War euphoria

Source: The News
Date: September 30, 2011

War euphoria by Harris Khalique

The televangelists, holy entertainers and the know-it-all jugglers of news and views are having a field day in Pakistan. What else would sell better than the war rhetoric in the living rooms of the middleclass urban and semi-urban populations? That is where the ratings for programmes and talk shows are gathered from. These are the people who use the fast-moving consumer goods, more or less the only manufacturing left in the country, and enjoy the different packages offered by cell phone companies. The commercials of these products make it possible for the private television channels to continue programming.

Therefore, profit-making has to be quick, sharp and maximum. The programming has to suit the palate of the most conservative political class in Pakistan. Sorry. Not conservative, confused and conservative. Mainstream electronic media is not capable of – or not interested at all in – bringing both knowledge and sanity to its audience by apprising them of the challenges Pakistan will face if there is an abrupt severance of relationship between the two allies in the war on terror. Therefore, for a change, the country we wish to fight and destroy this time around is not India but the United States of America.

When those running different institutions of the state of Pakistan are undoubtedly upset with the Americans, they want de-escalation in tensions, continuation of a constructive dialogue and a negotiated settlement. The corps commanders had no choice but to show restraint when they met and so did the prime minister and his cabinet members. The All Parties' Conference is underway at the time of writing this piece and it is an important initiative in terms of taking all political forces on board.

The prime minister in his opening remarks mentioned the willingness of the government to engage with the Americans and resolve any outstanding issues, although he was firm and forceful at the same time. This is because those running the affairs of the state, whatever their competence level may be, fully realise where the country stands in these difficult times, economically, politically and militarily.

But our media is playing a dangerous game by whipping up emotions of an already confused and conservative populace. Showing war footage from 1965 and 1971, playing war anthems, even if that happened once or twice, and airing provocative programmes where war-mongers are invited to speak or are taken on the phone as experts is strengthening a particular mindset. This mindset is suicidal, bigoted and jingoistic. It has landed us into trouble in the past, brought embarrassment internationally in the present and making us implode as a country and society in not too distant future.

Let us be honest to ourselves. Even progressive Americans cannot hold a brief for the foreign policy pursued by the Americans since the Second World War, leave alone someone coming from the third world. But in the case of Pakistan, who decided to side with the Americans and why since the times of Seato and Cento in Gen Ayub's era? Who decided to make Pakistan into the frontline state in America's war against the Soviets under Gen Zia? Who decided to become the closest non-Nato ally of the Americans under Gen Musharraf? Who has created the reliance on American military aid, the need for American development aid and dependence on international financial institutions dominated by the Americans? Who do we trade with the most? Why do half of us wish our children to study in the US and the rest wish to emigrate themselves? What's gone wrong now then? I rest my case.

The writer is an Islamabad-based poet and author. Email: harris. khalique@gmail.com

Link: http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=70109&Cat=9

Costs of Poor Planning By Naseer Memon

Costs of Poor Planning

 

By Naseer Memon

Daily Dawn-22nd Sept 2011

Link: http://www.dawn.com/2011/09/22/costs-of-poor-planning.html

THE Planning Commission issued a startling analytical review of the public-sector development portfolio some time ago. The document is a testament to the systematic institutional decay witnessed in the planning of public-sector development.

The country’s annual budget is normally defined by the ‘three Ds’: defence, debt servicing and development. Ideally, there needs to be a balance between these expenditures but in Pakistan, the first two are sacred while the third is routinely compromised on account of a paucity of funds. During the 2010-11 period, the Public Sector Development Programme (PSDP) was fixed at Rs280bn. Subsequently, the foreseen revenue shortfall curtailed it by Rs100bn.

The report acknowledges the burgeoning PSDP development deficit and reveals that the current throw-forward has reached the staggering sum of Rs3.1tr with over 1,800 crawling projects. Logically, it would require Rs600bn a year over the next five years if even an elusive moratorium on new projects is applied. If the current size of the federal PSDP is taken as a benchmark, the time lag would be 15 years — not accounting for project delays and increased costs.

PSDP projects are normally comprised of four mains sectors: infrastructure (energy, railroads, ports, roads, etc), social development (education, health, water, etc), balanced development (special programmes for less developed areas) and production (agriculture, industry and minerals, etc). The current throw-forward pertains predominantly to projects concerning infrastructure: some 409 projects are buried under a crippling future estimate of Rs2.4tr against the paltry allocation of Rs135bn under the previous PSDP. This is followed by the social sector with 1,227 projects costing Rs850bn having a throw-forward of Rs0.58tr.

Within projects related to infrastructure, almost half of the throw-forward is dedicated to the power and energy sectors. A throw-forward analysis in the social sector shows health as a major victim, with an estimated 25 per cent share in the deficit.

Education and higher education are the other major victims.

Ironically, the social sector is a vehicle to achieve key human development targets under the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The social sector has more than 1,200 projects in its portfolio, which accounts for one-fifth of the overall throw-forward.

The analysis identifies five key reasons for the debilitating throw-forward. It includes the approval of provincial projects without due consideration, frequent cuts in the PSDP due to resource crunches, weak feasibilities, cost overrun and ignoring public-private partnerships. Yet this report is nothing but a confession of sins, lacking any avenue of atonement. While the document brings valuable facts to light, it skirts around the institutional reasons for this state of affairs.

The Planning Commission is charged with the stewardship of the planning process, the sanctity of which it is mandated to safeguard. Poor appraisal processes that succumb to political pressures, the haemorrhaging of professional and qualified human resources and indecent haste in the project approval process have plagued the public-sector planning process. This has become particularly evident in recent years: the volume of throw-forward doubled within the last five years. Politicians alone could not have done this without the collusion of the planning wizards.

Regardless, the situation does not reflect well on a dispensation which has yet to demonstrate better sense in delivering development benefits to the citizens. In its good years, project appraisal would take two months. The length of this process has, by now, shrunk to a few hours with hardly any critical appraisal taking place.

The Planning Commission lacks the professional will and competence to shield the planning process from the demands made by the project’s proponents. Governments announce and inaugurate projects to gain political mileage while higher-level government offices do not understand the value of and intricacies involved in the development process. With a view to gaining popularity and securing their vote bank, they make generous announcements and often gloss over procedural imperatives.

The role of the Planning Commission is to protect the planning process; yet this is flagrantly compromised to appease the people at the helm of affairs. The Central Development Working Party has itself vitiated planning prerequisites by approving projects without the mandatory scrutiny. Equity in benefits determines the political economy of development; this is very often simply ignored. Certain favoured constituencies receive huge amounts of funding without justification, which eventually puts society under heavy strain.

Likewise, processing the PC-1 without a proper PC-2 is common. The PC-2 is a prequel to PC-1 that has to establish the feasibility of any project. A glaring example of this is the Mangla dam-raising project. The resettlement aspect was ignored at the planning stage. Now that the structure is complete, the project is dogged by the resettlement issue since the costs have doubled from the initial estimates.

Had there been a rigorous appraisal process in place, such anomalies could have been avoided.

The report depicting unsustainable throw-forward was issued in March. Yet in its previous quarterly meeting, the executive committee of the National Economic Council approved of new projects worth Rs300bn. If this remains the trend, it may approve projects costing more than a trillion rupees each year, further fattening the mammoth throw-forward.

Both politicians and planners must demonstrate some sanity to align development with the greater goal of sustainability.

Thrusting more projects on the slim purse of public-sector development will render the whole ineffective. The sector has already touched rock bottom and can ill afford further erosion.

(The writer is the chief executive of Strengthening Participatory Organisation. nmemon@spopk.org)