उमदा नशे के आगोश में हूँ जनाब। सिगरेट की लत होती, तो कब की छोड़ दी होती। उत्तम

 

इश्क़ और मोहब्बत में, बस फर्क है तो इतना। इश्क़ जहाँ भावना और उत्तेजना, वहीँ मोहब्बत एक साधना।

 

Governance Betrayal

Most keenly watched speech of the Prime Minister this 15^th August was specifically noticed for his comments on OROP. In exact words, the PM said “The issue of One Rank One Pension (OROP) has come before every government, each one has considered its proposal, and each and every government has made promises on it, but the problem is still pending to be resolved. After my assuming office as Prime Minister I have not been able to do this by now”.

Through the honest confession of helplessness in inking a decision on OROP, the most decisive leader of “Team India” belittled both the glory of the Red Fort and the occasion of 15^th August that signifies liberation. The red stone mammoth, must have wailed in humiliation when this lament came from no other than a leader, armed with a historic majority of 282 parliamentarians with practically no opposition. The reiteration of his in-principle commitment to OROP while was appreciated, the criminal delay in its implementation has left the nation to debate the compelling reasons behind sluggishness in policy implementations.

The surrender to “due process” by a man, who is convinced of “minimum government and maximum governance”, is not music to any ear that craves for responsive governance. It is definitely though a rude provocation to inquire into why implementation process in government is so painful, fractured and time consuming. The OROP issue surely is not a singular example.

The sordid treatment given to high profile 26/11 attacks is another in recent memory. The then Union Home Minister P Chidambaram termed the attacks, “a game-changer” “Zero tolerance” on terrorism, and assured of adequate resources for a “swift and decisive response” in future. Five years after this, Amir Khan, writing for the Indian Express in November 2014, reported that the Bombay High Court expressed displeasure for not carrying out changes to weapon policy even after the experience of the 26/11 terror attacks that left many police personnel dead as they were not adequately armed. A sense of betrayal thus is the common man’s conclusion.

Why this state of affairs?

One answer came from the man himself. On an earlier occasion the PM said “When I came to Delhi and noticed an insider view, I felt what it was and I was surprised to see it. It seemed as if dozens of separate governments are running at the same time in one main government. It appeared that everyone has its own fiefdom. I could observe disunity and conflict among them”.

No wonder, the judicial forums in the country are clogged with litigations borne out of indifference and inaction on the part of the Government (s). In terms of numbers, as on 01.03.2015 there were 61,300 cases pending before the Supreme Court - the highest judicial forum. Attributing this to growth, largely to transparency and an informed citizenry of recent times would be a fallacy. Let us face it; something somewhere is terribly wrong in the process of Governance.

Where does the malaise lie then?

The malaise probably is not with the vision and directions of the leadership. The rot lies with rusting institutions or implementation agencies that lack a system of accountability. There has been a remarkable growth in internalisation of the paradigm that procrastinating a decision or opting for a “group insurance” by forming committees is a safe, sustainable and profitable idea. The sense of urgency and responsibility, much needed in the current phase of development therefore has evaporated from a bureaucracy that is cushioned with security of job, tenure-linked promotion and secured pension.

In the fast changing world, where tweets shape news, decision making needs to be smarter, for India to attain and maintain a competitive edge over peer nations. For smart governance we need smart system that encourages performers and penalizes lousy souls. Sadly today’s “meritocratic bureaucracy” promotes only unblemished seniority in terms of number of years of attendance in office. The senior most bureaucratic position is occupied by virtue of an over rated rank, secured “once upon a time”. The methodology of seniority by the rank at the time of entry is designed to frustrate any attempts to count real life accomplishments that made a positive difference in the lives of citizens in the process of elevation in the career. Thus it is ensured that the soaring eagle of bureaucracy is the loyal rule book follower and not the one who is a continuously inquisitive, innovative and passionate learner.

