|
| March 18, 2007 | Sunday | Safar 28, 1428 |
Not forgetting the missing
The tyranny of jirgas
The question of quorum and decorum
Justice denied
MEN are prepared to give an arm and a leg and bite the dust and grime of electioneering for days and nights at an end; women shower charm and broad smiles and minorities beat their breasts in a display of loyalty all to enter Parliament. But, having entered this sacred portal, it is difficult to find them in it.
THE attacks on the offices of Jang and Geo by the police in Islamabad on Friday have hit world headlines. Not that Pakistan has ever had much difficulty in making it to the front pages, mostly for the wrong reasons. But on Friday it was a different kind of news, with millions of TV viewers worldwide watching in disbelief as the police stormed the offices of the newspaper and its affiliated TV channel. No law seemed to have existed during those terrible moments when the riot police went berserk, smashing windowpanes and manhandling the staff. The attacks cannot be denied because the cameras have recorded what indeed was one of the blackest days for Pakistan’s media. Newspaper and TV offices being vandalised is nothing new in Pakistan. Many newspaper and TV offices have been attacked by goons belonging to this or that party, but the state has generally resorted to the plethora of tricks up its sleeve — like ad cuts and arrests — to curtail press freedom and browbeat journalists, editors and newspaper proprietors. It is, however, for the first time that media offices have been attacked in a brutal show of force by the state’s coercive apparatus at a time when, strictly speaking, the country is not under martial law or a state of emergency.
President Pervez Musharraf condemned the attacks, apologised to the nation, promised to compensate the company for the damage, and pledged to take action against those found involved in the crime, while Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz has ordered an inquiry. But, as always, it is the lower cadres that are made the scapegoat, for all the 14 suspended policemen, except one, are constables. Information Minister Mohammad Ali Durrani’s visit to the scene of vandalism was of no consequence. He was lucky that the journalists and other staff, in spite of their rage, let him leave the place unruffled, even though the minister himself has done nothing to improve media-government relations and make his ministry and the bureaucracy in general press-friendly. An honourable course for him would be to quit, as anyone who happens to be in his position would when such an event occurs. But it is not a tradition in Pakistan for bigwigs to accept responsibility for disasters and resign. We have no doubt, he will, like his more pugnacious counterpart in the law ministry, hang on to power and do nothing more than perform the unpleasant task of defending the indefensible.
All eyes are now focused on the inquiry. For a while, Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry’s case before the Supreme Judicial Council will perhaps be overshadowed by the inquiry into events of what can be called Black Friday. The president’s indignation and apology will make sense if the truth behind Friday’s attacks is established and the guilty punished. Those who stormed the two offices were merely carrying out orders. Their suspension means nothing, since it is obvious that by no stretch of the imagination would an inspector leading 13 constables have the gall to attack newspaper and TV offices on his own. Who ordered the attack? The inquiry must go into this question and unmask the high-ups behind the crime. No matter how high in the government hierarchy, they must be exposed and duly punished — more so because they have not only attacked the media in a most vicious manner, but have also made a hash of ‘enlightened moderation’.
WITH Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry in the dock and the current judicial crisis showing no signs of abating, one wonders who will now hear the voices of those demanding the recovery of missing relatives and friends believed to have been picked up by the country’s intelligence agencies. Before the events of March 9, the chief justice had been active in calling for the agencies to provide information about those thought to be in their custody. Although the government had taken exception to a number of cases where his judicial activism had exposed its failings, it is widely believed that it was Mr Chaudhry’s strong interest in the case of the ‘disappeared’ that invited the government’s wrath and its action in making him ‘non-functional’. His efforts had, in fact, procured the release of some 25 people — although that figure has been contested — detained by the agencies out of a list of 41 submitted by some petitioners. Many more are believed to have been detained by the intelligence agencies for suspected links with jihadi elements and restive Baloch and Sindhi nationalists.
It would be a pity if the current judicial crisis is allowed to overshadow the case of the missing, for that would give a free rein to the intelligence agencies to continue with their arbitrary ways in picking up people, torturing them in order to extract information and keeping them incommunicado. The families of many such detainees, some of them missing for years and picked up for no apparent reason, are going through extreme mental anguish. A sympathetic judiciary had meant that at least one avenue of hope was left open to them. But at the moment that too does not seem to be there. By allowing such ‘disappearances’ to take place, the government is in flagrant violation of the Constitution and of the universal principles of human rights. One hopes that the legal community will take up the cases of the missing persons once the turbulence subsides. In the meantime, and even after, other members of civil society, including the media, would do well to keep the issue alive and resist all government attempts to push it back into oblivion.
IT is a pity that concerted efforts by human rights activists and some enlightened judgments by the courts notwithstanding, the abhorrent custom of jirgas giving away minor girls in marriage to adult males continues unchecked. The Society for the Protection of the Rights of the Child has reported the decision of some tribal elders to hand over four young girls in marriage to the ‘aggrieved’ party as compensation to settle a feud. We support Sparc in its call to the Sindh chief justice to take suo motu notice of the case. The jirga was declared illegal by the Sukkur bench of the Sindh High Court in 2004. If the institution has still not been eliminated, it is time serious note was taken of the jirgas that are held and the people who participate in them should be held accountable for breach of law. The government, especially the judiciary, should act immediately to send the message to those who violate the law that such infringements will not be tolerated.
