Politicised justice
May 26th, 2012
It seems as though politics in Pakistan has a natural attachment to controversy and realising this it, too, has anchored itself upon the national stage in which we function. We now see the swirling of a new storm, in which National Assembly Speaker Dr Fehmida Mirza has declined to send a reference against Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). The issue, as is well established, arose following the conviction, on April 26, of the prime minister on contempt charges, leading to opinions being voiced that he stood disqualified. The views of other legal experts varied markedly, as is in fact inevitable in a situation where justice becomes so closely linked to politics and doubts creep in over institutional jurisdiction. Just the fact that a whole host of legal experts have been unable to sort out the matter is evidence of the degree of confusion that exists over it.
With matters left up to the Speaker, on the basis that she alone could, under the law of the land decide the fate of the prime minister, Dr Mirza made her stance quite clear. She held that there were no grounds under Article 63 of the Constitution for Mr Gilani to be removed from his seat in the National Assembly and that she would, as such, not be passing the matter to the ECP. Dr Mirza also objected to the Supreme Court’s decision to pass on the matter to her through a deputy registrar, stating that this seemed to be in bad taste. While this may seem petty, dignity and mutual respect are vital in handling issues of national importance between the various institutions.
What we have seen unfold before us is a question of ranking, or supremacy between institutions. The prime minister and his team, indeed from the start of his tenure in 2008, have emphasised the need for parliament’s supremacy. Certainly, the institutions need to work within the framework of the Constitution. Perhaps, the events we have witnessed in the recent months can at least help establish just what the lines of division are and why it is crucial to prevent intrusion into one another’s territory, so that the judiciary may stand beyond politics.
Visa matters
May 26th, 2012
There are some who may complain that the process of normalising relations with India has been virtually inanimate because both countries are still fixated on Kashmir and terrorism, and hence will never be able to find a solution to these problems. There may be some grounds for pessimism, but to completely dismiss the entire peace process would be a folly. The two countries took their latest — hesitant — steps towards peace when the interior secretaries of Pakistan and India sought to reach an agreement to ease their harsh visa regimes allowing businessmen, pilgrims and groups to visit either country on more flexible visas. Tourist visas are also planned; a first by either country. The negotiations have taken over a year to materialise but it has been worth it. There is no better way to foster healthier relations between people on both sides than to make it easier for them to travel to each other’s countries.
This planned visa agreement also shows that both governments are committed to the peace process. They are smart enough to realise that hawks on both sides have the ability to destroy any attempts at peace. Hence, the initial relatively small, non-controversial steps; once these lead to greater tolerance and understanding, Pakistan and India can move towards thornier issues.
Next, the two neighbours may want to consider demilitarising Siachen. In Pakistan, the idea has been proposed by surprising figures like opposition leader Nawaz Sharif. India, too, could take some unilateral steps like allowing Pakistani cricketers to play in the IPL and making it easier for artists to visit either country. As much as people may scoff at this step-by-step approach, in the aftermath of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks it is the only way to repair relations. India still places great priority on arresting and jailing Jamaatud Daawa chief Hafiz Saeed. We, however, have preferred to treat Saeed as an asset rather than an enemy of the state. It now may be time to ask ourselves if we would prefer to side with an unreformed jihadist or a neighbour which is the biggest economic power in the region.
Elections in Egypt
May 26th, 2012
In Egypt, the transition from revolution to governance has been particularly painful. The fall of Hosni Mubarak did nothing to improve the economy and the military remained as influential as ever. But Egypt just received its first opportunity towards becoming a stable democracy. By voting in a presidential election which was historic not just because it was the first post-Mubarak election but also because the outcome was in doubt — a rare occurrence in the Arab world. Mohammed Morsi, the candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood, got the most votes in the first round of the election and he will now face former general Ahmed Shafik who, through his opposition to both the Islamists and the protesters, is seen as a representative of the old guard. As seems likely, if Morsi prevails in the second round of voting, his election is likely to be denounced by the West as a symbol of the Islamisation of the Arab world.
Among the gaggle of candidates, whose support turned to be less strong than anticipated, is the experienced diplomat Amr Mussa, who is both a former foreign minister and ex-head of the Arab League. The consensus candidate of the protestors who sparked this democratic experiment was Abdel Moneim Abul Fotouh. Both candidates would likely have been acceptable to the West and would have ensured that the aid spigots kept flowing. The Egyptian people, however, seem to have decided on the oldest and most organised political party in the country in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood. Whatever reservations one may have about its ideology and leanings, it is incumbent on the rest of the world to respect the results of the polls.
Ultimately, though, it could be argued that the identity of the victor is hardly the most important outcome of the election. Instead of nitpicking over the merits and demerits of the various candidates we should be celebrating the fact that Egypt has a real choice to make which was not predetermined. For all the sheen that has worn off the Arab Spring, we should celebrate these elections as one of its greatest achievements.