Energising Pakistan

[RabzonKhan]

VIEW: Democracy for the masses

Zaair Hussain
October 15, 2010

Once upon a time, there was a country, and in that country was an elite. They had opportunity and education and the luxury of high ideals, but when it came to democracy, they always faltered. They hemmed and they hawed and their refrain was frequent and condescending: “The masses are not ready for democracy.”

Better, we have always thought in our heart of hearts, to have a strong iron hand to sweep away the worries of our nation.

On paper, the idea of a benevolent despot is charming. It promises quick results with none of the messy toil of democracy. It divorces us from the responsibility of our state’s actions. It is refreshing to hear, as indeed most Americans alive today have never heard, a man of power speak without hedging his bets or mincing his words. It can be an attractive theory. It appeals to two of the most self-hobbling traits of our class: freedom from accountability, and choosing to trust rather than sweat.

It is hard to try and create, and fail, and struggle, and finally realise, and maintain a system that, while imperfect (nothing created by humans can be otherwise), has qualities like justice and fairness and universal subsistence built into it. It is far easier to call this gritty work a folly, rendered impossible not by our hand but that of ‘the masses’, and trust in a man who can give us that most beautiful and dangerous of illusions: a quick and easy fix.

I do not speak of any particular individual who believed a uniform entitled them to rule over the rest of us. I speak of the illusion itself. Of the mythological ‘Allfather’ figure who will care for our state like a father for his children: with noble intent and unquestionable authority. It is a mirage. It has only led us deeper into the desert.

People are neither perfect nor immortal, and the title of dictator (or any of a hundred fanciful monikers) does little to change this. What powers the illusion is our discontent with our perennially re-elected leaders.

Why do Pakistani voters constantly vote in the corrupt, the conniving, the PR catastrophes? We are content to think that it is because they are foolish, untutored, uneducated. Because they are woefully innocent of the grand scale of civic government, and how they themselves fit into it.

This is a ridiculous notion. They know very well the grand scale of civic government, and even better their place in it.

They will bemoan but still vote for the corrupt and nepotistic and arrogant political parties not because they are childlike and foolish, but because they believe — not without reason — that corruption and nepotism and arrogance are the defining characteristics of the entire upper class. The true mass of this nation votes at an almost entirely local level, because their concerns are so immediate, so close to home.

Democracy is an aggregate of the common self-interest, and the elite have never made up a large proportion. We are largely irrelevant in this equation. Because of the influence of this class and the international community, democratic forces obligingly put on a show for us. It may be a poor show, but most farces are. It is largely immaterial how poorly a politician speaks, how ill conceived his mandate, and how many times he has broken his promises.

The people vote for the man in their district who will make water flow, not the man in Islamabad who promises them liberal values or world class universities. They worry about whether the local police and landlords will make their lives unlivable, not the scarlet fields of embarrassment a president may sow on an international trip.

The people of the nation are not naive to their self-interest. They may applaud a man like Edhi or, as many do, Imran Khan, but they will vote for the corrupt old-hand political machine every time. Because the machine knows how to negotiate with policemen and landlords, and the others do not. Because people who are unsure how they will get through today will not (and should not) concern themselves with the grand promise of a bright tomorrow. If we have the luxury of sneering at their short-term focus, it is because we know where the next meal is coming from.

We believe the tragedy of the nation is that democracy cannot work for us. The true tragedy is that it is working for us, growing as best as a plant can in toxic soil.

How do we change the rules of this wretched game? As tempting as it is to believe that Pakistan’s worries can be massaged away from the top down, it is a lazy and impractical faith. Only a slow and steady and frustrating cultivation from the bottom up will show any results.

We must first absolve ourselves of our grand delusion that our people are beneath the demands of democracy and that we, in turn, cannot be held responsible for its failure. It is easy to see ourselves as removed from the grand bulk of the country: we may as well be living in different centuries, different worlds.

But if we are ever to form the needful alliance, we must see ourselves as partners, and not senior partners, in the true long march towards a better democracy. It is not ‘education’ that will change the voting habits of the people or ‘enlightenment’ or any number of beautiful phrases meaningless to an empty stomach or parched throat or quaking heart. It is a system in which the poor do not struggle to make it through the day, do not have to scrabble for what their basic humanity demands.

We must make the system less corrupt, less prone to shocks, less brutal towards those who live on the margins between subsistence and despair. We must acknowledge that every time we abuse our position, our influence, our wealth to dance around the system rather than fix it, we stamp down on the ‘better’ democracy that we so achingly call out for.

Only when the poor no longer feel that every shifting wind could blow down their lives, will they have the courage to vote for sweeping changes. Until then, we should not delude ourselves: we have the democracy we deserve.

The writer is a Lahore-based freelance columnist.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Our own feet

Editorial: The News
October 18, 2010


Even Pakistan’s foreign minister has had to acknowledge that the message has been heard. It had been delivered before, and ignored. A more strident tone has now been adopted by Pakistan’s ‘friends’ to ensure this cannot happen again. Only days after US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton had told Islamabad that its own elite must do more to help flood victims and not depend on tax-payers in the West to fill accounts, delegates meeting at the Friends of Democratic Pakistan meeting in Brussels said much the same. They demanded Pakistan reform its economy, collect taxes from those not currently in the tax net and, in other words, learn to stand on its own feet. The world, quite obviously, is no longer amused by an adult country which has stubbornly refused to develop its capacity to walk – even though it suffers no serious ailment.

Those which do affect it are primarily self-inflicted. Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi was clearly discommoded by all this bluntness and responded that ‘it takes time’ to realign a country after it has been ruled by the military for so long, and that ‘old habits die hard’.

This is true enough, but if you are sitting before a sceptical group of Europeans who expect to see results after two-and-a-half years of government you should be able to come up with something a bit more solid than ‘it takes time’. Simply, they want to see where their money is going and they want to see what we are doing for ourselves – and are clearly of the opinion that we are not doing enough. It is not difficult to see why they have formed this view. The government has dragged its feet on many issues including widening the tax net, it has not sought political unity or even a political truce in the endless drawing-room warfare that consumes the nation, and there is little sign of a national recovery plan at the federal level that might attract the interest of donors.

The issue of self-sufficiency is one that has a resounding echo through our history. Our failure to attain it is one reason for the many difficulties we today encounter. The warnings from the world are meanwhile becoming clearer than ever. We need to find a way to help ourselves. The suggestion is that the base of taxation be broadened. There can be no doubt at all that this is required. But alongside the imposition of tax on those who remain outside the net, we must improve the manner in which we collect taxes. In the present circumstances, more is also needed – including an austerity drive and a re-thinking of other expenditures. If we do not engage in this there is really no reason why the world should help us. It is already obvious the will to do so is ebbing – and we must act to help ourselves while we still can.

