Daily Times Editorial March 17, 2013

Political deadlock looms The 18th Amendment to the constitution has laid down a three-layered procedure for appointing the caretaker Prime Minister (PM) after the National Assembly (NA) is dissolved. By the time these lines appear in print, that event will have come to pass at midnight on the night of March 16-17. The procedure laid down is that the government, represented by the outgoing PM, and the opposition, represented by the Leader of the Opposition (LoO), are supposed to agree on a consensus candidate for caretaker PM. In practice of course, this eminently rational procedure has been beset by the usual perambulations of our political culture. The names for caretaker PM put forward by the government have been rejected in toto by Chaudhry Nisar, the LoO, and the names put forward by the latter, of which he has himself withdrawn one, have been rejected by the government side. Although the redoubtable Chaudhry says the process of consultations will continue, time is running out. If there is no agreement between the two sides within three days of the dissolution of the NA, the issue goes to an eight-member parliamentary committee with equal representation of the treasury and opposition. If in turn the parliamentary committee is unable to arrive at a consensus from the list of names presented by the government and opposition or any new names it may come up with itself within three days, the choice will be that of the election commission. The way things have developed between the government and the opposition, it looks uncertain whether the parliamentary committee will be able to do any better a job of finding a consensus candidate for caretaker PM than the outgoing PM and LoO have managed. At the provincial level, the picture is that of a mixed bag. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) has led the rest of the provinces by agreeing on a caretaker Chief Minister (CM) in the shape of Justice (retd) Tariq Pervez, a respected member of the judiciary. Outgoing CM Ameer Haider Khan Hoti announced the decision at a press conference on Friday, indicating that unlike the national LoO and the outgoing PM, he had not written letters to the LoO in KP but had simply gone over and talked to Akram Khan Durrani until they arrived at an agreement. This instance seems more in line with and imbued by the democratic spirit of what the amended constitution intended. If only the Centre and the other provinces could take a leaf out of KP’s book, the country may be spared more angst and uncertainty. Alas, it does not look like that is about to happen. In Sindh, the PPP and the MQM, the latter as now the largest ‘opposition’ party, have exchanged names of candidates. The other opposition parties, PML-F, PML-LM too have put forward their favoured names. It may well be that an agreement will be hammered out in Karachi within the deadline. In Punjab and Balochistan however, there are complications. After the meeting of the four CMs with the PM, the only point of agreement to emerge was that the national and provincial elections would be held simultaneously, but there was no agreement on the simultaneous dissolution of the provincial assemblies, despite the fact that at one point it seemed that March 19 had been agreed for the purpose. The fly (ies) in the ointment were that Punjab CM Shahbaz Sharif did not want to commit till he had consulted his elder brother and party chief Nawaz Sharif, who happens to be abroad. Restored Balochistan CM Aslam Raisani seems to have reversed himself after the meeting with the PM. A constitutional crisis looms again in the province. The framers of the 18th amendment seem to have relied first and foremost on the political maturity of the actors settling these matters in order to ensure a smooth democratic transition. However, they kept their powder dry by seeing to it that fall back procedures would ensure the matter was settled one way or the other in the event that the stakeholders fell back onto their usual antics. This is where we seem to be today. May the people of Pakistan be blessed with wise leaders who can see beyond their nose.

