| November 12, 2002 | Tuesday | Ramazan 6, 1423 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Licensed to kill?
A grave problem
MORE than a month has passed since the general election and there is still no sign of an elected government assuming office. The process of negotiations has dragged on and taken more time than the people had expected. It is true that the October 10 election has denied an absolute majority to any party, but a hung parliament is not a calamity after all — something that our politicians should learn, and be able, to deal with. One had thought that the leading parties would strike a deal and a coalition government would take over by early November. However, the negotiations among the parties have taken more than a month, and there is still no sign of an agreement. Bargaining seems to be hard, and the emphasis tending to be more on personalities than on principles.
It is, of course, a cliche to say that politics is the art of the possible. But given the electoral line-up available today, the PML(Q), PPP and MMA have no choice but to work out a viable formula for a coalition government. To be sure, there will have to be compromise and accommodation, for no party can expect to have everything all its way. There has to be a settlement so that an elected government takes over and the political process moves forward. As it is, Pakistan lacks democratic traditions — what with military interventions from time to time and what with authoritarian tendencies and actions of some of the political rulers themselves. If the Bonapartists have done their worst to stifle democracy, the latter too have made their contribution by trying to shackle the judiciary, by abridging democratic freedom and fundamental rights and by being intolerant of any form of political dissent. The upshot of it at all is a democratic system that has yet to strike firm roots.
What we face now is a turning point of transition from military to civilian rule. Let the politicians realize their responsibility in this critical phase. What is at stake is not merely a government but the fate and future of democracy. They have to work within the parameters available and push the cause of democracy forward. The postponement of the inaugural session seemed necessary once; there cannot and should not be another postponement. If the session of the National Assembly is again deferred, the people are bound to ask who is responsible for the inordinate delay in a return to civilian rule. Surely, the military government cannot be blamed for it. In fact, the generals have chosen to go into the background and, very intelligently, maintained a low profile during all these weeks, thus making it clear to the people that the delay was not because of them but due to the politicians.
The ball is now in the politicians’ court. They have to hurry up and get things moving. A civilian government based on compromises is better than the on-going hiatus whose continuation could be dangerous. After all, politics is a continuing process. Things move and adjust according to the dynamics that are so peculiar to politics. If the process throws up problems and crises so does it create the compulsion for resolving these through compromise and adjustments. Besides, there are the constitutionally provided solutions of last resort. If the present bargaining leads to the formation of a government that does not last long, an alternative set-up can always be tried, failing which a fresh reference can be made to the people as the last option. But a continuing delay adds to the people’s impatience and does not serve to raise the politicians’ stock high.
THE US national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, recently confirmed that the October 4 missile attack in Yemen was part of Washington’s new strategy in its current war on terrorism. The Israel-style attack from an unmanned aircraft, which killed six suspected Al Qaeda operatives, was the handiwork of the CIA and represents the first in what could be a series of US strikes against those presumed to have links with terrorists. Among those killed was the prime suspect in the bombing of the USS Cole in Aden two years ago, who was summarily executed without being put through a proper trial. Predictably, the attack drew protests from human rights groups. Amnesty International wrote a letter to President Bush condemning the strike and stated that it could constitute a case of extra-judicial killing in violation of international human rights law. The attack harks back to the days when the CIA was free to carry out assassinations of ‘undesirables’ abroad during the height of the cold war. The practice was officially discontinued a quarter of a century ago following a public outcry over revelations that thousands of Vietnamese suspected of being communist agents were killed by the CIA during the US war in Indo-China.
Condoleezza Rice defended the resort to this diabolical practice by stating that it was a necessary part of a “new kind of war,” but evaded questions about the propriety of such actions. The policy is not only wrong in legal and moral terms but has the potential of badly backfiring as a strategy. Given that most of the attacks are likely to be carried out in Muslim countries, there is a real danger that they might trigger a strong public outcry. Already suffering a deep sense of anger at Washington’s lack of respect for Muslim sensibilities on Palestine and Iraq, the Muslim world is bound to view such killings in their countries as flagrant violations of national sovereignty. Washington must rethink its policy on assassinations of ‘suspects’ if it is to avoid an angry backlash. How can a country that claims to be fighting a war against terror in defence of democratic norms and values justify the use of extra-judicial killings by its state apparatus in foreign territories?
THE Lahore nazim’s decision to set up four new graveyards over 100 acres each to meet the city’s growing needs for burial grounds is a decision taken well in time. Lahore, over the past decades, has expanded dramatically, and the pressure on the existing civic amenities, including graveyards, has been overpowering. With regard to graveyards in particular, the situation in other cities of the country is not any better and perhaps much worse in Karachi than anywhere else. This is one amenity the provision of which our town planners have consistently failed to address adequately. Consequently, graveyards located in the cities are overcrowded, ill-planned and ill-managed as the norm rather than an exception.
In Karachi, the price of burial space has skyrocketed because of a dearth of land set aside for the purpose by the civic authorities. Bodies now have to be carried to far-off burial sites outside the city limits for reasons of lack of space and high cost. Most existing graveyards within the city limits present a dismal picture of chaos, with graves — old and new — virtually overlapping one another and no passage in between. The Lahore nazim has set a good example for his counterparts in other cities and one hopes that the nazimeen elsewhere would also take steps to address the problem in their respective cities. Lack of proper burial grounds is a problem that must be addressed with a due sense of priority.