Should we abolish death penalty?

Ishrat Saleem

The decision of the federal cabinet to commute death sentence of 7,000 prisoners on death row in different jails across Pakistan into life imprisonment has been met with both fierce opposition and welcome relief. Prime minister Yousaf Raza Gillani had announced on the occasion of the birth anniversary of Late PPP Chairperson Benazir Bhutto that the government would recommend to the president to commute the death sentence of convicted prisoner into life imprisonment. This concession will not include the Indian prisoner Sarabjit Singh and those involved in other crimes of grave nature. The major supporters of death penalty are religious parties, who believe that abolishing death sentence will remove the deterrence which is helpful in preventing crime. The opponents of death penalty, however, believe that the matter is not that simple. Flaws and weaknesses in the judicial system make it possible that an innocent person is awarded death sentence. Moreover, data from countries which practice death penalty shows that it does not contribute to the prevention of crime in any way. Several organisations around the world and within Pakistan have done exhaustive work which suggests that more often, death penalty becomes a tool in the hands of the state and the powerful sections of society to exploit the disadvantaged and the poor. Apart from the hue and cry being raised by religious factions, another development in this regard is the suo mottu notice by the Supreme Court, demanding the government to submit a written explanation for this action till July 14.

The cabinet decision coincided with the visit of Executive Director of Human Rights Watch Kenneth Roth, who met Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani as well as Nawaz Sharif, leader of the second largest party in parliament, the PML (N). One his contentions was that Pakistan should abolish death penalty from the legal system, or at least put a moratorium death penalty. Had it not been for the international pressure, it is questionable whether the Pakistani rulers would have been moved to take this measure, which is cosmetic to say the least. Barring a few human rights organisations, there is little or no awareness among the Pakistani public on the international discourse on the death penalty. But the fact is that a large number of countries around the world have come to the realisation that death penalty carries the chance irrevocable error and hence miscarriage of justice.

In December last year, the United Nations passed a resolution which asked the member states for “a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty.” According to Amnesty International, as of June 1, 2008, 92 countries abolished capital punishment altogether, 11 have done so for all offences except under special circumstances, and 34 others have not used it for at least 10 years or under a moratorium, while only 60 countries in the world actively retained the death penalty. In 2007, Pakistan was the second country in the world after China which awarded most death sentences. However, the number of executions in Pakistan is far less, as prisoners on death row keep languishing in jails due to flaws in the justice system.

The supporters of death penalty believe that it deters criminal elements in society from committing heinous crime. However, the deterrence value of execution has been established neither in Pakistan nor anywhere else in the world. In the words of the US Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, “The death penalty is no more effective a deterrent than life imprisonment… It is also evident that the burden of capital punishment falls upon the poor, the ignorant and the underprivileged members of society.” In the context of Pakistan, this is all the more true because of high expenses involved in achieving the ends of justice. As a matter of record, in Pakistan there was a 20.1 percent increase in crime last year, including those crimes that carry death penalty, thus falsifying the claim that it has a deterring effect. Moreover, in the presence of Qisas and Diyat laws, which allows the two parties to settle dispute outside court, death penalty becomes an enterprise in the hands of the wealthy, who could buy their freedom by paying blood money to the victim’s family in murder cases, while the poor have to pay by giving their lives. Moreover, submissiveness of the judiciary to the executive, corruption and political pressure all combined often lead to discrimination against the weaker party.

The basic argument of campaigners against death penalty is that it carries the chance of irrevocable error, because once an innocent person is hanged, it is impossible to correct that mistake. While the spirit of justice dictates that executing one innocent person is worse than letting a hundred guilty go scot-free. This is to suggest that there are other forms of punishment with which criminals could be dealt. Instead of eliminating those guilty of crimes, the focus should be on rehabilitating them. Moreover, without addressing the socio-economic factors that lead to crimes, the government cannot take the path of killing criminals to improve law and order.

Several cases in the judicial history of Pakistan are evidence of the fact that judicial and administrative weakness often lead to errors. The case of Mirza Tahir Hussain, who was sentenced to death for the murder of a taxi driver, clearly showed that our justice system is full of lacunae and contradictions. According to reports, Mirza Tahir Hussain, a Briton of Pakistani origin, then 18, came to visit relatives in Pakistan in 1988. Here he was charged with murdering a taxi driver and sentenced to death in September 1989 by a sessions court in Islamabad. He pleaded that the taxi driver, whom he had hired, had pulled out a gun and physically and sexually assaulted him and in the subsequent scuffle the gun went off, fatally injuring the driver. The Lahore High Court (LHC), however, overturned the sentence in 1992 due to serious discrepancies in the prosecution’s case, and sent the case back to the sessions court for retrial. The sessions court sentenced him to life imprisonment in 1994, but the LHC, on second appeal, again dismissed his sentence and acquitted him of all the charges in May 1996. A week later, the case was referred to the Federal Shariat Court (FSC) on charges including robbery involving murder. The entire case was reopened and the FSC sentenced Mirza Tahir Hussain to death in 1998, despite their acknowledgment that no robbery had taken place due to the taxi being hired. The FSC bench was split two to one and the dissenting judge, Justice Abdul Waheed Siddiqui, strongly recommended that Hussain be acquitted on the grounds that the prosecution case was inherently weak. Fortunately, after spending 18 years in jail, Mirza Tahir Hussain was pardoned by the president on the intervention of the British government.

Although the government’s step to commute the death sentence of 7,000 prisoners into life imprisonment is commendable, it has not introduced any change in the legal or judicial procedures of the country, nor will it prevent the judiciary from awarding death sentence in future. Given that the matter is subjudice, it is not even certain that this decision will take effect at all. However, it is hoped that a fruitful debate will follow among the supporter and opponents of death penalty and the public will be made aware of why death sentence does not meet the ends of justice in a country like Pakistan. This may lead the government to sign a moratorium on death penalty, which will halt the use of death penalty in Pakistan. The second step after that would be to minimise the number of offences that carry death penalty, which currently stand at 27.

The Frankenstein’s monster

 

Ishrat Saleem

 

One may find stark similarities between the story of Frankenstein by Mary Shelly and the current situation obtaining in NWFP. In the novel, Victor Frankenstein builds the creature through science and alchemy. The creature is so repulsive and ugly that Frankenstein flees from it in horror and disavows his experiment. Abandoned, frightened, and completely unaware of who or what he is, the monster wanders through the wilderness searching for someone who would understand and shelter him. All his attempt to find a friend are met with horror and disgust at his ‘accursed ugliness’. Heartbroken, he renounces all of humankind and swears revenge on his creator, Frankenstein, for bringing him into the world.A stream of news reports appearing in the press reveals that the situation in the NWFP is extremely alarming. Sixteen Christians were kidnapped by the Taliban from Banaras Town in Peshawar (later released on the intervention of a jirga). Ten girls’ school were set on fire and a soldier was killed and three injured in Swat. Eight drivers who were part of a food convoy were found dead in Kurram Agency last week. The Tehrik-i-Taliban are handing out leaflets warning transporters and drivers of grave consequences if they truck supplies to the Christian army in Afghanistan. Militants in Khar, Bajaur Agency killed two Afghan nationals in public on charges of spying – these are just a few of the recent incidents. Precisely, we are reaping the harvest of what we have sown over the years.

