|
| August 16, 2008 | Saturday | Sha'aban 13, 1429 |
Inflation and education
Lebanon’s ‘unity cabinet’
Impeachment of the president
Turkey’s anti-porn bill
OTHER VOICES - Sri Lankan Press
ARTICLE 47 of the constitution details the method by which a president may be removed or impeached. The article, however, does not inform us about the difference between ‘removal’ and ‘impeachment’.
TURKEY’S prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has proffered an olive branch to secular critics by publicly disowning his party’s proposals to curb pornography and encourage school prayer. The move appeared designed to allay lingering fears of an Islamist state, coming less than two weeks after a court case in which the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP) narrowly avoided a ban for allegedly undermining Turkey’s secular system.
CIVILIANS are the worst victims of wars which are essentially the making of leaders. The fighting in Fata is no exception. Caught in crossfire, men, women and children are fleeing to safety. While the Taliban have no qualms of conscience about using them as a human shield, the security authorities have issued instructions to the civilians to move to safe spots, giving rise to speculation that a military operation was in the offing. To those fleeing Bajaur has been added the flood of non-combatants from the adjoining Mohmand Agency. Pakistanis are caught in a dilemma. While no sane-minded person would uphold a policy of opting for a military solution to the problem the country finds itself trapped in, one cannot ask the government to give the militants in the Afghan border areas a free hand. Caught in this bind, we can only express our sympathies for those who have been forced to abandon their homes for no fault of their own for the sake of sheer survival.
The fact is that howsoever precise the electronic gadgetry and laser-guided weapons at the disposal of the security forces may be, collateral damage is unavoidable in the most carefully planned operation. On occasions, the security forces’ intelligence could be wrong, and at times the missile or bomb may not land exactly where it was intended to. The problem is compounded by the fact that the militants hide among the people. After all, the fighting is taking place on Pakistan’s soil and the non-combatants in the war theatre are our own people. Hence the safety of the civilians demands their evacuation to safe places. But this must be a supervised operation undertaken by the army itself. The government should provide camps where the displaced people can take shelter and be provided the basic necessities of life. With the militants up in arms against the state of Pakistan, it is the responsibility of the security forces to defend the life and property of the people.
Even though they claim to be fighting for the enforcement of Sharia, the Taliban have shown extraordinary cold-bloodedness, for they have bombed mosques, a peace jirga and a funeral procession, and they killed 31 of the faithful when they chose to bomb an Eid congregation for the sake of killing one politician. Regrettably, civil society and religious and political parties have often failed to take note of this bestiality and have not condemned the Taliban for spilling innocent blood. The ulema, who must know the sanctity of human life, have maintained a studied silence on these killings and have by implications approved the murder of civilians in suicide bombings.
INFLATION is fast becoming education’s nemesis. The new academic year has brought in a flood of problems for the parents of school going children owing to the price hike. Textbooks, tuition fees and even the price of school uniforms and shoes have gone up. The essential needs of students have become more expensive, slowly going out of reach for the common man. Most private schools have increased their fees and are charging newcomers exorbitantly. The increase in the price of textbooks has sparked a blame game where the publishers are putting the responsibility on the paper producers for creating a shortage whereas the latter while refuting these charges attribute the price hike to rising input costs. The impact of skyrocketing prices on the education sector may have an adverse effect on the net enrollment rate (NER) of the country which currently stands at a paltry 56 per cent.
The problem is basic: unlimited wants and scarce resources. Naturally low-income families may choose to spend their meagre incomes on their meals to survive. With burgeoning food prices there is little left to spend on other needs like education, which would appear to be a luxury to a family which cannot eat a square meal every day. Thus education suffers. In order to prevent children from dropping out, the government and schools themselves need to play a constructive role. Education is the primary responsibility of the state and in the last decade or so the government in Pakistan has unfortunately tried to shift this responsibility to the private sector. As a result education has increasingly become more unaffordable and inaccessible for the indigent — more so today when food inflation has compounded the problems of many classes. Undoubtedly public sector schools do exist but official policy being what it is these institutions suffer from serious neglect. The issue is of the quality of education in government schools, which has basically created the push towards the private sector. With fewer people now being able to afford it, the vacuum in the public sector is being acutely felt. This calls for a concentrated effort by the government to increase the number of schools and improve the quality of education in its own institutions. Private schools can help mitigate the problems of their students by providing text books on loan, economising on exercise books and curtailing their profit margin in different areas. They would thus be able to cater to a wider segment of society filling the gap left by poor public sector education in the country.