The creamy Indian Administrative Service that leads shaping of decision making, oblivious of changing needs of the society is singularly keen in securing its own fort than open new vistas. With few exceptions, it has become more of an “Indian Hopping Service” having mastered the art of quickly slipping out of scene at the time of reckoning accountability. The result without a coordinated approach to setting objectives and standards, and no means of measuring public satisfaction, government initiatives are operated on an inconsistent basis with limited emphasis on improvements. The citizen expectation that their Bureaucracy will ensure professionalism and responsiveness in efficiently serving political governments is almost at its nadir. No wonder, secure jobs fail to earn positive appreciation by the general public.

On the political front, this loss of control over the implementing agencies can be detrimental to highly competitive politics that has been seen to be overthrown over trivialities like “price of onions” leave apart serious issues. The imperfections in arriving at intelligent and workable policy options towards quenching public demand by the bureaucracy apart from impacting public good, has the real threat of marring political careers of achievers in politics, who have a long road ahead.

The Road ahead

The structure and working of bedraggled bureaucracy therefore needs a ruthless inspection. The principles taught to a beginner in economics, in this context if put to practice holds a promise. On the global scale, the human development of recent decades achieved through competition in markets is indicative of the virtue of Competition. Competition has been central to the growth of markets, fostering innovation, productivity and growth. This in turn has lead to creation of wealth and a concomitant reduction of poverty. The resource-less nation known as a little red dot on the world map called Singapore is a practitioner of this idea of healthy competition. Any one returning from Singapore can vouch for its success that transformed a nation into the shortest span of time in recent history. In a unique successful implementation, Singapore bureaucracy ensures that only the best reaches the top. And let us not be surprised to take note that a junior in reality has an opportunity to supervise his one-time boss.

Another way forward is to take learnings from the Dubai Government Excellence Programme (DGEP).  The DGEP recognises and rewards exceptional government employees, departments and initiatives on a yearly basis. Distinguished Team Performance, Distinguished Administrative Initiative, Distinguished Government Employee, Innovators are specific category awards amongst others to recognise and encourage a bureaucracy to be responsive, responsible and accountable. Measuring progress has become something of a positive obsession for the Dubai Government. The DGEP has become a widely admired and followed programme, not only within government circles, but has also interestingly attracted interest from the private sectors. Much to its credit, the DGEP won the United Nations Public Service Award in 2007.

Home-made prescription towards transforming the Indian bureaucracy is contained in the recommendation of Administrative Reforms Commission that essentially argues for infusing competition. It is time to dust it. To translate “Maan ki baat” into “Kaam ki Baat”, taking the bull by the horns is the key. The bureaucracy then will be seen to be run dispassionately by passionate professionals whose identity is merit and not those three letter suffixes after names, and who in the words of our man at 7 Race Course Road are not an assembled entity, but an organic unity, an organic entity, a harmonious whole- with one aim, one mind, one direction, one energy. 

Published on 13th Sep by a friend who picked it up from here for a surprise birth day gift.

http://epaper.centralchronicle.com/index.php?pgno=4&date1=2015-09-13

Rewiring Democracy: The Vote that failed.

An Old piece written for elections post NOTA.

For anyone who is concerned about the quality of governance in India, the recent Supreme Court judgement on “none of the above” (NOTA) option on the ballot paper is largely perceived as a game changer. The first reactions then were an immense sense of déjàvua watershed moment. The future of how we govern ourselves appears redefined or so that we expect. A huge optimism is building up in that the coming general elections will be far promising than the previous once as political parties are likely to act responsibly realising the consequences and embarrassment in the wake of significant use of this option. Some even argue that unprecedented voting in just concluded 5 assembly elections was because of this new button on the ballots. The provision did attract voters in all the states that went to votes. Possibly these were those who otherwise never stepped out to vote. The percentage of voters who chose this option in four states are Chhattisgarh (3 percent), Rajasthan (2 percent) and Delhi, Madhya Pradesh (1 percent) each.

The important question, though, is not if NOTA is a game changer but what kind of democratic values the biggest democracy wants to showcase and what role will we citizens play in shaping that identity. Seen from that perspective, there’s only one relevant question: Are we citizens content at politician bashing at every available opportunity renewed through the new weapon of NOTA or do we aspire to find some solution?

