All past week has been a Kerry Lugar bill week. There has been a series of discussions regarding the bill on electronic and print media. The issue was fist voiced by Shaheen Sehbai of The News on 27th September 2009 in his article named “Are all Stakeholders on Board?”
My observations: If you study the clauses of KL bill, on the face of it you may NOT find something unusual, considering the fact that the bill has been compiled and approved by US Senate (for their own people) and now it is in the US president’s office for final sign off.
However, if you dig deeper into the clauses you find out that the overall tone of the bill is intensely dictatorial. With the continuous reminders to Pakistan to protect US interests in the region by “Doing more” to curtail terrorist activities specially related to Al Qaeda, Taliban, Laskar e Taiba and Jaish e Mohammad (Section 6 Caluse “c”). Overall focus of the bill is to assure that Pakistan’s soil is not used as base to wage attacks on India, NATTO and US forces in Afghanistan along with security of the supply lines to the forces sitting in Afghanistan. It is notable that inclusion of Laskar e Taiba and Jaish e Mohammad are successful execution of Indian lobby in US since we all know that both these militant organizations have an anti Indian agenda related to Kashmir. Why haven’t they included groups like Sipah Sahaba, Lasker e Jhangvi and Jundullah. Simple answer, they are involved in local terrorism (mostly sectarian) and thus US is least bothered about them. Jundullah, however, is a CIA funded organization and mostly involved in sectarian violence in Iran while their roots lie in Pakistan.
I will not go into further detail regarding the other questionable clauses in the Bill since they have been in the news throughout the past week. However, I would like to highlight some domestic political implications of the bill that has evolved subsequent to approval of the Bill.
Immediately after the approval of bill by US senate: Hussain Haqqani came out with the statement justifying the bill by quoting that the restrictions are on US government imposed by US senate and not on the Pakistani Government.
President Zardari advised his party members to aggressively support the bill. While the foreign ministry and presidential spokesman were congratulating the nation on their success, the prime minister remained silent on the issue. Naseer ullah Babar, president’s spokesperson came on the media criticizing the analyst over blowing up the issue and alleged them for unnecessary criticism without understanding the English of the document.
Clearly here the Government intended to dominate the public opinion prior to the discussion of the issue in the general assembly.
Why army did come out with their discontent over the Bill: Hussain Haqqani and his aides in Washington played key role in the inclusion of the clauses under Section 6 and 7 of the bill related to military assistance. Meanwhile, the army was kept ignorant regarding the stipulations in the bill. Peoples Party clearly had an agenda of controlling army through the bill with the support of Americans. The PPP representatives came out with Charter of Democracy (signed between Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto back in 2007) as an argument to support the military control by civilian government as written in the CoD.
There are two things worth mentioning here:
Firstly, CoD does not require American intervention to fulfill the objective
Secondly, someone please tell this bunch of idiots to stop fooling the nation. After approximately two years into the government they suddenly recalled CoD and that too for this single issue. What about all the other clauses in the CoD that remain forgotten and unattended.
The army therefore responded by voicing their reservations on some clauses of the bill after the corps commander meeting chaired by General Ishfaq Pervaiz Kiyani. The message was clear: “Don’t get US involved to guarantee your Government”
PPP caught off- guard once again: Yet again the ruling party was completely caught off – guard and faced humiliation and embarrassment. After when the US ambassador, Anne W Patterson accepted that the tone of the bill was aggressive and objections on certain clauses were justified, the Zardari party ended up in no man’s land. They had to retreat and revisit their stance on the issue. Result was that yesterday Shah Mehmood Qureshi, before leaving for the US talked to the media and stated that Pakistan has some objections on certain clauses that will be raised and communicated to the US.
On the other side, Zardari, Huqqani , Rehman Malik and Farhatullah Babar who had pictured this bill as one of the greatest successes of current government , turned out to be a big diplomatic mess.
For the US, it is only possible to amend the bill if and only if the President of US vetoes the bill and resend it to the Senate. This will be for the first time in US history and will also take a lot of time to redraft and approve the modified bill. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that President Obama vetoes the bill and will try to console the Pakistani Nation during the signing speech of the bill.
Hussain Haqqani, according to different sources is under serious criticism, both from within and outside the Peoples party for creating such a mess that led to embarrassment to the Peoples Party. He is being replaced by Dr. Maleeha Lodhi according to Ahmed Qureshi. The rating of PPP for sure has slid down further while President Zardari once again has made a fool out of himself.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Dasti !! Give us a break by Taimur Sikander
Just came across an excellent article written by Taimur Sikander, Sports editor of Dawn News.
Here we go again. It has barely been 24 hours since Younis Khan and some other members of the Pakistan cricket team landed back home, and the barbs are flying already. The Pakistan team is known to provide action even in inaction, and sometimes it’s actually entertaining. But there comes a point when you feel that enough is enough. Accusations made by Jamshed Dasti, chairman of the Standing Committee on Sports in the Senate are exactly such an instance.
While it was all fun and games reading reports in the Indian media of a possible case of match-fixing by the Pakistani team that led to India’s ouster from the Champions Trophy, Dasti’s accusation that the Pakistani team deliberately lost the group match against Australia and the semi-final against New Zealand are a slap in the face of all the fans of the national team. It is a shame because cynical fans now have a reason to fuel their disgust with and that too out of something that sounds completely absurd.
