Senguttuvan 

Sri Lanka

It’s all over now – at least the phase of the voting where we were assured.

This despite our frontline brilliant men and women in our jumbo delegation assuring they will humble Goliath with consummate ease. Predictably and in the inherent nature of things down this part of the world, it will only be the very naive who will summon that necessary grace to admit their part in the failure. And those who raised hopes most of the Latin American countries in the UNHRC will vote with us too failed to deliver. The suggestion was we have won them over with “our” camaraderie and expertise on Latin American affairs. Neither did various forms of intimidation and harassment by government-inspired and financed mobs right in the precincts of the UN/Geneva bring us any credit. It certainly brought us an inelegant tongue-lash from the HC/HRC. As the London-based Economist concluded, the ground reality in Geneva has changed since 2009 when we happened to escape from the very issues – that came under scrutiny in Geneva this week.

Geneve is now fait accompli. What, pray tell us, should we be doing now is the concern of the country. The answer does not rest in the official Rottweiler seeking a human sacrifice, in the form of a child, to do that necessary hooniam to be rid of the bad spell on His Majesty. Even the open attacks by journos identified as Rajapakse apologists in their pages; the crude anti-Indian language of Ministers like Sirisena must give way soon so that the Rajapakses engage Delhi once again for their own survival, they cannot do otherwise. It requires a combination of brains, courage and gratitude from the regime to express to India their appreciation for more reasons than succeeding in getting the Americans to accept that saving grace of including the words “in consultation with and with due concurrence of GoSL in implementing the Resolution.” The other favour India did was to get us an year’s time to carry out the LLRC recommendations whereas the Americans insisted on “early and visible steps” with the Office of the UNHRC monitoring progress. Encouraging a few hundreds Buddhist priests to irreverently shout opposite the Indian High Commission in Colombo certainly is not one of the choices. Working up the local media and the Weerawansa-Ranawake-Mervin Silva ilk of Ministers that Tamilnadu put the spanner in the works will not hold much water in actual terms. In the DR Nanayakkara language the Rajapakses understand easily “we must know our size.” The fault was entirely the Rajapakses who failed to recognise the importance of the counselling Delhi was offering them for some time in various stages – the final phase of which was the visit of Minister S.M. Krishna. Trying to make a liar of Mr. Krishna may not have been taken far too well by the South Bloc.

If one is to go by the nature and history of the Rajapakses, they will stall what has been imposed on them last Thursday. The usual charade of inspired rent-a-mob facades; thousands of Buddhist priests taking the streets; encouraging sycophant journos to whip up anti-Indianism, anti-West sentiments are scenes likely to follow. This will, necessarily, result in exposing the Rajapakses to more serious steps later in the form of travel sanctions and the like. Whether we are signatories to the Treaty of Rome or not are technicalities that will fall by the wayside when the Big Leaguers decide to act – as they did in Geneva.

Sri Lanka’s immediate salvation lies in giving their Tamil citizens their long-denied dues – some of which identified in the State-inspired LLRC itself. More important – necessary for a smooth Rajapakse innings – will be to bring in better brains to handle the economy. If the Lankan Rupee goes down to Rs.150 for the US$ from the present level of Rs.131 by July – as market sources predict – then we will be half down the Zimbabwe road. Neither Rajapakses, Wickramasinghes orRanawakes will be able to do sweet nothing if that is going to be Sri Lanka’s imposed fate.

