|
| August 06, 2006 | Sunday | Rajab 10, 1427 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Alternative energy sources
An abhorrent practice
Options before the president
Stifling fuel economy
THE issue of General Musharraf’s reelection as president has again become the focus of attention. The Punjab Assembly has even passed a resolution that the present electoral college reelect the president while the chief minister of Punjab has vowed to get General Musharraf reelected as president in uniform for two more terms.
FOR the first time since Israel began killing Lebanese civilians, the US seems to favour an early end to hostilities. An indication of this came from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who said in a TV interview on Thursday that the Security Council could pass a ceasefire resolution within days. This is in sharp contrast to the earlier US stand that a ceasefire would serve no purpose unless there were guarantees of a durable peace to ensure “a new Middle East”. This was a convenient phrase for giving Israel time to destroy Hezbollah and punish Lebanon. That was the reason why the Security Council could not meet, since America did not agree with France that a ceasefire was needed immediately. France differed with America on priorities, its stand being that the induction of a multinational force could be taken care of after a ceasefire had gone into effect.
Israel got the time it wanted, but things are not going its way. When it began its air blitz against Beirut, Tel Aviv thought it would be all over in a few days and Hezbollah would be destroyed. Ignoring for a moment the absurdity of any relationship between killing civilians in Beirut apartment buildings and wiping out Hezbollah fighters who were right on the Israeli border, Israel’s aim was not achieved. Hezbollah surprised the world by its tenacity and the way it brought the war home to Israelis by showering rockets on Haifa and other towns. Now after more than three weeks of a land and air offensive which has resulted in the death of over 900 Lebanese civilians, including 23 children massacred at Qana, and the destruction of Lebanon’s infrastructure, the Israeli Wehrmacht is nowhere within sight of victory. In fact, experts throughout the world are debating whether air power alone can decide a military campaign. More important, the hype about the superiority of the Israeli defence system stands exposed. The adage is true: it is the man behind the gun that counts, not the gun. Hezbollah has shown how its fighters can stem any Israeli invasion because they are willing to die for their cause. Now that the Israelis are taking casualties, Ms Rice — who has been hopping from one Middle Eastern capital to another doing nothing but temporising to delay a ceasefire — has suddenly woken up to the need for an end to hostilities.
Israel may go as far as the Litani river, but that is not going to destroy Hezbollah, for the resistance fighters by then will have pulled back and melted into the countryside. What does Israel hope to achieve by this — a repetition of its 18-year experience in the aftermath of its 1982 invasion of Lebanon? What precise duties the proposed multinational force will perform is not clear yet. The US, too, has given no thought to it yet. But before the modalities of the formation of such a force and its duties are defined, the first task is to bring to an end a campaign that in the words of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez “is being carried out in the style of Hitler.” In an interview with Al Jazeera TV on Friday, Mr Chavez said, “They (Israelis) are doing what Hitler did against the Jews. They are killing innocent children and whole families.” His remarks came the day Israelis murdered 33 farm workers in the Bekaa valley.
THE country is set to face a major energy crisis in three years’ time if alternative sources of power are not tapped. Many question marks hang over the prospects of importing natural gas from either Iran or Turkmenistan through pipelines. Either of these projects, even if it is begun now, will take up to four years before becoming operational. Logistic and political problems abound: Pakistan, Iran and India have failed to agree on a tariff rate; finding a third-party guarantor for the controversial project is a serious matter given the Iran-US standoff over Tehran’s nuclear programme; danger of an armed conflict developing in the region with Iran as its epicentre cannot be completely ruled out; an alternative pipeline from Turkmenistan is a higher-cost, higher-risk proposition because of the long distance and political instability in Afghanistan and in Turkmenistan itself. These issues require a much longer time to resolve than Pakistan can afford. Production of additional electricity using hydel power, too, is a time-consuming proposition, for no big dam can be readied before 2011. Construction of smaller dams along the Indus or other rivers will be insufficient given the projected rise in the country’s energy needs as a result of a high economic and population growth rate. The question is: where does it all lead the policymakers?
