THE events of September 11, 2001, brought terrorism to the centre of the world’s concerns, and led to the US declaring war against terror. The coalition against terrorism forged by President Bush has demonstrated a certain resolve, and achieved results.

However, the most recent manifestations of the war against terrorism, as seen in India, and Palestine, show that state organs have indulged in excesses and violations of universally acknowledged legal and human rights that need to be noted by the international community.

Even as the US launched its world-wide campaign against terrorism, many voices pointed out that it was not enough to attack the manifestations of terrorism, and that the roots of terrorism had to be eliminated for a durable solution. The roots are political, economic and social. Ever since the end of the Second World War, there was a revolution of sorts as subject peoples in colonies straddling the Third World sought the right of self-determination, and independence from colonial domination. In territory after territory, in Asia and Africa, the long subjugated masses rose up to claim their democratic rights.

There is a long list of leaders who were jailed and tortured by their colonial masters for being terrorists, but who were recognized as presidents and prime ministers, after their struggle succeeded. One can recall Jomo Kenyatta of Kenya, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, and Ahmad Sukarno of Indonesia. Nelson Mandela spent 27 years in prison. Even in British India, many leaders went through jail terms, and endured state violence.

The Second World War proved to be a catalyst in promoting a worldwide movement for freedoms that were included in the Atlantic Charter, as the democracies fought against the totalitarian regimes of the axis powers. These same principles became the foundation of the Charter of the United Nations that embodies the ideals of mankind for a just and peaceful world order.

The period of the cold war saw the international community preoccupied with a rivalry between the two blocs, so that terrorism was not regarded as a major threat to world order. When the cold war ended in 1989 with the victory of the West led by the US, there were significant changes in the global scenario. That year witnessed a “democracy movement”, the manifestations of which occurred in many parts of the world. Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, that had been sustained by Soviet support, collapsed one after the other, and the dramatic destruction of the Berlin Wall led to the reunification of East and West Germany. Numerous autocratic regimes in Africa and Latin America gave way to democratic ones. The agitation for self-determination also regained momentum in Palestine and Kashmir.

As the US emerged as the unique superpower, and symbolized an unjust world order, terrorism arose as a phenomenon representing dissatisfaction with economic, social and political injustices in many parts of the world. The bulk of the terrorist attacks were directed against US installations and personalities. The US, therefore, assumed the main responsibility in the campaign against terrorism, setting up special bureaus in the State Department, as well as in its intelligence organizations, the CIA and the FBI, to coordinate the anti-terrorism drive.

Israel, many of whose people had resorted to terrorism in their quest for a Jewish state (including the present prime minister), has carried out policies of genocidal repression, and large numbers of Palestinians, have found themselves compelled to take up arms, and to risk their lives to get their rights. During the incumbency of President Clinton, considerable headway had been made towards reaching an accommodation, till, in September 2000, Ariel Sharon, marched into the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem in his boots, to set the Oslo process in reverse by trying to impose total Jewish superiority.

As the Newsweek of 8/15 April 2002 recalls, George W. Bush had been influenced in his perception of the Middle East by a visit to Israel as Texas governor in 1998, during which Sharon, then foreign minister, impressed him, while Arafat had not found time to meet him. The lasting impact of that experience, plus the hawkish views of close advisers linking the outrage of September 11 with the world of Islam appear to colour the views of the most powerful man in the world.

President Bush had sought to reassure the Muslims of the world, numbering 1.2 billion and populating a swath of countries stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, that he respects Islam as a faith, and most Muslims as law-abiding people. But the course of action he has followed with regard to Israel and India suggests that the rights and lives of the Muslims are secondary to the links developed with these powers in his global perceptions.

In its determination to eliminate terrorism and terrorist organizations in the world, the US has virtually given a “licence to kill” to states in resisting even legitimate movements that base their demands on resolutions of the UN. As the level of repression being applied in Israel and Kashmir shows, this amounts to encouraging state terrorism, when excessive and brutal force is applied against civilians, in violation of international and humanitarian law. The main victims of state terrorism are Muslims, so that strong resentment is spreading, not only in Kashmir and Palestine, but throughout the Muslim world that somehow Huntington’s flawed theory is colouring US and western attitudes.

