Referendum misgivings

WHILE President Pervez Musharraf plunges headlong into his referendum campaign, doubts are already being expressed about the fairness and transparency of the entire exercise. Certain features of the Referendum Order 2002, which lays down guidelines for the conduct of the poll, have only helped fuel such misgivings. For one, the decision to discard the voters’ lists and allow voters to cast their ballots at any polling station in the country, regardless of their place of residence, seems ominous indeed. This means that any person over the age of 18 who possesses a photo identity document will be able to vote anywhere he chooses to, a practice that could clearly encourage serious abuse.

Under normal circumstances, it is not too easy for total strangers to cast votes in polling booths, especially in the more closely-knit rural constituencies. Also, the presence of polling agents for various rival candidates ensures that a watchful eye is kept on impostors. In the current situation, the presence of Nazims or local councillors of the area, who in any case have been prevented from opposing the referendum, is no substitute for the agents present at the booths. The referendum order is also silent on the issue of punching the NIC, where a voter has no other identity document. It does, however, state that the right thumb of the voter will be marked with indelible ink to prevent any voter’s attempt to go to the booth again. However, it is not altogether impossible to rub off the ink or deceive the harried polling officers. Ominously, the Referendum Order also states that no court, tribunal or other authority can call into question any provision of the order. This in effect means that any possible malpractice will stand regularized.

Apart from a relentless barrage of propaganda from the official media, which inevitably stands the risk of proving counter-productive, there are also efforts on the part of the authorities to trivialize the entire process. A case in point is the Election Commission’s decision to set up polling centres at railway stations and airports in order to enable people in transit to vote. Thus, it is not surprising that there is considerable disquiet about the conduct of the April 30 referendum. The word ‘referendum’ has acquired considerable notoriety, especially after General Zia’s travesty of such an exercise in 1984. On that occasion, all kinds of malpractices were indulged in to ensure the dictator’s resounding victory. A cynically rigged question and a blatant misuse of official machinery and personnel to boost the abysmally low turnout were the most salient features of that attempt at bestowing a popular mandate on a military dictator.

Memories of that distasteful event are still haunting the people, despite President Musharraf’s repeated assurances that he is not General Zia or Ayub Khan. The latter, for his part, had conducted an earlier, equally questionable, referendum in which “basic democrats” and not the people were the arbiters of his destiny. It is in the interest of the government to make the process as free and fair as possible and leave little room for doubts about its conduct. In the final analysis, it is the perception of fairness alone that can satisfy a deeply sceptical electorate about the legitimacy of such an exercise. Any attempt to tamper with the mandate, as was so blatantly evident in 1984, can only backfire and result in a total loss of credibility for the aspirant.

With their backs to the wall

ARIEL Sharon’s war philosophy defies all logic. He dismisses the civilian Palestinian casualties by saying Israel is at war, and defines a counter-attack by Palestinian guerillas as an act of terrorism. By all accounts, it is an unequal war: suicide bombings and booby traps versus state-of-the-art artillery and F-16s. The Palestinians must be praised for the courage and fortitude with which they are fighting this unwanted war imposed on them by a man wanted by a Belgian court for trial as a war criminal. Tuesday’s 13 Israeli army casualties in Jenin cannot be condemned by anyone who has any sense of justice. If Palestinian cities, refugee camps and Arab east Al Quds are Israel’s declared “war zones”, is it not fair for the suicide bombers to consider Israeli cities and Jewish settlements their war zones?

The Palestinians have sustained far more civilian casualties than the Israelis since the beginning of the second intifada. There can be no effective and lasting ceasefire unless Israel backs off and stops humiliating the Palestinians and their leader. The people of Palestine have suffered immensely, and alone, bearing the brunt of Israel’s state terrorism. The second uprising is proof of their uncompromising commitment to peace with dignity. The world at large aside, the apathy shown towards their struggle by their fellow Arab brethren has not held them back from the resolve to look their tormentors in the eye. Given this unwavering determination to fight for what is rightfully theirs, the Palestinians have come to epitomize valour and courage. It is these courageous heroes who will be sung about when a future historian sits down to pen the saga of the struggle now going on in the holy land. But in the annals of history, the likes of Sharon will be in the rogues’ gallery dominated by Hitler.

Businessman’s murder

WEDNESDAY’S death by shooting of a 42-year-old electronics goods vendor during a botched robbery in one of the busiest shopping areas shows how precarious the law and order situation in the nation’s premier city is. Passersby and shopkeepers managed to catch hold of one of the dacoits, who they then proceeded to give a sound thrashing to. However, the violent reaction to the attempts by the law enforcement agencies to take the suspect into custody shows the extremely low level of confidence citizens have in the police. The shopkeepers’ resentment and anger and their hesitation in giving up the dacoit are understandable because the public image of the police is not really one of a force that upholds the law but rather one that shields those who break it. It was, thus, not without irony that it was revealed later that the robber caught by the shopkeepers was an ex-cop. He has several cases against him dating back to the nineties, but each time he was bailed out and the case never progressed.

Understandable as it might have been, burning tyres and beating up policemen probably will achieve no purpose. If anything, the shopkeepers themselves must have been the most affected by the ensuing disturbance, not to mention the thousands of motorists and commuters who got stuck in the massive traffic jams that followed the incident. People might be justified in viewing the police with suspicion, but they cannot be allowed to take the law into their own hands, even if those entrusted with law enforcement make a mess of it. The solution, then, lies in improving the performance of the police through better training and investigation techniques, and in making the force genuinely interested in solving, and not hiding, crimes. It also means purging the force of the black sheep and of corrupt practices.