 

[RabzonKhan]

WASHINGTON DIARY: The feudal battle against the judiciary

Dr Manzur Ejaz
October 20, 2010

Pakistan is witnessing a classic class struggle where the new urban middle class is trying to break the grip of the old feudal order, which has been in existence for thousands of years. The midnight session of the Supreme Court highlights the fundamental change underway, whether the government was conspiring to take back the judges’ reinstatement order or not. The fear and apprehensions of colliding sections of state institutions are not merely due to some whisperings or concocted media stories, but reflect the fierce class struggle going on in the country.

In reality, the judiciary is not an abstract state institution; it represents the rising middle class’s interests, which cannot be served by the old feudal order. The feudal, however, cannot tolerate any judicial interference in his domain. His wish and his word are the law for his/her subjects, rather than being equally subject to the laws before the courts as is attempted by the judiciary’s actions. Before British colonialism, the Indian subcontinent had no written law. The British imposed a written law but the feudal continued the old practices of ruling by personal dictate.

On the other hand, the rise of a middle class creates both a need and a hospitable environment for the equality of objective written law. Since power is distributed almost equally in the middle class, no one can issue dictates and, hence, an impartial arbitrator — the judicial system — is a necessity and is made possible by the class. However, the contradiction between the rising middle class and the old feudal order has not been reconciled. Against this backdrop, it should not be surprising that, in the last three decades, the only popular movement was in favour of reinstating the independent judiciary. However, the demands by the lawyers were not just to reinstate the sacked judges, but for the judicial branch to be given the space needed for the equitable implementation of law. The enhancement of quantity and quality in the legal profession provided the momentum for a popular movement. However, common people were equal partners in the movement to restore the judiciary.

The movement for restoring the independent judiciary changed the political landscape as well. The second largest party of Pakistan, the PML-N, owes its victory to the lawyers’ movement. It is also not by accident that the PML-N won in middle class dominated central Punjab, while the PPP’s winning edge was provided by the feudal belt of Punjab and Sindh.

The regional pattern of social change has remained constant since the 1970 elections in which the PPP gained a thumping majority. It is ironic that the PML-N has now won in exactly those districts that were the basis of the PPP’s political power in the 1970 elections. Furthermore, most of the PPP legislators winning the 1970 elections belonged to the middle classes.

It was Zulfikar Ali Bhutto himself who started changing the makeup of his party by replacing the middle class intelligentsia with the feudal elite. Intellectuals like Dr Mubashir Hasan and J A Rahim were replaced by feudal advisors like Hayat Khan Tumman, etc. However, the PPP kept winning in central Punjab because of the strong momentum of 1970, while its base continued eroding in every successive election. By the dawn of the 21st century, the PPP leadership was out of sync with the middle class in general and central Punjab in particular. Mian Nawaz Sharif, despite his theocratic tendencies, captured the imagination of Bhutto’s constituencies.

By the 2008 elections, the PPP was completely out of line with middle class desires and interests. The PPP rank and file were the backbone of the popular movement for restoring the judiciary but its leadership chose to serve feudal interests by first opposing and then postponing the reinstatement of the deposed judges. Everyone knows that the PPP government was practically forced into restoring the judges. Therefore, the governing party cannot take any credit for restoring the judiciary as Prime Minister Gilani claims.

The PPP’s collision with the judiciary is not merely a Zardari-specific issue. There are Miranis, Jhakranis and all kinds of feudals in the ruling party who have been committing various crimes against the people. How can the feudals involved in cases of vani and karo kari accept a judiciary that is keen to prosecute them? How can the old masters, who do not allow the tenants to sit on a cart in front of them, accept an institution that treats every citizen equally? How can these lords with private jails and usage of primitive methods to keep the serfdom system intact concede to a body of middle class judges who, temperamentally, abhor such practices?

Zardari or no Zardari, the struggle between the old feudal system and the rising middle classes is inevitable. The judiciary is proxy and representative of the new order while the PPP is guarding the old interests. It may take years or decades to uproot the old order but its demise is a forgone conclusion. The old order cannot survive if the oxen and wooden plough have been replaced by automotive machines. Nonetheless, no outdated class dies without putting up a fight and that is what the PPP is doing.

 

[RabzonKhan]

VIEW: Education and the state: a bitter harvest

Dr Sabiha Mansoor
October 26, 2010

Pakistan is paying the price of neglecting the critical role of education in building a strong and prosperous state. The country is in turmoil and the crisis is evident in the tottering democracy, rapid inflation, and decay of social and moral norms. The onslaught of terrorist attacks and the recent devastating floods have created a state of panic in all segments of society. Not surprisingly, there has been an onslaught of attacks by the international media painting a doomsday scenario for Pakistan.

In the midst of all this chaos and confusion, the pundits are busy putting forward all kinds of remedies to cure the ailing state. On close scrutiny however, none of the interventions proposed hold any weight and are ultimately incapable of producing any real or meaningful change. The cries of revolt by the masses against feudalism by a populist leader residing abroad, or arguments for military intervention in putting a technocrats government in place, or support for judicial activism to stem corruption by some critics, are nothing but quick-fixes that are likely to stall the crisis but not resolve it.

What is required for regenerating Pakistan is a change of mindset that cannot be achieved through physical brute force but only through a complex process of educating the masses. The need of the hour is for all parties to put together a collective vision of a progressive and democratic state in which the role of education, geared to produce the desired positive outcomes, is clearly earmarked.

It is universally acknowledged by all that good quality education is a powerful instrument for transforming individuals by impacting their mental and personality make up, as well as honing their skills and tapping their hidden talents. Quality education has been the key to success for all modern and developed states. India is a shining example of what difference a well planned and thoughtful education policy can make in the economic progress of a developing country.

In Pakistan too education can play a pivotal role in producing peaceful, law abiding, mature and responsible citizens who can make a positive contribution to the economic growth of the country as part of a skilled workforce. If education is given the attention it deserves in Pakistan, it can help our country to become a modern and progressive state and produce empowered citizens that shun terrorism and violence, reject feudalism, as well as exploitation of women, children and all marginalised sections of society.

