Consider this demographic projection for the UK, and ponder its implications for a moment: within five years, the majority of babies will be born to unmarried parents.

However, before you put this down to yet another example of Western immorality, just remember that all these babies will have the same legal rights as those born to married couples.

This trend is part of the wider decline of marriage as an institution. According to a recent study, the figures for people getting married in Britain is at its lowest ever since these statistics began to be compiled nearly 150 years ago.

In 2008, only 21.8 per thousand adult men of marriageable age actually took the vow. At 19.6, the figure for women was even lower. And the average age for men getting married for the first time was 32, and for women it was nearly 30.

These figures reveal not so much disillusionment with the institution of marriage, as much as they do a widespread rejection of religion.

Church marriages are still favoured by the middle classes, but more for the pomp and glamour of the wedding dress worn by the bride, and the finery sported by the guests. Indeed, attendance for church services has fallen steadily, and most Brits only go to church for weddings and funerals.

A glance at the European table reveals that the belief in a god is generally quite low in all the major countries.

Sweden, with only 23 per cent of the population believing in a deity, is the least observant, with the UK at 38 per cent. Germany and France are similarly atheistic or agnostic. Interestingly, Catholic countries seem to be more staunchly Christian, with Poles, Spaniards and Italians being among the most fervent of believers.

Indeed, a lack of belief in a supreme being has long been the hallmark of Western intellectual thought since the Enlightenment of the 18th century.

Hence, lawmakers have tried to separate religion form politics, few more so than the Founding Fathers of the United States. Both Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were fiercely agnostic in their views.

Scientists, too, have tended to question the belief system they were born into, as revealed by this quotation from Albert Einstein: “Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behaviour should be based on sympathy, education and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”

Many have condemned modern Western civilization for its ‘godless’ ways, pointing to widespread cohabitation between men and women, men and men, and women and women. Alcoholism, nudity and drug-abuse are also frequently cited.

All these lifestyle choices are mentioned in arguments over the superiority of Eastern religions and societies. Yet the firm belief in religion and an afterlife in our part of the world do not necessarily translate into better societies.

In the Transparency International table for global perceptions of corruption for 2009, there is not a single Muslim country in the twenty most honest states. However, seven Muslim countries figure among the ten most corrupt states.

Interestingly, Sweden, the most godless state in Europe, comes in at joint third with Singapore as the least corrupt country in the world.

There is an argument that corruption is a function of poverty, and once societies have acquired a measure of economic well-being, they tend to become more honest and accountable. While there is some truth to this assertion, how to explain the fact that Saudi Arabia, one of the richest countries in the world, is listed as 63rd by TI?

And Kuwait comes in at 68. Clearly, then, there is little direct linkage between religion and morality.

Nevertheless, billions around the world continue to believe deeply in the faith they have grown up in. They derive comfort from following the belief system of their forefathers, and most of them have never felt the need to question it.

Indeed, the poor obtain solace for their wretched condition with the promise of compensation in the afterlife. And the rich in our part of the world try and assuage their guilt by giving alms generously, thereby hoping to buy a place in heaven. If only they would pay their taxes with the same zeal, we might be able to make a better world in this life.

In religiously inclined societies like Pakistan, we are fond of criticising Western materialism, while holding up our supposed spirituality as being superior.

Even the millions of Muslims who have chosen to migrate to the West make the same assertion. However, I have not noticed any of these people denying themselves the conveniences and the advantages of these same ‘materialistic’ societies. And frankly, I do not see too much evidence of our vaunted ‘spirituality’ in our behaviour or attitudes.

These differences have been sharpened after 9/11, with more and more people in the West now seeing Islam and Muslims as being behind the rise in extremist violence in much of the world. Muslims, for their part, see themselves as victims of a rising Islamophobia.

Interestingly, the trend towards atheism and agnosticism is far less marked in the United States than in Europe. Well below five per cent of Americans assert they do not believe in any god.

Indeed, some Evangelical Christians in America think they have more in common with Muslims than the ‘godless Europeans’.

One reason it is so difficult for many Muslims to become assimilated into the societies they have chosen to live in is the huge cultural differences they encounter.

Generally coming from deeply conservative backgrounds, they are shocked with the free and easy lifestyle they encounter.

Rather than encouraging their children to integrate, they seek to insulate them from Western values, thus causing a state of mild schizophrenia in second- generation immigrants.

Some of these young people become quickly radicalised, and seek clarity in the black-and-white world of religious extremism.

Unfortunately, too many of them lack the education to realise that ultimately, no set of beliefs or values is inherently inferior or superior to another.

Morality, as we have seen, is not the monopoly of any faith: an atheist can be more ethical than a religious person. At the end of the day, what matters is that humans behave with consideration and decency, and avoid imposing their beliefs on others.

THE aftermath of Dr Aafia Siddiqui’s conviction nearly two weeks ago in a New York courtroom has seen several protests. On Feb 13, students from universities all over Islamabad congregated at Aapbara Chowk and demanded her release, while pointing out the silence of human rights groups.

A day earlier, Lahore’s Liberty Chowk saw students and faculty members of several educational institutions come together to protest against Dr Aafia’s continued detention. Many other protests have been witnessed since the verdict was announced.

While the facts of Dr Aafia’s case remain shrouded in secrecy, the transformation of her case from one of suspected terrorism to Pakistan’s cause célèbre is undeniable. No other female figure facing serious criminal charges has ever garnered so much public outpouring of support in Pakistan’s recent history.

More notable is the wide spectrum of groups supporting her cause. The recent protests have illustrated the breadth of her allure, driving groups as diverse as the Tanzeem-i-Jihad and students from elite schools to the streets of major urban areas. From women in burka on the streets of Karachi chanting “down with the US” to jeans-clad members of student action committees at Liberty Chowk, Aafia Siddiqui seems to have captured the collective heart of the Pakistani nation.

This ability to unite such a diverse group of Pakistanis behind her makes her appeal worthy of analysis. It is rare indeed for those frequenting elite private universities to have a platform in common with the burka-clad members of organisations such as the Tanzeem-i-Jihad.

While the human rights violations in her case are the obvious explanation for such unity among the Pakistani public it is not the only factor. Human rights violations are rampant in Pakistan but are routinely ignored and do not provoke much public outcry. Indeed, the alleged torturer of 12-year-old Shazia Masih who is believed to have died of violence inflicted on her was released on bail without generating much of an outcry. Thousands continue to languish in the country’s jails without being afforded hearings.

How then does Aafia Siddiqui’s case appeal to the public? If anything, she has flouted conventions dear to Pakistani culture. She is divorced from her first husband with whom she has children. She then went on to remarry. Ordinarily, this alone would be considered enough to render a woman morally suspect in the eyes of Islamist groups whose teachings and literature uphold dutiful wives and mothers.

Indeed, groups like the Jamaat-i-Islami and Tanzeem-i-Jihad would normally have problems with the idea of a young woman like Dr Aafia Siddiqui travelling all over the world, as she did, without being accompanied by a male relation or mahram. Also problematic would have been the fact that she attended a Jewish-funded educational institution and did not live with her family while completing her education.

