Yet another bad report

A REPORT just released by the US-based human rights group Freedom House shows that political and civil rights regressed significantly across the globe in the year gone by and that the democratic process in several countries, including Pakistan, was dealt yet another blow. Regardless of the government’s claim that the report is ‘outdated’ and ‘misleading’, in Pakistan’s case, the setback has been particularly severe. Ever since the March 9 episode when a presidential reference was filed against the then Chief Justice, a series of political mishaps have clouded the national scene and proved detrimental to the rights of the citizenry. The Nov 3 suspension of the Constitution and with it of political and civil rights might be seen as the worst point in this exercise of curtailing liberties, but little has improved even after the emergency was lifted by President Musharraf in mid-December.

From political rights such as electoral freedom to civil liberties including the right to free expression and an independent judiciary, Pakistan has scored, by Freedom House’s standards, a virtual zero. This and the introduction of laws (such as an amended Army Act that provides for the court-martial of citizens) have obscured any gains that the government might have seen during the course of a tumultuous year.However, it is easy to define the deficiencies of a system where democracy has been battered. It is more difficult to find a solution, especially in a dispensation that gives no importance to the views and welfare of the citizens, and that shies away from a consultative process aimed at promoting democratic traditions.

Perhaps an instant solution is free, fair and transparent elections. But this is only a partial remedy. The malaise that has come to afflict Pakistani society goes beyond not holding impartial polls. It is also a crisis of leadership. The latter has not been nurtured or allowed to evolve, thanks to several interruptions in democratic governance over the decades. The army’s interference, whether direct or from behind the scenes, has worsened the situation, and for any guarantee of political stability and full civil freedom in the country, it is necessary that its presence be curtailed so that it does not operate beyond the barracks. Only then would democracy truly arrive in Pakistan. Although one can foresee many slips in the beginning, at least the seeds would have been sown for a kind of politics that is genuinely representative of the people’s aspirations and that caters for their good. Conversely, if people’s rights continue to be suppressed, the country can only be expected to slide further into chaos, perhaps even head towards disintegration.

Waterfront project

THE deal has long been in the making and is about to go down. The ‘waterfront project’ which the governor of Sindh has now approved is beyond belief, so extensive is it in its reach and so far-reaching in its implications. So far, the privatisation of Karachi’s beaches has been relatively small in scale, limited to barring the poor (who are fast becoming unacceptable in this country despite their staggering numbers) from accessing the shoreline in one small stretch of Clifton. Now, the people interested in maximising profits while the going is good, at least by their reckoning, plan to auction off something to the tune of 84,000 acres between Manora and Kanupp. The waterfront project which all right-minded people ought to oppose to the maximum of their individual and collective capacities is upon us and will shortly become a fait accompli if civil society does not rally its ranks to protest against this latest outrage against what we hold dear as a people and nation.

There is only one reason why state and private land that should remain accessible to all is being sold to the highest bidder: money, grubby and filthy to the core. Karachi is now being seen as so much real estate that is ripe for liquidation. It is believed that billions can be made ‘legally’ by stretching the law while remaining within it. But one cannot be certain that the waterfront project will not be in violation of the law. Under the common-law Public Trust Doctrine the sea beaches belong to the people who must enjoy unrestricted access to it for recreation/livelihood purposes. The seashore is universally recognised as the ‘commons’ — that is belonging to the community. Hence the beach front move must be resisted. Nearly 200,000 people’s lives are at stake. The courts, such as they are, must be approached. Political parties, which claim to uphold the rights of the people, need to highlight the gross injustice involved in demolishing entire villages that have, against all odds, managed to eke out a living from the sea and its once untold bounty for centuries. Even if that doesn’t happen, we the citizens should feel duty-bound to raise a voice, however forlorn, against this social and environmental disaster in the making.

The few open spaces left in Karachi need to be preserved or conserved or whatever the politically correct way might be these days to describe such phenomena. It is time we took responsibility for our environment and what we call home. The waterfront project will have profound environmental and ecological impact while land use will change. We do not know how because, as is the wont in Pakistan, no scientific study has been undertaken so far.