The current education system at all levels continues to suffer from many drawbacks. Pakistan is still tackling issues of low literacy and primary enrolment rates, especially for females, in rural areas in meeting the millennium development goals. The poor quality of education has led to producing school and university graduates that lack critical thinking and problem-solving abilities as well as required skills to be usefully employed. The private sector has made considerable contribution in providing quality education during the last decade. However, the yawning gap between the private and public educational institutions as well as the madrassa schools has resulted in a fractured society where the English speaking, westernised elites enjoy high status and powerful positions, and the disadvantaged masses remain poor and largely unemployed. Worse still is the plight of the madrassa students who are subjected to an educational system that makes them narrow-minded and radical and without useful skills to make a useful contribution to the state.

In my view, there are numerous factors, socio-economic and political, in the last six decades that are responsible for the educational mess that has been created. These include: low priority attached to education as seen in meagre funding allocations; poor educational planning and elitist policies; low status of teachers and lack of faculty development in modern approaches and teaching methodologies; political corruption; excessive bureaucratic controls; exploitation of education by vested interests; lack of faculty ownership; absence of quality assurance mechanisms; divorce of curricula from the real world; exploitation of religion, and lack of research.

The result of this educational mismanagement by our political and economic managers has resulted in a bitter harvest manifested in all forms of ugliness that have erupted around us. The starving and illiterate masses, the frightened populace scared of deadly bomb blasts occurring at a greater frequency, the oppressed women struggling for their rights, the innocent children begging on the streets of Pakistan are all victims of this neglect.

Pakistan is now at a crossroads. It can either continue to ignore the importance of education and accelerate the process of decline in all spheres of the state, or see the present crisis as an opportunity to review its priorities and invest heavily in quality education. To reap the harvest of an educated populace, the seeds have to be planted now. With sound planning, major investments, firm commitment, and quality control, surely the harvest will be sweet.

The writer is an educationist and researcher.

 

[muse]

If education is given the attention it deserves in Pakistan, it can help our country to become a modern and progressive state and produce empowered citizens that shun terrorism and violence, reject feudalism, as well as exploitation of women, children and all marginalised sections of society

Well, now that we realize that education will not get the attention it deserves, does it not raise the question whether the Pakistani elite actually want to see Pakistan

become a modern and progressive state and produce empowered citizens that shun terrorism and violence, reject feudalism, as well as exploitation of women, children and all marginalised sections of society

Friends, if you are a Pakistani, you have yourself and your family to lookout for, the state is not only unable, it is disinclined to.

 

[RabzonKhan]

EDITORIAL: A historic win

Daily Times
October 29, 2010

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) elections on Wednesday saw Asma Jahangir win despite the fact that her opponents had started a maligning campaign against her. Ms Jahangir secured 834 votes while her main opponent Ahmed Awais got 796 votes. She has become the first woman president of the SCBA. Ms Jahangir’s victory was celebrated all across the country. Ms Jahangir is not just a leading light of the legal fraternity, she is one of the most vocal advocates of human rights, women’s rights, minority rights, democracy and justice.

One of the reasons for those opposing Ms Jahangir in the legal fraternity is because of her criticism of the bar and bench for getting embroiled in politics. After the successful movement led by the lawyers for the restoration of the judiciary, it was expected that the lawyers would go back to practicing law and the judiciary would work towards strengthening its institution. Instead, we saw them encroaching on the space of other state institutions, especially the executive. It was in this backdrop that the core leadership of the lawyers’ movement like Ali Ahmad Kurd, Munir A Malik, Justice (retd) Tariq Mehmood, etc, correctly distanced themselves from the restored judiciary. Except for Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan, Ms Jahangir was supported by all the leading lights of the lawyers’ movement. Mr Ahsan’s role was dubious in these SCBA elections because he surreptitiously supported Ahmed Awais. Ms Jahangir was accused of being the PPP’s candidate even though there is no truth to such allegations.

The judiciary’s newfound assertive activism has been a cause of concern and controversy lately, especially in the NRO and the 18th Amendment cases. The SCBA’s role during this time was also criticised since former president SCBA, Qazi Anwar, openly opposed the government and sided with the judiciary instead of remaining neutral, which is what is expected of any bar association. Some sections of the legal fraternity have tried to use the judiciary to destabilise the PPP government and some of the lawyers from the bars have been accused of trying to take advantage of their closeness to the restored judiciary. This may not be the judges’ fault, but the attitude of the bar was questionable. Qazi Anwar damaged the credibility of the SCBA by being partisan even though a bar is not supposed to be an appendage of the bench.

After her victory, Ms Jahangir asserted that she would not take dictation from anyone, be it the government or the judges. It is hoped that with Ms Jahangir’s victory, the bar would re-establish its independence and keep an appropriate distance from the bench. During her tenure, it is expected that the imbalance created by her predecessor would be done away with and the dignity of the bar restored.

 

[RabzonKhan]

EDITORIAL: A symbol of resistance

Daily Times
November 05, 2010

The legal fraternity observed November 3 as a ‘black day’ across the country to protest against the imposition of emergency three years ago by former president General (retd) Pervez Musharraf. When the general asked Chief Justice (CJ) Iftikhar Chaudhry to step down in March 2007, CJ Chaudhry refused to do so. He was then suspended and his case sent to the Supreme Judicial Council by Musharraf but after immense public pressure, he was reinstated in July. Once the CJ was reinstated, the pro-active judiciary became a threat for Musharraf as he perceived that if his presidential elections were legally challenged, the courts would rule against him. This led him to make a pre-emptive move; thus the emergency on November 3, 2007.

Despite our judicial history not being an exemplary one, Justice Chaudhry’s historic defiance of Musharraf, a military dictator, became a symbol of resistance. After Musharraf stepped down from his presidential post, the PPP government procrastinated in restoring the deposed CJ and his colleagues. The lawyers’ movement kept rallying till the incumbent government was forced to restore the CJ. After the restoration of the judiciary in March 2009, we saw that the judiciary started to assert itself. The thrust of the judiciary’s assertion was by and large against the sitting government. The rest of the public suffered as the Supreme Court (SC) spent a considerable amount of its time hearing the NRO and 18th Amendment cases. A conflict between the judiciary and the executive loomed. Fortunately, both sides drew back from the brink. Those forces seeking an extra-democratic change were disappointed.

Asma Jahangir’s win in the recent presidential elections of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) is a historic turn. Ms Jahangir has always been against military dictatorships and anti-democratic policies. On November 3, Ms Jahangir said that she would resist any unconstitutional attempt against the judiciary from the executive but she also warned that the lawyers would not tolerate if the judiciary indulged in any extra-constitutional move. After the restoration of the judiciary, some lawyers unfortunately became partisan in favour of the bench. This was not a healthy trend since lawyers are meant to play an intermediary role between the litigant and the courts so that justice can be delivered. It is hoped that now all state institutions would work within their parameters, which is integral to a democratic process.