While no one can stop the issue from spiralling out of control now, and ultimately tarnish the image of the nation once again, it is interesting to focus on the credentials of Mr. Jamshed Dasti. Mr. Dasti is the same guy who absolved Pakistan Hockey Federation Secretary Asif Bajwa of human trafficking charges amid raised-eye brows. As the chairman of the Standing Committee on Sports he was also responsible for overlooking the ‘Lahore Attack’ probe and setting the chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board straight after allegations of mismanagement. Both instances have produced no fruitful outcomes. He has further been accused of threatening the gang-rape victim Mukhtar Mai to withdraw her case and also of trying to takeover the District Education Office in Muzzafargarh (video of which is posted on YouTube and contains abusive language).
Now let’s look at the supposed ‘incidents’ that show the Pakistani team deliberate attempts of throwing a game.
Younis Khan’s catch: Ok so he shouldn’t have placed himself at such a crucial position at such a crucial stage in the match but let’s be honest, it was a clear case of being overconfident that led to him spilling that catch. But does that mean Brendon McCullum, who was under Cameron White’s top-edged pull for ages before dropping what was a simple catch for a man in gloves, also had mischievous intentions?
‘They lost to Australia just to keep India out of the tournament,’ Dasti has accused. Can the Pakistan team be really so good that they toyed with the Australians, put them under the sword and then decided to throw the final dice on the LAST ball of the game? Wow, anyone who has played even gully cricket could tell that Umar Gul had bent his back on the final delivery, and it was a perfect finish until Kamran Akmal’s throw failed to reach the non-strikers end before Nathan Hauritz could make his ground. And let us suppose if the Pakistan team was in fact so brilliant that it could pull the Australians on a string and pretend to be mediocre in certain instances, then wow…what a team!
As far as the New Zealand game is concerned, true it was sad sailing by the Pakistani batsmen. But were Umar Akmal and umpire Simon Taufel in cahoots? Did Umar tell Taufel precisely when he will play a ball from the full-face of his bat on to his pad for to be adjudged LBW and make it seem like Pakistan ‘really’ suffered at the hands of bad umpiring? If the Pakistani batsmen played lethargic cricket, what were the New Zealanders doing on such a flat track, albeit against a much better bowling line-up?
It’s not surprising to see accusations being hurled at Pakistan again. Would it have been different if Younis Khan sat out due to his injury (remember Wasim Akram World Cup 1996 against India)? Neither is it baffling to see foreign media agencies picking up on a sentimental remark made by a person who speaks before thinking (he is reported to have told Ijaz Butt to retire because he had done ‘10-year’s overtime’). How many ex-cricketers and otherwise insignificant politicians will take up our airspace? Please Dasti, give it a break!
As I post this blog, Mr. Dasti is being interviewed by a local television channel regarding his outburst. When the interviewer asks the senator to explain his accusations, Mr. Dasti conveniently distances himself from the remarks and goes to say, ‘we will ensure that these accusations are interrogated thoroughly…’
‘But Dasti sahib, you are one who accused the team, says the baffled interviewer, to which Mr. Dasti replies, ‘these accusations have come to our notice and as the head of the Standing Committee on Sports it is my responsibility to find out the truth,’ after which, the interviewer gave up. Seriously.Taimur Sikander is a sports editor at Dawn.com.
Here we go again. It has barely been 24 hours since Younis Khan and some other members of the Pakistan cricket team landed back home, and the barbs are flying already. The Pakistan team is known to provide action even in inaction, and sometimes it’s actually entertaining. But there comes a point when you feel that enough is enough. Accusations made by Jamshed Dasti, chairman of the Standing Committee on Sports in the Senate are exactly such an instance.
While it was all fun and games reading reports in the Indian media of a possible case of match-fixing by the Pakistani team that led to India’s ouster from the Champions Trophy, Dasti’s accusation that the Pakistani team deliberately lost the group match against Australia and the semi-final against New Zealand are a slap in the face of all the fans of the national team. It is a shame because cynical fans now have a reason to fuel their disgust with and that too out of something that sounds completely absurd.
While no one can stop the issue from spiralling out of control now, and ultimately tarnish the image of the nation once again, it is interesting to focus on the credentials of Mr. Jamshed Dasti. Mr. Dasti is the same guy who absolved Pakistan Hockey Federation Secretary Asif Bajwa of human trafficking charges amid raised-eye brows. As the chairman of the Standing Committee on Sports he was also responsible for overlooking the ‘Lahore Attack’ probe and setting the chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board straight after allegations of mismanagement. Both instances have produced no fruitful outcomes. He has further been accused of threatening the gang-rape victim Mukhtar Mai to withdraw her case and also of trying to takeover the District Education Office in Muzzafargarh (video of which is posted on YouTube and contains abusive language).
Now let’s look at the supposed ‘incidents’ that show the Pakistani team deliberate attempts of throwing a game.
Younis Khan’s catch: Ok so he shouldn’t have placed himself at such a crucial position at such a crucial stage in the match but let’s be honest, it was a clear case of being overconfident that led to him spilling that catch. But does that mean Brendon McCullum, who was under Cameron White’s top-edged pull for ages before dropping what was a simple catch for a man in gloves, also had mischievous intentions?
