Military courts: a wrong move
PAKISTAN should not have military courts, not in the expanded form envisioned by the military and political leadership of the country, not to try civilians on terrorism charges and not even for a limited period of time. Military courts are simply not compatible with a constitutional democracy. In the immediate aftermath of the Peshawar school massacre, politicians and the military leadership rightly came together to respond urgently to the terror threat that stalks this country. What they did wrong was to decide on military courts as the lynchpin of a new strategy to fight terrorism. Perhaps with a country convulsed with grief and the PML-N government on weak ground given that until recently the party was insisting on dialogue with the elements behind the Peshawar calamity there was little resistance to the military’s demand that terrorist suspects be tried in military courts, and presumably summarily executed thereafter. Perhaps also the full range of opposition political parties present were overawed by the presence of the army chief and DG ISI in Peshawar, and those opposed to military courts decided that it was futile to oppose them in the circumstances.
Whatever the thinking of the political leadership that has brought the country to the verge of amending the Constitution and sundry laws to allow military courts to try terrorism suspects, it was unquestionably wrong. Belatedly, some conscientious members of the political leadership have begun to speak out, led by senators who are perhaps less encumbered by party discipline than members of other legislatures. When a new system of so-called justice requires overriding constitutionally guaranteed rights and the independence of the judiciary, surely that is no solution even to terrorism and militancy. There is a further problem, one mostly left unsaid: military courts are a populist move, meant to show a frightened public that the state can still be relied on to keep the peace and secure the nation. Such populism often only begets more populism, leading to more deviations from the democratic path until there is no democracy left, not even in name. This country has travelled down the path towards authoritarianism and dictatorship too many times, with too many disastrous consequences, to countenance deviations from a constitutional democracy today.
The question that should be asked is why is the criminal justice system so poor at convicting the guilty? There are really just three steps: investigation, prosecution and judicial. While the courts are often maligned for allowing the accused to walk free, it is at the investigation and prosecution stages that most of the cases are already lost. And where the judiciary is at fault, it is often because of a lack of protection offered to trial judges. Can those problems not be urgently fixed in Pakistan? Does not a democratic system exist to strengthen and buttress the democratic system? Military courts are certainly not the answer.
Taxing oil
EVER since the oil subsidy was eliminated in FY2009, the government has been reaping an unexpected windfall in the form of higher revenues from oil as the rising prices also increased the amounts realised through the general sales tax and development surcharges on oil. In FY2008, the federal government collected Rs14.5bn under the petroleum development levy. The next year, as all oil subsidies were withdrawn and prices at the pump soared, the same collection came in at Rs112bn. GST collections experienced a similar windfall, prompting the government to congratulate itself in the economic survey that year for `the significant improvement in fiscal performance in FY2008-09.` As oil prices remained persistently above $100 over the years since then, the windfall gains on the revenue side became a permanent assumption underlying our fiscal framework. Additional benefits came to the government in the form of spiralling share prices and profits of stateowned oil and gas firms, and the dividends they were able to pay.
All of that is now changing. Now that oil prices have started plummeting in international markets, the government has passed on some of this decrease to the pump, but is caught in the consequences of the fiscal framework. Reliable data on the revenue impact of declining oil prices is not available. There are widespread suspicions that officers of the Federal Board of Revenue are trying to show revenue weaknesses from other areas as losses on account of the reduction in oil prices. What is reliably known, however, is that the government is feeling the pinch and has therefore notified an increase in the rate of GST applicable to oil sales, taking the rate from 17pc to 22pc. This is a regrettable step, especially since no such effort was made to cushion the impact of spiralling prices for consumers when the upward climb in oil prices began back in 2008.
The step to notify an increase in the GST rate shows how dependent the government has become on the easy revenue windfall that came with high oil prices. The decline in oil prices ought to be passed fully through to the consumer, just like the increases were passed through fully in 2008. If the fiscal framework is constrained as a consequence, the government should walk the hard road of tax reform rather than lean so heavily on withholding taxes to shore up its revenues.
Fire tragedy compounded
ANOTHER inquiry committee has been constituted, compensation announced, and good intentions expressed.
Is there any hope, though, of the root causes of the problem actually being addressed? The fire that broke out in Lahore’s congested Anarkali Bazaar on Monday evening rapidly engulfed the Alkareem Market Plaza, leading to the loss of at least 13 lives and considerable damage to merchandise and infrastructure. This occurred just a day after Karachi`s Timber Market area was similarly burnt to ashes. The causes have yet to be ascertained, but the lessons remain the same. Coordination among civic agencies such as the fire department and rescue squads needs urgent improvement; tight alleyways and multifarious encroachments that characterise Anarkali, Timber Market and other such venues across the country pose a formidable challenge of access to firefighting and rescue teams; and most importantly, the need for public buildings to be constructed to at least some modicum of safety standards, with much stricter regulation. Reportedly, there was just a single entry-exit door at the multistorey Alkareem Market Plaza which housed dozens of shops. The fact that most of the deaths occurred as a result of suffocation tells its own tragic tale.
On paper, the solution is simple and in some cases, already required: fire exits, multiple entrances, the availability of firefighting equipment, etc. In reality, though, the efforts made by toothless civic bodies are often nullified by a citizenry that refuses to see safety regulations as protections that benefit primarily itself. From both recent tragedies, there is a lesson to be drawn, too, about systems of governance. When the latter is remote, as is the case in the absence of local government systems, there is risk of a huge distance between intentions and the effect on the ground such as the preparedness of firefighting departments or the will to remove encroachments.
Local governments, however, put administrators in close proximity with the people they are accessible and accountable. The path to correction must be taken at multiple levels, top-down and bottom-up.