Daily Times Editorial March 15, 2013

Too little, too late On the eve of the dissolution of parliament, it was strange to see both houses active in passing legislation in a hurry. Having already been passed by the National Assembly (NA), the National Counter-Terrorism Authority (NACTA) bill was passed by the Senate unanimously despite a critique by PPP Senator Raza Rabbani and questioning of the haste on display by Senator Mohsin Leghari. Rabbani’s reservations revolved around the fact that though it is described as an independent body, NACTA did not answer to the description since it would work under the bureaucracy. He also pointed out that the composition of the NACTA Board of Governors (BoG) meant that the military would command a superior position, one proof of which was that the prime minister, despite heading NACTA and its BoG, would be able to do nothing if the head of any agency did not attend NACTA meetings. Rabbani went on to say that the NACTA BoG was expected to be comprised of terrorism experts and federal secretaries, and questioned their ‘expertise’ in countering terrorism. He therefore, for all these reasons, did not think NACTA would fulfil the objectives for which it was being set up. Mohsin Leghari on the other hand did not want such an important piece of legislation passed in haste and wanted it sent to the committee concerned for further deliberations. The house nevertheless passed the bill and no party opposed it. The main purpose of the setting up of NACTA is said to be to ensure coordination and interaction amongst the federal, provincial, civilian and military law enforcement and intelligence organisations. Although we have consistently argued in this space for the setting up of a centralised anti-terrorism body, whether NACTA lives up to that billing remains to be seen. While the Senate was smoothing the path of the NACTA bill, the NA unanimously approved the Anti-Terrorism (Second Amendment) bill 2013, but only after the government, in its inexplicable hurry to see the bill passed, accepted 18 amendments suggested by the PML-N, MQM and others. Although the bill was originally being described as stringent, analysts are of the view that the incorporation of these amendments has drawn the teeth of the law. The bill empowers the government to preventively detain, for 30 days at a time and after recording reasons for the same, any person involved in any offence under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 (as now amended by this bill), or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information received or a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been so involved, for purpose of inquiry. Further, this preventive detention may be extended by an anti-terrorism court for 30 days at a time, while recording reasons for the same, up to a maximum of 90 days. Interestingly, journalists have been included in the list of people, departments and installations against whom attacks and intimidation would be dealt with under this amended law. Last but not least, the bill empowers the authorities to declare as proscribed any organisation composed of the leading lights of an already proscribed organisation who seek to re-invent themselves under a new name (as has happened to all the organisations banned under the Musharraf regime). It is amazing that at the fag end of its tenure, a fire has suddenly been lit under the government (with some help from the opposition) on these issues when five years have been wasted unnecessarily. To recall, the EU offered Pakistan a centralised anti-terrorism organisation, to be funded and provided training by EU experts, years ago. That proposal fell foul of turf wars over who would lead it, the Interior Minister, a civilian, or someone in uniform. Needless to say, the outgoing minister proved unacceptable to the military (and perhaps others), and the military seemed reluctant to share intelligence with its civilian counterparts. The present arrangement has elevated the office of head of NACTA to the prime minister, incorporated the heads of all civilian and military law enforcement and intelligence agencies, plus the four provincial chief ministers. If anything, this structure seems too unwieldy and therefore scepticism will persist that it is unworkable, quite apart from the quizzical questions why this has been promulgated now, when its fate would only be known at the hands of the incoming government after the elections. While the idea is good in principle, all these questions and anomalies as to structure, functioning and timing mean that we will only know if this really is an advance on present arrangements (including preventive detention for a similar period under the MPO) in the fullness of time.

