Daily Times Editorial Oct 22, 2013

Protection of Pakistan Ordinance The federal government has promulgated the second of two Ordinances in the last two weeks to strengthen the legal and practical framework to fight the terrorists and criminal elements torturing the country. The first Ordinance, promulgated on October 11, provided, inter alia, law enforcement agencies (LEAs) protection against prosecution while taking extreme but necessary steps against elements actually or suspected of planning to cause bodily or other harm. This protection was extended to firing at or ordering firing at such elements as a pre-emptive measure. Although this Ordinance, which amended the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was widely viewed as pertinent to the Karachi operation underway, the second Ordinance seems to envisage a wider horizon than the southern metropolis. The thrust of the Protection of Pakistan Ordinance centres on establishing the writ of the state at any cost. This involves raising the minimum punishment under Part V of the constitution for terrorist or criminal acts to 10 years imprisonment. Incidents of terrorism would be jointly investigated by security organisations and the LEAs. Terrorists will be treated as enemies of the state. The Ordinance narrates the ordeal the people have been subjected to over decades. It says the people of Pakistan have been exposed to undeclared and thankless wars since 1979, causing enormous loss of lives (40,000 citizens, 4,000 soldiers since 2001), many people injured/disabled and uprooted, economic loss, downturn and crisis, and the complexities stemming from the presence on Pakistani soil of foreigners who, with local collaboration, have become arguably the greatest existential threat to state and society in Pakistan’s history. The Ordinance argues that extraordinary times require extraordinary dispensations. Hence it proposes protection within the ambit of the law and constitution to all civilian and paramilitary LEAs and includes a provision for the provincial governments to request federal help for law enforcement and anti-terrorist efforts. Special federal courts are envisaged for quicker disposal of cases as enjoined by Article 37 of the constitution, designated jails for hardened and dangerous criminals (and terrorists?), preventive detention for 90 days, searches of premises without search warrants and denial of bail to arrested suspects. In short, both Ordinances aim at a ‘get tough’ with terrorists and criminal mafias stance. This makes sense in the context of the widely held perception that the state’s writ and ability to recover it from terrorists and criminals have palpably declined and deteriorated over time because of neglect, lack of political will, and contradictory narratives and explanations for the growing lawlessness that effectively has rendered the state and its institutions responsible for security and law and order at least partially paralysed, seemingly helpless in the face of the assault from the ‘enemies of the state’, an assault showing signs of growing fiercer and more intense since the elections four months ago, not the least because the ‘negotiations’ stance of the federal and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa governments has served to encourage and embolden the terrorists. The sooner the governments at the federal and provincial levels understand the nature of the threat Pakistan faces, the better for the country and its citizens. If the two Ordinances following each other in quick succession are a sign of at least the federal government having drawn the right conclusions from the ‘message’ the terrorists have delivered in response to the talks offer, i.e. pressing home a perceived advantage against a state and government riven by confusion and lack of will, it cannot be said to have arrived too early. The conundrum that presents itself is why the government is relying on Ordinances instead of getting legislation passed by parliament. One defence of the issue of Ordinances could be that the legislative process takes too long and the situation requires immediate steps, as the Ordinance too argues. The puzzling aspect is that the general perception of the government has been of its dragging its feet on the urgent steps required to meet the situation. Yet on these two Ordinances, it has moved with unusual dispatch. There is also the question of the shelf life of Ordinances, which normally require endorsement by parliament within 90 days. Does the government envisage an automatic smooth sailing for these Ordinances if and when they have to be produced and passed by parliament? If that happens, it would represent an all too rare consensus across the political class on the way forward, something that did not appear to be the case in the recent All Parties Conference, despite the appearance of unanimity. Pakistan’s terrorism and crime crisis requires the greatest attention with the greatest urgency, otherwise these and all the other problems afflicting us will drown our hopes for an escape from the mess we are in and progress towards a brighter future.