As the emblem of Pakistani womanhood, one that is being venerated and defended around the country, Aafia Siddiqui’s unfettered popularity represents perhaps the emergence of a new kind of female rebel. While she may have lived the life of a liberated western woman, attending American universities, working routinely with men, the visible image she presents is quite useful in allowing her to evade criticism.

Wearing the niqab she refuses to remove, shouting anti-imperialist slogans and taunting the institutional justice of her American captors, Aafia Siddiqui is able to channel the voice of every downtrodden person who has been misjudged and mistreated by the US. In accepting the visible garb of an obedient Muslim woman she seems to have won the hearts and minds of those very men who may have been her most avid critics.

Ironically the most magnetic aspect of Dr Aafia’s appeal lies in the most harmful allegations levelled against her. Simply put, while it is entirely likely that the stories alleging that Dr Aafia grabbed an unattended assault rifle and shot at her American interrogator are untrue, the possibility of their being correct titillates every Pakistani wanting to defy the US.

Pakistan’s beleaguered sense of sovereignty — assaulted by repeated drone attacks and an unending series of conspiracy theories regarding the presence or absence of US troops on Pakistani soil — is instantly assuaged at the idea of a frail, helpless woman attacking a trained American law-enforcement official. Cumulatively, the explosive mix of appearing to be the obedient Muslim woman clad in niqab and a would-be assassin defying the US make Dr Aafia Siddiqui irresistible as a heroine and an icon.

Undoubtedly, Aafia Siddiqui is a rebel. Born to a middle-class family she chose a male-dominated career and earned a PhD degree in a field where women are severely unrepresented. She abandoned a conventional life as a mother taking her children to and from school and looking after her husband and home to marry someone who was known to be an Al Qaeda member. She was arrested, disappeared in extremely suspicious circumstances and resurfaced in Afghanistan, leading to several questions. Even more questions remain about her guilt or innocence but her elevation to the status of an icon bears deeper consideration by all diverse groups supporting her cause.

The most pressing of these questions is whether similar attention and unquestioning sympathy would have been afforded to a Pakistani woman who had similarly thwarted convention but was persecuted by Pakistani authorities rather than the American ones. There is much valour even in the dream of defying the US but should such defiance be the only mark of heroism in our society? Concern for human rights, due process and justice are venerated principles that apply universally and indeed unequivocally to Aafia Siddiqui’s case but they also do so to all other cases of justice denied which may not vindicate a country’s suffering pride but whose victims are equally tortured and helpless.

Even a child can differentiate between truth and a lie. As we all know, its opposite is lying. A lie is defined as something which one says despite knowing it to be incorrect and being against one’s conscience, belief, knowledge and iman. There are various proverbs on truth: “Nothing can harm the truth,” “The truth shines, the lie is black,” “The irony is that those who speak the truth often end up in trouble, while liars get away.”

In the Quran, Almighty Allah pronounced a curse on all liars in Surah Aal-e-Imran, Ayat 61. As if once is not enough, in the Surahs Shura, Naml, Taha, Tur, Saf, Munafiqun, Raad, Baqara, Zukhuf and Taubah, and ten times in Surah Mursalat the Almighty has pronounced a curse on all liars. In Surah Baqarah, it is not only the telling of truth that is stressed, but also the need to keep a promise.

However, when we look at our leaders and examine their behaviour, we hang our heads in shame. They seem to be neither afraid of Almighty Allah nor of his painful punishment.

Public representatives are answerable to Allah Almighty and the trust the voters have placed in them is sacred. If public representatives or those in authority indulge in lying or do not keep their promises, the wrath of Allah Almighty will definitely be upon them. To claim that, since they have been elected by the people, they are innocent of the misdeeds they are accused of, is misleading, a distortion of facts and nothing less than an insult to the intelligence of the public. No law, legal or moral, can justify wrongdoing of any sort.

Persian, which is full of wise proverbs, has this to say about lying: “Darogh go ra hafiza na bashad” (a liar has a very short memory). Under certain, compelling circumstances one could image a “white lie” being permissible. “Darogh-e maslehat-aamez ba az raasti fitna-angez” (it is better to tell a white lie to avoid mischief that could be caused by truth).

The most fertile field for lying is politics. Public representatives make false promises and tell blatant lies without batting an eyelid. How can the public forget the unfulfilled promises made by Mr Asif Ali Zardari, Mr Yusuf Raza Gilani, Raja Pervez Ashraf and others at the beginning and during their terms of office?

This phenomenon is rampant in international politics as well. We all remember how the so-called “custodians of civilisation” lied to the world about the presence of WMD in Iraq and attacked that country, killing almost one million innocent citizens on that pretext. Even more unfortunate was the fact that many other countries jumped on the bandwagon of lies.

When the 9/11 fear gripped the whole world, an attack took place on the Indian parliament. Strangely enough, not a single parliamentarian was present and no lawmaker was hurt. Pakistan was immediately blamed. No-one knew how Pakistanis managed to reach the Indian parliament, who they were and why the Indian army and other law enforcing agencies failed to stop them, but Pakistan was blamed all the same.

Immediately after the Mumbai carnage, Pakistan was targeted and threatened with military action. Fortunately, good sense prevailed. Otherwise both countries would have suffered major destruction. One lawyer disclosed that Ajmal Kasab was already in Indian custody before the event. He had been arrested in Nepal and the Indians were keeping him for “later use.” It is surprising to note that the attackers were so familiar with every nook and corner of the hotel, whereas the security personnel were not, which indicates that the attackers had not just “come from Pakistan,” as claimed.

The attack on the Samjotha Express, as was proven later, was planned by Indian army personnel. When an efficient police officer, Karkare, exposed this, he was brutally eliminated. An honest Congress legislator, A R Antule, resigned, but no action against the perpetrators was undertaken and the lies continued.

The demotion of the Babri Masjid by the BJP is another example. The enquiry commission put the blame squarely on BJP leaders Advani and Vajpaee, but no action was taken and they continued to lie about it. Whether it be the BJP or Congress, Indian animosity towards Pakistan continues to be their main policy and every possible incident is twisted in such a way as to make Pakistan the culprit.

Our leaders fail to understand that the Western countries will never help us in our dispute with India over Kashmir, in the same way as they will never help the Arabs in the dispute with Israel over the genocide of the Palestinians. They will simply continue to lie to the whole world and shut their eyes to reality.

Here are a few quotes from Western writers and philosophers relevant to the topic under discussion:

“One of the most striking differences between a cat and a lie is that a cat has nine lives, a lie only one.” — Mark Twain

“The most common lie is that one tells to oneself; lying to others is relatively an exception.” — Nietzsche

“Truth will come to light, murder cannot be hidden long.” — Shakespeare

“Truth is so obscure in these times and falsehood so established that, unless we have the truth, we cannot know it.” — Pascal

“Hard are the ways of truth, and rough to walk.” — Milton

The last one very aptly applies to our chief justice and our judiciary.

Step back and just think. It had to happen. Sooner than later. How could the Americans, British and Saudis with the blessings of Benazir Bhutto, ISI chief General Kayani and Musharraf’s man Tariq Aziz ever condone corruption? And yet they did. In the summer of 2007 Washington was the watering hole where the group would meet to manufacture the National Reconciliation Ordinance or the NRO as it’s known.

