A fundamental problem Pakistan has always had to deal with is the balance of power between provinces. Whether it was between East and West Pakistan, or between Punjab and the smaller provinces. These issues are exacerbated by the different ethnicities, prejudices and education levels of segments of our population, not to mention the exploitative tendencies of individuals who have had the reigns of power in Pakistan’s brief history.
Aside from the ethnicity issues, there are segments of the population that are very religious, and expect religious laws. Other segments that are the opposite, often quite secular.
In this environment, one of two things can happen. A dominant group can impose it’s worldview on others, whether it be shariah laws or secular, whether they be heavy handed federal powers redistributing resources against the will of the owners of those resources, whether they be elitist, exclusionary laws barring millions from public office. Or each group can be empowered within its domain of control.
I speak of federalist systems, where decisions are made at the lowest appropriate level of organization. This goes beyond Musharraf’s local bodies (although they are a good first step), it is the idea that I should not have to adhere to laws, participate in programmes, submit to the will of politicians from a completely different regional background. In American politics, this is the republican mantra of states rights and reduced federal powers.
Complex issues should have local solutions, because one answer does not cover all situations. So should issues like sharia, distribution of power, education, curriculum. It would also limit the impact of unsavory characters to their neighbourhoods (and also incentivize localities to elect better leaders since their sphere of impact is strong in their local area).
Forget about Federalist society with autonomous bodies in Pakistani Politics....The first thing you would see sooner then later is the divorce between N-League & PPP. As soon as Nawaz gets a hint of Musharraf being forced to leave , he would be back to his own maniac ways of controlling and looting the country.
this is ofcourse a more theoretical thread than the actual politics you speak of.
there are people who wish to engineer social change using the government, whether that be fostering a certain religious attitude (enlightened moderation or the converse) or education (only yay-educated people need be elected) or language (english is the language or instruction.. no urdu is!) or anything else.
What limited/federalist government does it is delegates those issues to the people concerned, instead of having groups fighting for their respective worldviews to be supreme.
at the moment, there is no ideological struggle in pakistan, merely political/power struggles.
Pakistan does have a federal system in theory, but way too much power is concentrated in the center. Way too many federal programmes, agencies, taxes, laws.
Pakistan does have a federal system in theory, but way too much power is concentrated in the center. Way too many federal programmes, agencies, taxes, laws.
Pakistan has a variety of fault lines, inter provincial, regional, ethnic and sectarian. Calling it federal is faulty or deceptive ..much the same way people call it democracy. Other terms whcih are probably more apt have been used, praetorian state, garrison state etc
Pakistan is heavily over centralised as you have rightly said, to put things in perspective some have estimated by simple elimination of duplicated departments in the Army and federal government, you could wipe away pakistans budget deficit in one stroke.
Complex issues should have local solutions, because one answer does not cover all situations. So should issues like sharia, distribution of power, education, curriculum. It would also limit the impact of unsavory characters to their neighbourhoods (and also incentivize localities to elect better leaders since their sphere of impact is strong in their local area).
what if the complex issues have national implications.
A taliban style sharia implemented in FATA and NWFP could serve as the perfect place for terrorists to hide in, and create worldwide havoc.
do we then let FATA and NWFP sort it out with Uncle Sam if push comes to shove?
I am all for decentralization, but anything that has a national impact that should not be left to local govts.
Pakistan has a variety of fault lines, inter provincial, regional, ethnic and sectarian. Calling it federal is faulty or deceptive ..much the same way people call it democracy. Other terms whcih are probably more apt have been used, praetorian state, garrison state etc
Pakistan is heavily over centralised as you have rightly said, to put things in perspective some have estimated by simple elimination of duplicated departments in the Army and federal government, you could wipe away pakistans budget deficit in one stroke.
I completely agree with you. When I say Pakistan is a federation, I mean as originally designed as far back as the Objectives Resolution.
So do you agree with my general sentiments about distribution of power?
what if the complex issues have national implications.
