Sovereignty of parliament

THE Legal Framework Order issued in August has created a host of political, legal and constitutional complications. Although just over a week is left for elections to a new parliament, the question of where parliament will stand in relation to the LFO or the earlier Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO), under which the military takeover in 1999 was formalized, remains shrouded in uncertainty. President General Pervez Musharraf has just made the reassuring statement that the prime minister-elect will take oath under the Constitution and not under the PCO. This will presumably apply also to members of parliament, and logically this means that parliament’s right to approve or disapprove of the LFO will not be restricted.

Gen Musharraf’s statement, published yesterday, shows that he wants to avoid an unnecessary confrontation with parliament over this issue, which, he said, the government was trying to sort out. One can understand the dilemma created for itself by the military and its brains trust. It has a very definite idea of how it wants the country to be run in the future. It has laid down some ground rules in the shape of the LFO which it says will not brook change. It now somehow has to reconcile this with the compulsion to hold elections and return the country to a civilian dispensation that will be accepted as democratic by people within and outside Pakistan. This search for a new formula of governance has led to one extra-constitutional step being followed by another. If the regime had not set itself on a collision course with the country’s leading political parties and shut off all possibility of conciliation, a compromise might have been reached on some of the steps on which the military had its mind set. In that event, room for bargaining, in the interest of a return to civilian rule, might have been possible. Instead, the government chose to work in isolation and went through the motions of consulting political leaders only after it had already made up its mind on the fundamentals.

The course it followed has, as is now becoming increasingly evident, created serious problems for everyone, even for those politicians who are believed to enjoy official patronage. Getting out of the bind is still possible if the government accepts the right of unfettered sovereignty of parliament and seeks the cooperation of political parties on that basis. Otherwise, there will be only more bad blood after the elections, with consequences that will weaken, not strengthen, democracy in the country.

ICC: shared honours

THE ICC champions trophy has been played but not won by the team which deserved it. According to current form and the players’ body language, India should have beaten hosts Sri Lanka with some, if not many, overs to spare but the weather thwarted their march to victory, necessitating a replay on Monday. But the rain gods were determined that the visitors should at the most share the Trophy with Sri Lanka. And so it was. In the end, India had to bowl one hundred fruitless overs on two successive days in return for just ten overs and a bit before rain put paid to their chances of an outright victory.

Twelve teams, three each in four groups, participated in the tournament. Since each of the four groups had an almost certain loser, the main contenders were fairly predictable. With Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Holland soundly beaten in the initial matches, the main interest centred on the major Test playing nations. Australia and South Africa were eliminated in the semi-finals in dramatic fashion by Sri Lanka and India. Both sides wilted after brilliant starts, especially South Africa. Facing a victory target of 262 against India, the Springboks were at one stage 194 for one wicket but then India put on the brakes and prevented them from victory by a bare 10 runs. South Africa had everything going for them but they just couldn’t make it on a slow turner. In the other semi-final, Sri Lanka cantered home easily and at no stage did it look that Australia were the world champions. So the mighty had fallen and how! The final wasn’t the grand finale it might have been. The fourth referee in the game, the weather, saw to that. The game, as we have noted, should have gone to India. There is one thing, though. The Sri Lanka spinners never had a chance to turn their arms over both in the original game and the replay. They might have made all the difference but we’ll never know.

Pakistan were put out of reckoning in no uncertain terms by Sri Lanka and Shahid Afridi’s pyrotechnics against poor Holland might have delighted the ordinary fans but the discerning must have found them embarrassing in the extreme. With the World Cup only months away, Pakistan have clearly a gigantic rebuilding task ahead of them if they want to give a halfway decent account of themselves in South Africa where the premier tournament will take place early next year. On current form, Pakistan can’t even dream of winning the World Cup. They would be lucky to end among the top six teams. But then Pakistan came back from nowhere to win the World Cup in Australia in 1992. Who knows?

Heart of the matter

AT a recent seminar in Karachi, leading heart specialists painted an alarming picture of the incidence of heart disease in the country. Even young people are increasingly falling prey to the disease which once mainly affected people in middle age and beyond. According to one doctor, more than five per cent of children of schoolgoing age have some form of heart condition. Lack of adequate treatment facilities and unhealthy lifestyles have combined to create this serious problem. It is important to educate the people about the risk this deadly disease poses and to encourage them to adopt healthy lifestyles. Among the top priorities must be to inform people of the link between heart disease and smoking, unhealthy diets, lack of exercise and mental tension. The government and NGOs must act swiftly to launch public awareness campaigns on the issue if a deadly epidemic of heart disease is to be avoided.