| July 13, 2002 | Saturday | Jamadi-ul-Awwal 2, 1423 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Crisis in Turkey
Small-family norm
THE Supreme Court judgment upholding the ban on candidates not possessing a university degree from participating in elections to the national and provincial assemblies grants legal sanction to a law that is misconceived in both intent and implications and therefore highly controversial. A part of the government’s constitutional package unveiled last month, the proposal was challenged by a number of political parties in the apex court. The five-member special bench, however, rejected the petitions unanimously. A question mark is now hanging over the future of a large number of veteran politicians as well as aspiring newcomers to the field. What the judgment means, in effect, is that more than 98 per cent of the country’s population is now legally barred from holding public office or serving as parliamentarians. This is far too sweeping a move and violates one of the basic tenets of parliamentary democracy. In a modern democracy, any person who is eligible to cast a vote also has the right to stand for election unless he has been convicted for a serious crime. Surely, it is up to the voters in each constituency to decide if a particular candidate is worthy of their support or not. To put a legal curb — and that too of a technical kind — on candidates simply because they lack a certain academic qualification is both unfair and discriminatory, especially given the low literacy rate in the country.
Unlike doctors, lawyers and other professionals, politicians do not require any prescribed qualifications to represent their constituents. They can acquire the needed acumen and experience to be able to perform their duties in a number of different ways, including doing social service among the people, being eloquent speakers or having outstanding leadership qualities. For a person to represent his constituents effectively, what is required of him is their trust and confidence far more than a university degree. Incidentally, no other mature democracy in the world puts such barriers in the way of standing for election. There are also practical reasons to have misgivings about the graduation condition. Of the 1.32 per cent of the population that holds a bachelor’s or a higher degree, a large proportion is concentrated in the urban areas. In certain constituencies, particularly in parts of Balochistan, the NWFP and FATA, it will be extremely difficult to find an aspirant for the job with the prescribed academic qualification. It will be harder still to find suitably qualified women candidates in the more remote areas of the vast rural hinterland. There is also no reason to believe that those armed with a university degree will be likely to be less corrupt. If we look back at the history of Pakistan, it is clear that most of the leading figures who have brought this country to its present political pass were highly educated.
While few would disagree with the idea that more and more educated people should come into parliament and the assemblies, the purpose would be served better by other means. Indeed, a more sensible course would be to allow the political process to acquire a certain maturity, which can only come if the process is not frequently derailed or interfered with from the wings on one pretext or other. In fact, rather than ushering in a new era of middle class politicians, the graduate condition could well have the opposite effect. Many of the scions of the landed aristocracy are highly educated and will continue, despite the new condition, to practise their dynastic brand of politics. On the other hand, many underprivileged but devoted political workers at the grassroots level will be kept out of the process because of the ill-advised eligibility condition that is now proposed to be enforced. Any law that overnight snatches away the right to contest election from 98 per cent of the population cannot possibly be a good law. It is voters alone, and not arbitrary laws, that should decide who is best qualified to represent them in parliament and other legislatures.
THE political crisis in Turkey could not have come at a worse time. With his health failing, Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit is increasingly under pressure to quit. Seven defections from his three-party coalition have already weakened his government and shaken the stock market, and an election seems the only way out. Ecevit insists he can still run the government. But his colleagues, political observers and the media doubt if the 77-year old leader is capable of retaining his hold on power and pulling Turkey out of the economic crisis. The trouble, however, is that even a fresh election is unlikely to lead to a stable government. Opinion polls show no party is likely to get a majority, and Turkey will again have a coalition government. The best bet today is that foreign minister Ismail Cem, a popular man, and Kemal Dervis, who is behind Turkey’s IMF-backed 16-billion-dollar reforms programme, may get together and form a stable government, depending on how Ecevit’s Democratic Left Party fares in the elections.
Both the European Union and the US want the crisis to be over quickly. Without a Greek-Turkish agreement on Cyprus, a divided island cannot become an EU member, while the US wants to know where Ankara will stand if Washington decides to have a go at Iraq. Public opinion in Turkey is against an attack on Iraq, but given the Bush administration’s mood, it is in Turkey’s interest to have a stable and reform-oriented government both for EU entry talks and for facing up to the Iraqi crisis if President Bush chooses to use “all tools” to oust President Saddam Hussein.
OUTLINING the new population policy in Islamabad on Thursday — the World Population Day — President Pervez Musharraf said that Pakistan should be able to bring down its population growth rate to 1.3 per cent by the year 2020. In the immediate future, he set the target of lowering the growth rate to 1.9 per cent from the current 2.8 per cent per annum, which is the highest in South Asia. The policy aims at providing universal access to the family planning methods and services by 2010. This means creating popular awareness of the importance of the small-family norm and the practical ways of adhering to it as well as streamlining the public health care system and the existing basic health units across the country.
Research conducted on population planning in recent years confirms that a key factor hampering the success of the existing family planning efforts is the absence of male involvement, which is crucial in our particular socio-cultural context where men continue to be the sole decision makers in an overwhelming majority of Pakistani families. Households where women are not even allowed access to standard health care procedures — family tradition, social taboo or simply affordability being the reasons — and that restricts her movement within the four walls of her parents’ or husband’s home are not very likely to benefit from family planning services and facilities unless simultaneous efforts are made to address the wider issue of gender bias. Therefore, the need is also to eschew the prevalent mindset about the role of women in society. That said, the government must also invest in the training of midwives who continue to perform minor to even some major procedures catering to a vast majority of women who would not step out of their homes.