Surely they must have taken into account that if Benazir Bhutto was killed her husband would be her natural successor. Or were they that naïve to assume that some feckless leader like Amin Fahim would be her heir? All knew Asif Zardari. The US intelligence agency like the CIA and British MI 6 also called SIS (Secret Intelligence Service) had enough evidence of his corruption as did our own ISI. Did they not think that it was a given that Asif Zardari would one day be sitting in the Prime Minister’s House or the presidency if his wife was assassinated? After all, everyone knew, including BB herself, that she was a marked woman by the Islamic jihadists.

Did they not think what would happen in case their reprehensible NRO was made null and void?

Surely they must have known that the Swiss courts money-laundering cases of Asif Zardari will crop up? Did they expect him, as the sitting head of government, to return the alleged billions ‘looted’ from Pakistan? Did they think that he would say sorry and admit to this alleged crime? How can a head of state ever remain in place after he’s admitted ’stealing’ millions from the national treasury his late wife as the prime minister was morally responsible for?

The NRO was a devilish instrument. It should never have been allowed to come to life. Never mind about democracy. This is no democracy where the president, his powerful ministers and envoys in important western capitals are alleged to have committed financial crime. The prime minister narrowly escaped the NRO net by having an out-of-court settlement with NAB. His wife, Fauzia Gilani, was a big bank-defaulter. We’re told the couple has paid up. How much of the money they ‘borrowed’ to set up businesses got returned by them will must be made public.

Prime Minister Gilani is another Shaukat Aziz. He follows the dictation given to him from Zardari. Aziz, as we know, was just a sidekick of Musharraf. We never thought that Gilani would follow Aziz’s way. He’s in full defiance of the December 16 judgment on the NRO by the 17-member bench of the Supreme Court. How long he can get away by pulling all kinds of rabbits out of the bag to protect Zardari’s billions and stop them from coming to Pakistan is not rocket science.

Corruption can never be condoned.

Notice all the old faces sitting in the presidency – with Syeda Abida Hussain, husband Fakhr Imam and Aitzaz Ahsan taking the front row to show their support for Zardari and his corruption. Aitzaz felt no discomfort seated with his former sworn enemies Babar Awan and Latif Khosa! We’re done with this kind of façade. We need new, honest, clean leaders to lead us.

Senator Kerry is in town. He’s back to do some fire-fighting. Either prop up or dump Asif Zardari. We’ll have to wait and see. As the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Kerry owes it to Pakistan to rectify the damage the NRO has done. Other than doling out a few millions, which this corrupt government will gobble up, I don’t see the Americans really pushed about our long-term political stability. They couldn’t care less. All they want is to contain terrorists entering their space and Kayani making sure that they don’t cross the Atlantic to ‘attack’ America.

The battle against corruption that the people on the street should have waged against this government never happened. Once again the burden fell on the Supreme Court to challenge the corrupt. Why didn’t the people play their due role? All I can say is that they have been misinformed; misled and misguided. Aitzaz Ahsan, Ali Ahmed Kurd and human rights activist Asma Jehangir, the three legal luminaries, were our heroes. We expected them to lead us the way, not defend the corruption of Asif Ali Zardari. Fortunately stalwarts like Justice (r) Tariq Mahmud, Athar Minallah and Justice (r) Fakhruddin G Ebrahim have come out strongly in favour of the supremacy of the Supreme Court, though in the beginning they too were lost in the fog of words.

In a widely circulated email, Justice (r) F G Ebrahim (FGE) writes, “being of the view that more harm is done by ignoring seniority, which opens the door for exercise of discretion in principle, I am against seniority being ignored, particularly in (the) judiciary. My first reaction, therefore, was that the appointment of the chief justice Lahore High Court to the Supreme Court and elevation of the next senior-most judge as the Lahore High Court chief justice was justified. I had assumed that in accordance with Article 177 of the Constitution, these appointments were made by the president after consultation with the chief justice of Pakistan, and that the president was bound by such consultations.”

Was the chief justice of Pakistan even consulted? Asks FGE who is shocked that the two highest authorities in the land – the president and the chief justice of Pakistan — have conflicting statements to make.

“The president’s spokesperson asserts that the consultation took place and is denied vehemently by the honourable chief justice of Pakistan,” continues FGE. “There must be some documentary evidence to prove that such consultations took place. But much to our regret the people have been kept in the dark creating further controversy. With a poor credibility score of the government, the latter’s version will not be acceptable to the people. Without consultation, these appointments, in contradiction to the binding recommendations of the chief justice of Pakistan remain invalid, being in violation of Article 177 of the Constitution.”

Let the people decide. This is democracy, isn’t it? Why should a handful of self-appointed TV hosts and their guests be given the right to condone corruption? Why should editorial writers be given the right to declare that the court of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry is stabbing democracy by demanding that the corrupt cough up the money? Why should a bunch of columnists be defending President Zardari’s well of wealth by calling him the victim of judicial activism?

Why this is being done will not come to light until the matter comes to its logical end.

Beware too of the beards. They have all come out of the woodwork to support the judiciary. Some circles have expressed concern with the clique, once again, being formed by Nawaz Sharif and the fundos. God forbid should this happen, the Taliban-like leaders will be back in the saddle. In the end the battle is between the suited-booted PPP leaders, in their shiny suits with dandy ties and kerchiefs versus the shalwar kamiz wearing PML-N and their partners, the clergy.

Just for the sake of saving one man, Asif Zardari, today battle lines are being drawn. Is he worth the cost?

As a nation we suffer from what can only be described as persecution complex. The knee-jerk reaction of “they are out to get us” has been our response to countless issues ranging from the war on terror to the general treatment of Pakistan by the international community. The sentiment has been on display in the case of Dr Aafia Siddiqui too.

Our government and our society failed to realise that the best way for justice to be served and for Dr Siddiqui to be released from the US custody was to arrange for a strong defence during the court case. Rather, we focused our attention on being indignant, insulting and occasionally lighting up an effigy or two of prominent American personalities. (Of course, thrown in there was some pretty strong anti-Semitic rhetoric to keep things spiced up.)

Babar Sattar too in his article “Blinkered Justice” (Feb 6), did not explore the facts and circumstances leading up to the conviction of Dr Siddiqui by a Manhattan jury. Mr Sattar appears convinced that if the accused were a designer-scarf wearing Caucasian lady, she would probably have been acquitted. While I’ll concede that the evidence presented by the prosecution appears flimsy at best, Mr Sattar’s method of lashing out against the US legal system is far from satisfactory.

Mr Sattar’s contention that the high conviction rate of African Americans is a result of racial bias is only very marginally true. (Referring to them as “blacks,” as he does, is akin to describing all people of South Asian descent as “browns,” something I’m sure Mr Sattar would not be pleased with.) These convictions are overwhelmingly based on drug-related crimes, and not a manifestation of race relations in the USA. While it can be argued sthat the drug laws in the US are absurd and put the victims of the drug issues behind bars, that is a debate for another time. The point at hand is that it is inappropriate to term the vast majority of jurors in the US as racially biased simply on the basis of this statistics.

