|
| October 15, 2008 | Wednesday | Shawwal 15, 1429 |
Reform and punishment
New sporting bosses
OTHER VOICES - European Press
Fall of newspapers
THREE newsmen I respect have taken it upon themselves to absolve journalists of responsibility for the fall of newspapers. I must respectfully if bluntly disagree. Adrian Monck, the head of journalism at City University, opened the defence when he blogged (at bit.ly/monck): “Declining newspaper readership has nothing to do with journalism ... The crops did not fail because we offended the gods.”
“WE cannot rein wild horses with silken braids,” wrote John William Kaye, secretary of the political and secret department of the India Office, justifying the special set of laws he helped draft to control the unruly tribesmen of Fata. Modernity may finally have caught up with the Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR) though. A report in this paper on Monday revealed that a federal cabinet committee has recommended “drastic changes” in the FCR. While this is a step down from Prime Minister Gilani’s pledge to repeal the FCR, the proposed changes go some way in blunting the worst effects of these draconian laws.
For one, it has been recommended that the power of the political agent — whose decisions were constitutionally shielded from judicial review — be pared down. The recommendations have not gone so far as to suggest that the constitutional ouster of the jurisdiction of the high courts and the Supreme Court be amended. However, it has been suggested that a three-member tribunal, with high court-like powers and consisting of members familiar with tribal administration, be set up to review decisions of political agents or district coordination officers. Moreover, it has been suggested that if the parties to a civil dispute agree, the matter should be settled by a council of elders, albeit one selected by the political agent. These compromises should go some way in curbing the most persistent criticism of the FCR: that the political agent is a power unto himself. The second set of important changes that have been recommended focus on extending the constitutional guarantee of fundamental rights to the people of Fata. In addition, the political agent’s right to arrest minors, women and the elderly under collective punishment rules will be curtailed. Again, a compromise straddling the dialectic of custom and statutory law has been mooted: the political agent will retain the right to arrest immediate male relatives of persons suspected in subversive acts against the state.
It appears then that the government has not been able to decisively break from the traditions of the past. There is some merit to the argument that given the security situation in the tribal areas, now is not the time to be experimenting with administrative codes that are untested. However, there is no doubt that a permanent solution to the crisis of militancy in Fata must include political and administrative reforms. One way of balancing the security needs of the moment with the genuine human rights demands of the tribesmen would be to issue a firm timeline for the process of fully incorporating the tribal areas into the political and administrative mainstream of the country. If we expect the tribesmen to give up the ways of their ancestors, we must be ready to hand them the protections of modernity.
JAIL authorities in Pakistan can be sure that there will be no end to prison riots such as those witnessed at the Central Prison in Karachi on Monday unless wide-ranging reforms are undertaken to make conditions at state detention centres more habitable. The complaints of over 50 rioting inmates demanding a separate ward highlighted a chief concern among prisoners across the country: overcrowded premises. This along with the generally shabby treatment meted out to prisoners reflects poorly on jail authorities that fail to see prisons as reformatories. In fact, prisons in the country come across as microcosms of a crime-ridden society; corruption, torture and discrimination govern the lives of the inmates. Despite numerous pledges for reform, including a call for revising the jail manual by the president, little has been done to effect solid change to improve living conditions. Our jails continue to fill up and accommodate far more than the authorised number of prisoners. According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, last year more than 95,000 detainees were crammed into an overall space that could at most accommodate 41,000. In Karachi Central Prison alone about 5,600 detainees were housed in premises meant for 1,700.
Building more prison facilities is obviously the need of the hour. But this can at best be a temporary measure as current crime trends result in more and more people being put behind bars. To add to the predicament of prisoners, trials are lengthy processes — in Sindh, for instance, it is believed that about 85 per cent of detainees are under trial. Many prisoners end up spending more time behind bars than they would have on being sentenced. Rectifying such flaws in the judicial system is basic to improving jail conditions, and steps including regular hearings will go a long way in ensuring speedy justice so that the prisoners’ stay is not extended. However, the primary focus should be on changing attitudes towards prisoners. Instead of labelling all of them — irrespective of the nature of their crime — as criminals deserving of punishment, it would be more humane to see petty offenders as victims of injustice, inequality and poverty. No doubt discipline and some form of penalty are necessary to make prisoners see the error of their ways, no matter what their standing in society. But these should be commensurate with the nature of their crime. Perpetuating excesses on prisoners will only brutalise them and encourage them to return to a life of crime once they are released.
