Sorry to have disappointed you General Kayani

General Kayani is disappointed in us.


He has castigated the media and the nation for its ruthless criticism of the Army and ISI. 


First he started off with a history lesson saying:


“if you want to fight with history in this context, it’s your choice to do so. However, establishing institutions require a lot of hard work and the media should be careful … that their words do not undermine these [institutions].”


Well now, if only some politician had uttered these words someone would have been hauled before the Supreme Court for contempt, but not in this case. I only wish he had continued to explain who had scuttled the "hard work" of building institutions in the past and explained why they are so fragile today? 


On the other hand it was good to note that the COAS appreciated the power of words, for where coups, jumping over walls are not available as an option, words do count.


He is later quoted as saying:


Gen Kayani added that one should be careful that while criticising one must not undermine national institutions or organisations.

I mean, come on now, why would anyone think that organizations financed by the state and tax payers money and debt that will have to be financed by our grandchildren should be above criticism? How silly!

The COAS also said that only 47 people are missing in Balochistan. 

Only 47!

Why didnt someone tell me. Ill immediately retract my liberal fascist-RAW-CIA-Mossad funded blog posts. 

So how many people need to be added to the "missing persons" list before criticism will be acceptable without undermining national institutions?

Perhaps the following is my favourite quip:

“Even now, there are Baloch who have seen a 10 rupee currency note for the first time in their lives".

So is the Army, that is not present in Balochistan as stated earlier, in the business of distributing Rs. 10 notes? And why are there in this position to begin with? I mean, its not as if the region has suffered repeated military operations over the past 6 decades has it? Opps...

But thats not all. General Kayani is a keen follower of the foreign press. I mean he doesn't have anything better to do right?

Using the US as an example, the COAS said that the American army was not criticised by its people as harshly as the Pakistan Army was criticised by Pakistanis. The US media is careful in reporting events of US casualties in Afghanistan, for example. He said that the ruthless criticism of ISI in Pakistan was far higher than any criticism made on RAW, Mosad or the CIA in India, Israel or USA.

Wow! Justifying the ISI's actions by pointing to our supposed enemies equivalent organizations lack of public condemnation is just the way to go. Talk about setting really low standards!

Also in the US the military chiefs appear before congressional committees and have to justify their budgets, priorities and expenses. We dont even bother with the pretence. Three lines in the budget document is more than enough to satisfy the underlings.

What if President Zardari said the same thing: Even US, Israel and India don't criticise their Presidents as much as Pakistanis do.

What if an IG Police said: Even in US, Israel and India the media doesn't criticise their policeman to undermine them.

Would people expect to restrain their criticism?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When people criticise the Pakistan Army or the ISI, they are not critical of policy choices made by generals not individual soldiers. The generals however, hide behind their institutions when defending their positions.

The individual is just a replaceable bureaucrat sitting in a chair for a while. The institution should always be bigger than the person who sits in it. Thats so that the individual can be hold accountable without tarnishing the image of the institution as a whole. In Pakistan however, the opposite is true. The generals equate any criticism of their performance to criticism of the rank and file soldier. If the person before whom the buck stops is not willing to take responsibility then who will? Using the efforts of jawans and junior officers to emotionally blackmail critics to justify their policies is hardly a testament to their leadership.

The good General made no effort to delve into explaining why people are criticising the Army or ISI and what he plans to do about it. Instead he began a compare and contrast exercise with other "agencies" to justify the status quo.

But why all the hallabalo? I mean is our military and ISI so fragile that a few comments by some liberal fascists who dont love Pakistan, will undermine it?   

Well actually they do. In an ongoing case the ISI responded by saying:

Therefore, the allegations leveled against ISI are baseless and aimed to demoralise its officials and defame the organization.

Denying accusations is one thing, but claiming that across the board, each and every person who is critical of the Army and ISI is out to demoralise them is the most overly simplistic propaganda around. The fact that it actually works is even more telling.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another article recently appear in the DAWN titled: Braving "hell" to keep militants at bay. Such articles pop up now and then highlighting the true cost of perpestant violence, beyond the rhetoric. The theme is always very similar. Soldiers asking why the US thinks that Pakistan does not pulls its weight? Why have Pakistani security forces been targeted with lethal efficiency in cross border attacks by ISAF forces and rightly so!

Another common theme that comes up in such pieces, particularly this one and a previous one that was published some time back about injured and maimed soldiers recovering in MH Rawalpindi.

All shared the same sentiment that; 

Some Pakistani politicians may call it “America’s War,” but Tanvir disagreed.

“This is my country. I am a Pakistani. I don’t see that anyone who destroys our schools, our masjids (mosques), kills people, is good for my country,” he said. “… If they were working for a better Pakistan, we wouldn’t be sitting in this post. The people would be supporting them against us.”......

