Tweet
Encore, NOS, The News International
Mian Raza Rabbani does not give himself away so easily. A committed chairman of the Constitutional Reforms Committee who was fortunate enough to see the unanimous passage of the Eighteenth Amendment, he is now chairman of the Implementation Commission. In each capacity, he has literally shirked media. I am twice lucky, as they say. After exactly a year, I meet a fresh Rabbani in his chamber in the parliament house eager to discuss the snags in implementation, the doubts in people’s minds, HEC and a lot more.
A year ago, he justified keeping the affairs of the committee away from media attention because he was aiming for a consensus in the committee. Today, he realises the importance of keeping the channel of communication open -- for the people to understand how the implementation is going to come about. He wants to clarify a lot of things and manages that successfully. Clearly, he does not want to squander a great opportunity that is available to the country, owing a great deal to his own efforts.
Mian Raza Rabbani is in no hurry. He takes time to talk about the anxieties, the fears and, yes, the vested interest. But he would not let the cynics take the country back to the bane of a centralised state. He has worked hard to bring it to a point state where ten ministries have been already devolved and some of the functions of six others “have also been sent down”. He is hopeful that he will see the process through its end.
The News on Sunday: From the euphoria at the time of the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment to the doubts being raised about its implementation, particularly the question of devolution, how do you view the situation?
Mian Raza Rabbani: I would not say there is a dampening of the euphoria. When the Eighteenth Amendment was being enacted, there was the expectancy of something new coming about, there was euphoria particularly in a highly politicised and polarised climate. Now we have entered into a new phase -- of practicality. Since it involves a great deal of minute details, it could become boring for a lot of people.
As a consequence of Eighteenth Amendment what we are witnessing today is one of the greatest structural transformations of Pakistan’s governmental structure since 1947. Obviously that generates a certain amount of anxiety, fear and -- over a period of time, from 1947 to 2008 -- a certain amount of vested interest. That vested interest is not only feeling threatened, it is also beginning to realise that, this time around, parliament means business, and that Eighteenth Amendment is not just meant to be on the statute books.
So I think it is just a change of phase, a new system, when there are bound to be hiccups. We had envisaged these hiccups, but given the political will, these will be sorted out.
It’s a long drawn process. It’s not that on the 30th of June you’ll switch on the button and everything will be hunky dory; even after that there are going to be problems. And as and when the problems occur, the new system will have to come up with its own indigenous solution.
But the commitment of the people and the democratic forces to the Eighteenth Amendment remains the same as it was at the time of its passage.
TNS: You have talked about the ‘vested interest’. The Implementation Commission has also noted that the federal bureaucracy is resisting reform. Tell us more about it?
MRR: In the first meeting with the federal secretaries in Islamabad to get a feel of their pulse after the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment, I was apprehensive. I had thought that the biggest resistance to the amendment will come from the federal secretaries. Much to my surprise, I found out that an overwhelming majority of them [were supportive] and I must take this opportunity to say that those secretaries who are working with the commission have been very accommodative; they facilitated the commission in carrying out its work.
But you have the good with the bad and there are some who have tried to resist; who have fallen back on the old methodology. If you look at the 1973 constitution, some of the articles pertaining to provincial autonomy were a real leap forward. Unfortunately, Islamabad circumvented the interpretation of those articles to suit itself and the storm in the tea cup that we are witnessing today is also, to a certain extent, because of that. Because first they thought that Eighteenth Amendment won’t see the light of day. When that happened, they thought it would remain on the statute books and we will continue to give it the interpretation that we have been doing. When they found that the commission means business, that ten ministries have been devolved and some of the functions of six others have also been sent down, the panic buttons started to ring.
TNS: How does the Implementation Commission work? How are the decisions taken etc.?
MRR: First, I would like to make a clarification that the Commission has no discretionary power. We function under the constitution 270AA and our constitutional mandate is to facilitate the implementation of the Eighteenth Amendment. So we have no discretion. If something is on the concurrent list, it has to go down, we can’t stop that. So this impression that some people have that the Commission is acting on its own or that it can hold back something is wrong.
When the commission sat down initially, on one side we had the concurrent list. We ran through the rules of business of the federal government which specify the functions and the departments and the divisions and we struck those out that were under the concurrent list.
