The Bogey Of Pax Iranica: New Age Islam’s Selection From Pakistan Press, 5 October 2015
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
5 October 2015
• The bogey of Pax Iranica
By Yasser Latif Hamdani
• Institutions of restraint
By Ishrat Husain
• The US’s Assad obsession
By S Mubashir Noor
• The rise and fall of logical positivism
By Dr Asad Zaman
-------
The bogey of Pax Iranica
Yasser Latif Hamdani
October 05, 2015
Husain Haqqani, whose byline always emphasises that he was Pakistan’s former ambassador to the US, recently wrote an article for The Huffington Post where he sounded the alarm against what he calls the “Pax Iranica” or the Iranian Empire, playing deliberately on ancient prejudices of both the Arabs and the west. He chose to do so at a time when the Iran deal promises to change the very nature of US-Muslim engagement.
One does not defend the theocratic regime in the Islamic Republic of Iran to recognise that the comparison that Haqqani draws between Iran and “ISIS” or Islamic State (IS) or Daesh is factually incorrect. Iran may have a theocratic regime but the much-maligned country also has the trappings of a modern republic. There is a civil society and a constitution. Signs of change are evident in the increasing numbers of women in the workforce in that country and the fact that there is a reformist elected government, albeit one with clipped wings because of Villayet-e-Faqih and the Revolutionary Guard. Comparing the Islamic Republic of Iran to IS is therefore not true.
The fact of the matter is that the US got it all wrong with the Arab Spring, which in a real sense was a broken spring. Every country with the possible exception of Tunisia, which experienced that spontaneous revolutionary fervour, is today a mess. The so-called democratic government in Libya is being run by another strongman called General Hifter. Egypt is under virtual military dictatorship. Syria is in ruins, leading to the present refugee crisis. What adds to the ignorance with which the west lauded the Arab Spring is the hypocrisy that while you are willing to countenance radicals of every shade in the name of the Arab Spring, you are unable to accept that Iran went through a genuine uprising of the people in 1979. Either both are wrong or both are right. You cannot pick and choose revolutionary fervour based on sect or ethnicity. In my opinion, the west mishandled the Arab Spring the same way it mishandled the Iranian Revolution in 1979, leaving the door wide open for strongmen to establish their dictatorial regimes. The west should have, in 1979, worked with the Shah of Iran to meet the genuine demands and concerns of the people of Iran. In 2011, it should have worked with Mubarak, Assad and Gaddafi to put their countries on the path to an open and more democratic future, which would have given these dictators an exit. In both cases, the world would have avoided the catastrophic aftermath.
Still, what is done is done. So what should be the policy going forward? Should it be to pit Arabs against Iranians and Sunnis against Shias? Such a policy will be a disaster for the world at large, leading possibly to another world war with deadly weapons with Russia and China squaring off against the US. This is why the US’s reconciliation with Iran in the form of the Iran deal is such a stabilising coup de grace.
US engagement with the Muslim world should not be based on bad advice. It should not be based on exploitation of prejudices between Shias and Sunnis on the one hand and the Iranians and Arabs on the other. Finally, it should be based on principle and that principle should be greater security and peace in the world. Right now, the Muslim world faces a grave internal threat, i.e. IS. The US needs to work in tandem with Russia and China to ensure that the forces of reason and sanity are not overwhelmed in Syria and Iraq. A broad based alliance between these three great powers is the need of the hour to overcome this gravest of threats. The question of Assad’s fate should only be a secondary consideration, which should come after the immediate menace of IS has been firmly dealt with. There will always be time to take up the aspirations of all stakeholders to the conflict, including Israel and Saudi Arabia, but that time is not now.
The bogey of Pax Iranica should not divert US attention from what needs to be done now.
The writer is a lawyer based in Lahore and the author of the book Mr Jinnah: Myth and Reality. He can be contacted via twitter @therealylh and through his email address yasser.hamdani@gmail.com
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/05-Oct-2015/the-bogey-of-pax-iranica
----
Institutions of restraint
Ishrat Husain
October 05, 2015
The apex committees consisting of civil and military leadership represent an innovative model of governance to suit the country’s peculiar needs. This exceptional arrangement has been made because of pervasive weaknesses in the institutions of the rule of law and accountability. Criminals act with impunity because they believe they will be protected by their patrons in influential positions. It is not surprising, therefore, that the public has so heartily welcomed the recent crackdown against terrorists and corrupt elements.