THIS week’s agreement on a ‘unity cabinet’ gives the Lebanese politicians a fresh chance to consolidate national cohesion and proceed with the task of reconstruction. Formed after protracted negotiations, the new 30-member cabinet has 11 men belonging to Hezbollah and its allies. The alliance of parties headed by Sheikh Nasrallah scored a major victory last May when the agreement brokered by Qatar allowed it to maintain its militia. The accord on a ‘unity cabinet’ is the second major step taken by Lebanese politicians to set their house in order. The first achievement was to break the impasse on a new president — a task that the parliament failed to achieve 19 times after former President, Emile Lahoud, just walked away from the presidential palace last November. However, the election of former army chief Michel Suleiman, a Maronite Christian, as president in May put this crisis behind, and Lebanon now has a head of state who successfully managed to keep the army neutral during the clashes earlier this summer between Hezbollah and the Sunni militants.
The latest agreement should hold, because it brings together the West-supported Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and Hezbollah supported by Syria and Iran. Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah’s position is unshakable, because it was his militia that beat back the Israeli invasion and inflicted heavy casualties on ‘the invincible’ Israeli army in the 2006 war. It now remains to be seen whether the new cabinet will be able work as a team and take up the task of the country’s reconstruction, especially its infrastructure, which Israel destroyed during the 34-day war. Suleiman’s election as president and the agreement now on the ‘unity cabinet’ have averted the threat of another civil war. Nevertheless, the fierce sectarian clashes in Tripoli earlier this month point to the fractious nature of Lebanese politics. The foreign investment which the country needs so badly for improving its economy and cashing in on its priceless tourism assets can flow in only if there is peace in the country. With such religious and sectarian diversity in its demographic character, Lebanon can survive and develop only if its leaders accept the plurality of Lebanese society and give up the use of arms to settle political differences.
The word ‘removal’ is used when dismissing somebody from office whilst ‘impeachment’ is to charge a public official with misconduct or with a crime against the state.
The process of removal/impeachment starts after a resolution is submitted in either the National Assembly or Senate setting out the charges against the president. If the resolution has the support of half the members of the House in which it originates it is sent to the president by the speaker. Thereafter a joint session of parliament (National Assembly and Senate) is convened after seven days.
The joint session may investigate or cause to be investigated the charges or may proceed to directly vote on the resolution. If it elects to investigate, the president has the right to appear and to be represented. In either case two-thirds of the total members must declare “that the president is unfit to hold the office due to (physical or mental) incapacity or is guilty of violating the constitution or of gross misconduct”. Upon passing such a resolution “the president shall cease to hold office immediately”.
The charges are not required to be adjudicated as in a criminal or civil case. The people announce their verdict through their chosen representatives in parliament. Nor is the verdict subject to any appeal or challenge before any court of law.
No court, including the Supreme Court, has any jurisdiction in the matter nor can it set aside or suspend the resolution. The constitution clearly stipulates: “No court shall have any jurisdiction save as is or may be conferred on it by the constitution or by under any law” (Article 175(3)) and none has been so conferred. If then a court were to come to the aid of the president it would be in violation of the constitution.
Musharraf’s term of office as president had expired. During such term he was also the army chief. This was a constitutional aberration but it was condoned by the Seventeenth Amendment to the constitution. Musharraf chose to run for the office of president again.
If he had kept his promise and doffed his army uniform in December 2004, he would not have been “in the service of Pakistan” and the requirement that “a period of two years has elapsed since he ceased to be in such service” may not have come in his way in 2007. The Seventeenth Amendment provided only a one-time exemption from this constitutional requirement. A petition was filed assailing Musharraf’s eligibility.
The Supreme Court was hearing the matter when Musharraf detained the Supreme Court judges and in their stead appointed such men who first took an oath to uphold all his actions. Musharraf’s actions of Nov 3, 2007 violated the constitution and could only be sustained if validated by parliament, by amending the constitution with the required two-third majority (Article 238).
Since this did not happen Musharraf is not the constitutional president of Pakistan and his abrogation and subversion of the constitution on Nov 3 constitutes “high treason” (Article 6). Musharraf escaped being tried with regard to his Oct 12, 1999 coup for high treason because of the subsequent validation of his actions by parliament by the Seventeenth Amendment.
The High Treason (Punishment) Act, 1973, stipulates that a person guilty of high treason “shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life”. Section 3 of this Act, however, enables only the federal government to lodge a complaint with a court. The ruling coalition has, however, elected to pursue the matter peacefully through parliament.
If Musharraf is president of Pakistan, which is clearly not the constitutional position, then one needs to examine what charges can be brought against him under Article 47. Firstly, there is the “mental incapacity” provision. It may be contended that his actions, such as those taken on Nov 3, confirm mental imbalance and a disproportionate importance of self.
Then there is the ground of “gross misconduct”. Electronic bugging of the residences and bedrooms of Supreme Court judges could be categorised as gross misconduct. During the hearing of the case against the chief justice one of the documents submitted in court by Musharraf’s counsel showed that this was done. The case for the impeachment of President Nixon was built on the fact that he had listening devices placed in the headquarters of the Democratic Party.
“Women get raped to go abroad” Musharraf is seen stating in a recording. Such an utterance would constitute gross misconduct in any society. However, in Pakistan impugning the character of a woman is also a crime (qazf).
