|
| April 01, 2008 | Tuesday | Rabi-ul-Awwal 23, 1429 |
Speak easy
A provocative act
Two governments or one?
OTHER VOICES - Sindhi Press
FROM April onwards Pakistan will be ruled by two governments, one representing the majority in the National Assembly led by Prime Minister Gilani and the other representing the supra-parliamentary forces led by President Musharraf.
EVEN before the release of the HRCP’s annual report on the state of human rights in Pakistan, one could have safely said that 2007 was among the worst years witnessed in the country in this regard. Highlights from the report, carried by this paper, serve to confirm this impression. Not only did we regress in many areas, even institutions established with a view to protecting fundamental freedoms or to keep a check on these came under attack. Both the judiciary and the press came in for some rough handling by the pro-military government. The result was a year without hope — especially after the Nov 3 emergency — in which everything seemed to fall apart. Benazir Bhutto’s assassination on Dec 27 was 2007’s climactic event, the official response to which left nobody in doubt of the government’s reluctance to ensure an honest process of accountability.
With a democratic government finally in the saddle, are things going to change for the better? Certainly it has been an auspicious start. The present government is composed of individuals who, though representing diverse political views, have together pledged to restore the democratic process and give the common man a better deal especially in terms of economic relief and political stability. It has replaced a pro-military government that took direct orders from a president who was also army chief and whose credentials rendered his occupation of the highest civilian post of the land open to question. Violating several rights, including freedom of assembly, speech and association, the last government undermined whatever progress had been attained on these fronts during the post-Ziaul Haq period. In contrast, in its very first move, the new government sought to rectify the damage done to the judiciary in 2007 by ordering the release of the incarcerated judges.
However, one must urge that all new laws or amendments to old ones be subjected to the thoroughness of the parliamentary process. (The record for the previous government that saw far more presidential ordinances than parliamentary bills being passed was abysmal in this regard.) In its eagerness to undo the damage inflicted on the system by President Musharraf vis-à-vis human rights, the new government must remember that even actions taken in the public interest have aspects which need debate. At the same time, working for the people does not mean that the government can escape accountability — among the foremost challenges to improving the state of human rights in Pakistan. Lastly, immediate issues such as the restoration of the judiciary tend to take attention away from the rights of the disadvantaged. Here it is not only the passage of new laws or the implementation of existing ones that can mitigate the sufferings of disadvantaged groups such as women, children, minorities, etc. It is only when the government sets an example by rejecting archaic traditions and embracing the universal values of human rights that a culture of doing right by the people can be established.
AFTER a traumatic time when stringent curbs were slapped on the media, key television channels were shut down and scores of journalists were flung behind bars and baton-charged, Pakistan is poised for another political rebirth. Prime Minister Gilani has promised a new freedom of information law within a hundred days of his taking charge. The right to information is an integral part of press freedom though autocratic governments have traditionally fought shy of providing easy access to knowledge about their own doings. Hence not surprisingly the Freedom of Information Ordinance that was promulgated by the Musharraf regime in October 2002 has hardly been accorded a dominant status and has almost been reduced to a dead letter. The government’s disinterest in granting the right to information to the people was apparent by its lack of parliamentary ownership — the National Assembly never debated it — and the tardiness in framing rules under the Ordinance. It has still not been fully operationalised.
The importance of a fully informed citizen in an open society cannot be stressed enough for an enduring democratic environment. Therefore, granting FOI its rightful status and restructuring some of its trickier aspects is a significant challenge that awaits the new authorities. It is also important that the new law should rectify the flaws which marred the 2002 Ordinance. Thus far too many areas and departments were kept out of the law’s purview. Also, the ordinance was not truly effective because it did not receive sufficient publicity and was mired in bureaucratic procedures that did not guarantee swift and easy access.
One hopes that the present government will give adequate recognition to the right to information to create an enlightened citizenry which is essential if it is to participate in the democratic processes, check corruption and ensure transparency in governance. To translate this good intention into action is a task replete with Herculean obstacles. Apart from framing a good law, the government will be required to train bureaucrats to respect the right to information, make public bodies fully cognisant of and equipped for record maintenance, generate awareness for the edict, introduce penalties for officers who delay or obstruct information, amend the application procedure to make it user-friendly, reduce the stipulated 21-day waiting period and extend the reach of the law to all public-sector bodies. These measures will encourage conscientiousness, guarantee transparency and enhance social and public welfare through precision. Finally, civil society must continue its fight to ensure that the right to information is free of delays and denials.
