THE constitutional package prepared by the PPP part of the ruling coalition has saddened the democratic-minded public because they expected the winners of the February election to know their priorities better. By the same token it must have offered satisfaction to all denigrators of democracy, especially the country’s permanent establishment, for nothing pleases them more than disarray in the democratic camp.

The package authors’ lack of comprehension of the priorities on the democrats’ agenda apart, the document invites criticism for being derogatory to PPP’s pool of collective wisdom, for trivialising the constitution, and for long windedness.

A preliminary objection to the manner of preparing and broadcasting the document may be recorded. A smooth functioning of the present coalition is a prerequisite to a transition to democracy.

In order to avoid damage to intra-coalition understanding it would have been better to entrust the drafting of constitutional amendments to a committee comprising all coalition partners.

Besides, constitutional reform is not a private matter between the PPP and its coalition partners. It is a matter that concerns the entire society. There is no evidence that the people at large have been asked to give their views. The disclaimer that the package is only a draft for discussion is welcome but it does not meet the objections raised here.

There are no two opinions on the need for a drastic overhaul of the constitution because successive assaults by autocratic regimes have gravely undermined its capacity to serve the needs of a modern, democratic order. The list of demands for changes in it is quite long:

— The federating units are clamouring that all anti-federation features of the constitution — and these are many — must be removed.

— The democratic–looking parties wish to revert to the parliamentary system that has arbitrarily and unabashedly been turned into a presidential one.

— The rights community wants the fundamental rights articles strengthened and some basic rights, such as the rights to education, healthcare, and social security, transferred from the principles of policy to the chapter on fundamental rights.

— The articles inserted to legitimise the election of Generals Ziaul Haq and Pervez Musharraf through sham referenda or extend protection to their actions are disgraceful patches on the basic law and need to be removed.

However, equally undeniable is the fact that revision of the constitution cannot be undertaken as a crash project. Making and unmaking of constitutions must of necessity be an exercise spread over a reasonable period of time and such efforts acquire legitimacy in proportion to the consensus behind them.

The authors of the 1973 Constitution were aware of this condition. Amendments rushed through by elected representatives without due deliberation can be as harmful as those imposed by usurpers of state authority.

Thus, while much can be said for beginning the process of constitution’s revision by, say, establishing an all-party commission, at the moment top priority attaches to removal of obstacles to democratic governance and to effecting a break from the legacy of authoritarianism that has been eating into the vitals of the Pakistani people.

These priority issues are: cancellation of all measures taken under the cover of the extra-constitutional emergency of Nov 3, 2007, especially those related to the judiciary and the presidency, and rehabilitation of the prime minister’s office.

The contents of the package must therefore be judged in terms of their urgency and relevance to a speedy transition to parliamentary democracy.

The proposals that pass the urgency test are: renaming of NWFP as Pakhtunkhwa; the amendments that extinguish the president’s discretionary powers, including those under 58-2(b); the deletion of Article 268 (2), under which presidential permission is needed before attempting a change in laws placed in the sixth schedule; and a new article to secure the restoration of the superior court judges.

Most of the other proposals, whether welcome or not, do not survive the urgency test.

The proposed amendment to Article 6 whereby acts of treason are defined and judges who justify coups or swear allegiance to orders like PCO are added to the roster of culprits is for gallery effect only. The revised text will offer as little guarantee against military takeovers as the existing provision.

Some other proposals ostensibly to pacify the less populous provinces, such as increase in the period during which the Senate may give its comments on the budget (from seven days to 14) or deletion of a few items from the Concurrent List, are likely to annoy the nationalists as meaningless sops, especially since their demand for a review of the emergency provisions has been ignored.

An example of awkward drafting is the new Article 95-A. Several paragraphs have been penned to make a provision that could have been put in a sentence: In the absence of the prime minister, the senior minister will head the cabinet and in the event of the prime minister’s office falling vacant a new prime minister will be elected within 30 days.

A masterpiece of ambiguity is the proposed new Article 243-A which says no person shall declare war without prior approval of the prime minister or the cabinet. This attractive looking proposal is unnecessary once all actions of the president are made subject to cabinet’s advice.