Finding it weak and vulnerable, the Taliban seem bent upon overthrowing the state. They have been carrying out their activities with ease and confidence in Swat, Khyber Agency, North and South Waziristan, Parachinar, Mohmand Agency, Bajaur Agency, Kurram Agency, Khyber Agency, Orakzai Agency, Darra Adam Khel, Tank district and even Peshawar. The other day a news report suggested that the fall of Peshawar into the hands of militants was a matter of time and once that happens the rest of districts will fall like ninepins.

When the military establishment headed by General Ziaul Haq decided to become part of the ‘great game’ to defeat the Soviets, who had invaded Afghanistan in 1979, it could never have imagined that one day it would have to face the demons it helped the US create back in 1980s. Having been compelled to withdraw from Vietnam in 1975 after facing defeat, the US had chosen to fight a proxy war in Afghanistan. The US as well as some countries in Middle East funded a network of militant jihadi organisations. A worldwide campaign was launched to induct recruits from the Muslim communities for jihad against Soviet infidels. These would-be jihadis were brought to Pakistan and trained to fight the invading army in Afghanistan. Finally, when the Soviet forces withdrew in 1989 and the Soviet Union collapsed shortly afterwards due to internal political and economic weaknesses, a huge victory was celebrated. Smug to emerge as a sole superpower, the US left the mujahideen in the lurch and spared little thought to rehabilitating war-ravaged Afghanistan. Infighting between various factions raged during most of the 1990s.

Numerous accounts confirm that the ISI, with chests swelled that its intelligence had brought a superpower down to its knees, believed that India was a fair game and could be bled to death in the same manner, hence the sudden upsurge of militancy in the Indian-held Kashmir. There were simultaneous insurgencies in countries of origin of the mujahideen, including Xinjiang province of China, Central Asia, Africa, Philippines and elsewhere. With militant networks intact, Islamabad decided to facilitate the installation of a friendly regime in Kabul acting on the doctrine of ‘strategic depth’. Thus the Taliban government was installed which was recognised only by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE. The Taliban were the children of the madrassas. Indoctrinated in extremist Islam, they had little exposure to human values of modern society and believed in the archaic interpretation of religious texts, which favoured returning to the social set-up of the 7th century which saw the advent of Islam. They believed in imposing their narrow interpretations of Islam through the force of the gun.

The tailor-made madrassah students were good for fighting jihad in Afghanistan, but nobody seems to have spared a thought that they were innocent people, who had the right to education and a chance to lead a normal life. Even after they went out of business, these elements were used by one party or the other to promote their cause. But promoting retrograde values to serve vested interest has its own costs. Feeding a monster also runs the risk of its turning against one’s own self, and this is what seems to have happened.

The Soviet withdrawal had a deep ideological impact on the jihadis, making them believe that they were responsible for this feat. Internationally, militants networks consolidated, the leading being al Qaeda, and carried out successful terrorist attacks around the world, the most notable being one in the US on September 11, 2001. Finding itself under attack, the US decided to take out al Qaeda hideouts in Afghanistan, which had the Taliban government’s protection. It was then that Pakistan had to take a difficult decision of severing close links with the Taliban and throw in its lot with the US. Pakistan was also compelled to launch an operation in the tribal area to take out militants using the area as a base to launch attack across the border.

There may have been many tactical as well as strategic mistakes in a U-turn in this policy, which has landed us into the current situation. Lt. Gen. (retd.) Orakzai, who oversaw the first deployment of troops, was in favour of negotiations to carry out the operation in collaboration with local supporters. However, this strategy was abandoned in favour of a full-fledged military operation, but soon the military found itself surrounded by the hostile populace and no sources of intelligence. It suffered heavy casualties and bombed indiscriminately whenever it did. Anti-American sentiments raged in the area and the local breed of Taliban systematically decimated the pro-maliks, who were crucial to the system of governance in the Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA). While on the one hand, the government was busy making enemies of its erstwhile friends, on the other hand, after the initial crackdown on militant outfits in the country, the government allowed them to resurface and operate with new names. It also embarked upon a campaign to defend the institution of madrassa in the West. Analysts and close watchers of the situation argued that the government followed a dual strategy – saving the Taliban (with whom it had close ties) and taking out al Qaeda (the foreign elements). The government failed to calculated that touching al Qaeda would automatically evoke reaction from their hosts, the Taliban. The Lal Masjid incident in Islamabad should have served as an eye-opener that the erstwhile protégé had become independent of the mentor’s tutelage and was out to take on its creator. The much-delayed and the ill-conceived military operation on Lal Masjid and its fallout in the form of suicide bombings throughout the country have revealed that the mosque administration was closely associated with Baitullah Mehsood in NWFP. They were armed with sophisticated weapons and were confident that the government would not dare touch them. It was due to this confidence that they openly kidnapped ordinary people as well as security personnel in the heart of the capital. The situation is made much more complex by the fact that the militants in NWFP have been accused of using the area as a base to launch cross-border attacks on the coalition forces in Afghanistan, which has irked the US and Afghan government to issue threats of hot pursuit.

Unfortunately, at the time of Soviet-Afghan war and subsequently during Kashmir insurgency, so much investment was made to prepare the people to support and volunteer for jihad within Pakistan that they are still unable to make a distinction between lawful and unlawful. There are deep fissures in government, the media as well as the people’s perception on the issue of militancy. The jihadis have support among religious and right-of-centre political parties, the media, the government institutions, including the army itself. This is evident in their outreach and ratio of success in suicide bombings, which saw a steep rise after the Lal Masjid operation. They have struck at the place and time of their choosing, including the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. They have taken the entire society hostage. But the Pakistani public in general has still not been able to make up its mind that militancy is unlawful and dangerous. It runs the risk of decimating moderate sections of society by the force of gun, just like the Taliban rule in Afghanistan. There is also the perception that Pakistan is fighting a foreign war. This inherent confusion about the role of militants and now a fear of their demonstrated ability of persecution seems to be weakening the resolve of law enforcement agencies to fight them.

In this situation, the elected government finds itself in a fix. This is exhibited in the lack of coordination between the central and the provincial governments and conflicting statements by various government functionaries. The government is still holding out an olive branch to the militants in the province, who know they are negotiating from a position of strength. One may find solace in the government’s announcement of a three-pronged strategy of using political influence of elected representatives for holding peace talks, military effort to deal with recalcitrant elements and socio-economic uplift of the militancy-prone areas to isolate extremist elements. However, it is difficult to say whether the inherent confusion and divisions among our state institutions, political parties, media and the public will allow any efforts to curb militancy to succeed.

 

To conclude, it is the responsibility of the state to provide security to the citizens against militant activities. But do the powers-that-be recognise the dangers they have posed to the society and even the state itself by letting the monster of militancy grow out of proportion? One might ask whose interests are the militants serving when they go out and burn girls’ schools and CDs and barbers’ shops? Is the government (read the establishment) sincere in its resolve to fight extremism and militancy it once promoted with zeal?

Long march: a symbol of hope or a fading struggle?

 

Ishrat Saleem

 

 

The issue of the restoration of judges waiting the elected government’s action does not concern restoring individual judges. It is no longer the issue of the independence of judiciary only. The question is whether or not the government installed after the election of February 18 considers the measures taken by the president on November 3, 2007 when he imposed emergency – as a result of which 60 judges of the high courts and the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice, refused to take oath under the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) – as illegitimate.