IT is really astounding that in this age of friction between Muslims and the West, there should be a deliberate attempt to fuel interfaith conflict. The release of a video — by right-wing Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders — posted on the internet and demonising Islam has led several Muslim governments to protest against the provocative act. Public protests have so far been largely confined to Pakistan but there is fear that Muslims in other countries could also take to the streets as their anger grows. One hopes that any resulting violence is limited in scope and does not resemble the kind that was witnessed in the aftermath of the publication of derogatory illustrations of the Prophet (PBUH) by a Danish newspaper in 2005. Mindful of the feelings of its one million strong Muslim population, as well as the dangers of the situation, the Dutch government has wisely distanced itself from the video. With extremists on both sides of the divide, it is unlikely that militant-minded Muslims will exercise restraint and there are fears that Dutch interests, including foreign missions and troops stationed in Afghanistan, could be targeted.
Such situations are a litmus test for Muslim populations who, instead of reacting violently, should be asking themselves why they are being targeted by bigoted individuals like Mr Wilders. He is voicing the sense of resentment against Muslims that is increasingly felt in the West. The most obvious reason for their failings in the eyes of the West is, of course, the rise of Islamic militancy and the targeting of western interests. But a deeper look reveals a repressive social and political order at home, dire poverty with no hope of economic uplift, joblessness and illiteracy. Egged on by religious extremists many young Muslims come to subscribe to dangerous and flawed ideologies, and often turn into anti-state actors. Unless there is a genuine attempt by Muslims to identify their shortcomings as a society, it would be impossible for anyone to rectify the situation.
The former will be effective in terms of the operational dynamics of day-to-day governance. The latter will be overwhelming in terms of the structural dynamics of the prevalent institutional-constitutional framework.
Both are struggling to meet the challenge of cohabitation. During the 1990s, the diarchic pattern of power-sharing between the parliamentary and extra-parliamentary forces tremendously weakened the political parties. Assembly after assembly was dissolved. Prime minister after prime minister was dismissed. Finally, ‘constitutional rule’ was replaced by overtly unconstitutional rule in 1999. A Bonaparte had struck again, for the fourth time in Pakistan’s history.
Can Pakistan live under two governments at the same time? The newly elected government of the PPP, PML-N and ANP is being held hostage by Article 58-2(b) and, in theory, the National Assembly can be dissolved at any time. That brings in the issue of parliamentary sovereignty, which was destroyed under the 17th Amendment. It is not surprising that politicians feel extremely insecure and want to do away with the controversial article as soon as possible.
But the president also has powers to appoint judges of the higher courts, as well as chiefs of the armed services. The anomaly of the situation is crystal clear: the nation elected a coalition of forces to govern the country, but the chief executive of the new administration will have no powers pertaining to top-level appointments in the judiciary or the armed forces. The nation gave a clear mandate against President Musharraf by voting his anointed party out of office. But the power he potentially still wields is enormous.
Related to the issue of the anomalous presidential powers is that of the restoration of judges. In early November 2007, a Supreme Court bench was hearing a case about the bona fides of Gen Musharraf’s election as president. The latter changed the composition of the court, which then approved his election. Justice, Pakistan-style, came into full play. Judges became pawns in the hands of the COAS, who suspended the constitution for the second time within a decade. One institution violated the other.
The president wants to stay on. If the judiciary is restored, and the case concerning the presidential election held on Oct 6, 2007 is reopened, it might mean Musharraf’s exit from office. If the 17th Amendment is modified, it would leave him a lame-duck president. If there is a move for his impeachment, he would be publicly discredited. All this means that prospects for the president are not very bright.
Yusuf Raza Gilani’s government seems to tread very cautiously. It enjoys a huge following in the National Assembly and may therefore make a move for restoring parliamentary sovereignty. At one end, it doesn’t seem that the lawyers’ movement will stop any time soon without the restoration of judges. At the other, though he has lost his moral and political authority, the president is technically still equipped with various legal powers.
Will the Gilani government dissolve NAB and the political wing of the ISI, the two institutions that attracted criticism for their perceived role against the political class? A party in government is usually less sensitive than the opposition about the potential of state institutions to harm the political leadership. But considerations about the possibility of sitting in opposition even sooner than expected can prevail over the government at this juncture in Pakistan’s history. This would mean that extra-parliamentary input into the political process would be contained.
