The New Nation - Internet Edition

Setting the dialogue agenda

The government has proposed to hold a dialogue with the major political parties. The dialogue is for arriving at consensus on some issues for holding elections according to the roadmap announced by the Election Commission with a view to ensuring peace, economic progress and stability of the country. Chief Adviser, Dr Fakhruddin Ahmed underlined in his address to the nation recently that he looks at the dialogue as one for essentially getting all-round agreements from the political forces about a code of conduct to be practiced by them after the election so that a situation of the sort that led to the 1/11 changes does not repeat. The dialogue plus carrying on of wider political reforms including the reform of the political parties to make them cleaner, accountable and suited to produce talented and morally fit leaders to take over the charge of running the country, seem to be the objectives from the government side in the dialogue.

The ball would be now in the court of the political parties. They should respond constructively to this dialogue offer from the government. There is no way for the political parties to stubbornly maintain a stand that their past conduct was above reproach and that they need not exercise soul searching and not carry out self- reforms. People generally expect them to mend their ways and if they do not do this, then they would lose their claim to be truly people’s representatives. The agenda for the dialogue with the government has not been set. Leading persons in the administration have expressed what things they would like to see at the top of the agenda such as the political parties carrying out certain reforms in their own organisations to make them democratic, accountable, transparent, and creating opportunities for upward mobility of good and efficient persons.

Government side also would like to see that the culture of buying and selling nomination of candidates for elections is prevented and the use of black money and muscle power in the elections in no longer there. Other top items for consensus likely to be stressed by the government are guarantees that all elected parties would give an undertaking not to boycott Parliament sessions, to give up hartal as a political weapon, strengthening of the parliamentary committees; undertaking that on winning seats of Parliament the parties would support and ratify all the laws related to the good works that the incumbent government has done so far such as the independence of the judiciary and the Election Commission. People will see whether the political leaders who aspire to govern the country have truly realised their lapses and are agreeable to changing themselves. All caring people are perhaps one in expecting that there ought not to be going back to the old order of intolerance and violence in politics.

Quota in BCS exams

Ahead of the 28th Bangladesh Civil Service (BCS) examinations, pressure is mounting to end the quota system in the recruitment of class one officers in different cadre services. Students as contenders for BCS jobs have a stake in the recruitment method and, as such, they are deeply concerned at how civil service officers are chosen. They have a legitimate ground to air their feelings in this regard. The recruitment policy also involves the interest of the nation. According to media reports, students of different universities and colleges demonstrated against the existing quota system. They are for ending the quota system so that more talented and meritorious students can enter the cadre services through competition. Brilliant students seek jobs in the civil services but many of them are deprived of the same due to the quota system.

Because of weakness of the existing method of recruitment, candidates not having the required merit might enter the services. This raises questions about the competence of the officers of the republic. Under the existing arrangement, 55 percent of the officers are recruited through quota intended to promote some sections of the population including women, indigenous people who lag behind and dependents of freedom fighters while only 45 percent are recruited through merit test. The demand for doing away with quota system deserves to be considered. First of all, civil services are different from other government services. In some cadres the civil servants are the policy makers. Smooth running of the government machinery depends much on the calibre and qualities of the civil servants. Naturally, civil services demand that people having the highest calibre and efficiency be taken into the cadres. Recruitment of person with high capabilities can only be ensured through proper merit tests. A system where majority of the officers are selected from non-merit quota bypassing merit cannot ensure desired efficiency. This is likely to deprive the nation of the service of the most efficient sons of the soil.

Recruitment through quota keeps scope of candidates with lesser calibre into the service open. This is likely to tell upon the overall quality of the services. In the interest of the intake of people of high calibre into the civil services, the quota sysem needs to be dropped. But in case it is felt necessary to maintain the quota system for the sake of promoting backward sections of the population, a number of cadre services like administration, foreign service, police, judiciary and taxation must be kept out of the quota system. And quota should be brought down to the minimum in the interest of efficiency of administration.

Rigid mindset reduces credit-value of the media

Dr. M. S. Haq

Ensuring security arrangements and environments conducive to holding upcoming polls in a peaceful manner in Pakistan would inter alia be vital for motivating and encouraging an increased number of willing voters to come to polling stations and to cast their votes therein. A good turn out of voters on the election days could not only facilitate significant enhancements of legitimacy and credibility of those elections plus the acceptability of those elections to all concerned but the work of say, election monitors - both in and ex-country - and others when it comes to the determination of quality of elections at an 'actual' in a realistic manner.

On the other hand, a poor turn out of voters could create or promote or both opportunities for say, vote-related unfair practices and that could impact negatively on efforts of President Pervez Musharraf, the caretaker government and others including inter alia friends of Pakistan (for example, the US) towards holding or facilitating to hold (as appropriate) free, fair, peaceful and transparent elections in the country. It should, however, be noted here: the possibility of unfair electoral practices against the backdrop of wider participation of voters cannot also be ruled out.

