Will Sindh governance visibly change?

PAKISTAN People’s Party nominated three of its senior parliamentarians in the province of Sindh for the offices of Chief Minister, Speaker and Parliamentary Leader on Monday. Syed Qaim Ali Shah has served as Chief Minister in 1988-89 and is currently the provincial president of the party. Nisar Khuhro was the leader of the opposition in the outgoing Assembly. And Pir Mazhar-ul-Haq was General Secretary of Sindh PPP when Khuhro was provincial president. All of them have a long association with the party and were front runners for key posts in Sindh. PPP co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari, while making the nomination announcement, said: “There would be a difference between incoming and previous governments, because previous governments had ruled the people, while the new one would rule for the people.” Only time would tell whether this is rhetoric or there would be a meaningful change in the way of governance in this troubled province. It needs to be conceded that after 1996 Sindh would now have a truly representative government instead of an artificially contrived set-up at the behest of Islamabad. However, the people of Sindh would not feel the difference in governance unless there is a mechanism in place to achieve the changes promised by Zardari.
There is a fundamental difference in ruling the people and ruling for the people. In order to make the transition from one to the other, the persons elected to the offices have to let go of the powers enjoyed by them hitherto in the matter of postings and transfers in the police force. Selection of Inspector General of Police, CCPOs etc in the province would need to be transferred from the Chief Minister to the Public Safety Commission from among eminent, non-controversial and above board personalities, envisaged in the police reforms. The power to post Station House Officers (SHOs) must also be with the Divisional Police Officers (DPOs). Just like the Armed Forces recruitment, promotions, career planning, selection and training need to be undertaken by relevant departments within the police force. Depoliticising the force is essential for effective policing and improving the law and order situation. It has become all the more essential in view of the terror threat emanating from the north into settled areas like Sindh. In addition, to check the excesses, so often, committed by the police officials, the power of arrest with the police force needs to be withdrawn. All over the developed world police does and can pick up people for questioning and investigation. However, overnight detention, as well as arrest, requires a judicial order. This duality does not dilute the effectiveness of law enforcing agencies. Maintaining magisterial oversight and power for search and arrest outside the force with judicial officials not only ensures full compliance with legal formalities as envisaged in law, it is also helpful in successful prosecution in court, and reduces the chances of graft that is rampant in our law enforcing agencies. And, above all else the change will take away the power misused by politicians when in power to harass and intimidate their opponents. Surely, the change advocated would be resisted by the people coming into power. But then the real test of leadership is to put the well-being of the people at large before self.





In Putin’s shadow?

VLADIMIR Putin pulled off an election novelty as a presidential race he did not figure in amounted to a referendum on his person as Russia’s leader, with the people’s support for his protégé Dimitry Medvedev signalling a resounding yes-vote for his two terms in office. Whatever the Kremlin’s shortcomings over the last eight years, Russians have left little doubt about their preference for standard-of-life and raised-international-prestige issues as opposed to democratic subtleties at this particular point in time. That despite election results widely known a good 70 per cent exercised the right to vote, of whom 70 per cent chose Putin’s favoured client, means his supporters not critics stand vindicated, at least for now. A West still itchy about the election process and outcome should look to focus on what is to follow. Medvedev wasted little time in ruling out any redistribution of power as Putin prepares to return to the prime minister’s seat he occupied under Yeltsin in very different circumstances. When Medvedev follows the victory with the assurance that foreign policy will remain the prerogative of the presidency, he leverages the power Putin restored in the Kremlin after the affair with the free market had left Russia on the brink of total state collapse.
On the positive side, Putin leaves a strong precedent of smooth transition of power, sticking to the constitution despite commanding undisputed authority within Moscow’s power circles. He has also displayed a better understanding of public sentiment and greater national good than his peers. Few of his critics can deny that despite his power plays he brought Russians what they prized most, commitment that the state values their hard work, better economic conditions, and the assertive international stance reminiscent of the old days. Where he left a lot to be desired was his iron grip and micro-management also on the lines of the old system. With unprecedented public support, he could have further bolstered his stature by being the first Russian president to remove restrictions on meida and social political opinion. Medvedev takes over a resurgent Russia. Perhaps best for him and Russia would be to build on the economic turnaround while curbing authoritarianism not fitting an emerging market and polity of Russia’s magnitude. The friction with the West, too, needs toning down a tad now that Moscow has made its point with authority while winning electioneering points to boot. Much of the above will be easier said than done though. Putin is no doubt a man not comfortable with dictation. Irritation may well present itself if Medvedev advises too strongly on domestic management issues which come under the prime minister’s mandate. The international stance too might take longer to soften than the West expects. Gazprom’s last move under Putin’s presidency and Medvedev’s chairmanship was cutting off a quarter of Ukraine’s gas supply, with threats of more choke, preferring muscle over diplomacy in the external arena. Medvedev’s greatest test will be overseeing Russia’s transformation from an impressive economic recovery case to a more politically mature polity. With his government to form in May, it is not too long before a trend emerges.


—Khaleej Times