Although action by the court will help, it is important to mobilise the people against evil practices such as vani which do not always involve the verdict of a jirga. The prevention of anti-women practices bill, when it becomes law, will provide a strong basis for legal measures. But that will not be enough to change the situation. It is also important that a campaign be launched to educate people about the moral, social and human dimensions of such practices whereby women are treated like chattels with no human dignity or self-esteem. The spread of education will help change mindsets. But one-to-one communication by community leaders and activists to convey the essence of the message and persuade people to adopt an enlightened and humane approach will prove to be more effective.
At least one member, if not more, has not entered the House for a single session in three years, yet remains on full pay and allowances; no public record is available for leave taken by members.
But even if such a record were available, it would not show the time spent in the House, which might be just a minute or two to earn a full day’s attendance. And to attend Parliament at the appointed time is like being called to one of our weddings, where, at the hour, one would be welcomed not by hosts, but by electricians and the provider of chairs. Punctuality is not our forte.
The TV pictures of the National Assembly in session show a distracted scene; members in small groups busy confabulating among themselves; the Speaker at cross purposes with half a dozen members demanding the floor; up to 150 non-points of orders have been counted on a session day. A non-point of order has no value, but inflicts a tremendous cost on the system.
Parliament is an expensive business. The cost of a working minute was calculated at Rs.100, 800 in 2003-2004. This costly waste of time is in a country with some of the lowest indices of civil society.
Is Parliament necessary? Make no mistake – it is vital for our political and moral wellbeing. A public debate should focus on how to make it more efficient, responsive, open and accountable. The Question Hour is one part of the proceedings that works reasonably well and of high value.
In theory all decisions are to be taken by the House Speaker, but in practice many distractions confront the Speaker; the day-to-day decisions on what questions, resolutions and notices submitted by members fall within or without the ambit of the rules of procedure is taken by the House mandarins in the name of the Speaker. The Speaker’s job is more than a whole-time one, but he is after all a political person with a constituency to care for, apart from the pleasurable distractions of frequent foreign tours.
For the House to maintain its sovereignty, it is essential that Speaker frequently disallowing questions, resolutions and notices be subject to review by a House committee.
The bugbear of present National Assembly is the quorum issue. Lack of quorum hits newspaper headlines almost every day in session time. The quorum requirement is 25 per cent of the total membership (Article 55) which is possibly the highest requirement of any parliament in the world. The National Assembly consists of 343 members – which means that for proceedings to take place 86 members must be present in the House.
Such a big quorum requirement is exceptional. In the House of Commons the quorum requirement (except in voting time) is the Speaker and one member. In the Lok Sabha, the quorum requirement is 10 per cent – 65 members in a house of approximately 650 members. In our 1956 constitution (which is now remembered in high esteem), the quorum requirement was 40 members in a House of 310 members (13 per cent).
Unfortunately the tradition in Pakistan, at least from 1973 onwards, is that the opposition in its quest for power never recognises the legitimacy of the sitting government. We have no concept of a ‘loyal opposition’. As a consequence of this mind-set, the opposition in each parliament assumes a disruptive role in a bid to block legislation. It will either deliberately break the quorum if dependent on the opposition’s presence in the House by a walk-out, or, if the treasury benches are in plurality on legislative amendments till the patience of members is taxed to the full. Normally the opposition walks out after the filibuster, even if the House has a quorum.
This traditional anti democratic ‘zero-sum’ game is played out at a ruinous financial cost. The quorum has often been lost for want of one or two members in spite of a battery of opposition members being in the lobbies to watch the termination of the day’s proceedings. It is the traditional role of the opposition irrespective of which party is in power to block legislation to show up the incompetence of the government.
Since the quorum requirement can only be changed by a constitutional amendment (requiring two-thirds of the Parliament to pass a bill), this is not possible in the present circumstances.
In brief, the loss of parliamentary decorum generated by trading of insults, noisy, intemperate outbursts, the raising of non-points of orders, long winded irrelevant speeches, playing up to the gallery, and the creation of chaos in Parliament is part of the stock in trade. The India’s Lok Sabha is reported to have similar chaotic scenes with members crowding on to the Speaker’s dais.
This may be the bad news, but, there is also some good news. Standing committee proceedings, which involve members from all sides of the house, consisting of 17 members, devoid of press publicity, the proceedings are just the opposite of the raucous plenary. Here the opposition and government members do sit in a consensual mode, and indeed the best work of the National Assembly is done there. The same can be said of committee work in India and the UK.
The National Assembly costs the nation over a billion rupees a year. Are the people of Pakistan getting their money’s worth? The answer is ‘no.’ The National Assembly must be made more productive, but how? Here are a few suggestions:
* There are 46 standing committees. Let each committee advertise to receive public complaints relating to the ministry under their watch.
