16
JUST as well I’m not running in the elections next month: imagine my embarrassment had I flunked the Islamiat test devised by some zealous returning officer. Or, indeed, to be informed — as Ayaz Amir was — that my columns went against our elusive ideology.
According to press reports, when Owais Muzaffar Tappi, widely known as President Zardari’s foster-brother and unofficial enforcer in Sindh, went to file his nomination papers recently, he was grilled on the finer points of Islamic ritual and history.
Luckily for him, he had the answers down pat, otherwise the next Sindh Assembly might have been deprived of his presence. I would not have lost any sleep if Tappi is defeated in the polls, but I would have objected vociferously if he had been barred from standing by failing to answer the RO’s questions.
What business is it of any bureaucrat’s to sit in judgment over a candidate’s religious knowledge, or lack of it? Surely this is a concern some voters might have, but for the Election Commission to permit such a bizarre criterion for suitability — especially when it is being led by a liberal like Fakhruddin Ebrahim — beggars belief.
Indeed, the entire raucous debate about Articles 62 and 63 exposes the hypocrisy flourishing in Pakistan today.
These constitutional provisions refer to a candidate’s moral standing, and include an odd reference to his “practice and knowledge of Islam”.
Considering that we aren’t looking for angels to fill our assemblies with, I fail to see how a person’s adherence to his faith — a very private matter in my view — would makes him better suited to be a public representative. If voters demand this quality, they have a wide variety of religious parties to vote for.
However, as we all know, our clerics have never fared well at the hustings. The only time they won power through elections was in 2002, when they formed provincial governments in KP and Balochistan. But that fortuitous result was a gift from Musharraf.
So while people with impeccable Islamic credentials have been offering themselves before the electorate for decades, there have been few takers. Religious parties have seldom obtained much more than five per cent of the vote in any national election.
What does this say about the Pakistani voter? Clearly, he respects our venerable clerics, but sensibly considers them to be better guides to the next world than to this one. Here and now, his concern centres round mundane things like jobs, roads and electricity connections.
In such worldly matters, he thinks mainstream parties can deliver more effectively than politicians who are largely concerned with the spiritual — or say they are. Ever since our clerics entered electoral politics, they have been unable to overcome this reality. While they have been trained to preach and give religious guidance, the job requirement for elected representatives in the modern era is very different.
The truth is that madressahs do not equip students to deal with issues like economics and management. This is not to suggest that our MNAs and MPAs are experts in these fields either. Far from it, sadly. Nevertheless, they are flexible in their approach, and not circumscribed by the dictates of their ideology.
According to a recent British Council poll conducted among more than 5,000 Pakistanis between the ages of 18 and 20, a mere 29pc were for democracy. A startling 32pc preferred military rule, and 38pc expressed their preference for Sharia rule.
Although deeply depressing, the fact is that over the years, many Pakistanis have voiced a vague yearning for Islamic rule. And yet, when given a chance to vote for religious parties, they have refused to go along. So either they don’t trust our clerics to deliver, or voters say one thing to pollsters, but vote according to their real interests.
All these contradictions make for a divided and increasingly hypocritical society. While our electronic media is full of mealy-mouthed piety, the actions of the guests on our chat shows are very different. Although many young people say they want Sharia, it is a fact that Pakistanis are among the largest audiences in the world for websites with sexual content.
Similarly, while we pay lip service to Islamic injunctions relating to alcohol, the amount of booze consumed in the drawing rooms of our cities is prodigious. Although technically, betting is banned at horse races, millions are wagered every week. The state, however, is deprived of the billions in revenue other countries earn as a matter of routine.
The spirit behind Articles 62 and 63 was to ensure that crooks should not get elected to parliament. Nobody can object to this worthy goal. However, thus far, they have failed to do so: witness the drug smugglers and loan defaulters who have populated our assemblies in the past.
The current exercise to weed out candidates with a sordid past is to be applauded. But this should not turn into a witch-hunt aimed at blocking candidates who do not conform to the wishes of the establishment. It should be up to voters, and not Election Commission officials, to decide who gets elected.
The scrutiny of nomination papers should be limited to determining if a candidate has paid his taxes and utility bills, and if he has defaulted on loans. Fiscal probity is certainly a desirable quality among our representatives. Piety, however, cannot be measured by any reliable yardstick. Had it been so, then attendance at mosques, and frequent umrah and Haj visits, would have made Pakistan the holiest of all Muslim countries.
The unfortunate reality is that despite all our shrill religious zeal, Muslim countries remain among the most corrupt in the world.
Ironically, it is secular societies who score the highest in all quality of life and integrity rankings. Is there some connection here?
