Pakistan often happens to find itself in the middle of some of the most sensational media matters ranging from the nuclear to terrorism. These are often triggered by Pakistan’s past policies, plus an inherent anti-Pakistan bias in sections of the Western media and the establishment. However the harmful controversies deal with the role of the state toward society. They expose the state and the government for their gross inadequacies as managers of national affairs.
Three important controversial events over the last few weeks illustrate this point. One is the government’s noncommittal response to the valid demand of the ruling party and opposition senators to place the defense budget before the Parliament for discussion. The opposition sought an explanation over the 22 billion-rupee increase in the allocated defense expenditure for 2004-5 plus the increase in the 2005-6 expenditure. Any argument that supports non-discussion of the defense budget in the name of national security is a spurious one. This is a key aspect of transparency of state affairs.
Without transparency and accountability in running state affairs, Pakistan will never be free from controversy and crisis of confidence both within and outside.
The second issue is related to the Mukhtaran Mai case. An invitation to her from a Pakistani-American group to discuss human rights issues caused such panic in the Pakistani establishment with Gen. Musharraf himself issuing instructions that Mukhtaran Mai not be allowed to travel to the US. The president believed that Mukhtaran Mai telling her story in the US would be bad for Pakistan’s image. “I don’t want to project a bad image of Pakistan. I am a realist. Public relations are the most important thing in the world. Pakistan is the victim of poor perceptions. The reality is very different. Rape is not a rampant malaise Pakistan suffers from every day.”
The fact is that the Mukhtaran Mai case did get special attention from the state, with the president himself intervening to ensure that those responsible for her rape were punished. Yet, reflecting the country’s messed-up judicial and police system, the courts issued a release order for the accused. The government has again intervened to advise the judiciary to re-examine the case. Meanwhile, the government’s reaction to Mukhtaran Mai traveling abroad raises many questions. She was invited to a seminar where the secretary- general of the ruling party was also invited along with other human rights activists.
If anything, the handling of this case in the past has demonstrated that this government is determined to deal strictly with the evil of rape. So why hesitate to let her go abroad? Rape is not peculiar to Pakistan, nor is the government responsible for it except in not establishing sufficient deterrents against the crime as it is trying to do. Then why fear what she would say?
Anyway, Mukhtaran Mai can say anything she wants to sitting in her own village thanks to information explosion, Internet, satellite telephones, etc.
To make matters worse, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called her counterpart Khurshid Kasuri to get an assurance that Mukhtaran Mai will be allowed to travel to the US. The Pakistani FO spokesman meanwhile insisted there was no outside pressure!
The third controversial issue was the suspension of ten opposition members by the Punjab Assembly speaker. This suspension and the overall partial conduct of the speaker reduces parliamentary democracy to a bad joke.
If a flimsy excuse like use of unparliamentary language justified the expulsion of parliamentarians then many ruling party members should have been shown the door as well.
Partial actions from positions that require impartiality are counterproductive. They exacerbate the tensions around civil-military relations in Pakistan flowing from the army’s role in politics and in the economic arena.
All these are issues of substance, not image. They require corrective measures. The prime minister himself, recognizing the legitimacy of the opposition’s complaints, promised last week in the Parliament that he would see to it that the state apparatus is not used for settling political scores. Whether he will actually do it is the million-dollar question. Is the state prepared to play a neutral and credible role in managing national affairs?
A very welcome step recently taken by the PPP was the introduction of an amendment bill in the Senate with regard to “independence of the judiciary”. It is hard to contest what is stated in the bill’s introductory paragraph: “The Party believes that a judicial system free from the control of the Executive, practicing equality before law and dispensing justice without fear or favor is a perquisite of a just civil society....” Such a bill deserves unanimous support. Without a genuinely independent judiciary, state and society both function at the lowest level of collective existence.
There is no orderliness to existence in the absence of accountability and rule of law. For genuine accountability, an independent judiciary is a necessary prerequisite.
On a broader note, no individual must be above law; those wielding power must especially be held accountable under transparent rules. There must be an end to the victimization of the opposition including the imprisonment of the opposition leader Javed Hashmi; return of all political leaders under a national reconciliation policy; the end of a military-led accountability system which has also persecuted political opponents of the government; the Local Government elections held on party basis, and the appointment of an independent minded chief election commissioner.
These steps are essential if Pakistan must be a prosperous country at peace with itself. Issues of image building will be largely addressed when such matters of substance are tackled; when there is solid, legal and constitutional action on home base.