After having done that we have divided various ministries into various phases, and as and when a ministry comes up, we take the minister and the secretaries and if there are any stakeholders on board as to what would be the best methodology of devolution. Once we are through with that, we then get in touch with the provincial government and have the provincial chief secretaries come over, and they have a meeting with the commission along with the respective secretaries of the ministries that are going down to the provinces. We discuss the plan and then the chief secretaries and the provincial secretaries tie up with the concerned federal secretaries. In the meantime, if certain policy decisions are required to be taken, they are then referred back to the commission.
The commission continues to monitor over this process as to how far we have been able to go, whether we are moving along the given timelines or not and then finally say a week short of the deadline, we send across a team from here which consists of officers from the establishment, planning and cabinet divisions. These are the three related divisions that go down to the provinces, see if things are in place or if there are any last minute hitches or snags. They then come back and report to the commission which then tries to iron out any last minute problem. Finally, the summary goes to the cabinet and the cabinet gives its approval.
TNS: How do you see the resignation of Ishaq Dar as deputy chairman of the commission? Is he following the party line or does he have genuine problems with issues like the transfer of employees and distribution of assets to the provinces?
MRR: Ishaq Dar has made a tremendous contribution at the time of the eighteenth and the nineteenth amendment. If his contribution had not been there, I would not hesitate to say that the story may have been different. He was a source of personal strength for me and for the commission as well. He has been involved equally with the implementation process. I would not get into the details but just say that he is on a little bit of furlough.
TNS: There has been a lot of talk about the capacity of provinces and that the devolution should have been incremental. Do you think this was the best way to go about it and that there are enough ainstitutional safeguards in place?
MRR: Yes sure there are. Those who talk of incremental devolution belong to that basic centrist point of view which does not believe in devolution. That is one way to let the matter peter out and the vested interest and the opposition elements get the better of the day.
Also I am of the personal view that the political environment in which we worked and in which the Eighteenth Amendment came about did not afford us the luxury of time. We were working against a timeframe and that was one reason that the parliament was able to achieve a consensus. Parliament, for once, realised the pulse of the people, of the smaller federating units, of the nationalist movements taking place in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The nationalists were saying that even if you gave us all of these [powers], they would not be implemented. These were nationalists who believed in the democratic transition, what to speak of those extremist forces that were not on the Pakistani political scene. What the people are failing to understand is that apart from the paradigm shift, the biggest service that this amendment and the parliament has done is that it viewed the future polity that may have set in and has taken a decision to offset it.
If you look at the international scenario, the movements taking birth in the Middle East, given the level of polarisation amongst the provinces, the polarisation between the provinces and the centre, given the internal situation of terrorism, sectarianism and worsening economic situation, had the Eighteenth Amendment not been there, we would have been ripe and pregnant for a movement of similar nature. Devolution on an incremental level would have been a political non-starter.
TNS: What about the provinces lacking capacity?
MRR: I think that is a fallacy. What was the capacity of the federal government? If you look at the period from 1947 to 2009, what are the fantastic benchmarks that Islamabad has been able to achieve in all of these subjects that are now being devolved? In some cases, it is mediocre; in other cases it is even less than mediocre. The people of Pakistan have not reaped the benefits; the ruling elite, a small coterie of people which is alienated from the common man, may have been able to make itself better. In terms of results, these ministries have not produced anything.
Secondly, most of these ministries have line ministries, such as education, health, women, labour, environment, in the provinces.
Thirdly, for quite some time, a number of foreign donors are carrying out projects with the provincial governments. The capacity issues are there for Islamabad as much as they are for provincial capitals. If responsibility is devolved, capacity will grow. If there is deficiency, capacity will grow. To stave off devolution on the mere excuse of capacity is not correct.
TNS: People are also saying that perhaps only a central mechanism can ensure international agreements, conventions, regarding health, environment etc?
MRR: This is perhaps our lack of communication. There is no problem whatsoever with the international commitments, the international covenants that we have signed or the international projects that are being undertaken.
The procedure is that all foreign funded programmes are routed, according to the rules of business, through the Economics Affairs Division (EAD). The foreign governments and the donors go through the government of Pakistan and the EAD. For the federally-funded programmes, the ministry A that was dealing with it earlier will not be there and that function of the ministry will be looked after exclusively by the EAD. EAD will deal with those foreign projects with the federal government and siphon them down to the provinces. It will monitor and put together the evaluation and will coordinate with the foreign donors regarding the progress on their project and put them in touch with the provinces.