Staying green

AN old tree should be treated like a sage; with much reverence and some degree of awe. Therefore, it is more than heartening to learn that a century-old peepal tree on the Kutchery Road-Abbott Road junction in Sialkot has many defenders. The Tehsil Municipal Administration’s (TMA) decision to chop it down for becoming an impediment to traffic flow has met with fierce resistance from the locals. They have vowed to protect the tree that has provided shade and shelter to them and their ancestors for close to 100 years. Residents have gone as far as plastering banners, posters and other symbols of protest to solicit support for its preservation, and have labelled the government’s intentions as ‘biological killing’. Over the decades, the monumental tree has assumed the status of a heritage site for the district, propelling its people to threaten civil court action against its felling. There is something to be said for old bonds, and even more for a largely uneducated population of a rural area that has more ecological concern than authorities for whom the alleged traffic disruption may be a ruse to make a quick buck from its priceless timber. Such instinctive activism is more than welcome in a country that refuses to learn from examples such as India’s, where the Chipko movement saw women wrapping themselves around old trees to prevent deforestation, or parts of Europe where the felling of a tree spells many years in jail.

Sensitivities such as the ones expressed by the locals of Sialkot should be encouraged for ecological and health gain. It is crucial that the government implement certain environmental laws with adequate penalties that prohibit green violations. The authorities should educate the concerned departments, particularly those outside urban centres, to find ways of accommodating nature rather than resorting to its elimination. Our collective ignorance can only create large-scale destruction that threatens endangered species and intensifies global-warming. It is time that green peace was given a no holds barred green signal.

Security of politicians

MR Rehman Malik, once security advisor to the late Benazir Bhutto, has recently written to the interior ministry, saying that the government must provide “foolproof” security for Mr Asif Ali Zardari, the PPP’s co-chairman. Mr Nawaz Sharif is dissatisfied with the security provided to him.

One may ask why it should be the government’s responsibility to protect the life and limb of individual politicians and why the taxpayers should pay the bill. When the American president is out on the road, arrangements for protecting him are by no means massive. A couple of secret service agents sit with him in his automobile, which is escorted by an armoured vehicle and followed by another. Agents are also posted at his destination.

This in spite of the fact that over time several attempts on the lives of serving American presidents have been made and some of them turned out to be successful. Security arrangements for presidents and prime ministers used to be fairly limited in Pakistan. Never before was the safety of opposition politicians considered the government’s business any more than that of ordinary citizens.

It may be argued that times have changed, the incidence of violence has increased enormously, and life has become a lot more precarious than it ever was before. But it may be argued also that times are bad for all of us, not for politicians only. Suicide bombers have killed many more ordinary citizens than politicians. It is then hard to say that the government’s obligation to safeguard politicians is greater than its obligation to protect all the rest of us.

There are a few other things to consider. All citizens are entitled to equal protection of the law, and all persons belonging to a given category are to be treated the same way. It follows that if the president of one political party is deemed entitled to protection at the public expense, presidents of all other parties are entitled to the same. More than 100 outfits are registered with the election commission as political parties’ presidents of all of them would then be qualified to receive protection.

But why only the presidents? Makhdoom Amin Fahim, Jehangir Badar, Shah Mahmood Qureshi in the PPP, other members of its central executive committee and its provincial presidents, are all prominent politicians — as prominent as Mr Zardari if not more so — and potential targets of assassins. The same holds for the Sharifs, Javed Hashmi, Liaquat Baloch and numerous other notables in various known political parties. We may then end up with several hundred politicians entitled to publicly funded protection.

Let us assume for a moment that Asfandyar Wali Khan gets 20 security guards to protect him. They will have to be where he is. The government will pay their salaries and meet their living expenses. They will have to shadow Asfandyar wherever he goes. They will need vehicles to follow him if one day he chooses to drive from Peshawar to Kohat. If he decides to fly, the government will have to pay for their air fares. Multiply all of this by the number of politicians entitled to protection, and the cost will probably run into billions to be paid out of the public exchequer. One may ask what doctrine of the public good will justify this outlay.

Granted that we have to have politicians (those who engage in the competitive pursuit of power) if we want democracy. We may agree also that times are bad and the danger to their persons is considerable. But one may say with Harry Truman (US president 1945-52) that “if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen”. Those who do want power and will contend with opponents in pursuing it should make their own security arrangements and pay for them. Many politicians in Pakistan do hire their own “bodyguards” and pay them.

But these private arrangements may not suffice in the case of the more prominent politicians. Could it then be argued that in such an event the state should provide the additional protection needed? I am sceptical of this reasoning. I am inclined to go with Harry Truman: I am aware that politics in Pakistan is a hazardous business. But so is sports car racing, mountain climbing or crossing the Persian Gulf in a rickety row boat to one of the emirates without proper documents. A person wishing to undertake one of these adventures should be willing to take the risks involved, including that of physical injury or even death.