It may be recalled that such action was also taken by Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan and Zulfiqar Bhutto; by the army in the 1990s; and NAB in the early 2000s. However, such highly visible but ad hoc actions make a temporary difference; they do not leave any lasting imprint. What is required is broad-based institutional reform. That, however, is a long, arduous process. Instead, a more selective approach can be adopted in which some key institutions that can act as restraints on maladministration of justice and rule of law, mis-governance and abuse of excessive discretionary powers could be strengthened in the next three to four years. This would have spillover effects on other institutions too.
Among these key institutions, the lower judiciary is more important than any other as it underpins the entire system of accountability and rule of law. In addition, there are at least 10 other institutions where reform that can make an overall difference.
Reforms in some key institutions can fairly rapidly bring about long-term improvement in the rule of law.
Federal Investigation Agency and provincial police departments: The performance of these institutions has deteriorated significantly because of politicisation of the process of selection, postings, transfers and promotions. To enhance their professionalism, they must be provided competent human resources, and adequate financial resources for training, equipment, mobility, accommodation, and welfare with accountability. The police force should be governed under its own law and rules rather than being subjected to the Civil Servants Act 1973.
Prosecution departments: The attorney general’s office and the prosecution departments do not attract high-calibre manpower because of lack of clarity about career progression and relatively poor compensation. The monetary losses incurred by the government due to weak prosecution and a subsequently high rate of acquittals of known criminals far outweigh the increased expenditure on a well-established and competent prosecution department.
Auditor general of Pakistan: The AG’s office has not fully utilised its constitutional powers to unearth and detect financial bungling rampant in the public sector. The slow pace at which financial irregularities are detected and the lack of professional expertise among core staff has diminished the efficacy of this office. Its shortcomings could be addressed by converting it into a supreme audit institution with autonomy, resources and accountability to parliament.
State Bank of Pakistan: As the regulator and supervisor of banks, the State Bank can safeguard against possible malpractices in the award of credit and recovery of loans. The banking sector in Pakistan, after last decade’s reforms, has emerged as quite strong but financial access remains limited and has to be extended to the middle and lower income groups to generate employment and reduce poverty and inequalities — the root cause of crime and terrorism.
Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan: Capital markets in Pakistan are highly shallow and have not played an effective role in the intermediation that is required in an emerging market. Corporate governance of publicly listed companies is weak and dominated by major family shareholders without due regard to the rights of minority shareholders. Insider trading is perceived to be widely rampant while disclosure of information standards is loosely enforced. The SECP needs operational autonomy, resources and skills to carry out its mandate.
Federal/provincial public service commissions: It is clear that the merit-based system of recruitment, appointments and promotions had served the nation far better than the present sifarish-based and ‘buy-the-post’ system. The responsibility for all recruitment and promotions should revert to the commissions without any exception, with individuals of proven integrity and impeccable credentials appointed as chairpersons and members.
Federal and provincial boards of revenues. Leakages of revenues due to connivance between tax officials and unscrupulous taxpayers are causing serious damage to the economy and need to be plugged by restructuring the federal and provincial revenue boards. The registrar’s offices under the boards of revenue have become dens of corruption and need to be cleaned up.
Federal/provincial ombudsman: These offices can become effective instruments for quick, fair and judicious redressal of citizens’ grievances against the arbitrary harassment by overzealous or corrupt officials. A proactive awareness-raising role, a demonstration of the extent of its reach and the selection of the right people to the posts can make it work.
Election Commission of Pakistan: After proper scrutiny and investigation, a powerful, independent and assertive ECP can disqualify individuals of ill-repute and dubious character, thereby enforcing the constitutional criteria for electoral candidates. This fundamental shift in the quality of our elected public officials would bring about a significant change in the overall structure of governance in the country.
National Accountability Bureau/ Provincial anti-corruption bureaus: The law under which NAB works, though effective, has been implemented selectively. The body should be given complete operational and financial autonomy and protected from political interference. Provincial anti-corruption bureaus must be given the same legal authority and powers as NAB.
The approach advocated here is to create an environment whereby acts of malfeasance are exposed routinely; vigilance and scrutiny is exercised continuously; investigation and fixing of responsibility is carried out resolutely and disciplinary action against those found guilty is taken promptly. This would be a more effective deterrent in curbing crime and corrupt practices than would enacting more laws and setting up agencies.
