Our narrative

By Sahar Bandial

Published: May 16, 2013

The question of the “national narrative” of Pakistan, representing our collective identities, values and aspirations as a people, warrants consideration, especially now as we set out to determine the direction of our nation. A national narrative is a nation’s story, an articulation of its ideology and ambitions that rationalises its existence and provides a sense of community, interconnectedness and shared identities that underpin the structures of nationhood. The “story” may be constructed and manoeuvred or evolve indigenously through shared experiences and a common history. It may, therefore, be propounded from above and accordingly enforced on the constituent parts of the nation or emerge from the grass roots and find affirmation across divides and hierarchies.
Yet, can such narratives exist in today’s polarised, heterogeneous and violent Pakistan? Or is a Pakistani national narrative essentially exclusionary, drowning out the voices of the marginalised and “have-nots” to propound a story that reinforces existing inequitable power structures, to which only the “haves” can relate? Ought there not to be a national narrative at all, but a plurality of narratives, all coexisting? No.
It is because of this plurality of narratives propounded in a vacuum left unattended by a unifying national story, that Pakistan is bereft with anti-state, anti-nationalist, extremist and terrorist forces, its integrity and ideology under attack. Plurality is not the issue, but rather the inability to accommodate such pluralism and re-articulate it in a cohesive, unifying national discourse, which does not silence discontent, critique and diversity.
Our historical narrative as an “Islamic” nation or homeland of Muslims, (however one may look at it) — created in response to the oppression suffered and foreseen by Muslims of united India — as a polity where all would be guaranteed equal rights and opportunities, regardless of religion, caste, class or gender, no longer serves, as effectively, to bind us as a collective. This is not a challenge to the two-nation theory, which some hold to be inherently flawed, an assertion that is anarchist and self-defeating. Instead, this is an acknowledgement that the political paradigm in Pakistan has changed.
We are a nation at war from within, the cohesiveness of our historical narrative faltering in the face of attacks on our ideology and integrity by terrorist, anti-state forces. These have expounded alternative narratives that challenge our nationhood and have inspired waves of violence across the sociopolitical milieu. We have lost lives, property and a sense of who we are. Does our state mandate a firebrand theological state, averse to religious tolerance or diversity? Do our provincial identities render the idea of a federalist Pakistan null? Who are we? What is our story?
These questions are real and especially pertinent in today’s context, as we move forward from a bloody election campaign, losing inspirational leaders and tireless political workers. This nation has stood resiliently against these attacks, against odds, and asserted its right to the democratic determination of its future.
There is a narrative already emerging from this tense and tight political struggle, clear, at least, in its broader vision of our nation state. It is a narrative that holds across the three major political contenders of these elections and has found support across their ranks and beyond. It is a narrative that condemns extremism, militancy and religiously- motivated violence. It is a narrative that espouses equality, tolerance, respect and protection of diversity. It is a narrative of resilience and courage. It envisages a nation that rejects fanaticism, both religious and sectarian, and propounds a tolerant, secure state. This narrative is neither constructed nor manoeuvred, nor thrust upon us through external forces. It is real and pervasive, and our collective response to years of strife and bloodshed. It is the reinvigorated narrative of Pakistan that must fill the vacuum and overcome the discourses opposed to our nationhood.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 17^th, 2013

Sometimes perception is almost more important than the reality. This is exactly the case in Pakistan’s political minefield. Righteousness is tearing apart our country and it does not seem to matter what the facts are. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but not facts. Perception is created and twisted so effectively that if the facts do not coincide with perception, conspiracy theories are produced to correspond to it.

It is the function of all-powerful media to renew or reverse our perception. The media pundits shake up the familiar situation, and, as if by magic, we see a new meaning in it.Once the perception is built, nothing can undo it. Take for example Fakhruddin G Ebrahim, the man in charge of the transition of power in Pakistan. He has stainless decades of service to the nation, shining with honesty and integrity. That is the general perception but let us take account of what the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has actually achieved under his auspicious leadership.

According to news reports, ECP has simply failed to prevent 55 candidates from Punjab, belonging to 10 different sectarian groups, from contesting the general elections despite the fact that intelligence agencies had warned the ECP. After a 14-day period during which the eligibility of nearly 25,000 candidates were examined under the criteria laid down in articles 62 and 63 of the constitution, no one has been disqualified for tax evasion, non-filing of tax returns, defaulting on payment of bank loans or for false declaration of assets and liabilities. At least 35 former members of national and provincial assemblies who failed to get their degrees verified from Higher Education Commission (HEC) are running for May 11 elections.