Daily Times Editorial March 14, 2013

ECP, government, SC at odds The path of democracy in Pakistan ne’er did run smooth. Now, virtually on the eve of the announcement of the elections schedule, new and unexpected problems, issues and roadblocks have thrown up their ugly heads, giving the conspiracy theory industry lots more material to play around with. With so many crosscurrents in the air, it is hardly a surprise that the people of Pakistan are nothing if not confused, nay in a daze at what to make of the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party we are living through these days. The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) received a unanimous certificate of credibility not so long ago when a consensus Chief Election Commissioner, Justice (retd) Fakhruddin G Ebrahim was appointed. With his reputation for integrity, it was felt that Pakistan was on the cusp of a transparent, free and fair election, a transition through the ballot box from one elected government to the next, i.e. the laying of the foundations of agreed rules of the political game and the consolidation of a democratic order. How far we have advanced along this road since can and should be measured against the present controversy that has broken out between the ECP and the outgoing government regarding the nomination papers for aspiring candidates in the upcoming elections. In essence, the ECP is asking for so much detail on the political, economic and private life of candidates that the amended form runs the risk of being seen more as an inquisitional instrument rather than the prima facie tool for assessing a candidate’s suitability to run for elective office. The Federal Law Minister is said to have reservations on the amendments, hence the one-month delay in approval from the president of the new forms, an approval mandatory under the constitution, but on which the ECP now seems to have reversed itself and dubbing the president's approval a ‘mere formality’, has gone ahead with having the new forms printed. This has invoked the ire of Senators as well criticism from such legal luminaries as Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan on the ECP acting beyond its mandate and in violation of the prescribed procedure in the constitution. Meanwhile the Supreme Court (SC) too has weighed into the fray. Taking notice of the controversy, a three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry has ruled that its verdict of June 8, 2012, in which it elaborately interpreted Article 218 (3) should be the touchstone on which the elections should be organised and conducted and that the government should assist the ECP to do just that. Failing government facilitation, the SC has encouraged the ECP to implement in letter and spirit the judgement without fear or favour. The ECP, buoyed by the SC’s support, has not only stuck to its guns on the printing of the new forms despite the reservations of its member from Sindh, but also gone ahead with its proposed 24 amendments to the Representation of the People’s Act, 1976. If the amendments cannot be passed before the Assemblies are dissolved (a most likely scenario), the ECP desires these reforms to be promulgated through an Ordinance by the caretakers. They include, inter alia, an increase in the scrutiny period for nomination papers from seven to 14 days, elimination of the president’s role in appointment of election tribunals, suspension of any official who disobeys the ECP, increase in nomination fees, penalties for fraud, violations of election rules, corruption, disorderliness, etc. On the face of it the reforms seem positive, but the timing leaves many questions unanswered. It seems the constitution, laws and rules governing the country have been reduced to convenient interpretation by one or the other powerful, or aspiring to be powerful, state institution. It does no good to interpret clearly written down provisions that require the approval of the president as a ‘mere formality’ when it suits some quarters. The desire for transparency in candidates’ nomination papers is not in itself a bad thing if fraudulent, dishonest and corrupt elements are to be weeded out, but an excess of zeal in this direction is not desirable either. The contradiction between transparency and privacy must not be resolved in favour of a modern day Inquisition that not only rejects candidates unwilling to share what they see as information that is private and irrelevant to the electoral process, but also acts as a deterrent to new aspiring entrants into the electoral race. The ECP must review the criticisms being heaped on its head because of the new forms and proposed reforms that it has suddenly thought of at the eleventh hour and not get dragged into controversies that may impact on its credibility and that of the elections. All stakeholders are advised to keep the bigger picture in view – holding the elections in time and in a reasonably acceptable manner.

