Organizational Behavior of Governance in Pakistan

NAME: YUSRA SIDDIQUI ERP ID: 05066 ASSIGNMENT # 01 THE ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR AND LEADERSHIP PATTERN IN PAKISTAN Pakistan has had a history of 65 years and within this passage of time one cannot say that the organizational behavior and leadership of this country has followed any particular pattern. Instead the country has gone through some major transformations since the day it came into being till the current date.
A core purpose for the creation of Pakistan was that the Muslims of the subcontinent demanded a nation of their own where they had complete freedom to practice their religion and at the time of partition our country was geographically divided in two regions- East Pakistan (currently Bangladesh) and West Pakistan. The newly formed government of this baby born state comprising of Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan as the Prime Minister and Mr.
Muhammad Ali Jinnah as the Governor General had to face major difficulties in managing East and West Pakistan as post partition riots had taken a toll and a great number of refugees moving from India to Pakistan had to be accommodated for. Other than this one of the major responsibility that needed to be catered for by the leaders of that time was to set up an efficient system of administration for the country. The two leaders didn’t stay alive long enough to cope up with all the problems rising in the state.

Although at the time of formation of Pakistan it was declared as a country where people from all communities and religions could practice their religion with complete freedom but within the first decade the non-Ahmadiyya riots took place which was initiated by the intolerant Mullahs of that time. This resulted in loss of many lives and property. During the initial years when the government should have been focusing on policy making and constitution formation for the countries betterment in coming times, its major time was being wasted off in dealing with such crisis situations.
In order to deal with the riots the government of that time asked for military help and as a result the first martial law was declared in certain parts of the country in the year 1958. This martial law definitely served as a solution in ending up these riots but this took the leadership trend in Pakistan to new directions. Not very long after the first martial law, the era of wars aroused in Pakistan resulting in an even more shattered economic condition and destabilization of the state.
The 1965 war was an attempt to conquer the Indian Kashmir land from the Pakistan side whereas India made an attempt to capture Lahore and Sialkot. The war ended in ceasefire and the leaders of that time from both the countries signed the “Tashkent declaration”. In 1970 democratic elections were held in Pakistan for the first time in which the Awami league (a political party with its roots in East Pakistan) got majority of the votes. However this was not accepted by the powerful politicians of West Pakistan and they urged on power sharing. Talks were made for the same purpose which failed.
The whole situation struck a chaos in between the two wings of the nation and the war of 1971 ended forming a new nation Bangladesh from what was formerly East Pakistan and Pakistan was left with only West Pakistan. Right away after the war of 1971 General Yahya Khan handed over control of the country to Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and this again gave a chance to democracy in Pakistan. During the Six years tenure of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto the religious scholars and leaders of that time had a strong feeling that the policies formulated by the government were more of a secular nature and driving the nation away from Islam.
The Chief of army staff General Zia-ul-Haq was encouraged by the leaders to take over the government and enforce a martial law. During this martial law period Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was also executed. In 1985 the martial law was lifted without any elections and Mr. Muhammed Khan Junejo was appointed as the Prime Minister of the country. However in 1988 after a blast at army ammunition camp at Ojheri Junejo’s government was dissolved and democratic elections took place through which Pakistan People’s Party came into power.
Only two years after the elections of 1988 Benazir’s Government had been dismissed by president Ghulam Ishaq Khan. From 1990 to 1993 the country was lead by Mian Nawaz Sharif as prime minister and general elections were once again held in 1993 where Pakistan People’s Party once again won and came into power. This tenure didn’t last for more than three years and at the beginning of 1997 general elections were again held through which Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) came into power.
By the end of 1999 General Pervaiz Musharraf dissolved the then existing government of Pakistan Muslim League and took over charge. Although this could not be categorized as a martial law but Pervaiz Musharaf enjoyed power in both the democracy as well as in the military by declaring himself as president as well as remaining head of army. Pervaiz Musharraf’s Tenure lasted for almost 9 years throughout which the country had to undergo many ups and downs.
The war against terrorism after the 9/11 attacks caused a lot of chaos internationally as well as within the country. The freedom given to media in Pakistan created new dimensions in the political happenings of the country. Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif both returned to the country for empowerment of democracy. Benazir Bhutto got killed during a campaign for election rally. By August 2008 Pervaiz Musharraf resigned from the post of president and once again from 2008 till date the nation is being ruled by Pakistan People’s Party.
Going through this history one can comment for sure that the behavior of the organizations which have governed the country over the last 65 years especially the later ones, had one thing in common and that is the desire to keep themselves in power. Rather than being a source of welfare for the people of the country and having an objective to focus on ways of how to create and flourish prosperity throughout the nation, the people who came in power had more focus on ways to flourish their own welfare and prosperity but that to in a very clever way.