......“They are the enemy. They are not working for Pakistan. They are telling us that we have to do everything their way,” he said.

Now who exactly are these people who share these sentiments and dare disagree with a brave young officer manning a post on the border? 

Why are the political actions and affiliations of individuals with organizations that consort with militants and religious radicals and their wider supporters not considered agents whose aim is to "undermine" national institutions. 

They are not criticised because they fit in with the status quo which doesn't challenge the dominant position of the military and their interests. 

Once in a while (thankfully)I receive messages by individuals who usually prefer to stay "anonymous" who make alot of effort to write really long essays about the sacrifices of the Army and how their privileges is a small token of gratitude that we as a nation can pay, and words such as mine, which will be read by a handful of people, are treasonous. I am sure the people who write these emails feel that they have performed their patriotic duty, and if they feel they have then more power to them.

Now what constitutes patriotism or nationalism changes with the time. But I personally believe that is more patriotic to point out illegal acts, shortcomings in policy and demand individual accountability as patriotic, as this would help save lives and support those on the grounds. it 

Now what constitutes patriotism or nationalism changes with the time. But I personally believe that it is more patriotic to point out illegal acts, shortcomings in policy and demand individual accountability, as this would help save lives and support those on the grounds. 

The generals better get used to criticism, which I appreciate is tough, given decades spent, being told and made to believe that they are better than everyone else and are entitled to their positions of authority and privileges. 

So General Kayani and the senior high command, I believe as professional soldiers, a few words here and there wont bite. And if they start do, then perhaps look around and ask why the "ruthless criticism"is coming up? Even if its only a matter of 47 missing persons.

Thoughts on PTI's Energy Policy Vision

So the PTI announced its "Energy Policy Vision" and I for one was keenly looking forward to it. It was perhaps the first opportunity to see some policy rather than just slogans from PTI, something more meaty...constructive if you will.

The language used is highly emotive, which suggests that the document presented isn't a bland policy paper, and is something to rally support behind. They are occasional pot shots at the sitting government, which isn't surprising given the PTI's fierce opposition of the PPP.

So what off the Energy policy itself?

The identification of problems and limitations in the status quo are detailed, but none of them are new or in any way a departure from what other parties, organizations such as the ADB or the WB have previously identified.

The seriousness of any intervention in Pakistan can be judged by the inclusion of the word, "war footing".

100 days

The PTI lists out "Big Bang" Governance Reforms for the first 100 days in power. What is remarkable about the recommendations is how unremarkable they are. Many of the points listed are already being implemented. What I did find interesting was the aim to setup a "Single, empowered energy regulator", which is perhaps the need of the hour, however, given that governments have previously ignored the decisions of NEPRA regarding tariff adjustments, does a populist party like PTI have the political will to implement an independent regulators decisions? That of course we will have to wait and see.

Its under the heading "Solving circular debt" that the recommendations begin to sound impossibly optimistic. 

"Decrease overall transmission and distribution losses from 20% to 10%" - Very optimistic though laudable aim, but no detail is given on how this will be achieved.

"Increase collections from 88% to 95%" - Again, vested interests from the military, state institutions, landlords and industrialists all regularly default on their dues. Will the PTI, with many members and sympathisers from these areas take on these interests?

Apart from that, and perhaps more importantly how does this Energy Policy hope to increase collections from FATA where apparently no one pays their bills? Last I recall dues were in the region of Rs. 30 billion plus. How are collections going to be increased in such cases? The omission of any mention is quite an oversight for me.

"Convert 4.500 MW+ of expensive furnace oil plants to much cheaper imported coal to reduce cost of generation". The problem here is obvious. Why would privately owned GENCO's agree to this after footing the bill to set up furnace oil plants? Who is going to pay for the conversion of these plants and who is going to pay for that? Where will that money come from? While coal may reduce the cost of generation, we cannot ignore the environmental costs of using coal as source of fuel, unless the PTI aims to introduce "clean coal power generators" which for a country like Pakistan, could be prohibitively expensive. The Energy Plan aims to ensure "environmental sustainability", but truly doing so will alter the cost-benefit of switching from furnace oil to coal, which in the long run may not add up to the savings that they hope for.

"Achieve total annual savings of Rs 475 Billion" - From where and how this figure has been estimated should have been detailed. And who is this saving for? The government? The energy producers? The consumers?

In its aim to correct the wrong fuel mix, unsurprisingly Thar Coal has been put forward as a saviour along with hydro electricity. But I am not sure what "Stalled pipeline projects" are relevant to hydro power and the Central Asian based import of electricity is rather odd, given the emphasis and potential of developing local hydro potential. Further, the uncertainty of affairs in Afghanistan and the inability to guarantee infrastructure passing through her, would likely make it a non starter.