Daily Times Editorial March 8, 2013

The Bolivarian revolution Hugo Chavez of Venezuela finally lost a two-year battle against cancer on Tuesday. First detected in 2011, he had been under treatment in Cuba for most of the period since. The outpouring of grief amongst his people is testimony of his popularity, especially amongst the poor whom he made the centrepiece of his policies. Inevitably, that brought upon his head the hatred and vilification of the rich, whose privileges and dominant economic and social position in Venezuelan society he challenged. Messages of condolence have arrived thick and fast from virtually all over the world, including some of the countries considered his sworn enemies. Many world leaders are expected to attend his funeral in Caracas today, which some commentators say will rival that of Argentinean icon Eva Peron in 1952 in size and fervour. Speculation in the international and local media has centred on the possible fate of the Bolivarian revolution Chavez led in Latin America. This was a movement to emulate the example of Latin American independence fighter Simon Bolivar, whose dream was to see Latin America united, especially against the domination of its powerful northern neighbour, the US. While Venezuela had the unprecedented advantage of huge oil revenues (the country has the largest oil reserves in the world at an estimated 296 billion barrels) to fund Chavez’s social and economic redistributive policies on income, wealth and welfare for the poor, the whole of Latin America virtually has swung towards the left (through the ballot box) in recent years after the leftist guerilla movements of the 1960s and 1970s, attempting to emulate Fidel Castro’s revolutionary success in Cuba, had been defeated (with the notable exception of Colombia). Venezuela no doubt had been richly endowed by nature, but the use Chavez put the huge oil revenues to led to halving poverty and lifting millions out of absolute poverty by investment in education, health, housing, etc. All this was not achieved without the wealthy classes attempting to oust him through unconstitutional means when they realised he was too popular to be defeated at the hustings, a fact unmistakably established by his winning election after election hands down since he was first propelled to power in 1998. Before that, he had spent a stint of two years in jail from 1992 to 1994 for an attempted military uprising against the brutal repressive rule of his predecessor, Carlos Andres Perez. A paratrooper himself, Chavez never looked back from that initial failed bid for power, so much so that when a coup attempted to unseat him in 2002, the people mobilised and reversed the bid in 48 hours, such was the loyalty of his people with one of the few leaders in Venezuela or Latin America’s history who altered the lives of the poor for the better. Like so many other popular (and populist) Latin American leaders, Chavez was steadily pushed leftwards by the arrogant and domineering attitudes of Washington, and finally openly embraced socialism in 2005. For this shift, due credit must also go to his lifelong friend Fidel Castro of Cuba, who became a father figure and mentor to the Venezuelan president 20 years his junior. His leftward drift and friendship with Castro naturally invoked the open hostility of the US. Chavez in turn became more and more anti-imperialist, railing against Washington’s desire to dominate Latin America and the world. Consistent with his appreciation of the US as the greatest danger to regimes such as his, he sought friends in Latin America (the leftist governments of the region) and further abroad -- countries in conflict with, and threatened by, US hegemony (Iran, Syria, etc). While he consolidated his ties with friendly countries in Latin America through economic and political close ties, his allies further abroad formed part of a broad anti-imperialist coalition that challenged US hegemony. Chavez’s likely successor in the elections to be held within 30 days is Vice President Nicolas Maduro. If, as expected, he wins, he will have his task cut out for him. Critics point to the problems left behind by Chavez’s legacy. Crime, deteriorating infrastructure (including in the oil sector), inflation (currently 18 percent) and other ‘failings’ are constantly trotted out by Chavez’s inveterate opponents to predict doom and gloom for Venezuela and 'Chavismo', not to mention the Bolivarian revolution. But the trend of history indicates that what Chavez wrought, and what he has left behind as a legacy, will be difficult to reverse, let alone wipe out, since it has been embraced with enthusiasm by the masses of the poor. Rest in peace, Comrade Hugo Chavez. We salute you as a champion of the people.

