Issue 58 Vol III, February 29, 2008

F O C U S

Time for Democracy
Ishtiaq Ahmed

ON February 18, 2008 general elections will be held again in Pakistan. The philosophy behind elections is that if people elect their government and lawmakers they empower them to exercise legitimate authority on their behalf. Equally, those who occupy positions of authority know that without the support and approval of the people they would not be in power. This way a democracy which is based on a contract which ensures mutual rights and obligations between the rulers and the ruled comes into being.

Yet, democracy is not without its critics and sceptics. Not until the 20th century did democracy begin to receive a positive emphasis in political theory. It was feared that if the poor and ill-informed masses were granted the right to vote they would act irresponsibly and thus create disorder and upheaval. Another argument against democracy has been that demagogues and powerful forces in society can join ranks to dupe the gullible masses into voting for incompetent candidates while competent and qualified individuals lacking resources are greatly disadvantaged.

I hear quite so often that if democracy can produce leaders such as George W Bush and Tony Blair who imposed an unjust war on Iraq notwithstanding worldwide opposition, then where are the checks on the unwarranted use of brute force by powerful states? Quite honestly, I have no good argument against such a criticism. The problem is always power and its misuse or abuse, and politics is indeed about power.

Another way to approach this problem is to consider what are the alternatives to democracy? Can we reasonably wait for some divine intervention to correct mischief on earth? Even Ayatollah Khomeini had rely on the Wilayet-e-Faqih – that pious ulema can take over of on behalf of the Imam in his absence.

Sunni-dominateed states such as Saudi Arabia have relied on dogma to establish their version of the Islamic state. But in all honesty can anyone claim that both these states are anything but repressive and outmoded autocracies? The performance of Iran and Saudi Arabia is there to be seen by anyone interested in individual freedom and social justice.

Should we repose our trust in the military because as the custodian of national security they would know best how to promote the public good? Or, have we reached such a level of human responsibility and mutual respect that we can abolish the state, government and all the paraphernalia of a modern polity as the anarchists want?

I think all the alternatives to democracy can be dismissed as less commendable. However, we should most certainly discuss how to make democracy work fairly, efficiently and successfully. To begin with, it is in place to distinguish between liberalism and democracy. Liberalism is a doctrine in which an individual is entitled to inalienable rights that the state or society cannot usurp. It requires the rule of law, a system of checks and balances, limited government, and established, transparent procedures to exercise authority. A liberal order can exist without democracy, but not the other way round.

Thus for example one can trace the origins of English liberalism to the Magna Carta (1215), Habeas Corpus Act (1679), the English Bill of Rights (1689), and so on, but the right to vote for common men dates only from the 19th century and to women from the early 20th century. Britain became a full-fledged democracy after 1945 when universal and inclusive democracy was introduced in that country.

Nascent democracies can sometimes elect wholly inappropriate leaders. The classic case is the election of Adolf Hitler as German Chancellor in 1933. The election of Narendra Modi in the Indian State of Gujarat points out that brute majorities can still vote rabidly illiberal and racist individuals into power, but Indian democracy has to go a long way before it matures and consolidates not only at the level of state but also the society. All democracies face the constant threat of being subverted by extremists from within, which calls for great vigilance against such rogue elements.

However, there is no other system that allows for corrections and adjustments better than democracy. Therefore we have to work hard to earn the right to democracy, and by that I mean not only the right to vote but also to create and maintain a democratic socio-economic, political and cultural order.

Now, when we go to the polls on 18 February it would be imperative that the vote is cast on the basis of some reflection on the suitability of the candidate and the party he/she represents. If we are allowed to take part in a free and open election; it should be celebrated as the first step in our right to enjoy all the other rights given by our constitution.

The elected representatives of the people of Pakistan should consider this as the last chance to save this country from going to the dogs. This I say somewhat rhetorically and in a prejudiced manner because I find that dogs are faithful creatures who return more love than what is given them, but we human beings are not that reliable. We are capable of divine magnificence as well as downright meanness and treachery. That is why democracy must be able to accommodate all sorts of human beings as long as they obey the law.

The writer is professor of political science at the University of Stockholm, Sweden. Email: ishtiaq.ahmed@statsvet.su.se

BACK

Facts Sheet on Pakistan

Size of Pak electorate: 82 million.