In an interview on April 2, Prof. Noam Chomsky, well-known US intellectual, pointed out the actions taken by the US to block steps towards a diplomatic settlement in the Middle East. He mentioned the veto of the December 15 Security Council Resolution calling for the implementation of the US Mitchell plan that called for international monitors to supervise reduction of violence. The US also boycotted the December 5 meetings in Geneva, attended by EU countries, that affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the occupied territories in Palestine, making US-Israeli actions into “grave breaches” of the Convention.

With regard to the state terrorism Ariel Sharon is practising in Palestine, even prominent Jewish and Israeli personalities are raising their voices for a shift to resolving the problem through a peace process, with the backing and involvement of the US, the only power capable of playing a decisive role.

Thomas L. Friedman, prominent Jewish journalist and columnist, wrote on April 2 in the New York Times that the situation in Palestine was a “terrible disaster in the making.” Ariel Sharon had responded to suicide bombings by taking the offensive on the West Bank, but Israel would not enjoy lasting peace. The role of an outside power, such as the US or NATO was therefore necessary to secure the borders of Israel, and to supervise the gradual emergence of a Palestinian state.

Friedman quoted Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad of Malaysia, who came out against suicide bombings.” Bitter and angry though we may be, we must demonstrate to the world that Muslims are rational people when fighting for our rights, and do not resort to terror.” Friedman was critical of “feckless American Jewish leaders, fundamentalist Christians, and neo-conservatives, whose collaboration has “helped prolong a colonial Israeli occupation that now threatens the entire Zionist enterprise.”

Two members of the Cabinet of former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak have also come out for a change of course by both Israel and the US, if the cycle of terrorism and violence is to be halted. Former Justice Minister Yossi Beilin wrote on April 1 in the New York Times that the only way out was for the two sides to agree to a ceasefire supervised by the US, build on the Saudi initiative, and use US mediator Anthony Zinni to see that the Palestinian Authority’s forces are restored, followed by resumption of peace talks. Writing in the same newspaper on April 5, Shlomo Ben-Ami, who was Barak’s foreign minister, also pointed out that neither side in the Palestinian conflict was capable of moving towards a compromise, and “only the international community under assertive and resolute American leadership can coax them into crossing the chasm together.”

India’s actions in Kashmir, especially after the introduction of POTA, would also qualify as crimes against humanity, if properly monitored. Here also, the international community is conniving at state terrorism, and the same bias against the Muslim world is apparent. It is time for the US leadership to realize that President Bush’s assurances notwithstanding; a bias against the Muslim world is plainly visible in the global approach to state terrorism.

THE referendum has stirred up a hornet’s nest and the president is now involved in a flurry of political activity. It is likely to raise more legal, political and constitutional issues than it seeks to resolve.

The president evidently acting in his discretion in the absence of an elected prime minister and cabinet, has taken a decision and a referendum will be held unless the courts are given the right of judicial review. Our superior courts will then decide if the referendum can be held.

As things stand today the president can hold a referendum. Article 48 of the Constitution provides that in the exercise of his functions, the president shall act in accordance with the advice of the cabinet or the prime minister and not withstanding anything contained in clause 1 of Article 48, the president shall act in his discretion in respect of any matter in respect of which he is empowered by the Constitution to do so and the validity of anything done by the President in his discretion shall not be called into question on any ground whatsoever.

With regard to a referendum, clause 6 of Article 48 provides that if, at any time, the president, in his discretion, or on the advice of the prime minister considers that it is desirable that any matter of national importance should be referred to a referendum, the president may cause the matter to be referred to a referendum in the form of a question that is answerable either by “yes” or “no”.

It is thus clear that Article 48 of the Constitution deals with the powers of the president including holding of a referendum on any matter of national importance while Article 41 prescribes the procedure for the election of the president by an electoral college consisting of (a) members of both houses of parliament and (b) members of the provincial assemblies.

There appears to be no prohibition or bar to the president obtaining the views of the people of Pakistan by a referendum, on a matter which he considers to be of national importance which in the present case is whether the people of Pakistan would like a continuation of the policies and reforms introduced and proposed to be implemented in Pakistan as announced by the president including achievement of the vision of the Quaid-i-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah and whether the people would like him to continue in Office as the president of Pakistan. It is clear that this is not an election for the office of the president but only a referendum on whether the people would like him to continue. It will constitute an expression of opinion on a matter of national importance, and nothing more.