When the Energy Plan starts to talk about Financing, things become rather vague and open ended, with none of the points heralding anything new. Quite complicated processes have been reduced to bullet points, with alot of the factors dependent on foreign factors beyond the control off a Pakistani government, regardless of its efficiency or good intentions. First, "Resolve circular debt and deepen domestic banking market" tells us nothing of how exactly the circular debt will be resolved, and how deepening the banking market will help the energy sector, beyond adding to the profits of the already profitable banking sector. Setting up an Infrastructure Development and Finance Institution sounds well and good, but regardless of how well its functions, there is no guarantee that Sovereign Wealth Funds or Foreign investors will be interested to invest. Especially when the relative costs of investments in other countries/regions are falling. Overseas Pakistanis are always touted as a source of investment to solve Pakistan's problems, but there is no detail given on how Overseas Pakistanis investors will aid to solve the energy crisis. Also, setting up such an institution seems in conflict with the previously stated goal of limiting government influence in the energy sector.

The final point states, "Charge losses/subsidies to budget instead of issuing TFCs and mortgaging future generations" sounds well meaning but will end in the same result. First off, subsidies themselves are a very inefficient form targeting the poor. Similarly, its not the poor that cause the losses to begin with. To saddle the taxpayer with the bill in itself should not be an aim. Even so, is placing it on the budget any better than issuing TFCs? Well its a case of jam today, or jam tomorrow, either way, as long as the federal budget runs a deficient the government will half to borrow money. Whether its under the heading "losses and subsidies" or "financing public debt" is about the only difference.

In its efforts to achieve these aims, the PTI aims to challenge the "business as usual" approach of the energy sector. It aims to delegate decision making to processionals, and create an enabling environment to attract the best manpower etc. But given, the quite interventionist policies detailed in the policy proscriptions above, appear to conflict with the aim of allowing greater decision making in the hands of professionals.

I was also surprised that the PTI energy policy did not mention anything about nuclear power, which according to our 2030 vision, is to make quite a sizable contribution. Is that a recognition that our options are limited?

More of the same? 

As I mentioned in the start, the remarkable thing about PTI's energy policy is how unremarkable it is. The prescription doesn't really challenge or differ from any of the other options being floated around. What PTI is essentially claiming is that they are in a better position, than any other stakeholder or political party to actually implement these policies.

Silence on the demand side

What is missing from this energy policy, is perhaps what is missing from all the political parties energy manifestos. They all offer the same goals, cheap electricity available in plentiful amounts.

However, no one seems to pay any attention to the demand side of energy consumption.

What I would like all the political parties to consider as part of their various strategies are measures to actually reduce the consumption of electricity or more accurately, slow the increase in its demand.

We need to focus on changing building codes, so newly constructed homes, offices and factories reduce energy losses, improve insulation and incorporate renewable energy to generate their own power. Government offices, schools, hospitals and large domestics consumers need to be encouraged to adopt efficient energy use, retrofit proper insulation, solar heaters etc. Simple changes in behaviour can add up to alot. For example, just by painting our roofs white, we can reduce our energy consumption, by some estimates by 20%!

Alot of criticism has been placed on our use of imported oil. But on the consumption side, we still have 40 year old trucks populating our roads. Domestically produced cars, pick-ups and vans are still offering engines that are wasteful and inefficient. Our heavily protected auto mobile manufacturers need to face foreign competition, but given their close association with political leaders from across the political spectrum, that is unlikely to happen.

Consumer items, our air-conditioners, televisions, fridges, fans etc, need legislated minimum standards, not only to improve safety but to drive up quality and efficiency. The cheap Chinese imported consumer goods  that have flooded the Pakistani market are extremely wasteful and inefficient.

Our tubewells guzzle energy and extremely inefficient. The USAID is supporting a project to improve their efficiency, improvements along similar lines could help us save alot of energy.

Daylight saving should be implemented. Over the past year, alot of people commented that, "Day light saving is such a hassle and what the big deal? We "only" save around 300MWs!" With such an attitude no wonder we waste so much energy that we don't have to begin with.

There are is no shortage of methods available to help mitigate the rise of energy consumption. However, the absence of any mention to it, was quite surprising from PTIs Energy Policy. However, to be fair, its an aspect that is overlooked by all political parties.

False promises

Perhaps what would be truly revolutionary from a political parties policy recommendations would be the appreciation that electricity isnt going to get cheaper in the long run, that as individual consumers, no one should expect prices to fall and at the end of the day, people should expect to pay for what they consume.

Regardless of the natural resources that Pakistan is endowed with, our goal should not be to just continually add generation capacity to the national grid. We should learn from the experiences of China, our best friend and brotherly counterpart in the community of nations, which much like our eventual aim, generates most of it electricity from coal and has paid a very steep price for it. The environmental and health costs of meeting the energy needs of China have been dire, especially in urban areas. In Pakistan, promising to use our abundant coal reserves to unleash a blitzkrieg of coal powered electricity generation will lead us down the same route.