Politics can and should be a noble profession. There was a time when public-spirited individuals in some places suffered loss of personal income as a result of taking public office and endured the inconveniences and hassles of contesting elections, primarily because they wanted to advance the common good. In doing so, they were serving the people, doing them a favour.The average Pakistani politician accepts the risks and inconveniences involved in his pursuit of high office and power for his own personal gratification. He is not doing the people any favour. He is then not entitled to ask them to fund programmes designed to reduce his risks.

If we are stuck with the theory that governments are obligated to arrange and pay for the personal security of politicians, two considerations should be kept in mind. Politicians out on an election campaign, addressing public meetings and leading processions want the maximum possible audiences. In America, if 1,000 persons come out to hear a candidate for public office, his meeting will be regarded as a big success. That kind of a count in Pakistan will be rated as a flop. A successful rally will mean the attendance of tens, even hundreds, of thousands. It is virtually impossible for any security force to ensure that a man with a pistol stashed away somewhere on his person will not enter this huge crowd and make his way to a location within shooting range of the targeted politician while he is addressing the people or mingling with them. This is not to say that security guards and their precautions are useless, but it does mean that they cannot be “foolproof”.

In the old days a saying had it that “he who pays the piper calls the tune”. No government’s capacity, financial or tactical, to provide security is unlimited. If the government is to do a reasonably decent job, the politician’s travel plans, speaking engagements and appearances in crowded places (rallies, processions, demonstrations) should be made with the concurrence of public authorities responsible for safeguarding him. This procedure will enable governments to control political campaigns. Benazir Bhutto did not accept this kind of limitation on her agenda. It is likely that Mr Zardari and most other opposition politicians will also reject it. But in that case they should make their own security arrangements, without asking the government to supplement them.

The writer, professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, is currently a visiting professor at the Lahore School of Economics.

anwars@lahoreschool.edu.pk

OTHER VOICES - Indian Press

Nuked deal

JUST when we were beginning to forget the Indo-US nuclear deal…it has begun to creep back into popular consciousness.

The Left parties…stepped down their rhetoric and “allowed” the government to proceed with talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency… Earlier, the Left had made it clear that any such step would be seen as operationalising the deal…

However, the moot point is, did we achieve anything…? This remains unclear. In any case, what really matters is whether the two countries, India and the US, are proceeding with all the necessary measures to make sure that the deal is signed, sealed and delivered.

Here the picture is not so clear, because while the UPA is hostage to its own political partners, in the US the pre-election season means that the deal is the last thing on the minds of either the Bush administration or the legislative bodies…

At our end, the Left parties have moved on from the deal per se to the larger question of strategic ties with the US. Two key accords for defence and maritime coordination between the two countries were to form the whole package of bilateral relations… The Left allies have always seen red on these elements…

Consequently…the two agreements are being jettisoned…Which implies that a key element of the foreign policy of this government…is on increasingly shaky ground.

Will this, by implication, kill…the nuclear deal? That would be too hasty a conclusion. But, given that the Americans are preoccupied with elections and the Indian government has still not managed to reach a compromise with the Left parties, it certainly looks like we may not see any major diplomatic action on the issue. — (Jan 17)

In a flap

LAKHS of birds have been killed in West Bengal and Bangladesh after public health officials confirmed fears of the dangerous H5N1 strain of…avian influenza…

At present, H5N1 is mostly transmitted from bird to bird, and rarely from birds to human beings. India has not reported any human cases so far, but that does not mean we can afford complacency.

Because it’s not just a big flap over an issue that seems to mainly concern waterfowl and poultry — these sporadic outbreaks, if not contained, could plunge us into a potential public health emergency.

Epidemiologists and policymakers have long been in fear of a major outbreak of influenza. If, for instance, this strain of bird flu mutates into a form that could spread from person to person, it could be a reprisal of the ‘Spanish flu’ that wiped out nearly 50 million people in 1918…

The currently circulating bird flu is not like the 1918 pandemic strain. On the other hand, that type of influenza needed to mutate only a handful of RNA nucleotides to take on a humanly contagious form.

This mutation is the very worst-case scenario — and with our densely populated cities and air travel, a lethal flu strain could spread all over the planet... Even though governments all over the world have invested in research and stocking up on anti-virals, our preparedness is limited…

Of course, the mutation has not occurred so far, and WHO maintains that there is no evidence of sustained spread from person to person. But this doomsday scenario is frightening enough for us to take any outbreak of bird flu with utmost seriousness. — (Jan 18)