| 20 December 2004 | Monday | 07 Ziqa'ad 1425 |
Not by coaching
Railway fare hike
After keeping Turkey waiting for more than four decades, the European Union has finally given Ankara the date for beginning entry negotiations. An associate member since 1963 of the European group, Turkey had to work hard to come up to what is called the Copenhagen criteria.
In fact, no other country was subjected to such harsh criticism and given such stiff conditions for becoming a member of the European Union. Over the last half a decade, Ankara has taken a number of steps to satisfy EU demands for beginning entry negotiations.
These include the abolition of the death penalty, the grant of cultural rights to the Kurdish minority, a further liberalization of political and press laws, and changing the once-powerful National Security Council into an advisory body.
Yet, the annual EU summit in December kept delaying the start of entry negotiations. In October came the first good news when Mr. Romano Prodi, Chairman of the European Commission, declared that the EU was likely to give the "go ahead" to Turkey provided it continued to move forward on reforms.
On Friday, at Brussels, the EU summit finally agreed to start negotiations on Oct 3 next year. The credit for the landmark decision goes to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who managed to convince Europe of the importance of a Muslim country becoming the EU's member.
Even though his party has an Islamic label, the policies he has pursued have won admiration in Europe. Yet, despite years of frustrating delays, Mr. Erdogan refused to sign on the dotted line.
At one stage, it appeared Mr. Erdogan could walk out of the summit, because Greek-Cyprus insisted that Ankara immediately recognize the southern republic in writing before entry negotiations could start.
Mr. Erdogan refused in keeping with Turkey's position that the Cyprus issue be settled before Ankara could recognize Nicosia - a decision that would be highly unpopular with voters back home.
Instead, he avoided a collapse of the summit by offering to unilaterally sign the protocol that extended the EU by 10 members, including the Greek-Cypriot republic, last May.
In return, the EU's current president, Dutch Prime Minister Balkanende, would say that the signing of the protocol did not mean Turkey's automatic recognition of the Nicosia government.
There are still very many hurdles in the way of Turkey's EU membership. Veto by even one member can scuttle Turkey's chances. Public opinion in many countries is against Turkey's inclusion.
French president Jacques Chirac has agreed to Turkey's membership, but he plans to hold a referendum on the issue. Many other European countries, too, are likely to hold referenda.
Besides, the negotiations are likely to be tough and could drag on for a decade. Despite historic prejudices, most European states seem to realize that a Turkish membership would be in Europe's interest.
As German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said, Turkey's large population - likely to be 80 million by 2015 - would constitute a huge market for Europe. On the whole, the decision taken by the Brussels summit is a victory for forces that believe in promoting an understanding with the Muslim world.
As British Prime Minister Tony Blair observed on Friday, those who believed in the 'clash of civilizations' are wrong. The "historic event", he said, showed that "we can work together and we can cooperate together".
Not by coaching
The suggestion by the speaker of the National Assembly that the government should help provide "training" for members of parliament needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. In a meeting with the US ambassador, he said that this was "vital" for increasing the "efficiency" and "capacity" of legislators.
However logical it may sound theoretically, it is absurd to think of creating a classroom-like arrangement for our lawmakers to be taught the ABC of parliamentary debates and discussions, rules and procedures and do's don'ts of parliamentary life.
A legislator does not need to be taught outside of parliament on how to improve his performance and make it more meaningful, what kind of laws to legislate, or on the kind of issues on which to raise a point of order and so on.
The proper place for learning all that is parliament itself provided it is conducted in a proper and impartial manner in keeping with the dignity and tradition of this vital institution.
The speaker should have realized this instead of making such an unrealistic recommendation. As the custodian of the house, he needs to ensure that the house is run in a manner that MPs are able to play their due rule in its working.
In this context, the Senate chairman, the provincial assembly speakers and the government (especially the ministry of law and parliamentary affairs) can all play a useful and constructive role.
A schedule of sessions to be held should be planned in advance and adhered to. The ministry has done just that for the National Assembly for 2005 and should do the same for the Senate as well as the provincial assemblies.
On a broader level, the true potential of assembly members will be realized only if the sovereignty of parliament is truly respected and established, and if it is allowed to function without any hindrance or behind-the-scene manipulation.
The practice of passing laws, even constitutional laws and amendments, without debate needs to stop with enough time being given to debate government policies and actions. Party whips should ensure that members observe parliamentary rules and norms of civility and decorum.
Speeches should avoid personal attacks, digressions and should be precise and to the point. This will free up time for constructive debate. It is only thus, and not by classroom methods of teaching, that the performance of our legislators can improve.
Railway fare hike
The announcement by Pakistan Railways that it will have to revise its fares upward as a result of rising fuel prices will be received with much dismay by train travellers. As it is, the PR is already not the most favoured mode of travel for many long-distance travellers because they now have access to more efficient and affordable bus services across the country.
Those who still patronize the railway should be offered incentives for their loyalty rather than being burdened by fare hikes, which have now been coming all too often. The PR should have been able to contain the rise in fuel prices rather than passing on the burden to its passengers at a time when its operational costs are likely to recede to their previous levels, as oil prices have begun to fall in the international market.
One can safely assume that freight charges too will be raised in step with the fare hike. If that happens, it will curtail the railway's freight earnings, with the PR already facing fierce competition from the National Logistic Cell as well as a host of private-sector goods transport companies. This may prove back-breaking for the already sickly railway system.
We have time and again argued in these columns against the revision of fuel prices on a fortnightly basis on grounds that such revisions have a ripple effect all around.
It is time the finance and petroleum ministries put their heads together and arrived at a formula whereby adjustments in fuel prices are made preferably once or at the most twice a year.
This will help bring some semblance of stability in the economy as far as consumer price index is concerned by putting tabs on inflation, which upsets the common citizen's monthly budget all too often.