Courtesy: Sri Lanka Guardian

Dr. HasanAskari
Lahore
The problems of the United States have increased in Afghanistan because of two recent developments of the Quran related incident and the killing of 16 Afghans by an American soldier. The U.S. has regretted both incidents.
However, the U.S. will have to deal with the political fall-out of these two incidents, especially because the Afghan government has also taken a serious notice of these incidents. The Afghan government is already under pressure from domestic political circles to seek a revision of the framework of Afghanistan-U.S. relations. Given the internal pressures President Hamid Karzai is playing tough with the U.S. His wants the U.S. to provide a categorical commitment to avoid such incidents in the future. This needs to be coupled with an earlier issue regarding night time American raids in civilian populated areas. The Afghan government wants the U.S./NATO to stop such operations in Afghanistan.
The current U.S. policy in Afghanistan has four major features:
1 The U.S. and NATO military forces will be withdrawn by the end of 2014.
2. The combat role of U.S. troops would end by mid-2013 and the troops would be confined to selected areas and would not perform security operation unless asked by the Kabul government.
3. The training of Afghan National Army (ANA) and police will be accelerated so that Afghanistan has enough troops to assume security responsibility from the U.S. This training program will continue even after the withdrawal of American/NATO troops.
4. The U.S. wants to strengthen the representative character of the Karzai government by negotiating peace deals with some Taliban groups or bring in some more Pakhtun elements in the Afghan state system. The exact formula for power sharing is not available because the U.S wants to evolve this through negotiations. This will be around the present Afghan Constitution. Americans are also encouraging the Kabul government to directly talk to the Taliban.
Now, after the two latest incidents, as mentioned earlier, there is a debate in the U.S. and elsewhere on the withdrawal schedule. One argument talks of extending the deadline for the final withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. The underlying assumption is that the security situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating and the U.S. cannot simply withdraw and let the Taliban and its allies to displace the Kabul government. The other argument insists on a quicker withdrawal because the extension of the stay does not assure a success for Americans. They want the U.S. to train Afghan troops at a faster rate so that they take up the security responsibility as early as possible.
There is an additional issue. The Afghanistan government and the U.S. are currently negotiating a security partnership agreement for some American military presence in Afghanistan. It appears that the U.S. would like to retain at least one military base out of three constructed in the recent years. Both governments want to settle the broad framework of mutual security arrangements before the major international conference on Afghanistan in Chicago in May this year.
Another proposal for securing the future of Afghanistan is to promote the cooperation of the neighboring states like Central Asian states, Iran, Pakistan, and India. If China and Russia come on board the regional arrangement would get much weight. These states need not complete with each other for building influence in post-2014 Afghanistan. These should pool their resources for Afghanistan’s reconstruction and its stabilization.
Some efforts have been made by Turkey to promote greater understanding and cooperation between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Another exercise for a regional approach is being pursued by Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. The latest meeting of heads of state of these countries was held in Islamabad in February this year.
Pakistan has strong interest in Afghanistan’s stability. If civil strife erupts in Afghanistan or the Taliban assume power in Pakistan, its negative spill over will be on the tribal areas of Pakistan. The Pakistani Taliban are an ally of the Afghan Taliban and the former would support the latter in their bid to take over Afghanistan. This means that civil strife in Afghanistan will engulf Pakistan’s tribal areas whose negative impact will adversely affect Pakistan’s mainland.
Pakistan’s other concern is the expanding role of India in Afghanistan. Pakistan is not opposed to India’s role in Afghanistan’s economic reconstruction. Pakistan is perturbed by the fear of India using its presence in Afghanistan to provide material support to Baloch dissident groups.
Any regional arrangement on Afghanistan must take into account the concern of the regional states in return for their support to the Kabul government and overall stability in Afghanistan.
Pakistan’s role in regional will depend on resolving the current problems in Pakistan’s relations with the U.S. since the U.S./NATO attack on Pakistani check posts on the Afghan border on November 26, 2011. The reopening of transit route for American goods to Afghanistan through Pakistan will help to improve their bilateral relations.
Afghanistan and the U.S. want Pakistan to help the negotiation process by encouraging Pakistan based Afghan Taliban to open negotiations with the Kabul government. Pakistan has agreed to help the Kabul government in this respect.
For any agreement for power sharing with some Afghan Taliban groups, there is a need on the part of the Kabul government to be willing to restructure itself for accommodating the Taliban and the Pashtuns. This will require reduction of Tajik and Uzbek domination of the Kabul government.
Further, Afghanistan must overcome opposition to peace with the Afghan Taliban from some Tajik and Uzbek elements in the Afghan government. The leaders of these ethnic groups do not want to lose their primacy in the Afghan government. They are opposed to negotiations with the Taliban. However, without winning over some Taliban groups the Kabul government cannot survive after American leave.
Some new ideas are being explored for stabilizing Afghanistan in the future. However, the details of the future shape of things have not so far been evolved. We may get some detail after the Chicago Conference on Afghanistan in May 2012.