 

[RabzonKhan]

VIEW: Media, democracy and governance

Daily Times
Imtiaz Alam
November 06, 2010

These are the times for celebrating the freedom that we have got through a protracted struggle for civil and human rights and for the restoration of democracy and constitutional rule that was successively interrupted by the usurpers-in-khaki. Pakistan can now be distinguished as the only country in the Muslim word to have a vocally free media and an authoritatively independent judiciary — the new vibrant components of our democracy-in-transition. Fortunately, we have a parliament that has earned the distinction of having passed the 18th Amendment with an absolute consensus, removing the stigma of most infamous Eight Amendment (if not most rabidly reactionary parts of it) and 17th Amendment and allowing greater autonomy to the federating units — a highly welcome improvement. Thanks to the Charter of Democracy and a policy of reconciliation, we are witnessing a democratic culture of accommodation, adjustment and understanding among various political elements with an opposition playing by the book, setting healthy democratic conventions.

As democracy allows greater space to civil society and civilian institutions, we witness a greater assertion of vocal elements of civil society, the media and the bars, the judiciary — revived under democracy by democratic means — and the federating units by virtue of the NFC Award, to expand their spheres and spaces scuttled during military dictatorships. We also see a presidency bowing to the parliamentary spirit of the 1973 Constitution, rather than remaining an instrument of the powers-that-be to scuttle the mandate of the people. Most vibrant and inclusive is the politics of coalition making at the Centre and the provinces. We see unprecedented accountability of the elected representatives by the media — often bordering on ridicule. On top of all this, a very proactive judiciary is not letting any omission of the executive go unpunished to a point where, on occasions, the poor executive looks traumatised and squeezed.

Every public complaint or outcry finds its fullest and loudest expression on 24/7 news broadcasts and the daily newspapers. The instant and minute-by-minute ‘breaking news’ stream and unending repetitive talk shows have captured the political and social landscape while frantically pursuing the misleading ratings by the self-serving monitors of aggressive commercial bosses. These free times and democratic virtues are all thanks to and due to democracy — nothing else — that we all must preserve and defend as an essential component of the constitutional and democratic framework underwritten by fundamental rights, freedom of expression and an independent judiciary. Those violating all norms while provoking the countdowns for undemocratic change every other week or month must realise that a free media, an independent judiciary, rule of law, respect for civil and human rights are all a sine qua non of democracy and not otherwise. If you will dig the grave for democracy, you will be inviting your own demise. Indeed, we are for accountability of all but, of course, without excluding ourselves — the media.

This is the noise of democracy that we relish and must protect. Indeed there are those, deluded by their new-found power, who are insulting the sanctity of freedom and legitimacy of their authority while crossing ethical and institutional limits for their parochial and vested interests. They must be checked from within amid growing public scepticism. The irony of the situation is that the ongoing tug-of-war among the civilian institutions and military forces to grab greater space at the cost of the other is, ironically, eroding the very foundation on which stands the whole edifice of democracy. Even the meek efforts at taming the untamed and bringing powerful apparatuses of the establishment under civilian and constitutional purview were frustrated — not as much by those who thrive beyond the law and accountability but by the same custodians of our freedom and lawful protection. Resultantly, the sphere of the elected government has been reduced to less than a sovereign’s job, consigning most strategic foreign and internal affairs back into the lap of the unaccountable masters of our destiny.

Real life beyond is full of challenges, obstacles and uncertainties. The challenges have to be tackled instead of making the politicians scapegoats who have always been wrongly or rightly blamed for decades. Sensing the undemocratic and unconstitutional threats to democracy, SAFMA along with some leading journalists, intellectuals and civil society leaders, from the platform of Citizens for Democracy, called upon all the institutions and stakeholders to say no to any undemocratic and unconstitutional change while emphasising the urgency to evolve a national agenda to tackle the all-sided crises of the sate. Some of the challenges, that pose a real threat to our existence as a people and a land, that is sacred to us, are as follows:

Low-growth-high-poverty equilibrium with lowest tax-GDP, saving-GDP, investment-GDP and per capita investment on the people with lowest social indicators in the developing world: It requires a new paradigm of inclusive and sustainable growth and all-out effort in every sphere of the economy, including the revitalisation of high value adding manufacturing, agricultural and servicing sectors, conservation, exploration and development of energy and water resources, human resource development and poverty eradication, withdrawal of subsidies and expansion of revenues by taxing both the rural and urban rich, reprioritisation of allocation of resources from military security to human security, drastic reformation or disposing off public sector corporations to get rid of financial haemorrhage, inclusion of the dispossessed people and the deprived backward regions into the mainstream of development and empowerment and opening up our eastern and western borders to revive traditional trade routes to become a hub of trans-regional trade and investment across South, Central and Western Asia.

A parasitic national security state failing to enforce its writ and maintain peace within and without: it must enforce its writ across every nook and corner of our land while keeping its monopoly over coercive means by completely eradicating non-state violent actors/militias threatening our existence/sovereignty and jeopardising our relations with our neighbours and the international community. The menace of terrorism has to be eradicated by all means and in every sphere that reproduces it. It calls for a radical reversion of our failed security paradigms that nourished these gravediggers of Pakistan’s otherwise moderate, tolerant, egalitarian and pluralist society.

Marginalisation of the will and the sovereignty of the people: all organs of the state and all stakeholders must submit to the will and sovereignty of the people exercised by the elected representatives of the people, responsible to the final arbiters — the people of all the federating units. Civil-military relations must be redefined strictly in accordance with the letter and spirit of the 1973 Constitution and everything about the security establishment must be brought under the purview of our sovereign parliament. All institutions and organs of the state must keep within their lawful limits, frustrating all machinations and efforts to destabilise the democratic setup and rejecting any change through undemocratic and unconstitutional means.

A flawed foreign and security paradigm promoting conflict in the neighbourhood: there is an urgent need to critically reappraise our foreign and national security policies that are beyond our national resources and repudiate peace both within and without, frustrate economic growth and prosperity and keep our people in the shackles of poverty. It requires, in particular, radical revision of our ‘India-centric’, ‘strategic-depth’ (vis-à-vis Afghanistan) and ‘strategic-assets’ (of our jihadis who are nobody’s friend) types of strategic assumptions. The militaristic version of national security, that failed to provide us internal and external security, must be replaced with an overarching vision of human security, thus eradicating the causes behind the growth of suicide bombers, violence and religious extremism; and a rational, smart and cost-effective defence backed by credible deterrence.