Political forces have been wary of the perceived symbol of military intervention in the government in the form of the National Security Council (NSC). Will the Gilani government move to scrap it any time soon? Does a similar fate await the National Reconstruction Bureau (NRB), which represents intellectual input in the business of the state at the behest of extra-parliamentary forces?
The ruling coalition has its share of teething problems. Nawaz Sharif has openly espoused popular causes, ranging from the judges issue to the demand for Musharraf’s exit from power. Asfandyar Wali wants Pakhtunkhwa for the NWFP. Asif Zardari needs Fazlur Rehman in Balochistan to form the government. He also wants to accommodate the MQM in Sindh as a safety valve, even as his coalition partners would shy from such association given that party’s role as Musharraf’s protégé for several years.
How far can the new government go against the system of local bodies, with the nazim at its apex? The system was generally condemned for its role in support of President Musharraf during and between elections. An elected district officer, the nazim remains the most progressive characteristic of the present system. The political government will be ill-advised to turn the wheel of history backwards. Instead, there is need to move forward in the direction of party-based elections for local bodies that can turn the system into a nursery for political leadership at higher levels.
The new government faces a formidable agenda in the form of the ongoing military operations in Waziristan and Swat, and the fast deteriorating law and order situation. Washington’s envoys rushed to Islamabad on the eve of government formation to ensure a pro-US transition process. At home, the ongoing mini-operation against Baloch nationalists portends a political crisis.
Can the prime minister and president coexist in this grim situation, inasmuch as the latter has the potential to do away with the whole parliamentary framework? The two-government formula did not work before and is not likely to work in future. Outside Pakistan, the powers to dissolve the parliament lie neither with the president in India nor with Queen Elizabeth in the UK, nor with the governor general in Australia nor with any head of state in any parliamentary system.
In the past, such lofty phrases as balance of power between the prime minister and president have been employed to rob parliament of its sovereignty. The principle of balance of power between the executive, legislature and judiciary was thus manipulated for the purpose of putting a split executive in place. In this context, the president’s house emerged as a rival centre of power. No elected government was able or willing to take it lying low.
The ultimate security of the PPP-led government in Islamabad lies in parliamentary sovereignty. Only one government at one time can represent the nation.
Parliament is supreme
Tameer Sindh
THE visit of US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher before the installation of a new government has enraged public opinion in Pakistan.
Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani rightly told the American mission that Pakistan’s policy in the US-led war on terror would be assessed by parliament. He said parliament was a sovereign body and all important policy matters and decisions on key national issues would be taken in parliament. John Negroponte was here to get assurances from the new government that Pakistan would continue with the war on terror.
The prime minister’s stand … is worth praising. In the past, parliament had been sidelined and all decisions were made by one individual. At his sweet will he introduced policies and promoted the US agenda. These policies devised by one individual harmed the country as the war on terror proved so defective and counterproductive that a number of prominent personalities were hit.
The current parliament is not dominated by any single group or party. The government too is comprised by more than one party. A grand alliance has emerged which will deal with the situation jointly. This is the right path. The political parties have shown maturity and if this trend continues the people will experience good governance.
The working relationship developed between the PPP and PML-N shows that the two rival parties have learned the art of tolerating each other. Therefore America should be told in clear-cut terms that whatever policy Pakistan follows, it
will do so only with the approval of parliament.
— (March 28)
Killings in Karachi
Halchal
KARACHI has witnessed a surge in killings since the recent general elections. Over 15 people were killed last week and, according to some estimates, nearly 80 people have been murdered during the last one month. Karachi is the business hub of the country and known as the economic capital of Pakistan. [A killing spree] in such a city is not an ordinary matter. It not only affects the common man who feels harassed and insecure, social and economic activity also takes a hit and the country’s image in the world is tarnished as well.
The importance of the city demands that security measures should be state of the art. But these murders show that Karachi is a no-man’s-land where ordinary people are left at the mercy of lawbreakers. A point has been reached where people are feeling insecure not only at night but also during the day. In other large cities, there is hustle and bustle on the roads until well into the night with people walking around without fear. But here the situation is quite the opposite. Besides ordinary people, intelligence and security officials are being killed.
Why has the administration failed to maintain law and order in the city? Karachi generates more income than any other city in the country. It is considered a city of opportunity where people from all over the country can find employment without discrimination and earn a livelihood. It is regrettable that a free hand has been given in this city to a handful of terrorists who are killing people.
People are compelled to think that either these groups are more powerful than the government or the government is not interested in restoring peace to the city. — (March 28)
— Selected and translated by Sohail Sangi.