K.T. Zaman
Bangladesh
The landmark verdict at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg established legal territorial rights of Bangladesh in the Bay of Bengal. The court sustained Bangladesh’s claim to settle maritime boundary with Myanmar. The verdict cannot be appealed against and has become effective immediately. It is expected that the dispute with India over maritime boundaries will also be settled by 2014.
The first obstacle in uninterrupted economic use of sea resources is over. The next step is how best resources at sea can be utilized and protected. All the activities at sea demand safe environment and the people involved with those activities need some sort of security. Maritime security means ensuring of full control over our sea area and the activities carried out there.
The navy is considered as the leading maritime force in a country. The Daily Star on March 17 referred to defense experts who emphasized that the establishment of full control over its maritime boundary would require Bangladesh to bolster its naval capacity. Almost all the countries of the world maintain a navy for these purposes and Bangladesh is no exception. However, in furtherance of ensuring effective maritime security, Bangladesh Navy must be able to coordinate with other maritime forces, which include coast guards and other government agencies charged with sovereignty, security, law enforcement and constabulary functions at sea.
Maritime security is a multi-disciplinary concept that involves military science, police science, domestic and international laws, and geopolitics of the area concerned. The importance of maritime security cannot be over emphasized because it affects territorial integrity, human security and economic prosperity.
The ambit of maritime security is very wide and covers many aspects. Maritime security challenges of the 21st century include maritime territorial disputes, inter-state conflicts, piracy, maritime terrorism, illegal weapons trade, human smuggling, maritime pollution, protection of sea lines of communication, sea borne trade, drug trafficking, gun-running, accidents , mining by non-state actors, maritime cooperation, preservation of living and non-living resources, maritime search and rescue (SAR), natural disasters, climate change etc.
Economically and strategically Bangladesh remains a maritime nation, mostly dependent on what happens at and from the sea. The maritime domain is the most promising way for Bangladesh to pursue its national interests of “wellbeing of the nation.” Bangladesh is open to the Bay of Bengal in the south. This brings both advantages and difficulties.
Given the current global and regional security environment, comprehensive maritime security is required. It includes Bangladesh ports, shipping, fishing, off-shore oil and gas facilities and shipping lanes in Bangladesh waters. This needs not only Bangladesh national measures but also a concerted effort among littoral coastal states, landlocked states, flag states and maritime industry partners.
Maritime space belonging to Bangladesh has to be secured from military and non-military threats. The mechanisms often employed include physical security measures, naval operations, crisis management, intelligence gathering, and risk management. Preventive and protective measures against infringement of maritime boundaries and security incidents affecting ships, offshore resources, crews, cargoes, port facilities and the people who work in sea areas surely demands concerted efforts by many maritime authorities besides the navy.
A comprehensive approach to maritime security certainly demands a central national organization to deal with the matters. Such an organization — for example, “Maritime Security Authority (MSA)” or “Maritime Security Center (MSC)” — would co-ordinate all activities related to detection and prevention of security threats emanating from the sea. The purpose of MSA or MSC would be to promote cooperation amongst various maritime enforcement agencies so they can act together to fight threats to the maritime community and act as liaison between law enforcement agencies, maritime community and government. The associate members would include representatives from concerned ministries, enforcement agencies, public sector maritime agencies and private sector maritime communities.
Besides national efforts, regional or global cooperation is also necessary to ensure maritime security, in particular against transnational non-military threats. All nations demonstrate a clear awareness of the importance of maritime security in the 21st century. Threats emanating from the maritime domain affect all nations and require collective efforts to effectively counter them. MSA or MSC may also implement the task of promoting further regional cooperation and enhance the effectiveness of such cooperation.
In order to advance the security of Bangladeshi and the international maritime community, and for ensuring safe, secure and clean seas, an organization like MSA/ MSC is now a need of the time.
The writer is a maritime security analyst.

Pakistan is now trying to expand the scope of its foreign policy. While maintaining cordial relations with the Western countries, it is trying to develop more active diplomatic and economic ties not only with the neighbors but also with other countries that have remained neglected in the past. Current difficulties in the U.S.-Pakistan relations have also led Pakistan to review the whole gamut of international ties. Pakistan and the U.S. are expected to take up the issues arising out of U.S.- NATO attack on two Pakistani border posts on November 26, 2011, before the end of this month and re-vive their relations with reference to Afghanistan and bilateral issues on mutually agreed new terms. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister visited Moscow in February for exploring new economic and diplomacy options. In January, the 7th session of Pakistan-Russia Consultative Group was held in Moscow. In 2011, President Asif Ali Zardari visited Moscow for the SCO summit conference and the Army Chief also undertook a visit to Russia in the same year. In the immediate aftermath of Vladimir Putin’s election as President of Russia, Pakistan’s Prime Minister congratulated him on phone and invited him to visit Pakistan. He accepted the invitation but no date has been fixed for his visit to Pakistan. Myanmar ((Burma)’s Air Force Chief visited Pakistan in January and President Zardari visited that country later that month. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani visited Qatar this month and participated in the World Economic Forum at Devos in the last week of January. President Mahinda Rajapaksa visited Islamabad on February 10-12. Pakistan is giving more attention to helping the Afghanistan government to engage in a dialogue with the Afghan Taliban. There have been several exchange visit with Afghanistan and Iran during the last three months, including the visit of Pakistan’s Foreign Minister to Kabul (February) and Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s visit to Islamabad in the same month. The efforts are underway to activate Pakistan’s relations with Iran. The Vice President of Iran visited Pakistan in February, followed by the visit of Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmed Nijejad’s official visit. In fact, the Presidents of Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan held one-day summit conference in Islamabad in mid-February on regional issues and peace in Afghanistan. These three countries decided to work together for dealing with the Afghanistan problem against the backdrop of the gradual withdrawal of U.S./NATO troops from there. Pakistan has emphasized the need of peaceful means and diplomacy on the question of Iran’s nuclear program between Iran and the U.S. Pakistan used to get 35 megawatt electricity from Iran for Gwadar and Turbat areas of Balochistan. Now, the electricity supply has been increased to 70 megawatt. Pakistan has reaffirmed its commitment for the gas pipeline from Iran. There has been a significant improvement of relations with India, including Pakistan’s decision to grant India the status of the Most Favored Nation (MFN). India’s commerce Minister visited Pakistan with a big trade delegation in February and they explored the option of expanded and active trade. If the present trends continue Pakistan and India will have more or less free trade by the end of 2012. For the first time an Indian trade fair was held in Lahore on February 11-13. The relations with China continue to maintain an up-swing with high power visits and trade. This is despite the Chinese complaint of the training of Islamic militants of Eastern Turkmenistan Movement in Pakistani tribal areas who engage in violence in Chinese Muslim majority province of Xinjiang. Pakistan assumed a seat in the UN Secretary Council as a non-permanent member on January 1, 2012 for two years. Pakistan needs global, especially the U.S., support for overcoming its acute economic problems. However, Pakistan’s military circles have used their linkages with the media and the Islamists and political Far-Right to play up anti-America sentiments in Pakistan. The sudden rise of the Pakistan Defense Council, a coalition of hard line Islamic groups that have strong sympathy for the Taliban, is the product of this approach. Now, when the Pakistan military and the civilian government would work towards normalizing their relations with the U.S. later this month, these groups will oppose it. In this way the Pakistan military will become victim of its own policies Pakistan cannot adopt a policy of isolation from the West, as advocated by most Islamic hard line groups. There is a need to maintain cordial relations with all states, especially the United States and the West that provide more economic and technological help to Pakistan than any other country or region. This needs to be coupled with economic and active diplomatic interaction with other countries, especially Russia and Central Asia that have remained neglected in Pakistan’s foreign policy. The present momentum with China needs to be maintained. We are living in the age of globalization and communication revolution. Pakistan should strengthen its economic and diplomatic links with the rest of the world. This will help Pakistan to cope with its economic problems. Further, Pakistan needs to help Afghanistan to strengthen its internal security because any internal strife in Afghanistan will have destabilizing impact on Pakistan’s tribal areas.