In short, the PTI Energy Policy statement offers nothing exciting or revolutionary. It reads like a campaign document, and omits elaboration and detail, while including noble, if not overly optimistic aims.

The good thing however is, that almost everybody seems to be making the same suggestions and offering similar solutions. At least we have some across the board consensus here, which hopefully will translate into the political will to actually implement the said proposals.

Oh Pakistan's saviours: Manage expectations, before the expectations manage you

Damn!

We were so close!

The coup was just around the corner. The mathai shops had stocked up, this wretched, corrupt government was going to be booted out and Zardari would wipe that cheshire cat smile of his face.

Ex-military, ex-civil service pundits were on the ready.

TV hosts had their hair gelled.

Qadam barhao General Kayani, hum tumharai saath hain status's were being liked and RT'd.

Sadly, it wasnt to be...yet.

Eventually however:

Zardari and the PPP government will be gone.......rejoice!

Its easy to imagine the streets filled with jubilation, as opposition party's and their electoral machines go into overdrive. Eventually, whoever you consider your saviour will come to power (if you are lucky). And all will be well again! ........Not!

This is perhaps the kind of reaction we should look forward to, when overzealous Pakistani news reporters shove microphones into the faces of celebrating voters.

Yep! She thinks that Obama electoral win means that she can start binning her bills! No need to worry about the gas, electricity or mortgage.

Well, we now know how things turned out.

This is the flip side of political campaigns heavy on passion and emotion.

a) Politicians make grand promises and raise expectations

b) Their failure to manage expectations leads to impossible demands and expectations

c) Those demands are not met, in which case, we are back to point (a) for our next saviour to take charge from.

We have evolved into the next stage of political theatre. Leveraged by an easily excitable news media, social networks, the internet etc. So now the promises get even grander, the expectations rise even higher, and yet despite all the tall claims and blunt accusations, we still have no one that offers rational analysis, policy proscriptions or a healthy debate.

Sigh.

Anyone want to take bets on how quickly the post-Zardari regime's ratings fall through the floor?

To franchise or disenfranchise overseas Pakistani's?

Overseas Pakistanis have been coming under some stick recently. The Election Commissions recent decision that dual nationals will not be allowed to contest the upcoming elections has been challenged in the Supreme Court.

The current PPP government first suggested allowing overseas Pakistanis to caste votes a couple of years ago and a consultation process was initiated. Recently, the PTI moved a petition in the Supreme Court, calling on it to allow overseas Pakistanis to vote.

So on the one hand, votes count but standing in the same elections is to be allowed.

A question of patriotism

Living overseas is enough for ones patriotism to be questioned. Having a second nationality doesn’t help ones cause either. Some people say that,

“if you want to join politics, and serve Pakistan then giving up a second passport is a small thing to ask”

Perhaps, but what happens if you stand in elections and don’t win? No one is going to compensate you if one fails. At the same time its also a small thing to ask for voters of a constituency not to vote for such an individual if they consider his or her second nationality unappealing. 

Fast track corruption

The second line of argument goes something like:

“All these dual nationals can pack up and leave whenever they like. They line their pockets and leave”

Does that mean that people who have only Pakistani nationality are less corrupt? Or conversely, does this mean that overseas Pakistanis, because they presumably have the opportunity to dabble in corruption are necessarily corrupt? Essentially, they are being accused of being petty opportunists.

The second argument that they can pack up and leave is the one that I find most frustrating. Yes, I guess, people with second passports can leave when they like. But then again, politicians in Pakistan , given their social and economic status in the country are also quite mobile internationally. To think that the colour of their passport effects their mobility to the same degree as the average Pakistani is a gross exaggeration.

If people are behaving in a corrupt manner, they do so because they are confident that they can get away with it. They weigh the pros and cons and realise that the benefits of behaving in a corrupt manner is greater than the perceived risk or costs. The nationality of the individual is inconsequential to the extent that a foreign passport does not give an individual immunity when prosecuted for a crime. The fact that a Pakistani, overseas Pakistani or dual national knows that he or she can get away with a crime in the first place determines his or her ability to indulge in illegal activity. A second passport may be a convenience, however, its the system that is at fault, not the individual.

Men and women of a lesser God

Now when it comes to overseas Pakistanis, not all overseas Pakistanis are equal.

The vast majority constitute Pakistani labourers, who toil away in the Gulf, North Africa and to a lesser degree in places such as Malaysia. Now these workers, who primarily leave Pakistan in search of work, save a high propensity of their income. In doing so, they remit most of it. Thankfully, due to their efforts over the past few years, Pakistan has managed to contain its Current Account deficit given the massive inflows from such workers.