The composite question indicated for the purpose of the referendum is difficult to answer in the negative but the real issue is what President General Pervez Musharraf as the incumbent president of Pakistan will do thereafter in exercise of the power of amendment of the Constitution conferred upon him by the Supreme Court and a possible “yes” answer at the referendum, will be extremely interesting to see as it develops between the period — May and October 2002 — when general elections are scheduled to be held.

Former president General Zia-ul-Haq also amended the Constitution in exercise of the power conferred upon him by the Supreme Court but then presented a validation bill before the National Assembly of Pakistan. This validation bill was passed by the required majority and the amendments in the Constitution stood ratified and confirmed by the parliament inclusive of General Zia-ul-Haq, as the president of Pakistan. The procedure of referendum was also followed by General Zia but it was mainly related to Islamic provisions and Islamic way of life in Pakistan. It was difficult even then to answer the question in the negative.

The political parties are clearly opposed to the referendum as they anticipate a consolidation of the position of President General Pervez Musharraf thereafter as a “yes” answer in the referendum coupled with the power to amend the Constitution will legitimize and consolidate his position. However, the crucial question is the transition to full democracy and constitutional rule in October 2002 and there can be no compromise on this issue.

Pakistan was born out of a democratic process and a referendum is not a new exercise in Pakistan. We must revert to democratic and constitutional rule as new leadership can only emerge from the institution of the parliament. Even the Supreme Court has specified that there should be no change to the basic structure of the Constitution.

Some writers have attempted to provide an alternative between democracy and good governance. Good governance can only come with education and knowledge which brings about a realization of the rights of the citizens in relation to dealings with the government. The obligations of the state are the rights of the citizens and the obligations of the citizens are the rights of the state. It is incorrect to offer the people of Pakistan a choice between democracy and good governance. Both have to exist together and it is only the people of Pakistan who can demand this. I could not agree more with my good friend Dr Mervyn Hosein that “democracy is an evolutionary process that requires continuity with the development of institutions rather than the adulation of personages. Many general elections later with un-interrupted establishment based on constitutional checks and balances will provide the solutions to our problems.”

However, it is the continuous pattern of interruption in the democratic process in Pakistan which has prevented democracy from taking roots. It is incorrect to blame only the elected representatives for failing to establish constitution-based institutional systems. All governments in Pakistan whether elected or otherwise must be held responsible for failure to establish constitution-based institutional systems in the country. There is no doubt that good governance and a society based on the rule of law is what we need but we do not have to postpone democracy to achieve this object. This can be achieved by developing institutions, not destroying them.

We need not follow the Westminster parliamentary form of democracy which is possibly not ideally suited to our needs. constitutional reforms are necessary so as to provide not only a strong government but also a system to ensure that it does not become autocratic. We do not need elected dictators who act in disregard of the Constitution resulting in a clash between the key organs of the state. We need checks and balances in our Constitution to control the civilian elected governments from becoming autocratic and functioning only on its own party lines.

we need to provide constitutional checks to safeguard, and a remedy to deal with, prevent and punish those involved in corruption, in the shape of a permanent accountability commission established under the Constitution. And finally we need to develop a concept of good governance which basically means the absence of bad governance. Relevant to this subject is a speech made by the Quaid-i-Azam our founding father and first governor-general, in March 1948 on the issue of good governance on the part of public functionaries and civil servants. The Quaid said;

“...It is up to you now to act as the true servants of the people even at the risk of any minister or ministry trying to interfere with you in the discharge of your duties as the civil servants’ class. You do not belong to the ruling class; you belong to the public servants cadre. Make the people feel that you are their servant and friend. Maintain the highest standard of honour, integrity, justice and fair play. If you do that people will have confidence and trust in you and look upon you as friends and well-wishers.

“Let not people leave you with the feeling that you hate them, that you are offensive, that you have insulted or that you are rude to them. No person who comes in contact with you should be left in that state of mind. You may not be able to agree with them but do not let them go with the feeling that you are offensive or that you are discourteous. If you will follow that rule, believe me, you will win the respect of the people.”