Each standing committee should have a sub-committee which would have the time to examine complaints suo motu, provided the matter is not before the judiciary. Complaints can either be redressed by a ministry through this committee or be referred to the federal or provincial ombudsman. This will establish a direct nexus between the parliament and the people.
* The reports of the standing committee on legislation should be circulated in draft to all members holding majority and minority opinions of the Committee. Before the report is finalised, any member who wishes to add to the report should be given an opportunity to do so. Such opinion should be incorporated in the final report of the committee.
When the standing committee’s report on legislation comes for plenary hearing, speaking time should only be given to the authors of the majority and minority reports and such members who have given a written opinion different from both reports. This will give the passage of legislation a measure of informed opinion.
* An agreement should be reached between the parties for a ‘conscience vote’ on social legislation. The vote should be conducted by secret ballot. What constitutes social legislation can be decided by the parties.
Conscience voting does away with mechanical voting on a party basis which is the norm in parliament, and will build bridges between members and parties.
* Privilege motions of a minor nature should be heard and decided by the speaker in his chamber. More serious cases should be referred by the Speaker to the standing committee and the report of the committee should be considered by the house for action, if any.
* Joint Senate and National Assembly Committee: To make the standing committees even more powerful, there should be joint committees of both houses. Human rights and justice would fare better in joint committees, with sub-committees, on specific issues. It will also avoid duplication and lower costs.
* Since standing committees have proved to be the “efficient” part of the National Assembly and the plenary sessions (apart from the question hour) the “not so efficient” part, standing committees should meet daily after the question hour. If quorum bells are rung, the members can easily proceed to the chamber.
Indeed, this is the practice and procedure in the House of Commons and the Lok Sabha. It has multiple advantages – for one, it cuts costs of running the committees. Secondly, instead of a large number of members twiddling their thumbs at the plenary, they will be involved in constructive work in the committee.
* The National Assembly is run like a government bureaucratic office. Most things pertaining to the assembly are a secret. Foreign tours are much coveted. Apart from a one liner that the speaker is on foreign tour, where to and where for and with whom and at what cost are among the closely guarded secrets. Expenditures fall in the same category. The public is entitled to know how the billion rupee budget is spent.
* Member frustration also promotes lack of decorum and quorum. Very often the law of the jungle prevails when a dozen or more members wish to make themselves heard, usually on non-points of orders. In such cases, he who is loudest and most belligerent is likely to get his way at the expense of the rule-abiding, who may never get a chance to speak.
* Discipline is rarely enforced. The scene is reminiscent of busy crossroads without a traffic signal.
Parliament, notwithstanding the limitations imposed by an unhappy tradition, has the potential of becoming the prism through which the public can connect to its representatives. Bad management and lack of discipline lead to chaos, which in turn always leads to disaster.
The writer is an MNA.
murbr@isb.paknet.com.pk
THE problem with political crises in Pakistan is that they take everyone by surprise, not least the man ostensibly in charge, President Pervez Musharraf. This time he called in his chief justice, Iftikhar Chaudhry, for a quiet chat at Army House.
The two men had their picture taken as the president told his chief justice that he was resigning. Mr Chaudhry wouldn't play ball. He demanded to know why he was being dismissed and what constitutional right the president had to sack him.
Mr Musharraf did not know what to do, and Mr Chaudhry found himself taken back to his home, where he has been kept in preventive detention (in reality house arrest), with access to the outside world denied him. Each time he has been up in court on unspecified charges of wrongdoing, there has been a riot.
On Friday it spread to the neighbouring offices of a private television channel, Geo, which had a ringside view of the melee and was broadcasting live pictures of it. Shortly after riot police entered the building, the cameras were turned off. The riot squad also entered the premises of The News, a daily paper that belongs to the same group.
Pakistan is in ferment. Mr Chaudhry is the first civilian to stand up to Mr Musharraf since he seized power in a military coup eight years ago. The chief justice had been a thorn in the side of the government by overturning the privatisation of an underpriced steel mill and for taking up the cause of hundreds of people who have been abducted by the intelligence agencies.
But Mr Musharraf's strike was also pre-emptive. The president is chosen by a parliament whose term expires next year. Such is the opposition to Mr Musharraf that the next parliament is unlikely to nod the appointment through, particularly as he has refused to stand down as head of the army. Any attempt to get the current parliament to do the deed is likely to be met with a host of legal actions. Hence, the need to install a pliant chief justice.
America and Britain have put all their chips on Mr Musharraf, whose continued existence remains key to the fight with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, both nestling inside Pakistan's borders. There is no plan B if he is toppled, and ambassadors must be looking with some alarm at the prospect of their man losing both popularity and control. He has always vowed to restore democracy, and dictatorial methods of cracking down on judges and editors will not help him do that. Loss of control is as much of a problem as lack of democracy, and the two are linked. The president has weathered storms before, but this one will test his ability to maintain both his rule and the unity of the nation.
— The Guardian, London