The TTP is targeting the liberal parties like PPP, ANP and MQM in election campaign. On the other hand, there are no threats to other parties including PTI and PML-N. How can Fakhrudin G Ebrahim term these elections as free and fair, since level playing field is being negated to the three important political players?The only response from ECP on this alarming situation is nothing but deafening silence.

Recently, I had a chance to interact with and observe the operations of ECP officials. I was utterly surprised to see that, Farkhru Bhai, as he is called among his close circles, is treated as merely a symbol of integrity and his subordinates don’t even trust him to talk to the media. “He sometimes doesn’t know what he is saying. We don’t want him to make any factual errors while talking to the media,” said an ECP official while denying us the interview Fakhru Bhai had earlier cordially committed to give. After that, he was not even allowed to speak to us. It left me consternated if the octogenarian election commissioner was even allowed to take his own decisions or he was being manipulated and is too weary to stand up for himself. I personally feel he just wants the elections to be held on time, by any means, so that he can go home triumphant.

The perception about him, however, is that of an upright man, struggling to fix all ills for ‘free and fair’ elections.

Talking about perception, one cannot ignore the myth of Chief Justice of Pakistan, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry’s incorruptible omnipotence. An epitome of justice and integrity, as goes the perception, but a quick glance at the facts without going into the details of the decisions taken in our national interest, reveals uncomfortable truths.

Iftikhar Chaudhry is an institution in himself, literally. There has been no dissent in any major constitutional case in the past years. During the days of Lawyers’ Movement, courts have somehow assumed themselves to be the representative of the people. Judicial activism has gone to an extent of populism. Judges, along with media, have formed a parallel establishment, sending elected prime minister home while ordering the arrest of another, as was done in the past by the military dictators. The double standards, exhibited during the Memogate case and the way Arasalan Iftikhar case was dealt with, is no secret. At one point, it was even difficult for the media to defend the courts. According to a report by the US State Dept, ‘every three out four terrorists are acquitted by the courts’. Judges have issued contempt notices to the politicians for not obeying their orders while keeping hush when the agencies did the same in missing persons’ case.

As for the perception, he is the messiah, the righteous one, the saviour.

The real test case of this curse of perception is President Asif Ali Zardari. Nothing has benefited media more than his notorious image, which was sold to the nation round the clock, for five years. The stamp of Mr 10 percent is still wet on him and obviously, according to some, he had Benazir Bhutto murdered so that he could become the president of Pakistan.

Contrary to the perception, his achievements are historic and unprecedented. From the passing of 18th amendment bill and giving away of his powers to the parliament to the first ever completion of the democratic government’s tenure, Zardari has made history while others have merely made headlines.

His smart handling of party and state affairs during the ongoing judicial activism, smear campaign by the media, pressure from the military and other political opponents, natural calamities and the pugnacious wave of terrorism in the country have visibly unnerved and frustrated the harbingers of his doom.

There is a lot of hullabaloo about corruption but even a journalist like Ansar Abbasi or Kamran Khan cannot point out one corruption scandal that involves presidency. Credit must also be given to his nerves for listening to such callous criticism against him and remaining neutral and dignified.

Other than that, his sharp focus on foreign policy has set Pakistan’s position right on the international front. Our relations with UK and US are excellent, so are our ties with China. We have achieved much access into EU and its markets. We are back in the Commonwealth and playing a positive role. We have no disputes with the Muslim world. Gwadar port agreement and Pak-Iran gas pipeline projects will go down in the history as a turning point for our economy and regional stability. Let us also not forget the immense pressure from the US government to halt this deal. Zardari’s most laudable achievement is a gradual shift in the relationship between India and Pakistan and a policy shift in the strategic depth doctrine in Afghanistan.

Although, the above-mentioned and several other steps are not popular among masses and media, the fact remains that Zardari has proven himself to be a successful and visionary statesman. But then again, as Gustave Flaubert once said, “There’s no truth in the world. There is only perception”. - See more at: http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/05/01/comment/the-curse-of-perception/#sthash.KMvfu7SF.dpuf

Patriarchal ‘benefactors’

Patriarchal ‘benefactors’

Author: By Nadia Khawaja

South Asian states continue to present women as ‘dependants’

The State has often appeared as a central figure through which discourses about South Asian women are created and understood with the passing of time. Women’s identity and positionality within a state is reflected in its policies which either re-affirm or seek to modify societal notions about gender. On many occasions, women’s issues are annexed by wider government policies, presenting women as residual victims in a schema over which they have very little control. The attitude of South Asian states towards women has evolved with changing socio-political regimes such as movements towards secularism, partition along religious lines and the appearance of influential non state actors like feminist groups.