Crises of governance: Pakistan is faced with deep-rooted crises of governance from the civilian administration to the military establishment, financial sectors to fiscal spheres, generating revenues to transparent and accountable expenditure, delivery of cheap and easy justice and honest and law-abiding policing, respecting citizens’ fundamental rights regardless of gender, creed or ethnicity and empowering people, rewarding merit, entrepreneurship, innovation and competition while precluding unethical privileges, rent-seeking, bribery and fraud, respecting dissent and granting women and minorities equal privileges of equal citizens and devolving and de-concentrating power to the lower tiers of governance, all-sided and even-handed accountability of all through due process of law, access to and free flow of information and a transparent, accountable and efficient governance. This cannot be achieved by totalitarian or fascist regimes and barbaric means or by chasing the ghosts and shadows of past corruption.

Ethnic and sectarian tensions: despite granting provincial autonomy and some concessions to the smaller provinces, the federating units continue to suffer from alienation and nurse frustrations, such as Balochistan. While progressively and radically devolving power from the Centre to the provinces and onward to the districts and ultimately to the grassroots level to empower our people, the federation and its powerful arms must take affirmative steps to remove the grievances of the smaller provinces, Balochistan in particular. Balochistan needs extraordinary accommodation and amelioration. There are ethnic tensions within the provinces that also need to be addressed by respecting pluralism at all levels to strengthen unity-in-diversity. On the other hand, sectarian cleavages are tearing apart our social fabric, which has been increasingly taking a violent turn since General Zia’s so-called ‘Islamisation’ and induction of the jihadi and Kalashnikov culture. All sectarian and violent militias, their cover-up bodies, charities, sectarian seminaries preaching violence and producing hate materials must be prosecuted and banned. Instead of becoming a source of national unity, the sectarian forces that pollute the spiritual space have turned religion into a source of discord and disunity. A distinction has to be made between the state and religion and theology and education while respecting the beliefs of the people that do not hurt others’ beliefs and religious practices.

SAFMA Pakistan undertakes to initiate a public discourse on the above-mentioned national agenda and plans to convene a national conference to facilitate a broader consensus among the forces of civil society from the platform of Citizens for Democracy.

The writer is Editor of South Asian Journal.

 

[muse]

Why has Pakistan been unable to live up to it's full potential? Political Instability - Westminster on the Indus needs a rethink




Rethinking Pakistan
Shahzad Chaudhry


It is no gainsaying what is now obvious to all. This nation of ours has lost its bearings. After 63 years of existence, we are directionless. Twenty years from now we do not know where we will be. That, in essence, is the dilemma of Pakistan. Many blame inconsistent political tenures and frequent military interventions. Perhaps that may be the reason, but one is not certain. Politicians were the first caretakers of this newly formed nation; they took seven years to conjure up a constitution. We killed a speaker in the National Assembly when a session was on! It was fabled that we change governments in Pakistan as frequently as some change their clothes. There were bureaucrats-turned-politicians and army men as bureaucrats. As the scheming went through its paces, governments fell like ninepins. On October 7, 1958, President Iskandar Mirza imposed martial law. Three weeks later, his protégé General Ayub Khan thought it better to run his own government than to do the dirty work at another’s exhortation. Thus was etched the story of the future of Pakistan.

Subsequent to the 1958 martial law, there have been only two other periods of civilian political rule. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto rose to power in 1971 in a dismembered Pakistan after having come second in the 1970 popular vote. Denying Sheikh Mujibur Rehman his right to lead through manipulation of the political environment is a blot that will remain difficult to wash. History lays significant blame at Mr Bhutto’s door for what became of the 1970 post-elections Pakistan. The separation of East Pakistan may have been a culmination of derelict governance and of uninhibited and callous disdain for the Bengalis. It was opportune politics that bartered half the country away at the altar of power. And though Mr Bhutto has remained perhaps the most brilliant politician in Pakistan’s short history, he may well have written the script for the future political culture of Pakistan.

Bhutto’s tenure till 1977 was enigmatic. His political philosophy underwent changes that may, in the end, have foretold his tragic demise. He did, however, bring politics down to the common man and in many ways gave them hope, but lost the big picture in the bargain. His five years have been the longest that any political government has served. Yet, at the end of those five years, Pakistan was fractious, politically unstable, and as the future unfolded, economically untenable. Most of his policies, particularly economic, and those in the socio-political domain, needed to be reversed, as the political Left retreated into oblivion. Global powers remained sceptical of the direction that Pakistan seemed to be taking. Neither the Soviet Union nor the US were comfortable with Pakistan’s newfound love for China, which itself was, at best, a middle power. In a world divided on ideological lines into two distinct halves, such infatuation was adventurous. Bhutto paid the price of his impetuosity with his life.

The period of 1988-99 saw four political governments change hands — sometimes with the army’s connivance and sometimes through its arbitration — each itself to blame. Power politics became the end-all, using electoral politics as the means. Lust for absolute power drove the politics of confrontation, which got a new meaning. Institutions were challenged and an environment of hostility took root. Corruption, cronyism and patronage defined politics. This ruptured the foremost compact in democracies between their leaders and the people. Gradually, politics has been let to degenerate to its present shape where cheap jobs at public sector enterprises (PSEs) are the best the common man can expect to gain. This gives rise to the patron-client culture that remains the only meaning of politics, and permanently skews the essence of public service that should be the only definition of political office.

The second downer to this political tradition is the erosion of fiscal viability of over-manned PSEs, turning them into devouring white elephants that continue to exacerbate fiscal gaps. The only remaining solution is printing more money and heavy borrowing, laying vulnerable the fundamentals of the economy. A weak economy defiles the poor further while the rich sail through with their ill-gotten gains. Policies that should benefit the masses are formulated to benefit a chosen few who have access to the powerful and are willing to recycle the gains back to the political decision-makers, giving rise to a nexus of self-sustaining cartels of graft and corruption. The political elites’ unfettered access to state riches and unchecked decision-making powers lays open a culture of opportunistic plunder, waste and corruption — a sea of which drowns this hapless land today. All because the politics of today is unrepresentative, centred round the moneyed, for they alone can afford the exclusivist electoral processes, and remains farthest from its real power base — the people.

As we rethink Pakistan after 63 years of existence, having gone astray at some point of our collective infamy, there is a usual recourse to ideational references of identity. Pakistan’s current predicament of a societal strain between the ultra-conservative religious push and a libertarian strand tends to dominate the discourse — effort being to perhaps find solutions in our DNA.