The Senate, upper house of the parliament in Pakistan, has limited powers as compared to the Senate in the United States. Nevertheless, its election attracts much attention and it is taken seriously by the political parties. Half of its members are elected after every three years through an Electoral College comprising of the provincial assemblies. Four members from Islamabad are elected by the members of the National Assembly and the 12 National Assembly members from the tribal areas elect 8 Senators from the tribal areas. When the Constitution was enforced in August 1973, the Senate had 45 members. Its strength was raised to 63 in 1973, 87 in 1985 and 100 in 2002. The 18th Constitutional Amendment (2010) added four more seats for non-Muslims– one from each province. This raised the strength of the Senate to 104 in 2012. Each province has 23 seats (General seats 14, technocrats/ulema 4, women 4 and non-Muslims 1), Islamabad: 4 seats (General seats 2, technocrat 1, woman 1), Federally Administered Tribal Areas: 8 seats. In addition to reserved women seats, women can contest on general seats. There is no restriction on non-Muslim on contesting on general seats. 54 new members were elected to the Senate on March 2, 2012, who would assume their seats in the Senate on March 12. The PPP emerged as the single largest political party in the Senate. The PMLN, the ANP and the MQM also made gains, becoming next three leading parties respectively. There was no surprise in this result because these parties were expected to lead in view of their standing in the provincial assemblies. The successful completion of the Senate election marks the realization of one of the two goals set out by the PPP for 2012. The second goal is the national budget which is expected to be presented in late May for its approval by mid-June. This is going to be the election-budget and will set the stage for announcement of the election schedule in consultation with the federal coalition parties and the op-position, especially the PMLN. The increased strength of the PPP in the Senate does not mean that its governance will improve. It will continue to face alienation within its party ranks and sharp criticism in the media but it is neither expected to collapse nor improve its performance. It may provide some economic relief to the common people in the next budget but it will not be able to ad-dress the structural problems of the economy. The PPP’s success gives a psychological boost to the party at a time when it is under strong pressure from the Supreme Court and, at times, from the military. The memo issue also haunts the federal government. Mansoor Ijaz, the author of the memo, has come out with a number of stories against President Zardari without providing concrete evidence about the credibility of his statements. How could he get the information about the alleged communication between the Army Chief and the Presidency regarding the May 2 American operation in Abbottabad? How could he claim to know about the flight of F-16 aircraft and the related matters? Either Mansoor is a fiction writer or so powerful that he gets confidential information both from Pakistan and the United States? This raises the issue about the nature of Pakistani state. Three Pakistani institutions, i.e. the military, the judiciary and the federal executive, are pre-occupied with one person’s statements whose credibility is yet to be established. The federal government is also faced with the pressure from the Supreme Court because of the contempt case against the Prime Minister. He faces the risk of being convicted for contempt of court. The Supreme Court has the constitutional and legal powers to remove an elected Prime Minister, thereby strengthening the tradition of removal of an elected Prime Minister by a non-elected institution. However, if the coalition of four parties remains intact at the federal level, the political clout of the PPP will stay intact. It can get a new Prime Minister of its choice elected by the National Assembly who may continue with the present policies, including the issue of writing a letter to the Swiss authorities to reopen money laundering cases against the sitting Pakistani President. The media and some opposition leaders have talked of the role of money for buying votes, although no concrete evidence has been provided in this respect. The role of money or manipulation can be possible where party-loyalty is weak, as in Balochistan, or the electoral-college is too small, as in FATA. In other places party loyalties have remained effective. The only exception was in the Punjab where a defector from the PMLQ contested independently and defeated a PPP candidate because of his personal relations with some PPP members and the PMLN’s desire to patronize defiance of PMLQ’s leadership, the Chaudhris. However, the compensation for the PMLQ leader-ship is that one of their known loyalist and vocal critic of the PMLN has been elected. Politics is not expected to change much after the Senate elections. The federal government will continue with its survival struggle in the face of multiple challenges either from other state institutions and the op-position political forces or its own mistakes. The federal and provincial governments do not have effective solutions for the troubled economy and the threat of religious extremism and militancy.

