| September 9, 2003 | Tuesday | Rajab 11, 1424 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
A riddle wrapped in mystery
Caring for pensioners
THE crisis in the Middle East has deepened with the resignation of Palestinian prime minister Mahmoud Abbas. Although the Palestinian president did not accept his premier’s resignation immediately, he promptly approved the nomination of Ahmed Qorei, the parliamentary speaker and an Arafat loyalist, as prime minister. The prevailing uncertainty over the issue indicates that the power struggle in Palestine continues. The fact is that the contest between Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas is the manifestation of a deeper conflict. It is not a clash between two personalities but is a contest between what they stand for, especially their equation with Israel and the US. Mr Abbas is known to be close to the Americans and the Israelis and, when in office, was willing to meet their demands for taking on the Palestinian militants. Given Israel’s strategy of targeted killings and its intransigence in observing its obligations under the road map, it is not difficult to understand why Mr Arafat was reluctant to touch the Hamas and the Islamic Jihad.
These developments signify the end of the US-sponsored road map in the Middle East. It was in any case unlikely that the road map would have resolved the conflict. With no change in Israeli policy and given the one-sided terms of the agreement, one hardly expected the Palestinians to respond positively to the plan. It was, therefore, a miracle that the militants were persuaded in June to observe a ceasefire at all. Unsurprisingly, the truce collapsed after seven weeks, as the Israeli forces continued targeting militant leaders and fencing off Palestinian territories in Gaza. An impasse had been reached even before Mr Abbas submitted his resignation. He didn’t stand a chance of mobilizing the support of the Palestinian Legislative Council which has a majority of Arafat loyalists in its ranks.
What next? It is now up to the Israelis and the Americans to decide on their future line of action. Their persistent attempts to sideline Mr Arafat and replace him with a more pliant leader have so far been frustrated because of the groundswell of support the PLO chief enjoys. It is now widely realized that without Mr Arafat’s backing no Palestinian prime minister can act effectively. Ariel Sharon now speaks of sending the Palestinian president into exile. He has also reiterated his wish to wipe out Hamas, going to the extent of seeking to kill its leader, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. It is strange that the Israeli leadership believes that it can use terrorism to change the political equations on the ground in the Palestinian territories. Moreover, as the Americans understand better, Mr Arafat on the international stage could prove to be a more dangerous opponent. He would use his political clout to mobilize further support for the Palestinian cause. Mr Qorei is reported to be seeking US and European guarantees of support: these would not be enough without corresponding guarantees of civilized conduct from Israel. Otherwise, Mr Qorei too will find himself helpless against the militants, and the crisis in the Middle East will deepen.
ANY comment on the “final” round of negotiations between the MMA and the government held in Lahore on Sunday must be tentative and probably about as ambiguous as the statement issued after the talks, which, according to our report, appeared to conceal more than it revealed. It is said that contentious issues relating to 58(2)(b), separation of the offices of president and army chief, recourse by the president to his electoral college, the retirement age of Supreme Court judges, and reservations about the new local body scheme in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution were discussed. Agreement was reportedly reached on a constitutional amendment package, which, presumably, includes all these points and which will be brought before parliament. At the same time, however, both sides have affirmed that they have stuck to their stated positions — a formulation that needs a tortuous search to discover as to where a compromise has actually been struck. And everything will remain up in the air till the government calls a meeting of heads of parliamentary parties.
Even if the changes proposed in the LFO by the MMA are accepted by the president, making them part of the Constitution and getting the amendments approved by parliament is a process loaded with complications. The phrase used in the statement released after the Lahore talks that the president will have “recourse to his electoral college”, itself needs explaining. The government seems to rule out a fresh presidential election, and therefore the more likely implication is that a vote of confidence will be taken in parliament. This is obviously a face-saving device meant to deal with opposition objections against the controversial Musharraf referendum. It is also far from clear that the presidency will accept the MMA’s one-year uniform deadline.
The PPP and the PML-N have not been participants in the consultations so far, and they may or may not be invited to the party heads’ meeting to be held to finalize the proposed constitutional package. The package may pass without their approval, but if they do not accept it, that would imply that the crisis in parliament will continue in one form or another. That is therefore another dilemma to reckon with, and it has its own political ramifications. The basic problem remains: the LFO and the military’s desire to impose its own scheme of things have led us into a legally and politically convoluted grey area. It is not easy to see how we can get out of it when the rulers continue to display such an abiding distaste for going back to the letter and spirit of the 1973 Constitution.
THE plight of elderly persons visiting banks and savings centres to collect their pensions or dividends is a sad commentary on our indifference to the comfort and convenience of senior citizens. A Lahore report points out that pensioners have to stand for hours in queues to wait for their turn to present their pension slips to bank officials to collect payment. Often, banking halls are crowded and there are not enough chairs, so that the pensioners have to stand and wait. It is said some banks do not allow them inside and they have to brave the weather outside. Much more distressing is the rude behaviour of the officials concerned who treat old pensioners like destitutes seeking financial assistance. Nowhere are senior citizens, much less those who have spent the best part of their lives in the service of their country, treated in such a humiliating manner.
The problem partly lies in the lack of proper planning at offices and places that are venues for public dealing. In all developed countries, and an increasing number of developing countries as well, special provisions are made to accommodate senior citizens, and care is also taken to appoint sympathetic staff to facilitate the elderly with their needs. Such arrangements are pitifully lacking in Pakistan. From banks to public transport to parking lots near business centres, shopping places and offices, no special allowance is made for the elderly. While there is a pressing need for government as well as private business institutions to make proper arrangements for senior citizens, most of us also need to reform and moderate our attitudes towards them. Showing a little respect and courtesy is not known to hurt anyone, and can go a long way in reducing stress associated with growing old.