Cynical Media, Rotten Establishment and Rewarding the Loyals
During 90's the emotional, cynical columnists and so-called opinion-makers (mostly mouth-organs of our establishment) would keep raising one issue. The parties have ignored the workers who sacrificed while awarding ministries and important public offices.
So this time around, I thought that with people, like Yousaf Raza Gillani, Ahmad Mukhtar, Ahsan Iqbal, Sherry Rehman, Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, Khawaja Asif, Rehman Malik, Hussain Haqqani and Siraj Shams-ud-din, given important ministries and public posts, those emotion-building cynics will appreciate the appointments. Alas, not to be. For the cynic remains a cynic. May be a lafafa remains a lafafa.
Leading the pack this time around is Rauf Klasra. I think he is a nice chap just a bit emotionally imbalanced. However, on a broader scale, knowing the consistent pattern of maligning campaign against political governments and forces by Pakistani establihsment, it is a no brainer from where this criticism is stemming from.
First, from God knows where, Mr. Klasra got this impression that Asif Zardari himself wants to be PM and will let a dummy be the filler PM till by-elections. When that was not the case, he started taking shot at other appointments.
Before we go any further let us have a look at the people who have been appointed for the key posts. Yousaf Raza Gillani got the premiership - well deserved for his 5+ years of imprisonment without compromising. People like Ahmad Mukhtar, Khawaja Asif, Ahmad Mukhtar, Naveed Qamar, Saad Rafique, Sherry Rehman faced the tyranny bravely and did not become turn-coats. Another appointment that was criticized was that of Shahid Khaqan Abbasi. Many wrote day-in day-out of Nawaz rewarding his beloveds and ignoring the workers. Shahid Abbasi, mind you was MD PIA on the eventful day of October 12. He faced a lot of pressure to testify against Nawaz and did not bulge. He stood by Nawaz Sharif all along and was rightfully rewarded for his role in peoples' forces fight against dictatorship. If these people were not to be rewarded, did our friends in media want N and PPP to reward Mushahid Husains, Tariq Azizs and Naureez Shakoors?
That brings me to the criticism of non-elected appointments. The non-elected appointments which have been criticized so far are of Siraj Shams-ud-din, Husain Haqani, Shoaib Suddle and Rehman Malik along with the prominent role Shahbaz Sharif has taken in Punjab Administration. I can actually see some logic in skepticism of non-elected appointments because of experience we had with likes of Saif Ur Rehman, Hafeez Sheikh, V.A. Jaffery and Dr. Suleman Shah. On the surface the argument makes sense. Looking deep, it is shallow for two reasons. First, the people mentioned-above were fair-weather friends and flew in the troubling times while the people appointed now have a proven record of standing by their record and their affiliations in the troubling times. Second, the paratrooper-entries can also be found in elected houses (have we forgotten Shaukat Aziz or Javed Ashraf Qazi).
Shahbaz Sharif, though unelected for now, is president of Muslim League and is likely to return to Punjab Assembly in by-elections. Needless to say, Mr. Sharif has political credentials enabling him being part of any political arrangement of which PML-N is part of. So is the case with Rehman Malik, who is likely to make it to Senate in next Senate elections and has a proven record of security expertise, demonstrated by
Criticism on Siraj Shams-Ud-Din's appointment is hardest for me to comprehend. First things first when has the appointment of Principle Secretary of Prime Minister been so big an issue in the media. Our agencies making this an issue through their henchmen in media (and shameless that a media critical of all does not point at the corruption and lack of quality standards in its own ranks), have forgotten that even Mr. Tariq Aziz was picked from grade-20 and made Principle Secretary to Mr. Musharraf. Also, Mr. Shams-Ud-Din is in grade 20 not for lack of competence or experience but for political victimization. A man charged with corruption, spent his years in exile driving cab while his wife got trained as a nurse to make ends meet. How many bureaucrats will one find who could not afford a living in any foreign country? We should make role-models out of people like Mr. Shams-Ud-Din, more so if we are interested in honesty in our public service.
That leaves me with Husain Haqqani. Prof. Haqqani is a world-renowned intellectual from whom I, personally, have learnt a lot. As a researcher who brought issues like Mullah-Military Alliance and Democracy in Islamic World to fore, much before we started realizing them, his credentials as an expert on International Relations and Global Politics are undisputed. Needless to say, he is the closest manifestation of the response, I could think of, of the “some-what inflated” notions of Zionist and Indian lobbies in US. Instead of crying foul, we should try to develop our own influence in international capitals – something our foreign office and establishment has so miserably failed at. BB knew it and so does Prof. Haqqani. Mr. Haqqani is no stranger to Pakistani politics. From his appointment with Nawaz Sharif in Punjab to his service under BB and his tenure as
Comments
Hello,
I read your blog for the first time, your analysis is by far the insigtfull and objective, we are really fedup with cynical media and media people who misguiding people..
waqar sethar
A study across various countries suggests that the manner, in which society deals with inherited wealth, directly indicates its well being.
This was not overlooked by Professor Adam Smith and other founders of the free market system. They were aware, that the robust system of society and economy that was being suggested and practiced would be fatally flawed if it allowed unfettered inheritance.
It is to the credit of political thinkers like Professor John Miller and Professor Tom Pine and states men like President Thomas Jefferson and President Franklin Roosevelt, that it was understood, that the free market system will quickly decay into an oligarchy, if the system of unfettered inheritance was followed.
The manner in which society deals with inherited wealth impacts all walks of public and social life and deeply effects the psyche of its population. Inheritance policy thus plays a crucial role in preparing the ground on which a society either flourishes or decays.
Most developed societies follow a rationalized inheritance policy which has the following pattern: An inheritance up to a high value say Rs. 5 Crorers(about $ 1 million) is not taxed at all, any inheritance above this value is taxed at rates above 40%. This prevents the hording of wealth and the polarization of wealth and opportunity in society.
Countries like Brazil, Egypt India and Pakistan allow for unfettered inheritance of wealth and also suffer from similar social political and economic problems.
The United States of America in 1999 did away with the rationalized inheritance policy and the results were apparent very soon. (not the only reason)
In a family centric society such as ours unfettered inheritance policy that we follow acts as a sweet poison. We see the effects of this poison each day in the News papers and TV and we all live through the ill effects each day of our lives. As the saying goes, ‘too close to the trees to see the woods’.
The interested reader can email me at adess.singh@gmail.com For a 6 page material on this topic of fundamental importance.