Certainly not to a dead end, at least for now. Development of Pakistan’s coal reserves, particularly those found in the Thar desert, have remained a viable option all this time — an option that has not been given serious thought for reasons unknown. China has time and again offered to help bring these reserves on line within a relatively short timeframe. Coal is being successfully used as an alternative source of energy in many developed countries, including the US and Britain. As the construction of the Diamer-Bhasha dam gets underway, a consensus among the provinces can be reached on a similar project at Kalabagh or elsewhere, and as the gas pipeline possibilities mature, it is imperative that the authorities concerned consider the development of the Thar coalmines to avoid the looming energy crisis.
IT is hard not to admire a father in Jhang who is fighting to safeguard his three-year-old married daughter’s future against her in-laws who seem determined to perform the child’s rukhsati. That children can be married off by families is unimaginable and inhuman, and also it is in clear violation of the existing laws that forbid child marriages. What separates this story from the run of the mill cases is the unusual stance of the girl’s parents. Her father was always against his daughter’s marriage to a child in his wife’s family, but ultimately succumbed to pressure and agreed to nikah but not rukhsati, despite a panchayat decree in favour of it. Meanwhile, the girl’s mother was so incensed at her husband for refusing to go ahead with their daughter’s rukhsati that she divorced him. This only shows how deep-rooted some ancient customs are, and how, unless they are challenged, peoples’ blind adherence to them will further contaminate society. The father has now sought the protection of the police — which should be immediately given as his life as well as his daughter’s may well be in danger. Those who solemnised the nikah along with those who participated in the panchayat should also be held answerable for breaking the relevant law. Unless effective action is taken, such barbaric acts will continue to take place affecting society and its people.
Of equal importance is society’s role in such matters. Unlike neighbouring India where community activism is widespread and effective, there is virtually no sign of enlightened opinion asserting itself in Pakistan. It is always the NGOs that step forward to highlight unjust acts but they need to be supported by the intelligentsia and the middle class whose views must reach out to those who are still steeped in a mediaeval social milieu.
The president himself has continued his policy of calculated ambiguity. Given our political uncertainties, it may be too early to say what will happen in a year or so. However, the issue having arisen needs to be discussed.
The opposition stands united in opposing the reelection of the president in uniform by the present electoral college. However, the more pragmatic parties in the opposition have not ruled out the possibility if he relinquishes the office of the Chief of Army Staff and holds free elections.
A substantial number of independent observers and members of civil society have also urged the president to appoint a full-time army chief and hold free and fair elections in 2007. Indeed, some of his former colleagues have written a letter urging him to give up his uniform and restore a genuine political and democratic process.
Like most other major political problems in Pakistan, this issue has profound legal and constitutional implications. Though the people in general have given up hope of judicial rectification of our constitutional deviations, they have continued to hold on to a measure of optimism — a triumph of hope over experience. They have always knocked the doors of the courts and no doubt will do so again if President Musharraf succumbs to his frailties yet again.
Two separate yet intertwined issues are involved: whether the president should continue to remain chief of army staff and whether he should seek reelection from the existing electoral college or wait for newly elected assemblies.
Insofar as the first issue is concerned, though the president had promised the nation at the time when the 17th amendment to the Constitution was passed that he would give up that office in 2004, he did not do so. He raised issues of immediate national interests, including the building of mega dams and the war on terror, to justify his remaining in uniform. However, he had promised that by the time of elections in 2007, he would shed it. The elusive national interest which has served all our autocrats well is once again been invoked to ensure maximum power in their, hands.
It is ironic that we still need to argue about a self-evident proposition that in a polity which aspires to be democratic, the office of the president and the chief of army staff cannot be held by one person. Particularly so where the claim to presidency is an adjunct to the office of the army chief. An elected civilian leader can and indeed should be the commander in chief of all the armed forces but a military professional holding the office of the army chief can never claim presidency by virtue of his first office. Article 243 of the Constitution provides that the federal government shall have control and command of the armed forces. Despite this, we still have to beg for vindication of this constitutional principle.
Article 43 of the Constitution categorically provides that the president shall not hold any office of profit in the service of Pakistan or occupy any other position carrying remuneration for the rendering of services. Article 41(2) provides that a person shall not be eligible for election as president unless he is qualified to be elected as a member of the National Assembly.