Juries in the USA serve a great purpose by allowing an accused to defend himself in front of ordinary, everyday citizens; people who take out time from their jobs and lives and fulfil this social duty of ensuring that a single person in a robe does not get to decide the fate of defendants. Callously describing them as a mob of racially motivated people out to put anyone who isn’t fair-skinned behind bars lacks any semblance of intellectual rigour and, quite frankly, is insulting to anyone who has ever served on a jury and sat through countless hours of legal arguments. In fact, given the diverse population of New York City, it is highly unlikely that the jury in Dr Siddiqui’s case was even entirely Caucasian, something Mr Sattar seems to implicitly assume.

Finally, Mr Sattar makes the mistake of providing only half the story in terms of the DNA evidence issue that he raises. At the outset, I would point out that 30 per cent of the convictions overturned as a result of the efforts of the Innocence Programme he mentions were of white defendants, a fairly substantial number in a total of some 250 overturned convictions. Moreover, the entire purpose of the Innocence Programme has never been to identify racially charged convictions and pursue their reversal. Rather, it insists on the use of modern forensic technology not available at the time of the respective trials, thus making it entirely irrelevant to the trial of Dr Siddiqui. For purposes of illustration, a parallel to Dr Siddiqui’s case would be if somehow it could be demonstrated on appeal that the weapon she allegedly used to assault the US soldiers was not even a weapon to begin with but a random piece of plastic.

I appreciate Mr Sattar’s concern for the seemingly bizarre conviction of a fellow citizen. But his impulsive reaction of criticising the general American population and the US legal system is altogether counterproductive and will not serve to help Dr Siddiqui in her quest for an acquittal. The more important question, as far as I am concerned, is why the Pakistani government waited until it was too late to make all these pledges of support.

It was not until November last year, less than eight weeks before the start of the trial, that monetary assistance was pledged by the prime minister – a timeframe any lawyer would tell you is way too short for any tangible good to come out of it. Moreover, why were witnesses for the defence not flown from Pakistan to New York to give testimony at the trial? Even if visa issues were to restrict such travel, testimony could surely have been presented via any of the plethora of electronic means allowed by the US courts.

Why was the lead defence counsel a lady specialising in family law with only marginal criminal law experience? International treaties would have required the US to allow all sorts of consular assistance from Pakistan to Dr Siddiqui. Why wasn’t an appropriate legal team assembled to provide assistance to her – both in terms of assisting the government in Islamabad to decide the best course of action and also of providing better defence at the actual trial?

The US is teeming with competent (and appropriately specialised) lawyers of Pakistani origin who could have been engaged to provide legal assistance, or at the very least, ensure that Dr Siddiqui did not feel that her defence team was a part of the conspiracy to put her behind bars. Why was no one there to guide Dr Siddiqui through her trial and advise her not to make the kind of self-destructive statements that she did in open court?

Given the many levels of appeal in the US legal system, there are still plenty of opportunities for justice to be served in this unpleasant case, and I hope that Mr Sattar uses his fine legal education to provide proactive assistance rather than blaming the system, once the matter has been fully settled to the detriment of Dr Siddiqui.

Will this freak show ever end? The present situation would be hard to believe if it was not being witnessed firsthand. This is what happens when unfit and unworthy persons are elevated to positions of high authority where they are out of their depth. Zardari’s presidential order to elevate Chief Justice Khwaja Mohammad Sharif of the Lahore High Court to the Supreme Court and to appoint Justice Saqib Nisar as acting chief justice of the Lahore High Court, against the recommendations of the chief justice of Pakistan, amounts to a subversion of the due process of law.

No better could be expected from a military dictator, but people do not expect an elected civilian government to systematically destroy or undermine vital state organs on personal whims. The country is being pushed towards a political and constitutional crisis that is bound to take us down a path that we are all anxious to avoid.

It speaks volumes about the calibre of this government that it just cannot get through the day without shooting itself in the foot, even when it enjoys the unprecedented luxury of having no effective opposition. This fresh hell they have unleashed on themselves and the nation was entirely unnecessary and easily avoidable. Governments in the past have made it routine practice to appoint judges whom they might count upon to be sympathetic to them. It could be argued that the same impetus drove the government into this folly, particularly its desperation to escape the reopening of the Swiss cases.

But when Chief Justice Khwaja Mohammad Sharif and Justice Saqib Nisar had already both publicly declared that they were wholly at the disposal of the chief justice of Pakistan, then how could this government expect any quarter from either of them? That being the case, it made no sense whatsoever for the government to deliberately antagonise the judiciary further by not adopting the chief justice’s recommendations, when it stood to gain nothing either way.

The government has suddenly remembered the Charter of Democracy which mandates the elevation of senior-most judges to higher posts and higher courts. Firstly, their devotion to the Charter of Democracy would have been far more believable had they done anything at all towards its implementation in the two years that they have been in power, which they have not done because they felt their commitment to do so was just a “political statement” and not an ayat of the Holy Quran, or Hadith. Secondly, if the principle of seniority is so precious to them, then why did this consideration not impede them from elevating Justice Khilji Arif Hussain and Justice Anwar Zahir Jamali of the Sindh High Court to the Supreme Court when Justice Sarmad Jalal Usmani was, in fact, the senior-most judge in Sindh?

This government has defiantly flown in the face of its constitutional and legal obligations, from its failure to implement the NRO verdict to its refusal to appoint Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday as ad hoc judge of the Supreme Court, along with its refusal to appoint judges against vacancies in the Punjab and Sindh High Courts in accordance with the respective chief justices’ recommendations, that verges on subverting the Constitution, and the cumulative effect of which has landed it on the brink of contempt of court, if not worse.

Apart from its historic betrayal in the form of reneging on solemn pledges to restore the suspended judges, until being compelled to do so by the long march, implement the Charter of Democracy and repeal the 17th Amendment, its declaration of war against the judiciary demonstrates that this government is the greatest threat of all to democracy. Is this the face of democracy that the bleeding hearts who advocated tolerance of this government for the sake of preserving the system, want to save? Leading nations is the highest honour for citizens who have proven themselves to be beyond reproach on ethical, intellectual and ideological grounds. This lot has failed on all such counts.

They have even proved to be unfaithful to their assassinated leader, in whose name they rule and survive, not only letting her killers roam free but even creating obstacles in the way of the UN inquiry commission. Not only that, but they have sacrificed national sovereignty to their foreign overlords in the name of expediency to earn foreign support and prolong their own corrosive rule. Do the bleeding hearts still believe this government deserves to be allowed to continue till they reduce the country to a pile of debris?

It is no longer an issue of incompetence or negligence but rather of malicious intent against state institutions and democracy which cannot be tolerated. If the dismissal of this government produces any political or constitutional storms, then these storms must be, and can be, faced. The continuation of this government, on the other hand, is likely to throw up far worse scenarios that might defy resolution, and destroy democracy. It was clear at the time that the long march that restored the judges only partially succeeded in obtaining its objectives. To borrow Shakespeare’s phrase, it scotched the snake but did not kill it. How much longer can lunatics be allowed to run the asylum?

