| July 12, 2002 | Friday | Jamadi-ul-Awwal 1, 1423 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Africa: a new beginning
Demolition overkill
FINALLY, the date for the general election has been announced: Oct 10. Unlike the previous occasions, there will be voting for the two houses of parliament and the provincial assemblies on the same day. Also, for the first time in Pakistan’s history, the people will be electing the Senate directly. This makes it clear that the government is intent on making this constitutional “proposal” part of the Basic Law by an ordinance instead of referring it to the elected parliament for approval. The number of seats in the national and provincial assemblies and the Senate has also been increased.
Though desirable, the move again testifies to the generals’ tendency to go ahead and do it regardless of the substantive as well as procedural implications that may be — and are in this case — involved.
By announcing the date for the election, the government has abided by the Supreme Court’s ruling that the election be held and power transferred to an elected government within the stipulated period of three years of military takeover. So far so good, but the crucial question now is whether the election will be free, fair and meaningful. Certain decisions already taken by the government cause serious doubts about that prospect. The law relating to the political parties which debars a person from holding a party office if disqualified for election under the Constitution’s Article 63 and the prohibition of a third term for a prime minister or chief minister — these appear targeted against certain parties and individuals. Which goes against the basic concept of a fair election in which all individuals and parties not otherwise disqualified can take part. Besides, General Musharraf already stands “elected” as president for the next five years as a result of last April’s controversial referendum. This is contrary to the Constitution which provides that the president be elected by the federal parliament and the provincial assemblies voting together. Despite this, since General Musharraf is already there as president, there is an impression in the country and abroad that he may now attempt to achieve the ‘desired’ electoral results.
The decision to do away with the proposal for prime minister’s nomination by the president is a welcome step. Certainly, it is the national assembly which will decide whom to elect as the leader of the house on the basis of majority support. There may be a party with an absolute majority in the house, or maybe someone enjoying a plurality is able to cobble together a coalition. But, basically, it is the prerogative of the assembly to elect a prime minister and not that of the president. Meanwhile, the constitutional package unveiled by the government has been rejected by virtually all parties and schools of opinion. In fact, most parties have not even considered it worth a debate, because the proposed amendments can hardly be called mere amendments; together they seek to completely alter the Constitution’s parliamentary character. One hopes the military government will be sensible enough not to enact the proposals into laws through a presidential edict; instead, it should be left to the parliament to decide the fate of the package.
One also wonders whether the holding of the election to all legislatures on the same day is a practical proposition. Given the low literacy rate, many voters will find it difficult to make three sets of choices quickly enough. This may mean stretching the polling time. Why not hold elections on two separate days — one for the national assembly and the senate and the other for the provincial assemblies?
ALMOST four decades after its formation in 1963, leaders of Africa formally buried the Organization of African Unity on Monday to pave the way for what promises to be a new and more dynamic body — the African Union. On Tuesday, the first summit of the AU began with much fanfare in the South African city of Durban amidst high hopes and suspense. The AU aims to be radically different from its predecessor. The OAU was created during the heyday of the African struggle against colonialism and served a useful purpose as the united voice of Africa against foreign rule. However, the organization eventually ran out of steam and seemed impotent against the many challenges the continent faced. The AU, in contrast, places at the top of its agenda a new, more democratic Africa where good governance, respect for human rights and the peaceful resolution of conflicts prevail. Eventually, the African Union, like its European counterpart, aims for a joint parliament, a court of justice, a Central Bank and a single currency.
A radical departure from the old OAU is the AU’s decision to form its own peace-keeping force that would intervene in regional conflicts. Closely linked to the AU is the New Partnership for Africa’s Development, the brainchild of five African leaders whose aim is to practise and promote democracy and strive for better governance in order to attract more aid. This initiative required an injection of some $64 billion to put in place. However, the recent G-8 conference in Canada did not promise even a fraction of that amount, leading to great disappointment in Africa. While the AU’s agenda and aims are positive, it clearly faces formidable challenges in the days ahead. Africa is a continent in deep crisis with numerous long-running regional conflicts, the threat of widespread starvation looming over southern parts of the continent and an AIDS pandemic all taking a terrible toll. Given these challenges, the AU leadership requires a monumental resolve and effort in the days ahead to begin the stupendous task of pulling the continent back from the abyss of hunger, war and disease.
THAT work on the Lyari Expressway has begun may be good news in that it is a development project aimed at reducing traffic congestion on Karachi’s roads, but it is of little comfort to some 200,000 residents living along the Lyari river whose homes and businesses are being bulldozed with undue haste. The demolition under heavy guard has begun despite a stay order issued by the Sindh High Court restraining the authorities from taking any such action and an agreement between the government and the residents in question. The result: thousands of people have already been made homeless and condemned to live under the open sky on the rubble of what were once their homes and businesses. The promised Hawkesbay scheme, where a section of the affected residents are to be relocated, only exists on paper.
The human misery that the said demolition has already brought about is appalling. Hundreds of families, including women and children, of low-income labourers and daily wage earners have been rendered homeless, and an estimated 40,000 workers are about to lose their means of livelihood if the bulldozing continues. The government needs to address this human disaster in the making on an urgent basis and fulfil the promises of relocation made to the residents at the time of giving approval for the construction of the expressway.