Why taxes are not a political issue in Pakistan?

Note: I sent this piece of writing to all the newspapers one by one; none bothered to see it or use it, that I am justified to conclude!

Why taxes are not a political issue in Pakistan?

All the politics is about collecting and spending taxes; but unfortunately that reality does not translate into political issues in Pakistan.

What it translates into is power-politics pure and simple! See the arrogant issueless politics of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf; see the pseudo-development politics of Pakistan Muslim League (N); see the outdated Roti-Kapra-Makaan politics of Pakistan Peoples Party (P); see the identity-less politics of Awami National Party; and also see the self-centered religious politics of Jamat-e-Islami, Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Islam (F). At the end of the day, all of their politics is about seeking power and state-benefits; or it is politicking on pseudo-issues ranging from anti-Americanism and pro-Palestine rallies to this or that religious or sectarian wrangling.

The political parties of Pakistan never ever take up any issue which directly concerns the ordinary citizens; such as the cruel state-machinery; deplorable conditions of social services; police brutalities; unavailability of prompt justice; protection of life and property, and most importantly taxes. For the last 68 years, these parties are constantly trying to protect “democracy,” which in fact is in danger by the very politics of the same political parties. And this “democracy” has delivered nothing to the people, but the crumbs.

Likewise, no political party minds the imposition of a new tax or an increase in an already existing tax; since they would be following the same practice while in the government. Probably for the same reason, no political party makes an issue of the taxes imposed, taxes increased or unjustified taxation. They may be objecting and debating it, now and then, in the national or provincial assemblies and resorting to a cosmetic walk-out or a boycott; however, they would never make it a political issue and educate their voters. Are they not the representatives of the people, who are required to take care of their interests? Or they are not the true representatives of the people!

For instance, take the case of Withholding Tax (0.3 % and 0.6 %) levied in this year’s budget. It got through the parliament smoothly; the opposition, a very active for that matter, having taken no notice of it. Only the middle-level traders, who are an organized community, and whom this tax affects directly, have come out against it. The other sections of society, which are not organized, such as pensioners, widows, ordinary savers, National Savings’ customers, it seems have no voice. It is in this context that question arises on the legitimacy of the role of the representatives sitting in the parliament. One must ask: Whose interests they are supposed to protect? And, whose interests they are protecting?

Crueler than this Withholding Tax, there is another arbitrary and unjust tax imposed years back on cash withdrawals from banks. Without any justification and starkly against the principles of taxation, it too penalizes those who use banking channels. Ironically, this tax also defies its purpose, i.e. promoting of banking channels and thus formal economy.

Isn’t is surprising and at the same time instructive that no parliamentarian and no politician or no political party took up the case of Withholding Tax on cash withdrawals and spoke against it let alone making it a political issue! Also, no court bothered to take “suo motto” notice of it. The same is happening as far as the Withholding Tax on all the banking instruments is concerned. No political party is ready to make it a political issue. They announced their support for the traders and sympathized with their cause; but that’s part of their power-politics!

As is the case, all the taxes ultimately trickle down to the end-consumers. Is it the reason no political party make them a political issue in which case they are not the true representatives of the people. But for the same reason, all the political parties must make the taxes a political issue in which case they may come to truly represent the people. Are the political parties of Pakistan are ready to play role of the true representatives of the people? Or they are there to vouch for their own special Ashraafi interests? Then the people must not vote them in power!

What the political parties are doing in hospitals!

Pakistan is a criminally horrible state. Read the whole story, published in The Express Tribune on September 15, 2015:

Minister directs hospitals to remove political parties' offices

KARACHI: Sindh health minister Jam Mehtab Dahar has directed the managements of all public hospitals in the city to remove the offices of political parties from their premises, ordering them not to take any pressure while taking action against them.

The major public hospitals, including Civil Hospital, Karachi (CHK), Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre (JPMC), Abbasi Shaheed Hospital, National Institute of Child Health and National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, until now, housed the offices of various political parties that enjoyed influence in the area where the facility was located.

“These should be hospitals, not offices of political parties,” he directed the officials. The minister has also asked them to immediately remove political slogans, banners, pamphlets and other such materials from these institutions.

