground presence or
association even by this year so that we position ourselves for what they
see as an inevitable upsurge. This seems to be the prevailing conventional
wisdom from the meetings I have had in Pakistan on this trip. I also strongly believe
that in adversity there is also opportunity. The need for power,
infrastructure, natural resources and others is I think obvious to all in
the country and may need to be understood a little better by foreign
players combined with initiatives in better highlighting Pakistan’s
undoubted potential. I would also like to add
that Afghanistan is another country where we see huge potential for
growth, probably with Pakistan as a good platform from which to leverage
this. It seems quite clear that a lot of investment has and is going to
flow in to facilitate much needed development and investment. We think
that the business community and the service-providers of Pakistan will
have an important role to play in that development as well. Cabinet
cost The federal
cabinet, comprising 96 ministers and advisers, got Rs61.44 billion in
salary and Rs90.7 billion in perks and privileges during the last four
years. The figure does not include the cost of 4,000 free air tickets,
which were issued to ministers/advisors during this period — 45 free air
tickets per minister/adviser every month. They also enjoyed free
residential accommodation and utilities (like electricity and telephone)
allowed to every minister/advisor. The members of the cabinet were allowed
30.84 million free power units and Rs100,000 each under the head of
telephone and mobile phone bills. The expenditure of provincial
ministers/advisors is also not included in it. Pakistan has 96
ministers and advisors for 180 million people; while there are 32
ministers in the Indian cabinet for 1.27 billion people. Both China and
the USA have 14 ministers each in their cabinets for 1.35 billion people
and 270 million respectively. Till 1970, the size of Pakistan’s cabinet
seldom exceeded 12 ministers to serve the people of both East and West
Pakistan. The larger the size of cabinets, the greater the number of
ministries and the supporting staff. In a bid to get
establishment’s cooperation, the leaders have been granting liberal
perks including cars, plots and allowances, to the state minions.
Resultantly, the government’s expenditure exceeded its revenues by
almost 123 per cent last year...In FY 2011, the federal government’s
total revenue income was 11.7 per cent of GDP. After transfer of 47 per
cent to the provinces under the NFC Award, the federal government was left
with 6.2 per cent while its expenditure was 13.8 per cent of GDP. The
revenue gap of 7.6 per cent was financed from borrowings. Due to constant and
continuing deficit financing in FY 2011, debt-servicing consumed 41 per
cent of the total tax revenue and it was 48 per cent higher than the
country’s total defence expenditure. Furthermore, tax-GDP ratio declined
to 8.9 per cent during FY 2011, with indirect taxes accounting for 64 per
cent of the total revenue. Indirect taxes and excessive government
borrowing led to a sharp increase in prices. Being cruellest form of
taxation, inflation adversely impacted the economic growth and added to
income inequality and poverty. On the other hand, the consolidated
development expenditure declined to 15 per cent of the total expenditure
in FY 2011. If one tries to find out
reasons for constant increase in the expenditure, some major factors that
would surface include: establishment’s craze for perks/privileges and
for leading a life of luxury at the state expense, liberal import of fancy
products, bad governance and corruption. Extravaganza and opulent life
styles are against the legacy of Pakistan’s founding fathers and
builders, some specimens of which are reproduced below: Before the start of a
cabinet meeting, when the ADC enquired from Pakistan’s founding father
and the first Governor General (GG), Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah, if
they were serving tea or coffee. The Quaid-e-Azam replied sternly:
“Whichever of the ministers wish to have tea or coffee should drink it
before leaving his home or when he returns home. The nation’s money is
for the nation and not for the ministers!”...As long as the Quaid-e-Azam
was head of the nation, nothing except water was served in cabinet
meetings. This was Pakistan of 64
years ago when Jinnah was head of the state. Though with time the impact
of the Quaid’s legacy has been weakening, it prevailed till 1970, when
simple living and working with devotion and commitment was the norm. When
Ch Muhammad Ali was prime minister, his wife used to cook food herself.
The number of domestic employees available to his present-day counterpart
is a little short of two hundred. Till 1965, Pakistan
ranked high amongst the countries that set up industries with state funds,
and disinvested those ventures when they became profitable. The government
had set up PTDC for that purpose. However, with the introduction of
foreign aid in mid-1950s, a new culture had started to take roots. The
leaders started using tax-payers’ money and foreign loans for their
worldly pleasures, excelling even the Mughal emperors in elegance. Soon,
the bureaucracy also started to tread on the foot-steps of their leaders. While early era leaders
exercised restraint in spending state funds, Pakistan had resources for
catering to the needs of defence, development, industrialisation, etc.