The essentially male political culture of South Asia can be traced back to the Mughal Era when elite masculinity was synonymous with public relationships of power and control-over knowledge, over material commodities and over women. The wall of the Royal harem became symbolic for the separation between the male and female worlds and men exercised power through a literal and bodily rejection of feminine behaviors. However, a close inspection of the early Mughal history reveals the active participation of women in the political and social arena. A striking example of women’s participation in politics is Maham Anga, Emperor Akbar’s fourth prime minister and wet nurse who held charge of the royal household and state administration. Similarly, Emperor Jehangir’s wife Nur Jehan practically ruled over the Kingdom and edicts were issued under her authority. It is interesting to note that Maham Anga’s “manliness became the cause of her undoing” as noted by Mriducchanda Palit in an article titled Powers Behind The Throne as her willful behavior that allowed her to establish control was seen as “aggressive” by the patriarchal state and she was eventually asked to step down. Palit explains that female figures of authority “worked primarily for the benefit of the male figures around whom they orbited,” and “even when they were seated next to the throne… they moved in the shadow of it’s male occupant.”

The configuration of States as patriarchal protectors of women meant that they operated on agendas that promoted the interests of the State as opposed to the actual welfare of women. After the partition of India and Pakistan both states made efforts to recover missing women and restore them to their families. However, the resistance of many women to return to their original families was ignored and their children were treated like ‘war babies,’ presenting the state as “an abductor” forcibly removing adult women from their homes. The recovery of women became entwined with the establishment of India as a responsible and civilized state able to reclaim what was by rights its own, projecting women’s bodies as properties of the State. In addition, the relation of the abducted woman to national honor invested her with the full responsibility of upholding community honor and essentialised her as a helpless victim of a national dispute.

The State’s role as a ‘giver of values’ through drafting/implementation of legislation allows it to regulate gender identities and practices. The constitutional framework in South Asian countries is based upon the varying markers of a distinct national identity such as religion and language. The struggle of the Indian nation to define itself as a secular state in opposition to an Islamic Pakistan, is exemplified by the highly popular Shahbano case whose judgment served to claim “a society of equals between men and women”. The decision of the court for Shahbano to be provided maintenance by her former husband reflected its struggle to thwart the “injustice done to women in all religions” yet it was eclipsed by the larger concern of national integration. Shahbano’s rejection of the court’s decision in favor of Islamic Law goes to show her characterization as a “pawn” through which powerful masculine institutions such played their various games of honor and shame. The specific description of the ‘woman as wife’ in this case shows how states reaffirm the language which describes women in relation to a masculine subject.

The manner in which the State enacts and exercises various policies has a significant impact on the life of women. Structuring Pakistan as an Islamic Republic, with religion as the unifying principle of national identity, allowed the State to promote norms of behavior that controlled female apparel and conduct in the public sphere. Islamisation policies depicted women primarily as wives and mothers, removing them from the visible public sphere which became exclusively masculine. In contrast, Bangladesh came into existence on the basis of a separate Bengali identity and the mannerisms of the women were symbolic of a ‘cultural difference’ which gave them more freedom “to perform in public”. Although political analyst Naila Kabeer argues that while the secular stance taken by the Bengali State provided greater agency for women, she admits that such a policy became a “weapon for Zia’s political ambition.” The insistence of foreign benefactors such as the United Nations provoked Bangladesh to promote women’s welfare, as a result the “number of parliamentary seats reserved for women was doubled to 30” allowing women to actively participate in the political arena. However, there was a gap between “public declaration” and practice apparent in the “gross inadequacy of public sector funding for women’s programmes” (Kabeer 129) suggesting that the government was only using women to gain political capital. Strategies such as reserving seats for women pose a threat as they present a false notion of improved conditions for women, allowing the patriarchal state to exploit women for their own vested interests. Many of the Bangladeshi state’s projects targeted towards women’s rehabilitation have a preoccupation with female virtue reiterating the conservative societal expectations of women.