Every man, woman and child throughout Pakistan should be very proud of the stand our judiciary has taken against this unfit dispensation. At a time when civil society, by and large, remains in a stupor of complacency and parliamentarians continue to cater to their own selfish vested interests and have become part of the problem, the judiciary has stepped forward to enforce the writ of the Constitution. Our Supreme Court is making history. It is setting global precedents which will be a beacon to democratic forces all over the world who will expect no less from their own courts in the fight against tyranny. Instead of losing sight of the larger picture and accusing them of judicial activism, we owe their lordships a debt of gratitude.

US vice president Joe Biden recently stated that, due to Pakistan’s nuclear capability and dysfunctional democracy, the situation here is a source of greater concern for the United States than Iraq or Afghanistan. This is most peculiar, since the present situation in Pakistan is a product of American hegemonic influence which it has exercised unabated more directly and forcefully than ever before in the aftermath of 9-11. Out-of-control events in their war on terror and the gathering steam against a highly unpopular government compelled the Americans to ditch Musharraf. Similar circumstances have now surfaced once again. The present setup is by no means indispensable to its foreign masters. In 2008, Zardari was ecstatic to oust Musharraf with the backing of his American benefactors. The time may have come for him to get a taste of the same medicine.

The critical question that now arises is: while the judiciary is doing its bit, what role will the political forces in the country play? How much longer can the largest opposition party, the PML-N, possibly remain passive and tolerant of this painful status quo? It makes no sense for them to label Zardari as the biggest threat to democracy against a backdrop of their repeated assurances of coming to his rescue should his hold on power be threatened. You cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. The nation is in deep crisis and is desperate for a firm and honest alternative leadership. It is time to put aside expediency and fulfil obligations to the nation.

As Shakespeare aptly told us, roses, no matter what you call them, will smell as sweet. The same, metaphorically speaking, can be said of religious parties: drop Islam from their party names, but the ideological leanings and support for militant fringes will remain.

This could soon become apparent in Bangladesh, where the supreme court recently upheld a 2005 high court judgment banning religion-based parties. That said, if it is appealed, the ruling could set an interesting precedent for the separation of religion and politics in Muslim-majority countries.

The supreme court ruling reverts to Bangladesh’s original, secular 1972 constitution, drafted by the Awami League (AL), which is currently in power. The ruling will force religious parties to drop religious references from their names and prevent religious sloganeering during election campaigns. About 12 Bangladeshi parties, including the Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) — an ally of the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) — will be affected. However, the verdict does not touch on 1988 amendments that made Islam the state religion and introduced Quranic text in the constitution.

The fact is, bans only work when they are issued early, nipping the problem in the bud. Coming under the AL leadership, the ruling will be a tad suspect because this historically secular party has long branded the BNP and JI as fundamentalist for political leverage. It also doesn’t help that Islamic politicking and religious extremism are well entrenched in Bangladesh.

Since 1990, the rivalry between the AL and BNP has weakened Bangladesh’s political institutions. Whichever party has been in the opposition, it has made a sham of democracy by boycotting parliament and calling for nationwide strikes. Amidst the tussle, religious parties have done well. In 2001, the JI and Islamic Oikya Jote even formed the government with the BNP. With the support of these religious parties at the centre, Islamic militancy has flourished in Bangladesh through the activities of groups such as the Jagrata Muslim Janata Bangladesh, the Harakat ul-Jihad-i-Islami and the Jamaatul Mujahideen Bangladesh.

Although linguistic nationalism trumps religious identification amongst the Bangladeshi public, religious parties have also won many supporters in the past decade. People are impressed by their highly organised cadres; their involvement in a range of charitable, welfare and service-provision activities; and their gumption in standing up to India and protesting the maltreatment of Muslims in that country. The religious parties have also made the most of the influx of Saudi religious charities, taking credit for the education and free housing provided by an extensive network of Wahabi madressahs.

Some fear that a ban on religious parties will drive this religiously motivated activism underground, where it will drift even further towards extremism. And while in principle it is unfair to compare religious parties to militant outfits, Bangladesh should keep in mind the consequences of Gen Pervez Musharraf’s ban on militant and sectarian organisations: ‘jihadis’ from across Pakistan relocated to the tribal belt to continue training and recruiting and the fallout from their proximity to the Taliban and Al Qaeda is all too obvious today.

For fear of a similar scenario, many liberal, civil society activists in Bangladesh oppose the ruling and instead call for more regulation and monitoring of the religious parties. Their contention is that legalities cannot undo gains such as organised militancy.

But the secular-minded can take heart as the ruling comes when a religio-cultural shift is already under way. Bangladeshis have become more religious in their private lives: a Gallup poll in May 2009 showed that all Bangladeshis believe religion is an important part of their daily lives and 98 per cent claim their confidence in religious organisations has increased over the years. But this religiosity has spiked at the same time that Bangladeshis overwhelming voted for the AL, which championed reform and secularism, in the 2008 elections.

In tandem, these facts suggest that Bangladeshis prefer to keep politics and religion separate — and it is this distinction that the ruling can help concretise.

Meanwhile, those concerned about driving religious politics underground should remember that the AL’s crackdown on a growing extremist threat is under way. Last October, the government outlawed a controversial Islamic party after accusing it of destabilising the country (four other Islamic organisations were banned in 2005 after nation-wide bombings left 28 dead). And throughout 2009, security forces arrested 600,000 people — including 518 terrorists — for ties to about 122 extremist organisations. These actions are a response to increasing attacks against secular politicians since 2004. In this context, the ruling reiterates Bangladesh’s resolve not to emerge as an extremist hub.

Pakistan should keep a close eye on how the ruling is received by the Bangladeshi public. Now, more than ever, we need to shake off our complacent attitude towards Pakistan’s religious parties. Owing to their historically poor record at the polls, we have written off the 2002 MMA victory in Balochistan and the Frontier as an anomaly.

But as recently pointed out by newspaper columnists, victory was fuelled by soaring anti-American sentiment in the wake of the US invasion of Afghanistan. Eight years later, Americanism has reached new heights in Pakistan. Widespread and rabid, this xenophobic sentiment could herald the return of religious parties in the next election. Such an outcome would make it almost impossible for Pakistan to separate religion and politics. And that separation — as the Bangladesh supreme court ruling suggests — is a democratic necessity.

huma.yusuf@gmail.com

None can deny that one of the most critical issues in the exploding city of Karachi (or Lahore or Rawalpindi) is traffic and transport.

And none can deny that the standard knee-jerk reaction of our chief ministers, city nazims and municipal administrators to this problem is to build wider roads, more overpasses or underpasses and elevated expressways.

How do we provoke these ‘movers and shakers’ into absorbing some of the wisdom of that world-renowned urban strategist, former mayor of Bogota, Enrique Penalosa? He said, “To make more highways or bigger roads to solve traffic jams is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.” Penalosa visited Pakistan a couple of years ago to share his experiences on urban sustainability with administrators and citizens — the creation of affordable public transport, construction of schools and dispensaries, an increase in public spaces and a reduction in crime rates.

Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif last year planned to spend Rs3.15bn (equivalent to 10 per cent of the 2008-09 Punjab expenditure on health and education) on the widening of the Canal Bank Road for the 20 per cent of Lahore’s eight million citizens who own cars (the rest make do with less than 1,000 aged, creaking so-called private buses, thanks to the demise of the Punjab Road Transport Corporation during his previous regime).

Fortunately, the Supreme Court halted the proposed devastation of thousands of trees on the canal banks and ordered the details of the project to be evaluated. Reportedly, the chief minister is also re-examining the advisability of his proposed elevated expressway over the Murree Road in Rawalpindi.

A headline in the Metropolitan section on Jan 14: “CDGK [City District Government Karachi] constructing flyovers without Sepa [Sindh Environmental Protection Agency] approval”.

The original scheme includes seven overpasses (at Dr Ziauddin Ahmed Road near PIDC House, Fatima Jinnah Road near Avari Hotel, Dr Daudpota Road near Hotel Mehran, Jinnah Hospital Road near Regent Plaza, Mubarik Shaheed Road near Gora Qabristan, Sharea Faisal near Chanesar Halt turning, and Shaheed-i-Millat Expressway near PAF City School) which supposedly will transform Sharea Faisal into a signal-free corridor, the fourth in this city government’s list of creative solutions to the burgeoning traffic chaos.

In April 2009, the CDGK inserted a notice in the press inviting comments. Shehri, submitted preliminary observations listing the environmental problems and downsides of such a project, highlighting alternative environment-friendly techniques of addressing the issues involved. It pointed out that the Environmental Protection Act 1997 mandated that this road project, which would cost over Rs5m, requires that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) be conducted. Copies were sent to the DG Sepa, the secretary, environment, and relevant CDGK officials.

Despite reminders from Shehri notices from Sepa requesting CDGK to submit an EIA for the flyover project, nothing was done. In October 2009, preliminary construction work started. Shehri filed a complaint against Sepa and CDGK with the environmental protection tribunal of Sindh in early December.

In 2007 the government of Japan offered a soft loan of Rs2.55bn to CDGK for 15 steel flyovers for Karachi. This loan is conditional on the submission to Sepa of EIAs. The Japanese apparently recognise the need for detailed environmental studies before such projects are approved or begun, but our environment-unfriendly government does not.

In 2008 the Sindh High Court ordered the Defence Housing Authority (DHA) to conduct an EIA for the Gizri flyover, comprising an overpass along the Gizri Road. This was only done when the project was almost complete — virtually an exercise in futility.

Shortly after the commencement of construction Sepa wrote to the DHA directing them to file an EIA. This lawful (but impotent) directive was brazenly ignored. On Jan 13, in a related high court case, the DHA was given 60 days to implement the conditionalities of Sepa’s EIA approval, but, strangely, was allowed to open the flyover at its discretion, which it did the next day.

Flyovers benefit private cars, ultimately boosting congestion by increasing the number of single-occupant vehicles. It has been internationally established that traffic clogging can only be eased by shifting commuters to buses and trains. Vested interests will not let this happen. For instance, a setback in the US in 1936 — General Motors, Exxon and Firestone formed National City Lines, a company whose primary purpose was to buy up public transport companies that posed competition to the motor-car, and close them down. Within less than three decades, over 100 urban electric surface-rail systems (including Pacific Electric which carried over 110 million passengers a year) in 45 cities serving 56 communities were eliminated.

Today, governments in the Third World have taken over the environmentally-degrading function of promoting the motor-car. Instead of spending taxpayers’ money on comprehensive traffic studies establishing affordable and convenient public-transport systems, and implementing laws to discipline traffic, reduce parking chaos and eliminate encroachments on roads, the development mantra has become ‘mega-project-based’ with more roads, wider highways, flyovers, underpasses, elevated expressways and the like. Mistakenly, these ‘innovations’ are expected to address the escalating issues of vehicle congestion, air and noise pollution, fuel wastage and futile man-hours in traffic jams.

With the rapidly deteriorating world ecology, including Pakistan’s, it is imperative that each and every one of our decisions is based on that which is environmentally advantageous. A people-friendly public-transport infrastructure must be our number one priority.

The above having been written, it was reported in yesterday’s Metropolitan section that Sepa had given approval for the “under-construction flyovers”. Despite the World Bank’s finding that the environment of Pakistan is degrading at a rate equivalent to six per cent of GDP, the government seems unable to implement the applicable laws. The obsequiousness of the environmental protection agencies to the powers that be in industry and politics augurs ill for the rapidly deteriorating ecology of this city and country. More follows.

arfc@cyber.net.pk

It is symptomatic of the retrogression in Pakistani society that heinous crimes are committed under the influence of misplaced notions of culture, religion and superstition.

The recent case of infanticide in Karachi is an example. A raid on a Korangi house led the police to the remains of a six-month-old girl buried in a shallow grave and her four-year-old sister trussed up and starved. The girls’ parents told the police that their house had fallen under the influence of ‘evil spirits’ and that a ‘pir sahib’ had appeared in their dreams to guide them towards this course of action. A case of premeditated murder has been registered against the couple, and further investigation may well lead to other reasons — such as poverty or insanity — which led to the crime.

However, there is no doubt that in Pakistan’s deeply conservative, illiterate society, holy men and pirs often exercise a pernicious influence over the credulous. There have been cases where such so-called religious men have raped and tortured or incited followers to commit inhumane crimes — the victims have generally been women and children. At the very least such pirs use their influence to extort money or goods. Unfortunately, only a few cases are highlighted, and even then little action is taken.

A two-pronged strategy is needed to counter this phenomenon. First, the public must be made aware of how they can be taken advantage of by crooks or sadists masquerading as holy men. Superstition and gullibility must be countered at every level for they affect the rich and poor alike. Secondly and more importantly, the role of the pir in the perpetration of violent or criminal behaviour must be recognised and treated as collusion in or incitement to a crime. The pir in the Karachi case may have been a figment of the couple’s imagination, but there are too many real pirs at work in the country.

The Zardari government accepts
the NRO judgment. However, at the same time it is trying its best to paint the Supreme Court (SC) as being politically motivated. This is understandable because its leader, the co-chairman of the PPP and the President of Pakistan Asif Ali Zardari, is under attack on corruption charges and it wants to protect him at all costs from accountability, particularly from the cases outside Pakistan. Hence, one may be justified to dismiss the government’s attack as being mala fide. However, the government is not the only one accusing the court of playing politics. There are others, especially independent and impartial observers, who have expressed similar views. For example, Asma Jahangir, the chairperson of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) has termed the court verdict as a “politicised judgment”. Similarly, Ali Ahmad Kurd, the former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the firebrand leader of the movement for the restoration of deposed judges has accused the court of acting upon the agenda of the forces that are working on the minus-one formula. Are these charges justified? And if not, how do we explain them?