In the US based Foreign Policy magazine, Bangladesh has improved one stage, becoming 25th from 24th. But still there is a question to whether this is good news for us and whether we should be satisfied or not? It has improved in the ranking not because we have done well but because others have fallen. If we analyze the situation of the countries that did worse in the index, we will find reasons behind it which does not exist in Bangladesh. These countries are facing problems of geographical deprivation, war, massive disaster, civil war, historical poverty, political non-acceptance etc. For example, Pakistan is 12th; Myanmar ranking 18th and Sri Lanka is in the 29th place. Pakistan is facing severe political problem with the Talibans, Myanmar does not have an all accepted government system and Sri Lanka has recently recovered from a civil war. Bangladesh stands free from such issues and yet is placed 25th. The index is prepared on 12 indicators among which Bangladesh lies in an alarming situation in some of the sectors such as group grievance (9.2 out of 10), factionalized elites (8.9 out of 10) and uneven development (8.4 out of 10). The countries in the top 10 are Chad, Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan Central African Republic and Iraq in the Failed State Index (FSI). There is less inflow of refugee and less external intervention in the country; so, we have scored less in these two cases. In the other 10 sectors, our performance has been frustrating. It is a big threat for us that our law and order situation is gradually deteriorating our scores in group grievance and factionalized elites indicate this. Outrageous activities of murder and crimes are in-creasing in such a way that they have become a very common scenario of the country and our policy makers pay little hid to it. Criminologists have long contended that crime increases when the economy struggles. But it can never be the only reason be-hind the increased crime rate of a country. The incident of Rumana Yeasmin shows how an educated and well established woman can be severely tortured by the husband who is also a modern educated man nourished from the top ranked university of Bangladesh. In this incident, I found all the phenomenon of the contemporary negative impacts of modern globalization or what we can also call modernization inactivity: mobile, facebook, accusation of extra-marital affairs, isolation, loneliness, hiding from others and so on. Committing crime is a result of so many socio-economic and political factors. Experts argue that people commit crimes for some of these reasons: economic, power, greed, anger, jealousy, passion, boredom, fear, peer pressure, opportunity, vandalism, failure of self-direction, lack of moral judgment and character etc. Again, another group of experts believe that people commit crimes when they do not see the benefits of adhering to conventional social values. When schools fail to teach the moral lessons, teachers are no longer the icon of principles, anti-religious activities become the symbol of modernity and smartness, senior officials are corrupt, people are very individualistic in families, families are isolated in the society, and the state plays little role in punishing the evil while remaining busy fulfilling personal interest. How then can crimes be controlled? Again, looking at the statistics of Odhikar from January 1 to March 31, 2011, we are astounded by how a state can proceed even through these! Odhikar reports that in three months, extra judicial killings numbered 44, killings by BSF were 14 when they injured 43 Bangladeshis, killings from political violence were 52, incidents of acid violence were 51, dowry related violence were 180, incidents of rape were 245 and these of sexual harassment were 317. If a state cannot ensure safety for the citizen, it indicates three things: social change is very drastic and highly unequal, unemployment and so frustration among people is increasing and the government is being run by unskilled or insincere people. In Bangladesh, people are being outrageous as they are not mature enough to adapt to the modern technology and the so-called modern culture. When the son is killed or when the daughter is raped or is attacked with acid, the parents naturally don’t bother about other national issues. The government is the parent and of course there is a social contract between the citizen of the country and the government. The people have given the mandate to the government for ruling the country with condition that it will ensure the citizens’ wellbeing and security. But in reality there is a huge gap. Some concrete steps need to be taken to save the country from deterioration. Political employment should be stopped first in the sectors which are responsible for uplifting the rule of law. Criminals should be ad-dressed on a daily basis and the verdict for them should be made public through media. And most importantly, the government needs to retain the faith of common people so that this can inject hope in people’s mind for doing something constructive rather than committing crimes. The writer is a Development Researcher and Pro-gram Officer at Islamic Relief Worldwide. E-mail:mithunmds07@gmail.com

Democratic transition is a slow and difficult process in countries like Pakistan that have experienced long years of military and authoritarian rule. As the competing interests do not have long experience of pursuing their agendas in a democratic framework, they often tend to violate the spirit, if not letter, of democracy.  They need time to learn democratic politics. There is a lot of jockeying for power and influence in the formative phase of democratic transition. This power struggle is often couched in high moral rhetoric or legal and constitutional interpretations to one’s advantage. One troubling tendency is to engage in propaganda to delegitimize democratic processes and leadership if one’s partisan agenda is not achieved. This is also done as a part of struggle to expand one’s power or influence or domain of authority.   