Legislation on the property rights of women has served as a signifier of the degree of agency and control granted to women within respective states. The opposition of most Congress leaders to the Hindu Code Bill, on the grounds that it subverted “the dependant position,” constructed women as the ‘other’ in the struggle for Indian nationalism. The Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act 1937 did not apply to agricultural land, excluding women from the capitalist economy and reinstating their position as financial dependants. In Nepal, women can only inherit as daughters if unmarried and over thirty five. In some cases, such as Pakistan, the state has taken corrective measures to remove ‘gender disabilities’ in inheritance laws. The position of women’s groups and stances of urban-educated women to demonstrate outside the assembly chambers, speak on public forums and access leadership positions, has largely contributed to the generally improved inheritance rights women enjoy today. The struggle of women’s groups against the laws mandated by the state present the latter as a phallocratic institution lacking female representation.

The emergence of the State as the most constitutive site of contestation for Indian feminists prevents it from being viewed as a neutral actor. The support of patriarchal and upper caste and majoritarian religious interests has allowed it to be constructed as an opponent to marginalized groups such as women. In contests against the state, especially in the case of Phoolan Devi, the bandit queen turned politician, the official discourse excluded gender issues of any significance. The governance of the State by a predominantly male hierarchy, allowed it to depict Phoolan Devi as a “hysterical woman” as opposed to a “successful female outlaw.” The terms of Phoolan Devi’s surrender signified the threat of embarrassment the Indian State faced on being unable to capture her. The paternalistic manner of their dealings symbolized the state’s view of women as unequal opponents, preventing women from subverting stereotypical gender roles.

With the changing global climate of increased public visibility and emancipation, The South Asian states are making efforts to open up different social arenas for women. However, women’s issues often appear as a facade that the state uses to promote its own political or economic agendas. The constitution of the state as a patriarchal protector allows it to regenerate normative ideas about femininity, placing women in traditional private spheres. Despite, the emergence of women in politics and new legislation that grants them greater agency, South Asian states largely operate within a patriarchal discourse that presents women as dependants of powerful masculine institutions.


The writer is a staff member of Pakistan Today and holds a degree from Mount Holyoke College.

Clash between values

By Syed Irfan Ashraf

Published: April 18, 2013

In his 2002 thesis entitled A New Paradigm, Harvard professor Stanley Hoffman argues that globalisation makes an awful form of violence easily accessible to fanatics in different parts of the globe. Few political cartographers have prognosticated power relations as simply as Hoffman did. His thesis is helpful in understanding the growing insecurity caused by exploitative global policies, which provoke and promote extremism in the post-9/11 scenario.
In 1989, the collapse of the Soviet Union provided scholars a reason to predict a new political order, which centred around the US’s overwhelming military might and its growing political clout. In his much-hyped thesis in the early 1990s, US scholar Francis Fukuyama predicted the end of ideological conflicts, which he celebrated as the triumph of Western political and economic liberalism. Soon afterwards, Samuel Huntington offered his concept of the “clash of civilisations” in which the lack of shared values and effective global institutions were held responsible for global anarchy. Therefore, clash among civilisations, rather than among states or ideologies, were deemed inevitable in the future.
Fukuyama received a ruthless critique for his “immature rush” to celebrate capitalism’s triumph over communism. Huntington’s argument, on the other hand, took the flak for defocusing the role of transnational forces in fomenting global confrontation and overemphasising reactionary identities by holding them responsible for widening fault lines between civilisations.
Of all these critics, Hoffman stands out as logical. Referring to the hazy nature of Huntington’s thesis, Hoffman argued that it has failed to consider conflicts within each so-called civilisation, and overestimates the importance of religion in the behaviour of non-Western elites. Hoffman believes that the dominant tension of the decade was the clash between the fragmentation of states and the progress of economic, cultural and political integration — i.e., globalisation.
Given the context, the increasing extremism in different parts of the world has much to do with the weakening nation state structure, which has got momentum following the US’s increasing offshore military and economic pursuits. Control of Iraqi oil resources following the two phases of the bloody Gulf War and the rising confrontation in Afghanistan and Pakistan are two manifestations that make us believe that insecurity is largely manufactured at the global level and has less to do with cultural and religious forces at the local level.
After attacking Afghanistan in 2001, the US expansion of its drone war to Pakistan’s tribal areas was carried out ostensibly to make the world more secure. Inversely, a horrible backlash from religious extremists has made Pakistan a more dangerous country. One can hardly believe the US did not know what was evident to every layman in the region — that conflict escalation would bring fatal outcomes for all. If radicalisation of cultural forces was so obvious, does it mean that US policymakers were consciously creating trouble to prolong their stay?
That is why regional experts are sceptical of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan by 2014. The US presence has deprived regional countries of benefit from trade with the energy-rich Central Asian states. Economic interests of transnational corporations have shifted the power game in the region. Therefore, the US presence in Afghanistan could hardly be seen independent of transnational economic and strategic interests. Under the circumstances, manufactured uncertainties at the global level are enough to take precedence over any natural reason for a clash to happen between civilisations. Instead, global conflicts are seemingly more planned.
With more technological advancement, the possibility of a clash between civilisations seems less relevant in the face of a growing gulf between the haves and the have-nots. In the West, this confrontation is evident in the form of working class resistance against corporate forces. On the other hand, religious forces in Pakistan are in the process of radicalising the cultural fabric as a whole so as to establish an identity by creating widespread hatred against Western values. It is, therefore, imperative to understand that no simple explanation is available to understand the world’s complex problems. Global insecurity needs to be understood in its totality and not in any binary oppositional relationship such as in the West. Central to this observation is the role of an independent nation state, which has suffered hugely due to the rise of global economic powers. Hoffman rightly hints towards this issue while arguing that the more state sovereignty crumbles under the blows of globalisation, the more the state clings to what is left of it.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 19^th, 2013.