 

Even after the passage of about four months since coming to power, it is unclear that the government led by the PPP has the will and power to undo actions taken on November 3, compelling the lawyers to march up to the capital. The purpose of the long march that started on June 10th and came to an end peacefully in the wee hours of June 14, 2006 was to compel the coalition government to fulfill the promise it made in the Murree Declaration on March 9. Lawyers, students, political activists, civil society members and ordinary citizens participated in the march with great zeal to demand the restoration of the judges through a resolution of parliament. The participants of the long march exceeded by far the numbers that were present in a gathering called by Musharraf cronies on the same venue on May 12, 2007, where the president had claimed that the killing of 42 innocent citizens was a ‘reaction’ of the people on the arrival of the Chief Justice of Pakistan in Karachi. State machinery had been employed to herd people, mostly staff of government institutions and people who wanted a free meals and free ride to the capital. However, more than the numbers, the long marcher’s commitment and passion and the initiative of organising such a huge protest without any political organisation or state machinery at their back deserves the highest praise. People of all hues and backgrounds tried to capitalise on this occasion to make their point. Thus the issues of provincial autonomy, missing persons, power shortage, unemployment and inflation resonated during the march along with the restoration of judges.

 

As the long march coincided with the presentation of the national budget, it captured the media spotlight that is usually reserved for the discussion of the budget. The government quietly used this occasion to introduce an amendment in the Judges Act to increase the number of judges from 17 to 29 through the Finance Bill. When President Supreme Court Bar Association Chaudhry Aitizaz Ahsan announced the end of the long march without staging a sit-in before parliament, bigwigs of Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) heaved a sigh of relief. The long march had managed to send a very strong message to the ruling party. It remains to be seen whether the political forces have their fingers on the pulse of the people and act accordingly or prefer behind-the-scene dealings over the mandate of the people.

 

There is no dearth of cynics who dismiss the momentous struggle sustained by the lawyers as the handiwork of the vested interests. There are also those who think that the entire lawyers’ movement is a matter of ego of one person, i.e. the deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry. But the consistency and commitment with which the lawyers continued their struggle in extremely hostile conditions, being beaten by law enforcement personnel and even forgoing their incomes by boycotting the courts have earned them credibility and the respect of the people.

 

Talking to Vista in March last year, then president Supreme Court Bar Association Munir A. Malik had said that the leadership of lawyers wanted to raise awareness at three levels: first among the masses, second among the superior judiciary and third among the political forces. The lawyers’ leadership wanted to educate the masses on the concept of the rule of law, the supremacy of the constitution and their rights as stipulated in the constitution. The superior judiciary which colluded with unconstitutional governments and legitimised their rule throughout the history of Pakistan needed be made aware of its independent position and power to be able to stand for the people and uphold the sanctity of the constitution. The lawyers’ movement also sought to push the political forces to become the true representatives of the people, respect their rights and exercise the authority vested in them by the people rather than playing second fiddle to unconstitutional forces.

 

The lawyers’ struggle seems to have succeeded in the first two of its three goals to a great extent, as evident from the surfacing of an ‘activist’ class among students and young professionals throughout the country. The media too has played a crucial role during the struggle by disseminated the news, opinions and objectives of the lawyers’ movement to a wider audience. One may compare it with the consciousness of identity and self worth that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto inculcated among the masses when he launched the PPP during the anti-Ayub movement of 1968-69. Harking the revolutionary programme of the PPP, the people associated their hopes and aspirations with the party, despite the fact that the leadership of the PPP failed them more than once. At a time when people were completely disillusioned with political parties, the lawyers’ movement raised a voice against the illegitimate rule of one man and induced a hope among the masses. However, the political forces failed to take cue. It seems that the lawyers have a long way to go before they could convince the politicians to rise above their vested interests and steer the nation towards progress and prosperity.

 

By all measures the PPP-led government has failed to come up to the people’s expectations. It has now become abundantly that the PPP’s conduct is all but transparent. So far the government has not fulfilled any of its commitments it made to the nation since it was sworn to the office. The PPP has launched a constitutional package, which includes a formula for the restoration of judiciary, but in the absence of the requisite majority in Senate, it may well be an attempt to postpone the matter indefinitely. Moreover, the recent statements of the PPP co-chairman bespeak of an egotistic, feudalistic style of politics unsuited to the genius of the people of Pakistan. He dismissed the long march by stating that his party could put up a better show of strength. On the one hand, he say Musharraf is a ‘relic of the past’, on the other he refuses to impeach the president. More recently, addressing a public gathering of party activists at the Governor House in Lahore, he claiming that soon the presidency will be controlled by the PPP. This lack of consistency is strengthening the perception that the PPP is once again busy in negotiation a deal with the establishment. However, it is not without a cost; the PPP is fast losing its credibility.

 

Although Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz leadership expressed support for the long march, it lacks the requisite numbers in parliament to annul the decisions of November 3, 2007. Smaller parties such as Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf and Jamat-e-Islami, which have no stakes in parliament since they boycotted the elections, found it expedient to make their presence felt. Apart from the PPP, conspicuous by its absence from the long march was Awami National Party (ANP). Being a coalition partner and holding the reins of the provincial government in NWFP, which is in the grip of an insurgency-like situation, ANP’s stance on the restoration of judges is of crucial importance, and for the moment it seems to be riding along with the PPP.

 

The other day, Nawaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari met for what now appears to be umpteenth time to iron out their differences over judges’ restoration, but failed once again. After a second meeting in three days between the two leaders, Asif Ali Zardari was able to convince Nawaz Sharif to support the Finance Bill introduced by the PPP, seeking amendment in the Judges Act to increase the number of Supreme Court judges from 17 to 29. The inclusion of the amendment in the Finance Bill circumvents the normal legislative procedure to amend a law that requires passage by simple majority in both houses of Parliament. The Finance Bill contains budgetary provisions and is voted only in the National Assembly. The controversial amendment is being hotly contested as the lawyers’ leadership has rejected it on the ground that it is meant to accommodate the judges who took oath under the PCO. Nawaz Sharif too now seems to regret his decision as he has been disqualified from contesting elections by the full bench of Lahore High Court.

 

The failure to settle the basic question associated with the restoration of judges – what kind of political system Pakistan is going to have post-Musharraf – is distracting attention from other aspects of governance. At this point, it is essential to decide whether we want to continue with the old system of the elected government sharing power with the ‘establishment’ or shift the balance of power towards the people.

Continuing disagreements among political parties on the issue of restoration will benefit the unconstitutional forces, which want to maintain their hold over power. In the current scenario, if the political actors think they can carry on by pandering to the invisible actors rather than working to alter the configuration of power in favour of the people, they are heading for a disaster. It was hoped that time in exile/incarceration had induced some maturity among them to unite against the extra-constitutional forces, whose prime strategy has been to keep the political forces, disorganised, weak and subordinate. At least initially, this was the message that came when the PPP and PML (N) decide forget past rivalries and join hands to form the government. But if political parties give an impression that they are trying to fool the masses and in reality pursuing the vested interests once again, they will lose face in public.