‘They lost to Australia just to keep India out of the tournament,’ Dasti has accused. Can the Pakistan team be really so good that they toyed with the Australians, put them under the sword and then decided to throw the final dice on the LAST ball of the game? Wow, anyone who has played even gully cricket could tell that Umar Gul had bent his back on the final delivery, and it was a perfect finish until Kamran Akmal’s throw failed to reach the non-strikers end before Nathan Hauritz could make his ground. And let us suppose if the Pakistan team was in fact so brilliant that it could pull the Australians on a string and pretend to be mediocre in certain instances, then wow…what a team!
As far as the New Zealand game is concerned, true it was sad sailing by the Pakistani batsmen. But were Umar Akmal and umpire Simon Taufel in cahoots? Did Umar tell Taufel precisely when he will play a ball from the full-face of his bat on to his pad for to be adjudged LBW and make it seem like Pakistan ‘really’ suffered at the hands of bad umpiring? If the Pakistani batsmen played lethargic cricket, what were the New Zealanders doing on such a flat track, albeit against a much better bowling line-up?
It’s not surprising to see accusations being hurled at Pakistan again. Would it have been different if Younis Khan sat out due to his injury (remember Wasim Akram World Cup 1996 against India)? Neither is it baffling to see foreign media agencies picking up on a sentimental remark made by a person who speaks before thinking (he is reported to have told Ijaz Butt to retire because he had done ‘10-year’s overtime’). How many ex-cricketers and otherwise insignificant politicians will take up our airspace? Please Dasti, give it a break!
As I post this blog, Mr. Dasti is being interviewed by a local television channel regarding his outburst. When the interviewer asks the senator to explain his accusations, Mr. Dasti conveniently distances himself from the remarks and goes to say, ‘we will ensure that these accusations are interrogated thoroughly…’
‘But Dasti sahib, you are one who accused the team, says the baffled interviewer, to which Mr. Dasti replies, ‘these accusations have come to our notice and as the head of the Standing Committee on Sports it is my responsibility to find out the truth,’ after which, the interviewer gave up. Seriously.Taimur Sikander is a sports editor at Dawn.com.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Off the field planning – Made the difference for Kiwis
“Most people are content to let perfect days happen at random rather than PLAN for them”, a famous quote by British political writer Edmund Burke, perfectly fits Pakistan’s display in their semi final with the New Zealand outfit.
The loss left Pakistan packing their bags and heading back home. Over 160 million people back home are extremely disappointed to see their team lose to a moderate Kiwi team, plagued by injuries.
After the match, analysts discussed key moments in the match that led to Pakistan’s demise including Umer Akmal’s LBW decision, a few appeals Afridi was hard done by; Younus Khan’s dropped catch and Rana Naveed’s undisciplined balling. All these incidents undoubtedly contributed to our loss in the match but I would like to mention a few points where I believe Kiwis outsmarted Pakistan.
After losing the toss, the Kiwis captain, Daniel Vettori made it clear that they would be happy to chase anything less than 300. This statement casted doubt in not only in the minds of Pakistani batsmen but all the commentators and people watching the match. Everyone started believing that the pitch indeed was a 300 runs wicket. The Pakistani batsmen got themselves out clearly in their effort to achieve a total equal to or more than 300. After Umer Akmal was unfortunately ruled out by Simon Toufel, all other batsmen soon followed suit. Afridi, Rana and Gul threw their wickets away in an effort to play big shots, something that was not required on every ball. A winning score on that wicket would have been between 260 to 270 comfortably. Had these batsmen played sensibly and batted through the overs, they would have achieved the total easily.
This move by Vettori was deliberately done and paid dividends for the Kiwi outfit.
Right from the start of the match, the Kiwi bowlers bowled accurately and fed their bowls to the weak areas of all the batsmen. Their field placement and fielding were both outstanding. Imran Nazir was teased by in-swingers bowled by Bond and we all know that he isn’t very comfortable playing the incoming deliveries. An unplayable short ball subsequently got him caught in the slips. Kamran Akmal was fed with bowls outside his off stump inviting him to drive and cut (his strengths) with fielders placed at deep point and deep extra cover. Eventually he got out caught on deep extra cover. Muhammad Yousuf who is well known for nudging the bowl around to third man and fine leg for his singles was choked by placing both these fielders. Eventually he consumed more than 75 balls for his hard earned 44 runs.
Hats off to Vettori in successfully outsmarting Pakistan in his mind games, and this shows how much they had planned and prepared off the field for the big game. They had not only studied each player’s strengths and weakness but also ensured that their plans were executed properly on field. Although the Pakistanis tried hard and played well, the Kiwis off-the-field-preparation and planning was certainly better than the Pakistanis, which eventually changed the outcome of a match that was being hailed as dead rubber by the pundits.
Unfortunately, the Pakistani team is a prime example of complacency getting the better of you. They wait for perfect days to happen at random rather than PLAN for them. We are stuck with coaches like Intikhab Alam and Javed Miandad who are not only ignorant of the use of technology but persistently discourage its usage in coaching. I remember Miandad ridiculing Bob Woolmer for using a laptop in pre and post match analysis. It’s the time that these people realize that you may win a battle on a good day but you cannot win a war without effective planning which is done Off the field.
The loss left Pakistan packing their bags and heading back home. Over 160 million people back home are extremely disappointed to see their team lose to a moderate Kiwi team, plagued by injuries.