Daily Times Editorial March 6, 2013

Aftermath of the Karachi blasts The country had not quite digested the Quetta sectarian carnage incidents in January and February when we had once again to be subjected to indiscriminate terrorism against innocent citizens in Karachi on Sunday. Although the targeted area, Abbas Town, is predominantly Shia, it also has Sunnis. The result is that even if the terrorists intended only to target Shias, they ended up killing and maiming many from both denominations. The spirit of solidarity displayed by citizens in helping each other after the blasts, while the security and rescue services were nowhere in sight, gladdens the hearts of all who see the sectarian terrorists as the worst of a bad lot. Tragically, as though the loss of life, limb and property were not enough on Sunday, the following day the funeral processions of some of the dead were fired upon and more people killed, as a result of which complete mayhem and chaos broke out, with again the law enforcement agencies conspicuous by their absence. While some diehard critics were wont to blame the deployment of the security forces at the engagement ceremony of a PPP leader on Sunday, it appears more likely that the security agencies took a deliberate decision to stay out of the line of fire until things settled down. Whether this can be described as strategy, dereliction of duty, or just plain cowardice is open to conjecture. Several areas of Karachi soon came under the grip of spreading violence, with no clear idea who was attacking who and why. If this not a state of anarchy, what is? While all friendly countries have condemned the latest incident of sectarian terrorism, the Supreme Court has once again felt constrained to take suo motu notice of the incident and will be hearing the matter at its Karachi Registry today. Ominously, just as in the case of the former Balochistan government, there is more than a hint in the Supreme Court’s formulation that it may examine whether the Sindh government has lost its constitutional validity for being unable to protect the lives and properties of citizens. A heated debate in the Senate has blamed both the government and the intelligence agencies for a manifest failure. Irrepressible Interior Minister Rehman Malik has once again tried to twist the knife in the PML-N’s back by calling the perpetrators ‘Punjabi Taliban’, implying the Punjab government’s ‘soft’ attitude to groups like Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ), which claimed the Quetta bombings, is to blame. He also wondered aloud whether these activities so close to the elections were meant to sabotage the polls. In the same breath, he also made the laughable claim that the backbone of the terrorists has been broken, citing the arrest of 30 LeJ activists as proof! With due respect Mr Minister, the terrorists are neither Punjabi nor any other nationality, as we have learnt over the last four decades. They are simply terrorists. Admittedly the Punjab government’s equivocation on the LeJ and similar groups has led to a lot of unease, but no one can be absolved of the blame for the situation having reached this pass. The ‘benign neglect’ of sectarian terrorist groups by all governments, federal and provincial, while ostensibly focusing on the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan-type activist, is now coming home to roost with a vengeance. Karachi is once again emerging as a sectarian flashpoint after Quetta. Last year, sectarian, terror, bhatta (extortion) and other criminal targeting killed 2,200 people in Karachi. Of these, 400 were Shia. In the first two months of the current year, 450 have already died. This seems to suggest an incremental escalation of terror, sectarian and other. We now have the unenviable situation of an incumbent elected government in its last days (i.e. virtually a lame duck), while the caretaker government to replace it is still not decided, making it difficult to hazard a guess what, if anything, it might intend to do about the spreading terror threat, which can not only cause the elections to be sabotaged, even if they are held to deny the terrorists that satisfaction, they could easily turn out to be very bloody. It is time for all the stakeholders to put their heads together on an emergency basis to put in place a centralized, coordinated anti-terror mechanism before the rivers of blood that have started to flow sweep everything good and positive along with them.

MQM-PPP off-on romance As predicted in this space, the MQM’s departure from the PPP-led government coalition literally weeks before the elections may not have constituted a total break. The immediate cause of the MQM’s departure was not clear, but the development gave the Sindh PPP the opportunity to repeal the Sindh People’s Local Government (SPLG) Act 2012 and reinstate the 1979 local government system. Apart from Pir Pagara’s PML-F and ANP, both of whom quit the coalition when the SPLG was promulgated, with the latter returning recently, the Sindhi nationalists and even the ranks of the Sindh PPP were resentful of what was essentially a hurried passage of the SPLG to virtually hand over the cities of Sindh to the MQM in perpetuity. With the departing MQM no longer able to exert pressure on its larger coalition partner the PPP to do its bidding, the Sindh Assembly wasted no time in throwing out the SPLG. The MQM federal and provincial ministers and Sindh Governor Eshratul Ibad too had resigned in the wake of the MQM’s departure, but now, on instructions from MQM supremo Altaf Hussain, the Governor has withdrawn his resignation and reassumed his duties, having met President Asif Ali Zardari in Lahore to seal his return. The ministers’ resignations are intact, and the MQM has not, as has been its practice through the last five years, returned to the fold of the coalition. The ubiquitous interior minister Rehman Malik, who has again and again played the role of troubleshooter in matters related to the difficult ally of the PPP, has once again had a meeting with Altaf Hussain in London, after which there is talk in the air of the core committee of both parties discussing matters, which no doubt will include the SPLG issue as well as the possibility of seat adjustments in the elections. This means that, as the reports after the London meeting indicate, both parties are not at the point of no return and regard the relationship as intact despite recent differences, and although they will go into the elections as separate parties with their own symbols, etc, cooperation is on the cards. Basically, any such cooperation would be centred on seats in the cities, since the MQM’s presence in the rural areas of Sindh is, to put it politely, thin. However, the MQM’s hopes of once again dominating the cities of Sindh may receive a setback from the Supreme Court’s (SC’s) insistence that its order to carry out fresh delimitation of constituencies in Karachi be implemented by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) even without a census. The ECP, succumbing to MQM pressure according to news reports, had retreated from its initial stance that it would carry out the SC’s orders in letter and spirit and attempted to justify its about turn by pleading the fresh delimitation could not be carried out without a census. The SC has given short shrift to this smokescreen and ordered the ECP to do its bidding. This is essential if the gerrymandering of constituencies imposed by the Musharraf regime to advantage the MQM is to be corrected. This constitutes the second defeat for the MQM in recent days, after the SPLG debacle. It appears from these developments that the era of the ability of the MQM to bend things its own way as it has been able to do since 1999, may finally be drawing to a close. Not a moment too soon, one might add, if free, fair and transparent elections are the objective.