It is quite common in Pakistan to invoke abstract democratic theories and principles to delegitimize democratic institutions and processes. There is a tendency to trash democracy because it does not meet the ideal and text-book criterion. Other argument is that there is no use of democracy if it does not solve the problems of the common people.  There is no answer to the question as to what is the guarantee of solution of the problems of people in a non-democratic and military-dominated sys-tem.  If nothing works for questioning the legitimacy of elected rulers or democratic arrangements, Islamic principle or some precedent from Islamic history is invoked to argue that the existing arrangements should be done away with.    

An independent judiciary is needed for a democratic political order but this is not the only requirement. It is important that different state institutions like the executive, the parliament, the judiciary, the bureaucracy and the military perform their assigned tasks within the limits of law and constitution and respect each other’s autonomy and role. Any at-tempt by one institution to overwhelm others causes institutional imbalance and adversely affects democracy and civilian order.  Another important principle of democracy is the primacy of elected institutions over non-elected institutions, al-though the elected institutions and office holders have to function in accordance with the constitution. We are experiencing a steady attempt by the Supreme Court and the High Courts to expand their domain of action through judicial activism. Though judicial activism is a well-recognized principle for public service and welfare issues but the use of judicial activism and the suo motu power by the Supreme Court and, at times, by the High Courts, since 2009 has generated a debate in the legal and political circles about the extent to which the superior judiciary can interfere in the domains of other institutions. If we make a list of issues taken up by the superior judiciary since 2009, judicial activism can be described as unprecedented, covering a wide range of issues relating mainly to governance.

Even if a purely legal approach is adopted to examine judicial activism, one cannot help pointing out that the issues taken up by the superior judiciary have political implications in Pakistan’s polarized political context.  Most politically active circles get information about court proceedings through the press and TV news channels that highlight the comments made by the judges sitting on the bench.  A large number of comments as published in the media can be described as politically loaded. These comments are used by the opposition parties and the media to embarrass the federal government. 

Sensing tension between the superior judiciary and the PPP-led federal government, the opposition parties have endeavored to turn the judiciary into an arena of contestation with the PPP. They have gone to court on a number of purely political issues that should have been settled through political interaction or through the parliament.

The most interesting case is a petition filed in the Supreme Court by someone on the basis of a speculative report that the PM might remove the army chief and director general of the ISI. The prayer of the petitioner is to stop the PM from doing that.  The Supreme Court wants the prime minister to give a written undertaking for not removing these top army officers.   Now, the Supreme Court has taken up the cases of the missing persons and Asghar Khan/s petition of 1996 concerning the ISI funding. One wonders if the Supreme Court would treat the Army and the ISI the way it treats the civilian leaders.                          

The Supreme Court is constitutionally and legally right to take up the contempt of court issues and even convict the PM. However, its political fallout will be negative for democracy and civilian primacy. In the political domain the Supreme Court may not succeed.  The ruling coalition at the federal level will stay intact and it can elect a new prime minister. In this way the present political order will continue.  What if the new prime minister refuses to write the letter? Will the Supreme Court start another contempt case against another prime minister?                         

In case of increased tension between the elected executive and non-elected Supreme Court the opposition parties are expected to oppose the federal government. This will set the stage for political confrontation and economic turmoil.

Pakistan’s federal government is under strong domestic political pressure from the Supreme Court and the opposition parties on a number of issues. The Supreme Court appears to be in a mood to adopt some punitive action against the prime minister on what it views as its contempt by not fully implementing its orders. The divergence between the two state institutions has two negative implications for the future of democracy.

First, it has intensified political divide in Pakistan. The opposition and a good number of other political activists are supportive of the Supreme Court’s policy of reprimanding the PM and building pressure on the federal government. This is not necessarily out of love of judiciary but because this helps the agenda of the political adversaries of the PPP-led federal government.  This polarization will increase with the passage of time. Some political elements are already condemning the PM and the ruling coalition led by the PPP for not implementing the judgment of the Supreme Court. Others are talking of the negative implications of what they describe as the hyper-active Supreme Court that is embarrassing the federal government by its orders and the remarks of the judges in the course of the court proceedings.

Second, these developments are being viewed as a struggle between elected and non-elected state institutions to expand their domains in a situation of a slow transition towards democracy. They will take time to work in harmony in a democratic framework. Currently both sides appear to be impatient to assert their authority and expand the space for action.

In the past, the military, another non-elected state institution, replaced civilian governments and it continues to periodically build pressure on the civilian government. Now, the superior judiciary is an active player and it is keeping the executive under pressure. The removal of an elected prime minister under pressure from non-elected judiciary is going to be a negative development.

This is true that an independent judiciary is needed for democracy.  As compared to the past, the Supreme Court and the High Courts have become more independent and assertive after the restoration of the Chief Justice in March 2009 by the PPP-led federal coalition government under pressure from the Army and the threat of agitation by the opposition led by the PMLN.