The reform of these institutions can make a difference, provided (a) they are headed by widely respected and competent managers of known integrity (b) the terms of reference, responsibilities, functions and powers of these institutions are clearly defined (c) there is no political interference in their working but at the same time they are held publicly accountable for their actions and the results (d) they are provided adequate financial resources and professional, high-calibre staff and (e) they follow transparent procedures and processes. To ensure non-partisan political support for these institutions their heads should be confirmed by parliamentary committees. This way, changes in political regimes would not disrupt their smooth functioning.
The writer is dean and director at the Institute of Business Administration, Karachi.
dawn.com/news/1210918/institutions-of-restraint
-------
The US’s Assad obsession
S Mubashir Noor
October 05, 2015
The US is remarkably humourless about Bashar al-Assad. It believes the Syrian president and Islamic State (IS) militants are two sides of the same coin that need to be got rid of together to ‘liberate’ Syria. Russia, though an Assad ally, is right to caution against a military solution that could hasten the region’s downward spiral. Alas, old habits die hard and Washington greatly mistrusts Moscow’s intentions. Consider the US’s response to Russia’s recent draft on combating IS for example. Put before the UN Security Council (UNSC) in September, this draft stressed that the world could not defeat IS without “coordination with governments of the affected states”. Washington fired back that Russia’s proposal was at “significant variance with the ongoing efforts of a coalition of more than 60 countries”, meaning Assad for them was part of the problem, not part of the solution.
In theory, the US and Assad should get along famously because Bashar, unlike his father and former Syrian President Hafez-al Assad, was always enamoured with the western lifestyle. He is a UK-trained eye doctor who was apolitical as a youth and desired nothing more than a gentleman farmer’s life somewhere in the English shires. Back then, his older brother, Bassel, was the heir apparent to Syria’s Baathist regime but his death in 1994 changed everything.
Syrians expected Bassel’s charismatic younger brother, Maher, to replace him but Hafez decided the middle boy, nicknamed ‘Beshoo’ (baby Bashar), would succeed him. After getting elected unopposed in the year 2000, Bashar went on to antagonise his father’s socialist cronies and the Republican Guard by espousing neo-liberalism and capitalist ideas.
That would have been a good time for Washington to mend fences with Syria. After all, a new ruler of the minority Alawite regime could perhaps be more flexible, yet no channels of conciliation opened. The US had long patronised the Al-Khalifa Sunni royals in Shia-majority Bahrain but it refused to reach out to Bashar, believing perhaps that he was his father’s son. Unsurprisingly, the latter soon steeled his rhetoric to match Washington’s rigid stance.
The Cold War years, of course, were different. After British and French occupation of the Middle East ended with World War II, the non-monarchic Arab world steered towards nationalism in reaction to decades of imperialist rule and the wrongful creation of Israel. The most notable movement of the time was Syrian Michel Aflaq’s Baathism, and under this new secular and socialist order, Egypt and Syria united briefly in 1958 as the United Arab Republic.
After the Soviet-US face off went global, Syria naturally gravitated towards the communist cause. For Washington, though, any socialist movement like Baathism was the gateway to dreaded Bolshevism. This is also why the US was partial to Pakistan over socialist India throughout the Cold War years. Syria, conversely, saw the US’s support for self-indulgent Arab monarchies as a new kind of imperialism and abhorred its unflinching loyalty to the Jewish state carved out of Arab Palestine.
Consequently, Syria not only went to war against Israel's aggression three times between 1948 and 1973, but also signed a defence pact with Moscow after the 1956 Suez crisis. However, since the Soviets never intended to help the Arabs destroy Israel, Syria became an ally but never a vassal state. Still, President Vladimir Putin is keeping Russia’s end of the bargain. Despite vocal protests in western capitals, he has bolstered Russia’s military presence in Syria to shore up Assad’s flagging fortunes.
This does beg the question though that assuming Assad is a ‘dictator’ who ‘gases and bombs’ his people without mercy, why is the man still in power? From 2011 onwards, Assad has survived a countrywide revolt, IS and a slew of allied air strikes. The answer is twofold. First, Assad is still immensely popular despite the civil war. In Syria’s first multiparty presidential election after 34 years in June 2014, Assad cakewalked to victory with 88 percent of the vote in a 73 percent electoral turnout. Observers from 30 countries declared the vote free and transparent.