Most of the time, the paramedical staff affiliated with these political parties harass doctors and is involved in different administrative matters. “They threaten the doctors when a complaint is registered against them. The administration, on the other hand, doesn’t take any action because of their political support,” said a doctor at CHK, who wished not be named.

Appreciating the health minister’s orders, the doctor said that it will also be beneficial for patients. “They charge money from needy patients and also occupy some rooms in the hospitals,” he added. “It is the prime responsibility of public hospitals to provide better facilities of treatment to patients, who should feel comfortable when they visit the facilities,” said Dahar in the meeting.

The doctors, especially female staff of the hospitals, say that political involvement in hospitals creates a strange environment, disturbing the professional environment for them.

“The paramedics affiliated with political parties do not perform their duties regularly,” said a female staff of the JPMC, adding that graffiti on hospital walls creates an ugly atmosphere for staff and patients. The minister’s direction comes four days after a letter was circulated by the CHK medical superintendent, Saeed Quraishy, ordering political parties to vacate the premises as directed by the law enforcement agencies, with further intimation to the 61 Wing, Abdullah Shah Ghazi Rangers.

Link to the news item: http://tribune.com.pk/story/956857/free-from-politics-minister-directs-hospitals-to-remove-political-parties-offices/

A depoliticized Pakistan on the rampage

The pivot of politics is always seeking power, so that a political party is able, so to say, to implement its program on the basis of which it wins voters’ mandate. That’s an ideal statement of an ideal polity! In reality it doesn’t happen like that. There are betrayals, treacheries, and opportunism on the part of political parties. There is perennial interference, for instance in the case of Pakistan, by the players who are external to the political realm but are always intent upon unleashing political instability and uncertainty in the country. Also, there are other elements different from both of the above, who now and then venture to seek power but in non-political ways. For such elements the society of Pakistan has always proved unimaginably fertile. That’s what may be termed a depoliticized Pakistan!

Let’s try to understand what it is that’s called being depoliticized! In Pakistan, everyone who has a bit of interest in politics knows well a term, Political Apathy, the usual use of which stopped probably after the Lawyers’ Movement (2007-09); though the Apathy still exists. Maybe because it’s that Movement that refreshed the interest of the people in the political affairs of the country! Prior to that, the term, Political Apathy, stood to mean people’s insensitiveness to matters political, and it was also argued that it was this factor which kept the voter turnout in Pakistan too low.

As far as causes of the Political Apathy are concerned, one is more important than others. First, regardless of the fact which party is in power, no civilian political government ever tried to deliver, so people became impervious to whatever was happening in the political arena. They turned to themselves and to their homes. Here it may be of interest to point out that with the introduction of “Development Politics” in the nineties, the credit of which goes to Pakistan Muslim League-N, the interest of the people in politics got a boost at least in Punjab. The Development Politics, however, did not succeed in changing the political paradigm; it’s too slow to make inroads. It’s in the general elections of May 2013 that the construction of Metro Bus Service may be said to have PML-N won the vote from Lahore.

Indeed, presently there is no talk of Political Apathy; but that doesn’t mean there is none, it is there. The voter turnout in the last elections is 55%. But the argument of the present writer does not base on the concept of Political Apathy. It lays its whole emphasis on the notion of a depoliticized citizenry of Pakistan. It may both be non-political and/or anti-political. The concept of Political Apathy is altogether different from the notion of a depoliticized citizenry. The Political Apathy is a reaction from the people to a fruitless and barren politics. It leaves politics on its own; it withdraws its interest from such politics. In contrast to that, a depoliticized citizenry is something very dangerous; simply because it overrides politics. It outdates politics; it predates politics. It does not lose its interest in politics; rather it is overwhelmingly interested in politics. However, it’s concept of politics is sort of unique. It’s sort of a supra-politics.