So as far as the international obligations are concerned, there is going to be no disruption and this fear that they would have to run helter skelter to all the four capitals is not correct because they would have a central contact point in Islamabad. Secondly, some of the donors are already in direct touch with provincial governments and carrying out projects. For federal projects, the contact, liason will be done from Islamabad; the implementation will be at the provincial level.
TNS: Now to come to the controversial HEC. What exactly happened there?
MRR: The concurrent list has item 38 which dealt with education. And item 38 had curricula, syllabi, policy, planning and centres of excellence. That meant that any other function with reference to or pertaining with education was a provincial subject. Because paragraph C of clause 1 of article 142 of the constitution, as it was prior to the Eighteenth Amendment, said that those subjects on the three lists, i.e. the federal legislative list part 1 and 2 and the concurrent list fall within the domain of the federal parliament and all other residuary powers rest with the provinces. So in any case, all other functions that Islamabad had usurped in terms of the education were in violation of the constitution. When the Eighteenth Amendment did away with the question of the concurrent list, item 38 also went with it. But in the committee, we took a conscious decision and for the first time we introduced the term higher education. Prior to that, none of the lists had the term higher education. We introduced the term higher education in item 12 of the federal legislative list part 1 and we introduced it with standards of higher education.
When we started the process of devolution of the education ministry, we went through the ordinance of the HEC, and we put the ordinance in juxtaposition to item 12 and we said that all those items (of the HEC ordinance) which do not fall within the purview of item 12 should be sent down to the provinces. And all those items which fall within the purview of item 12 would continue to remain with either the HEC or a body like that.
We called a meeting and invited HEC, they came with a representative group of 12 vice chancellors. We had a detailed meeting with them, we heard their point of view. The constitutional provisions on which the HEC was relying was an interpretation which Islamabad is used to giving. We explained it to them and we gave them a categorical assurance that when we sit down to amend your law, we will again invite you and discuss with you and try and accommodate your point of view. They left and subsequent to that, they decided to do preemptive politics and started to raise a number of concerns which were totally unfounded and false.
The first issue that they raised, despite all our assurances, was that the funding of the universities is going to be stopped. We clarified it to them that look even today the HEC does not raise a single penny. All the funding that the HEC gets is from the federal government. So the federal government is going to continue to meet the deficit and the project cost of the universities. But the only thing that has happened now is that because of the fiscal devolution that is taking place and because of the NFC, instead of the federal government using HEC as the distributing agency, it will be the provincial government [doing that].
Secondly, as you are aware, with the exception of a few universities which have federal charters, all other universities have provincial charters. They have been passed by the provincial assemblies, the governors are their chancellors, and their day-to-day administration is run with the help of the provincial governments. So in any case they already are in touch with them. So we cleared this question.
Then one day they came out with a statement that the last tranche for this financial year has been stopped and that from the 1st of May the employees of the universities are not going to get their salaries. I was told that this was not the case but we still managed to get the tranche released three weeks ahead.
Then they said that the USAID project is being stopped because of the devolution. We told them that no projects are being stopped because of the devolution. Fortunately for us, on April 7 the American embassy here issued a statement which said that neither have we stopped the funding, nor are we thinking of stopping the funding.
Then they created a hype among the students on the internet and through letters and so on that their scholarships are being stopped, when we had made it clear that the existing scholarships are not being stopped and that none of the children are going to meet any hardship.
Then the fake degree question was raised but that came up much later. The Eighteenth Amendment was passed before that. The role of education and the HEC was decided in the Eighteenth Amendment which was passed before the degree question came up.
TNS: But we have seen independent voices speaking in favour of HEC and talk about an autonomous oversight mechanism?
MRR: That oversight mechanism is going to continue. In their functions, the maintenance of standards of higher education will continue to rest with them.
TNS: But not as HEC?
MRR: No, it could be as HEC. We can amend the act. The commission has no points of ego. The reason why we had proposed a different name was to bring it in conformity with the constitutional provision which in Item 12 talks about maintenance of standards in higher education. So we had said that we could call it a commission for the maintenance of standards in higher education. But if they are insistent that HEC should continue as HEC, it may well do so. Besides, all of their other functions will continue to exist in one body and not scattered all over as is being wrongly projected.