However, democracy can be viable if other requirements are also fulfilled because independent judiciary is one of many conditions for making democracy sustainable. Different state institutions need to work in harmony and respect each other’s autonomy. If one state institution attempts to overwhelm others or assumes the self-ascribed role of rectifying and correcting all other institutions and key official and political player, democracy is bound to run into trouble. This creates an institutional imbalance which is not helpful to democracy.

In other words, democracy can be undermined by democratic means. For example, if the majority in the parliament becomes totally insensitive to the issues and problems of the opposition on the ground that it has a clear electoral mandate, democracy will weaken.  This creates the ‘tyranny of the majority.’ The preferred democratic approach is working with other political opposition through dialogue and accommodation rather than excluding them.

Similarly, the President/PM have constitutional power to remove the top officials, including the chiefs of military services. However, this is not a personal power of the PM and it has to be exercised in a judicious manner within legal framework and service codes.

The future of democracy depends to a great extent how the state institutions and political and societal entities recognize and practice the spirit of democracy and its basic characteristics. How far they develop self-restraint and do not stretch their powers to interfere blatantly in the domains of others?

The operationalization of these concepts, especially the notion of self-restraint and respect for the domain of others, is very difficult because there is no scientific method to define these limits in categorical terms.  These relate to “mindset” and “orientations” of the people holding key positions in various institutions and political organizations. If someone comes to the conclusion that others have to function in a manner desired by him/her there is bound to be a crisis within an institution or tension among different institutions.

In a period of democratic transition, the state institutions and political leaders have to go slow and avoid extreme positions. It starts with the idiom of politics or the legal idiom. If one adopts a harsh idiom and takes an extreme, narrow and self-serving position, there will always be some support for such disposition.  However, the key question is the impact of such an approach on the future of democracy, political and social pluralism and tolerance that are pre-requisites for a democratic system. No civilized human order can sustain without an in-built habit of restraint, respect for others and compassion.

Pakistan has returned to democracy but its basic ingredients have to be strengthened. If democracy declines, the judiciary also suffers.

By Dr. Hasan Askari

The Supreme Court of Pakistan plans to frame the charge of contempt of Court against Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani next week. This would be the first time that a prime minister is being formally charged for contempt of court. If he is convicted, that would be a bad news for democracy and civilian processes. This can set in motion a number of developments that might lead to conflict among the institutions of the state.  If this happens it will cause uncertainty and instability and shift the initiative to the military.

Democracy cannot function smoothly if the state institutions do not limit themselves to their domain and respect each other. If one state institution endeavors to dominate the other state institution, it causes institutional imbalance or conflict. In the past, the military used to build pressures on civilian institutions. Now, it is the superior judiciary that is pursuing such an agenda.

Most political analysts and political leaders are convinced that the military is not in a position to directly assume state power.   The government and the opposition leaders discount the direct military take-over in the near future.  The federal government had recently developed differences with the military top brass on the Memo delivered by Mansoor Ijaz to U.S. military authorities in May 2011. As their differences become known to politically active circles, they thought that the federal government would soon collapse or it will be ousted by the military. This did not happen because both the civilian government and the military top brass showed accommodation towards each other. The prime minister retracted his statement declaring the submission of the responses of the Army Chief and the Director General ISI to the Supreme Court on the Memo Issue as unconstitutional and illegal.

The military top brass have declared their support on more than one occasion for the democratic process. The Supreme Court has also stated that it would not provide any legal cover to unconstitutional changes. This statement is important because the Supreme Court has a long track record of legitimizing military. It rejected military rule after the military ruler was no longer in power.

The 18^th Constitutional Amendment has removed the power of the judiciary to legitimize military take-over or any unconstitutional change of government. A new clause has been added to Article 6 of the constitution that stipulates that any “act of high treason” as defined in section 1 and 2 of Article 6 “shall not be validated by any court including the Supreme Court and a High Court.” This clearly covers the question of validation of military takeover.

All political parties have also taken a clear position on defending the constitution and opposing unconstitutional changes.  However, it is not clear if all political parties will be unanimous in opposing the removal of a government by “unconstitutional means”. Some political parties will adopt a position taking in view their partisan interests, political context of the removal of the government and how far they despise the knocked-out government.

Though the opposition political parties do not favor the military assuming powers for an extended period, these political parties, including PMLN, would not mind if the Supreme Court or the military force the federal government to announce new elections immediately which would bring an end to the PPP-led federal government.  In this way, these leaders still look towards non-elected state institutions to facilitate their political agenda while maintaining the semblance of constitutionalism.

The federal government is under pressure from the Supreme Court and the military for two different sets of reasons.  The Supreme Court is endeavoring to articulate its role in a new democratic setup by stretching the limits judicial activism.  Traditionally, the judges do not make many comments in the course of the court proceedings. They speak through their judgments. But when we pick up newspaper or watch TV, we learn that the judges do make comments that have political implications in Pakistan’s polarized context and the federal government often finds itself in an embarrassing situation.