On the flip side, these overseas Pakistanis are the ones that are conveniently ignored. Before our grand Arab masters, the Pakistani state is unable or unwilling to voice any concern over the treatment that is meted out to them. For example, the seizing of labourers passports in the Gulf is a common practise which breaks the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The city state of Dubai, which effectively went bankrupt a year and a half ago, saw many managers and business owners leave the city in a rush. In doing so, they left without returning passports to labourers or clearing their wages. What did the government of Pakistan offer to such workers? Nothing. The BBC's Panorama looks at migrant workers in the UAE:

I dont even blame the government for such inaction. Dubai and the wider Gulf region has become a playground for the upper-middle and upper economic class of the country. The same people who buy second homes, work in managerial positions and enjoy vacations in these cities have no qualms about enjoying the fruits of the mass, systematic exploitation of their fellow countrymen in a foreign land, while complaining about corruption and injustice in Pakistan itself.

Return to Pakistan, and its these same labourers who are welcomed by rent seeking customs and immigration officials. When these same Pakistanis leave the country, they have to pay of immigration officials due to the “protector law”.

Most people think that all the people working in the Gulf are happy to do so, should consider that a few years ago the UAE government launched a scheme where they offered free tickets to workers who wanted to leave. The number of people who came forward was so large, that they had to eventually stop the entire project due to its cost and the poor press it received. If everything was so hunky dory the government of the UAE wouldn’t have paid the founder of Blackwater to hire and train mercenaries from Columbia, Angola, Namibia and South Africa as a rapid reaction force to put down any labour protests.

No, these overseas Pakistanis, have little hope of support from their host governments or their governments, but nevertheless the Pakistani state is grateful for their remittances. Effectively, the savings of poor labourers overseas, cross subsidises the tax dodging opulence of the Pakistani upper class, for without their remittances, the Pakistani economy would be in a much, much worse state at present.

Giving these Pakistanis the right to vote is little consolation given the injustice and exploitation they face. However, when we talk about overseas Pakistanis, we are not thinking about the poor labourers. Instead, we are looking at those living in the West. For they, supposedly have sold their souls to a foreign master. However, the Pakistani state selling Pakistanis into second class citizenship in the Arab world is well...just brotherly relations. 

The “Western” Pakistanis

No, the problems and the question of loyalty really comes up when we talk about Pakistanis who have dual nationality with Western countries. Pakistani-Brits, Pakistani-Americans etc. Another point that Pakistani commentator like to take up over and over again is to quote the American oath of allegiance. In all its glory:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

People complain that how can someone who has taken this oath be patriotic towards or have Pakistan's best interest at heart? That is utter nonsense. We live in a globalised world where people move not because of changing nationalistic sentiments, but because of economic opportunity or familial pressure. If someone takes this oath that does not make them any more American or any less Pakistani. If you believe that this is infact the case, then you should also believe that when a girl marries a boy and moves to her boys household, her love for her parents and siblings is compromised. You then, should also believe that if a non-Muslim, in school in Pakistan, happens to sit through an Urdu class and comes across a chapter related to Islam and reads through it, he or she will become more Muslim and his or her faith in their religion is also compromised.

Why do British-Pakistanis support Pakistan in a England vs. Pakistan cricket match? I am sure they have sand God Save the Queen at some point in their life or attended a civics class in school?

I am not saying that overseas Pakistanis will always be patriotic towards Pakistan. I am sure they are now third or even fourth generation British or American Pakistanis, who probably have no link with Pakistan at all and no attachment. However, what I do disagree with are the nonsensical arguments that are made to disenfranchise overseas Pakistanis. 

Citizenship for another age

The primary function of oaths and citizenship was to make sure that they were always men that could be called upon to fight a war if need be. Through conscription, individuals could be drafted into military service. However, Pakistan doesn’t draft citizens into the military. And we are not fighting battles for local chieftains (or are we?).

The issue here isn't about the colour of ones passport.

To move beyond questioning ones patriotism, same sensible rules can be established for overseas Pakistanis who may want to participate in elections.

More important than citizenship is residency. For example, the UK along with many EU countries allow non-EU citizens to vote in local or city elections. An overseas Pakistani may be asked to reside in Pakistan for a qualifying period before being allowed to stand for office. He or she should make a declaration of income and assets, and if liable show a history of paying taxes in Pakistan.

The issue here is not about excluding individuals from running from office. The issue here is that constituents are being deprived of choice on the ballot. If the voters of X, Y or Z want to vote for an overseas Pakistani that’s their choice. What however, needs to be discouraged is for potential candidates not declaring dual citizenship, not because there is something wrong in having a second passport, but because that may raise questions on what else he or she is hiding.

