The end of the Swiss letter saga
February 12th, 2013
The prolonged saga over the writing of a letter to the Swiss authorities to reopen a case against President Asif Ali Zardari was always about power, not principle. Both the government and the Supreme Court had seemingly refused to compromise over a case that was sure to be never heard by the Swiss authorities. Eventually, after losing a prime minister, it was the government that gave in. Now we have confirmation of just how fruitless this protracted battle really was. As expected, the Swiss authorities have made it clear that they have no intention of reopening the case. The last five years of constitutional crises and political uncertainty, as anyone could have predicted, therefore, have all been for naught.
In a sense, the ruling PPP can now claim vindication even though the victory is a pyrrhic one. Some may say that there was no need for former prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani to be removed from office, especially since the government could have averted this scenario simply by writing the letter in the first place. We would have been spared not just the Gilani drama but also the legal woes of his successor, Raja Pervaiz Ashraf. One cannot help but feel that this is precisely what the PPP wanted, since the party can now campaign on a platform of victimhood and martyrdom. But the PPP’s gain has been the country’s loss, as we have had to bear the considerable expense and inconvenience of this ultimately meaningless struggle, not to mention the political instability that was caused.
Now that the Swiss case is finally dead and buried, it is time to move on. The true threat that democracy faces in the country comes from anti-democratic forces, not the PPP. That is where the focus of accountability should be redirected. The Swiss letter case was a battle of wills between two forces that have been hostile towards each other. That hostility should now end. Furthermore, all institutions of the state need to operate within the parameters of their constitutionally defined boundaries, or else, near anarchy may rise again.
Languishing bills
February 12th, 2013
As it nears the end of its five-year term, parliament will be remembered for passing some of the most consequential legislation amendments in our history. It has approved not only the Eighteenth, Nineteenth and Twentieth Amendments to the Constitution, it has also passed many much-needed bills on human rights issues. That does not mean, however, that its conduct has been beyond reproach. Among the stains on the National Assembly’s record is the fact that it allowed 176 private member bills to simply languish. It should go without saying that the National Assembly’s only essential task is to debate and vote on proposed bills. Being so negligent in this vital function reflects poorly on it.
That the bills which were not considered originated as private member bills actually makes it worse. A lot of times, private member bills come from women parliamentarians whose legislation does not get prioritised and may even be actively discouraged by their parties. Bringing such bills up for debate allows ignored questions like women’s and minorities’ rights to be debated. This helps decide where to cast our vote in the future. That there seems to be an understanding not to bring such bills up for a vote that transcends party lines only goes to show just how badly the initiative of private member bills is needed.
One way to solve this problem would be through a change to parliamentary rules. Right now, there is no time limit on how soon the National Assembly has to vote after a private member bill has been introduced. Parliamentary committees also do not have to present a report on these bills within a specified time. Parliament needs to set the same rules for private member bills as it has for other proposed legislation. There is no reason these bills should not receive the same importance as others. So long as bills have the requisite number of votes needed to pass, no other roadblocks and impediments should be put in the way.
Lahore Metro Bus Service
February 12th, 2013
As a general rule, Pakistan’s major cities are badly in need of major public transport projects. The overcrowding, pollution and inconvenience caused by the absence of buses and trains have led to chaos. In the abstract, then, Punjab government’s Lahore Metro Bus Service project, which has now been inaugurated, is a step in the right direction. Modern public transport is the need of the hour in our cities and this was the first concerted project to turn that into a reality. This does not mean, however, that the project should simply be praised and not subject to greater scrutiny. The first issue is one of cost. Although the official cost of the bus service project is Rs30 billion, there are many projections which say it could be higher.
Then there is the question of maintenance. Right now, not all of the 45 buses are in working condition and many of the escalators are not functional. Obviously the provincial government was in a rush to inaugurate the project. With elections coming up, it wanted a major development coup, which would be the bedrock of its re-election campaign. Also, the provincial government should account for all the businesses that were affected by the creation of the bus routes and provide proof that they have been compensated for their losses.
It is unfortunate that even major development projects in Pakistan are carried out on an ad hoc basis. Before the PML-N government came into power in Punjab, the PML-Q had done a feasibility study on creating a light rail system in Lahore. Those plans were scrapped as soon as the PML-N was voted into office. How do we know that a new provincial government won’t do the same after the next elections? The PML-N will also have to answer the charge that most of its development is Lahore-centric. That aside, this should be a worthy public transport model for Pakistan’s other large cities to emulate.