| 04 April 2004 | Sunday | 13 Safar 1425 |
Red in tooth and claw
Strange conduct
The National Security Council is now almost a fait accompli, despite all the resistance put up by civil society. A bill to create the council was formally moved in the National Assembly on Friday, and was cleared within minutes by the relevant standing committee, which speaks volumes for the travesty we have made of the parliamentary committee system. Debate on the bill is due to begin on Monday, and eventual approval seems certain.
Actually the council had become a certainty the moment the MMA had entered into its deal with the government on the Legal Framework Order, when the opposition alliance had indicated that it would not oppose the proposal following the government's readiness to forgo giving the body a constitutional status and instead turn into a statutory body.
Another concession wrested from the military, whose brainchild the council is, concerns expansion of the membership, which now includes the leader of the opposition, and deletion from its jurisdiction of issues relating to "democracy, governance and inter-provincial harmony". However, the bill as presented has added the words "crisis management" to the council's charter, a broad enough term that can mean anything.
This is basically tinkering with the peripheries, although all sections of the opposition and elements within the ruling coalition who have tried to stall the NSC's formation or to render it as harmless as possible deserve to be praised for their efforts. The fundamental fact is that the military bureaucracy had always wanted some such supra-institution, and it seems about to get it.
The argument put forward in support of the NSC is that it will prevent the kind of periodic suspension of the political process that we have seen in the past and minimize the possibility of army takeovers. Since as a nation and as individuals we have stopped questioning where we are going and what we are doing, this particular argument has also been permitted to pass largely without too much questioning. Democratic stabilization cannot be achieved through non-democratic means.
The only way to prevent non-political intervention is for the military to make up its mind that it is not the nation's political monitor, ideological guardian and the ultimate repository of wisdom. Once this cobweb is cleared and the role of political parties is recognized with an open mind, the parliamentary or political system will develop and in time create its own fault-correcting mechanisms. Put like this, it seems simplistic and could be seen as ignoring much of the skullduggery that our political parties have practised over the decades.
Their biggest crime has been the failure to organize properly and function as democratic, broad-based organizations addressing the concerns of the people. If they had been strong, with popular support, and honest, 1958 may not have taken place and a precedent would not have been set for 1971, 1977 and then 1999.
But all this is as they say water under the bridge. The bottom line is that the military must realize that its intrusive role in the country's political and civil life is becoming daily ever more self-defeating and exposing it to mounting criticism. Any attempt by it at maintaining itself as an authority above the elected parliament will not help the country to gain greater international acceptance, as Turkey's continuing failure to be accepted by the European Union as a democratic partner shows, or make us function as a more cohesive society.
Red in tooth and claw
Even Hitler and Stalin might not have flaunted their murdering streak the way Israel's prime minister does. In an interview with an Israeli newspaper, Mr Ariel Sharon said on Friday that neither President Yasser Arafat nor Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah was immune from assassination. Coming 10 days after the murder of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, the threat must be taken seriously, for the Israeli leader believes that the murder of Arab leaders is a legitimate way of solving the Palestinian problem.
His career in killings began in 1953 when he murdered 69 Palestinians in Jordan. Then as commander of the invading army, he ordered the flattening of residential blocks in Beirut and other Lebanese cities so as to drive terror into the hearts of Lebanese civilians. The gory drama in Lebanon in 1982 reached its peak in Sabra-Chatilla when the Christian militia under Israeli control massacred hundreds of Palestinian civilians.
After becoming prime minister in February 2001, the Likud leader reoccupied the West Bank and Gaza. Then began another bloody chapter in the history of occupied territories. This included the blowing up of homes by dynamite or by artillery and missile firings while civilians were still inside. In addition, there have been targeted assassinations, with that of Sheikh Yassin as the latest victim.
President Arafat is Sharon's obsession for several reasons. First, Mr Arafat symbolizes the aspirations of all Palestinian people for freedom. The Palestinian issue was almost forgotten in the aftermath of the 1967 war. It is Mr Arafat who put it back on the world's front pages. Two, he epitomizes the fighting spirit of the Palestinian people. In summer 2002, Mr Sharon's tanks demolished Mr Arafat's headquarters along with his living quarters, but he refused to surrender.
His very existence is thus a source of frustration for the Likud hawk. He may murder Mr Arafat, but that will hardly solve the Palestinian problem. The people of Palestine will continue to struggle for freedom with the difference that one more murder will have been added to Mr Sharon's long list of crimes.
Strange conduct
The disrespect and chauvinistic attitude exhibited of late by some members of the National Assembly towards their female counterparts is regrettable. It reinforces the impression that many of our legislators could do with a dose of decorum, propriety and respect for the opposite sex. On Wednesday, several women MNAs from the treasury benches took issue with two male legislators, also from the government side, after they passed wholly unwarranted sexist remarks on the 'good looks' of a certain woman colleague.
The two who did so are unfortunately not alone in having such a mindset, implying as if women are to be admired for their looks alone. Some legislators clearly do not believe that commenting on someone's looks during parliamentary proceedings, in admiration or otherwise, is improper and patronizing.
Then on Tuesday, responding to a call attention notice on a karo-kari case in Sindh, the parliamentary secretary for the interior said something that seemed to contradict what even the president has been saying on the issue. He first denied that any such incident had taken place and then went on to imply that karo-kari incidents were blown out of proportions by westernized elements in our society and that Pakistan needed to follow not "American and British traditions" but its own.
This invited protests from several female MNAs who were understandably piqued by the secretary's refusal to admit that karo-kari was an abhorrent practice that needed to be rooted out and his ignorance of the fact that some of our customs and traditions were primitive and inhuman. The government needs to take serious notice of the repeated complaints voiced by women legislatorson this and other scores. Display of bias and prejudice against women members must stop and it is the duty of the NA speaker and Senate chairman to see that it does.