Daily Times Editorial March 3, 2013

Musharraf’s return General (retd) Pervez Musharraf was known for chutzpah, amongst other things. Now, after five years of self-imposed exile that corresponds almost exactly with the tenure of the incumbent government and numerous false alarms during this time that he was about to return to the country and take politics by storm, we now have the ‘definitive’ return date. The good general has now declared from one of his watering holes (Dubai) that he will be back one week after the caretaker government takes over. The implication (unstated) is that Musharraf thinks a caretaker setup may go easier on him than the present outgoing one. Obviously, the need for this assessment/calculation is suggested by the fact that a number of cases loom like the Sword of Damocles over the general’s head. First and foremost, by now (albeit belatedly) he stands charged with Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, an accusation young Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari has publicly endorsed on international television. Unfortunately the investigation into her murder and the subsequent trial have both proved unsatisfactory, for content as much as for pace. If this were not deterrent enough against risking his neck on Pakistani soil, the general may also have to face the music on the charge of the murder of Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti. The military establishment since that seminal event in 2006, which left the province of Balochistan even more disturbed and troubled than before, has been bending over backwards to absolve itself of any wrongdoing in this affair, ascribing Nawab sahib’s death to a whole range of explanations, from unknown causes to suicide. Yet facts are stubborn things, and the surreptitious manner in which Nawab Akbar Bugti’s body was hurriedly buried without allowing his family to carry out his last rites, puts us to greater shame even than India’s hanging of Afzal Guru in Tihar Jail and burying his body there without even the courtesy of informing his family. Then there are all manner and hue of Laal Masjid victims and their supporters waiting in the wings to bring Musharraf to justice. In case Musharraf is relying on the judicial system to save his neck, he should be aware that the superior judiciary he emasculated and dismissed under his Emergency in 2007 is unlikely to view him sympathetically. Musharraf intends to thrust his head into the lion’s den that awaits him in Pakistan, with speculations in the media that he may be relying on some guarantees against his arrest on arrival (a threat held out by the present government) from the Saudis, and the possible support of the military that might be reluctant to see a former COAS behind bars. That remains to be seen, although we know that such brokered ‘deals’ are the stuff of our history. Musharraf claims he represents the ‘third force’ in counterpoint to the PPP and PML-N. He claims his party will put up candidates on almost all the seats. However, two questions remain unanswered. One, his power base having evaporated over the last five years, what gives him the confidence about his chances at the hustings? Two, if his claim of putting up candidates on almost all seats is taken at face value, that sounds like a huge enterprise. Where will the funding come from? Has Musharraf made so much money on the international lecture circuit or has he found a powerful financier? All this is still in the realm of speculation. The existing or potential court cases against Musharraf mentioned above aside, what no one has said is whether Pakistan has evolved democratically to the point where a military coup maker can be held accountable for his violation of the constitution and attracting the provisions of Article 6. Yahya Khan was declared a usurper long after he was dead by our judiciary compromised in the past by its legitimisation of every dictator in our history. Have we turned the page and do we have the political will to bring this living dictator to book? Tall order, vital question.