Unfortunately, the history of this DNA’s mutation is so complicated and contorted that it is useful to start anew and rethink the idea of Pakistan. We have further loaded ourselves into an unnecessary civil-military blame game, forgetting the fact that one ill bequeathed the other. This cyclical devastation of the state and its people is a shared legacy that needs to be jointly owned. The military may now let a political system sustain without interference while the politicians need to own up to the land that they govern. Corrections in party representation methodologies, electoral laws, and accountability must be integrated in our political process. If we are able to fine-tune our political systems to the needs of the times, the same process will throw up better and sincere leaders, more representative of the people that they propound to represent.

Some questions need to be answered: do we have the right political dispensation in parliamentary democracy, or is a presidential system, more like the US model, a better vehicle of both executive responsibility as well as authority? Does the political construct of a federation remain adequate in the US model, particularly when a bicameral dispensation is retained? Will such a model enable the executive to hunt for better people outside of the political construct to propose policy and pursue implementation? If need be, we should bring about the necessary changes. We have a good country, and some very good people; we need to do all to find better leaders.

The writer is a defence and political analyst

 

[niaz]

Rethinking Pakistan !!!

As someone who has experienced Pakistan since her birth. My observations are:

Ideology:

Two nation theory should have become irrelevant as soon as Pakistan was created. However this was not so and despite the Quaid’s speech of August 11, 2010, an ‘Objecrtives resolution’ was passed by then Constituent Assembly on March 12, 1949. The Objectives Resolution proclaimed the following principles:

1. Sovereignty belongs to Allah alone but He has delegated it to the State of Pakistan through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him as a sacred trust.
2. The State shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people.
3. The principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be fully observed.
4. Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings of Islam as set out in the Qur'an and Sunnah.
5. Adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to freely profess and practice their religions and develop their cultures.
6. Pakistan shall be a federation.
7. Fundamental rights shall be guaranteed.
8. The judiciary shall be independent.[1]

Religious parties have since then trying to implement Article 4 only. Articles 5, 6 & 7 have been quietly ignored. Please note that this resolution says nothing about Pakistan becoming a Sunni Wahabi Theocretaic state or an Islamic Emirate or a Khilafat.

It took more than 60 years for the Judiciary to become independent. Objectives resolution must be put into effect in full. Article 4 is already enshrined in the 1973 Constitution because no law can be made in Pakistan which contravenes Qur’an and Sunnah.

Provinces should be given full autonomy and Pakistan should be made a Federation is true sense as in Article 6.

Article 5 & 7 cannot be implemented as long as Blasphemy and Hudood laws remain in place. These must be abolished to grant full protection to the minorities and women.

Constituent assembly as formed after Independence was not elected but a Convention. That is, it consisted of the individuals considered influential by the Muslim league leaders but had no mandate from the people. Therefore its authority to pass such a defining resolution will always remain in doubt.

For me Quaid's speech must form the basis of Pakistan's laws which treats all nationals as well as members of religous minorities as equal. Making it possible for a non Muslim to be Prime Minister or Head of the State.


Political System:

Democracy in Pakistan is deeply flawed because of the Tribal System in KP and Baluchistan, Feudal system in Punjab and Sindh and the Braderi system in Punjab cities. That is why you see the same names with different faces in the Assemblies. Besides, leadership tends to be hierarchical.
So called democratic parties such as ANP & PPP and PML –N leadership is limited to close family members. Nawaz Sharif, though not a feudal, transferred PML-N leadership to the wife when he was in jail, similarly begum Naseem Wali Khan was de facto leader of ANP, when Asfandyar was young and Wali Khan was in Jail during ZAB era.

JUI-F follows the same route. MQM is the sole property of Altaf Hussein and TI means Imran Khan. Only JI holds elections for leadership.

Decision making in all the parties is not thru consultation as should be in a democratic society. Instead, word of the party leader is the law. Thus we find no difference between a military dictator and a democratic leader.

Nawaz Sharif tried to become Amirul Momeneen meaning that any dissenter would have been liable for hanging. Zardari sidelined old PPP loyalists such as Sherry Rahman simply because she participated in the GeoTV Capital Talk

Conclusion:

IMO there is no democracy in Pakistan. Elected people are not there to ‘Serve’ the nation, but to be served by the nation. How can one expect these leaders to take care of the nation when they are busy taking care of themselves and their families?

I can’t see any solution in sight because as long as this situation remains, alternate leaders who could possibly challenge the existing ones will not be allowed to emerge.

Whether current system or a Presidential system, elections will not throw up new leadership or a change in the decision making process. You can pass Amendments ad infinitim, ultimate decision making will remain restricted to a family oligarchy and Pakistan will go nowhere.

Long term solution was the local government elections instituted by the Musharraf government. This allowed less influential people to become Nazims and deputy Nazims at the Council level thereby providing opportunity for new leaders to emerge. For example we had never heard of Naeamatullah of JI or Mustafa Kamal of MQM until they became Nazims of Karachi. It was precisely this reason that it was abolished by the existing political parties especially in by PML-N and PPP.

Another long term cure is the mass education, which should broaden the outlook of ordinary public by creating a large middle class able to vote beyond the braderi and ethnic and tribal boundries. However despite all the hue and cry we are still awaiting 'Parah likha Punjab'.

All this suggests that there is no need to rethink, just go back to Quaid's speech of 1947 and Objectives Resolution of 1949 and implement these in full.

 

[muse]

Long term solution was the local government elections instituted by the Musharraf government. This allowed less influential people to become Nazims and deputy Nazims at the Council level thereby providing opportunity for new leaders to emerge. For example we had never heard of Naeamatullah of JI or Mustafa Kamal of MQM until they became Nazims of Karachi. It was precisely this reason that it was abolished by the existing political parties especially in by PML-N and PPP.

Another long term cure is the mass education, which should broaden the outlook of ordinary public by creating a large middle class able to vote beyond the braderi and ethnic and tribal boundries. However despite all the hue and cry we are still awaiting 'Parah likha Punjab'.

All this suggests that there is no need to rethink, just go back to Quaid's speech of 1947 and Objectives Resolution of 1949 and implement these in full

Some questions need to be answered: do we have the right political dispensation in parliamentary democracy, or is a presidential system, more like the US model, a better vehicle of both executive responsibility as well as authority?

Niaz Sahab, I couldn't agree more with you on local government, how do we get to a political paradigm that believes in national development??

Because I really think that what has been under attack is the entire notion of "Progress" -- the political parties when they speak of "taraqi" they do not refer to the kinds of ideas we think of, education informed by science, by "Progress", by the idea that education is the gateway to social mobility, the idea of "bettering" oneself is not a national priority -- how do we get there??