This way is such that most of the population of Pakistan which comprises of illiterate majorities is being fooled in a way that they feel that the governments are working and putting an effort for the welfare and well being of the country. This is done by bonding through various means especially through common cultures and traditions or by sympathizing with crowds and giving them an impression that their grief is the government’s greatest concern and the government itself has gone through a lot of sorrows and disasters for the empowerment of its people.
Although the masses where the literacy rate is quite low do start believing these conspiracies plotted by the democratic government and begin to have this feeling that the people in power are actually concerned for them and want their welfare but people who are more aware and educated have realized it long time back that be it any government either from their community or from any other community, its sole purpose during its tenure is to maximize its own welfare and gains.


Governance Assignment

This paper consists of Parts A and B. Part A will discuss what the internet filter debate is and will justify why this is an information policy issue. In addition, the same part of this paper will identify the key stakeholders, and determine what the arguments for and against the filter. Part B, which uses Part A as basis, will deal in policy framework where the paper will the expand the key issues and create a report. The report will also address the key issues from multiple sides of the debate and present to the senator with a recommended solution to the debate.
Part B will consist of a brief summary of the issues and using four of the “six thinking hats”, the paper will present alternatives in the report to the filter. The four hats used in this paper are Technology Hat, Health Hat (as created by this researcher), Business Entrepreneur Hat and Political Hat. 2. 1 Part A 2. 1. 1. The internet filter debate The internet filter debate talks about whether there is basis to implement restriction in the access to the Internet.
Most especially affected are the children who would most likely be victims of pornography, violence and other things objectionable to their taste that could affect their emotional and psychological health.

2. 1. 2 Justification internet filter is an information issue This is an issue because government’s action to do some political and legal action by legislation or mandatory implementation of internet filter necessarily regulates the free flow information what would otherwise be available without the mandated filter.
What should be regulated and how show it be regulated becomes important because of the lack of proper determination what should constitute what is objectionable material from the internet and who determines the same. The right to information is part of implied rights of the Australian in their constitution (Parliament of Victoria, n. d. ) and a necessary requirement of right to free speech and expression, Said right is based on the international which the Australian has ratified and adopted for its governance (Libetus. net, 2008). A denial of right to information by internet filter would amount to denial of human right.
2. 1. 3 The stakeholders of the issue The stakeholders of the issue include the different group of users, which may be classified as the non-adults or children, non-adults, the government as regulators, the educational institutions and the society in general. 2. 1. 4 The arguments for and against the issue The arguments for the internet filter would include protecting the children from objectionable materials, which could hamper or affect their emotional and psychological health because of exposure to pornographic and violent websites.
(ABC News, 2007) The main argument against internet filter is it prior restraint to right to information under right of freedom of expression of Australians. The restraint will thus unfairly restrict the right of Australians to access the web. The filter will also slow internet speeds and raise the price of internet access due to cost of regulation that must be covered. The filter would only have little effect on illegal internet content including pornography as file-sharing networks would be spared from coverage.
If Australia would learn from the US experience, the US Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional two federal Internet laws beginning with the Communications Decency Act of 1995. The US court has declared too protection of right to information under the First Amendment of the US Constitution (Mauro, 2003) from which Australia could use or learn. 2. 2 Part B As already introduced earlier, this part will expand the issues of internet filter by presenting alternatives using at least four thinking hats. 2. 2. 1 Summary of the Issues:
Should government pursue internet filter by making it mandatory to limit websites access through the Internet Service Providers (ISP) or are there better alternatives that could be more beneficial to Australians and eventually become more popular and thus help ensure the political survival of the Senator Conroy? 2. 2. 2. Alternatives The Alternatives to internet filter could include the following: First, there would be no government regulation or let the parents do the regulation or filtering at home on a voluntary basis. This would mean non non-enactment of legislation or non-implementation by other means for mandatory internet filter.
This would in effect work consistent with the arguments against internet filter as described in Part A of this paper. The thinking hats that would support this position include the technology hat, heath hat, business entrepreneur hat and political hat. This would in effect be a case of voluntary filter since this would give to the parents the power to discipline their children on internet use rather than the government. Another alternative would be to have the mandatory internet filter to be of local application only and eventually makes is federal should it prove successful.
This would mean the local should pass the legislation or states governments in Australia where each state or territory may see the internet filter to fit in their environment in relation to emotional and psychological maturity of the people especially the children of each state or territory in Australia. This would require clear definition of terms of what to be considered as objectionable. The main problem however with this alternative is the need to depend still for the ISP to determine or translate their software for implementing the defined areas of objectionable source of information or internet materials.
Apparently, there is no enough evidence that would support this possibility and hence none of the hats presented later may support these alternatives.