During those days, the developing countries considered Pakistan to be a
role model and haven for education, employment and bilateral trade. Interestingly, till
1971, state officials were not allowed perks like official transport. Even
top bureaucrats had to make own arrangements for going to offices and also
for meeting their social obligations. They did not feel shy using bicycles
for this purpose. However, in early 1971, secretaries and additional
secretaries were provided with a state vehicle for use by them and their
families while Musharraf extended this facility to BS-20 officers also. Before 1958, even prime
ministers felt at ease travelling in old models of cars. The ministers
drew clear lines of distinction between official and private journeys and
used state vehicles strictly for official duties. The wives of cabinet
ministers, who wanted to attend social/cultural functions, had to use
private cars till early 1970s. However, post-1970, extravaganza replaced
simple living; and the ruling elite started spending public money
lavishly. Consequently, the state
expenditure started to soar, exceeding revenue receipts by a few per cent
points every year. However, this did not prick the conscience of leaders.
They continued with their extravaganza, borrowing money, both from
external and internal sources, to meet growing deficits. Finally, the
borrowings have reached a critical point, but this does not deter the
leaders to abandon their grotesque manner of spending state funds.
Resultantly, development activity has almost come to a standstill, while
non-development expenditure has continued to soar. Presently, Pakistan is
facing an extreme energy crunch. But, still for a project that can make
Pakistan self-sufficient in gas and greatly reduce its dependence on
imported energy, the concerned quarters considerably delayed sanctioning
$100 million for purchasing gasifiers for the Thar coal project. Thar coal
can provide 50-60 million cubic feet of gas, while it can also annually
generate 10,000 MWs of electricity and produce 100 million barrels of
diesel for 30 years. But, much would depend on the availability of funds
and the project’s execution by appropriate experts. The current situation in
Pakistan reminds one of the conditions in Turkey about a decade ago, when
the country was known as the “Sick man of Europe”. During those times,
Turkey’s economy was regressing while the prices witnessed sky-rocketing
increase and made the life of citizens miserable. Adulteration and
corruption added to the woes of the people. Taking stock of the
situation, firstly, Prime Minister Erdogan and his cabinet ministers
curtailed their expenses and then proceeded to curb corruption. Their
dedicated efforts borne fruit: turned deficit budget into a surplus
budget, made corruption a thing of the past, gave a boom to the economy,
doubled the income of citizens and arrested the price-hike. With increase
in revenues, the Turkish government launched a massive programme of
infrastructure development, catapulting Turkey to an era of prosperity. The economic turn-around
created tremendous goodwill for the ruling party amongst the masses,
enabling it to take decisions on issues that the “powerful
establishment” had declared lay in its exclusive jurisdiction. It not
only halted military operations against the Kurds, but also restored basic
rights of the Kurd minority. It also freed many prisoners and admitted,
for the first time, that its forces had killed unarmed citizens. These
steps succeeded in curtailing violence and bringing Kurds to the
mainstream. Resultantly, the expenditure on security reduced considerably. Meanwhile, the exports
of Turkey have registered a record increase of 18.2 per cent this year and
swelled to $134.8 billion. With a population of 750 million, Turkey is now
the 17th top economy of the world. It ranks amongst the countries having
the largest growth rate. Last year, Turkey’s GDP witnessed an increase
of 8.9 per cent. Though Turkey is not a nuclear state, Nato has stockpiled
90 atom bombs on one of its airports. In case of a major threat to its
security, after seeking Nato’s permission, Turkey can use 40 of those
bombs for its defence. Pakistan needs to take a
leaf from Turkey and reduce its unproductive expenses as well as
perks/privileges of the state minions. If we could curtail annual
expenditure by three per cent, the country could save equal to the amount
that was proposed to be annually doled out to it through Kerry-Lugar Bill. Alauddin Masood is a
freelance columnist based in Islamabad. E-mail: alauddinmasood@gmail.com caption House in disorder. |
|
As
the Chief Justice ruled that the Memogate case was maintainable and
subsequently constituted a judicial commission to probe the matter, Asma
Jehangir said the court verdict has restored the supremacy of the security
establishment over the civilian leadership. She termed the decision the
darkest day of the judiciary in Pakistan.
unchallenged ruler, it was quite hard for the current army chief resist
the temptation to taste political power. Hardly a year after his
appointment as army chief, leaked diplomatic cables (by WikiLeaks)
reported Kayani’s musings about forcing out President Asif Zardari.
According to the leaked cables which were made public on December 1, 2010,
General Ashfaq Kayani told the then US ambassador Anne Patterson during
the March 2009 meeting in Islamabad that he might pressure President
Zardari to resign.
excess cash. Debtors need creditors to finance their activities. Sometimes
creditors need to compromise on how they get their money back. It is this
very dynamic that has proven to underlie the nuances of the modern
economy.