 

[muse]

You decide whether the PML-N is starting yet another fight with the armed forces or whether Pakistanis politicians will continue to be above the law -- Rethink Pakistan


Two soldiers ‘train’ guns at minister

Tuesday, 09 Nov, 2010



ISLAMABAD: The National Assembly appeared shocked to hear from opposition leader Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan on Monday that two soldiers had insulted a federal minister in his flag-bearing car earlier in the day by training their guns at him at a checkpoint near parliament when a four-star general too was in the area.

The government acknowledged that this “serious” incident had happened, which Petroleum and Natural Resources Minister Naveed Qamar said would be taken up with “appropriate authorities”.

Deputy Speaker Faisal Karim Kundi, chairing the proceedings at the time, called for a report about what he called an incident of “highhandedness” before the house concludes its current session after four days.

But neither of the three men who spoke about the matter identified the minister involved in the incident, which the opposition leader said happened some time in the afternoon, when he also drove around 2pm through the Constitution Avenue, on which the Parliament House is located and where one of the checkpoints normally manned by police checks vehicles going towards the Parliament House as well as the nearby presidency and the Prime Minister’s House.

Also none of them named the general for whom troops came to control traffic, although Chief of Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani met President Asif Ali Zardari on Monday afternoon.

Chaudhry Nisar said he saw “a lot of military activity” on the avenue at the time, giving him the impression that “some four-star general” was coming to meet either the president or Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and that he was informed by some witnesses later on coming to his office in parliament about a minister’s car flying the national flag having been stopped along with other cars by two soldiers “carrying bandooks (rifles)” and controlling traffic at the checkpoint instead of police.

“The soldiers did not have the courtesy to salute the national flag… which is the duty of every uniformed Pakistani,” he said.

“The matter did not end there,” he said, and added that when the driver of the minister -- who too he thought was heading towards the presidency or the prime minister’s house -- “tried to move his car forward, the two soldiers trained their guns” (towards the inmates).

“Is it the national army or an individual’s army,” the opposition leader asked and stressed the troops had no business to assume police job. “If they stop me tomorrow, I will not stop.”


The army would enjoy the nation’s respect only if it complied with its constitutional duty of defending the borders, Chaudhry Nisar said, drawing cheers from his PML-N colleagues as well many PPP members.

Minister Naveed Qamar said it was a “serious matter” to stop the car of a minister with the national flag or of any elected member of the house and added: “The government takes it seriously. We will take up the matter with appropriate authorities.”

The opposition also lashed out at the government mainly over the prevailing price hike, particularly the recently raised prices of petroleum products though a formal debate on opposition adjournment motions scheduled for the day could not begin because of time lost in speeches of members on points of order before the house was adjourned until 5pm on Wednesday.

However, Finance Minister Abdul Hafeez Sheikh promised to brief the house in camera or in an open session about the country’s economic problems.

The house passed a bill further amending the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance of 2000.

The MQM ended their boycott of the house but staged a token walkout to protest against the price hike.

 

[RabzonKhan]

EDITORIAL: Remembering Faiz

Daily Times
November 20, 2010

Today is the 26th death anniversary of Faiz Ahmed Faiz whose life and works are national assets. Faiz was a torchbearer of the glorious traditions set by great Urdu poets such as Ghalib and Iqbal. Faiz distinguished himself as a proponent of a revolutionary vision, which blended the romance of classical Urdu poetry with the idealism of revolutionary struggles. Faiz’s political ideology provided modern Urdu verse an unprecedented political and romantic expression. Faiz brought Pakistan international acclaim and the world bestowed on him the highest honours, including the Lenin Peace Prize (1962). He has also left a corpus of essays, editorials and commentaries from his years in journalism. This body of work still needs to be fully assessed for its literary dimensions. Faiz’s literary career coincided with the emergence of Pakistan and its unfortunate history of political instability and militarisation, which isolated its majority Eastern wing and resulted in its break-up in 1971. His famous poem ‘Yeh Daagh Daagh Ujala’ remains an apt comment on the creation of a ‘moth-eaten’ Pakistan, which continues to grapple with issues of identity. The Pakistani state treated him shoddily as he remained under arrest for extended periods or in exile.

The decade of the 1970s witnessed a change when Bhutto appointed him as Chairman of the National Council of the Arts. Faiz authored Pakistan’s Culture Policy of 1972, which was partially implemented. This new cultural discourse broke the hegemony of the state-imposed definition of Pakistani identity that had excluded its rich pre-Islamic cultural heritage and marginalised its regional cultures. Before the goals of the 1972 Policy could be realised, Bhutto was overthrown and killed by the military junta. Zia’s dark rule reversed whatever policy shifts were made in the decade of the 1970s. Faiz passed away in 1984 and did not live to see the full extent of the destruction of Pakistani society scripted by Ziaul Haq and his cronies.

The country continues to struggle with the demons of extremism, jihad, and the ubiquitous role of intelligence agencies in public life. It is paramount that the 1972 Culture Policy, buried by right-wing officialdom, be made public and used as a framework for handling the current crises that we face in keeping the federation together and for fighting the enemy within. Faiz Ahmed Faiz’s vision of a socially just, secular, and plural Pakistan remains valid even today. February 13, 2011 will mark Faiz’s centennial birth celebrations and the government should ensure that his poetic and political legacy are reiterated and disseminated to the younger generation fittingly. Pakistanis will continue to sing ‘Hum Dekhenge’ until we achieve civilian democratic ascendancy and a socially just redistributive economic system.

 

[RabzonKhan]

CARTE BLANCHE: Celebrating Asma Jahangir

Daily Times
Mehmal Sarfraz
November 23, 2010

Hafiz Saeed, chief of the banned terrorist organisation Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LeT) recently addressed a seminar organised by the Lahore High Court Bar Association (LHCBA). The LeT may have resurfaced under the garb of a ‘charity’ organisation — the Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) — but it is no secret that this terrorist network has carried out several attacks in India, including the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Saeed is one of the most wanted men in India, yet he has been acquitted by a Pakistani court due to ‘lack of evidence’. So, when a man of Saeed’s dubious credentials is allowed, nay invited, to address a gathering of our legal fraternity, it shakes one’s faith in our justice system.

But all is not lost yet. There is still a silver lining. Despite the dominance of right-wing groups in our legal fraternity, we still have many liberal, progressive and secular stalwarts amongst the lawyers’ community. Asma Jahangir is one such name.

