The administrative system is to give way to the new management system. This means that a whole set of new attitudes have to somehow be inculcated in the human behaviour systems. There are macro-level issues and there are issues that pertain to the individual. These issues are becoming more and more complex and it is not the science that is lagging behind but the human element that is found wanting.
The military-bureaucratic relationship is much easier, but it is the political-bureaucratic aspects that seem to be daunting. That is maybe because of the onslaught of the political-tyrannical military system on the civilian organisational output. In both cases, for reasons of their own, the civilian bureaucracy is to follow the dictates of the orders passed on by the competent authority, irrespective of whether it is competent or otherwise. Should then such illegal orders be followed?
The dilemma that one faces [and I have faced these many times] is that the incumbent burns himself out. Illegal orders can be in many forms. These can be irregular-curable. Irregularity means that the orders can be ex-post facto approved. There can be inappropriate orders that follow from the urgency of the functions that are to be carried out. In any case, the upshot of this is that there is generally a conflict between the sides.
Musharraf and the previous army take-overs provided many of the continuous and ongoing onslaughts on the bureaucracy. Is it wise to lose one's job as a result of these conflicts or is it wise to be an 'obedient servant' and continue in the job? As someone said to me [and he was my senior-doctor yard], fifteen minutes' of onslaught is better because then one has fifteen days of peace - his way of saying that you do not burn yourself out.
In case illegal orders are passed, there is always the danger of being answerable at some time for these orders. The dangers are all round, make no mistake. This is because of the growing difficulties in a contracting economy.
The politicians that were frank with me and who had faith in me spoke of the drought that they have suffered because of the eleven years of Musharraf. Their brother colleagues were responsible for this so why crib. Alright they may have been of different hues, but then they were there rightly or wrongly through a process of adult franchise. Some of them blatantly speak of the opportunity that may never come.
Conflict of interests, they do not see in themselves but they do not see anything wrong with the recruitment of nieces and nephews. Some newly appointed Vice Presidents or Vice Chancellors are guilty of the same. The Musharraf regime ministers did exactly that and recruited as many as five to six hundred people in their respective areas of authority. The current lot is doing the same and very openly - it is transparent if anything.
The moot question is who is responsible for all this, the minister or the bureaucrat with whose pen these orders were passed. Certainly the pen of the signatory is important and if he or she does not own it, then it is a case of negating one's elders.
Every now and then there is a cry for change and the demand for the army to come in. That is because the public want to see equity and not parochial policies. Having had a number of years with the production sector, there is no one there to withstand the onslaught of the political system. I had always maintained that those who were asking for the tyrannical rule or who still remember the tyrannical rule of the last government are the beneficiaries of that system. Remember the famous Bush adage 'if you are not with us, you are against us' and that is what was used by Shaukat and Musharraf when they were in power.
Only they made it much worse then what our so-called mentors from the west wanted us to do. So how does one counter (cheat behaviour) from the top-most, whether from the political or other sector? Should one take it as it comes? Then what is the use of having grey matter. Remember East Pakistan and what happened to them and remember (One) unit and what happened to it. The centralisation of power is against the grain of the 21st century.
What is parliamentary privilege and where does it end or for that matter how did it start? One will have to go to the James I Parliament to understand what that is all about. Then one will have to see the Cromwell era and how it ended with the separation of his head by the woodcutter, or come nearer home and see how the East Pakistan debacle took place? Or examine the real reason for the East Pakistan State acquisition and Tenancy Act and see what were the consequences of such action.
The life one has led is full of exponential experiences. They teach one hard lessons and if one chooses to ignore, one does so at one's peril. What then is the minister's privilege and where does it start and where does it end? Is he the last man or the first man to do this? Why should he have fag boys brought in to do his bidding? Where is the privilege of the elected representative and do we have Parliamentary Procedures written down or should it be the law of the jungle?
For someone who may not be present or who is vilified, what is the recourse? Is the privilege linked to being in a meeting of the parliamentary committees, even if the position is untenable? Who will give a fair deal to the lowliest, forget the high and the mighty. Is not the elected representative there because of the immense strength that he enjoys in his constituency? Is he not duty-bound to do well by the many?
Is his function not to be for his personal benefit? Does he not have to starve to fight for the rights of his constituency? Or shall he be allowed to live on the fat of the land? Should false and wrong assertions not be challenged? Why demigods should be allowed to make whatever they want to about their areas thinking that this is their last chance and why should they push their own agenda?
There is much that has to be done? Is the ego of the elected representative more important than the rights of the few or the many? Should Musharraf have been allowed out? What of the hatchet man Shaukat Aziz, should he not be accountable? After all he was elected unopposed? Should Kohen be asked to write on Parliamentary procedures or should we go on as we are?
Who will do the difficult work? Not the janitors from the West? Not the hit men from the West? What is the role of scepticism and the manner in which it is utilised to vilify the decent and the support of the indecent?
Disturbing questions, and the answers are not there. There is never an easy answer! Will financial money develop this country? Will these monkeys be able to get any help from the USA and from the K-L arrangements? So far, the janitors have used it for travel and meetings in far-off places. They have promised much and given little.
Instead they have made arrangements to make Pakistan's industry non-competitive. Their purpose is sinister. What is the price that Pakistan is paying for the stupidities of the M-S [Musharraf-Shaukat] actions? Why did the politicians tolerate them? Where were their guts at that time?
What of the future? Where do we stand? We stand nowhere! We stand nowhere because we have lost our will to fight social systems that are self-destructive! We can tell the great job that we are doing thanks to the Planning Commission and its Johnnies. But these very Johnnies have been guilty of manipulation and wrongdoing. Do you know how many personnel there are in the Planning Commission? How many personnel are wrong footing this country?
Have they ever been held accountable for what they have done? You show me a face and I will show you what decision will come through. Yet the culture is egoistic. The higher a monkey goes the more you see of it. Guess and let this riddle be for you. These guys do not know how to be independent? How to use their brains?
Are we an ally of the West-bullshit? M-S made sure. We are fags. Take a back seat and try and drive this country on their bidding? We have messed it all up? Take a visit elsewhere. Take a visit to the moon for all one cares, but the governance will have to be here. I am telling all those guys who have falsely asserted for whatever reasons that the truth will be out sooner rather than later. At that time, the holes in the socks need not be shown.