Make or break

By:Humayun Gauhar Sunday, 7 Apr 2013 6:10 am

The extremist mistakes terrorism for jihad; the moderate confuses elections for democracy
The inner eye can see what the outer eyes cannot. No amount of injections in the eyeballs by Dr. Zeba can give you that sight, only contemplation in melancholy can. It is patently obvious that the coming elections will be ‘make or break’ for us. I have this sense of foreboding: will we be hijacked by the forces of bigotry, dogma and obscurantism or the forces of democracy, moderation, pluralism and inclusion – or, despite our inner resilience, will we fall apart? We are in a game of bloody three-dimensional chess. One misstep and everything could go up in smoke.
Victory for the terrorist peddling bigotry and obscurantism will be to derail elections and fill the leadership breach in the ensuing anarchy. Victory for the moderate is that elections are held regardless of the outcome. The caretakers must be careful that they don’t become undertakers – literally. Thus this election is the seminal battle and that will determine whether we take a great leap forward or a giant leap backward. Who dominates Pakistan, the extremist morphed into terrorist or the moderate morphed into democrat, that is the question. Neither quite understands the creed that they follow: the extremist mistakes terrorism for Jihad; the moderate confuses elections for democracy.
The sifting process has moved the system forward with many a crocodile disqualified. The evolutionary process has taken a quantum leap forward; interventionism creates the mirage of acceleration that actually decelerates political evolution. However, this being the first time, some wrong decisions have been taken which can be corrected later and the process improved, like the appalling decision to disqualify columnist-politician Ayaz Amir on grounds that he wrote against the ‘ideology of Pakistan’ on which there is no consensus. That doesn’t mean that the principle of filtration is wrong. The process is most important and must go on. It is implementation that needs improving.
I’ve been saying for ages that our political system must evolve towards its natural death or improvement; only then will change be acceptable to our people and to the world, for it will be natural. Foisting change never works. Thus I’m starting to feel vindicated somewhat with the filtration of electoral candidates taking place, for we are moving in the right direction. Sure we have the wrong system and even this bad one needs improving. The latter is happening. You can see that as many an idol is ejected from House of Politics. In time, we will evolve a better system. Only genuine revolutions, not interventions, bring accelerated change. Such revolutions are also begotten by evolution.
It is not quite as simple as that though, for Pakistan is a unique case. Because terrorists and obscurants who are terrorists of the mind come in many hues they seem a polyglot but have networked and have become a monolith. They share the same broad obscurantist ideology based on their own, often self-serving, interpretations of the Quran, often literal or based on the views of some ‘scholars’ and often at variance with the spirit of God’s Word and His Intent. Thus they are not leaderless. They have a simple message that resonates with a people morphing from desperate to desperado: the imposition of their own version of Sharia that will solve all problems instantaneously. They are organized, rich, well armed, well trained, provide leadership and are well supported at home and from abroad too. Above all, they are zealots. Such people spread discord and disharmony by foisting their dogma on the majority, something not unique to Muslims.
The moderate-democrat has none of the above. They may know what they want but don’t know how to get it because they remain confused in alien systems and norms, disconnected with Pakistan’s reality and its masses. They can hardly speak their language for they are unfamiliar with the idiom and are either comfortable in English or mired in fancy, outdated Urdu. The terrorist-obscurant speaks the language of the masses. He lives amongst the people; the moderate-democrat lives away from them. The former are connected; the latter seriously disconnected. The moderates’ ideology isn’t cast in local reality. They have wish lists and a wooly desire for democracy, a creed they don’t quite understand, mistaking elections for democracy. Disorganized and fractured, each piece led by corrupt and mediocre leaders many of whom pander to terrorists-obscurants for electoral gain, they are increasingly unable to compete with them and only mouth homilies, not sensing the coming storm. Worse, they have no simple message that touches the masses and can take on the obscurant, as Bhutto did with the ‘Food, Shelter and Clothing’ slogan and trounced the religious political parties in 1970.
