| September 3, 2002 | Tuesday | Jamadi-us-Saani24,1423 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Meerwala verdict
THE Chief Election Commissioner’s call to the political parties to help ensure fair, free and transparent elections appears a little misplaced. As the general election nears, it seems it is the government and the Election Commission that need to be reminded of their own responsibilities on this score. While all political parties and elements will no doubt have to conduct themselves responsibly and with restraint, their part of the bargain concerns the mood, temper, tone and quality of electioneering. Basically, the task of making the process free and fair rests with the government and the EC, neither of which has so far given convincing proof of impartiality. The government has already compromised its position by enacting a number of laws and constitutional amendments specifically designed to keep certain personalities out of the electoral arena. These include debarring a person from becoming prime minister for a third time or contesting elections if convicted for being “an absconder.” Both laws target the heads of two of the country’s largest political parties — the PPP and the PML-N. Similarly, the law banning those who have defaulted on the payment of utility bills covers not only a candidate but his or her dependants as well. All this has exposed the government to the charge of what some political parties are calling “pre-poll rigging.” How things will actually be like on October 10 remains to be seen. But given the fact that some parties and political figures are anathema to the government, while some others seem to enjoy its blessings, analysts at home and abroad doubt if the government will stick to its commitment to make the election truly fair and transparent.
While asking the political parties to help in the holding of a fair election, the CEC would do well to take a look at some of the controversial decisions his own organization has made. The most palpable instance of its tilt concerned the nomination papers filed by Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. The former’s nomination papers were rejected because, according to the returning officer, the PPP chairperson stood convicted, while those of the PML-N chief were accepted, in spite of his conviction in the PIA plane hijacking case. There is also considerable evidence to suggest that the government has little respect for the Election Commission, whose decision it often overturns.
The CEC, for instance, had made it known that, with the lifting of the ban on political activity, political parties would be allowed to hold rallies and take out processions as part of electioneering. But the government overruled the CEC by banning rallies and processions — even though public meetings have traditionally been an integral part of political mobilization in South Asia for nearly a century now. Nothing in today’s political or security situation in Pakistan suggests that allowing a certain number of rallies to be addressed by contesting parties and candidates would have proved dangerously disruptive or led to violence and anarchy. The CEC had also directed the government-controlled electronic media to give balanced coverage to all political parties and groups. This, however, seems to have had little effect on PTV and Radio Pakistan. Both of these media continue to follow an openly partisan projection pattern in which some political parties are made an object of criticism and ridicule, while others get a coverage out of proportion to their political strength and standing.
As the polling day nears, both the government and the CEC have to conduct themselves in a manner that will help remove doubts in the public’s mind about the fairness of the process ahead. Some parties fear — and perhaps not without reason — that the official machinery may be used to their disadvantage and to the benefit of government favourites. While it would be improper to accuse the EC of any plans to rig election results, there is a widespread feeling among the people that the polling agents and the EC itself may not find themselves in a position to stand up to the manipulative tactics of government-backed candidates on the day of voting.
THE Meerwala gang-rape case verdict was handed down by the trying anti-terrorism court just past midnight on Sunday. The unusual hour was perhaps dictated by security considerations, although it nevertheless remains a little mystifying: if courts and authorities remain in such fear of criminals, it can only embolden the bullies in our ranks. The verdict is not unexpected. The four persons actually charged with committing rape have been sentenced to death as well as two of the members of the panchayat that had sanctioned the brutal and inhuman act. The other members of the panchayat who were part of the rape and were named as accused have been given the benefit of the doubt and acquitted, because there was no allegation against them except “mere participation” in the panchayat. The prosecution, believing that acquiescence on the part of the eight should be considered as abetment, has said it will seek consideration of this point when the case goes into appeal. Also, the way the police investigation was conducted calls for more detailed scrutiny.
In legal terms, justice has been done to Mukhtiarmai, a woman of extraordinary courage who dared challenge her village overlords and endure the grilling common in rape cases. But she will bear the scars of her terrible ordeal for the rest of her life. However, she can draw some solace from the fact that she may not only have exposed one of the more sordid sides of our feudal culture, but also perhaps showed the way for other women who are victims of violence. The Meerwala incident will be remembered as an example of institutionalized rape as against rape as an individual or group act. There may have been other such instances that have gone unpublicized, and it goes to the credit of the media that it exposed the Meerwala case and kept public interest in it alive. Credit must also be given to the village imam who in his Friday sermon publicly condemned the influential Mastoi tribe for the terrible crime. Mosque imams are normally considered part of the exploitative rural hierarchy that includes the patwari and station house officer who often do the bidding of the local feudal or political overlord. But if more imams were prepared to assume a reformist role, rather than daily indulging in bigoted and vicious sectarian fulminations, they would make a vital contribution to changing social attitudes.
Overall, it should be remembered that rape is only just one manifestation of violence against women. Honour killings, forced marriages, abduction for purposes of the sex trade and domestic violence are other pernicious aspects of the sufferings endured by our womenfolk. The tribal justice system itself is an anomaly in this day and age, and it is heavily loaded against women. The chairman of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan has correctly pointed out that the Mukhtiarmai case underlines the role of extra-judicial tribunals taking the law into their own hands and handing down barbaric punishments. The state has to take cognizance of the issue in its entirety, including the objections raised against the Hadd, Tazir and blasphemy laws even by Islamic scholars, and the next elected government should consider this as one of its priorities. The role of non-governmental organizations in seeking to streamline the existing system should be acknowledged and encouraged.