Faliures of OIC & Recommemdations

OIC – 40 years of failure



THE Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) completed 40 years of its existence last week. It was set up in Rabat, Morocco on September 25, 1969, in reaction to an arson attack on Al-Aqsa Mosque on August 21, 1969, in Al-Quds, carried out by an Israeli.

The meeting was the first unified expression of the Muslim Ummah of its determination to safeguard its interests, speak with one voice and ensure the progress and well being of the Muslims in the world.

It took an organised shape in March 1970, setting up a secretariat in Jeddah and appointing a secretary-general as its head. Two years later, a charter was adopted demonstrating that the OIC`s purpose was to strengthen solidarity and cooperation among Islamic states in all fields.

OIC members represent 22 per cent of the world population, have 2 per cent of the world`s GDP, 1.3 per cent of the world trade and only 1.5 per cent of the investments. Twenty five per cent of OIC population does not have access to medical facilities or safe drinking water.

Half of the population lives below the poverty line classified as the most poor. No Muslim country is in the top list of the Human Development Index or in any other global economic indicators.

This depressing picture of the Islamic countries is not limited to the economic and social spheres, in the realm of education and technology the facts are equally disappointing.

The OIC member countries possess 70 per cent of the world`s energy resources and 40 per cent of available raw material but their GDP is only 5 per cent of the world GDP. Muslim countries miserably lag behind in education and technology.

They produce only 500 PhDs each year as compared to 3,000 in India and 5,000 in the United Kingdom. None of their educational or research institutions or centres of excellence find place in the top 100 in the world.

The last regular summit was held in Putrajaya, Malaysia, in 2003. Under the dynamic leadership of Mahathir Mohammad, the OIC`s performance was judged as unsatisfactory. He identified political inertia, economic underdevelopment, lack of democracy and unrepresentative governments as examples of the malaise afflicting the OIC.

The summit therefore, decided to craft a strategy to suggest reform and restructuring. A commission was set up to draw appropriate recommendations and a special summit was held at Makkah in December 2005 to examine these recommendations.

The Makkah Summit took stock of the OIC`s performance over the previous years and identified its weaknesses and shortcomings.

The Makkah summit made an intensive analysis and issued an ambitious plan of action for the next decade. However, as has been the history in the past, these summits and their declarations are long on promises and short on delivery.

The Makkah Declaration referred to the need for a “fresh vision” to turn the tide in the face of the external threats that have helped exacerbate the Ummah`s current plight and called for a plan for the future of the Ummah. The summit urged the member states to “focus on good governance, wider political participation, establish rule of law, protect human rights, apply social justice, transparency, fight corruption and build civil society institutions”.

The OIC today has 57 Muslim member-states and has held 10 summits in response to the challenges confronting the Muslim world. Since its establishment, the Islamic world has suffered five major catastrophes which have reduced it to almost a non-factor in international politics.

The break up of Pakistan through armed intervention by India in 1971 , the invasion of Lebanon by Israel in 1982, the Iran-Iraq war, Soviet intervention in Afghanistan and the US occupation of Iraq, have dealt a mortal blow to the unity, dignity and sovereignty of the Muslim world.

The OIC has failed to respond meaningfully to any of these crises or demonstrate any unity of thought and action apart from issuing high-sounding declarations at the end of each summit. Nothing was done to contain the crises or avert the tragedies. The OIC remained merely a silent spectator.

The Muslim world has abjectly failed to grasp the demands and requirements of the 21st century. The absolute need to introduce and embrace modern technology has not dawned on its leaders, reflecting their distressing intellectual poverty.

Pakistan`s suggestion to establish a multi-billion dollar fund for the promotion of science and technology did not receive support from the GCC countries, who alone could establish or run this multi-faceted fund.

Pakistan has made some extremely useful proposals to lift the Islamic world out of its present dilemmas.

The suggestions related to (i) an institutional mechanism for conflict prevention and resolution with member states; (II) a network of centres of excellence in science and technology; (iii) establishment of a permanent forum of Islamic thought to provide guidance and opinion; (iv) allocation of adequate financial resources to implement these proposals; (v) allocation of at least 0.5 per cent of the GDP by the member states for implementing OIC objectives; and (vi) a dedicated department in the OIC secretariat for promoting intra-OIC trade.

The OIC has set up a number of institutions to help in capacity building, knowledge networking in areas of knowledge-driven economy, trade and investments, ICT, quality and productivity, sustainable development, governance and poverty alleviation but to date have no achievement to their credit.

Unless OIC members are willing to face the present challenges boldly and demonstrate political will to assert their role in the world affairs, the OIC will continue to fail its members. The current crisis between the West and the world of Islam is yet another opportunity for the OIC to prove its relevance by playing a constructive role by building bridges through an informed dialogue between Islam and other faiths.

