| July 2, 2002 | Tuesday | Rabi-us-Sani 20, 1423 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Fabulous football feast
Unethical practice
GENERAL Tanvir Naqvi’s statement that the armed forces’ role in politics is being “formalized” has an ominous note about it. Coming in the wake of the package of sweeping constitutional amendments made public last week, the general’s views, aired in an interview with Dawn, seem to have a ring of finality about them. The constitutional proposals, we are told, were released merely for public debate — and nothing more. However, even before the nation had had time to digest the full implications of the package, the Political Parties Ordinance, 2002, added to the prevailing apprehensions. This ordinance — not a proposal — has all but closed the door on some of the mainstream political parties as far as the coming general election is concerned. In fact, barring some useful clauses, the ordinance seems custom-made for the present set of rulers to keep certain parties and personalities out of politics — elections in particular. Such a move would render the October election a farce and would lay the ground for a confrontation between the political parties and the generals sooner or later.
Pakistan’s history bears out that the army’s intervention in politics has harmed the country and its political and democratic prospects enormously. Beginning with Ayub’s usurpation of power through a coup in October 1958 — barely four months before the country’s first general election was due to be held — the army has been deeply entrenched in Pakistan’s politics. Soon after assuming power, Ayub promised to give the nation a constitutional system suited to its “genius”, a system that it could “understand and work”. That constitution was presidential in form and substance and provided for indirect election to parliament and the presidency. Tailored as it was to Ayub’s ambitions for power, that constitutional framework lay shattered before the nation-wide upheaval against Ayub’s despotic rule in the winter of 1968-69. Seeing no other option, Ayub resigned, handing power over to the then army chief. Yahya, no doubt, held fair and free elections but failed to transfer power to the people’s representatives. In 1977, Ziaul Haq staged a coup, hanged an elected prime minister by means of judicial manipulation, made arbitrary changes in the 1973 Constitution and distorted its parliamentary character. Besides, the Supreme Court decision of May 2000 authorized the present military government to make only such constitutional changes as were needed for purposes of governance; it did not permit it to alter the basic character of the Constitution. When Ayub quit, there was no constitution and no government; when Yahya quit, there was no constitution, and half the country had been lost. When Zia died, there was no parliament, and the constitution had been pushed aside by not holding election within the 90-day deadline following the dismissal of the government and the assembly. Should not this government draw some lessons from these tragedies? One lesson is obvious: constitutions that do not have the people’s sanction do not last and their authors sooner or later fall into public disgrace. This is likely to be the fate of the wholesale changes now proposed by the chief of the National Reconstruction Bureau. The reason why the 1973 Constitution has survived two military coups is because it was framed by the people’s elected representatives.
The National Security Council can at best have an advisory role, and it should be headed by the prime minister, not the president. If the army’s role is constitutionalized, then the new political dispensation will again fare no better than some of the wild experiments in the past. It is time the generals now in control realized the perilous path they are treading. We say with all the force of logic and conviction at our command: do not fiddle with the nation’s Constitution; let the people’s representatives decide these fundamental issues. Do not play with the country’s destiny.
THE Football World Cup — a sporting event that commanded maximum popular attention at a time when terrorism was the rage — came to an end on the last day of June in line with the expectations that Brazil will chalk up its fifth victory in the World Cup and emerge as the top team. Though mounting a serious challenge in the first half, Germany exited rather meekly in the later phase as Ronaldo, the soccer super-star of this era, despite injuries and mishaps, cast his magic spell to score twice before the close. He fully deserved the Golden Boot award with eight goals in seven matches to his credit. His name at the moment figures with those of the legendary Pele and Maradona. It is strange that outstanding players like them carve a unique place to the exclusion of others in what is essentially a team game. Media hype and hoopla has contributed much towards such individual image-building.
There is no doubt, though, that the universal appeal of this game owes a great deal to such exposure. The major upset of the tournament was the decline of France and other European nations while African and Asian countries came up significantly. A pleasant surprise was the emergence of Turkey as the third-ranked bronze winner. South Korea and Japan who jointly hosted the fabulous football feast for millions went down in the competition after a gallant display that greatly enthused the home crowds and thrilled the television viewers everywhere. The most encouraging aspect of this magnificent event was the attention and interest it generated in cricket-crazy Pakistan. If this aroused interest is made use of to promote the game at home, we can, like the Arabs and Turks, make good progress in football in the coming years.
THE element of abuse among medical professionals at Sanghar’s Civil Hospital has reached astonishing levels as revealed by a report published in this newspaper. The doctors at the said hospital refuse to attend to ailing patients insisting they should visit them at private clinics, where they charge exorbitant consultation fees. The ill practice began with the medical superintendent of the hospital opening his private clinic and forcing the patients to consult him there instead of being cared for at the hospital. Other doctors soon followed suit, with the result that poor people who cannot afford to pay the high consultation fees at the private clinics are denied treatment at the state-run hospital. The situation is not much different elsewhere in Sindh, the only province which refused to implement the policy of regulating private practice by doctors employed in government hospitals.
It is indeed a pity that malpractice of this nature should seep into a profession that is otherwise so noble. Besides bringing a bad name to their profession, a handful of doctors who are indulging in such abuse are also committing a crime against poor patients who cannot afford expensive treatment. It is time the provincial health department came down hard on such doctors and put an end to the exploitation of poor patients at their hands. A doctor, after all, is supposed to be a saviour, not a tormentor driven by greed and sheer commercialism. The medical profession should have no place for anyone with a killer instinct of a selfish and avaricious businessman who is only out to make a quick buck even if it is at the cost of someone’s life.