2. 2. 3 The different thinking hats used
2. 2. 3. 1 Technology Hat The filter concept may sound good and if the technology could be properly implemented the filter could really work great. This would mean helping the parents and governments to mold their children away from the influences of pornographic and violent websites. The time saved by parents could be used more productively for the benefit of the family and the states.
The state or government would in turn have more chances of reaping the benefits of less children exposed to said objectionable websites as compared with other countries. Budget funds that are used for rehabilitating to building the lives of those that are emotionally and psychologically abused through the abusive internet sites containing pornography and violence would rather be used for more life promoting experiences. Economically and politically, the advantages would really be immeasurable if the intended benefits materialize because of the success for the technology.
Unfortunately, empirical experiences appear to weaken the hope of attaining the desired objectives. Thus, using technology hat as thinking tool to support and contradict the internet filter, this part points out the difficulty of actually implementing an internet filter that would accomplish the desired purpose. One detrimental effect feared is in slowing of connection speeds, which will sound contradictory or ironic to government’s plans to fund massive increase in broadband speed (Kidman, 2008). Another good reason against the filter idea is the lack of clear information on just what will be blocked.
It the latter is pursued that it could amount to undue restriction to right of information (Kidman, 2008). This could be deciphered by the fact the Australian, government which is supposed to implement that plan merely, dismissed that these protestors as caring less in helping to protect children, but has not yet provided an answer to the criticisms of the proposal. Conroy’s claims that similar schemes are already in place in Europe but which have also been also extensively criticized based on EFA analysis that highlighted numerous differences in approach (Kidman, 2008).
The filter also caused over and under inclusion of internet resources. Support for both under and over inclusive hypotheses was clearly found in a study by the COPA commission about the limitations of the filter. The author simplified the result by asserting that taken all together the internet filters failed to block objectionable content twenty-five percent (25%) of the time. It could be counterargued that why not go for at least have something that must be blocked than not having blocked anything for the children.
Well, this could have some sense but the study also revealed that filters also improperly blocked twenty one percent (21%) of the benign content. Thus, the author explained that assuming the web has 800 million unique documents; filters would cause the incorrect blocking of approximately 168 million pages (COPA Commission, 2000). It is indeed appearing to be a big loss of valuable information. If translated into books, it would approximate removing from a local library incorrectly about twenty one percent (21%) of its good books while not providing any explanation for their removal (COPA Commission, 2000). Learn when the government uses censorship, it puts a limit on what?
Technology hat indeed works more against the use of filter.
2. 2. 3. 2 Health Hat Given the reality of blocking some legal sites with use of the filter, much would be lost also in terms of valuable health information. A study found that the use of the filter could affect access to health information if administrators of schools and libraries would configure the computer filters to block beyond just pornography. This assertion is of course premised on the idea that the mandatory internet filter will expand what could be blocked by Internet Service Providers.
It was found in the study that one in every four sites was blocked, on the average using the most restrictive settings. The same study further found that the use of a more restrictive setting for the filters, resulted in a significant increase in blocking of health sites but the yield in term of increase in the effectiveness at blocking pornography was only marginal. This means that there are more better sites being blocked which amounts to denying relevant health information to students. To dramatize the effect, it was found that health sites blocked increased from 1.
4% to 24% while block sites for pornography increased only from 87% to 91% (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2002). From the information, it is also clear that not all pornographic sites are blocked while a greater number of information on health was denied the students.
2. 2. 3. 3 Business Entrepreneur Hat Internet filter proves to be not good to business as not many business entities in Australia support it as shown by the fact of lack of enthusiastic participants in a filter trial announced by the government.
In fact, Telstra, which was supposed to be part of the trial to conduct the filter trial planned not to attend due to “customer management issues”. Although the company has not specified what are these issues, strong conclusion that could be drawn that there are bad consequences for business in implementing mandatory internet filter from the feared slowing down of the internet of up to 87% and accidental blocking of legal contents.
The internet filter also runs ironic to the government plan to speed up the process by putting funds for such purpose (SmartCompany. com, 2009).
2. 2. 3. 4 Political Hat Australians like any people in the world have their political rights to free speech and right to information as way of making their government and political framework work. Doing the filter without violating these rights would appear very clear. The internet has become a good venue for many political opinions and expressions as ways of exercising these rights.
In the case of the US, rights to information were found by the Supreme Court to have been infringed the internet laws passed by US Congress. Said laws were found violative of the Constitution. Australians also enjoy almost similar rights to information, which must be protected under the circumstance. The Australian Government has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on December 18, 1972, which means that it has adopted the part of international law as part of the law of its land.
The ratification took effect on August 13, 1980 and Australian reservations and other articles pertaining to said political rights to freedom of expression were withdrawn on November 6, 1984. Article 19 (2) of the said ICCPR properly provides for the right to freedom of expression for Australians, and said rights include the right or “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideals of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art or any other media” of choice (, 2008)
3. Conclusion and Recommendation
There seems to be no issue that there must be some restraints as far as children’s access to the Internet is concerned that these children should not be allowed to have access on materials that are not good to their mental and emotional health. The problem therefore resides on whether Internet filter could effectively increase its purpose of protecting children without denying the right of many Australians of their right to information under the Constitution and international law.