Some of the proposals that need detailed examination are: the proposals to change the composition of the Council of Common Interest, the replacement of the Supreme Judicial Council with a judicial commission lorded over by retired judges, the replacement of the president by the federal government as the authority for drawing up the rules of business (which should preferably be done by parliament), and the reduction of the National Assembly quorum from one-fourth of the members to one-sixth. It has been proposed to exclude the president from the parliament presumably on the ground that he had been included under a Zima amendment.

But Indian democracy has not come to grief by mentioning the president as part of parliament.

Then one is astounded to find a regressive proposal that the prime minister must be a Muslim. The new article devised to validate ordinances made between July 12 and Dec 15, 2007 does little credit to the PPP, to say the least.

The trouble with drafting a constitutional package that goes beyond the immediate needs is that many groups will assail non-inclusion of proposals to revise the provisions unwelcome to them.The best course now will be to refer the package to an all-party committee which may broaden the scope of reform and prepare for immediate action a shorter bill comprising only the following points:

Renaming NWFP as Pakhtunkhwa; abolition of the president’s discretionary powers [that will take care of 58-2(b)]; deletion of 268 (2); and cancellation of all measures taken under the emergency of Nov 3 (that will secure restoration of judges and a change at the top.)

HILLARY Clinton ended her bid to become the Democratic presidential candidate, not with a whimper (as her detractors had expected) but with a bang.

This may sound contrary to everything that is being said, but we must pause for a moment and realise that despite her concession on Saturday, and whole-hearted endorsement of Barack Obama, she has many achievements that must not be glossed over.

The main is that for the first time, a woman was able to break the ultimate glass ceiling in US politics; it is no small feat. She has proved to be a remarkable political force in her own right, and not just as a former First Lady piggybacking on her husband’s laurels.

In analysing why she failed to secure the bid, one question that is likely to re-surface is whether Mrs Clinton’s loss has to do with sexism and whether it is a bigger devil than racism. Mrs Clinton’s biggest vote bank (women, not necessarily feminists and there is a difference!) could be heard decrying her loss, vowing “NObama” and to vote for John McCain in the elections, a move she went to great lengths to denounce, saying on Saturday: “We cannot let this moment slip away.”

She told supporters, “We have come too far and we have accomplished too much.” Her supporters who were urging Mrs Clinton to take her fight on to the party convention in Denver have clearly taken her loss hard, but they are also taking a beating for venting their anger.

They have become the object of ridicule in the big bad world of blogspheres.

Had Mr Obama lost, and graciously accepted his defeat, it would have been accepted with far more dignity, as Gail Collins, op-ed editor of The New York Times pointed out in her editorial on June 9. Clinton’s supporters “disappointment is compounded by the feeling that [her] candidacy was not even appreciated as a noble try,” she wrote.

Mrs Clinton certainly bore the brunt of an aggressive media; she even commented that during debates attacks seemed to centre around her while Mr Obama was treated somewhat like a superstar.

Many of her guffaws, like her inaccurate description of her trip to Bosnia generated more uproar than Mr Obama’s controversial minister’s comments. It lends some credence to the argument that she was as much a victim of sexism as she was of her follies.

Mrs Clinton ultimately lost because of overconfidence (not seeing Obama as a viable threat in the early days of primaries), subsequent attacks on Obama’s candidacy; her husband’s various outbursts, not being seen as an agent of change like Obama was and a whole host of tactical errors.

But we must not forget that Mrs Clinton also ran a campaign which paved the way for a change in attitudes, much like Mr Obama. No longer will a woman running for president — especially in such a narrow race as this — seem like an impossible dream; she successfully broke that barrier. She should be remembered — and celebrated — for that.

The writer is Assistant Editor with the Vietnam News in Hanoi.

Much is required from those to whom much is given, for their responsibility is greater.
— Luke 12:48

AT a traffic signal in Karachi that I pass regularly, two unfortunate humans ply their trade of ‘beggary’ daily. One is a man, probably in his 30s, with keloids and contractures from third degree burns he must have sustained some years ago.

He is bent over and walks by swinging his arms. He keeps the upper part of his body exposed, so others can see the damage to his body. On the opposite end is a female, in her early 20s, with a severe defect of the spine that restricts her from standing up. Walking on all fours like an animal she presents a surreal sight in our concrete landscape.

