By Zubeida Mustafa
Source: Dawn
THE state of governance is the single most important factor that determines the quality of public services provided to the citizens of a country. Many independent bodies and aid agencies that have looked into Pakistan’s development problems have attributed the malaise in public services — be they education, health, housing, water supply, transport, or sanitation — to poor administration.
Continue reading Why we lack good governance
By Zubeida Mustafa
Source: Dawn
WAS last week’s shocking carnage at Karachi’s Nishtar Park on Eid Milad Nabi a tragedy waiting to happen? People still find it difficult to fully comprehend why any one would want to kill scores of innocent people in cold blood on an occasion considered auspicious by all Muslims.
The ghastly attack wiped out the top leadership of the Sunni Tehreek, which was evidently the main target of the perpetrators of this evil deed.
Continue reading When religion & politics mix
By Zubeida Mustafa
President Pervez Musharraf and his colleagues in the government are perpetually worried about Pakistan’s image. They want to project a “soft image” of the country (including that of themselves) and are unhappy that the foreign media is lashing out at Pakistan and harping on all its negative qualities to give the country a bad name.
The president says that many of the social evils that have made life so brutal in the country exist in other societies too. But Pakistan is singled out as though it were the only place where horrendous crimes, such as rape, are committed.
One sympathizes with the president for the bad publicity Pakistan traditionally gets. But the problem is that he will have to work hard to really understand what projecting a soft image entails. You cannot show a country as something which it is not. After all, you cannot manufacture plus points which do not exist at all. Neither can you gloss over all its minus points. That would be downright deceit and everyone would see through it.
Hence the image game involves striking a delicate balance. It calls for a strategy emphasizing all the positive aspects of Pakistan and its people and playing down the weaknesses the country suffers from. This does not mean that we have to deny all that is wrong in our society. No don’t try to sweep the muck under the carpet and pretend all is fine. An explanation of why the problems still exist and an assurance that we are making an effort to set things right would carry more conviction.
Thus image building is a continuous process. A perpetual quest for the beautiful aspects of our life and culture will produce results. They need to be highlighted again and again so that a soft image emerges. If the country has ramshackle government schools and hospitals that teach nothing and provide no health care, and there are high brow private schools and elitist hospitals that charge a fortune to teach something and treat the patients, there are also institutions which don’t charge anything and yet teach a lot and cure patients with state of the art technology for free.
If the latter are highlighted, the image that will emerge will be of a caring society. More importantly, the key role played in this process is that of the people who represent Pakistan outside the country. They don’t necessarily have to be the diplomats, though that is basically their job for which they are posted in foreign capitals. Others are also the projectors of the country’s image. They may be the cricket team, a squash champion, an activist attending a conference abroad or may be just an ordinary Pakistani tourist –– haven’t you always been asked when abroad, “Where do you come from?”
It is not just the beautiful tourist spots and the heartwarming cultural activities that give Pakistan its image. It is the friendly and hospitable people who give the country a soft image. A foreigner who has never been here and has not formed any impressions about the country will obviously remember his first experience at the diplomatic mission where he goes to get a visa. It is essentially a window to Pakistan.
Unfortunately, not everyone has something good to say in this regard. Take the case of a woman born of Pakistani parents in what was then West Pakistan. She is now married to a Bangladeshi and has the nationality of that country. She has been visiting her family in Karachi at least twice a year. But our mission in Dhaka even refused to entertain her visa application when she went there last.
Similarly, a media team in the UK who wanted to produce a film giving a positive image of Pakistan did not get its visa in time to come and do its work per schedule.
And then the president of the country goes to the US and gives an interview to an American newspaper in which he says things about women that are really unwarranted. There is a furore. And the country’s image is defiled. The president loses his cool when questioned at a meeting in New York. He denies what the newspaper had printed, and thus complicates matters. Now the newspaper retaliates and calls him a “liar” editorially. Two simple words, that work like magic, would have undone the damage to the image of Pakistan. “I’m sorry,” is all that was needed to set things right.
Source: Dawn
By Zubaida Mustafa
Have you heard of Cindy Sheehan? She is an American woman whose son Casey was killed in the war in Iraq in April 2004. You may well ask what is so extraordinary about Sheehan when more than 1850 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq and many must have left behind grieving parents.