As in Political Apathy, people are least interested in what’s happening in the political realm; a depoliticized citizenry is most interested in whatever is happening and may happen both in the present and the future political realms. The overriding interest of a depoliticized citizenry is more fatal for a society and its state than the insensitivity of a politically apathetic citizenry. A depoliticized citizenry may destroy and dismantle whatever political culture a society enjoys and whatever political structure a state consists of and stands on. Since a politically apathetic citizenry has nothing to do with politics, it may damage it in an indirect manner; whereas a depoliticized citizenry positively and intentionally damages the polity of the country.

In a nutshell, a politically apathetic citizenry is indifferent to whoever seeks power and whoever comes in power, it knows it’s not going to change their fate. A depoliticized citizenry, as it is ardently and desperately interested in politics, does not believe in seeking power through political means; it derives its inspiration from an imagined future. It is in this sense, that it is said to be depoliticized. It is the essence of depoliticized elements, whatever their form is: they always seek power hungrily and seek it in non-political ways. As a matter of principle, political elements, their betrayals, treacheries, and opportunism aside, somehow come to believe in political ways while seeking political power. As against this, depoliticized elements are naked power seekers; they want power at any cost by any means. That’s their substance and hallmark as well.

One more explanation may help understand the nature of a depoliticized Pakistan the politics of which is being witnessed in the shape of Imran Khan (Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf), Tahir-ul-Qadri (Pakistan Awami Tehreek), Chaudhry Shujat Hussain and Pervaiz Elahi (Pakistan Muslim League-Q), Sheikh Rashid Ahmad (Awami Muslim League). They are all seeking power in non-political ways, whatever their excuses and slogans are. In fact, it is all the martial laws which veritably nursed such power seekers. They crafted ever newer ways for non-political power seekers; and opened a whole new world for such non-political politicians. In addition, a constituency for such politics also emerged. That created a depoliticized Pakistan, which think and act non-politically. It derides politics. Some of the political parties learned a lesson or two not to seek power in non-political ways; but there is no dearth of newcomers and the old stalwarts who are still clinging to the old habits of seeking power. 

Imran Khan’s would have proved to be a promising party for the politically apathetic citizens also, had it gone for seeking power in a political manner. Unfortunately it has opted for an alignment with a depoliticized Pakistan, which believes in non-political ways only. Political problems require political solutions. Likewise, in seeking political power in non-political ways, one party may succeed, but in the process what damage it wreaks to the state and society it may never realize. Now it is PTI which represents a depoliticized Pakistan; it’s strengthening it also. It’s on the rampage to destroy a political Pakistan, it must come back to! 

Note: This article was completed on October 1, and was originally posted in November 2014.

Charter of Democracy’s half truth

As the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf and Pakistan Awami Tehreek launched this August 14 their “Azadi March” and “Inqilab March” respectively, and then undertook the Sit-Ins (Dharnas) in Islamabad; day by day it was increasingly perceived as a deadly threat to political constitutional set-up prevailing in the country. With worsening law and order situation in the capital including the fears of occupation of state buildings by the marchers, the fear of military intervention loomed large on the political horizon. However, in the face of it something very surprising took place: All the political parties sitting in the parliament reposed and reiterated their complete confidence in the current political set-up, including the government, rejected the marchers’ calls for prime minister’s resignation, dissolution of national and provincial assemblies, and holding of mid-term elections. More to it, bar associations and civil society organizations throughout the country supported the cause of the continuation of the current political constitutional set-up. Finally the Supreme Court also judged that all the institutions and authorities of the state must work remaining within their constitutional domains.

That’s unprecedented for the long checkered polity of Pakistan. Somehow all the political elements, except the protesting ones, out of which the PAT has no representation in the parliament, have put their weight on the side of the constitution ruling out any military adventure. Symbolically, it’s the victory of the Charter of Democracy, which Nawaz Sharif (Pakistan Muslim League-N) and Benazir Bhutto (Pakistan Peoples Party) signed in May 2006. However, it is strictly a political victory, which may or may not translate into something concrete for the individual citizens of Pakistan.