Population 169 million

Strength of National Assembly: 342 (272 are elected directly. 70 members are nominated by parties according to the votes they poll. 60 of these seats are reserved for women, 10 for minorities)

Voter turnout: 45.67 per cent, one of the highest ever; up from 42 per cent in 2002. Highest ever was 58 per cent in 1970.

The government had deployed 81,000 troops and nearly 400,000 policemen The Feb 18 elections cost a record $3 billion, according to a survey by the Dawn newspaper

BACK

Pakistan: Fallacy of Poverty Reduction

ONE major claim of president Musharraf and his former World Bank official and prime minister was that the rate of growth has been phenomenal during these 8 years of military ruler. Government claims that almost one third of Pakistan’s poverty problem has been eliminated within a period of four years.

What exactly is the truth?

Experts ask did the relatively high GDP growth during the period 1999-2007 actually lead to a substantial poverty reduction as claimed by the government.  Did the economic policies of the previous government initiate a process of sustained high economic growth? The government has claimed that it has reduced the percentage of the population below the poverty line from 34 per cent in the year 2000-01 to 23 per cent in the year 2004-05, that is 11 percentage points. This could be one of the most dramatic economic achievements in the history of developing countries, including the Soviet Union under Stalin and China under Mao. India could achieve just a 10 percentage point reduction in poverty after 20 years with an average annual GDP growth rate of eight per cent.

An analysis of the sources of growth during the period 2000-01 to 2004-05 shows that the composition of growth during the period was pro-rich rather than pro-poor. It was fuelled mainly by the services sector, (particularly banking and communications) which contributed 60 per cent of GDP growth during the period and the manufacturing sector – primarily manufacture of automobiles, luxury consumer electronics, cement and textiles – which contributed 30.4 per cent of GDP growth during this period.

It is clear that GDP growth during the period was overwhelmingly pro-rich since none of the sectors which mainly constituted the growth were either producing goods for the poor or directly providing employment to them.

In fact the labour force survey data of the government shows that unemployment rates rose sharply from 6.1 per cent in 1999 to 8.3 per cent in 2004. Therefore the nature and composition of GDP growth during this period could not be expected to have substantially reduced poverty.

It is therefore more appropriate to compare the year 1998-99 with the year 2004-05. With respect to the second factor, the government’s poverty estimate uses an inappropriate inflation rate based on the consumer price index, which only covers 16 urban centers. It does not take account of prices in the rural areas where the majority of the poor reside.

Indeed inflation rate data based on both urban and rural areas was available from the Pakistan Living Standard Measurement (PLSM) survey. The PLSM data of course shows a much higher inflation rate. The government instead chose the CPI index for inflation which would yield an artificially low inflation rate and thereby a much higher magnitude of poverty reduction.

One estimate shows that during the period 1998-99 to 2004-05 poverty declined by only 1.8 percentage points, from 31.1 per cent in 1998-99 to 29.3 per cent in 2004-05.

Experts say that  there has been no significant poverty reduction during the period 1998-99 to 2004-05. This conclusion is consistent with the sources of growth analysis based on national income data.

In the three years after 2004-05 the demand-supply imbalances in the economy resulting from design errors of the economic policy led to accelerated inflation, particularly food inflation, severe shortages of flour, electricity, gas and fuel. The accelerating inflation rate particularly for items in the poor man’s basket would be expected to have worsened the poverty situation.

Therefore in the Musharraf period as a whole (1999-2007), while high GDP growth rates were generated, they failed to significantly reduce poverty. It is important to draw the scientifically correct lessons in order to redesign the economic policy to address the central economic policy challenge that still remains: Initiating a process of sustained high economic growth that is restructured in favour of the poor to achieve rapid poverty reduction.

BACK

Malaysia: Politics of Development
Gobind Thukral writes from Kuala Lumpur

FROM the causal tourist to a keen observer, this peninsula of Malaysia is a nearly developed county. During the past fifty years of freedom from the British, it had its share of turmoil and riots, particularly in 1969. It had difficulty in holding together a multi ethnic, multi religious country and had to suffer the separation of Singapore. Close by Vietnam and Cambodia suffered combating the French and then Americans for 30 long years. Now Indonesia and Philippine and even Thailand look like its poor cousins. Though South Korea and Singapore outclass it, three countries, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh lag far behind by most parameters of economic development.