Had these events happened a decade earlier, it would have been perfectly easy for the government to hoodwink the public outcry, but not this time. It is going to be difficult for both the elected government and the invisible, but ubiquitous ‘establishment’ to ignore the biggest stakeholder in the power configuration – the people. The successful holding of the long march on Islamabad should leave no space for doubt that people are alive to their stakes in the political system that governs the country, they are organised and ready to fight for their cause. Whether or not the lawyers sustain the struggle for the restoration of judiciary, the very fact that there are sizable numbers among the populace who are keenly watching and discussing the government’s conduct leaves little space for manoeuvring.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ex-servicemen’s activism

Ishrat Saleem

President General (retd.) Pervez Musharraf’s graph of popularity has been on a constant decline since he moved the presidential reference against the Chief Justice; it received a fatal blow when he imposed a state of emergency on November 3, 2007, clamped restrictions on the media and deposed more than 60 judges of high courts and the Supreme Court to save himself from being disqualified as the president by the court. General (retd.) Musharraf’s influence considerably declined when the party which he had built as his political face was routed in the elections. Although the president still persists that he will react if parliament tries to slash his powers or impeach him, several recent developments attest to the fact that politically President General (retd.) Pervez Musharraf is on a ventilator.

The most interesting among these is an expression of favour for democratic values by the ex-servicemen, who have been part of many a contentious decision during the current and previous military regimes. In January this year, prominent generals came under the banner of Pakistan Ex-Servicemen’s Society (ESS) and asked the newly retired President General Musharraf to resign in the “supreme national interest”. This initiative was spearhead by Lt. General Faiz Ali Chisti of Ziaul Haq regime fame. Their demands have crescendoed of late and offer some food for thought. On June 2, Lt. Gen. (retd.) Jamshed Gulzar Kiyani gave an interview to a television channel and made some stunning revelations along with demand for probe into the Kargil Operation, plane conspiracy case, missing persons, Lal Masjid Operation and imposition of emergency on November 3. On June 7, the ESS demanded a judicial trial of President General (retd.) Musharraf for the Kargil debacle in a press conference. The ex-servicemen have also expressed support for the lawyers’ movement and made it is a point to mark their presence in the long march. In fact, they announced they would set up a permanent camp outside parliament – even if the lawyers had decided to end the long march – and demand the ouster of President Musharraf.

It would be interesting to analyse the credentials of these luminaries who suddenly found is expedient to put on the mantle of ‘civil society’ and look for the reasons that prompted them to make this move now. Lt. Gen. Jamshed Gulzar Kiyani was serving in the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) at the time of the Kargil Operation. Immediately after the successful military coup against the elected government on October 12, 1999, he was made commander of the 10th Corp. After his retirement in 2004, he was made head of the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC). In November 2007, through the provisional constitutional order, the president made an amendment in the constitution to reduce the tenure of the head of FPSC from five years to three year, effectively sending Lt. Gen. (retd.) Kiyani home. By this time, Musharraf had already weeded out most of his fellow coup-makers from the system he was heading.

Many of the things Lt. Gen. (retd.) Kiyani said in his interview call for a closer examination. He said that his real differences with Musharraf started after 9/11. One might argue that the differences between Lt. Gen. (retd.) Kiyani and the president started when, as head of the government, Musharraf took decisions which hurt the long-term interests of the military, e.g. a U-turn on Afghan policy that was based on the doctrine of strategic depth and a reduction in militancy in Kashmir. On the other hand, it also means that Lt. Gen. (retd.) Kiyani tacitly supports the illegitimate act of overthrowing an elected government in a coup in 1999. During the interview he went so far as to suggest that the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif should have waited for Chief of Army Staff to return from Sri Lanka to remove him from office. While religious parties and a dominant part of the vernacular press have hailed Lt. Gen. (retd.) Kiyani’s statement that instead of surrendering to the American threats after September 11, 2001, Pervez Musharraf had the option of holding a referendum to ascertain the will of the people, it is questionable if such a thing was possible at that time. It easier said than done that after 9/11, Musharraf should have stood against Washington, given the intensity of international pressure and the kaleidoscopic speed with which the events were taking place. The UN Security Council had passed resolutions on September 12 and September 28 calling for a stance against terrorism and anti-terrorism respectively. India had already offered support to the coalition for war against terror. The tremendous pressure under which the Musharraf regime decided to go along can also be gauged from the excerpts of exchanges between General Musharraf and Secretary of State Collin Powel as well as those between US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Lt. Gen. Mehmood Ahmad. Therefore, Lt. Gen. (retd.) Kiyani’s assertions in this regard should be interpreted as nothing more than appealing to popular sentiments against the US and the war on terror.

It is unfortunate that ex-servicemen’s explanation of religious extremism as presented by Lt. Gen. (retd.) Jamshed Gulzar Kiyani derives its inspiration from the logic put forth by the Musharraf coterie in delaying the Lal Masjid operation and failing to tackle extremist outfits throughout the country. In the interview, Lt. Gen. (retd.) Kiyani said that the suicide attacks escalated after operation on Lal Masjid in July 2007, in which many innocent students were killed. In calling for a probe into the operation, he conveniently ignored the activities of the students of the twin seminaries from January to July and the very fact that they started openly challenging the writ of the state in the heart of the capital when the Lal Masjid administration was issued notices for vacating the madrassah built on encroached land. Musharraf supporters as well as his opponents fail to mention – for their own expedient reasons – how the Lal Masjid administration used innocent children as hostages during the operation. Lt. Gen. (retd.) Kiyani’s call for a probe could again be interpreted as a populist stance meant to resonate with the public rather than a principled and honest opinion on the issue.

Analysts believe that the damage to the image of army as an institution during Musharraf’s nine-year rule is being viewed with grave concern by the serving and retired military officials. To keep an upper hand in the political process in the country, it is necessary to restore a positive image of the army in the eyes of the public. With Musharraf’s rule going through its last leg, when he does not enjoy support in any section of society, his stay in power can cause further damage to the army’s reputation. Therefore, sacrificing Musharraf for saving the institutional interests of the military would not be a bad deal. It is not then a coincidence that going by popular sentiment, the ex-servicemen have joined the chorus of ending army’s intervention in politics. Since assuming charge as the Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani has paid special attention to restoring the image of the military. The calling of serving officers from civilian institutions was a step in this direction. The statement of Lt. Gen. (retd.) Jamshed Gulzar Kiyani that Musharraf should be made an example to prevent the emergence of future dictators should be taken with a pinch of salt. Interviews such as these appear to be a PR exercise rather than a change of heart of these gentlemen.

Since the struggle for the restoration of judiciary took off last year, many questions have been asked regarding the role of military in politics. It is for the first time in the history of Pakistan that the military’s misdoings have been so consistently and openly condemned in the public with the call to end military’s intervention in national affairs. The ex-servicemen’s organisation could well be a reaction to the lawyers’ movement. The latest recruit to the society is the former governor of Sindh and the former Minister of Interior, Lt. Gen. (retd.) Moinuddin Haider. Commenting on ex-servicemen’s activism in her article (‘The wannabe heroes’ Dawn, June 13, 2008), Dr. Ayesha Siddiqua, author of Military Inc. Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy, argued that this is the natural consequence of entrenchment of military in politics. According to her, the serving and retired officers and a few civilians, whose interests are associated with it, are all part of the ‘military establishment’. In the absence of institutional mechanisms for internal dialogue, opinions of different lobbies within the military establishment are given voice through the media and ex-servicemen. These do not represent the independent views of these individuals but reflect a deepening of friction within the military establishment. The retired officers serve as the informal conduit for reaching out to the public or conveying views of one section of the establishment to the other through the media. She cautions the discerning onlooker to analyse the real intent of these people, which is not upholding of democracy. They struck when Musharraf is most vulnerable and sat silent when the incidents on which they are showing their reservations now were taking place.