To determine whether or not the court is politically motivated, one needs to understand the meaning of this expression. If it signifies that a court’s judgment has political fallout when it deals with political or constitutional matters, then all such courts are politically motivated because their judgments more often than not have political implications. For example, one could contend that the present SC was politically motivated when it rendered the judgment in the recent appeal relating to the by-election in the NA-55 constituency because it has some sort of political fallout (in addition to bringing smiles on the face of “the son of Rawalpindi” Sheikh Rashid who before the judgment thought that he was being denied the right to get elected). We understand that when critics accuse the SC of being politically motivated, they are not making a charge of this kind.

The expression “politically motivated” can also signify that political rather than strictly juridical considerations guide the court. This seems to be the thrust of Kurd’s criticism, who sees a nexus between the judgment (in Kurd’s opinion targeting Zardari) the court rendered in the month of December 2009 and the rumour that made the rounds in the country that the president would go in the same month. In other words, he appears to think that the court is working in cahoots with the establishment to get rid of Zardari. As far as Asma Jahangir is concerned, she also believes that the court’s judgment is political in character but she approaches the matter differently. She contends that the court’s judgment has violated the principle of the separation of powers between the executive, legislature and the judiciary by tilting in favour of the last. Besides, she maintains that the court by invoking Article 62 (f) of the Constitution, which the dictator Ziaul Haq got inserted in it, is treading a highly slippery slope as it can have dangerous political implications in addition to making the judiciary controversial.

As to Kurd’s charge, we fail to discover any link between the fact that the court rendered the judgment in December and the grapevine that predicted the departure of Zardari in December. In the absence of any evidence, conspiracy theory rather than anything else seems to guide Kurd. We understand that he is not happy with the way the Chief Justice of Pakistan has handled judicial matters since his reinstatement. However, that does not give him a licence to make all manner of allegations. As to Asma’s charge that the court violated the principle of the separation of powers, she too fails to furnish much evidence. For example, it was alleged that the court had asked the government to change certain NAB officials. However, subsequently it came out that it was a mere suggestion and not a direction from the court. Similarly, the court did not ask the government to put anybody on the Exit Control List (ECL). The only exception was its direction for action against the former Attorney General of Pakistan but then that was justified because he was accused of having withdrawn the Swiss cases without authorisation.

As to Asma’s charge that the court should not have invoked Article 62 (f) of the Constitution, we begin by examining the impugned clause. It prescribes that a member of parliament should be “sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest and ameen”. This applies mutatis mutandis to the holder of the office of the President of Pakistan because he needs to have the same qualifications as a member of parliament. She opposes this clause on the ground that it is undemocratic as Zia got it inserted in the Constitution to keep members of parliament insecure. Besides, she believes that if parliamentarians are to be subjected to such exacting moral standards, then the scrutiny of judges should be higher still because, in her opinion, they are appointed strictly on the basis of their integrity and skills.

It is true that the court should have avoided invoking the impugned clause because of its controversial character. However, if it did not do so, political parties including the PPP must take the blame for it because by not getting the “Islamic” clauses in Articles 62 and 63 that Zia introduced removed when they were in power following Zia’s exit, they have sent the message that it is a settled matter. Besides, it should not be forgotten that even in the absence of the impugned clause, the NRO is invalid on the Rosetta Stone of incompatibility with fundamental rights. Why did the court resort to it is a mystery that the detailed judgment may solve. Some critics have alleged that by invoking this clause the court has prepared the ground to disqualify Zardari as the President of Pakistan. They also apprehend that the court may invoke an even more pernicious clause contained in paragraph (d) of the same Article (which stipulates that a member of parliament should be “of good character and is not commonly known as one who violates Islamic Injunctions”), for the same purpose as Zardari is universally known as Mr 10 percent.

We conclude that the court may not be politically motivated as far as the present case is concerned. The test case whether or not it is so will however come when the court takes up the issue of Zardari’s disqualification for hearing. If it renders a judgment against him on the touchstone of clause (f) or (d) there could perhaps be justification to accuse it of being politically motivated. To avoid such an eventuality, political parties need to get their act together and get rid of the said ‘Islamic’ clauses. They must do it now when the Raza Rabbani committee is seized of the constitutional package. However, according to press reports they are not interested. If this is true, the message to the court will be that they favour their retention. In this backdrop, if the court invokes the impugned clauses to disqualify Zardari, would it be fair to hold it guilty of playing politics?

The writer is an Adjunct Professor in the National Institute of Pakistan Studies at the Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad. He can be reached at hussain_ijaz@hotmail.com

Barack Obama completes his first year as president with his public approval ratings having fallen from a high of 68 per cent when he entered office to 47 per cent.

Is this common to American presidents after their first 365 days in power? Does this set a trend line that will persist? Can Obama turn this situation around? The answer to the first two questions is no, not necessarily. The first year certainly sets the momentum and direction for subsequent years, but it isn’t the only determinant of the rest of the presidential term.

As for the third question, much depends on what Obama does from now on, especially how he manages the economy and handles the two conflicts that America is entangled in.

The approval ratings place Obama in the company of former presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, who saw public support decline at the end of their first year in the White House. The job ratings for George W Bush went up in his first year and then plunged to a historic low at the end of his presidency. In sharp contrast, Clinton left office with the highest approval ratings for any post-World War II president.

Three aspects of the Obama presidency are significant in assessing his record so far: a difficult inheritance; the unrealistic expectations raised by his historic victory; and his pursuit of a liberal agenda at home while yielding to the Right on national-security strategy and conducting a foreign policy on key geopolitical issues marked more by continuity than a break from the past.

President Obama inherited a daunting agenda from a troubled legacy that sharply constrained his room to manoeuvre: two divisive and protracted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the severest economic crisis since the Depression and a level of debt incompatible with America’s status as the world’s pre-eminent economic power.

In this backdrop, he devoted much of his attention to domestic affairs: addressing the economic crisis and trying to revive confidence. He made reasonable progress: passing a stimulus package and halting a financial free fall. But high jobless figures at yearend and a yawning fiscal deficit served as reminders of the obstacles ahead to achieving an economic recovery.

Obama is also on the verge of securing a healthcare bill – his signature reform measure that represents a significant piece of social-welfare legislation. This may not go as far as the liberal wing of his party may have wished, but will still mark an important accomplishment for Obama. All told, not a bad domestic record, given the weak hand he inherited.

Why, then, have his job approval numbers steadily dropped during the year? Part of the answer lies in the extraordinary expectations that Obama himself raised by his promise of being a “transformational president.” As campaign rhetoric confronted the sobering realities of governance, the inevitable compromises that were made left many of his supporters disappointed and his critics accusing him of naiveté about statecraft.

In the transition from a powerful orator of soaring campaign rhetoric to the real world of tough policy choices, questions were raised about whether Obama had the determination to pursue the agenda he had set. And priorities there were aplenty, inviting the charge that he had scattered his focus. Critics portrayed him as a leader good at launching initiatives but inconsistent in executing or making them work.

Meanwhile, his “lenient” treatment of bankers in the financial bailout, failure to close down Guantanamo and watering down of the healthcare plan evoked dismay within the Democratic base, amid cries of betrayal of the “transformational agenda.” This was exemplified by an editorial in the New Republic which said: “A presidency that was born in enthusiasm has displayed little evidence of it” in the first year.