A windfall from quality starved elections could lead subsequently to an unstable Pakistan, among other things. One of the concerns here is: terrorists and other anti-state elements plus opportunists - both within and outside of Pakistan - might make attempts towards creating or promoting or both reigns of terror in the remaining election days including inter alia the days of elections in different parts of Pakistan and the government's effort towards tackling the resultant situations - whether successful or otherwise - could affect, in a variety of ways, the election related psyche of voters and others.

One of the present day challenges for Pakistan is: how best and quickest it could handle security situations - both existing and potential - to the satisfaction of voters and in the overall interest of Pakistan and for that matter the elections?

Taking into cognizance, uncertainties, risks and vulnerabilities associated with the election related security, the government might elect to attract, mobilize and harness help and support of for example, political parties - I mean, those who will be participating in the elections - and civil societies with a view to making them important partners in election related security efforts, per se. One of the underlying assumptions here is: partnerships of the political parties and others with the government in pertinent areas could be instrumental in, among other things, establishing a kind of collective responsibility, accountability and ownership in matters of security during the election periods and the periods immediately after the elections. The government, the political parties, the media and other stakeholders should, as far as practicable, be able to take the voters into confidence when it comes to for example, dispelling their sense of fear, as well as insecurity in respect of matters concerning the elections.

It is expected the roles of media (print, electronic and others) including inter alia Pakistan Television (PTV) plus Radio Pakistan and the country's high commissions, as well as embassies in facilitating, either directly or otherwise, quality elections to the satisfaction of maximum number of Pakistanis and others should, as appropriate, be more objective, more responsible, more constructive, more diplomatic, more result-oriented, more innovative, more just-in-time, and more people centered (to mention a few) than those at present.

Here is the feedback on following electronic media programs - relative to time, space and other variables, though.

"Election Corner" appears to be a time sensitive and important PTV program in the context of upcoming elections in Pakistan. It is apparent, the anchor person is skillful. But a few interviewees are at times found to be less substantive than others when it comes to their role in answering relevant questions of the anchor person - for example, the performance of interviewee-over-the telephone on Thursday (I think, it was Thursday, the 31st day of January 2008).

I believe PTV, Radio Pakistan and others should be able to present to the viewers more solid, more interesting and more impact-oriented programs on upcoming election matters and they should be able to continue those programs at least up to and including the election days. One of the reasons for it - is: the people should be afforded additional opportunities by PTV, Radio Pakistan and others in their (I mean, the people) efforts towards taking the right decision at the right time and in favor of the right candidate in above elections.

I also believe PTV, Radio Pakistan and others should, through their respective election related programs, be able to assist the undecided voters - a critical mass of voters that could, among other things, influence election results in a decisive manner in the eleventh hour - in their effort towards taking the right and firm decision in favor of the right candidate and at the right time in the elections. One of the underlying assumptions here is: the election results could have inter alia strong bearing on promoting, through the foreseeable future, the future of Pakistan on the basis of for example, gains made so far by Pakistanis under the effective leadership of President Pervez Musharraf.

"Bulls and Bears" and "Mind Your Business" - on the evening of 02 February 2008 - on PTV: Both the programs were found to be well planned, well executed and well delivered. The contribution of anchor person to the program was apparently relevant, precise, and concise; she was found to be articulate and confident in her interactions with the learned interviewees; her interpersonal skills, her respect for the interviewees' viewpoint, her motivational gestures - nodding, saying yes, etc.; her depth of knowledge and understanding in pertinent areas; her ability to use interdisciplinary approaches (for example, medical ramifications of beverage) to the domain of discussions and her result-orientations; were, among other things, highly commendable. In several respects, the program could be considered as one of the quality programs of PTV. Congratulations!

It would be appreciated if PTV could commend the producer, anchor person and concerned others for their good work with regard to the program.

Two more points: one, the practice of unnecessary, impolite and unproductive interruptions by certain PTV interviewers during the presentation by learned interviewees or at the time of explaining by them their point of view or both in the course of TV discussions should be minimized, as far as practicable. If the time is a constraint then apply principles of time management to program management and developments and if interpersonal skills are problems then improve those at the soonest; two, a few PTV anchor persons are in the habit of wishing only Pakistani viewers and not other non-Pakistani viewers - who could be watching the programs at the same time as Pakistani viewers do - while concluding respective programs. The practice should be discarded and the interviewers' mindset should be rescued from tunnel visions in the context of an increasingly borderless world.

The last word: the communication skills demonstrated so far by for example, federal caretaker minister for information, Mr. Menon via interviews and press conferences appear, in an average sense, to be superb in qualitative and quantitative terms.

'War on terror' and the new stupidity in geopolitics

Simon Jenkins

NOTHING and nobody can stop bombs going off. No citizen, no police force, no army, no government and no global military alliance can prevent a determined suicide bomber from blowing himself up. It will happen and innocent people will die as a result, horribly, as they do on the roads, from drugs and alcohol, or from natural disasters - again without responsible authority being able to stop it.