After the match, analysts discussed key moments in the match that led to Pakistan’s demise including Umer Akmal’s LBW decision, a few appeals Afridi was hard done by; Younus Khan’s dropped catch and Rana Naveed’s undisciplined balling. All these incidents undoubtedly contributed to our loss in the match but I would like to mention a few points where I believe Kiwis outsmarted Pakistan.
After losing the toss, the Kiwis captain, Daniel Vettori made it clear that they would be happy to chase anything less than 300. This statement casted doubt in not only in the minds of Pakistani batsmen but all the commentators and people watching the match. Everyone started believing that the pitch indeed was a 300 runs wicket. The Pakistani batsmen got themselves out clearly in their effort to achieve a total equal to or more than 300. After Umer Akmal was unfortunately ruled out by Simon Toufel, all other batsmen soon followed suit. Afridi, Rana and Gul threw their wickets away in an effort to play big shots, something that was not required on every ball. A winning score on that wicket would have been between 260 to 270 comfortably. Had these batsmen played sensibly and batted through the overs, they would have achieved the total easily.
This move by Vettori was deliberately done and paid dividends for the Kiwi outfit.
Right from the start of the match, the Kiwi bowlers bowled accurately and fed their bowls to the weak areas of all the batsmen. Their field placement and fielding were both outstanding. Imran Nazir was teased by in-swingers bowled by Bond and we all know that he isn’t very comfortable playing the incoming deliveries. An unplayable short ball subsequently got him caught in the slips. Kamran Akmal was fed with bowls outside his off stump inviting him to drive and cut (his strengths) with fielders placed at deep point and deep extra cover. Eventually he got out caught on deep extra cover. Muhammad Yousuf who is well known for nudging the bowl around to third man and fine leg for his singles was choked by placing both these fielders. Eventually he consumed more than 75 balls for his hard earned 44 runs.
Hats off to Vettori in successfully outsmarting Pakistan in his mind games, and this shows how much they had planned and prepared off the field for the big game. They had not only studied each player’s strengths and weakness but also ensured that their plans were executed properly on field. Although the Pakistanis tried hard and played well, the Kiwis off-the-field-preparation and planning was certainly better than the Pakistanis, which eventually changed the outcome of a match that was being hailed as dead rubber by the pundits.
Unfortunately, the Pakistani team is a prime example of complacency getting the better of you. They wait for perfect days to happen at random rather than PLAN for them. We are stuck with coaches like Intikhab Alam and Javed Miandad who are not only ignorant of the use of technology but persistently discourage its usage in coaching. I remember Miandad ridiculing Bob Woolmer for using a laptop in pre and post match analysis. It’s the time that these people realize that you may win a battle on a good day but you cannot win a war without effective planning which is done Off the field.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
PHDs or MBAs: What should be our immediate focus?
During our academic epoch we have always been discussing the prospects and benefits of PHDs vs MBAs in terms of career progression and overall value to the society. These discussions used to carry on for hours with out any firm conclusion as both parties had for or against arguments to their support.
Yesterday, I came across an article in Economists which discussed the same topic and argued the importance of having quality MBAs as an essential need of the era. I would like to elaborate upon this argument in context of Pakistani education system and Pakistani society.
It is very important to clearly understand the meaning of “Skilled Labor” and “Manger”. Let me emphasize on the argument that majority of people in our society do NOT exactly understand or misinterpret this term.
“Manager” means someone who can optimize the allocation of resources efficiently in order to maximize value. By value we mean monetary returns, benefits and prosperity to organizations weather it’s a company or a country. This concept applies at both micro and macro level.
“Skilled Labor” in economic terms means someone who is highly focused and devoted to their particular subject and have the capability and knowledge to innovate goods and services by employing scientific methods and research.
The comparison between MBAs and PHDs boils down to evaluation between “Innovation” and “optimization”. PHDs innovate while MBAs optimize. In a Pakistani context we have to be extremely careful in order to determine which one is more important to us in these times when we are classified as one of the developing countries. Do we need innovation of goods and services? Or do we need to efficiently utilize our already existing resources in order to maximize value. I would definitely prefer the later. Let me state a few examples:
Computers were not invented by IBM. Windows were not invented by Bill Gates. Photocopy machines were not invented by Xerox. Mobiles were not invented by NOKIA and search engines were not invented by Google.
All of the above mentioned companies have acquired the innovation and created a value by appropriately allocating their resources towards marketing and value added customer services.
Again referring to the economist article “a gathering storm” dated Nov 20th 2008 which states that “Even if China spends a fortune to train more scientists, it cannot prevent America from capitalizing on their inventions with better business models”
My whole argument refers to the Government scholarships mostly being awarded to PHD students instead to the MBA students. Most of the scholarships require the recipients to return to the country immediately after completion of their respective degree programs. Currently there are approximately 700 to 800 students studying abroad under various scholarship programs. More than 90% of these students are enrolled in specialized fields for Masters and PHD degrees.
I have been to a few conferences and seminars regarding educational reforms in Pakistan and I have always felt strongly that there has been a lot of emphasis on producing quality scientists and engineers. Almost all the participants highlighted the importance of PHD programs and proudly referred to hundreds of students currently enrolled in the Doctorate programs in US and UK.