The Supreme Court in enforcing NOTA though was not intending to inject anything more dramatic than what is already contained in Rule 49(0) of the Election Rules. Through its pronouncement, it just conferred the right to vote in “secrecy” interpreting the right to expression as the fundamental right of speech and expression under the Constitution. Seen on the world map, NOTA on the ballots is not a new concept in democratic countries. At least 13 other nations follow the practice of "electronic abstention". Notable amongst them are France, Brazil, Greece, Ukraine, Spain, Chile and Colombia. Russia had such an option on its ballots but was abolished in 2006. Bangladesh introduced this option in 2008. Pakistan introduced this for the 2013 elections but later the Election Commission of Pakistan rejected this.

As the euphoria continues, 2014 election armed with NOTA is expected to be lot more interesting. So much so that it will throw open both our maturity as well as our deep rooted helplessness. Time only will tell the worth of the words of the ruling:  "When the political parties will realise that a large number of people are expressing their disapproval with the candidates being put up by them, gradually there will be a systemic change and the parties will be forced to accept the will of the people." The core idea or the philosophy behind the judgement thus appears to be an attempt to prevent further de-legitimisation of the Indian democracy. And NOTA is expected to give it the right push.

NOTA’s promise to clean the system or its absence, it will not be an exaggeration to conclude that India’s future is at stake. Trust deficit looms large with few days passing by without some protest. Somewhere the institutions have been dented. And hence there is a larger question that haunts our present day democracy that has seemingly reached an abyss. Do we intend to be “just counted” or will the system of democracy “count on us” to clean the mess we perceive and sometimes believe to be in.

Those who care about democracy and good governance should not find solace in NOTA. Instead they should resolve to Promise to Vote to marginalise the non-worthy sending the same message to the Politicians in a positive constructive way. The mind-set that is Voting is a right should graduate to a mind-set of Voting is a privilege that is to be used carefully and judiciously as a state of an ideal setup is nothing more than an idealism. Let us not cheer about our newly acquired power to show our no confidence much, because the kind of laziness we show while going to vote if is any indicator and if we continue the lethargy all neutral votes will go for the “none of the above” and the remaining would be divided into party cadets defeating the very purpose. The greater good is the idea of voting in large numbers to the best possible rather than pursuing a negative vengeance. The eagerness to vote would be the game changer and not the feeling of vengeance to an institution that is passing through a phase of a huge trust deficits. Elections are meant to elect and not reject. In a democracy each one of us counts and must stand up to be counted. To give up is to accept defeat of the good over evil, disdain over hope.

M V Rajeev Gowda, in a recent article “Don’t cripple clean politicians” convincingly argues “As more sections of society actively contribute and participate, the political system will undergo a transformation. Then, the much-celebrated NOTA and 'right to reject' will become mere footnotes in history. We will see inclusive, empowered parties, citizen candidates and positive politics”. Those who win the elections on such a positive vote will dispel the negativity that brings undue cheers to NOTA. The politicians are intelligent and would eventually serve what we demand and this is the essence of democracy. Till then it’s only the elite who will rule in the name of the people through various hues of vote banks.  It is time to check mate political shortfalls like trust deficits, democracy deficits and governance deficits, through citizenship engagement and not otherwise. Let the expression “clean Politician” become a reality and not an oxymoron.

Of the various academic researches on waning political participation, the Michigan model (1960) emphasizes the importance of partisanship or enduring party loyalties in voting behaviour. According to this model, strong partisan feelings contribute to electoral participation. Voters go to the polling booth to express their preferences towards parties and make their favoured parties win. Therefore, the more intense electoral competition between rival parties is, the more people go to vote.  We can make this competition more meaningful when our enthusiasm is not drained by the feeling of helplessness that we feel about the control we have over our political masters.