What is recent is the admission of this truism into the mainstream of government under the rubric of 'terrorism'. This week two presidents, America's George Bush and Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf, defined their terms of office in relation to terror. Bush did so in his final state of the union message on Monday and Musharraf that same day in London during a charm offensive prior to next month's elections.

To Bush, the 'war on terror' is the ruling mantra of his politics of fear. Since 9/11 gave a prop to his weakening presidency, his language has scaled new heights of alarmist rhetoric. It has validated every internal repression and every external war. "He who is not with us is against us," he cries. Terrorists everywhere are "opposing the advance of liberty t evil men who despise freedom, despise America and aim to subject millions to their violent rule".

As the sociologist Ulrich Beck has written, "properly exploited, a novel risk is always an elixir to an ailing leader". By declaring a threat so awful as to be intolerable, a politician can limit the liberties of a free society in the name of risk-aversion. Musharraf utters hardly a sentence that does not contain the word terror. Pivotally close to the base from which 9/11 was apparently launched, his dictatorship has been indulged by London and Washington for a full seven years. This week Gordon Brown hailed him as a "key ally on terrorism", enabling him to take comfort in sacking his judiciary and curbing his media.

Had the war on terror been used only as a metaphor for better policing, like rhetorical "wars" on drugs, poverty and street crime, it might have passed muster. Bush and Musharraf have found the military metaphor too potent to resist and duly carried it into literal effect. The result has been a disaster for their countries, and incidentally for themselves.

The West's Afghan adventure is now devoid of coherent strategy. Soldiers are dying, the opium trade is booming and aid lies undistributed. Command and control of the war against the Taleban is slipping from the most bizarre western occupying force since the fourth Crusade to a tight cabal around the Afghan ruler, Hamid Karzai, who is fighting to retain a remnant of authority in his own capital.

Karzai's exasperation with the West has led him to refuse the services as "coordinator" of the UK's former Liberal Democrat leader, Paddy Ashdown. The latter may have cut a dash in the subsidy swamp of Sarajevo, but in Afghanistan he would have been a boy on a man's errand. Karzai knows well that his fate lies not with the patronising platitudes of western proconsuls but in the hard graft of provincial warlords, drug gangsters and Taleban go-betweens.

These go-betweens have had their status massively boosted by the war on terror. Bush's demand in 2001 that Musharraf "join the war" sent Pakistani forces into the border territories, breaking old treaties and driving the Pashtun tribes into the eager arms of Taleban leaders. This undoubtedly saved Osama bin Laden's skin from the fury of the northern Tajiks, committed to avenge his murder of their leader, Ahmed Shah Massoud.

Musharraf, at America's bidding and with $10bn of American money, has done what even his craziest predecessors avoided, and recklessly set the Pashtun on the warpath - increasingly in thrall to a revived Al Qaeda.

The result is a plague of suicide bombings and killings in the heartland of his benighted state. From the law courts of America to the mosques of west London and the mountains of the Hindu Kush, the war on terror has been lethally and predictably counter- productive. It embodies the new stupidity in international affairs.

Nobody disputes that there are killer cells at large in the world, most of them proclaiming various Islamist creeds. It is the job of Intelligence agencies and the police to catch as many as they can. After a hesitant start, they appear to be quite good at it. Some bombs will get through but they will not be deterred by draconian laws, any more than by machine gun-toting policemen in Downing Street and London-Heathrow airport. Robust societies can handle this admittedly intermittent threat. Only weak ones will capitulate to it.

The menace of these killers lies not in their firepower but in their capacity to distort the judgment and commitment to freedom of politicians too cowardly to bear on their shoulders the burden of risk. In two weeks' time, the fragile democracy of Pakistan will defy the bombers and hold an election prior, it is hoped, to some version of democratic rule. Such communities will defy a probable burst of terror bombs only if their leaders stop setting "terrorists" on a pedestal and using language that exaggerates their capacity, as Bush puts it, "to oppose the advance of freedom".

It is leaders, not bombers, who have the power to balk the advance of freedom. Already those leaders have used the war on terror to introduce the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay and a $1.5 trillion war in Iraq. In Pakistan they have used it as an excuse for emergency rule, the imprisonment of senior judges, and the provocation of unprecedented insurgency in the north-west frontier territories. In Britain leaders have used the war as an excuse for 42-day detention without trial, the worldís most intrusive surveillance state, and not one but two contested military occupations of foreign soil.

This so-called war on terror has filled the pockets of those profiting from it. It has killed thousands, immiserated millions and infringed the liberty of hundreds of millions. The only rough justice it has delivered is to ruin the careers of those who propagated it. Tony Blair was driven to early resignation. Bush has been humiliated and Musharraf's wretched rule brought close to an overdue end. It may be an ill wind that blows no good, but it is hardly enough.

(Simon Jenkins is a veteran British journalist and Guardian columnist )