The point we all are missing is that by producing hundreds of PHDs in next four to five years is not what will bring the change instead it is the need of the hour to develop effective and efficient managers in order to create value added business models. Our problem is inefficiency and lack of management and not lack of innovation. Let’s assume that in next five years these Scientists and Doctors return back to Pakistan under the scholarship agreement. Is our infrastructure capable of absorbing these highly qualified graduates? Will they be provided with enough facilities to apply their knowledge and “innovate”. Are there enough R&D funds available to carry out research activities?
The answer to all of the above questions is “No”.
Why?
The reason is that, in Pakistan, we are still in the evolutionary phase of developing corporate culture, introducing professional management and formulating global strategies in our organizations. None of our companies are Global and none of our brands have developed worth mentioning reputation globally.
We need good managers who have the vision of taking our businesses to the next level and this can only be done by developing effective business models, efficient utilization of available resources and creating value. Once we achieve our immediate objectives of efficient businesses, global corporations and well acknowledged brands then will be the time to probably innovate and move to another level with the help of PHDs. Since then appropriate platform will be set for researchers and adequate facilities will be available for scientist to innovate.
Right now our immediate focus should be to make available maximum funding for MBA programs, under various scholarship schemes, instead of Doctorate programs. The dilemma is that none of us is realizing that what is the need of the hour and what is actually required in terms of higher education. We continue to build policies on an already assumed false premise that we need quality scientists and engineers for our economy to prosper.
I am not saying that we should stop funding PHD programs instead the current mix of 9:1 for PHD and MBA should be equalized if not reversed immediately. We are investing billions of rupees to create an asset which may not add significant value due to unavailability of appropriate resources. The sooner we realize this the better it is.
I am also NOT saying that “Managers” are by any means superior to “Skilled Labor” instead I am saying that rite now we should be focused on producing more managers instead of scientists and researchers because this is the most appropriate channel to invest billions of tax payers money in order to churn out maximum value in short to medium term.
Yesterday, I came across an article in Economists which discussed the same topic and argued the importance of having quality MBAs as an essential need of the era. I would like to elaborate upon this argument in context of Pakistani education system and Pakistani society.
It is very important to clearly understand the meaning of “Skilled Labor” and “Manger”. Let me emphasize on the argument that majority of people in our society do NOT exactly understand or misinterpret this term.
“Manager” means someone who can optimize the allocation of resources efficiently in order to maximize value. By value we mean monetary returns, benefits and prosperity to organizations weather it’s a company or a country. This concept applies at both micro and macro level.
“Skilled Labor” in economic terms means someone who is highly focused and devoted to their particular subject and have the capability and knowledge to innovate goods and services by employing scientific methods and research.
The comparison between MBAs and PHDs boils down to evaluation between “Innovation” and “optimization”. PHDs innovate while MBAs optimize. In a Pakistani context we have to be extremely careful in order to determine which one is more important to us in these times when we are classified as one of the developing countries. Do we need innovation of goods and services? Or do we need to efficiently utilize our already existing resources in order to maximize value. I would definitely prefer the later. Let me state a few examples:
Computers were not invented by IBM. Windows were not invented by Bill Gates. Photocopy machines were not invented by Xerox. Mobiles were not invented by NOKIA and search engines were not invented by Google.
All of the above mentioned companies have acquired the innovation and created a value by appropriately allocating their resources towards marketing and value added customer services.
Again referring to the economist article “a gathering storm” dated Nov 20th 2008 which states that “Even if China spends a fortune to train more scientists, it cannot prevent America from capitalizing on their inventions with better business models”
My whole argument refers to the Government scholarships mostly being awarded to PHD students instead to the MBA students. Most of the scholarships require the recipients to return to the country immediately after completion of their respective degree programs. Currently there are approximately 700 to 800 students studying abroad under various scholarship programs. More than 90% of these students are enrolled in specialized fields for Masters and PHD degrees.
I have been to a few conferences and seminars regarding educational reforms in Pakistan and I have always felt strongly that there has been a lot of emphasis on producing quality scientists and engineers. Almost all the participants highlighted the importance of PHD programs and proudly referred to hundreds of students currently enrolled in the Doctorate programs in US and UK.
The point we all are missing is that by producing hundreds of PHDs in next four to five years is not what will bring the change instead it is the need of the hour to develop effective and efficient managers in order to create value added business models. Our problem is inefficiency and lack of management and not lack of innovation. Let’s assume that in next five years these Scientists and Doctors return back to Pakistan under the scholarship agreement. Is our infrastructure capable of absorbing these highly qualified graduates? Will they be provided with enough facilities to apply their knowledge and “innovate”. Are there enough R&D funds available to carry out research activities?
The answer to all of the above questions is “No”.
Why?
The reason is that, in Pakistan, we are still in the evolutionary phase of developing corporate culture, introducing professional management and formulating global strategies in our organizations. None of our companies are Global and none of our brands have developed worth mentioning reputation globally.
We need good managers who have the vision of taking our businesses to the next level and this can only be done by developing effective business models, efficient utilization of available resources and creating value. Once we achieve our immediate objectives of efficient businesses, global corporations and well acknowledged brands then will be the time to probably innovate and move to another level with the help of PHDs. Since then appropriate platform will be set for researchers and adequate facilities will be available for scientist to innovate.
Right now our immediate focus should be to make available maximum funding for MBA programs, under various scholarship schemes, instead of Doctorate programs. The dilemma is that none of us is realizing that what is the need of the hour and what is actually required in terms of higher education. We continue to build policies on an already assumed false premise that we need quality scientists and engineers for our economy to prosper.