Public engagement can begin with staying informed about what is going around in our neighbourhoods and the policies that are important for personal benefits. In the information age, not being aware has consequences. The politicians to be fair enough do not deserve our revile when we compare the efforts they take in galvanising groups in contrast to the laziness we show in stepping out to vote. They in fact work harder than we do in expressing solidarity when it means business. It is high time we stop make a farce of our democracy. We shouldn't wait for some magical power to end all our miseries. We are the ones who have the power to bring about a change. Democracy in other words is vox populi, or the voice of the people. Let silence, callousness or helplessness not snatch the power that lies in the hands of this one-billion-plus country. “Clean Politicians" The words no more will be an oxymoron, if we Promise to Vote for self as well as our children’s future.

The Three Questions

Published: Daily Outlook Afghanistan 20.01.2014
http://outlookafghanistan.net/topics.php?post_id=9160

One day it occurred to a King that if he only knew the answers to three questions, he would never fail in any matter. The questions were: What is the best time to do something? Who are the most important people to work with? What is the most important thing to do at any given time?

The Emperor issued a decree throughout his kingdom announcing that whoever could answer these questions would receive a great reward. Many made their way to the palace at once, each person with a different answer. The Emperor however, was not pleased with any of the answers, and no reward was given.

After several nights, the Emperor decided to visit a hermit who lived up on the mountain and was said to be an enlightened man. Once before him he pleaded for answer to three questions that none could give a satisfying reply. With folded hands he begged to know: the best time to do something, the most important people to work with and the most important job at any times?

The present moment is the only time over which any one has control. The most important person is always the person with whom you are, who is right before you. The most important pursuit is making that person, the one standing by your side, happy, for that alone is the pursuit of life. That was Leo Tolstoy telling us eternal wisdom in most simple words.

Let us ask three similar questions a nation or a country faces?

What do citizens expect from the Government? What does the Government expect from the citizens? Between these expectations how can one marry the possibility where each side comes out a winner?

A very simple answer from the view of citizens is good governance. From the government’s perspective it is continuous support from the citizens so that the government of the day remains in power almost for indefinite period. Both sides are demanding something which is rational and possibly definitely achievable. None of the side seemingly is asking for the moon. The product being demanded is good governance and the price is patronage. Where is the problem then?

Seen from the “Government of the day” perspective, simple as it may appear the idea of “good governance” in itself throws immense challenges. It has different meanings for different segments of the society. While the rural areas crave for basic infrastructure, on the urban areas wish list is up gradation of existing infrastructure that can shoulder the increasing pressure of continuous invasion of migrating population that strain its infrastructure. Rural areas would be probably contended with decent employment opportunities, basic health, sanitation and access to primary education and controlled inflation on the whole. The urban centres on the other hand are more concerned about law and order, access to economic opportunities through expanding industries, trade, commerce and a quality of life that would enable them to become national assets and engines of economic growth. They are also concerned about environmental degradation, clean water and air, social security and the likes.

The challenges before the Government are numerous. For instances they come in the hues of integration of the poor and marginalized, equitable distribution of National wealth, transparency and civic engagement, and capacity building to say the least. On the social and political fronts Governments face groups who are proponents of transfer of certain powers and responsibilities and decision-making close to the scene of action and their devolution, arguing merits of larger and more meaningful participation by citizens in the development process.

There is something about the human personality that craves freedom, creativity, autonomy and human dignity. Governments are tempted to have everything controlled and dictated and to have a system where people do not challenge their leaders and express their minds at the drop of hat. Here lies the contradiction between those who govern and those who are governed. Sometimes even if the Governments wish to be inclusive, interest groups blind their ways. This leads to dissent often culminating into different shades of violence. Somewhere down the line the Government’s communication fails. Further, Governments rarely have sufficient resources and technology to collect desegregated local level data and maintain a database. Hence, data on various aspects and performance parameters is difficult to collect. In the absence of such dynamic data they lose the feel of the changing ground realities.