Here, a brief look at the credential of members ESS and would be in order. Lt. Gen. (retd.) Faiz Ali Chisti, the author of Betrayal of Another Kind, was the Corp Commander based in Rawalpindi at the time of the coup in July 1977. In his book he claims that “he was in charge of planning the take over in the capital and it went off like clockwork.” Another prominent name is General (retd.) Mirza Aslam Beg, who has publicly admitted to his role in manipulating the election of 1990 (although he is now rumoured to have left the ESS on the plea that it is headed by a lower ranking ex-servicemen!). Then there is Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul, former head the ISI, whose ties with the Taliban are well known and who has also admitted to political manoeuvring. General Lt. Gen. (retd.) Asad Durrani is also the former head of the ISI. These gentlemen have an entrenched view of Pakistan as a security state as opposed to a welfare state. Their views on terrorism, national security, regional peace, human development, economic globalisation, provincial autonomy, etc. conflict with those of liberal democratic forces. Their model of an ideal state favours constant external frictions and an authoritative state structure. In the face of the fact that Musharraf is counting his days in the president’s office, the signs of the presence of a powerful military establishment that is not ready to let go of the power it has exercised in national affairs for long does not bode well. Pakistan ill-affords to continue with this configuration of power, as people are becoming more organised and aware and would not put up with a weak elected government for long, which is unable to take decisions on issues of critical importance.

Cluster munitions: a harrowing aspect of modern warfare

Ishrat Saleem

Where advances in technology have unimaginably eased the life of people by providing modern gadgets and means of communications, they have also produced fearful weapons for militaries. Cluster munition is one such kind of weapons, which helps the military to achieve its objectives with precision, but pose a grave danger to the population of the area. Cluster munition has earned this name because each such bomb, artillery shell, or rocket eject a cluster of small bomblets, which are spread over a wide area. However, wherever they have been used, civilian populations have paid a heavy price over many years after the conflict ended. The main threat of cluster bombs does not come from bomblets that exploded. It comes from those that did not explode and, like landmines, pose a long-term danger to unsuspecting civilians, who may hit them unwittingly and cause an explosion. It is extremely expensive to locate and remove unexploded munition left by cluster bombs.

 

The increasing number of victims and the scale of use of cluster munitions prompted Norway to take initiative to gather support again the use of cluster munitions and start what is now called ‘Oslo process’ a year earlier. This process matured after meetings in Lima, Peru, and Vienna, Austria last year and yielded a draft declaration at a meeting in Wellington, New Zealand in February this year. The draft was again taken up again in Dublin and after 12 days of intense negotiations, members agreed on the final draft. On May 30, 2008, the United Nations approved the draft of a convention to ban on cluster munitions. Delegates of some 111 countries were present in Dublin, Ireland, to approve the draft of Convention on Cluster Munitions (called Wellington Declaration). The convention bans the use of cluster munitions, requires the destruction of stockpiles within eight years and provides for helping victims and clearing contaminated areas within 10 years. This convention will be opened for signature in December. However, like all UN conventions will come into force after a specific number of signatories ratify it. In this case, the number is 30.

 

Although major cluster bomb stockpilers and producers – United States, China, Russia, Israel, India and Pakistan – did not participate in negotiations, those campaigning for ban on the clumber bombs described the adoption as hugely significant. They hope to stigmatise cluster bombs as much as landmines and shame the non-signatories into not using them. This treaty has been hailed as a real contribution to humanitarian law. Among the supporters are important nations such as Britain, France, Australia, Norway, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, South Africa and Ireland. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has confirmed that Britain would discontinue its use of two cluster munitions: an Israeli-designed artillery shell and a US-made rocket system for use on Apache attack helicopters.

 

Cluster munitions have been used by as many as 14 nations since the creation of the United Nations. These include former Yugoslavia, Russian, Eritrea, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia and United States. The nations that have used cluster bombs but now support Convention on Cluster Munitions are France, Netherlands, Sudan, United Kingdom, Monaco, Nigeria, and Tajikistan. About 28 countries, including Pakistan have produced cluster munitions, while about 75 countries have stockpiles of these weapons on their soil.

 

The United States has refused to be a party to this treaty on the plea that elimination of its stockpiles would endanger the lives of its soldiers and coalition partners. It may be remembered that the US extensively used cluster munitions during attack on Afghanistan and Iraq, leaving hundreds killed or maimed, while unexploded bombs still pose danger to whoever steps upon them. Likewise, Israel rained Lebanon with cluster bombs during the war in 2006. You would wonder why vast tracks in Southern Lebanon had not been sown, as is the centuries-old practice. The reason is that they have been sowed by enough unexploded bomblets that it is extremely dangerous to even walk through the area.

The statistics about unexploded submunitions lying dormant in the fields and roadsides of Southern Lebanon are frightening. About 40 percent of the bomblets dropped on Lebanon did not explode. In early 2007, the United Nations put the number of unexploded bomblets present in Southern Lebanon at about a million – more than the number of people. They lie in tobacco fields, olive groves, on rooftops, in farms, mixed in with rubble. Several people have lost their lives or got injured by these munitions.

 

It is encouraging that the 111 nations across the globe realise the danger that these weapons poses to the population. The treaty, however, leave the door open for the future production and use of this kind of munition (if the number and weight of submunitions meets the criteria laid out in the treaty and it contains auto-self-destruct mechanism). The Convention allows military cooperation of member countries with non-signatory nations and is silent on the presence of a foreign nation’s stockpile of cluster munitions on a member country’s soil. Despite these drawbacks, the Convention is a significant achievement. Cluster munitions ban campaigners should keep on working to gather more support and also address the loopholes in the treaty to make the world a safer place.

 

Countries that ratify the convention are obliged “never under any circumstances to”:

(a) Use cluster munitions;
(b) Develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer to anyone, directly or indirectly, cluster munitions;
(c) Assist, encourage or induce anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention

 

 

 

