2
NOTHING, absolutely nothing, is beyond the pale of possibility in Pakistan. Heartbreak can come from the least expected of quarters.
In the last parliament, one would be hard-pressed to find a politician as upright and non-controversial as Raza Rabbani, the PPP stalwart, who has stood by his party through thick and thin, who has never sought nor acquired riches, and who represents that rare breed of politician which is ideologically motivated.
One fine gentleman he is and a great person. He was bypassed for high office, simply because the PPP leadership was said to have been ‘uncomfortable’ with his principles and, thus, felt unable to trust him with a position next in line to the president.
Weren’t we right to have high hopes in the man then? Indeed we were. It was because of Raza Rabbani’s acceptability across the aisles that he was named to head the parliamentary committee tasked with constitutional reform.
After endless sessions and painstaking discussion, one could argue the reform committee went even further than the 1973 Constitution in terms of the rights and resources of the provinces and, therefore, did a great service to the cause of keeping the federation intact.
This would have been enough on its own. Sadly, it wasn’t. As the committee finalised its recommendations for the constitutional amendments the JUI-F is understood to have made its support conditional to retaining Articles 62 and 63.
Reportedly in the quest for a ‘consensus’ with an eye on posterity (for I am told the amendments would have passed even without JUI-F’s support), Raza Rabbani made a compromise that would come to nullify the secular values and commitment to free speech he has cherished all his political life.
Yes, we are justified in slamming some of the returning officers (ROs) who, I believe, are undermining the democratic process by playing to the gallery (what else is quizzing someone on their faith on live TV?).
But on a more serious note some of the questions being asked by the ROs also show how much leeway they have been given to bring into play their personal biases and myopic worldview. If only Raza Rabbani and his committee had not left Articles 62-63 intact.
My favourite columnist Ayaz Amir, an unequivocal voice of sanity in the fast-becoming wilderness that is the Islamic Republic, wouldn’t have had his nomination papers rejected. And on the grounds that he questioned the ‘ideology’ of Pakistan.
It was left to the RO to decide what the ideology of Pakistan was and also adjudicate on how committed Ayaz was to it. Yes, by an official who demonstrably lacked the acumen to even probably understand what the celebrated columnist was trying to say.
Ayaz and I may have had serious disagreement in the past but I remain a loyal reader, a fan of his writings, for the simple reason he writes the truth and writes it in a way that others rarely do. And he can’t run for parliament when those propagating sectarian murders can. If only 62, 63….
Don’t you earnestly hope a more enlightened, better informed judge of a higher court will overturn the decision on appeal? It is so ludicrous, it has to be overturned. But this particular RO and many like him across the country will have had their moments of glory and fame particularly in the electronic media.
The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has come in for a fair bit of stick on different grounds, some of which were totally and utterly spurious. But its statement that it can do nothing about how the returning officers are interpreting the rules will lay it open to justified opprobrium.
Friday’s Dawn quotes the ECP as saying that ROs are judicial officials who do not report to the Election Commission but to the superior judiciary. So if the ECP is so helpless about who can or cannot run in the elections, how can it ensure the staging of free, fair polls?
We all know rigging takes many forms. The first kind of pre-poll rigging is denying someone, while giving others, the right to run. At no stage is it being suggested that those convicted of financial, moral crimes be allowed to pass through the sieve. However, the grounds for rejection have to be valid and not based on bias.
Over the past 25 years one has heard a number of times the argument, particularly from PPP leaders, that, while in government, their hands were tied, leaving them very little freedom of movement to implement their manifesto and agenda.
Whenever they have been asked why they didn’t resign in order to protect their credibility and support base, the responses have been so convoluted and delivered in such a tone and volume that one could barely follow what was being said.
Let me tell you when Justice Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim was appointed the chief election commissioner (CEC) by consensus, there may have been some doubters but I was definitely not one of them. Even when one feels the whole system is rotten, personalities such as his at the helm inspire confidence.
He has stood up to authoritarian rulers like few have, sacrificing a seat on the apex judiciary. He has joined and left governments of his own accord to protect his integrity. A humanist and a democrat, he has never minced words when it comes to fundamental rights and free speech.
Now he is tasked with holding free, fair and impartial elections. Whether one looks at bloody Balochistan, poverty-stricken Sindh, divided Punjab or terrorism-plagued Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, one cannot stress enough the need for an electoral exercise that heals wounds. Not one that inflicts new ones.
The country cannot afford more turmoil. Already critics are bringing in his age and decision-making capacity into question. So, the CEC must demonstrate he can stem this nonsense decisively. If he can’t or isn’t being allowed to, he should be open and say so. There is no other option.
The writer is a former editor of Dawn.