I am not saying that we should stop funding PHD programs instead the current mix of 9:1 for PHD and MBA should be equalized if not reversed immediately. We are investing billions of rupees to create an asset which may not add significant value due to unavailability of appropriate resources. The sooner we realize this the better it is.
I am also NOT saying that “Managers” are by any means superior to “Skilled Labor” instead I am saying that rite now we should be focused on producing more managers instead of scientists and researchers because this is the most appropriate channel to invest billions of tax payers money in order to churn out maximum value in short to medium term.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
General Musharraf's Customized Democracy - The Spirit of Democracy
A friend of mine once commented during a conversation “I strongly believe that the original democracy must be given a chance instead of the "customized democracy" as was practiced by General Musharraf”.
Now here I have problems with both “Original” and “Democracy” in Pakistani context. First of all let’s understand what democracy is and what are its prerequisites, then I will follow it by string of arguments proving my theory that autocracy and customized democracy is proven to be the best mode of Governance for developing countries: Democracy – There is a demos, a group which makes political decisions by some form of collective procedure. In modern democracies the demos is the nation, and citizenship is usually equivalent to membership. Now if we understand democracy there are some basic prerequisites to democracy:
1. Freedom to make decision – I am arguing here that we don’t even fulfill the 1st criteria. Landlords, Jagirdaars influence the decision making of people through their ownership of masses of lands that includes villages even towns, particularly in rural areas. Land reform is the first step towards democracy which was ignored on our side after partition. Why Indian democracy is able to stand (somehow or other) is primarily due to Land reforms.
2. Education – A minimum level of education is prerequisite for a successful democratic process. In a country where literacy rate is merely 36% (including even those who are just able to read or write their names), what kind of democracy are we expecting? The reason we have a voters turnout of 30% - 35% is due to the fact that we lack the above two criteria.
3. Prosperity – Theorists say that some level of economic prosperity is required to enable a sustainable “original” democracy. Prosperity creates time and leisure, which can be used for democratic participation, public life and other uses of human rights. We often see democratic aspirations and claims of rights arising almost automatically in states that do well economically (see for example Taiwan, Korea and many South-American countries in the 1980s). Unequal wealth or insufficient wealth for some classes of the population is often a characteristic of a lack of economic development and at the same time it hinders the proper functioning of democracy. Those who are rich will monopolize the democratic procedures not only because of the forced withdrawal of the poor, but also because of their privileged access to the media, education, representative institutions etc. Furthermore, large differences in wealth and bad economic performances are destabilizing for any form of government - democracy included - because they cause revolt.
4. Free Markets – Democracy and the free market often contradict each other: the uneven distribution of wealth which one can often find in a free market system tends to falsify democratic political processes because wealth means influence; and democratic decisions often impose restrictions on a free market. However, after attainment of certain level of prosperity as a society, free markets and democracy tend to promote each other. (Milton Freedman in The Wall Street Journal, February 12th, 1997
5. Rule of Law – Independent judiciary that enforces rule of law is also a prerequisite of sustainable democratic process. Those who believe that our current judiciary is “Independent” please amend your misconception (I will not get into debate of how at the moment). However, it may evolve into one later gradually. All above arguments support my point that unless we have these prerequisites, spirit of democracy and democracy itself will cease to exist. Forget about “original”. Also please do not confuse between a “democratic process” and “democracy itself with its true essence”. Conducting elections is merely a democratic process not democracy itself with its essence. Those who are currently raising slogans of democracy and so called declare themselves as “savior of democracy” are a bunch of hypocrites and corrupt elites which the time has proven and re-proven. Here I would like to clarify that by “customized democracy” I mean to say that people have some say in government, yet there is check over the electoral process by strong leader (President). A strong leader can in such system manipulate laws and customize systems according to requirement of that particular time. Having said that, let me present another side of the argument regarding the “Coup of October 1999”. First of all dictatorship (termed used for Musharraf’s era) is some form of Ruler ship seized against the will of the people. But those who have forgotten, let me remind them that when Musharraf seized power, masses of public celebrated on streets of Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar, Quetta and Islamabad. Gallop surveys and IRI research polls showed that Musharraf was highly popular in masses till 2006. However, subsequently his popularity declined due to various controversial reasons. So the argument here is that Power seized by General was NOT against the will of people (though democratic process wasn’t followed). Subsequently, we know that “essence of democracy” was introduced by Local Body System and Media. People at the lowest level has access to government. Massive development in Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad was witnessed. Yes one could argue that Musharraf formula was “customized democracy”. But I am leading my argument to the fact that this was not some unique model applied by Musharraf. As a matter of fact in developing countries/economies such model has proven to be the optimal model which led to evolution systems more effectively eventually leading to so called “original democracy”. My friend also commented “"educated and moderate" class is creeping by the heels of hailing a person and not an institution”. For the knowledge of my misguided friend, I would like to say that nations have changed their fortunes by virtue of one strong leader. Vision of one man leading from the front in “difficult times” has led to eventual freedom and prosperity of nation. Institutions develop and strengthen subsequently. I will substantiate this by examples: 1. South Korea: Got independence on 15th August 1948. South Korea experienced alternating periods of autocratic and democratic rule. However, South Korean establishment has been accused of manipulating democracies particularly from 1962 – 1979.Elections were held in Korea immediately after independence in 1947, the democratic government merely completed two years was over thrown by a military coup. Military ruled Korea till 1960. Elections held in 1960 due to student revolution but again after two years of democracy it was over thrown by Military Dictator “Park Chung Hee”. The military leaders promised to return the government to a democratic system as soon as possible. On December 2, 1962, a referendum was held on returning to a presidential system of rule, which was allegedly passed with a 78% majority. Park and the other military leaders pledged not to run for office in the next elections. However, Park ran for president anyway, winning narrowly in the election of 1963. From 1962 – 1971 Park Chung Hee served as President with a “customized democracy”. In 1972 due to political turmoil in the country he declared emergency in the country and announced promulgation of Martial Law. From 1973 t0 1979 Park had complete control over parliament. This era was also known as exceptional economic boom era for South Korea. First true democratic elections were held in 1987 while it was in 1992 that South Korea witnessed true democracy with independently elected president. However by 1992 South Korea had already been declared as Asian golden economy. Seoul is now one of the most developed cities of the world while Korea has entered into list of Developed countries leaving behind a list of Developing countries. (Notice the similarity with Musharraf Model).