Article 63 (1)(d) disqualifies a person from being elected as a member of the National Assembly if he holds an office of profit in the service of Pakistan other than an office declared by law not to disqualify its holder. The latter condition is only found in the Constitution as a disqualification under Article 63 as against qualifications envisaged in Article 62.
However, in 2004, General Musharraf’s advisers thought it was applicable to him by virtue of Article 41(2) when they passed the President to Hold Another Office Act, 2004, which provided that as president, General Musharraf can hold the office of the chief of army staff too.
In order to make the bar on president holding the office of chief of army staff inapplicable, an amendment was made in Article 41(7) of the Constitution. This was followed by the enactment of the President to Hold Another Office Act, 2004. However, the protection provided by these amendments was only for the term due to expire in 2007.
Thus, with the expiry of the present term of the president in 2007, his reelection would be subject to the bar provided in Article 43. Since the office of the chief of army staff is an office of profit in the service of Pakistan, General Musharraf cannot continue to hold that office if he wants to be reelected president for another term. This is the position which leaves little room for ambiguity and the only legitimate alternative available to him is to have the Constitution amended yet again.
There is yet another dilemma which the president can confront. The Article 41(2) only makes the qualifications envisaged in Article 62 and applicable to the members of the National Assembly, also applicable to a presidential candidate but does not cover the disqualifications provided in Article 63. Yet by adding a proviso to Article 41(7) (b) that Article 63(1) (d) shall become operative as on December 31, 2004, a very difficult situation has been created for President Musharraf. This provision was totally unnecessary and was perhaps inserted by his advisers to reassure the MMA for supporting the 17th Amendment.
Consequently, if Article 63 indeed applies to presidential candidates, the moment General Musharraf decides to resign as chief of army staff, Article 63(1) (k) would become applicable to him. This Article disqualifies a person from being a member of parliament if he has been in the service of Pakistan and a period of two years has not elapsed. He is also ineligible to contest for the office of president for two more years.
The president seems to have created a constitutional cobweb for himself. On the one hand, he cannot continue as chief of army staff beyond his present presidential term in 2007. But if he relinquishes that office, he is ineligible to become president for two years. Thus, he would not be able to seek reelection as president in 2007.
The second issue is whether the present electoral college can reelect the president for a second term. Since the presidential term is due to expire prior to the term of the assemblies and if the assemblies are not dissolved earlier, the presidential election would have to be done by the present electoral college. There is no specific constitutional bar prohibiting the electoral college from exercising that power twice over. Indeed the contrary would lead to an absurd situation. If a newly elected electoral college elects a president but the office becomes vacant soon or even in the middle of the term, which one would then elect the new president? It would be absurd to argue that all assemblies should be dissolved to have a new electoral college for a fresh presidential election.
However, this does not mean that there is no alternative to the election of president except by the present electoral college. Indeed, to do so would not only unnecessarily impair the political process but would also be an act of bad faith. The elections held in 2002 have generally been acknowledged to be manipulated. If President Musharraf is reelected by the same electoral college, the legitimacy of that exercise would remain in doubt.
President Musharraf feels proud of being a brave soldier who is not afraid of taking risks. He should relinquish the office of chief of army staff and take all legitimate political forces into confidence to ensure free and fair elections in 2007. This matter is better left to the newly elected assemblies. If they want him, they can amend the Constitution and have him reelected as president. This may even be desirable. This indeed is a highly risky venture for General Musharraf. But then it is one risk worth taking. It would put Gen Musharraf in a different category from that of Generals Ayub, Yahya and Zia.
THE Senate is considering a bill to allow drilling for oil and gas on more of America’s Outer Continental Shelf. The bill has problems, but the basic concept of increasing offshore production is sound. What is not sound, however, is the apparent refusal by the Senate leadership to allow consideration of an amendment to increase auto fuel economy standards.
With energy prices high, the temptation to deal only with supply shortages is perhaps understandable. But it makes no sense to think about America’s energy problem without serious attention to how to cut energy consumption.
The bipartisan proposal is not radical. Unlike some other ideas for jacking up average fuel economy, it would not set an arbitrary miles per gallon figure. Rather, it would change existing law to create a presumption of increasing fuel economy each year.
—The Washington Post