To incite or threaten violence also constitutes gross misconduct. Musharraf publicly stated on May 12, 2007 that whosoever goes against the wishes of the people will be crushed. Promoting enmity constitutes an offence under Section 153A of the Penal Code and is punishable with five years’ imprisonment. Musharraf’s propensity for encouraging and condoning violence against the media has been witnessed on several occasions. If the president cannot meet the high standard of his office he at least must not practise thuggery.
The detention and confinement by Musharraf of the Supreme Court and high court judges, their spouses and children on Nov 3 onwards is “violating the Constitution”. This not only constituted serious criminal offences under the Penal Code but also violated the guarantees extended to every person by the constitution. The constitution was therefore not only violated but butchered on Nov 3.
Independent media was also snuffed out on Nov 3 which violated the freedom of speech, expression and press guaranteed under Article 19. Musharraf also repeatedly violated his oath of office. He had sworn to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”. He failed to uphold his promise to “do right to all manner of people…without … favour” by not only openly favouring PML-Q in the elections but telling people to vote for his party.
Whilst one can understand the desire of the government and their supporters to lay out extensive and detailed charges it would suffice to mention just the aforesaid ones, all of which are self-evident and undeniable. Any single one of these would be sufficient to remove or impeach a president.
Erdogan spoke out after the party’s deputy chairwoman, Edibe Sozen, provoked an outcry by publishing a plan to force buyers of pornography to give their details to shopkeepers, who would have been obliged pass them to the authorities. The bill also included provisions requiring prayer facilities in all state schools, despite constitutional laws demanding the separation of religion and state.
The draft Protection of Youth bill also proposed banning licenced restaurants from admitting unaccompanied under-18s after 10pm, and would have made it illegal for them to be there after midnight even if accompanied by their parents.
Sozen claimed the bill was based on laws in force in Germany, but withdrew her proposal under protest from secularists.
The fallout forced Erdogan, known for his socially conservative views, into an unusually harsh rebuke. He urged party discipline at a time when the AKP is under fierce scrutiny for perceived anti-secular tendencies.
“It [the bill] is not the party’s work, but it was perceived as if it belonged to the party,” he told an AKP meeting. “Such works should be discussed within the party first. It is an ill-timed and fatal statement. The content is bad. She [Sozen] put the party in a difficult situation.”
Sozen’s draft was published just days after the constitutional court — Turkey’s highest — effectively put the AKP on probation by depriving it of millions of pounds in state funding, after finding it guilty of being a “focal point of anti-secularism”.
The ruling stopped short of prosecutors’ demands for the party to be shut down and for its senior figures, including Erdogan, to be banned from politics for five years.
Mensur Akgun, an EU programme director with Tesev, a Turkish think tank, said: “I don’t think the critics will be satisfied with such a motion from the prime minister. He has to show that he favours further liberalisation of the country and cares about more than just the rights of the Muslim community.”
— The Guardian, London
Why bash Yapa...?
The Island
MINISTER Lakshman Yapa Abeywardena is ducking fire from some quarters over a statement he is said to have made that LTTE leader Prabhakaran could become the chief minister of the Northern Province if he gave up violence. The National Bhikku Front … has demanded to know from the government whether that was the minister’s personal view or the official position of the government. The consternation of the NBF is understandable, given the barbaric atrocities that the LTTE has committed against this country and its people over the past two and a half decades.
Isn’t there a possibility of Prabhakaran bidding farewell to violence and transmogrifying into a democrat? Opinion is divided on this question. History is replete with such transformations, we may be told….
This country also has seen villains become heroes and vice versa with the passage of time. The SLFP, when … in the opposition, had its heart bleeding for the media….
Today, an SLFP-led government finds itself in the dock for atrocities against the media including the killing of journalists….
Similarly, time was when the UNP was accused of running torture chambers and summarily putting people to death in the name of crushing an uprising….
But, today, the UNP has changed — of course for good! It is all out to protect the media and human rights!
The JVP brutally killed thousands of innocent people including journalists ... during its reign of terror in the late 1980s…. But, today, the JVP is fighting for media freedom…. Therefore, one may ask why Prabhakaran cannot change? After all, an eminent man of the cloth, who once met Prabhakaran, described him as a humane person, didn’t he?
The universe is in a state of flux and people keep changing, some from heroes to villains and others from villains to heroes. Therefore, Prabhakaran, too, may change….
However, we venture to say that the world has seen some mad men who never changed and chose to die for their macabre causes….
Prabhakaran has rejected devolution at the provincial level … and devolution at the national level….
Those who think Prabhakaran can be weaned from terrorism by offering him a devolution package are being as optimistic as someone who expects the police to arrest Minister Mervyn Silva one of these days!
What Minister Abeywardena is alleged to have offered Prabhakaran is, in fact, a demotion. Will a ‘god’ ever want to be a chief minister…? — (Aug 15)