The challenge of the “Government of the day” therefore, is to respond to sentiments in the markets, in living rooms, near tea stalls, on the roads, in the restaurants and all the places where people converse. Challenge is to create space and voice to all its stakeholders through inclusive decision-making, since such decision-making is at the heart of good governance and brings governments close to its innate wish of remaining in power. The policy making in a country committed to the rule of law and democratic principles therefore faces the challenge of involving a large number of people who represent the entire population, and hence, making all of the voices heard and assimilated.

Democracy in some way helps solve this dilemma. However, the tendency is to equate democracy with one day affair of elections - this is not so. Voters go to the polls to express their preferences towards parties and make their favoured parties and individual candidates win once in five years or whatever period of time for term of office a Government follows. This should not end here. Citizens should make this more meaningful by participating in day today affairs. Public engagement can begin with staying informed about what is going around in our neighbourhoods and the policies that are important at household level. In the information age, not being aware has consequences.

The politicians on the other hand being intelligent learners should keep their ears tuned. In doing so, they can shape the agenda with their immense power of galvanising masses. Once this is done a two-way communication system is established. The strength of this two way communication system is the secret behind staying in power by the governments of the day and ensuring “good governance” for the good of citizens.

Sadly, everybody wants to go to heaven but no one wants to die. But this has to change because if we continue waiting for some magical power to end our miseries, that will never happen -in any case magic gives temporary elation. We ourselves must change, and see the sense in doing so. Voting wholeheartedly in elections is one such beginning towards owning a system that shapes our present as well as the future. Next in line is the internalization of the virtue of tolerance to divergent views among groups that appreciate the trade-offs towards a goal of common good. This applies to both the Politicians as well as Citizens. In nutshell, making Politics as representative as possible is the job of the Politician while making governance as participative as possible is the duty of the citizens.

Here lie the answers to our questions that promise a perfect happy marriage between citizens and the government.

RWANDISTAN

Published: Afghanistan Times 28 July 2013

UTTAM PRAKASH, RAHUL ARYA*

Imagine you are air dropped somewhere blind folded. As you open your eyes, you see grassy uplands and hills and take notice that the relief is mountainous. You also learn this is a landlocked country with a predominantly rural population. You wish to know more about the place and so you ask a passerby. He is in a hurry, but gives you some quick facts:

The country is heading towards what we can say a “failed state”

There are two major ethnic groups vying for power.

Two million people have died in genocide.

Social, political and economic structures have collapsed.

Until last year aid dependence is more than 40% of the budget.

There's a buzz about a constitutional amendment to enable a third term for the current President. The constitution only allows two terms.

People feel that the international community has not been fair to it.

The skill/capacity of the civil servants is low.

Did you guess it to be “Afghanistan” in 2013?

Sorry! We are referring to Rwanda of 1994, a small middle African country that is half the size of the province of Herat or Kandahar and a little bigger than that of Ghazni. Colonised by Germany in the 19th century, followed by Belgium in the 20th century, the country witnessed genocide in 1994 that killed an estimated million people which was over 10% of its population. Hutus and Tutsis, two major ethnic tribes bayed for blood of each other. Social, political and economic structures had collapsed. In 1994 Rwanda was written off as a failed state. There was indeed a buzz about a constitutional amendment for President Paul Kagame to have a third term. Few had trust in destiny of Rwanda and few believed in its recovery, for it to be able to become strong enough to stand on its own. The fallout of this tragedy was so severe that the then US President regretted, the West regretted, International community regretted for its failure to intervene and prevent this tragedy.

Fast forward to year 2013, Rwanda by every measure, is one of the most successful countries in Africa. Between 2005 and 2012, Rwanda reduced its poverty levels by 12.5% — the highest level ever recorded anywhere in the world. In 2010, Transparency International ranked Rwanda as the eighth cleanest out of 47 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and 66th cleanest out of 178 in the world in terms of corruption. It is also the safest place to live in the world according to the Gallup’s World Poll report "Global States of Mind: New Metrics for world leaders" published in October 2012. Rwanda has the fastest broadband internet in Africa, according to Ookla’s NetIndex.  Its capital Kigali is popularly known as the safest, cleanest, fastest and more liveable city in Africa.

