|
The high drama of the formation of the new cabinet is drawing to a
close as 32 federal ministers and 20 state ministers would have been
regally ensconced with their new portfolios as this column goes to
print. The first thought that comes to mind is that over two months
have been spent in making the transition from Mr. Jamali's lame duck
set-up to this new cabinet expansion extravaganza. All this while,
the country stood still and gaped at the fast moving twists and turns
of the plot unfolding, more engaging than any fast moving soap opera.
For a country grappling with serious economic issues like poverty
and stagnant agricultural growth, along with deteriorating law and
order, geopolitical repositioning and growing provincial acrimony,
how costly were these two months. But that is a question no one is
asking.
Some other pertinent questions, however, are being raised. One reason
for a 'Dear John' attitude towards Mr. Jamali was that his government's
performance was unsatisfactory, implying, obviously, that this included
his cabinet members. There were muted voices whispering corruption
stories about the set up. Now the people are wondering if that was
true then why all the previous ministers have been accommodated in
the new set-up. By logical inference this seems an indictment of Mr.
Jamali's as a person.
Secondly, why has the cabinet been expanded now? Was there no need
for it when Mr. Jamali was at the helms of affairs? And, more that,
is there a functional justification for this expansion? As a passing
comparison, President Bush manages with 16 cabinet members and a staff
of 6 other senior officials including the Vice President and Chief
of White House Staff. Tony Blair has 20 ministers and about 25 state
ministers to run a complex bureaucracy of United Kingdoms. Nearer
our house, neighbouring India has 20 Ministers heading ministries,
10 state ministers heading independent executive departments and 29
state ministers, a total of about 68 in all. But then India is so
much larger in size and with far more ethnic diversity. We are going
to have 52 ministers and some 15 odd special advisors to make the
headcount about the same as India but much larger than U.S. or U.K.
I am not getting into the technical validity of the decision to expand
the cabinet. It is the lack of procedural logic and the great effort
of political manoeuvring that goes along with these changes that creates
doubts in people's mind and vitiates credibility of the government.
I am not going to reproduce all the juicy plucking from the virulent
rumour grapevine, which thrives on establishment's lack of transparency
and manifesto-less realignment of political groupings.
For example, I one would have thought that restructuring and bifurcation
of ministries would have been announced first as a matter of institutional
reforms and then the allocation of portfolios to the new cabinet members.
But the ministers were announced first, even took oath, before we
(and they themselves) came to know which block of the Secretariat
they would be driving to in the morning. The twenty four hours before
the announcement of the new cabinet were as pregnant with suspense
and tension as the hours before the draw of a billion dollar lottery.
The following jubilations in various camps - even the naked show of
felicitous banners - were no less than lottery winning celebrations.
The assignment of portfolios followed uneventfully, more or less,
as a routine aftermath. Is it any wonder, then, that the people perceive
the whole exercise more of an act of political accommodation than
state governance? However untrue that may be. Appearance does matter!
It is a part of good governance, perhaps more so than performance
and delivery. Propaganda machine has adopted stupendous potency in
the modern world of cyber freedom and media independence. An efficient
administrative entity must have the ability to project its true plans
and actions while defending any criticisms and doubts.
Our governments have grown supercilious in attitude with the false
security of state controlled media platitudes that were so convenient
to dominate in the past. During the past few years, the proliferation
of free media channels and globalisation of information systems has
drastically reduced people's gullibility. Scepticism is a healthy
trait for democracy but if it is ignored by governments it can easily
turn into cynicism, which has happened in Pakistan. Sometimes I fear
that freedom of the media is becoming counter-productive. The sarcastic
bile of Friday Times or Ayaz Amir's columns, while being addictive,
re-enforces a sense of impotency in readers. The incisive TV talk
shows where some government spokesmen end up becoming objects or ridicule
by their own attitudes and abilities also breed cynicism and pessimism
in viewers. The exposure of wrongs without complimentary corrective
action on the part of the 'system' slowly induces stoicism in people,
and subliminally, confers moral legitimacy of naked power.
Apart from other monumental challenges, Mr. Shaukat Aziz should pay
attention to the 'image problem' of the political system he has espoused
within the country. He has successfully managed to salvage some of
Pakistan's negative international image. I do not doubt his exceptional
communication skills, which he will need to the hilt in putting a
new face to his government. He should not fall prey to the false sense
of security that half page colour ads in newspapers with complimenting
portraits and endless reiteration of praises on state controlled media
can produce. The number of captive readers and viewers who swallow
the 'ideology of Pakistan' capsules compliantly is dwindling. Cynical
intellectuals provide sustenance to a national proclivity for conspirational
assumptions. The truth gets obscured in the haze between fantasy,
rumours and subjective logic.
Operating in these circumstances, Mr. Aziz will not only have to present
a clean face himself but also teach his colleagues how to look pretty.
We are all aware of the compromises and accommodations he has had
to make in ascend to top and it is hard to envy the baggage he carries.
It reminds me of the conjurers at village fairs who sit on a 'charpoi'
with a bamboo staff and try to keep a dozen pigeons under the charpoi
from escaping. It is quite an act of reactions and dexterity. I get
a poignant feeling that episode 23 of 'The Bold and the Powerful'
is going to be, apart from all else, a metaphorical re-invention of
the vaudeville act.
Iqbal Mustafa
1080 words
04 September 2004
|