It was a historic day when Asma Jahangir became the first woman president of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) after a closely contested election on October 27, 2010. This was not an ordinary contest. In the past the SCBA elections were fought between various factions of the lawyers’ community who were divided on the basis of ethnicity, biradari system, political ideologies, etc. This year’s elections were different. A dirty smear campaign was started by Asma Jahangir’s opponents to malign her character and question her patriotism. Never had such low values been deployed as in this election. By putting up her candidature in the SCBA elections, Asma had put at stake her prestige and struggle of the last four decades. There were allegations that Ms Jahangir was the PPP government’s candidate even though there was no truth to such reports. These rumours were circulated to lower her chances of winning, mainly due to a strong anti-PPP lobby within the ranks of the lawyers’ community.

The recent SCBA election was held in the backdrop of the tussle between the executive and the judiciary, which reached its peak on the implementation of the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) verdict, 18th Amendment case, and other issues. The delay in the restoration of the judiciary by the PPP-led coalition government soured relations between the judiciary and the incumbent executive. After the restoration, the Chief Justice (CJ) of Pakistan was on a high moral ground and had great public support. He had a clear mission, which he pursued without any obstacles due to the space provided under a democratic set-up. When the restored judiciary began to hear petitions against the government, it created uncertainty about the future of the democratic set-up. Constitutional and legal experts expressed their disagreement over some of the perceived excesses of the Supreme Court (SC). Asma Jahangir was one of those legal stalwarts who raised her voice against judicial activism and warned of an impending judicial dictatorship if things were not sorted out. Unfortunately, a section of the media launched a counter-campaign against those who were discussing various judgements in a fair and balanced manner. The former president of the SCBA, Qazi Anwar, and his team became very one-sided and it looked as if the SCBA was an instrument of the judiciary in its fight against the executive. It was in this backdrop that Asma’s candidature was portrayed as representing the PPP government. All the secular lawyers campaigned for Asma because they wanted to reform the judicial system instead of allowing it to be hijacked by reactionary forces.

We saw how a discussion on the Objectives Resolution created such a hue and cry in the apex court while a point pertaining to parliament’s power to amend laws was challenged by a senior judge who said that “western parliaments declared homosexuality and same sex marriages lawful. Can we contract such marriage? The powers of our parliament are not limitless”. With all due respect to his lordship, in a country like Pakistan, no government would dare to legalise same sex marriage even when exercising its ‘limitless’ powers. When a government cannot even repeal laws that deserve to be thrown out of our statute books such as the draconian Hudood Ordinance, Blasphemy Law or the Second Amendment pertaining to the Ahmedis, how can we even expect it to do something as radical as legalising homosexuality? As for our bar associations, most of them have a conservative worldview. Thus, Asma’s victory was a cause for celebration since it was not just unprecedented but a victory for all those who want to see Pakistan transform into a progressive state. We must also acknowledge the fact that Asma Jahangir put her life in danger by contesting the SCBA elections. A pamphlet titled ‘Asma Jahangir: Adalat-e-Uzma ke khilaaf targeted missile’ (Asma Jahangir: a targeted missile against the Supreme Court) was published by the Khatm-e-Nabuwwat Lawyers Forum and circulated days before the SCBA elections were to take place. The pamphlet was downright vicious and inflammatory. This was a ploy by Asma’s opponents to discredit her. Her opponents were so sure of winning that they had actually called a Seerat Conference at the Lahore High Court a day after the elections to celebrate their victory. What is alarming though, is that at the said conference, which included speakers like former ISI chief General Hamid Gul, Jamaat-e-Islami chief Munawar Hasan, a fatwa (decree) against Asma was going to be announced. When Asma won the elections, the conference was cancelled. Had Asma lost and the conference been held as planned, her life would have been in grave danger.

Asma Jahangir’s only ‘sin’ is that she has been a vociferous campaigner for secularism, human rights, women’s rights, minority rights, peace and democracy, apart from having radical views on civil-military relations. She has been a critic of all military dictators but at the same time she has never shied away from pointing out the mistakes committed by democratic governments, including that of Benazir Bhutto’s two tenures despite the fact that BB was a close friend of hers. Ms Jahangir has always taken a principled stand and not been afraid of any threats that come her way. It is indeed our misfortune that a woman who has been honoured internationally on many a forum for her outstanding work in raising human rights issues is treated with disdain by some people in her own country. It is time to make amends. It is time to celebrate Asma Jahangir not just as an individual but as a movement — a movement for a secular, democratic, progressive Pakistan.

The writer is Op-Ed Editor Daily Times.

 

[RabzonKhan]

EDITORIAL: Reforming the judiciary

Daily Times
November 24, 2010

At the full court reference on the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Rahmat Hussain Jafferi, Chief Justice (CJ) Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry said that strengthening the judiciary is integral for the survival of democracy in case some extra-constitutional forces strike the political set-up. CJ Chaudhry’s words should strike a blow to all the undemocratic forces lurking in the shadows for an unconstitutional move to oust the government. The PPP-led coalition government has been in trouble with the judiciary ever since the restoration of the deposed judiciary. Cases pertaining to the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) in the past and now the 18th Amendment soured relations between the executive and the judiciary. Thus, the CJ’s words could not have come at a better time. Justice Chaudhry talked about tackling corruption in the judiciary and rightly said that accountability is necessary. It is hoped that the honourable CJ is able to eradicate the menace of corruption, especially in the lower courts, so that the common man is able to get justice without paying any ‘price’ for it.

Asma Jahangir, President Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), commended the CJ for summoning the intelligence agencies’ chiefs in the case pertaining to the 11 ‘missing’ prisoners from Adiala Jail. Our intelligence agencies have always operated in a culture of impunity and believe that they can get away with anything and everything. The apex court’s orders have given a clear message that the highhandedness of the security establishment needs to be buried for good. Ms Jahangir also talked about adopting a principle that retired judges of the superior courts should not accept an appointment that is lower than their last-held post. It would indeed set a good precedent if Ms Jahangir’s advice is adhered to and it should not just include appointments outside the superior judiciary but also within. Ms Jahangir also asked that specific guidelines should be followed when taking up issues of public interest. This is important since we have seen that some petitions lie around in the courts for years while some are taken up very quickly. Does this constitute equity, justice and equal treatment? Ms Jahangir also pointed out the plight of the seven judges who have been held in contempt after the July 31 judgement that declared General Musharraf’s November 3, 2007 emergency and the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) as unconstitutional. She expressed the hope that the apex court would address this issue soon.

Ms Jahangir has raised some very important issues that need to be addressed for proper judicial reform, something that this country has been waiting for for a long time. Retiring Justice Rahmat Hussain Jafferi, who is one of those judges who have always upheld principles, would surely approve of these suggestions.