TNS: What about the ministry of women development. They say their case is unique because they were neither in the federal nor in the concurrent list and their standing committees have been dissolved as well?
MRR: To say that it was not on the federal or concurrent list is strengthening the position of the implementation commission. That means that these were functions that from day one were not to be performed by the federal government but by the provincial government. Because under article 142, prior to the Eighteenth Amendment, these were residuary powers and all residuary powers were to rest with the provinces. Besides, women ministries are already functioning in the provinces.
Secondly, we in the commission are in touch with the stakeholders and we are thinking of strengthening, in consultation with the stakeholders, the National Commission for the Status of Women. We are thinking of making it a truly autonomous body, which would have powers of investigation (which it does not have right now), which would advise the federal government on fulfilling its various international commitments, and what other new protocols need to be signed. But it would be an autonomous independent body functioning under an act of parliament.
TNS: The suggestions for further improvement include devolution from the province to the local level (which is within the purview of the Eighteenth Amendment) and civil service reform (which is not). Do you think the government is alive to these problems and is willing to do something about these?
MRR: Oh yes, the government is very much alive. The prime minister has taken one or two meetings on the question of local governments. But now the local government is purely a provincial issue and some of the provincial governments have their new local government acts in place which are either ready to go to the assemblies or are pending in the assemblies. There is a bit of a misunderstanding in Sindh between the two coalition partners but I know the chief ministers is actively engaged with his coalition partner in trying to smooth that out. I think progress is being made in this respect.
TNS: What about civil service reform because the old structure will be irrelevant after devolution?
MRR: Civil service reform is totally out of our purview. But I do agree that these reforms are overdue, and there is a great deal of heartburn between the DMG and the provincial cadre; they feel their rights are being usurped. I think we have to gear up the civil service, pull it out of the old colonial mode, and put it onto a new management mode.
TNS: Finally, how hopeful are you about the successful completion of this entire process of devolution?
MRR: I am very hopeful. Because I see the political will in all democratic forces. Of course, there are minor ups and down but the overall commitment is there. They understand the fact that this is the need of the hour and I think we also realise that this is perhaps the last string on which the federation is hanging. Because if God forbid there is a failure, the repercussions will be huge. The nationalist forces would lose hope in a smooth, democratic transition of their legitimate powers under the constitution particularly when there was not a single dissenting vote from the parliament. If that too cannot be implemented in letter and spirit, it’s going to shake their confidence.
TNS: Will you be able to convince the PML-N?
MRR: I think PML-N, by and large, is on board.
Interview
“It’s a new phase”
“It’s a new phase”
A year ago, he justified keeping the affairs of the committee away from media attention because he was aiming for a consensus in the committee. Today, he realises the importance of keeping the channel of communication open -- for the people to understand how the implementation is going to come about. He wants to clarify a lot of things and manages that successfully. Clearly, he does not want to squander a great opportunity that is available to the country, owing a great deal to his own efforts.
Mian Raza Rabbani is in no hurry. He takes time to talk about the anxieties, the fears and, yes, the vested interest. But he would not let the cynics take the country back to the bane of a centralised state. He has worked hard to bring it to a point state where ten ministries have been already devolved and some of the functions of six others “have also been sent down”. He is hopeful that he will see the process through its end.
By Farah Zia
Mian Raza Rabbani: I would not say there is a dampening of the euphoria. When the Eighteenth Amendment was being enacted, there was the expectancy of something new coming about, there was euphoria particularly in a highly politicised and polarised climate. Now we have entered into a new phase -- of practicality. Since it involves a great deal of minute details, it could become boring for a lot of people.
As a consequence of Eighteenth Amendment what we are witnessing today is one of the greatest structural transformations of Pakistan’s governmental structure since 1947. Obviously that generates a certain amount of anxiety, fear and -- over a period of time, from 1947 to 2008 -- a certain amount of vested interest. That vested interest is not only feeling threatened, it is also beginning to realise that, this time around, parliament means business, and that Eighteenth Amendment is not just meant to be on the statute books.
So I think it is just a change of phase, a new system, when there are bound to be hiccups. We had envisaged these hiccups, but given the political will, these will be sorted out.
It’s a long drawn process. It’s not that on the 30th of June you’ll switch on the button and everything will be hunky dory; even after that there are going to be problems. And as and when the problems occur, the new system will have to come up with its own indigenous solution.