A look at the Charter of Democracy may reveal the political contours of the tale: It lists the following maladies that afflict Pakistan: Political crisis; Threats to its survival; Erosion of the federation's unity;  Military's subordination of all state institutions;  Marginalization of civil society; Mockery of the Constitution and representative institutions; Growing poverty, unemployment and inequality; Brutalization of society; Breakdown of rule of law; and, Unprecedented hardships facing our people under a military dictatorship.

After listing the afflictions, the Charter of Democracy proposed an “alternative direction” for the country characterized by the following: Economically sustainable; Socially progressive; Politically democratic and pluralist; Federally cooperative; Ideologically tolerant; Internationally respectable; Regionally peaceful; and, Resting of the sovereign right with the people to govern through their elected representatives.

In no way, anything agreed in the Charter of Democracy by the two larger political parties related to any aspect of the fundamental rights of the individual citizens of Pakistan. Revisit the Charter of Democracy and note its essential political character, which may be interpreted if not in an anti-citizen manner, necessarily not in a pro-citizen way either. Hence, what the Charter of Democracy agreed at achieving in 2006, it has achieved at this moment a substantial political part of it in 2014. Notwithstanding the fears that the rallying of the major political parties behind the demands of the constitutional rule and continuity, and against the PAT / PTI’s calls of winding up of the political system may evaporate tomorrow or day after tomorrow.

In view of the above analysis, every sane person would love to support the present constitutional political set-up and its continuation; however, at the same time he may wish it translate into the realistic availability of the fundamental rights for each and every individual. As the Supreme Court has observed (August 22): If the protesters are exercising their rights; other citizens’ too have their rights, which must not be encroached by them.

Now, it may be summed up that Charter of Democracy is half the Truth for the individual citizens; the other half of the Truth lies in another charter, a charter of individual citizen’s fundamental rights. It was this spirit in which I responded to the Charter of Democracy, and wrote a Charter of Liberty in September 2007, which sought to present a solution to the myriad problems and unimaginable sufferings faced by the ordinary people of Pakistan. The Charter of Liberty presented not only a critique of the Charter of Democracy but also offered an independent Charter of Liberty for individual citizens so that their personal freedom and fundamental rights may be secured.

In contrast to The Charter of Democracy’s Political Spirit which has manifested itself now in a constitutional consensus across the political horizon, The Charter of Liberty tries to imbibe the Individual Spirit which permeates the fundamental rights and their daily formulations in various situations. The individual citizens must rise to the occasion so that they are able to secure their personal freedom and fundamental rights against the onslaught of the unruly political elements.

Here are some of the demands, the Charter of Individual Citizens’ Fundamental Rights includes: We the individual citizens of Pakistan hold: That of all freedoms, individual freedom is of foremost importance; and that without it, all freedoms, be they political, economic, religious, etc., are useless; That without individual freedom, Pakistan can never be transformed into a virtuous society since it is individual freedom that allows people to make choices on their own and thus to be responsible for their choices and their consequences also; That the above amounts to saying that every individual citizen is endowed with certain inalienable rights such as right to life and liberty; That every individual citizen is free to pursue a life of his choice and liking until and unless he trespasses on such freedom of other individual citizen/s; That in the case of any trespassing, the trespasser, be it a citizen or a group or a political party or an institution or government itself, is to be dealt in accordance with the law.

That the inalienable rights include among other things the freedom of speech and writing, freedom of assembly and association, freedom of professing and practicing any philosophy, ideology, religion etc. and freedom of propagating it by peaceful means only; That the inalienable rights include freedom of movement, freedom of trade, freedom of business, freedom of profession, etc. That amounts to saying that the only justified function of government is to protect its citizens life, their income and property, and their rights and freedoms from those who seek to usurp them be they are local or foreign individuals, groups of individuals, political parties, or institutions or government itself.

That, if there is no rule of law, and no independent judiciary, even a parliamentary government can never come up to the expectations of its citizens, i.e. cannot protect their life, liberty and property; and, That without an independent judiciary, justice can never be accessible to each individual citizen, and a just society can never be created. Thus, through this Charter the citizens’ Fundamental Rights not only in the political realm but in daily life situations, as is happening in Islamabad and elsewhere, may also be secured.

Note: This article was completed on August 25 and was originally posted in September 2014.