Democracy wins
PARLIAMENT has once again managed to defy its critics and produce a consensus on the 20th Amendment. What’s particularly satisfying about the bill is that what began as a narrow, technical purpose — the demand by the Supreme Court that a one-time constitutional cover be granted to legislators elected while the Election Commission of Pakistan was not yet properly constituted as stipulated in the 18th Amendment — ended up as a broader attempt to try and ensure a more impartial interim set-up before the next general elections and to enhance the autonomy of the ECP itself. Remember, to date the dominant theory was that the PPP was hoping to use the interim set-up to its advantage while the PML-N was considered to have slipped into campaign mode, which would dictate not being seen to cooperate with the government ahead of the next election.
Moreover, the incentives for an agreement between the PPP and the PML-N weren’t terribly high: the PPP-led coalition argued it had a two-thirds majority in parliament, mean-ing that a consensus amendment was more of a political signal than a numerical necessity.
In its own way, the 20th Amendment has added to the body of evidence suggesting that democracy can and does work in Pakistan, if it is given the space to do so. For the PPP to surrender what appeared to be a constitutional prerogative to pick an interim prime minister of its choice — before the amendment, the president, the PPP co-chairman, was required to consult the prime minister, a PPP man, and the leader of the opposition, a PML-N figure, giving it a 2-1 edge in the decision-making apparatus — is a concession where none needed to be given. True, the turnout in the Assembly on Tuesday night suggested the PPP and its coalition allies would have had their work cut out for them to ensure the attendance of enough members to pass the amendment without the PML-N’s help but in the bare-knuckle world of power politics here, it was a pleasant reaffirmation of the fact that this parliament has what it takes to get serious legislation done.
Being in the opposition, perhaps the PML-N deserves slightly more credit for its ultimate cooperation. In fact, it is fairly clear that the longevity of parliament itself this time round has much to do with the PML-N eschewing the role of a rabid opposition determined to bring down a government through any means. From support for the NFC, in which Punjab took a hit, to major changes to the constitution, the PML-N has more often than not supported the democratic project. Democracy lives, and it can deliver.
Overseas voters
THE Election Commission of Pakistan’s decision to allow 3.7 million overseas Pakistanis — expatriates possessing national identity cards for overseas Pakistanis — the right to vote is a welcome move. The opinion of Pakistanis living abroad matters: they send billions of dollars home in remittances, and can also lobby positively for Pakistan in foreign capitals. As reported in this paper, the ECP is considering setting up polling stations in Pakistani missions in countries which have significant expatriate populations, as well as allowing postal ballots. Interestingly, those who hold dual nationality will have to give up their foreign citizenship if they wish to vote for candidates in this country. This will not be an issue for expats in the Gulf where citizenship is rarely granted to foreigners. But it is unfair that dual citizens elsewhere, who hold a Pakistani passport, should not be allowed to vote. This condition should be withdrawn.
While it is a good decision in principle, if the government intends to allow overseas Pakistanis to vote in the next election — whether this year or in 2013 as per schedule — there is a tough task ahead and the ECP needs to move fast. Firstly, the
relevant laws must be framed. Second, a relatively simple and transparent process needs to be put in place. There are many questions that need answers, the foremost of which is regarding the constituencies. There are hundreds of provincial and National Assembly seats up for grabs — what will determine which seats overseas Pakistanis can vote for? For example, will an overseas voter be eligible to cast a ballot for the last constituency he resided in when he was in Pakistan? Then there is the method of voting.
Some have suggested allowing postal ballots with foreign Pakistani missions verifying voters. Transparency is another major issue, as even a few hundred votes can be critical in tight races. The process then must filter out bogus votes. Perhaps it would be beneficial to study how other democracies allow their overseas citizens to vote. Care must be taken to create a foolproof mechanism, as a hastily completed process may end up creating fresh controversy.
Shahbaz Bhatti case
ONE year on, the murder of Shahbaz Bhatti has developed into a murky, unresolved case involving unclear motives, suspicious leads, lack of coordination across law-enforcement organisations and, possibly, attempts to hush up the truth. Officially, the police claim that the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan was behind the murder. Rehman Malik and his interior ministry say militant group Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan is responsible. And unofficially, police sources will tell you that the murder was the result of business dealings — possibly illegal in nature — gone wrong. Just as unclear as the motive is the shady process that has led to the arrest of one suspect in Lahore on Tuesday and another in Dubai last month. The two were originally named by a man who has admitted in court that he concocted the story in the hopes of earning a monetary reward from
Mr Bhatti’s family, and yet police have gone ahead with these arrests. And aside from their contra-dictory claims as to the motive, the interior ministry and the police seem to be fighting a turf war over the case; against procedure, the latter was bypassed by the former in dealings with Interpol and Dubai law enforcement that led to the arrest in the UAE.
The murder of the former minorities’ affairs minister is no ordinary case. He represented minorities in the highest forums of government, was a pro-minent member of a minority religious community himself and had spoken against the blasphemy laws.
There is some indication that officials are hesitating to publicise their actual assessments of the case. But given its high-profile nature, it is important that they share the truth. At the very least, if extremists were not behind the murder, that will provide some comfort that Mr Bhatti was not killed for his religious beliefs or his stance against the blasphemy laws.
<><><><><>