Pakistan: five years after Iraq invasion

Ishrat Saleem

The US invasion on Iraq in 2003 was disastrous in several ways. Apart from dealing a forceful blow to the international system of conduct among nations devised after strenuous efforts of over nearly six decades, it destabilised the entire region, with serious consequences for Pakistan. The US and its major ally UK completely bypassed the UN in attacking Iraq, spreading insecurity among the countries whom the US had labelled as its enemies in the past. The popular reason for attacking Iraq was that the Saddam regime possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). The US went on to attack Iraq despite testimony by United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission head Hans Blix that he had found “no smoking gun” during his inspections to suggest that Iraq possessed the WMDs. Instead of serving as a warning, it has strengthened the perception among smaller countries that in a unipolar world, without possessing the deterrent of nuclear technology, their survival is threatened. The American bully with war technology can go to any length to achieve its ’strategic’ objectives.The occupation of Iraq and the break down of state structure has incredibly strengthened the considerably weakened al Qaeda and provided the most conducive environment for the growth of extremist groups within Iraq which have made their presence felt by holding the populace hostage to their archaic interpretation of Islam and deadly suicide attacks. Impartial observers view US invasion of Iraq as a move to preserve strategic oil reserves in the region and remove a grievous threat to Israel in the form of Saddam Hussain. The failure to discover any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has exposed that this war had less to do with terror, which was merely used as a ploy, and more to do with the vested interests of the US.The elements that were drawn into Iraq conflict from Afghanistan successfully experimented with improvised explosive device (IED) and suicide bombings in a power vacuum created by the fall of Saddam Hussein. The law and order breakdown presented them with a wonderful opportunity to strengthen their toehold. Iraq served as a laboratory for them to experiment with novel methods of guerilla warfare, which were essential for defeating a superior enemy in a hostile environment. The suicide bombings were refined through practice, increasingly inflicting heavy casualties on civilian population, causing embarrassment to the occupying forces and its handpicked Iraq government. This success gave al Qaeda elements the confidence to employ these techniques at other places where they were embattled. It took little time for the phenomenon of suicide bombing to be exported to Afghanistan. Since 2003, we have seen a steady rise in suicide attacks in Afghanistan.It is no coincidence that in later months and years, Pakistan, with military operation in the tribal areas at its peak, was hit in its soft underbelly by suicide bombers. Important public figures as well as strategic facilities were aimed at with precision. President Musharraf himself was a target of a suicide attack which he survived, as he did two other assassination attempts. In March 2006, a suicide bombing behind the US consulate killed an American diplomat along with three others. In April, an Eid Miladun Nabi congregation at Nishtar Park was attacked, killing more than 60, including the entire leadership of the Sunni Tehrik (of the Beralvi school of thought). In July the same year, Allama Hassan Turabi, head of Islami Tehrik and provincial chief of Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, was killed along with his nephew outside his residence in Karachi. In later months, several attacks took place throughout Pakistan, including the capital. The sporadic but consistent suicide attacks that started in 2006 saw a sharp increase after military operation against Lal Masjid in July last year. Military installations, police personnel, and political rallies — whoever was seen as an opponent — were singled out and attacked with precision to give a strong message of resistance to the war against terror. Benazir Bhutto, who had taken and unequivocal stance against terrorism, became a victim of one such bombing in Rawalpindi. The head on collision of the the protege — the jihadists with their mentors — the military establishment —  seems to suggest that terrorists think they are strong enough to take over their own country.

Extremist violence thrives on a conducive environment in Pakistan. The terrorists’ outreach, number of casualties and success in targeting high profile figures are indicators of inadequacy of the Pakistan government in fighting this phenomenon, both in terms of will and human and technical capacity. Here, there are strong pockets of support for the jihadis in the establishment coupled with a confused public opinion. The government’s writ is thin in various parts of the country while the densely populated urban areas provide these elements the necessary cover to hit and run. The failure of Pakistan to pre-empt suicide bombings by busting terror networks from inside the way other countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Spain, Australia and Britain have done, speaks of its double-mindedness in uprooting the networks that it so carefully cultivated during the Afghan war and afterwards.

At the time of Iraq invasion, Pakistan was faced with the critical question of sending its troops to Iraq. Popular opinion against such decision compelled the leadership to refrain from any such move. With hindsight, it has proved to be a sagacious decision, because it would have given another cause celebre to the extremist forces within Pakistan bent on overthrowing the state.

If the US is contemplating attacking Iran even as a remote possibility, it should rethink. Any such measure will give a new lease of life to the al Qaeda and open another Pandora’s box of terrorism which the US it is trying to cap in Afghanistan and Iraq. Essentially, the law and order breakdown in Iraq provided the green pastures to the badly mauled al Qaeda after Afghanistan. If Iran too is attacked, it would stretch the conflict zone from Iraq right up to Pakistan, paving the path for a great war in which the US’s own long-term interests would be threatened.

Lawyers’ movement – one year on

Ishrat Saleem 

March 9, 2007 was the day when President Musharraf called the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, to his camp office in Rawalpindi and asked him to resign from his post. To the surprise of many, departing from the tradition of judiciary’s compliance, Justice Iftikhar refused. A bevy of high officials including the prime minister and the heads of intelligence agencies, set on the task of first coaxing and then threatening the Chief Justice with moving a reference against him in the Supreme Judicial Council. The CJ said that he would face the reference. Justice Iftikhar was prevented from going to his office and held incommunicado at his residence till the first hearing of his case on March 13, 2007. He was manhandled and humiliated when he tried to walk his way to the Supreme Court on his first hearing, the footage of which was taped and repeatedly run by several electronic media outlets. The judges and the lawyers were indignant. The military’s image crumbled in the minds of the people who saw it as an instance of ‘might is right’.

Our political parties may be confronting leadership crisis, which has been made more acute with the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, but the lawyers were fortunate to have people like Munir A. Malik, Ali Ahmad Kurd, Hamid Khan and Aitizaz Ahsan among them. The immediate response of the lawyers’ community to their call and the admiration and enthusiasm of the general people throughout Pakistan made them aware of the historic opportunity that had presented itself, to settle the issue of supremacy of the constitution and the independence of the judiciary once and for all. The indefatigable resolve of these icons inspired millions and induced the hope that organised and sustained action holds the key to the people deciding their destiny. The first victory of the lawyers movement was the restoration of the Chief Justice, when a nine member bench unanimously dismissed the presidential reference.

The imposition of the emergency and deposing of about 60 superior judges was a major setback, but it did not dampen their resolve and reinvigorated the lawyers to take to streets. However, this time they were not alone. Students from across Pakistan spontaneously poured out on campuses and expressed their agitation. Pakistani students in foreign universities also networked and organised protests around the world against the illegitimate military regime. For the first time, the judiciary realised its strength and responsibility towards the people of this country. The judges who refused to take an oath under the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) earned the honour and respect of the people. Nonetheless, the lawyers deserve the most credit. They united across the class divide and refused to appear before the PCO-judges, forgoing their livelihood. They were one against the establishment and called on the people and the political parties to rise against the illegitimate rulers.

Munir A Malik, the former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, who provided the essential leadership to the lawyers’ community in organising against the regime, shared his insights of the year long struggle. Last year, at the height of public campaigning for restoring the Chief Justice, Munir A Malik had stated that the objectives of the lawyers’ movement are raising awareness among the general public, the political parties and the superior judiciary itself on the issue of civilian supremacy and the supremacy of the constitution. When asked how far these objectives have been achieved, he said, “We have made considerable gains in the first area. The awareness that has been created among the public is irreversible. We have also succeeded in sensitising the honest and true judges to the plight of the people. There have been setbacks on November 3, but this was a defeat in a minor battle in a long drawn out war. We are confident that in whatever way the judiciary is restored, it will emerge as an independent organ of the state. As far as the political parties are concerned, we have to go a long way in that area.”

The elections held on February 18 have changed the political dynamics of this movement. Now, the lawyers will be dealing with the erstwhile opposition parties, who have earned majority in the assemblies and have decided to form a coalition government, to get their demand for the restoration of the judiciary fulfilled. The single largest political party, PPP, appears evasive on the question of the restoration of judiciary. The other prospective coalition partner, PML (N), has taken the other extreme position, that the judiciary should be restored and it should decide the fate of the president. With political parties failing to agree on this issue, the future of the lawyers’ movement seems to hang in balance. It remains to be seen whether the lawyers’ adopt the path of confrontation with the newly-elected government, which will also serve the purpose of those who would like to see this government weakened, or adopt another strategy to press for their demands.