In a future post I hope to talk about the economics of overseas Pakistanis and the role immigration plays in supporting our economy. However, in terms of politics, disenfranchising individuals should not be our goal, to serve some warped understanding of patriotism. On the one hand lobbying for overseas Pakistanis to vote, while denying them the right to stand in the same elections is setting dual standards and denies voters a full spectrum of choice.

No civil military balance, without divesting military commercial interests

A poor attempt at a balancing act

Asma Jahangir has spoken on the issue of military-civil imbalance today. Quite rightly, any deference to the words of General Kayani and Pasha that compromises individual rights doesn't say much for either the supremacy of the law, or a “free judiciary”.

Back in May, right after the Abbottabad raid, a lot of people quite excitedly, heralded this as a unfortunate, but at the same time fortunate opportunity to put the military in its place. Get it back into the confines of its constitutional mandate. Then came the in camera briefing in the National Assembly, but after a few weeks it was obvious that the military was running the show.

The PPP government started off by emphasising its determination to guide Pakistan's security and foreign policy. Zardari spoke of a grand free trade area and our then foreign minister SMQ smiled sheepishly with Hillary Clinton as Kayani looked on from the margins. Alot of choreographing, but Zardari's ideas didn't come to much and SMQ is well, batting for the other team now. Even then, few believed that the Army had relinquished influence over foreign and security affairs. Effectively, it could exercise its veto over civilian decisions if and when it wanted.

In the recent past, one has to be quite naive to still believe that its Zardari who shapes Pakistan's foreign policy. Unlike most PTI supporters and reactionary critics, its not as if Zardari allowed drone strikes or handed over Pakistani airbases to US control. Neither was it Zardari who extra-judicially handed over foreign and Pakistani citizens to the US without due process who later ended up in Bagram, Guantanamo etc. And before I forget, the most hated of documents, the infamous NRO was facilitated and negotiated by our very own COAS General Kayani, however, being in khaki he's above criticism or responsibility.

That said, whenever the issue of civil-military relations come up and people talk about balancing it, a lot of emphasis is placed on politicians doing the “right” thing and exercising their mandate and forcing the military to relent before there constitutional superiority. That's why the mere mention of the possibility of the PM sacking Kayani and Pasha unleashed a storm. Mind you that storm was much louder in regards to a possible decision that a sitting PM might which is his prerogative and constitutional, while a coup, orchestrated by the military unleashes jubilation and a fiscal stimulus for mathai shops.

The biggest slice of the cake

I would argue that any balance between the civilian side and the military side of the state can only be achieved if the military economic influence is decreased. The military through its various arms has its fingers in every commercial pie. Resources are skewed favourably in the hands of those in khaki and their institutions; for the industrial, capitalist class knows who to deal with if they want to get things done.

Now the military property empire is a ubiquitous part of Pakistani urban life. The nexus between Bahria Town-HRL-DHA for a few is “national progress” but for those forcibly displaced, the state that misses out on tax revenues, the banks that are forced to offer concessional loans and later write them off, the abrogation of the constitution within these areas; the costs are massive and they keep on piling up. The following DAWN Reporter Episodes paint an ugly picture of the cartel that is now the military-commercial interest which is a law unto itself. (Thanks to @shahidsaaed)

You can tick through a list of industries in Pakistan, and one way or the other, either through outright ownership or in partnership the military is a major stakeholder. Nothing comes of cases of corruptions against generals, so there is no surprise that ex-military types pack commercial organisations. Capitalists vote with their feet, and it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that they vote for the team with the bigger stick.

Incentives in action

Now politicians are a fragmented and competitive group. Sure, they make poor decisions and may be corrupt, however, they act in their self interest, where ever that might take them. Given the might of the military, its monopoly over the use of force, coupled with its huge economic clout, a fragmented group of politicians have no chance to exercise their will over the military. Instead, they are co-opted by the military to do their bidding, and why wouldn't they? 

Now the next obvious question is: Do we want these incompetent civilians dictating policy to the military?

The answer to that is yes. The simple reason is this: Given Zardari's 11% approval rating, the dismal approval rating of the PPP, and overall image of politicians as incompetent, we can be assured that every decision they take is the talk of the evening news cycle. Columns are written, opinions are formed, news is shared and retweeted.

However, decisions taken by the military fall under two categories. Either the military makes a decision, and then civilians are made to face the negative fall out of it. Or the military makes decisions and no one is the wiser. When questioned, you are not offered a policy outline. Instead you get a long emotive speech about sacrifices and bravery which somehow qualifies someone to make decisions on a nations foreign policy or other associated matter that is not even that persons job.

