Friday, August 06, 2010
By Shafqat Mahmood
Floodwaters do not make a distinction between the rich and the poor but it is the wretched of the earth that lose everything and die in natural calamities. These floods, the worst in Pakistan's history, are a snapshot of our failures.
The state response is weak and inadequate because our governance has deteriorated to the point of a crisis. The structure is weak and the motivation of the personnel limited. That there was little preparation for the floods is symptomatic of this chaos.
It came as no surprise that the Mianwali administration set up a fake hospital to provide the prime minister with a photo opportunity. Appearance of efficiency now substitutes for the reality of incompetence. The entire effort is to paint the facade white while walls are crumbling within.
It also came as no surprise that Mr Zardari took off on a leisurely trip around Europe while hundreds of his compatriots were drowning in the raging waters. The damage to livestock and property is also incalculable. Millions have lost all their worldly possessions.
Yet, the highest office holder in the land, the symbol of our federation, the commander-in-chief of our armed forces, the receiver of indemnities and protections in our Constitution, was 'helicoptering' in to relax at a French chateaux acquired by his father in the nineties.
How the elder Zardari found the money to possess such properties is a question that is still to be answered. As are others regarding the massive wealth of his son who in a short period has become perhaps the richest man in the country.
This particular qualification of our honourable president has become a focus of the British press. Instead of earning favourable points for the country during this visit, it has brought to the fore our shortcomings. If our so-called double-dealing in the Afghan war was not enough grist for the media mills in the west, Mr Zardari's personal record has heightened the already negative perceptions about the country.
This visit is thus already a public-relations disaster. With TV pictures showing most of the country afloat in floodwaters, the president lounging around in France and London has become a media nightmare. To top it all, the British prime minister has shown no sign of backing off from his statement accusing Pakistan of exporting terror.
All this talk of how Mr Zardari will look David Cameron in the eye and tell him off is nothing more than hogwash. The British media is seeing it more as a dressing-down that the Pakistani president will receive from the prime minister.
The extravagant expenditure on the visit is also a preoccupation with the British media, as is the 'launching' of the 21-year Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. The phrase dynastic democracy is frequently being bandied about calling into question what passes for democracy in these parts.
Combine the negative perceptions generated by Mr Zardari with the pathetic performance of our cricketers in the field and the wild antics of the Pakistan Cricket Board, and it will give you a picture of where the country stands as far as public perception in Britain is concerned. This visit by Mr Zardari could not have been more ill-timed.
Nearer at home, the president's disappearance at a time of national emergency reflects the vision he holds of this office. He obviously has not understood that leadership is not just about honour and privileges. More than anything, it is about empathy with the people and responsibility.
But, this realisation cannot be forced. It is either there or not. And within our democratic culture, it is rare. The reason is simple. While our dictatorships are forcible occupation of power by army generals, our democracy is another form of elite capture.
The structure of elections is such that only the rich or those with a pedigree of religious or tribal loyalties can win. There are exceptions, but only a few and mostly in urban areas where on occasions the party vote puts a middle-class person across. On a party basis, only the MQM consistently sends people with limited means into the legislatures.
In general, though, our national and provincial legislatures reflect the elite structure prevalent in our society. For example, except for some members of the JUI-F, the entire Balochistan Assembly is captured by nawabs, sardars and local elites.
The situation in the rest of the country is no different. Members from rural areas in Punjab, Sindh and KP are largely landowners and many of the urban members are well-off businessmen. This bias is ultimately reflected in the National Assembly and the Senate.
The elite capture of our democracy is reflected in policies and priorities of the government. Two particular examples stand out although a close examination of all major decisions would show elite interests triumphing over popular concerns.
The first is taxes. Only a small percentage of the people pay income tax because of not just inefficiency and corruption. These are issues in the urban areas where large traders get away with no contribution. The most important reason is that there is no tax on income derived from agriculture.
The simple argument that income is income whatever source it is derived from is shouted down by the landowners in our power structure. The result is unfair tax regime in which indirect taxes play a larger role. This translates into the poor proportionally paying more and the rural rich paying virtually nothing.
The second is the spending priorities of our governments. I do not have the exact figures but let us assume that five per cent of the people own cars, although this seems high. Look at the resources we are spending on making the driving experience of these small elite easier, with motorways and ring roads and over- and under-passes. Meanwhile, means of mass transportation such as railways are woefully short of funds.
These are just two examples of how elite capture of government through democratic means has skewed priorities. The fact is that with few exceptions, the leaderships just do not care. Shahbaz Sharif is perhaps an exception, as he is running around trying to do his best for the flood sufferers, but how many others?
The problem is that there are no easy answers to the conundrum of elite democracy. Military governments of the past have been little better. While more efficient in governance and providing greater stability to the economy, they have frittered away their chance to make a real difference.
Top generals became as fond of making money as politicians, and policy interventions often, such as the devolution plan, are a disaster. Above all military rule in the past created severe inter-provincial stresses. Bangladesh was one drastic outcome and now, on a smaller scale, the troubles in Balochistan.
Where does the nation go then? The politicians are defective and democracy captured by the elites. The military has been a failure.
Where will the messiah come from?
Where will the messiah come from?
