| 15 January 2004 | Thursday | 22 Ziqa'ad 1424 |
Liberal visa regime
Parallel system of justice
Finally, the opposition has ended its boycott of Senate proceedings. Parties on both sides of the opposition spectrum - the religious right as represented by the MMA and the 22-member Democratic Alliance which includes the ARD - took part in the debate on Tuesday.
There was a walkout by the ARD senators, but the boycott was brief, and the ARD parliamentarians returned to the hall. The MMA's decision to attend the day's proceedings is the logical result of its understanding with the government. The seventeenth amendment bill could not have been passed without the MMA's support: this way they have the satisfaction of making the government bend on some of the most contentious issues.
The MMA feels it was time it abandoned the boycott that characterized its politics for nearly 12 months. Why the ARD senators, too, should have decided to do so is not clear. In their own words, the MMA represents the "loyal opposition", and it is the ARD that represents real dissent. Maybe, they have a point, because this government has consistently sidelined and persecuted two of the ARD's mainstream parties, the PPP and the PML-N.
The accord on the LFO itself is viewed by the ARD as a "sell-out" by the MMA. All one can presume is that the ARD leaders know what they are doing and that their decision does not follow from what policy the MMA has adopted.
While reviewing Pakistan's constitutional history, one is struck by the myopia that has characterized our politicians. Generally, the opposition has gone for short-term gains and has seldom bothered to keep a larger vision in view. Invariably, the emphasis has been to remove the government in power irrespective of long-term consequences for the nation.
Thus, the opposition launched street agitations and organized "long marches" not only against Ayub Khan but also against the civilian governments headed by Bhutto, Benazir and Nawaz Sharif. The overthrow of Ayub and Bhutto was followed by military takeovers, while the instability between 1988 and 1999 again led to a military coup d'etat.
Under the present quasi-civilian, quasi-military dispensation, the opposition should know that it has a dual responsibility. While it must make every effort to restore the Constitution to its parliamentary character, it must also advance the cause of democracy. Launching a movement is the easiest thing - a dozen activists can gather to throw stones, torch a bus and explode a bomb to create chaos.
The really challenging job is to maintain a sustained struggle for the rule of law and constitutionalism by democratic means. More important, the opposition must pay special attention to training its younger cadres. Our crowds - especially those consisting of younger people - have a tendency to turn violent. This conditioning, which often leads to real issues being pushed into the background, is the direct result of the street power which some political parties never tire of threatening to unleash.
There is no short-cut to democracy. Thanks to politicians - in uniform or without it - Pakistan has become 56 years old without having developed any democratic institutions. It is a collective failure. Each soldier of fortune tried to give this nation a system and failed. The opposition, in turn, did not have the vision to see beyond its nose.
One hopes that all those now in power and in the opposition would try to learn from the past and work to strengthen democracy by concentrating on the pressing concerns of the common citizen instead of promoting sectional or party interests.
Liberal visa regime
Pakistan Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri on Tuesday called for a liberal visa regime with India so that people-to-people contact between the two countries could increase. Mr Kasuri also said that such a regime could only be possible if the strength of the diplomatic missions in the two countries was increased or at least brought to the previous levels.
The present strength stands at 55 diplomatic and non-diplomatic staff. Pakistan is looking to double this to the previous number of 110. Enhancing of travel links between the two countries can only yield results if diplomatic missions of both India and Pakistan are beefed up to allow the staff to meet the rise in demand for visas.
At present, the Indian high commission in Islamabad is inundated with visa applications, with many applicants coming all the way from Sindh. The hardship that such people endure in travelling to Islamabad and then having to wait for their visas for days cannot be overstated. While the premise of the two governments of concentrating on people-to-people contact seems sound, there is some suggestion that by opening up travel links without actually liberalizing the visa regime, the desired results are not being achieved.
It is time the two governments also worked on a number of other proposals to facilitate free movement of people and ideas. The manner in which some of the 1,200 Pakistani delegates to the World Social Forum have been helped with visas issued at the border check post of Wagah by the Indian government should now be extended on a permanent basis to different categories of Pakistanis. This can include senior citizens and those who cannot travel to Islamabad for medical reasons.
It is important that visa liberalization should also extend to the media of both countries so that there is a free and fair exchange of visits. This can be followed up with an exchange of news and information between the two countries in the form of television, film, newspapers, magazines and books. Such an exchange will also help remove misconceptions about each other as desired by the governments of the two countries.
Parallel system of justice
A recent case in Karachi in which a person involved in a drunken driving incident that killed three women was pardoned by the heirs of the deceased draws attention, once again, to the parallel system of justice in the country. The person was forgiven by the family under the Qisas and Diyat law.
It is not known whether the accused in this case was booked only under the Qisas and Diyat law and what the police investigations carried out before his acquittal revealed. It is also unclear what influence, if any, was brought to bear on the heirs to agree to pardon him.
Irrespective of this, the problem with dealing with perpetrators of capital crime is that the Qisas and Diyat law personalizes a misdeed by allowing the person accused or even convicted of a crime to go scot-free or after paying compensation. This is a worrisome practice because it ignores the principle that such acts are basically a crime against the state and society and not against the family or survivors of the deceased.
The clear implication is that the trial and punishment in such cases is the responsibility of the state and not open to bargaining or negotiation by individual parties. The government simply cannot sit back and watch while a person who admits to an offence is able to walk away unpunished.
If it cannot act as an arbiter, then at the very least the law whose interpretation can lead to a distortion of justice must be reviewed by religious scholars and jurists or by those with expert knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence. As we had occasion to point out earlier, such laws can be misused by the rich and the powerful against those without influence, particularly in the rural areas where awareness is low.