Dual nationality

Published June 22, 2018

IT is an emotional topic and has some roots in a narrow constitutional exclusion that the superior judiciary has interpreted as an absolute bar, but it is an issue that deserves closer examination. The law as interpreted by the Supreme Court bars the elected representatives of the people, in parliament, the provincial assemblies and the presidency, from holding dual nationality. While the law does permit Pakistani citizens to also be citizens of certain other countries, the weight of public and official opinion appears to have shifted against elected representatives holding citizenship of a second country. The general argument against the people’s representatives holding dual nationality is public perception and official suspicion. According to this, the honour of representing the people must only be afforded to someone with absolute and undivided loyalty to the country, while the nature of elected representation means that sometimes issues of national security have to be dealt with. Therefore, the elected representatives of the people of Pakistan must only hold citizenship of Pakistan.

Indeed, the general argument can be and is being extended to all public officials, elected or unelected, in legislative assemblies or anywhere else in the state apparatus. A re-think is needed. Against the emotive argument of perceptions of loyalty and the blanket suspicion of threats to national security can be set the real-world experience of the last decade of democracy. In what episode or incident over two full parliamentary terms can it categorically be stated that dual nationality would have impeded an elected representative from performing his or her duties? The vast majority of an elected representative’s responsibilities are public and open to scrutiny. Pakistan has a large diaspora and is integrated with much of the outside world. Dual nationals should not be demonised. If they seek to serve the people of Pakistan, they should be allowed to do so by the law, although an exception can be made in the case of cabinet ministers who are required to take an oath of secrecy.

Published in Dawn, June 22nd, 2018

Opinion

Editorial

Under siege
Updated 03 May, 2024

Under siege

Whether through direct censorship, withholding advertising, harassment or violence, the press in Pakistan navigates a hazardous terrain.
Meddlesome ways
03 May, 2024

Meddlesome ways

AFTER this week’s proceedings in the so-called ‘meddling case’, it appears that the majority of judges...
Mass transit mess
03 May, 2024

Mass transit mess

THAT Karachi — one of the world’s largest megacities — does not have a mass transit system worth the name is ...
Punishing evaders
02 May, 2024

Punishing evaders

THE FBR’s decision to block mobile phone connections of more than half a million individuals who did not file...
Engaging Riyadh
Updated 02 May, 2024

Engaging Riyadh

It must be stressed that to pull in maximum foreign investment, a climate of domestic political stability is crucial.
Freedom to question
02 May, 2024

Freedom to question

WITH frequently suspended freedoms, increasing violence and few to speak out for the oppressed, it is unlikely that...