Talking about the future of the lawyers’ movement Munir A Malik said, “The coming few months will be critical. Our movement was anti-establishment and for civilian supremacy. There has been a slight change, which is manifest in the recalling of serving officers working in civilian departments on deputation. However, we must not forget that we are fighting an entrenched system that is 60 years old. There are also foreign pressures, we cannot ignore the advice of our ‘friends’ abroad. The lawyers also do not want the system to collapse because that will be against the very objective that we have been advocating. We need to bring a change in the real power structure to empower the people.”

Pakistan: women in parliament

Ishrat Saleem

 The 2002 parliament was a revolutionary in terms of the presence of women in the legislature. There were a total of 73 women in the National Assembly, out of which 60 came on women’s reserved seats, 12 were directly elected on general seats, while one woman was returned on minorities’ seats. Nearly 17 percent seats were reserved for women in Senate as well as provincial assemblies. This time the situation is even more encouraging. Fifteen women have won election on general seats this time. The Election Commission will shortly announce decision on the 60 reserved seats on the basis of the seats won by each party in the National Assembly. Political parties have already submitted the list of their nominations on women’s seats in order of priority. Several women who won elections on general seat were contacted to get their views on the changing pattern of women’s participation in elections and its prospects.

Although there is a section of opinion which argues that women who are not elected directly from constituencies by the people have only a cosmetic presence and are incapable of playing any significant role in the legislative process or for the rights of women. There is truth in this assertion, as is testified by a member of the National Assembly who was elected on a reserved seat in 2002, but the counter-argument is that in a highly conservative society where social dictates tend to confine women’s role in the house only, it is through measures like this that they will be encouraged to participate in political decision-making. This is precisely what Tehmina Daultan argued.

She said that the presence of a large number of women in the National Assembly on reserved seats is a very positive development. “I personally feel it has encouraged many women to contest elections on general seats.” Tehmina Daultana, one of the six vice-presidents of PML (N), was first elected to the National Assembly in 1993 from NA 169, Vehari-III, and became one of the four women, including Benazir and Nusrat Bhutto, in the National Assembly. She won this seat again in 1997 elections, which returned six women to the National Assembly. Tehmina feels that it is important that women get representation because laws are made for all citizens, of which 50 percent are women. But she felt that if a woman wants to join politics, she had to work doubly hard. She has to run her house as well as negotiate her way in a male-dominated power structure and prove her worth. She too believed women’s participation in politics was curtailed by their economic dependence. Politics is a full time job and also requires an election hopeful to be economically sound.

Samina Khalid Ghurki, who has been elected on NA 130, was of the view that contesting on a general seat is really tough. “In addition to the support of the party, women need support from the entire family, which has to work as a team. Then there is the issue of expenditure. Contesting an election in this country costs a lot of money. Reserving seats for women helps to overcome these hurdles and bring those women to the legislature, who have been affiliated with the party but do not have the wherewithal to contest elections.” Samina defeated another woman candidate Sadia Shabir who was contesting on the ticket of PML (N).

Samina Khalid Ghurki is correct to note that without family support women cannot run their election campaign. In reality, several women got a chance to enter politics when their male relatives were barred from running for election due to graduation condition. Samina herself was propelled into politics due to this very reason, because her husband did not meet this condition. Likewise, Hina Rabbani Khar was fielded as a candidate when her father Noor Rabbani Khar, an influential of the area and previous MNA, could not stand due to graduation condition. Saima Akhtar Bharwana is another example, who was fielded on a general seat when her father, Akhtar Bharwana, could not fulfill the graduation condition. In most areas, women’s campaign was run by their party and male family members. Even the election posters did not carry the pictures of the candidate herself but that of the father or husband.

Fauzia Wahab, Central Coordinator of PPP’s Human Rights Cell, emphasised that most women elected on direct elections are not career politicians and are young and inexperienced. Fauzia is a candidate of PPP on women’s reserved seats and was also elected an MNA in 2002. In fact, one news report in a national daily carried a headline, “Public-shy women win Toba bout”.

The report said Begum Farkhanda Amjad Warraich of PML-Q, running for NA-92, Gojra, and Begum Nazia Raheel of PML-N from PP-88, Kamalia, never joined the election campaign. However, we must not ignore the large number of women who may not have won, but stood for elections. This time, 64 women contested for the National Assembly, 33 as independent candidates, while a total of 116 women stood for the four provincial assemblies, with an overwhelming majority (81) as independent candidates. This is certainly an indicator, as Tehmina Daultana suggested, that many women have been encouraged to enter this profession as career politicians.

Fauzia Wahab pointed out several other positive aspects of women’s large presence in decision-making bodies. She said that this has helped bring women into mainstream politics. “They got important positions within the party. For instance, three women are serving as information secretaries in the PPP, one federal and two provincial.” In Fauzia’s view, the large public presence of women had helped in bringing down instances of women-specific crimes and improved their profile as capable of serious jobs. For the first time, a woman was appointed as Governor of State Bank of Pakistan on merit. “This was the imperceptible impact of women’s presence in the legislature and not due to any action taken in this regard.” Fauzia feels the most important task before the new government regarding the rights of women is their economic empowerment. “We want to enhance the quota of women in both public and private sector upto 20 percent. After the establishment of First Women Bank in 1988, many women have become successful entrepreneurs. More women need to be encouraged to become economically independent.”

Most women legislators elected on general seats feel they represent both men and women. Tehmina Daultana said her focus is not gender-specific. She would fight for the rights of the disempowered, both men and women. However, being a woman she is more accessible to women, who come to her office without hesitation and share all kinds of problem. “If there is some issue concerning a woman, I feel it more acutely and have always taken a firm stand,” she said. “But men don’t feel uncomfortable either in interacting with me because as an elected representative, one tends to lose one’s gender and is looked upon as a person.”

When Samina Ghurki was asked if women in parliament should work across party lines to work for the cause of women, she said that earlier her party was in opposition and its efforts to introduce women-specific legislation did not meet success. However, the PPP supported the passage of Women’s Protection Act 2007, which was introduced by the ruling party. “The new government will be a broad-based coalition and women will have the opportunity to work across party lines on the many issues concerning them. In some areas, women have not been allowed to vote, at others they are the victims of various customs. Our party will support legislation for improving the status of women.”

On the issue of reserved seats for women, Dr. Firdaus Ashiq Awan gave an interesting perspective, which testified to the problems indirectly elected women face. Dr. Firdaus was elected on a reserved seat in 2002 on the nomination of PML (Q). She said that the party did not give them a political identity. Indirectly elected women are expected to be grateful to party officials who nominated them. Bureaucrats’ attitude is also very discouraging. She said, “My proposals for the development of my area could not materialise because the party leadership listened to the directly-elected MNA and MPAs of my areas.” She said that she faced the tough decision of choosing between the label of an MNA and real power through the people’s vote. “This prompted me to join the PPP to be able to fulfill my agenda. I faced great difficulties, but in the end I was successful due to the people’s support.” Dr. Firdaus won election from NA 111 Bajwat-Sialkot, beating the outgoing speaker National Assembly, Chaudhry Amir Hussain.

