Playing it by the rules

THE Election Commission’s code of conduct for political parties and candidates intending to contest the October election seems, on the face of it, to be fair and reasonable. However, to ensure that the upcoming polls are conducted in a peaceful and congenial atmosphere, it is essential for both the government and the political parties to abide by the rules of the game and conduct themselves with restraint and responsibility. The code strikes a fair balance between the rights of the political parties and those of the general public. Unlike the elections of 1997, candidates have been allowed to take out processions and use microphones to address public meetings. However, there are clear restrictions against obstructing traffic and disrupting life in general. Candidates have also been forbidden from launching personal attacks against their rivals during electioneering and urged to focus instead on their own manifestos and programmes. There are also the usual strictures against disrupting rallies held by opponents, resorting to violence or corrupt practices and putting up banners and hoardings larger than the prescribed size.

While many of the subjects covered by the 22-point code of conduct are uncontroversial, there is at least one point that needs to be seriously questioned. It is quite puzzling why candidates have been barred from promising to undertake development projects in their constituencies and advised to speak of such projects only in general terms. Surely, politicians seeking a mandate from the electorate will have to promise development in their areas to woo potential supporters. After all, the parliamentary system of government requires members of the assemblies to represent their constituents’ interests and aspirations. The EC must withdraw this unreasonable restriction or watch it being universally flouted.

This important caveat aside, the code of conduct does not hinder the electoral process in any significant way. However, it is not just rules and regulations that can ensure the success or failure of the electoral exercise. Enforcing and monitoring such rules in each and every constituency is going to prove virtually impossible. Given this fact, the political parties will have to act with a deep sense of responsibility and discipline to ensure that the campaign remains peaceful and orderly. In the recent past, electoral exercises in the country have not been marred by any significant level of violence. This is a tradition the parties must try hard to maintain. Contestants must also make sure that life is not unduly disrupted because of overzealous electioneering. Processions must be disciplined affairs in which traffic must flow freely and citizens allowed to get on with their everyday lives.

The parties must shun the ugly practice of pointing to the level of disruption as a gauge of their popular support. If the parties have certain responsibilities, the government too must behave fairly and impartially. The authorities must strictly avoid extending any official patronage to any particular party or group of individuals. If they are seen to be tilting in one direction or the other, the entire atmosphere will be vitiated, casting serious doubts about the fairness of the electoral process. The package of constitutional amendments preceding the polls have already stacked the decks heavily against the political parties. Once the campaign begins, the government must ensure a level playing field for all the participating parties and not try to influence the choices and preferences of the people in any way.

A wrong undone

THE government has done the right thing by withdrawing the 15 per cent general sales tax (GST) on all medicines, imported and indigenous, including homeopathic, unani and veterinary. Having regard to the poverty level and the inadequacy of health-care facilities in the country, the levy should not have been imposed in the first place. As a result, high cost was added to the widespread problem of inaccessibility of basic health care for large segments of the population. However, it is good that the finance minister, Mr Shaukat Aziz, announcing the withdrawal at a press conference in Islamabad on Thursday, admitted that taxing medicines was a mistake and said that revenue losses on account of the withdrawal of GST on medicines would be met by exploring other sources of earnings. Explaining, the minister said that the imposition of GST on medicines was one of the IMF conditions and that the Fund had been informed of the decision to withdraw the levy. However, the IMF representative in Islamabad is reported to have clarified the position saying that the Fund was concerned with overall revenue targets and not with specific taxation proposals or decisions. He said that it was the prerogative of the government to decide how to raise additional revenues and it took such decisions on the basis of its own assessments of the prospects and desirability in specific cases.

The tax imposed in March predictably elicited a bitter reaction from the drug trade and caused widespread resentment among the people at large. As a result 256 life-saving drugs were exempted from the tax. Many of the druggists, however, continued to charge the levy even on the exempted medicines. To avoid such a situation in the present case, the government should ensure strict monitoring of the prices at all levels and make sure that the benefit of the withdrawal decision does pass on to the people and not held back by unscrupulous chemists and druggists.

Hard on young offenders

THAT local courts continue to violate clear guidelines laid down in a 2002 ordinance regarding the trial of under-age prisoners makes for distressing reading. According to the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, specially designated courts have to be established to deal with juvenile offenders. In addition to that, the parents or next of kin of the suspected offender have to be informed of the arrest, and no handcuffs are to be used. However, according to a report from Peshawar, a lower court remanded to police custody two suspects who by eyewitness accounts were under-age. The magistrate took a decision on this matter without even ascertaining the age of the two boys: one was fourteen and the other fifteen years old. Both were handcuffed when brought before the court — a clear violation of the law which the magistrate overlooked.

This kind of apathy and negligence is commonplace — if for nothing then for the simple reason that after the promulgation of the ordinance there has been no follow-up in respect of setting up the mandated juvenile courts or of training judicial officers to run them. However, the NWFP government has delegated the powers of a juvenile court to the province’s district and sessions courts. Clearly it was the duty of the magistrate to direct the police to approach the relevant sessions judge. When asked, why the ages of the two accused were not determined prior to handing them over to the police, a court official said that a medical examination was required for this and hence this was not considered a feasible option. It would be very much in the fitness of things if the federal and provincial governments work towards establishing these much-needed juvenile courts. Until that is done, powers of the courts can be delegated, as in the case of the NWFP, to sessions courts to examine cases involving minors. The police, too, should be directed to deal with such under-age offenders in a more humane and lawful manner, as should judicial officers of the lower courts.