Post 1994 – what started as unpromising beginning, Rwanda proved its adversaries wrong and is walking strongly on the path of progress and development. A look at the Country Data Report, World Bank on six governance indicators – Voice and Accountability, Political Stability and Absence of Violence, Government Effectiveness, Regulatory Quality, Rule of Law, and Control of Corruption – Rwanda has done exceptionally well considering the 1994 baseline. The percentile growth in five indicators except in Voice and Accountability has seen remarkable growth moving from around 10 percentile in all the five indicators and moving up to almost 50 percentile while in Government Effectiveness and Control of Corruption, it is touching 60 and 70 percentile respectively. The economy has strengthened, with per-capita GDP (PPP) estimated at USD 1,592 in 2013, compared with $416 in 1994. Rule of law and efforts to clear red tape have given it a business friendly climate, leading journalists to call Rwanda the "Singapore of Africa".

Sounds like a fairy tale? You may wish to Google if you have any slightest doubt. The big question is, can Afghanistan go the Rwanda way? Is there something that can be learnt and replicated here? But more importantly, how was this done? Probably the most appropriate word that can explain this miracle is “determination”. The nation accepted its follies, made good of the opportunities available and led its determination to prosperity with determination. The determination of course was from the entire population united.

President Kagame speaking at Harvard Business School on 11^th March 2013 remarked: “It's all about the ambition you have. People in Rwanda cannot afford to waste any opportunity. Every day we are looking to see what is it that will make a difference for us. We had to take on responsibility of rebuilding the country. Even though we benefited from external support, we decided early on to take the lead. We had to take the lead in building the foundation necessary for the country. We knew if we didn’t take ownership, it wasn't going to last.”

The other important word apart from determination is “ownership”. Rwanda’s transformation story can give Afghans lessons about a population that is shaping its future and believing in  its ability to govern  itself in these two words ‘determination’ and ‘ownership’. More lessons can be learnt from the ways Rwandans became Singaporeans.

The Rwandan story can be read in the policy decisions taken post 1994. Similar to the “Afghanistan National Development Strategy (ANDS)”, the Rwandans developed the “Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy (EDPRS)”. As the strategy is named the goal, clearly were two Economic Development and Poverty Reduction. The strategy thus was designed to accelerate economic growth and promote human development.

The Poverty Alleviation Programmes were designed as they call it “the Rwandan Way” The Rwandan way was unique as the programmes were designed to be heavily embedded in local norms and traditions. This promoted a sense of ownership of the projects, ensuring not only effective implementation, but also their long term sustainability. This ability to localise solutions to development to fit Rwanda’s local context, has been one of the major drivers to the economic transformation that has taken shape in Rwanda.

Some of the programmes worth taking note of are:

Vision 2020 Umurenge: This is aimed at eliminating extreme poverty by 2020; the programme involves public works, credit packages and direct support.  It is implemented at village level through participatory methods.

One cow per family (Giringa project):  In this project cows are distributed to poor families. Once that cow gives birth, the calf is given to a neighbour who is poor. The project was chosen considering the cattle culture of Rwanda. The milk from the cow improves nutrition and milk sales supplements income. The cow dung used as manure improves soil fertility leading to overall food security.

Umurenge SACCO: This is a nationwide cooperative savings scheme aimed at improving access to finance for the unbanked village population. Villagers make frequent contributions to this savings scheme. Once their savings reach a given threshold, the government contributes to the scheme. Members of the community then borrow from the SACCOs and later pay back in order to sustain the revolving funds.