Her top priorities are protection of working women from harassment at workplace; ensuring that women get their due share in property with dignity; career counselling and employment generation for youth and safe delivery and ante- and post-natal care for every woman. Asked if women legislator can work to develop a women’s caucus in the assembly, she said: “This is a good idea. But at the moment women legislator are not confident of their political standing and identity and cannot act independently. They are beholden to the male members of their respective parties. Hopefully, they will gain confidence with time and we see this idea materialising.” Fauzia Wahab agrees to this view that the idea of a women’s caucus is premature at the moment.

Nation turns the corner

Ishrat Saleem 

February 18 brought happy news to the nation. The reportedly immaculate rigging plan to give majority or at least plurality of seats to Pakistan Muslim League (Q) at the centre and a reasonable number of seats in the provinces could not be implemented for a number of reasons and the will of the people prevailed. Statements of political parties as well as several news reports suggest that the outgoing ruling party did its utmost to swing the election result in its favour. The list of complaints lodged with the Election Commission before elections numbers 2,166. With negligible interference in the polling process by interest groups on the election day at the national level, the pre-poll engineering could not bear fruit. Although Free and Fair Election Network, a coalition of 30 civil society organisations that monitored the election process, has stressed on the long-term electoral system reform, given the circumstances in which elections were held and our dismal electoral history, 2008 general election could be termed as credible and relatively fair. The results have taken the president and his allies by surprise, who were fully confident of winning. In the humiliating rout, majority of cabinet members and the president of the erstwhile ruling party were defeated in their respective constituencies. These are clear signs of the nation transforming the polity by sheer force of its will. Starting from March 9, incrementally, gradually, the regime has been brought to a juncture where it could no longer resist the ethical onslaught of the public as well as the political opposition. This is in line with the strategy proposed by the late Chairperson Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Benazir Bhutto, who is dearly remembered today. She believed in a peaceful democratic transition and did not opt for the path of confrontation with the incumbent regime. Her son Bilawal Bhutto, now PPP chairperson, vehemently reiterated her stance in his first press conference: “Democracy is the best revenge.” However, the role of the confrontationists (lawyers’ movement, All Parties Democratic Movement) cannot be underestimated in bringing about this transition, which has received the stamp of legitimacy by the people of this nation. This is the first time that the elections saw an issue-based vote. Throughout the struggle for democracy, the role of the public has been very significant. They have voted for the pro-federation, liberal forces in all the provinces and have eased concerns about the integrity of the state. The PPP and the PML (N), both moderate political parties, have received 88 and 66 seats respectively at the centre. Awami National Party (ANP) reclaimed the ground it lost to the Mutahidda Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) in 2002 and won plurality of votes in NWFP and 10 seats at the Centre. ANP by no means is a secessionist or isolationist party and favours the federation.  In Balochistan, due to boycott of the nationalist parties, PML (Q) and PPP have bagged the highest number of seats respectively. The religio-political MMA suffered a complete reversal of fate by winning only five seats from 65 seats in 2002 parliament. It would be wrong to attribute the vote of the people to the sympathy wave created after the death of Benazir Bhutto, as the apologists of the regime are trying to suggest. This is not the first time that the PPP has won majority in Sindh or, for that matter, in other provinces. Likewise, the result in Punjab clearly shows that it was pro-constitution vote in defiance to the ultra-constitutional forces, which went to PML (N) due to its clear stance on the issue of the restoration of judiciary, trounced on November 3 last year. People have rejected the electoral paradigm instituted by General Ziaul Haq in 1985 by giving development funds to members of legislatures. In an interview to a TV channel when Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain was asked why did he give so little time to election campaign in his constituency, he had replied that his party had done tremendous development work and the people will vote on the strength of that performance. However, they have demonstrated that they can distinguish between the politics of local bodies and national politics. These elections have resolved the pervasive crisis of legitimacy of governance that has marred democratic as well military dispensations since 1977. The regimes from 1985-2008 have lack genuine legitimacy and true conformity with the constitution. Speaking in purist terms, the government formed after 1985 was not a legitimate dispensation because the elections were held on non-party basis and the prime minister was later handpicked by the Zia regime. From 1988 to 1999, the patently democratic governments could, at best, be called quasi-democratic power sharing arrangement between the military and the elected representatives. Several key figures of that time have admitted to having been involved in intrigues and engineering of elections against a certain political party, in which the will of the people had little significance. The entire decade of 1990s is marked with infighting of the two major political parties who would go to any extent to down their rival to the benefit of the ubiquitous ‘establishment’, which fell the elected governments at its will, and the detriment of the political actors, which received the flak for decisions of behind-the-scenes actors. Neither the political leadership nor the system was at the level of maturity and patience where they could rise above their parochial interests and challenge the establishment. For the first time in 30 year are we going to have a government, which has the true mandate of the people. Arguably, relatively free and fair elections were in the institutional interest of the military, which had, of late, received quite some drubbing at the hands of the burgeoning civil society. The future scenario holds hope for the country. Burying all speculations of the parent party taking the PML (Q) in its fold to form the government, Nawaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari made the announcement that they will join hands at the centre and the provinces to form government. Earlier, leaders of the PPP and ANP met and agreed upon making coalition at the centre and the NWFP. The joining together of the PPP and PML (N) has excluded the possibility of once again crafting an artificial alliance of disparate elements, which will start teetering at the slightest blow. The agreement of the two sides on issues of the restoration of judiciary, Charter of Democracy, provincial autonomy, revival of the 1973 constitution and extremism is a good omen. Individual statements by leaders of potential coalition partners are also sending out good signal. The other day Asif Ali Zardari expressed his wish for improved relations with India. The new government will assume the reins of power at a time when the economy of the country is in doldrums due to the ill-advised policies of the outgoing government. Rising inflation and energy crisis have falsified tall claims of economic growth. Although the services sector, particularly IT and telecommunications, have expanded, there has hardly been any investment in infrastructure, except in Punjab. The development of Gwadar does not promise to offer the promised benefits due to the explosive nature of the nationalist politics and the refusal to pay heed to the aspirations of the masses in the area. The autonomy of smaller provinces in the federation is another big issue on the plate of the new government. As a sign of hope, Asif Ali Zardari has said that his party is ready to take the militants in Balochistan on board. ANP has also made its demands regarding provincial autonomy known in which the issue of changing the name of the province tops the list. The new government will have to wait for a year for this change to take effect due to opposition majority in Senate. Meanwhile, it would be best to prepare the ground and build consensus. Moreover, the ANP will have to deal with more thorny issues once this matter is resolved. The other most crucial issue is the war on terror and rise of extremism in the country. A legitimate government with a public mandate will be in a far better position to build consensus on the option of military action if it is the only option left with the government to root out terrorism. The immediate issue that swung the elections in PML (N)’s favour is the restoration of judiciary. It may be argued that Nawaz Sharif’s insistence on the restoration of the pre-November 3 judiciary has more to do with the removal of President General (retd.) Pervez Musharraf than his commitment to principles. Impeachment of the president requires two third majority which cannot be achieved unless the government has two-third majority in both houses of parliament. With Senate still dominated with Musharraf allies, it will not be possible for the new government to make such a move successful. The other possibility is restoring the 60 odd judges who will then take care of Musharraf’s fate when the law takes its course.   

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!