Its development model is still a mixed economy that India initiated much earlier and is now fast abandoning it. Look around this country of 27 million people where now over 10 million voters would be electing a new government or keeping the old ruling coalition in tact. Government owns 70 per cent of the equity market through its companies at the Kuala Lumpur stock exchange. Much of the capital is public owned. Government owned PETRONAS; the petroleum company that last year earned 78 billion ringgits [one ringgit is equal to 12.10 rupees or over 3$] is bulging with cash. DAP, a progressive opposition grouping has declared in its manifesto that it would take away half of this wealth and provide every family 6000 ringgits to boost the economy. It owns PETRONAS towers, the two tallest buildings around the world. A government company, Proton produces good quality cars. It now is entering the Indian market. The government runs an efficient electricity and water supply system. There are no power shutdowns here and the quality of water supply is excellent. Malaysian airlines makes huge profits and is government managed as it tourism. Its communication systems are cheap and of good quality.

Roads, rail networks and clean and tidy markets, housing [mostly private] and other public institutions though suffering the onslaught of the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats are still the envy of its neighbours. The government last year provided a subsidy of 30 billion ringgit. It also provided a subsidy of 43.4 billion ringgits to keep the prices of essential commodities down. Prices of flour, sugar, cooking oil and petrol are less than half of the neighbouring countries like Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines and Singapore. Petrol is sold at Rs 25 per liter as it cooking gas.  Houses are less than the one third the price of Chandigarh and are better planned and a lot better in quality.

Its trade and industry are booming as is tourism. In manufacturing and service sector alone, last year attracted a total foreign direct investment of RM 125.3 billion. The country has 27 million inhabitants. There were 20 million tourists last year. The number is increasing. In four years the trade value of RM 881 billion 2004 rose by 32 per cent to RM 1,116 trillion. The average household income during this period rose from RM 3,249 to RM 3,669. [One dollar means 3.4 Ringgits of RM]

But what has gone wrong to make Malaysians complain. From the reports, it is clear that the present rulers are all set to win. The effort is stop them from gaining a two third majority.  And much more than that the present model; a political front created on racial identities is under severe strain. For the first time since its independence in 1957, a discontent and open unrest among its ethnic Indian community stares the country.

These two-million ethnic Indians, who owe their existence in Malaysia to a historical wrong by colonial Britain now form eight per cent of the population, can not dictate the outcome of the poll, yet it is disturbing.  Could they be a swing factor in favour of the opposition as no where in over 200 parliamentary seats, they command any majority. Together with ethnic Chinese, they could upset fifty seats at least.

The ethnic Indians have, in recent months, rallied behind the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf),  which organised a mass protest rally in Kuala Lumpur last November and also an unusual “roses campaign” in the same city on February 16, has placed the plight of Malaysian Indians in the public domain of public debate. It is becoming increasingly clear that Malaysians of Indian origin feel neglected would go for the opposition parties and the powerful minister Sammy Vallu and his party MCI is under serious threat.

Main opposition parties: the Democratic Action Party and the Parti Keadilan Rakyat have begun to reflect on multiracialism within their individual ranks. Significantly in the present context, each of these two parties fielded a Hindraf leader.

And, Parti Islam Se-Malaysia, which has for the first time renounced its goal of establishing an Islamic state, nominated an ethnic Indian. Should this movement succeed and take hold, a reconfiguration of Malaysia’s multiracial polity will be an energetic subject.

The long-term question will be whether Malaysia can shift from its existing system of a uninterrupted coalition of race-based parties to a new system of distinctive competition among multiracial parties and even among coalitions of multi-ethnic parties.

The political under currents could turn either way if the present coalition, the BN loses  its sheen, gets a simple majority, there could be changes in leadership and a new group could  redesign the agreement that aggressively favours Malays and ignores other minorities; people of Indian  and  Chinese origin. There are poor among the Malays too. So there could be bigger emphasis on removing poverty. Or else there could more racial tensions and the politicians as they sometimes do, exploit the majority sentiment to hit at the minorities. That would be sad. It has been happening in India and Bangladesh at larger scale for many years. Communal and ethnic divisions would not help this country. It is at the stage of economic development where it can happily distribute the wealth more equitably among all Malays without creating any hurdles in the creation of wealth.

BACK

Poll Promises: All things to all people

IT is an accepted fact that political parties promise moon to the electorate at the time of elections. It is world wide trend that these promises mostly remain on paper as pious wishes and ideas meant to hoodwink the electorate. As these add to the cynicism about democracy and the political class, yet these nevertheless, provide the current level of aspirations of people and the thinking of the political class.