Moral: One man, seized power as military dictator, ran government with “customized democracy” saw the nation through difficult times. He is seen as someone who introduced Industrial revolution in Korea. Media and Telecommunication boomed in his era. Education was promoted, GDP per Capita increased many folds, mixed market economy was developed, rule of law was established in late 1970s, prerequisites of democracy fulfilled, institutions and systems evolved gradually and then Korea saw democracy which what it is today.
2. Malysia: If one studies the Malaysian political form of government, its neither presidential nor parliamentary. By no means it fulfills the western definition of democracy. Neither can it be classified as autocracy. However, The politics of Malaysia takes place in the framework of a constitutional monarchy where Monarch (The Yang di-Pertuan Agong) is head of state and the Prime Minister of Malaysia is the head of government. I will call it a “customized democracy” which has been customized to needs of Malaysian people and it is serving well for the country given its economic prosperity and development in over a decade or so.
3. Egypt: Hosni Mubarak is the President of Egypt since 1981 and running the country under “customized democracy”. Egypt is classified as one of the leading developing countries and is one of the prosperous non oil producing Arab economies. Concluding, my argument is that developing countries like Pakistan which has to establish on their own resources (unlike many Oil Producing Countries) a country which has religious and ethnic divides, which is suffering from religious extremism, it is imperative to have a strong leader having control over the government, yet has excess to general public (local governments etc), allow free media (with certain regulatory amendments), has a bunch of intellectual cabinet which do not have political motives, visionary economic manager, fewer ministries and strong law enforcing bodies. If such system is allowed to rule for at least a 20 years, our progress and prosperity is inevitable. Democracy will follow automatically and stronger institutions will evolve. Musharraf started as a reformist and tried to implement this model but it is very unfortunate for every Pakistani that he didn’t manage to pull off enough time to complete what he started, amid some major distractions (9/11 to be the biggest one).
Now here I have problems with both “Original” and “Democracy” in Pakistani context. First of all let’s understand what democracy is and what are its prerequisites, then I will follow it by string of arguments proving my theory that autocracy and customized democracy is proven to be the best mode of Governance for developing countries: Democracy – There is a demos, a group which makes political decisions by some form of collective procedure. In modern democracies the demos is the nation, and citizenship is usually equivalent to membership. Now if we understand democracy there are some basic prerequisites to democracy:
1. Freedom to make decision – I am arguing here that we don’t even fulfill the 1st criteria. Landlords, Jagirdaars influence the decision making of people through their ownership of masses of lands that includes villages even towns, particularly in rural areas. Land reform is the first step towards democracy which was ignored on our side after partition. Why Indian democracy is able to stand (somehow or other) is primarily due to Land reforms.
2. Education – A minimum level of education is prerequisite for a successful democratic process. In a country where literacy rate is merely 36% (including even those who are just able to read or write their names), what kind of democracy are we expecting? The reason we have a voters turnout of 30% - 35% is due to the fact that we lack the above two criteria.
3. Prosperity – Theorists say that some level of economic prosperity is required to enable a sustainable “original” democracy. Prosperity creates time and leisure, which can be used for democratic participation, public life and other uses of human rights. We often see democratic aspirations and claims of rights arising almost automatically in states that do well economically (see for example Taiwan, Korea and many South-American countries in the 1980s). Unequal wealth or insufficient wealth for some classes of the population is often a characteristic of a lack of economic development and at the same time it hinders the proper functioning of democracy. Those who are rich will monopolize the democratic procedures not only because of the forced withdrawal of the poor, but also because of their privileged access to the media, education, representative institutions etc. Furthermore, large differences in wealth and bad economic performances are destabilizing for any form of government - democracy included - because they cause revolt.