Performance contracts (Imihigo): Imihigo seeks to promote self government and greater citizen engagement. Performance targets under ERDPS are set and agreed upon as performance contracts. Citizens actively participate in defining their preferences and priorities and are empowered to hold national government and the ministries accountable against commitments made. Local communities are also encouraged to come up with their own solutions to problems. Citizen empowerment thus is a central element in the implementation of the Rwanda’s Poverty reduction Strategy

From 1961 to 1990, Rwanda had an administered economy, which imposed severe restrictions on trade and foreign exchange transactions. In 1995, a number of economic reforms were implemented. Rwanda embraced a market economy and introduced trade reforms. Reforms to the ‘soft’ infrastructure for business and reducing business costs were seen as the first priority. Incentives were provided for FDI including export processing zones and industrial parks. Tariffs were reduced considerably with the average rate decreasing to 18 percent a significant reform when compared with an average tariff rate of 34.8 percent. A one-stop centre called Rwanda Development Board was set up for attracting foreign direct investment and increasing jobs in the different sectors of the economy. In order to identify and plan national priorities and strategies, the Rwandan Government organises an annual Leadership Retreat. The retreat involves the President and heads of government ministries aimed at achieving private sector-led growth in Rwanda. Major reforms that have assisted the business community include easing the process of starting a business, registering property, protection for investors, trade across borders, access to credit and paying taxes. Getting credit was made easier. Paying taxes was made easier by introducing online applications. The implementation of these various policies and reforms contributed to Rwanda’s improved ranking in the World Bank’s 2010 Doing Business Report from 143rd to 67th place.

Rwanda thus pursued a developmental state approach with the key objective as sustainable economic growth and social development. The main aim of EDPRS was to overcome the key constraints to economic growth identified through a growth diagnostic and investment climate analysis by: systematically reducing the operating costs of business; investing in the private sector’s capacity to innovate; and widening and strengthening the public sector.

As Eleanor Roosevelt said, “The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams”. And the dreams were knit on the bedrock of the ugly history. To keep a constant reminder, Rwanda built a genocide memorial recording their bad experiences. In the words of their President Kagame, “The idea was in remembering, you create a consciousness that stops that thing from happening again. History should not be forgotten”. Certainly acknowledging pain and trauma strengthens the resolve to move further.

Rwanda’s vision is to build a knowledge-based economy and to become a private sector led middle income country by 2020. The question is can Afghanistan turn into a new avatar, shall we say Rwandistan? The answer is an emphatic YES provided we dare to dream to take off from the edge of an abyss. Because it is said, if a man can do it, a man can do it and the same applies to nations.

*The authors are Advisors with Civilian Technical Assistance Programme (CTAP) GoIRA. The views are personal.

The Permanent Exit

Americans have declared their exit strategy. They have announced that their terms of engagement in Afghanistan have changed. Troop withdrawal after more than a decade of fighting has begun. Is the war over? or is more remaining to be fought? Will the lessons drawn from 1989 when Soviet troops withdrew be put to use or will history repeat itself sometimes soon after 2014? Does Afghanistan have an exit strategy of its own?

The fundamental issue, over which this war was begun, was the felt need of the West towards integration of Afghanistan with the world communities, through building adequate governance capacities towards prosperity by gradually marginalising those who fish in troubled waters. All this was singularly aimed at making the world a safer place, through containing divisive forces on the soils of blood soaked Afghanistan that threatened global security. There are other perceptions taking rounds though. Going by the available evidence, resource hunting in this alien land does not seem to be a plausible reason because the beneficiaries of major resource acquisition till now have been only the countries whose soldiers never laid foot here. Strategic control of this territory too appears to be a debatable subject in this age of sophisticated technology and shortening distances. This controversy of intentions behind reasons of aggression in Afghanistan is perhaps because too much was invested in the military style of winning the war gradually losing sight of the fundamental issue – integration through development.

Exiting out of Afghanistan for the international community is a lot easier as compared to that of the Government of Afghanistan. The country needs to have an “exit strategy” to come out of this dreadful war once and for all. Does Afghanistan have ONE? Or is it going to repeat its historical mistakes yet again? If we wish to come out of the mess we are in, the war needs to intensify though with a different approach and priorities. What should be the nature of this war? Who are the enemies hence forth?

