Refresh to view the
latest page
'Meritocracy' should replace 'Democracy'-letter3
This is with reference to the editorial on the
subject. The views expressed by the editor are
visionary and no example of this type of selection
can be found anywhere in the world. Putting up
criteria for choosing the office holders (in public
or private sectors) has been a norm across the
world. We can hold interviews for people we are
going to hire, short list them and then appoint.
But for the politicians it is only and just
electoral process which is considered best to choose
because the politicians are, in real words, our
rulers not the servants and thanks to modern world
that we are also in a position to choose or elect
our rulers. Now the difference between servants and
rulers should be clear.
Suppose! we have a chance to evaluate the
candidature of the politicians the question arises
that who will show unprecedented honesty while in
the process. We can say that there will be a
commission comprising good people. Is the UN so
trust worthy to give us what we need? Are the good
people the world body is formed of from another
planet?
A commission can judge visible abilities of a
candidate like qualification, communication skill,
track record or so on but not the invisible such as
honesty, intentions etcetera. The head of the UN
Commission will be hailing from western country and
never be expected to recommend a candidate having
views contrary to what the west feels. A man
fulfilling the western criteria will never be able
to solve our problems as the nature of our
conditions contradicts with the former.
Pakistan has already been a platform of
experimenting with regards to governance.
Democracies, military, Basic Democracy, military
backed democracy, presidential, parliamentary
democracy are the few examples we have had in our
country since its birth. If all bore no fruit the
last one also could not be guaranteed.
So where does the solution lie? A long, mature and
strengthened political system based on popular
accountability will give us a capable and sincere
leadership. Let the present political system go on
and say to your military to refrain from politics.
The political institutions will get maturity; new
people will be joining the arena, the timely and
consecutive polling will introduce the mechanism of
accountability and the voter will have right more
options for election.
Though no system in all over the world is considered
yet ideal but the most popular one is what mentioned
in above lines. Politicians not to be solely blamed
for bad governance as our military didn’t lose any
rare chance to destabilize the political system of
the country. Pakistan is passing through a period as
Europe did some hundred years earlier. The political
system is strengthened in India because India has a
professional army focused on its constitutional
responsibilities. It is high time for Pakistani
military to reconsider and for us to wait and give
some time to our political system to last and not to
go into further experimentation.
Ejaz Ahmed
Islamabad.
15 June 09.
'Meritocracy' should replace 'Democracy'-letter2
Democracy
has two faces around the world. One is called
Parliamentary form of government that has been
implemented by Great Britain and thus the former
colonies of Britain accepted this form of Democracy.
The other form of Democracy is the one that has been
applied by the US. Let me summarize the whole system
of US Government here.
The federal US government has three branches: the
legislative, executive, and judicial.
Legislative branch:
* The United States Congress is the legislative
branch of the federal government. It comprises of
o the House of Representatives and
o the Senate.
* The House of Representatives consists of 435
voting members, each of whom represents a district
and serves for a two-year term. House seats are
apportioned among the states by population. In
contrast, each state has two Senators, regardless of
population. Senators serve six-year terms. One third
of the Senate stands for election every two years.
* Each house in the congress has exclusive powers.
The Senate must give "advice and consent" to all
important appointments made by the President of US.
The House must introduce any bills for the purpose
of raising revenue. However, the consent of both
chambers is required to make any law.
* The most important powers exercised by these two
houses collectively called “congress”, are
preparation of budget and allocation of budget. All
matters relating to spending of money are exercised
by these houses and the president has to ask to
allocate funds for any cause and he cannot of
himself spent a single penny. The other important
power is the investigation committees, who
frequently summon the state ministers and other
appointees and grill them over matters of
importance.
* Only the congress has power to levy any kind of
tax, the president cannot levy tax. Congress has the
power to declare war in any kind, like insurgency or
guerrilla war etc.
Executive Branch
Executive powers are vested in the President of the
United States. The President and Vice President are
elected directly by the people of electoral colleges
that are portions of districts represented in the
congress. The president has no power to dissolve the
congress.
The President makes around 2,000 executive
appointments, including members of the Cabinet and
ambassadors, which must be approved by the Senate.
The members of the President's Cabinet are
responsible for administering the various
departments of state (ministries as in Pakistan),
including the Department of Defense, the Justice
Department, and the State Department. These
departments and department heads have considerable
regulatory and political power, and it is they who
are responsible for executing federal laws and
regulations.
The ministers may not be elected persons and may be
experts of their fields, and may easily be removed.
Conclusion:
As the president is not threatened by the political
parties to withdraw their support etc as in Pakistan
or India, he is free to appoint the best person in
the relevant field, who uses his full experience and
knowledge in the better administration of his
ministry. The president does not have exclusive
power to funds, thus he cannot embezzle the funds.
The president is directly elected by the people of
united states, not like Pakistan where almost 90%
hate the person and eventually through tactics he
becomes the President.
Thus I think that we should adopt the US system of
Democracy if we want to have a government that is
true representative of the people of Pakistan, and
that government will lead us to a developed nation.
Alizay Ali
Sore Laspur, (student Univ of Peshawar)
15 June 09.
'Meritocracy' should replace 'Democracy'-letter
This is
with reference to an idea pasted on the 'My Idea'
page and a subsequent Editorial on the subject
titled 'Paradigm Shift required'. I fully endorse
the idea of replacing 'Democracy' and
'Millitarocracy' with 'Meritocracy'. A successful
experiment has been carried out in Australia
read
the details...
Selecting
people for public offices from the President down to
a local councilor on the basis of merit ascertained
through compatible tests will rid the country
of incompetent politicians becoming incharge of our
affairs, and put an end to our going round and
round in a circle of no joy.
Meritocracy will revive
the trust of our young generation in the state and it's
institutions. It will offer an equal opportunity for
every Pakistani to compete for public offices which
presently are a monopoly of the privileged classes.
What better in opportunities can even the best of
democracies offer to the people than this wonderful
system?.
I feel this is an
excellent and perfectly workable idea and no time
should be wasted in implementing this revolutionary
concept of 'Meritocracy' in the country.
Ahmad Zabar khan,
Chitral.
13 June 09.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------