The moderates are divided from left to right and everywhere in between, a sophomoric, leaderless polyglot. Their desire is not so unclear though. They wish a moderate, democratic, egalitarian society in which the rights of man are implemented, an Islamic welfare state that Mr. Jinnah talked about, where implementation of Haqooq ul Ibad is the prime constitutional duty of a state that calls itself Islamic, where ‘democracy’ means a system that delivers man from wretchedness by constantly and significantly improving his condition starting from the poorest. A balanced and just society where education and enlightenment are given the highest priority. Where people are guaranteed security, dignity, housing, clothing, nutrition, potable water, healthcare and all else that are their fundamental God-given rights.
The confusion is that the obscurant claims that he will deliver the same rights through his own version of Sharia as the moderate claims that he will through alien western electoral democracy and all its political, legal, social and cultural constructs that the people don’t understand. One has not seen that happen either way in modern times in the Islamic and the rest of the Third World.
As the economic situation of people worsens the obscurant’s message becomes increasingly attractive. The desperate want food, for God’s sake. If elections are disrupted anarchy will ensue, just what the doctor ordered for the terrorists and secessionists. They are waiting to pounce. Obviously then army will have no option but to intervene whether you like it or not, but only for a time. As things develop and the world reacts adversely, they too will start floundering. God help us then. The only good option that can avert anarchy is to hold elections well and on time and hope that less bad governments are thrown up.
The possible scenarios are:
1. Elections are held on time and lead to better governments even if they are not good governments that hopefully complete their terms too. Anarchy can then be averted and the door to a terrorist-obscurant takeover closed, provided people get some relief and delivery. Even if it doesn’t make us it will not break us.
2. If Baloch separatists and their top tribal warlords form the provincial government, there is no gainsaying that they won’t pass a resolution in the provincial assembly declaring independence. If India, our ‘brothers in faith’ and some of our ‘allies’ recognize them, what can we do?
3. If elections are disrupted all hell will break loose and anarchy on the streets will be upon us. Baloch separatists will get a fillip as will the terrorists. Before separatists and terrorists hijack the mob the army will have to intervene that no one wants, least of all the army.
It is an imperative that acceptable elections are held on time lest the evolutionary process breaks and – horrors of horrors – with it the state. No one wants that. What could really disrupt elections is America’s nightmare of another Nawaz Sharif government. All they want is a stable Pakistan to enable an orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan by December next year. They are not sure that Sharif can provide that stability or cooperation and whether he is a ‘closet Taliban’ or not. With Imran Khan seemingly imploding Sharif’s chances of winning the most seats improve. What they can’t get through elections they get through assassinations. Nawaz Sharif should watch it.
Once upon a time not so long ago there was a young fruit seller in Tunisia who set himself on fire after being slapped by a policewoman. He not only reclaimed his honour but also set the Arab countries on fire. From his ashes is arising an obscurantist phoenix as tyrant after tyrant falls. They didn’t have the safety valves of democracy and free speech that Pakistan does. Don’t close those valves by closing the door to elections and opening the door to anarchy, bigotry, dictatorship and disintegration. The writer is a political analyst. He can be contacted at humayun.gauhar786@gmail.com

Morality and public leaders

By:Malik Muhammad AshrafWednesday, 3 Apr 2013 1:35 am        

We need a change in system

All over the world the public representatives, especially the parliamentarians, ministers, chief executives and presidents are expected to set and have high standards of morality and honesty because for the leaders to be able to discharge their public duties and carry forward the mantle of public trust, it is essential that they have an untainted past and an irreproachable integrity. Unfortunately these crucial human traits has been lacking among our parliamentarians and public leaders who – barring a few exceptions – have acted as carpet baggers dedicated to exponentially enhancing their fortunes through fair and unfair means rather than promoting the well being of the masses. Politics, for them is an industry and becoming a member of the parliament is a license to expand their profits. This materialistic bent of mind is a contributory factor to their attempts to circumvent the laws through corrupt practices to become a member of the parliament that confers on them the political power and the fortune that comes with it.

