Enforcement, not more laws

The cabinet has set up a 10-man committee to formulate recommendations to make anti-terror laws more effective and comprehensive. While no doubt that all laws need revisions and amendments to keep pace with change in society, what we need is more effective enforcement of the existing laws on terrorism.

All acts of terrorism fall within the category of crime as defined by the Pakistan penal code. Murder by any means - by strangulation, by the use of arms or by explosions - is an offence under sections 300, 301, 302.

Where a murder is committed through conspiracy involving many people, the charges against the suspects are extended to murder and conspiracy to murder, etc. There are also laws since the colonial days against sedition, treason and incitement to violence.

To that extent the existing laws on the statute book should serve to deter criminals and conspirators provided the law enforcement agencies (LEAs) do their job efficiently, and the courts dispense justice without fear or favour.

Given the frightening rise in terrorism in Pakistan, there have been quite a few changes in the relevant laws, and quite a few new ones have been enacted to deal with the menace.

In most cases, these laws have concentrated on speedy trials and convictions, the aim being to avoid terrorism cases falling victim to the delays and adjournments which are so characteristic of our judicial system.

Often criminal cases, including those of murder, drag on for years without conviction or acquittal. The terrorism-specific laws have, thus, aimed at a quicker dispensation of justice without compromising the demands of the due process. The establishment of summary courts has reflected this thinking and has led to relatively speedy disposal of terrorism cases.

However, the monster that we have in the form of terrorism cannot be tackled by means of additions to the existing laws. We have enough of laws - passed by the legislatures or decreed through ordinances by military governments.

What is lacking, however, is effective enforcement of these laws. If laws were sufficient deterrent themselves, we would have had no crime in the country. Instead, as events of the past few years show, acts of terrorism have been occurring in Pakistan with regular frequency.

The crimes that come readily to mind are the suicide bombing of the US Consulate in Karachi, the murder of French and Chinese engineers, the attack on the Ashura procession in Quetta, and the bombing of mosques and imambargahs, besides frequent disruptions of gas pipelines.

In all these cases, the intelligence agencies failed to prevent the crimes. An instance of the LEAs' failure is to be seen in the continued activism of the many elements of extremist militias that have been outlawed.

Evidently, their organizational structures remain unimpaired and they continue to acquire money and arms through clandestine channels. What is needed is a more efficient system of law enforcement, backed by diligent intelligence work.

This is not to underestimate the good work the LEAs have sometimes done - like the arrest of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, the elimination of Nek Mohammad, and the arrest of several sectarian killers, some of whom were later sentenced to death. But a lot more needs to be done.

The LEAs must become more modern - not only by having modern gadgetry but by updating intelligence-gathering and detection techniques in a manner consistent with the challenge Pakistan faces.

Not another faux pas

Prime Minister Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain continues to display a penchant for voicing strange ideas regarding his vision of good governance. Last week, while on a visit to Karachi, he advised Sindhi pressmen to appoint a lobbyist in Islamabad to call the federal government's attention to Sindh's problems.

Then a proposal was put forward to amend the law to allow a person to hold government and party offices simultaneously. The latest to emerge is the suggestion that the ruling party cadres will get development funds and ensure that these are spent judiciously.

The existing system of giving development money to legislators has always been seen as political appeasement or bribery. Now, after millions have been disbursed, the ruling party seeks to empower itself and become the sole custodian of development funds.

If acted upon, this bizarre notion can in effect lead the country to one-party rule, to the detriment of the multi-party parliamentary system that we have at present. The existing system of development funds' disbursement needs to be scrapped, not centralized even further for the benefit of the ruling party.

By calling the latest suggestion an 'experiment' in good governance, the prime minister has added insult to injury. Are we so incapable of observing standard democratic norms and practices that the country's chief executive has to keep playing about with the system until one day, if luck is on his side, he may get it right? This amounts to making a circus out of the political system - howsoever deficient it may be in its democratic credentials - of which the PM himself is a product.

It is unending experimentation with the system by successive governments that has queered the pitch for the evolution of democratic institutions and political stability in the country.

Chaudhry Shujaat's induction as a stop-gap prime minister itself is part of such callous experimentation. Any changes that he will make in the existing system as an interim prime minister will be seen as carving a parallel power niche for himself after he relinquishes the premiership next month and resumes his role as the PML president.

If the PML has as much as pretensions of serving the cause of democracy, saner elements within the party should prevent Chaudhry Sahib from playing ducks and drakes with the system and instead, let it follow its own course of evolution and development.

Ban on loudspeakers

The ban imposed by the Sindh chief minister on the use of loudspeakers at mosques other than for Azan and the Friday Khutba is welcome. The ban also applies to playing loud music by shops and also for variety programmes.

Some religious leaders use loudspeakers to deride or belittle followers of other sects or schools of thought. Those can invariably be provocative and have the potential of causing religious hatred and violence.

Many mosques, religious schools and other institutions think nothing of using the loudspeaker at high volumes without worrying about the disturbance this causes, particularly to the old and the sick.

The same is the case with music shops and places of entertainment, which also play loud music regardless of timings. The CM's ban should also apply to playing loud music on occasions like marriages, other ceremonies and parties.

It is somewhat surprising that Jamat-i-Islami chief Qazi Husain Ahmed has come out so strongly against the imposition of the ban in Sindh. Considering the widespread misuse of loudspeakers, one would assume there is consensus among different sections of society over its prohibition.

It should be pointed out, however, that such bans have been imposed in the past, but with little success. The chief minister's ban is essentially an administrative decision, which the police will be reluctant to enforce unless it is backed by the requisite legal cover.

Also, there is no procedure in place for people to register complaints about loud music or provocative sermons on the basis of which action could be taken against the violators.

If the Sindh government is serious about preventing the misuse of loudspeakers, it should put into place a law and a system whereby offenders can be identified on the basis of complaints from the public and prosecuted under the relevant provisions of the law. Unless this is done, merely saying that such practices should be discontinued or prohibited will have little or no effect.