4. Free Markets – Democracy and the free market often contradict each other: the uneven distribution of wealth which one can often find in a free market system tends to falsify democratic political processes because wealth means influence; and democratic decisions often impose restrictions on a free market. However, after attainment of certain level of prosperity as a society, free markets and democracy tend to promote each other. (Milton Freedman in The Wall Street Journal, February 12th, 1997
5. Rule of Law – Independent judiciary that enforces rule of law is also a prerequisite of sustainable democratic process. Those who believe that our current judiciary is “Independent” please amend your misconception (I will not get into debate of how at the moment). However, it may evolve into one later gradually. All above arguments support my point that unless we have these prerequisites, spirit of democracy and democracy itself will cease to exist. Forget about “original”. Also please do not confuse between a “democratic process” and “democracy itself with its true essence”. Conducting elections is merely a democratic process not democracy itself with its essence. Those who are currently raising slogans of democracy and so called declare themselves as “savior of democracy” are a bunch of hypocrites and corrupt elites which the time has proven and re-proven. Here I would like to clarify that by “customized democracy” I mean to say that people have some say in government, yet there is check over the electoral process by strong leader (President). A strong leader can in such system manipulate laws and customize systems according to requirement of that particular time. Having said that, let me present another side of the argument regarding the “Coup of October 1999”. First of all dictatorship (termed used for Musharraf’s era) is some form of Ruler ship seized against the will of the people. But those who have forgotten, let me remind them that when Musharraf seized power, masses of public celebrated on streets of Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar, Quetta and Islamabad. Gallop surveys and IRI research polls showed that Musharraf was highly popular in masses till 2006. However, subsequently his popularity declined due to various controversial reasons. So the argument here is that Power seized by General was NOT against the will of people (though democratic process wasn’t followed). Subsequently, we know that “essence of democracy” was introduced by Local Body System and Media. People at the lowest level has access to government. Massive development in Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad was witnessed. Yes one could argue that Musharraf formula was “customized democracy”. But I am leading my argument to the fact that this was not some unique model applied by Musharraf. As a matter of fact in developing countries/economies such model has proven to be the optimal model which led to evolution systems more effectively eventually leading to so called “original democracy”. My friend also commented “"educated and moderate" class is creeping by the heels of hailing a person and not an institution”. For the knowledge of my misguided friend, I would like to say that nations have changed their fortunes by virtue of one strong leader. Vision of one man leading from the front in “difficult times” has led to eventual freedom and prosperity of nation. Institutions develop and strengthen subsequently. I will substantiate this by examples: 1. South Korea: Got independence on 15th August 1948. South Korea experienced alternating periods of autocratic and democratic rule. However, South Korean establishment has been accused of manipulating democracies particularly from 1962 – 1979.Elections were held in Korea immediately after independence in 1947, the democratic government merely completed two years was over thrown by a military coup. Military ruled Korea till 1960. Elections held in 1960 due to student revolution but again after two years of democracy it was over thrown by Military Dictator “Park Chung Hee”. The military leaders promised to return the government to a democratic system as soon as possible. On December 2, 1962, a referendum was held on returning to a presidential system of rule, which was allegedly passed with a 78% majority. Park and the other military leaders pledged not to run for office in the next elections. However, Park ran for president anyway, winning narrowly in the election of 1963. From 1962 – 1971 Park Chung Hee served as President with a “customized democracy”. In 1972 due to political turmoil in the country he declared emergency in the country and announced promulgation of Martial Law. From 1973 t0 1979 Park had complete control over parliament. This era was also known as exceptional economic boom era for South Korea. First true democratic elections were held in 1987 while it was in 1992 that South Korea witnessed true democracy with independently elected president. However by 1992 South Korea had already been declared as Asian golden economy. Seoul is now one of the most developed cities of the world while Korea has entered into list of Developed countries leaving behind a list of Developing countries. (Notice the similarity with Musharraf Model).
Moral: One man, seized power as military dictator, ran government with “customized democracy” saw the nation through difficult times. He is seen as someone who introduced Industrial revolution in Korea. Media and Telecommunication boomed in his era. Education was promoted, GDP per Capita increased many folds, mixed market economy was developed, rule of law was established in late 1970s, prerequisites of democracy fulfilled, institutions and systems evolved gradually and then Korea saw democracy which what it is today.
2. Malysia: If one studies the Malaysian political form of government, its neither presidential nor parliamentary. By no means it fulfills the western definition of democracy. Neither can it be classified as autocracy. However, The politics of Malaysia takes place in the framework of a constitutional monarchy where Monarch (The Yang di-Pertuan Agong) is head of state and the Prime Minister of Malaysia is the head of government. I will call it a “customized democracy” which has been customized to needs of Malaysian people and it is serving well for the country given its economic prosperity and development in over a decade or so.
3. Egypt: Hosni Mubarak is the President of Egypt since 1981 and running the country under “customized democracy”. Egypt is classified as one of the leading developing countries and is one of the prosperous non oil producing Arab economies. Concluding, my argument is that developing countries like Pakistan which has to establish on their own resources (unlike many Oil Producing Countries) a country which has religious and ethnic divides, which is suffering from religious extremism, it is imperative to have a strong leader having control over the government, yet has excess to general public (local governments etc), allow free media (with certain regulatory amendments), has a bunch of intellectual cabinet which do not have political motives, visionary economic manager, fewer ministries and strong law enforcing bodies. If such system is allowed to rule for at least a 20 years, our progress and prosperity is inevitable. Democracy will follow automatically and stronger institutions will evolve. Musharraf started as a reformist and tried to implement this model but it is very unfortunate for every Pakistani that he didn’t manage to pull off enough time to complete what he started, amid some major distractions (9/11 to be the biggest one).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