But it was in the realm of national security and foreign policy that his first year fell woefully short of the promise. In his initial days in office President Obama offered a fresh start to America’s engagement with the world, pledging to temper power by “humility and restraint,” reach out to the Muslim world and place a greater emphasis on diplomacy to secure its goals.

Other than the welcome change in tone, this did not translate, in practice, into a substantially new approach. Nowhere was this more evident than in the revised strategy on Afghanistan. Obama’s decision to escalate the war marked continuity rather than a break with the Bush paradigm.

Together with other decisions (Guantanamo), this suggested that on security policy Obama conceded to the Right rather than respond to the liberal base of his party. The inclination to pursue a conservative international agenda was also signalled by the lack of progress made in the Middle East peace process. Washington’s unwillingness to press Israel to halt its settlements in East Jerusalem and the occupied West Bank meant that the Obama administration failed the litmus test of change in relations with the Muslim world promised by his inspiring Cairo speech.

But it was on Afghanistan that President Obama made the most consequential decision of his first year. Some American historians invoked the Vietnam parallel to compare him to President Lyndon B Johnson, who set out to “remake America” by an ambitious domestic reform agenda but whose administration ended up being derailed by the Vietnam disaster.

A telling cautionary tale for Obama came in a recently published book, Lessons in Disaster, which chronicled the fateful decisions that led to the Vietnam abyss. This offered valuable lessons about how, where and when to apply American power around the world.

Its author, Gordon M Goldstein, subsequently wrote a column in which he summarised those lessons. One of them, “politics is the enemy of strategy,” merits mention. In a polarised political environment, Goldstein wrote, some constituencies are left dissatisfied but presidents should base their decisions on strategic grounds and not let politics cloud military decisions.

Obama’s surge-and-exit announcement on Afghanistan sought to placate divergent opinion is a remarkable display of politics determining strategy. In effectively yielding to the hawks on a strategy of military escalation in Afghanistan and ratcheting up drone attacks in Pakistan, Obama staked his political future on a perilous course that risked destabilising the region and also jeopardising his presidency.

An important factor in the way Obama responded to foreign policy challenges in his first year was the reality of functioning in a world that was markedly different from that many of his predecessors operated in. This is a world that has seen a shift in global power, the rise of China and the emergence of a more multi-polar environment.

In several speeches President Obama spoke of the need to build coalitions of consent and pursue multilateral solutions. This reflected an acknowledgement of the limits of US power and the imperative of cooperation in an interdependent world.

Noting this, a prominent American analyst, Robert Kagan remarked that Obama and his foreign policy team, instead of attempting to perpetuate US primacy, have been seeking to manage what they regard as America’s unavoidable decline relative to other great powers.

A global context in which the US on its own can no longer determine geopolitical outcomes helps to explain Obama’s difficulties in pursuing his foreign policy goals, as, for example. in rallying international support for tougher sanctions against Iran on the nuclear issue.

It is in this complex international setting that the war in Afghanistan is expected to be the make-or-break foreign policy issue for Obama’s presidency. The defining domestic issue will be his ability to engender a job-creating economic recovery and manage the deficit, which critics say he was distracted from addressing by his healthcare initiative. Dealing with the deficit may decide more than Obama’s political fortunes. It could also determine America’s ability to maintain its position as the world’s predominant military power.

The rise in the political temperature in the country after the NRO judgement and the confusing response of the president compounded by the inability of the PPP leadership to take any meaningful decisions on issues such as the abolition of the 17th Amendment has everyone on tenterhooks. In fact, this is distracting the government from attending to issues of terrorism and economic instability. . The fight against terrorism seems to have been left entirely to the army. The operation in Swat and South Waziristan is giving the government a false sense of fulfillment. There is no urgency at the political and civil front to tackle the problem. The mere announcement of the formation of the National Counter-terrorism Authority (NCA) is being considered as an achievement both by the president and prime minister.

The fact is that NCA is still looking for an office since the last eight months of its existence. The interior minister makes hard-hitting absolute claims of action he is taking when, in fact, his ministry is extremely over-rated. Unlike Iran and Turkey, the ministry of interior has no intelligence agency under it to monitor and control matters of security. It has no direct police under it except the Islamabad police. Even para military forces like the Frontier Corps (FC) and Rangers are more under the army than the ministry because the commanders of these forces are two-star generals hoping to advance their careers.

There is an urgent need to review the system if terrorism is to be dealt with on a long-term basis. The NCA is a good idea but it will not go anywhere if it is treated as an achievement and an instrument for propaganda. The PM needs to take the NCA directly under his patronage just the way Musharraf made devolution a priority and made the National Reconciliation Bureau (NRB) a part of the PM’s office. Similarly, the ministry of interior needs to be completely revamped so that it can stop being used as a government mouthpiece. It can deliver results only when the government’s writ is not battered the way it has been done now.

On the economic front, there is general adulation all around for the NFC Award. The Punjab government is being praised for having relented on its stand on population as a basis of resource allocation. The federal government, on the other hand, is being praised for cutting down its share in the pie: from 52 per cent to 44 per cent meaning a reduction of Rs217 billion in its resources. One wonders how the government is going to manage its affairs with this huge decrease given that its activities remain the same. There is no sign of the education, health or local government ministries being closed down. The ministry of finance’s claim to bridge this gap by austerity measures and increasing revenue receipts is as old as the country itself. No austerity committee of the past has made any sustainable impact on government revenue. Even if half the ministers are sent home, it will at best save one billion rupees. What about the other Rs216 billion?

Then, there is the claim of raising more money from the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR). Press reports of the past few months indicate that the tax to GDP ratio has actually declined and is now somewhere between 8.5 to 9 per cent, one of the lowest in the region. So to expect the revenue receipts to suddenly jump when the reverse has happened is hoping for the impossible. Compounding the matter is the internal turmoil in the FBR in creating an inland revenue service by merging the customs and income tax service. The current legal battle between the service groups s hardly conducive to an increase in revenue.

Unless action is taken, there will be an acute lack of resource at the centre as the impact of the NFC starts to unfold, leading to decreased efficiency. Also, there will be a slashing of Public Sector Development Programmes (PSDP) and an untenable deficit caused by increased deficit financing, thus leading to further inflation. The provinces, with their current levels of capacity to utilise funds efficiently, will have surplus, thus leading to a temporary and fake euphoria of well being.

On the trade front, while other countries convert their raw produce to value added products for export, we are exporting our cotton and yarn with abandon, knowing fully well that we will have to import it soon. The farmer lobby is much stronger than the textile manufacturers lobby. So while the new textile policy envisages giving 90 per cent of Rs40 billion on the value added textile sector, the ministry is unable to stop the export of cotton and yarn. Resultantly, most of this money will go to sustain only the loss of the value added industry rather than enhancing exports. While the export of cotton went up by 107 per cent and the export of yarn by 44 per cent in July-November (2009), the export of knitwear declined by 7.5 per cent, bedware 7.2 per cent and towels 6.2 per cent in the same period.

Unless the government can gear itself to function simultaneously in all sectors , rather than get bogged down by political shenanigans, we are sure to lose on both the terrorism and economic fronts.