Do as the Chinese do

In China the Divestiture Act of 1998 banned all the commercial activities of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Like their Pakistani counterparts, the PLA had invested itself in banks, hotels, factories, property developments, retailing etc. During the Tienanmen uprising in 1989, China came dangerously close to a military coup. As the vanguard of the revolution the PLA, was a central part of the Communist Party and the Party heavily invested in the PLA. The PLA eventually sided with the pulitburo and the Tienanmen protesters, and protesters across the country were crushed. These events helped accelerate the PLA's independence from CCP control and widen its economic activities. By the mid-1990s as China bombed, so did the PLA's financial interests. In an effort to encourage professionalism in the PLA and in a display of its authority, the CPC promulgated the Divestiture Act of 1998 banning its commercial activities. Without it, the PLA would have gained undue influence, both by wielding weapons and cheque books.... Sound familiar?

Without reducing the military's economic dominance and access to resources the dream of civil authority over the military will not come to pass. This is not a matter of budgetary allocations. Its about a parallel economy that sucks away resources without any accountability. It rewards itself for taking the risks, but given that its “too big to fail”, the costs are passed on to the losers. The military and those associated with it, sail through bureaucratic red tape, judicial and legislative oversight, and political interference.

This is also why, I don’t agree with suggestions that the only way to save the Railways or PIA is to privatise it. Pakistan has toothless regulators that are easily co-opted. Recently, a newspaper report claimed that the National Logistics Cell, which has single handedly destroyed the Railways freight transport market is going to take over parts of the organisation to run as a “private” initiative. Then again, NLC, with its association with the military is above any critique. Until the state has a capacity to regulate privatised industries, there is no point in transferring a public monopoly to a private one. Tax payers keeping a state organisation afloat for better or worse is one thing, however, tax payers of inflationary borrowing doing the same to prop up a privatised industry to line the pockets of shareholders is criminal.

If I may digress for a paragraph, this is also another reason why I dont buy Imran Khan's and PTI's rhetoric on jusitice and ending corruption. How can they talk about justice and reducing corruption when they remain silent on the military and its role in the economy? Why the silence? PTI supporters like to talk about Turkey's example and the Erdogen model of gradual civilian dominance, but Erdogen as an activist and campaigner would not shy away from putting the Turkish military in its place.

Given that the military is the “winning horse” in the race to the bottom, its not surprising that those seeking an economic advantage find one way or another to cling to it. Some argue, that this proves that the military is a disciplined institution and people trust it with its money. However, the flip side is that no competitor is allowed a fair chance to compete with the military's might. And those individuals and organisations who are lucky enough to tag along under the khaki umbrella...well not only are they minting money, but they are also called national heroes. And when there great money making enterprises go belly up, it will be the patriotic duty off every Pakistani to bail them out.

Back to the future: thoughts on Imran Khan, corruption and the Musharaf "boom" years

Fair warning: Long read, potentially rubbish

The following post is based on my observations and interactions with individuals ever since the Musharaf regime ended. They may be some generalizations and perhaps given the narrow sample of people on whose comments a lot of the discussion below is based, the discussion may not neatly fit reality or apply to a majority of people. I am hoping someone would comment on any irregularity or inconsistency with the arguments below for they may have better insight then myself. This is quite a long post, and it may seem abit incomplete at the end, I hope to extend the argument later. 

The rallying cry for Imran Khan is justice. For his supporters and detractors alike, the state of, or the perception of the increase in corruption under the Zardari is ubiquitous.

For a lot of people since 2008, the decline in the national economy is linked with an increase in corruption. But then who is to say corruption did not dominate transactions prior to 2008? Is it that the new, post 9/11 middle class that were able to increase there consumption of consumer goods under the Musharaf regime have suffered the most post 2008?

Easy money

For a lot of people the 2000s saw an increase in wealth and consumption. 2 photocopies of your ID card could get you a car on lease. You could pay Rs. 20,000 to stage a “theft” or “accident” of your car, which on lease was also insured (in the examples I am aware of, peoples cars would mysteriously reappear stripped of anything valuable on Kahuta road in Islamabad/Rawalpindi). Contacts in the bank and/or the insurance company would do their trick. The car would be written off, new car would be presented, everyone’s happy.

Alot of wealth was generated through the development of urban property during the Musharaf era. Advertisements filled newspapers, people lined up outside banks to submit forms, a wink and a nudge and the right “file” could be yours in the morning, and given the rabid speculation by nightfall you could sell of the same “file” for a tidy profit. With some more winks and nudges, people were able to choose ideal plots. The best example I know off are people who bought plots in Bahria Town and DHA Islamabad, who knew people in these organizations or in the primary developer, HRL who knew which plots were allocated on filled in and flattened earth and which plots were on the original surface. Many of the plots in DHA Phase 1, facing the Soan river especially, that were earth filled and flattened out, later sank. Yes, the houses literally sank!

The other example was when CDA launched the sector I-15 plots and apartment ballot and people called friends working in individual banks to get forms submitted and completed on time, while asking them to “go slow” on other peoples applications. Suffice to say, several phone calls were also made to friends fathers who were CDA board members, political figures or high ranking Army officers, surely someone would pay out.