Courtesy : Dawn

Procrastination is the thief of time

The quote by Edward Young has carved itself a place on both literal and metaphorical grounds. Procrastination simply means putting off today’s task to a future date. The notion is further strengthened that the time, not valued today, is lost forever and if something is not done at the right time; it might never be done again. It prevails in all social, moral and political areas as time and tide wait for none.

Take care of today’s urgency, unless it may turn to tomorrow’s emergency.

 A little hole in a boat, if not looked into, grows so big to save it. Likewise a little fire, if not controlled immediately develops into a huge conflagration in a few hour’s time. Such are the consequences of procrastination. On the political front, the current socio-economic situation of Pakistan is the glaring example in this regard. Country is wrought with a chronic energy and water crisis, rampant inflation, deteriorating law and order situation, a debt crisis-all a consequence of not addressing problems on time and procrastination on part of successive governments. French Revolution is a case where people miseries were not addressed and mass protests grow so big that changed the entire scenario of French politics and the society gave a new turn and twist to the future events. The great Mughals were also the victim of procrastination. The same Mughal dynasty noted for her triumphs and awe, was no more owing to neglect to their routine affairs and deep slumber.

Procrastinators themselves put obstacles in the path that sabotage their performance; it is not an untamable beast but a habit that one can overcome through personal mastery and will power. Procrastination, indeed, is the thief of the time, energy, self esteem and justice. There are many means to be a loser in life but the surest is procrastination.

The march of civilization has largely depended on the timely action of man. How much does the world owe to its great explorers, navigators and mountain climbers? Who face the wrath of nature and fury of the elements in order to satisfy their inner urge of timely action. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Louis Pasteur, John Brown and Florence Nightingale are noted figures in this regard.

Poverty (English Passage for CSS/PMS)

by Khurram Pervaiz

Poverty, the state of having little or no money and few or no material possessions, is a social malice; an evil that erodes into the very foundations of a country, slowly but incessantly. As described the mother of all evils, poverty breeds corruption, terrorism, social intolerance and a never ending spate of many other social vices that cause the socio-economic fabric of the society to be frayed. It is an untamed beast, a sphinx riddle and a maze that leads to a blind alley. Since the dawn of time, man has been employing different means to make a dent into the scourge of poverty. From Plato to Machiavelli and from Adam Smith to Karl Marx, all the prominent economic maestros have presented various means and methods to settle the issue of poverty for once and for all, but unfortunately all these attempts were in vain. Neither laissez faire nor socialist economy has found the solution of the ever increasing poverty. Poverty is a worldwide phenomenon. It is an octopus that has made inroads in even the most industrialised nations of the world. Pakistan was founded with an altruistic aim of providing social, religious, economic and political justice to the masses. Though religion is considered to be the main driving force behind the formation of Pakistan, the factor of economy can never be ignored (glossed over). Our Quaid once said to the his party leader before the formation of Pakistan,

“I have seen the villages of India. There is extreme poverty over there. If Pakistan is going to be like this then i don’t need Pakistan.”

This quotation of our quaid underscores the importance of economy in his conception of Pakistan. But unfortunately with the untimely death of our beloved quaid, opportunist landlords have saddled into the seat of power and authority. These big foots, started gobbling the assets of our beloved country in connivance of junta rules. On other hand, India after its independence followed the path of mixed economy under the patriarchal rule of Nehru and now it is reaping the benefits of thriving economy. Whereas, in Pakistan, the difference between the haves and the have-nots is increasing day by day. So called leaders have adopted different quixotic policies to curb the menace of poverty. Starting from the infamous “Trickle-Down” theory of Mehboob-ul-Haq to the mass privatization of the Musharaff’s era, all the economic policies have failed to trickle down the flavour of monetary benefits to the lower strata of the economy. Instead all these policies further screwed down the importunate Jobs of the society. Islam forbids one to accumulate more money than one’s need and commands to spend the money on the poor and needy of the society. The mammoth of poverty can be easily tamed if the rich and the affluent of the society strictly adhere to the commandments of Allah Almighty. We should always remember that Allah says that there is a severe chastisement for those who store up gold and silver without spending it in the way of Allah, on the needy ones of the society.

 Charm Strikes the Eye but Merit Wins the Soul

- Comprehensive Note CSS by Khurram Pervaiz

“My wealth let sons and brethren part. Some things they can’t share: my work well done and my virtual soul ------- they are my own to wear.”- Geber

