Parliament’s supremacy
IT should be a settled — and democratically obvious — fact, but the frequent suggestions to the contrary indicate there is some way to go yet before constitutional and democratic norms are deeply entrenched and become irreversible. Senate chairperson Raza Rabbani was moved on Friday to remind the country that parliament must remain the supreme institution in the land — that there should be no supra-parliamentary National Security Council and that all institutions must follow the edict of parliament. The occasion for Mr Rabbani’s comments was a book launch in Islamabad at which it was suggested that the country needs a powerful NSC over and above parliament. It is precisely such suggestions that make democrats in Pakistan wary of a full-fledged NSC, even though it is clear that national security decision-making needs to be structured and aided by a full-time secretariat and staff. Short of that, national security policymaking will continue to be opaque and ad hoc — with predictable consequences for the country’s security.
Why though is a basic democratic notion as the institutional supremacy of parliament still resisted, actively and philosophically, by some sections of the state apparatus? Part of the reason is surely power — a supra-parliamentary body would be unaccountable to the elected leadership of the country and would be able to implement undemocratic plans and vision for the country’s security. But a part of the answer lies also in the shortcomings of the civilians themselves. Consider the fate of the revamped Cabinet Committee for National Security that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif created two years ago. It was suspected then that the revamping came at the behest of the military leadership — like the recent appointment of a retired general as national security adviser to the prime minister — and therefore was likely to suffer from disinterest by the civilian government. This has proven to be the case, with the secretariat to the CCNS yet to take off and the body itself being moribund. Perhaps not coincidentally, the so-called apex committee meetings and one-on-one meetings between the prime minister and the army chief have virtually replaced all other national security forums.
Where the civilian government has failed — even accepting that the political government has been marginalised in national security matters, and that bureaucratic resistance and civilian disinterest have helped accelerate that process — so too has parliament. There is no intelligence oversight by parliament — and none that is being considered. The Senate Standing Committee on Defence is active, but seemingly mostly to arrange field trips and inviting speakers to make speeches. There is no meaningful contribution of parliament that can be discerned. Strangely, there are voices inside parliament that occasionally demand a joint session of parliament to debate significant national security and foreign policy events as if that can be a substitute for the job of serious and sustained policy input. Yes, parliament must be the supreme institution — but it is parliament itself that must lead the way.
Exemplary work
AS the Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation in Karachi marks four decades of service to humanity, it is worth reflecting on the countless lives it has saved and improved. The result of the efforts of its founder, Dr Adibul Hasan Rizvi, and of the fleet of healthcare professionals who work alongside him, the institute has stayed true to its philosophy: that every person in need has the inalienable right to free healthcare of high quality. In this world, where quality is in general the domain of only those who can afford it, SIUT continues to prove that not only does it not have to be that way, but that where the provision of healthcare is involved, this is a course of highly dubious ethics. Run entirely on public donations, the facility takes no fee from the thousands that flock to its corridors, the bulk of them living in poverty. If there is a parallel to SIUT’s work, it is to be found in the work of Abdul Sattar and Bilquis Edhi, and the foundation they have created, which also caters tirelessly to the needs of the poorest, most marginalised sections of society. Here, too, the vast charity network encompassing orphanages, mortuaries, shelters and a fleet of ambulances in every city that are usually the first to arrive at the scene of any accident or catastrophe, is run exclusively on donations.
While the work of these two giants is exemplary, it is nevertheless relevant to ask of the state why it has so easily abdicated its responsibilities, both in terms of the healthcare sector and protecting the vulnerable. SIUT and the Edhi Foundation exist because there was a glaring gap in the provision of services, the responsibility for which rests with the state, the government of the day and its subsidiaries. And while it is admirable that these entities have stepped up to the plate and continue to improve thousands of lives, it is sad that state has achieved virtually nothing in terms of capacity-building. Even a cursory look provides a negative answer. Pakistan and its people can count themselves lucky that there are individuals and institutions such as these, for without them our collective lot would be far worse; but supporters of these institutions as well as their beneficiaries have the option of lobbying with the state and those who steer it in order to drastically and immediately improve healthcare and welfare services.
Reforms for Saudi women
THEY may still not be allowed to get behind the wheel, but the wheels of change have finally begun to move for Saudi women. The kingdom has announced that widows and divorced women will be issued identity cards in their own name, a measure that will enable them to take independent decisions in several important matters. These include the power to register their children in school, access records and authorise medical procedures. With family cards made in their husbands’ names, women are dependent either on spousal permission or court orders to perform these tasks. Moreover, on Dec 12, for the first time, they will not only be able to vote in municipal elections in their country, there will also be women among the candidates. These women, more than 900, have been campaigning since late November, albeit under rules meant to maintain the segregation of the sexes. These include: no holding of rallies attended by men and no meeting directly with male voters — a male spokesman will, instead, communicate with them on a woman candidate’s behalf.
It must be said that any change for the better in the status of women in Saudi Arabia — suspended in amber since some time — is something to celebrate. In fact, it is no less than revolutionary that Saudi women may soon have the chance to be considered adults capable of making basic decisions in their lives, even if they have to be divorced or widowed to do so. Ironically, that could be the proverbial silver lining in what is undoubtedly an emotionally fraught situation. Participation in the electoral process, both as voter and candidate, also confers a degree of agency not hitherto granted to Saudi women. However, it is a very controlled loosening of the reins: Loujain Hathloul, who was detained for two months by Saudi authorities when she tried to drive into the kingdom from the UAE, was disqualified from standing for election. Change has begun, but there is a long road yet to travel.
Source: Editorials
Published in Dawn, December 6th, 2015