They were people who were importing second hand cars and selling them off. I forget the model of the exact Tayota car which was initially imported with a waived tariff for disabled drivers, which then led to a flood of people getting fake medical reports declaring themselves disabled. They of course then sold off the same car at a premium.

Now the thing is, and I am sure readers of this post from Pakistan would have heard similar stories in one form or the other from the Musharaf years, that all these cases are clearly examples of corruption!

What I find particularly frustrating today is, that the same people who were able to not only enjoy a marked increase in consumption, but also accumulated wealth during this period, are now on the vanguard complaining about corruption under Zardari.

Is it that corruption has increased over the past 45 months as we are made to believe, or is it that the people who enjoyed the benefits of corrupt actions previously no longer can do so or have to pay a higher price to arrive at the same results?

The bubble burst

It doesnt help that the speculative bubble that was the Pakistani property boom, unsurprisingly collapsed. All those multi-billion dollar, in partnership with this and that UAE property developer went down the toilet as the global property boom slumped, and Dubai itself went bankrupt. The highly liquid market of files dried up. Quick money through property and of course the stock market (should have mentioned earlier) came to an end. .

What I suspect is that a lot of people who are unhappy with the current government dont really want justice or an end to corruption. They are looking for a return to the past.

This property boom, egged on in large part by the military run DHA, led to a virtuous cycle, where rising prices fuelled increased development. It was the rule of a military dictator that allowed a lot of the expansion into suburban areas without due and legal process that fuelled this boom. However, people dont view this as corruption, they see this as “nation building”.

The Musharaf era “boom” if you want to call it that, lead to a period of “growth” which appeared highly tangible. People could “see” the progress. They could see the mobile phones in their hands, the many many channels on cable, the TV, Fridge, Refrigerator etc, that had been purchased conveniently in instalments, while a piece of paper declaring future possession of a piece of land, gained in value over weeks and months while sitting ideally. The corruption, the winks and nudges that facilitated this bomb in consumption is viewed as beneficial, thus considered desirable. Even if its genesis is plagued by dubious corrupt actions.

Whether the PPP and Zardari were handed a poor set of cards; highly tangible examples of state failure, electricity, gas, law and order etc, is debatable. People argue that 45 months into government Zardari cant blame Musharaf for today’s problems. Add, the Army, media, judges issues, global economic crisis, rising commodity prices etc to the mix, and even a pretty competent government would have struggled to deal with things.

Corruption of a higher order

So what does this have to do with anti-corruption rhetoric today and Imran Khan? Well for one, I am very sceptical about what exactly we mean by reducing corruption that has plagued us. To me, it appears more an attempt to redistribute the winners and losers. I may be wrong, but for a lot of PTI supporters, the Musharaf regime may be despised for cozying up with America, but the economic “vision” and “progress” of that period is still something that they aspire to.

People are more offended by the corrupt practices of an underpaid, working 12 hours a day young cop who may palm Rs. 1000, but have no qualms picking up the phone to further there cause. This more subtle, sophisticated form of corruption, which is also known as networking or calling in a favour is part and parcel of how the upper middle class functions the world over. These small “benefits” however, translate into long terms financial gains. The few thousands paid to your KESC electrician, policeman or SNGPL gas worker pales in comparisons to the financial gains of those in power.

My contention is that those in power and influence are aspiring for a future that is a rehash of the past. Justice and policies touted to end corruption will not distort their own ability to influence transactions. However, these same policies which hope to end corruption will effect small rent seekers thus reducing the cost of those in power and allow them to get on with their business. Not only do I think that Imran Khan's, PTI's or any political parties rhetoric of ending corruption is a sham, the people who rally for this cause are selective in their application and given that their position in the social hierarchy will remain unchanged. At worst, those below them will be pushed down further and put in their place.

Disappointment

I believe that the political noise which targets corruption is all well and good, and probably in most cases well intentioned. However, the way the PTI especially, has made it what appears a one point, end game of his politics does not address the deep divisions in our society which allow those with greater influence, resources and power to work what ever law, system or circumstance to their benefit. 

To reduce corruption, in word and in spirit, the PTI needs to evolve beyond corruption to actually reduce it. Otherwise, I fear, Imran Khan with all his well intensions is unknowingly doing nothing more than rearranging the winners and losers, to bring back the good times. 

The good times (read: Musharaf rule 2004-2007)? Yes, the time when people (urban, middle class) thought things in Pakistan were on the up, corruption was lower, so that "ideal" state is somehow emulating. After all, if you are aged 20-50, middle class and urban, in the past 30 years, nothing in terms of consumption possibilities beats the Musharaf years. That has captured the imaginations of many as what has been lost since Zardari has come into power.