A taliban style sharia implemented in FATA and NWFP could serve as the perfect place for terrorists to hide in, and create worldwide havoc.
do we then let FATA and NWFP sort it out with Uncle Sam if push comes to shove?
I am all for decentralization, but anything that has a national impact that should not be left to local govts.
The center should have a say in matters of national security, foreign affairs and army. The situation you describe is something the center would have a say in. Even then to the extent possible local authorities should be brought into play. To the extent that sharia laws dont result in Pakistan committing an act of war in another country, it is no business of the center to desire them repealed.
It is too broad however to say that "anything" of national "impact" should not be left ot local govts. That implies taht anything important cant be dealt with local solutions which just isnt the case. Infact I think in issues with fair sharing of resources (something with massive national impact), federalist approaches are much more effective, and allow actual negotiation between stakeholders.
They are complementary views. Much of the rationale however for more provinces is that one province imposes its will on others by gaining control of a very powerful federal government. Taking the federal government down to a minimum reduces the inter provincial issues. As for issues within segments of population within provinces ideally there would be a similar system within provinces with powerful local city and district governments. Alternatively there is the more provinces idea.
not really "fact" zakk, although i favour it. the contrarian view would be one offered by many political movements over time, communism/socialism/left-wing politics is an example where a stronger/empowered central govt is necessary.
you give up many things with this idea. you cant expect to have an Islamic state. you cant expect to have a progressive/secular state. you give up extensive federal programmes that have a potential to do a lot of good.
idealised distributed control is usually less efficient than the idealised centralized control.
If a perfect way to list all possible future issues and decisions and to find the "lowest necessary" decision level, yeah sure! But it is a non-starter because such a list is not possible.
The only way federalism or any type multi-level governance works is if ALL parties from all segmenst of ALL dimensions understand that they can only hope to OPTIMIZE and not MAXIMIZE all the time. If everybody aspire local Maximum there cannot be Federal maximum or optimum - only chaos will result as has been experienced.
Some examples are not obscure:
Religion as a uniting base of Pakistan worked only for and upto the point of ejecting from undivided India but since then has proved woefully a negative factor - not just in terms of failing before provincial and ethnic boundaries but actually being cause for violent internal strife
Any "solution" has to first remove religion FAR Away from all forms of governance, education and jurisprudence.
Secondly then, military has to completely be removed from politics - going so far as to make all coups punishable by mandatory death sentence.
Finally, take foreign policy out of intelligence services. In fact disband the latter and start fresh. It has become a pervasive cancer
It's an old argument actually rav, people have argued for hundreds of years at how efficient military rule /monarchy and now CEO style administrations are efficient compared to loose federal democracies with their endless debates, compromises and patronage politics. That's an old argument, the key to real development and not the number crunchers dream 8% growth which forgets the 500 people killed every year and the states writ collapse, is political stability and cohesion, loosely decentralised states have more room for cohesion and innovation..that reinforces the states stability. In fact it gives room for both the Islamic state and the progressive state.
However just because a state is decentralised does not mean the federal/central gov has no role...at times of crisis the central gov will be the main actor (which is the main advantage of why different ethnicities and faiths agree to a federal ssytem).
actually i wanted to lead towards the second part of my post, "Limited Government". would you agree that Federalist government requires a smaller role of government, local or federal, (for purposes of efficiency if nothing else). For example, socialist/welfare state ideas wouldnt be practical in a heavily decentralized system.
actually i wanted to lead towards the second part of my post, "Limited Government". would you agree that Federalist government requires a smaller role of government, local or federal, (for purposes of efficiency if nothing else). For example, socialist/welfare state ideas wouldnt be practical in a heavily decentralized system.
I agree with a smaller role for government, overregulation breeds corruption (just ask any businessman in Pak how many different inspections he has to grease his way through to allow him to open a biz! ) i disagree that you can't have a welfare system in a decentralised state, Pakistani society with it's high level of community and family involvement already has the ingredients for a welfare system in place..it's about maximising that potential.