The three enemies strengthening divisive forces traditionally have been and remain poverty, corruption and illiteracy though some would argue for continued political interferences. Looking carefully, these interferences are a consequence of the above factors and not the other way round. Unsurprisingly, Afghanistan is ranked by the UN on the Human Poverty Index, with a value of 59.8%, the 135^th among 135 countries for which the index has been calculated. It is 181^th among 182 countries on the Human Development Index. Afghans have an average life expectancy at birth of 48 years, and their adult illiteracy rate is around 72%. No wonder institutions failed to take roots, be it political, economic or judicial. The deeply divided population continues to look for meaning in its identity as it finds rosy solace in identifying itself with groups that promise quick ways of amelioration. This promotes an overemphasized sense of honour and a dangerously blown out of proportion sense of entitlement.

However, it would be wrong to assume that rebuilding efforts have completely gone down the drain. For reasons associated with nature of fragile states where institutions and systems are at basic formative stage, the donors designed and implemented their programs through their own methods and procedures. The Afghanistan government, one of the key stakeholders in such projects, could not participate effectively as it is very difficult to have demand driven projects in an insecure and volatile environment where social or community mobilization is hardly possible. The aid projects therefore assumed the nature of being donor driven and supply driven instead of being demand driven. Non-involvement of the Government in identifying and leading priority areas for development further resulted in uneven distribution and allocation, often leading to crowding of programs in few areas and absence in other areas. It is estimated that during the period from 2002 to 2011 US$ 57 billion was spent in Afghanistan. Of this 90 percent were spent on projects directly implemented by donors according to World Bank, Country Program Evaluation Report.

Things have changed gradually though. Afghanistan’s estimated per capita Gross Domestic Product of $591 in 1390 (2011) is five times higher than the $123 per capita GDP of 10 years ago. Access to primary health care has increased from 9% of the population to more than 57%. Nearly 8,000 kilometres of national highways, regional highways and provincial roads have been built. Civil aviation services have also improved considerably connecting Afghanistan to all major hubs in the region. Access to electricity has increased by 250% and the national power utility has grown into a more efficient, well-managed corporation.  The Information and Communications Technology (ICT) sector has grown from almost no coverage in 2001 to 86% of Afghan residential areas. The Agriculture Sector has seen irrigated land, increase from 1.2 to 1.8 million hectares; wheat production has grown from 1.5 to 3.2 million tons; and the total horticulture area has grown from 75,000 to 120,000 hectares, increasing grape production by 69 percent and almonds by 195 percent.

Afghanistan’s economy remains strong with around 10% average annual growth since 2002. However, no pat on the back yet, there are multiple issues that pose serious challenges to development that we have just noted. Apart from tackling insecurity and widespread corruption’ much needs to be done on building key institutions that can support the growth trajectory. Poverty and illiteracy can easily dry up the thin visible progress leading to much dreaded crisis and conflict.

To consolidate the gains, building confidence amongst locals, expats and foreign investors is the key. This can come provided there is confidence to do business on fair and equitable manner. Experience from the last 30 years has revealed that competition amongst businesses has been beneficial for less developed countries, as markets have opened up leading to more products and more jobs. Competition also brings in transparency and accountability in government-business relationship. Linkage between “competition” and “poverty reduction”- which is central to ills in Afghanistan, is rather simple to establish. Small producers if are considered as consumers of ‘inputs’ and ‘infrastructure services’ then any interventions by the  government in improving competition in these markets would help these producers and hence propel further growth. Thus, there are enormous possibilities for competition to address poverty by improving access to services and creating jobs. One of the definitions of poverty is the absence of an individual from a market because they simply can’t afford to operate in it. Thankfully, a number of countries, most notably South Africa and Senegal, are examples of how new entry in market encouraged by competition policy can help widen access and bring more poor consumers into markets. Learning from these experiences, it is time Afghanistan starts investing in building institutions that promote and protect “fair trade”, in markets that ensures fairplay.

Perhaps the biggest challenge in Afghanistan will be in finding ways to make this happen at the soonest. Here lies the “Permanent Exit Strategy” of Afghanistan that will restore it to its recently lost glory. This will allow the world to feel safer averting the unlearnt mistakes of 1989 and that which was airdropped after 9/11.