EDITORIAL : THE DAWN, PAKISTAN

Food insecurity

THE director of the World Food Programme in Pakistan, Wolfgang Herbinger, has drawn attention to an urgent problem: the link between food insecurity and the support-price regime for key food crops. As Mr Herbinger explained: “The crop outlook is not bad, but the food security situation remains difficult because prices remain so high.” The WFP Pakistan director cited wheat in particular as a culprit for increasing food insecurity in the country — the present government has increased the official wheat-procurement price to Rs950 over the course of its term so far, a 50 per cent increase. Mr Herbinger is absolutely correct. A series of myopic, self-serving decisions by the federal cabinet have made it more difficult for poor Pakistanis to obtain basic foodstuffs derived from key crops.

The central issue here is the price-support regime sponsored and implemented by the government. Consider just the case of wheat. The basic logic of the state offering to buy a few million tonnes of the crop each year at a guaranteed price announced before the sowing season is to encourage production. And on wheat, the country is admittedly doing fairly well — with surplus production this year helping to protect against the unprecedented floods of last year. But — and here`s the rub — is there any evidence that the support price actually works in terms of incentivising farmers to produce wheat? The empirical data, according to economists, suggests that it does not. Other than encouraging some production at the margin, by leading some farmers to switch to wheat or to try and produce wheat on less-fertile land, for example, there is little evidence that a state-guaranteed purchase price encourages production. Which means that the cost of the incentive — an inflation tax on consumers, who must pay more for wheat so that the farmers are `encouraged` to produce — is unjustified and unwarranted. Consider that there are far more consumers of wheat than there are producers, and many of those consumers happen to be the poor who Mr Herbinger indicated are growing more vulnerable to food insecurity.

So why does this happen? The short answer: landed interests are either directly in power or have great sway over what the federal cabinet does. With big wheat, sugarcane and rice producers having so much political clout, the interests of the ordinary consumer and the poor are no match. But the State Bank is believed to be pushing for a compromise. Rather than directly financing the support-price regime, the government could opt for a regulatory role. That would reduce the inefficiencies and level of corruption in the support-price regime. But will the Economic Coordination Committee listen?

Release of suspects

THE law must take its due course. As this paper has pointed out repeatedly, we do not agree with the concept of summary `justice`, in which innocent persons can be sentenced to death without getting a fair hearing. It is important here to retain the distinction between speedy and summary justice. That said, it is also vital to note that an overwhelming majority of detainees who have been arrested of late for their ostensible militant activities continue to be released by the country`s anti-terrorism courts for want of evidence. The case against most of them appears to be clear-cut on a circumstantial level but they are set free, to terrorise society all over again, simply because of the shoddy prosecution that is the bane of our legal system. Take the case of the people picked up for their alleged involvement in a number of terrorist attacks in the country, for instance the assault on the Parade Lane mosque in Rawalpindi. Then there are the routine killings in Karachi. How many of the perpetrators of those crimes have been prosecuted?

This criminal negligence must stop for a number of reasons. First and foremost, dangerous criminals bent on murder and mayhem cannot be allowed to operate freely after they are caught. Two, it does no good to overall morale when law-enforcement personnel who put their lives on the line when arresting militants see them released because the state`s lackadaisical prosecutors cannot convincingly press a case in a court of law. Witnesses often do not come forth, even in the case of crimes that are brazen, because they have no confidence in the guarantees offered by the state. Why would anybody expose themselves and their families to the threat of deadly retaliation when witness protection is merely a concept, not a fact? The battle against terrorism cannot be won in this way. Adequate security must be provided to the witnesses who appear in anti-terrorism courts and the judges who preside over the proceedings, and the prosecution needs to do its homework before resorting to legal action. Otherwise, insurgents and terrorists will continue to go scot-free.

Death of an icon

THE death on Wednesday of Elizabeth Taylor has been accompanied by a sense of loss, as the world of movies has been deprived of some of its glitter. She was the last of Hollywood’s golden-era icons, personifying a time when celebrity culture of legendary proportions was the exclusive preserve of the industry. The London-born star lived to see the world survive the Second World War and arrive in the era of Facebook and Twitter. A globally recognised icon but a somewhat overlooked actor, during a career that spanned five decades Ms Taylor may not always have been brilliant in her work, but sometimes was just that. Her best performances came with strong, female-centric roles such as Martha in Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and Maggie in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. Even when not at her peak in thespian terms, she was rarely less than arresting. From child actress to the queen of tinsel town, Ms Taylor was, in a sense, Hollywood itself.

Yet Elizabeth Taylor’s legacy stretches beyond her own life, tragic and blessed as it was by turns. She was amongst those celebrities who used their status to turn the world’s attention towards people less fortunate. Ms Taylor upheld the cause of gay rights and AIDS awareness at a time when the world was as yet new, and thus hostile, to the idea. Her advocacy for AIDS awareness earned her a special Oscar in 1993. Her example of supporting causes is followed by celebrities across the world, including in Pakistan. Her words while accepting the special Oscar are pertinent: “I call upon you to draw from the depths of your being to prove that we are a human race, to prove that our love outweighs our need to hate, that compassion is more compelling than our need to blame.”