The fake degrees scam is a shameful example of their dirty machinations and a ranting proof of their immorality that portrays them as the worst kind of scoundrels and cheaters. Nevertheless it is heartening to note that finally their day of reckoning has come for some of them and they would find it difficult to escape the dragnet cast by the SC and ECP. The SC has rightly taken a very strong position on the issue and fifty four former parliamentarians whose degrees have already been found fake are surely going to miss the bus besides facing legal action for their acts of forgery. Another 189 who have not presented their degrees and educational certificates for verification have been advised to get their documents verified within three days. To help the process to be completed, reportedly, the offices of ECP, HEC and controllers of examinations of all universities will remain open till mid night of 5th of April. Who knows how many more will join the list of cheaters as a result of this scrutiny. Thanks also to the media which unearthed this scandal, kept it alive and built public pressure for punitive action against these unscrupulous elements and the so-called public representatives.

The sordid aspect of this disgraceful conduct is that the leadership of the political parties has knowingly looked the other way and even attempts have been made to protect the wrongdoers. In a system of numbers game their primary concern has been to have as many winning horses as possible to clinch political power. Though the efforts of the SC, ECP and the media, to ensure that only people with unblemished character and reputation get into the assemblies, are very encouraging but they are not going to bring any substantive change in our political culture unless a change is effected in the way we elect our public representatives. The feudal character of our political system that promotes politics of graft and entitlement is the real culprit and needs to be changed. It is pertinent to note that majority of the 342 constituencies for electing federal parliament is in the rural areas, a bastion of power for the feudal lords. They have a vested interest in the perpetuation of the colonial system of governance and electing public representatives.

The culture of corruption and horse trading are the hallmarks of this brand of politics. Democracy is the only option for this country. The political parties deserve appreciation for ensuring the continuation of the democratic process. However, the democratic dispensation has to be responsive to the ground realities and geared to promoting the national interest and the well being of the people rather than serving the interests of the elite. The system in vogue has brought untold miseries on the hapless masses and done nothing, except for creating islands of affluence among the oceans of poverty. There is a general consensus that we need a change in the political system.

The political parties must learn from history and feel the pulse of the masses. If they fail to cleanse the mess and affect necessary changes, they will become irrelevant to any future arrangement of governance in this country. The best way to break the hold of the feudal lords on the political power in this country is to adopt the system of proportional representation. Under this system people vote for the parties rather than the individual candidates in a single constituency system and the parties get representation in the parliament on the basis of the percentage of votes that they poll.

The advantage of this system is that it reflects the real support for the political parties among the masses and also ensures the presence of smaller and regional parties in the parliament making the legislature a truly representative body. The party leaders are spared of the blackmail of the winning horses and they can nominate really competent and educated people from different walks of national life to represent the party in the parliament. The system also eliminates the possibility of horse trading and floor-crossing for personal gains. The biggest advantage of this system is that it eliminates systemic corruption. To make this system really workable voting will also have to be made compulsory so that every registered voter can exercise his right of franchise.

To effect these changes, amendments in the constitution will have to be made and it will be in the interest of all the political parties and Pakistan that these reforms are given top priority. Now that the parliament stands dissolved there is no possibility of carrying out these reforms before elections. However, after the elections, the parties winning the public franchise must get together and bring the required systemic reforms within six months and hold fresh elections under the new system. One can genuinely hope that through the combined efforts of the SC, ECP and non-partisan caretaker setups committed to holding free and fair elections, we will have good stuff coming to the parliament.

The political parties have already shown commitment to the national causes by unanimously carrying out 18th, 19th and 20th amendments in the constitution and also by adopting the 7th NFC Award with consensus. They must show the same zeal and dedication in changing the system on the foregoing lines to put the country on the course envisioned by the founding father. He must be turning in his grave to see what we have done to his and our Pakistan.