The Supreme Court is expanding the limits of its constitutional domain by entering the domain of the executive. It is not the superior judiciary’s job to fix sugar prices, order the Election Commission to prepare the voters list within the time frame stipulated by the Supreme Court, and seek a written assurance from the Prime Minister for not removing the Army Chief and the Director General of ISI in a petition based on speculative information.

An interesting situation is likely to develop as the Supreme Court takes up the cases involving the military and the ISI in the near future.  Traditionally, the military has resented the interference of civilian government in its internal organizational affairs and management of its tasks. It would be interesting to see the military’s reaction when the Supreme Court pulls up the top brass in the forthcoming cases.

Both the federal executive and the Supreme Court need to moderate their dispositions. Any weakening of elected leadership by non-elected judiciary will undermine internal socio-political cohesion and weaken civilian and representative political processes.

By Dr. Hasan Askari

Lahore

Despite problems and difficulties Pakistan is more democratic now than was the case before 2008. The situation is far from ideal but political and civil freedoms have increased in Pakistan over the years.

Pakistan’s democracy faces several challenges. The most serious challenge to democracy and civic order is from growing polarization and partisanship in the political and social circles. These divisions appear to be sharpening to such an extent that it is difficult to discuss any issue on its merits. It is political and religious (Islamic-sectarian) affiliations that determine attitudes and dispositions of a large number of people who often do not hesitate to display their displeasure and anger towards any divergent perspective.

The widespread religious and cultural intolerance can be traced back to the military rule of General Zia-ul-Haq when Islamic orthodoxy and militancy were promoted as the state project. Even after the end of the Zia-rule, the military continued to patronize such groups. Consequently, there is a large section of population that views every aspect of domestic politics, societal interaction and foreign and security policies as a function of religion.  For example, the support and sympathy for militancy and opposition to the United States are products of religious-cum-political beliefs rather than the logic of global politics.

Political and religious intolerance has gone deep into many sections of the educated people, especially the so-called the middle class who, talk of democracy but they demonstrate impatience towards dissent.  There are people in the legal profession who have become politicized to the extent of undermining the reputation of the profession. Since 2009, there have been periodic reports of intimidation of junior level courts by some lawyer activists. It was disappointing to watch a group of lawyers engaged in sloganeering in favour of the Chief Justice when the Supreme Court took up the contempt notice against the PM Gillani on January 19. They were summoned to the Supreme Court for that purpose by their leaders. The same can be said about the attitude of some lawyers when the killer of former governor Salman Taseer was brought to the court for initial proceedings in Rawalpindi in 2011.

The success of democracy depends to a great extent on strengthening elected institutions and processes. The primacy of the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies can be asserted if the political parties and leaders make the elected assemblies as the focal points of their political activities and participate effectively in their proceedings.

As the PMLN and other opposition parties do not have sufficient number of members in the National Assembly to move a no-confidence motion against the federal government, the PMLN is describes the parliament as an irrelevant institution.

It is unfortunate that political parties question the legitimacy of an elected institution simply because they cannot get the results of their choice. Democracy requires that all should accept the outcome of the democratic process even if it is not to one’s liking.  Other example of neglect of the parliament was that in 2009, no resolution or adjournment motion was moved by the opposition in any house of the parliament for the restoration of the Chief Justice. However, in March 2009, the PMLN preferred to launch street agitation for that purpose.

The poor performance of federal and provincial governments adversely affects the prospects of democracy. As the problems of the common people are not being addressed adequately, there is widespread alienation among the common people from the current democratic process.

Some partisan groups are using the alienation for propaganda against democracy and suggest naïve solutions to attract popular attention.  There are those who argue that their problems will be resolved under an Islamic order without describing the details of institutions and processes of such a system. Others think that the corrupt rulers should be removed to solve the problems.

Still another threat to democracy is the specter of conflict among state institutions. The state institutions like the executive, the parliament, the judiciary and the military have not so far learnt the habit of restraint and mutual respect in a democratic framework. Each institution is trying to expand the domain of its authority at the cost of others. The superior judiciary is using judicial activism to enter into the areas that are essentially the domains of other institutions.

The military is so used to an expanded role that it does not like the elected government’s haphazard efforts to retrieve the initiative in security and related matters.  The political governments and elected assemblies emphasize their importance by virtue of their representative character without ensuring effective and just governance and improving the economy.  Democracy cannot endure if the economy continues to falter.

The state institutions will have to learn to function in a manner they respect each other’s autonomy and role. Democracy will suffer if one institution attempts to overwhelm others or cultivates a self-ascribed mission of reforming all other institutions and people.

These challenges will have to be addressed with determination because there is no other option available to the diversified Pakistani society.  This calls upon individuals, groups and state institutions to respect the constitution and parliamentary conventions in letter and spirit.  They must respect each other and recognize the primacy of the elected parliament and elected executive as compared to non-elected institutions like the judiciary, the military and the bureaucracy.

BY Dr. Hasan Askari

Lahore