Malaysia is no exception to this general rule.

Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi leader of the Barisan Nasional (BN)'s has promised "Security, Peace and Prosperity". The manifesto Launched by the party contains the coalition's mission and vision to bring Malaysia towards a more glorious future.

The DAP election manifesto, however, proposes to use of half of Petronas' profits to finance a RM35 billion fiscal stimulus plan to enhance living standards. Party secretary-general Lim Guan Eng, said: "They (the Barisan Nasional leaders) say Petronas makes about RM70 billion a year. The plan is to give needy families an annual allowance of RM6, 000 which would work out to about half of the profits. This will kill two birds with one stone. It will help the needy families and the plan will help in economic recovery because it encourages spending in the domestic market,” The plan, would benefit some 90% of wage earners, including senior citizens.

The political content of the DAP manifesto was more explicit.  Democracy and freedom – supporting a stronger opposition to provide effective check and balances in the government, abolishment of oppressive laws like the Internal Security Act, the Official Secrets Act, the Printing Presses and Publications Act, and the University and University Colleges Act, the implementation of local government elections and an independent Election Commission promoting electoral reforms.

The ruling as well as the opposition parties recognize the problem of corruption taking serious proportions and promise to clean the system

Among the pledges of BN are:

ECONOMY
raise productivity, revenue and competitiveness.
tackle price increases to ensure quality of life for the people
nurture and help one million small- and medium-scale companies and entrepreneurs in five years
generate more than two million jobs in five years
reduce the fiscal deficit to enable more funds to be used for development, without raising taxes
implement development plans for all the five economic corridors to generate growth, investments and jobs nationwide.

The progress report for the economy, entitled "Generating Strong and Sustainable Growth", for 2004-07 says that:

The gross domestic product (GDP) grew from RM427 billion to RM504 billion.
All sectors showed growth including new activities like modern agriculture, biotechnology, ICT and Islamic banking. Visit Malaysia Year 2007 recorded the highest number of tourist arrivals of 21 million people.
International trade rose 26 % from RM881 billion to RM1.11 trillion.
The average monthly household income rose from RM3,249 to RM3,617.
Price control on essential goods was maintained and RM43.4 billion was spent in the form of subsidies (2007) to tackle price increases; and
1.3 million jobs were created

LAW AND PUBLIC SAFEFY
reduce the crime index
fight drug abuse and social ills
tackle illegal immigrants
increase police force to 60,000 members by 2011 and build 150 police beat bases and stations to increase police presence in the community
increase security in schools, playgrounds and public places; and
enhance level of communication technology, weapons, vehicles and technical aid and training programmes for police force.

BALANCED DEVELOPMENT
eradicate hardcore poverty and reduce overall poverty to 2.8% by 2010
increase incomes and opportunities for quality jobs in the rural areas
improve service and facilities for low-income households in urban areas, including for migrants from the villages to the towns
enhance the provision of quality houses at affordable prices 
improve public transport service in the towns and reduce traffic jams
Upgrade rail and air services 
Increase coverage of electricity supply in the rural areas in Sabah from 81% to 90% by 2010 ; and
Continue to narrow the digital divide and enhance the penetration of broadband Internet service through the National Broadband Plan.

DAP PLANS

The DAP 2008 election manifesto, titled "Malaysia Can Do Better!" features eight key points:
Better living standards – encompassing re-negotiation of contracts for cheaper toll rates, providing quality, accessible and affordable healthcare, and safe and affordable water;
Malaysian First Economic Policy – creating equal opportunities based on merits and needs, reducing income inequality, reducing foreign workers reliance and promoting a fair wage;
Quality education for children – sourcing top academics to lead institutions of higher learning, equal opportunities for Malaysian students based on merits and needs, increasing pay for the teaching force and providing fair financial allocation to protect mother-tongue education;
Healthy environment for the future generation – tackling climate change and global warming, preserving forests, wetlands and biodiversity, provide and protecting green lungs for densely populated urban areas and improvement of public transport system as a viable cost-effective alternative;
Gender equality and youth empowerment – providing childcare facilities for working parents to increase labour force, flexi-hour working programmes for employees, providing women’s rights and gender sensitisation education to eliminate discrimination and empower youths to realise full potentials in a free and fair environment;
A clean government – implement open and transparent tenders for government contracts, and independent Anti-Corruption Agency and a judicial commission, streamline the bureaucratic civil service to improve efficiency and effectiveness;

BACK