The denial to right to information was found to have their effects bad using at least four thinking hats: the technology hat, the health hats, the business, and political hat. Under the technology hat a strong evidence of over-blocking and failing to block expected websites were found. This would mean that there are costs to trying to protect the children from blocking pornographic sites in terms of denying more important information and failing really to block the intended sites within a reasonable degree or level.
Under the health hat, there was denial of health information to students, which is also important to learning, growth, and further development. Under the business entrepreneur hat, the same filter could be bad to business due to many grounds such as the slowing down of the speed of computers because of the need to filter some sites, disadvantageous position in a world of business where speed in decision-making would be a great factor that would govern the conduct of business.
Under the political hat, the implementation of Internet filter could be properly categorized as denial of the rights of Australians to grow politically by having more access to information from other parts of the world that could be used in furthering their rights. Since government would be in control in the implementation of filter, the latter could impose unnecessary restrictions to freedom including possible opposition to government, which will run counter to the political rights of Australians. This paper has studied other alternatives to Internet Filter being mandated by the government.
One of these options is doing this on a state or local level not covering the whole of Australia. Evidence however is weak or nil that there are particular states or territories who would want to have the filter implemented at the local or state level. Thus, another option is to make the filter voluntary to Australians. Since the most defensible purpose of Internet filter is for the protection of the rights of children or non-adults, it would be more consistent with experience to put the responsibility of filtering to parents rather than the government.
It could be properly argued that parents do exercise responsibility over the children and giving such parents to control access to the Internet by allowing them to buy software that would attain the filtering and installing them in the computers to be used by their children, the act could at least provide some advantage if the values of these parents supports that decision. These parents are however warned of the limitation of filter software being used, which will still require their supervision of the use of computers by their children.
To make filter through legislation where it would be ISP providers that would block some sites without clear definition of which should be blocked could result to possible excessive blocking because of the fear that they will be punished for failing to block. The internet filter as contemplated would therefore become an uncertain law that will accomplish uncertain things. Since it is the children that are most vulnerable to the problem of having unlimited access to sites, this researcher recommends that instead of giving the power to ISP providers, the power should be given to parents.
In many instances, the school would be responsible enough to provide filters, as they deemed necessary, of course, without affecting the rights of children to have access to information that they rightly deserve.
References: ABC News (2007), Conroy announces mandatory internet filters to protect children, {www document} URL http://www. abc. net. au/news/stories/2007/12/31/2129471. htm, Accessed April 27, 2009
COPA Commission (2000) Internet Filter Effectiveness: Testing Over and Underinclusive Blocking Decisions of Four Popular Filters, {www document} URL http://www. copacommission. org/papers/filter_effect.pdf, Accessed April 27, 2009
Electronic Frontiers Australia (2009) EFA Analysis, {www document} URL http://www. efa. org. au/censorship/mandatory-isp-blocking/#SS_4, Accessed April 27, 2009
Kaiser Family Foundation (2002); See No Evil: How Internet Filters Affect the Search on Online Health information, {www document} URL http://www. kff. org/entmedia/upload/See-No-Evil-How-Internet-Filters-Affect-the-Search-for-Online-Health-Information-Executive-Summary. pdf, Accessed April 27, 2009
Kidman, A. (2008) Street protests planned over internet filtering, {www document} URL htm,
Street protests planned over internet filtering, Accessed April 27, 2009 Libetus. net (2008), Free Speech Rights & Australian Law, {www document} URL http://libertus. net/censor/fspeechlaw. html, Accessed April 27, 2009
Mauro, T. (2003), High Court Hears Arguments on Library Internet Filters, {www document} URL http://www. law. com/jsp/article. jsp? id=1046833514527, Accessed April 27, 2009
Parliament of Victoria (n. d. ), Review of the Unlawful Assemblies and Processions Act 1958: Chapter 5 – Constitution and Implied Rights, {www document} URL http://www.parliament. vic. gov. au/sarc/Unlawful_Assemblies_Act/Report/UAP_Ch5. htm, Accessed April 27, 2009 SmartCompany. com (2009),
Proposed internet filter takes another hit, {www document} URL http://114. 111. 138. 128/telecommunications/proposed-internet-filter-takes-another-hit. html, Accessed April 27, 2009
The Herald Sun (October 29, 2008) Australia to Implement Mandatory Internet Censorship, {www document} URL http://www. dslreports. com/forum/r21341775-Australia-To-Implement-Mandatory-Internet-Censorship, Accessed April 27, 2009