This maxim throws light on one of the greatest truths of human life. Beauty, wealth and physical makeup are only skin deep, though they attract the eye at the first sight, yet they are evanescent in character and likely to vapour away with the ravages of time. It is the purity of soul, the goodness of heart, the merit of one’s oars that have everlasting impressions in the lives and hearts of the other people. Abraham Lincoln was a man of rustic charm.  Having been born and bred in the open skies of Kentucky; he had neither the physical charm nor the financial capital to attract the sights and sounds of his countrymen. But his heart was pure and was based on the unwavering dedication for meritocracy and hardwork, through which he pulled his country and countrymen out of the bane of slavery and civil strife. He took the American flag to victory not because of his physical charms but because of the merit of his soul. Similiarly, Hazrat Bilal (RA) was an ebony slave with neither the physical charm nor the financial strong-arm, yet be became the first “Moazzan” of Islam and rose to the pinnacle of glory in the environs of Islamic history. In the same way, a beautiful woman can attract her husband for some time, but to make this marriage a successful venture, her beauty should be backed by her good nature and qualities. Someone has rightly said that marry a woman not for her beauty, but for her nature and good qualities. Unfortunately this world has given into apparent beauty and people are judged not according to the merit of their souls, but their apparent beauty and financial position. The world has forgotten that appearances are often deceptive and things are not what they seen. The world is full of “goodly apples rotten at the core”, and new generally judged more from appearances than from reality because they do not possess penetrating eyes. Same goes for modern civilization which is skin deep only and on scratching its inwardly monster will come out.

Politicians vs bureaucracy

Safdar Javaid Syed DMG

A leading analyst who regularly contributes to this newspaper recently commented that "the bureaucracy has its own share of grievances. It thinks that MPAs interfere in everything and insist on their wish being acted upon without consideration of merit or rules. Sadly, a culture of personal favours has not allowed the accountability role of the political process to emerge. The political class has no deep-rooted desire to change the system. It is comfortable with its advocacy role and has little yearning to assume extra responsibility of becoming a decision-maker."
These observations need a deeper and objective analysis, for two reasons. Firstly, because the described tension between the two segments of our nation leads to many governance problems and, secondly, because these assertions come from a person who is a distinguished former bureaucrat as well as a former politician and it can be safely stipulated that he is aware of grassroots realities.
In the bureaucratic culture, if a colleague or a friend asks for a favour or wants a task performed, isn't such a request usually granted? A safe presumption would be that the requested favour was not above the rules and did not involve bending or twisting of any law. But what happens if an identical request comes from an MPA or MNA? What is a fair request in the case of a friend becomes a highly improper demand when it comes from a politician.
And talking of corruption, do we have a reliable repository of data on this subject? What would be the approximate percentage of corrupt or dishonest politicians? What approximately is the financial and physical extent of their corruption? How many of them seek personal favours and of what nature? Conversely, what are the corresponding percentages amongst the bureaucracy?
In the article published on July 17, 2009, it has been lamented that "in most statutory laws, and rules of business that determine how the government functions, the decision-making powers have been specifically vested in various bureaucratic positions and the politicians or the parliament do not figure anywhere."
This is not a factual assertion because the Constitution and the law even today recognise the prime minister as chief executive of the country. Similarly, a chief minister of a province is the chief executive.
In the parliamentary form of government, the statutory laws do not have to specifically vest the politicians with executive functions. It is the prime minister (or a chief minister) who exercises all executive authority and the federal or provincial cabinet share this legal responsibility jointly. That is why the Rules of Business (Federal or Provincial) do not mention the ministers as the executive head of their ministries or departments. And that is why the laws enacted by the legislatures or statutes passed by the Assemblies do not mention the politicians or ministers as decision-makers.
As we all know, an extremely important and crucial role has always been played by the ECC in Pakistan. Similar is the case of Cabinet Committee on Privatization (CCOP). The Cabinet Committees as well as the Parliamentary Committees are political fora but are assigned important administrative decision-making.
So far as the Rules of Business are concerned, a minister has been assigned the responsibility of formulating the policy as well as for the conduct of the business of his department. A minister can definitely play an important role if he is allowed the freedom to do so (and if the rival institutions limit themselves to their described and legal role). It goes to the credit of a politician from Sahiwal who in the mid-1980s was minister for education in Punjab and who introduced the merit-based system for admissions to educational institutions. His initiative was fully backed and supported by the-then chief minister of Punjab who surrendered his own discretionary admission quotas for all educational institutions. The governor did the same. And even today a major policy initiative of the late Chaudhry Mumtaz of Sahiwal holds, and rather become a country-wide phenomenon.
The basic issue of governance in Pakistan is that of perceptions and attitudes. In our existence as a nation-state so far, various institutions and organs of governance have been acting to interfere in matters falling in the jurisdiction of others. This decidedly is the moment when the interface between the politicians and the bureaucracy should be redefined. However, this exercise should start with a basic but essential premise: that governance and policymaking belong to the people and their elected representatives. And the politicians have to be afforded a chance to function! If a toddler is made to slip every time he tries to stand up and walk, he will never learn to walk with natural ease. That toddler, to borrow Mr Shafqat Mahmood's phraseology, will not have any deep-rooted desire to stand up and walk. He will be comfortable with his crawling and toddling, with little desire to assume the extra responsibility of walking. In our beloved country the politician deserves a break. Constantly pointing an accusing finger at this toddler will be of little help. To quote Khalil Gibran; "Pity the nation divided into fragments, each fragment deeming itself a nation."