Second, if not Assad then who? Can anyone risk a power vacuum in Syria with IS, al Qaeda and al Nusra in the periphery? Joshua Landis, a Syria expert, says all these options “are terrifying; that is why nobody really wants Assad to leave”. This is what Russia keeps trying to impress upon the west and where US policy in the region comes unstuck. US Secretary of State John Kerry called the 2014 Syrian vote “meaningless” but did not elaborate why Afghan elections under US patronage keep getting fouled for mass rigging.
The US’s intended rapprochement with Iran further complicates this situation. If Assad’s prime financier of ‘terror’ against Israel becomes good friends with the west, why should Syria stay a pariah forever? Considering the number of times US President Barack Obama has redrawn his red line for Assad, he may mull kicking the Syria can down the road for his successor to deal with instead of sinking his administration’s legacy.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/05-Oct-2015/the-us-s-assad-obsession
-----
The rise and fall of logical positivism
By Dr Asad Zaman
Published: October 4, 2015
The rise and fall of logical positivism is the most spectacular story of 20th century philosophy. Logical positivism was wildly successful, and some of its key ideas became widely accepted as common-sense truths among the general public. For instance, people routinely make a sharp distinction between facts and opinions, thinking that this is trite and obvious. They do not realise that they are stating the conclusion of a complex philosophical argument which is fundamentally unsound.
The philosophy of logical positivism was the culmination of centuries of efforts to prove that science was the only valid source of knowledge, while metaphysics and religions were meaningless nonsense. Philosophers called it the “demarcation problem”: how do we draw the boundary line between science and religion? An obvious answer would be that religion requires faith in the unseen — heavens, angels, afterlife, God, while science deals with the real world around us. However, this runs into the problem that science also requires faith in positrons, quasars, gravity, electromagnetic fields, and many other un-observables. The positivists found a solution: we can translate references into un-observables by their observable implications. For example, gravity is not observable, but it implies that planets will have elliptical orbits. According to positivists, when we use the word ‘gravity’, what we really mean is that the planets have elliptical orbits (and all other observable implications of gravity). With this clever philosophical manoeuvre, the positivists showed that despite appearances to the contrary, science does not require faith in the unseen. When scientists talk about electrons, they are just using a shorthand language to describe some rather complex collection of observations that they have made in their laboratories.
Youthful British philosopher A J Ayer went to study the newly emerging philosophy in Vienna, and became an ardent and enthusiastic advocate. One of the key tenets of the philosophy was that sentences were meaningful only if they could be confirmed empirically. Ayer’s exposition of positivism created great excitement. It provided a powerful weapon to modernists, enabling them to attack traditions by asking for an empirical demonstration for all claims. Since no proof could be provided for them, Ayer said that “ethical judgments … have no objective validity — they are (as meaningless as) a cry of pain”. This became widely accepted throughout the academia. Prior to positivism, social scientists had actively engaged in the struggle to improve human welfare. Logical positivism made this an intellectually unrespectable expression of feelings, not suitable for a scientist. To improve their image, social scientists learned to couch passionate advocacy in cold, sterile, and apparently objective language. For example, the intensity of the debate in the Cambridge Capital Controversy baffles observers. Both sides argue using technical and complex mathematical arguments. Neither side drops any hints that the underlying issue is an argument that justifies earnings of capitalists, against Marxist ideas that they exploit workers. As detailed in a previous article, Professor Julie Reuben has explained the damaging effects of this marginalisation of morality on modern university education at book length.
Among philosophers, positivism had a spectacular crash. Many of the central ideas of positivism proved to be indefensible on closer examination. Even the fundamental concept of factual and objectively verifiable could not be sensibly defined. For example, my feeling of happiness is observable to me, and as factual as the sun shining in the sky, but it is not observable and hence subjective to others. Even the lifelong advocate, Ayer, came to realise that positivism was wrong, and said so in a public interview.
The surprising kicker to this story is that the reasons for the philosophers’ rejection of positivism have not been widely understood. Economists in particular, and most social scientists in general, continue to believe in positivist ideas, and to use them as a basis for research. Inertia keeps professionals wedded to this obsolete philosophy, since replacing it would require rejection of 50 years or more of theorising. Nonetheless, a radical re-thinking is the need of the hour, since the positivist rejection of human experience as a source of knowledge has led to impoverished theories in social sciences, which are manifestly incapable of dealing with looming catastrophes on several fronts.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 5th, 2015.
http://tribune.com.pk/story/967286/the-rise-and-fall-of-logical-positivism/
URL: https://newageislam.com/islam-west/the-bogey-pax-iranica-new/d/104799