Writ small

Sunday, January 25, 2009

What might be the common man's understanding of the phrase 'the writ of the state'? Historically it has its origins in English Common Law. The 'writ' was a letter or command from the King, usually written in Latin and sealed with the Great Seal and acted as a summons to appear before the Royal Court. Time and usage have broadened this out. Today, the 'writ of the state' is understood to mean that part of a nation state that the government of the day has control over. 'Control' is understood to mean at every level – of civil and military forces and institutions, of physical infrastructure and policing, of the development and implementation of policy, health and education services and the many other attributes and entities that 'control' implies. To what extent the writ of the state extends to all parts of the land is a defining factor in whether or not a state may be judged as failed, and the steady erosion of the writ of the state in those areas of Pakistan which are either under the control or influence of the Taliban or their supporters and fellow-travellers; has now reached the point where the state itself is at hazard. The National Assembly has passed a unanimous resolution which recommends dialogue only with those extremist elements that have seen the error of their ways and accepted 'the writ of the state'. A standing committee of the National assembly has been given the task of implementing the 'unanimous resolution' but appears to have got no further than making a range of increasingly irrelevant statements. Standing committees do not issue orders, deploy troops or control human and material resources – in short they do little beyond providing the fig-leaf with which they attempt to preserve the modesty of a government whose raiment is becoming threadbare to the point of embarrassment. President Zardari said on Thursday last…"Dialogue for a political settlement in the disturbed regions with those who would not challenge the writ of the state is also an element of the government strategy to deal with the situation". Ms Sherry Rehman, an otherwise gifted woman saddled with the task of communicating with the common man the intentions of the government said… 'the schools in Swat will reopen on 1st March'. Both statements underscore governmental disconnect with the failure of the writ of the state in large parts of NWFP and FATA. The reality is that there is no sign of a wholesale abandonment of their arms by those who have successfully challenged the writ of the state in NWFP (or Balochistan for that matter) - which leave options for dialogue towards a political settlement decidedly limited if not invisible. As to the reopening of schools in Swat, which has now assuredly become the greatest failure in terms of 'the writ of the state' by the current government, the announcement of their reopening is little short of arrant nonsense and flies in the face of the reality of over 140 girls schools lying in ruins. Simply, the insurgents have beaten the government either by design or default and it is now their writ that runs, and the government will conduct any negotiations from a position of weakness rather than strength. This is a government increasingly writ exceeding small, and we fear for the point at which it becomes invisible to the naked eye.