Casey’s mother is different. She has been drawing headlines on page one of the American newspapers and receiving plenty of coverage on television channels since August 6, when she decided to camp outside the ranch in Crawford, Texas, where President George W. Bush is on his vacation.
She describes her mission to persuade President Bush to meet her and answer her questions about why the Iraq war that took her son’s life was started. She also wants to know why it is being continued as more American soldiers continue to die. This way, Sheehan believes, she will be able to stop the war and prevent more deaths.
Since President Bush, who is said to have had cursory meetings ritually with the aggrieved families of soldiers killed in the war, has not acceded to Sheehan’s request. She has drawn behind her many other parents who are in a similar situation as she is. Now there is quite a crowd gathered in Camp Casey, as it is called, on a neighbouring ranch whose owner is sympathetic to Sheehan’s cause.
The people assembled there have put up crosses on an empty plot with the names of their dead sons/husbands/brothers inscribed on them. On the night of August 18, as many as 1627 vigils were held all across America in support of Cindy Sheehan, drawing 50,000 people.
Analysts believe that this protest night will go down in history as the movement which led to the end of the Iraq war, just as the campus troubles in 1968 after the Tet offensive drove the Johnson Administration to pave the way for an ultimate withdrawal from Vietnam in 1975. It is known that the support for America’s war in Iraq has been falling. Only 34 per cent of the Americans now support the war. More than half of the American adults now question the wisdom of going to war in Iraq and the president’s popularity rating has been falling.
In a situation where there is a diffused sense of discontent, a person who is loud and articulate and can voice the opposition of the dispersed and diverse elements is able to rally the crowd behind him/her. That is precisely what Cindy Sheehan is doing.
It is, therefore, unlikely that this crowd will melt away. As more and more body bags arrive from Iraq, the discontent is bound to grow. This phenomenon represents what in modern parlance has come to be known as ‘people power’. It was first used in the Philippines where the autocratic ruler Ferdinand Marcos was forced to step down when his people took to the streets in a massive demonstration of protest in 1983 in support of Senator Benigno Aquino.
So persistent and sustained was their protest that it could no longer be brushed aside. Even though the Senator was shot dead, his wife Corazon went on to become the President in 1986.
People power generally comes into play when a government turns a deaf ear to the demands of a substantial section of its population and refuses to respond constitutionally to them. People are then left with no option but to come out in protest.
The main characteristic of this protest is that it is peaceful. Any demonstration that turns violent immediately loses the public’s sympathy. If people are killed or injured in the course of the protest, then the public’s sentiments become divided. Many who had supported the original cause start wondering if they are right in doing so. Nobody wants lives to be lost because some people are protesting.
Many of the people who have lost their sons in the Iraq war and have joined Sheehan’s protest have also expressed sympathy for the Iraqis. They know that the war was started by President George W. Bush and they hold him responsible for all the deaths that have been caused.
Cindy Sheehan’s protest carries weight though history alone will tell what the outcome of this exercise will be. But it carries a message for all of us.
If an injustice is being done and people are aware of it, those who stand for civil liberties and human rights must raise their voice to register their protest. If the response is silence, it is assumed by the oppressors that there is nothing wrong in what they are doing and their deeds are generally acceptable to the public.
Besides one man’s protest may not have the impact which the collective expression of opinion can have. But someone has to make the first move to act as a catalyst. Thus others, who hold similar views but have not been courageous or vocal enough to be the first one to speak out, should also join in.
Cindy Sheehan was alone when she went to Crawford. Within days, a big crowd had collected in Camp Casey. The movement demanding an end to the war in Iraq has begun.
Source: Dawn
By Zubeida Mustafa
Source: Dawn
WITH the local bodies elections looming large on the political horizon, the usual wheeling and dealing among politicians has started. This is not something new. In the backdrop, the debate on the quality of our democracy, if we can describe ourselves as one, continues endlessly.
The main issue of contention at the moment is whether a serving army chief can be a civilian head of state. It is also contended that the devolution of power he has instituted is designed to promote the hold of vested interests on the governance of the state.
Continue reading Pakistan’s enigma of democracy