MIR Zafarullah Jamali’s parting remark as the Pakistan Hockey Federation chief is tempting for all those who cannot miss an opportunity to associate a dearth of sporting honours with the modern obsession with money. Mr Jamali says the PHF, which was in possession of a few hundred thousand rupees at the time he joined it in 2006, now has more than Rs50mn in the bank. He wishes his replacement will use the money to restore lost glory to Pakistan hockey. Cash is vital to the promotion of sport but we need so much more to set things right. We need inspiration that comes only with winning and we require a good professional administration to run the sporting bodies. The inspiration is lacking with one news channel recently running a news item on the disappearance of hockey sticks from shops. And while there has been a push for professional handling of the affairs of various sport associations, the experiment is yet to be declared successful.
‘Professionals’ were put in charge of a resourceful Pakistan Cricket Board some time ago. Unfortunately the takeover came at a time when local cricket was passing through its darkest phase. No team was willing to tour the terror-stricken country and the national team’s engagements abroad were few and far between. Consequently, no fair evaluation of the working of the ‘professional’ PCB set-up could be undertaken. Nonetheless, the board came under severe criticism whenever the team performed below heightened expectations. Worse, the PCB chief came to be regarded and berated as being Gen Pervez Musharraf’s friend. The fears return now as hockey Olympian Qasim Zia succeeds Mr Jamali in the PHF and former cricketer Ijaz Butt replaces Dr Nasim Ashraf as the PCB chief. The newcomers are directly or indirectly associated with the PPP and their job would be to rid the game of politics and inefficiency and roll it into a sellable package. It goes without saying that their achievements will be conditional on a lifting of the gloom that hangs over us right now. Sporting excellence cannot come in isolation.
A black day for the banks
The Independent
Remember the date. Monday, Oct 13 will go down in history as one of the blackest days in the annals of British banking. It was the day that some of our largest and proudest private financial institutions were forced to sell large chunks of themselves to the state in order to avert total collapse. And the dreadful prospect of the collapse of these financial institutions was not the unforeseeable consequence of some lost war, a natural disaster or the assaults of a socialist government, but … their own runaway greed and staggering stupidity. This sweeping recapitalisation of the banks by the state marks the definitive and sorry end to a two-decade long era of light regulation for Britain’s capital markets.
….But there is much still more to be written about the great crash of 2008 and, indeed, this particular rescue package. The most terrifying unanswered question is whether it will work in stemming the panic. ….Yet there would seem to be room for cautious optimism. The Government appears to have learned from the markets’ disappointing reaction to the passing of the $700bn plan of the US Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, by the American Congress earlier this month. Removing toxic securities from the balance sheets of stricken banks is plainly insufficient to restore confidence. Rather they need to be directly recapitalised by public funds. And this aid needs to be accompanied by public guarantees of inter-bank lending…. At least one thing already seems certain. The £37bn in taxpayers’ money is to be accompanied by some new restrictions on the behaviour of the bankers themselves.
…. All that said, we should not be under any illusions about the scope of the package itself to return our economy to health in short order. There is no possibility of using the lending power of these banks to provide a large economic stimulus to our economy and propel Britain out of this downturn. The public sums being invested in the banks, though staggering, are simply not large enough.
…. The purpose of this public investment is, first and foremost, to stop the rot in the banking sector. ….The best we can hope for is that the banks will now be compelled to be less assiduous in repossessing homes and foreclosing on businesses. ….It is important to retain some perspective as we enter these new and confusing economic times. First, we should ignore those who excitedly proclaim the end of the capitalism system. …. Second, we must not forget that lax lending was one of the root causes of this conflagration. …. Finally we would do well to recognise that a recession is coming in Britain…. The boom was allowed to continue for too long. …Recession is the economic medicine we must stomach as part of the process of returning to health.…— (Oct 14)
Paul Farhi of the Washington Post issued a resounding apologia for journalists in the American Journalism Review (at bit.ly/ajr), arguing: “Newspapers are in trouble for reasons that have almost nothing to do with newspaper journalism and everything to do with the newspaper business.”
Then, in his Guardian blog (at guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade), Roy Greenslade leapt in with a ringing hear! hear! “There cannot be any doubt that journalists themselves ... cannot be held responsible for either the financial woes of the industry nor for the public turning its back on the ‘products’ that contain their work ... They are blameless.” They have “no reason to feel guilty ... It isn’t our fault ... The truth is that we are being assailed by revolutionary technological forces completely outside of our control ... You are not the cause of the current calamity.” He doth protest too much.
The fall of journalism is journalists’ fault. It is our fault we did not see change coming soon enough and ready our craft for its transition.
Farhi glosses over the state of journalism’s relationship with its public. He brags that almost 50 million Americans still buy papers and so, he argues, readership is not the issue.
In the UK, daily national newspaper readership dropped 19 per cent in 15 years. I’d say our relationship with readers is a problem. A Gallup survey says 52 per cent of Americans do not trust news media. My purpose in rebutting Farhi, Greenslade and Monck is not to flagellate journalists but to empower them.
The writer is a journalism professor at the City University of New York.
— The Guardian, London