But the commitment of the people and the democratic forces to the Eighteenth Amendment remains the same as it was at the time of its passage.
TNS: You have talked about the ‘vested interest’. The Implementation Commission has also noted that the federal bureaucracy is resisting reform. Tell us more about it?
MRR: In the first meeting with the federal secretaries in Islamabad to get a feel of their pulse after the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment, I was apprehensive. I had thought that the biggest resistance to the amendment will come from the federal secretaries. Much to my surprise, I found out that an overwhelming majority of them [were supportive] and I must take this opportunity to say that those secretaries who are working with the commission have been very accommodative; they facilitated the commission in carrying out its work.
But you have the good with the bad and there are some who have tried to resist; who have fallen back on the old methodology. If you look at the 1973 constitution, some of the articles pertaining to provincial autonomy were a real leap forward. Unfortunately, Islamabad circumvented the interpretation of those articles to suit itself and the storm in the tea cup that we are witnessing today is also, to a certain extent, because of that. Because first they thought that Eighteenth Amendment won’t see the light of day. When that happened, they thought it would remain on the statute books and we will continue to give it the interpretation that we have been doing. When they found that the commission means business, that ten ministries have been devolved and some of the functions of six others have also been sent down, the panic buttons started to ring.
TNS: How does the Implementation Commission work? How are the decisions taken etc.?
MRR: First, I would like to make a clarification that the Commission has no discretionary power. We function under the constitution 270AA and our constitutional mandate is to facilitate the implementation of the Eighteenth Amendment. So we have no discretion. If something is on the concurrent list, it has to go down, we can’t stop that. So this impression that some people have that the Commission is acting on its own or that it can hold back something is wrong.
When the commission sat down initially, on one side we had the concurrent list. We ran through the rules of business of the federal government which specify the functions and the departments and the divisions and we struck those out that were under the concurrent list.
After having done that we have divided various ministries into various phases, and as and when a ministry comes up, we take the minister and the secretaries and if there are any stakeholders on board as to what would be the best methodology of devolution. Once we are through with that, we then get in touch with the provincial government and have the provincial chief secretaries come over, and they have a meeting with the commission along with the respective secretaries of the ministries that are going down to the provinces. We discuss the plan and then the chief secretaries and the provincial secretaries tie up with the concerned federal secretaries. In the meantime, if certain policy decisions are required to be taken, they are then referred back to the commission.
The commission continues to monitor over this process as to how far we have been able to go, whether we are moving along the given timelines or not and then finally say a week short of the deadline, we send across a team from here which consists of officers from the establishment, planning and cabinet divisions. These are the three related divisions that go down to the provinces, see if things are in place or if there are any last minute hitches or snags. They then come back and report to the commission which then tries to iron out any last minute problem. Finally, the summary goes to the cabinet and the cabinet gives its approval.
TNS: How do you see the resignation of Ishaq Dar as deputy chairman of the commission? Is he following the party line or does he have genuine problems with issues like the transfer of employees and distribution of assets to the provinces?
MRR: Ishaq Dar has made a tremendous contribution at the time of the eighteenth and the nineteenth amendment. If his contribution had not been there, I would not hesitate to say that the story may have been different. He was a source of personal strength for me and for the commission as well. He has been involved equally with the implementation process. I would not get into the details but just say that he is on a little bit of furlough.
TNS: There has been a lot of talk about the capacity of provinces and that the devolution should have been incremental. Do you think this was the best way to go about it and that there are enough ainstitutional safeguards in place?
MRR: Yes sure there are. Those who talk of incremental devolution belong to that basic centrist point of view which does not believe in devolution. That is one way to let the matter peter out and the vested interest and the opposition elements get the better of the day.
Also I am of the personal view that the political environment in which we worked and in which the Eighteenth Amendment came about did not afford us the luxury of time. We were working against a timeframe and that was one reason that the parliament was able to achieve a consensus. Parliament, for once, realised the pulse of the people, of the smaller federating units, of the nationalist movements taking place in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The nationalists were saying that even if you gave us all of these [powers], they would not be implemented. These were nationalists who believed in the democratic transition, what to speak of those extremist forces that were not on the Pakistani political scene. What the people are failing to understand is that apart from the paradigm shift, the biggest service that this amendment and the parliament has done is that it viewed the future polity that may have set in and has taken a decision to offset it.