These two people represent the millions of beggars with severe physical deformities — some congenital, some acquired — who ‘pester’ us at traffic crossings and in our bazaars. Whatever opinion one may have about beggary, the fact is there are millions of people in our society, who live a hand-to-mouth existence, in abject poverty and now as we read almost daily, are killing their children and committing suicide.

That is the state of the real Pakistan today — a country with enormous human and natural resources, squandered by greedy, ruthless, corrupt leaders who have neither the time, nor the understanding or compassion to address the real problems of people of this country. Travelling in air-conditioned glass tinted Mercedes and Pajeros, living in opulent houses, with fool-proof security and a continuous supply of electricity and water, these leaders are so cut off from the real Pakistan that it would be foolish to expect anything from them.

We saw a glimpse of their lifestyle and mentality recently, in the video of the CBR chairman dancing and entertaining the select gathering of high government officials with their spouses, clapping, smiling and enjoying his vulgar exhibition. And doing it with total impunity in front of cameras. From their body language and facial expressions it was clear this was not the first time this type of entertainment was carried out. One can only imagine what must be going on when the cameras are not there.

A few days later in a television programme, the former chairman of Pakistan Steel Mills, Lt Gen (retd) Abdul Qayyum, revealed the irregularities in which the Steel Mills sale was conducted. It was auctioned off for Rs21bn while the price of the land itself was worth at least Rs40bn! But what really struck me was the legal fees of the government nominated lawyer. It was Rs6.2m, while that of another lawyer (also recommended by the government but not hired) was Rs3.5m!

I sat there in a state of shock listening to these unbelievable figures and wondered to myself — what have we come to? Are we living in the same country with the half-naked man with third degree burns and the young woman with the spinal deformity at the traffic crossing?

What kind of people are ruling over us? Do these people look but do not see, hear but not listen, touch but do not feel? Are they not humans? Do they not know that one day they will have to be answerable for whatever they have done in their mortal lives? Do they not know that whatever they make in this mortal life will remain behind in this mortal world and they will not be able to take a penny of their ill-gotten millions with them?

The one word that kept coming to my mind over and over again was ‘debauchery’. Derived from the word ‘debauched’ meaning to ‘corrupt morally, to lead away from virtue, to debase’— it correctly describes our state of affairs.

There is evidence of debauchery all around us. I recently attended a wedding in Karachi where there were two huge marquees with at least 20 large stand alone air-conditioning units, the rent of each — I was told — was Rs25,000 for the evening! There are ‘wedding planners’ in Pakistan now who do not take any orders if the budget of the wedding is less than Rs1m. They also insist on imported flowers! Shopping for one’s wedding in Dubai or Bombay is now the norm amongst our rich. As the world grapples with rising fuel prices we see more and more luxury cars and gas-guzzling SUVs on our roads.

People in high positions — whether private or public need to remember that they have an immense responsibility in how they conduct themselves — in their private and public lives. It is simply not good enough to say that in a private function one can do what one wants to. Whether private or public there are norms of behaviour one always has to adhere to. And more so if you hold an important position of responsibility. You cannot expect a judge to mete out justice if he/she does not treat his family members or domestic employees fairly as you cannot expect a psychologist to condemn domestic violence by the husband on his depressed female patient if he abuses his own spouse. Human behaviour does not happen in isolation. Humans have patterns of behaviour. The glimpses of behaviour we see in public are windows of peoples’ behaviour in private. When someone loses his/her temper in public it is more than likely that he has an angry personality.

Today, Pakistan is suffering from a serious crisis of integrity and there is crisis of governance at all levels of government functioning. Corruption has become so endemic that it has woven itself into the social and moral fabric of our society and has become a societal norm. It is institutionalised and internalised in our society. And our people have been brutalised through constant acts of violence on them. The recent burning incidents of the three robbers in Karachi are indications of the depths of depravity we have sunk to.

I come back to my earlier statement: why, with so much abundance of human and natural resources, do we lag behind other nations? The answer has to be: debauchery. And until and unless we inculcate ethics and morality in our public and private lives and anchor all our decisions in integrity, this country and its people are doomed.

The writer is a consultant psychiatrist.
muradmk@gmail.com