If you look at the international scenario, the movements taking birth in the Middle East, given the level of polarisation amongst the provinces, the polarisation between the provinces and the centre, given the internal situation of terrorism, sectarianism and worsening economic situation, had the Eighteenth Amendment not been there, we would have been ripe and pregnant for a movement of similar nature. Devolution on an incremental level would have been a political non-starter.
TNS: What about the provinces lacking capacity?
MRR: I think that is a fallacy. What was the capacity of the federal government? If you look at the period from 1947 to 2009, what are the fantastic benchmarks that Islamabad has been able to achieve in all of these subjects that are now being devolved? In some cases, it is mediocre; in other cases it is even less than mediocre. The people of Pakistan have not reaped the benefits; the ruling elite, a small coterie of people which is alienated from the common man, may have been able to make itself better. In terms of results, these ministries have not produced anything.
Secondly, most of these ministries have line ministries, such as education, health, women, labour, environment, in the provinces.
Thirdly, for quite some time, a number of foreign donors are carrying out projects with the provincial governments. The capacity issues are there for Islamabad as much as they are for provincial capitals. If responsibility is devolved, capacity will grow. If there is deficiency, capacity will grow. To stave off devolution on the mere excuse of capacity is not correct.
TNS: People are also saying that perhaps only a central mechanism can ensure international agreements, conventions, regarding health, environment etc?
MRR: This is perhaps our lack of communication. There is no problem whatsoever with the international commitments, the international covenants that we have signed or the international projects that are being undertaken.
The procedure is that all foreign funded programmes are routed, according to the rules of business, through the Economics Affairs Division (EAD). The foreign governments and the donors go through the government of Pakistan and the EAD. For the federally-funded programmes, the ministry A that was dealing with it earlier will not be there and that function of the ministry will be looked after exclusively by the EAD. EAD will deal with those foreign projects with the federal government and siphon them down to the provinces. It will monitor and put together the evaluation and will coordinate with the foreign donors regarding the progress on their project and put them in touch with the provinces.
So as far as the international obligations are concerned, there is going to be no disruption and this fear that they would have to run helter skelter to all the four capitals is not correct because they would have a central contact point in Islamabad. Secondly, some of the donors are already in direct touch with provincial governments and carrying out projects. For federal projects, the contact, liason will be done from Islamabad; the implementation will be at the provincial level.
TNS: Now to come to the controversial HEC. What exactly happened there?
MRR: The concurrent list has item 38 which dealt with education. And item 38 had curricula, syllabi, policy, planning and centres of excellence. That meant that any other function with reference to or pertaining with education was a provincial subject. Because paragraph C of clause 1 of article 142 of the constitution, as it was prior to the Eighteenth Amendment, said that those subjects on the three lists, i.e. the federal legislative list part 1 and 2 and the concurrent list fall within the domain of the federal parliament and all other residuary powers rest with the provinces. So in any case, all other functions that Islamabad had usurped in terms of the education were in violation of the constitution. When the Eighteenth Amendment did away with the question of the concurrent list, item 38 also went with it. But in the committee, we took a conscious decision and for the first time we introduced the term higher education. Prior to that, none of the lists had the term higher education. We introduced the term higher education in item 12 of the federal legislative list part 1 and we introduced it with standards of higher education.
When we started the process of devolution of the education ministry, we went through the ordinance of the HEC, and we put the ordinance in juxtaposition to item 12 and we said that all those items (of the HEC ordinance) which do not fall within the purview of item 12 should be sent down to the provinces. And all those items which fall within the purview of item 12 would continue to remain with either the HEC or a body like that.
We called a meeting and invited HEC, they came with a representative group of 12 vice chancellors. We had a detailed meeting with them, we heard their point of view. The constitutional provisions on which the HEC was relying was an interpretation which Islamabad is used to giving. We explained it to them and we gave them a categorical assurance that when we sit down to amend your law, we will again invite you and discuss with you and try and accommodate your point of view. They left and subsequent to that, they decided to do preemptive politics and started to raise a number of concerns which were totally unfounded and false.
The first issue that they raised, despite all our assurances, was that the funding of the universities is going to be stopped. We clarified it to them that look even today the HEC does not raise a single penny. All the funding that the HEC gets is from the federal government. So the federal government is going to continue to meet the deficit and the project cost of the universities. But the only thing that has happened now is that because of the fiscal devolution that is taking place and because of the NFC, instead of the federal government using HEC as the distributing agency, it will be the provincial government [doing that].
Secondly, as you are aware, with the exception of a few universities which have federal charters, all other universities have provincial charters. They have been passed by the provincial assemblies, the governors are their chancellors, and their day-to-day administration is run with the help of the provincial governments. So in any case they already are in touch with them. So we cleared this question.
Then one day they came out with a statement that the last tranche for this financial year has been stopped and that from the 1st of May the employees of the universities are not going to get their salaries. I was told that this was not the case but we still managed to get the tranche released three weeks ahead.
Then they said that the USAID project is being stopped because of the devolution. We told them that no projects are being stopped because of the devolution. Fortunately for us, on April 7 the American embassy here issued a statement which said that neither have we stopped the funding, nor are we thinking of stopping the funding.
Then they created a hype among the students on the internet and through letters and so on that their scholarships are being stopped, when we had made it clear that the existing scholarships are not being stopped and that none of the children are going to meet any hardship.
Then the fake degree question was raised but that came up much later. The Eighteenth Amendment was passed before that. The role of education and the HEC was decided in the Eighteenth Amendment which was passed before the degree question came up.
TNS: But we have seen independent voices speaking in favour of HEC and talk about an autonomous oversight mechanism?
MRR: That oversight mechanism is going to continue. In their functions, the maintenance of standards of higher education will continue to rest with them.
TNS: But not as HEC?
MRR: No, it could be as HEC. We can amend the act. The commission has no points of ego. The reason why we had proposed a different name was to bring it in conformity with the constitutional provision which in Item 12 talks about maintenance of standards in higher education. So we had said that we could call it a commission for the maintenance of standards in higher education. But if they are insistent that HEC should continue as HEC, it may well do so. Besides, all of their other functions will continue to exist in one body and not scattered all over as is being wrongly projected.
TNS: What about the ministry of women development. They say their case is unique because they were neither in the federal nor in the concurrent list and their standing committees have been dissolved as well?
MRR: To say that it was not on the federal or concurrent list is strengthening the position of the implementation commission. That means that these were functions that from day one were not to be performed by the federal government but by the provincial government. Because under article 142, prior to the Eighteenth Amendment, these were residuary powers and all residuary powers were to rest with the provinces. Besides, women ministries are already functioning in the provinces.
Secondly, we in the commission are in touch with the stakeholders and we are thinking of strengthening, in consultation with the stakeholders, the National Commission for the Status of Women. We are thinking of making it a truly autonomous body, which would have powers of investigation (which it does not have right now), which would advise the federal government on fulfilling its various international commitments, and what other new protocols need to be signed. But it would be an autonomous independent body functioning under an act of parliament.
TNS: The suggestions for further improvement include devolution from the province to the local level (which is within the purview of the Eighteenth Amendment) and civil service reform (which is not). Do you think the government is alive to these problems and is willing to do something about these?
MRR: Oh yes, the government is very much alive. The prime minister has taken one or two meetings on the question of local governments. But now the local government is purely a provincial issue and some of the provincial governments have their new local government acts in place which are either ready to go to the assemblies or are pending in the assemblies. There is a bit of a misunderstanding in Sindh between the two coalition partners but I know the chief ministers is actively engaged with his coalition partner in trying to smooth that out. I think progress is being made in this respect.
TNS: What about civil service reform because the old structure will be irrelevant after devolution?
MRR: Civil service reform is totally out of our purview. But I do agree that these reforms are overdue, and there is a great deal of heartburn between the DMG and the provincial cadre; they feel their rights are being usurped. I think we have to gear up the civil service, pull it out of the old colonial mode, and put it onto a new management mode.
TNS: Finally, how hopeful are you about the successful completion of this entire process of devolution?
MRR: I am very hopeful. Because I see the political will in all democratic forces. Of course, there are minor ups and down but the overall commitment is there. They understand the fact that this is the need of the hour and I think we also realise that this is perhaps the last string on which the federation is hanging. Because if God forbid there is a failure, the repercussions will be huge. The nationalist forces would lose hope in a smooth, democratic transition of their legitimate powers under the constitution particularly when there was not a single dissenting vote from the parliament. If that too cannot be implemented in letter and spirit, it’s going to shake their confidence.
TNS: Will you be able to convince the PML-N?
MRR: I think PML-N, by and large, is on board.
Comment