Syria: Like Father like Son

The news from Damascus is not good. History is repeating itself and the Baathist regime is determined to quash the civil uprising. President Bashar al-Assad has proven himself to be his father’s son, despite western education and outlook! It is however important to understand what is happening inside Syria in the backdrop of international law as the present uprising and the regime’s violent response to it, is being looked upon in some quarters of the Muslim world and especially in Pakistan as yet another episode of West vs Islam. It would not be incorrect to state that there is a brewing civil-war inside Syria and the Baathist regime of President Assad has shown on more than one occasion to quash it with all means possible including violence. Rather, violence more than dialogue has been too often used as a tactic to soften and than completely silent the insurgents. The strategy in the long run has always been to further tighten the grip on the annals of power. The latest siege and later destruction of Homs is nothing but redux of Hama massacre of 1982 wherein Gen. Rifaat al-Assad, current president’s uncle had massacred 20,000 Syrians including women, children and the elderly, if veteran journalist Robert Fisk is to be believed. Their crime was that they opposed the regime on political and religious grounds. This was done at the behest of late President Hafez al-Assad, current president’s father. Bashar Al-Assad seems determined to outdo his father! Ever since January, 2011, President Assad’s forces, along with vigilante groups, supposedly supported by them, are said to be involved in heinous crimes like murder, rape, and torture of political descendants. Allegations of unlawful detentions, destruction of property and abductions of those opposing the regime, are also in abundance. The world community has not stayed oblivious to these developments. President Obama has called upon President Assad to step down and Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki-Moon has condemned him as someone who has “lost all sense of humanity.” Irrespective of the rhetoric, the fact remains that there is no consensus amongst the P-5 of the Security Council, clearly evident in the recent 13-2 vote. The most serious allegation leveled against the regime however is that it is directly involved in crimes against humanity. A cursory look at few of the paragraphs from the United Nations Report of the independent international commission of inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic dated 23 November 2011 makes it abundantly clear that the Syrians are in dire straits: “The Syrian Arab Republic has violated the right to life, as enshrined in article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, through the use of excessive force by military and security forces as well as by militia, such as Shabbiha, acting in complicity with, or with the acquiescence of, State officials and forces.” “Information received demonstrates patterns of continuous and widespread use of torture across the Syrian Arab Republic where protests have taken place. The pervasive nature, recurrence and reported readiness of Syrian authorities to use torture as a tool to instil fear indicate that State officials have condoned its practice. Information from military and security forces defectors indicates that they received orders to torture. The commission is particularly disturbed over the extensive reports of sexual violence, principally against men and boys, in places of detention.” “The commission concludes that the extensive practices of torture indicate a State-sanctioned policy of repression, which manifestly violates the State’s obligations under article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention against Torture, and article 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.” The acts perpetrated by the Syrian regime are nevertheless sanctioned by the highest law making body in the country. The Syrian government has enacted laws legitimizing the use of violent and excessive force. While international law empowers a state to legislate on any issue, be it specific or general, within its boundaries or outside, it does not allow a particular state to legislate on any measure which violates the most fundamental of customary international law rules; jus cogens. The right to life and the prohibition of torture are primary examples of such fundamental rules, which no treaty may modify and which no state defense may be able to explain and justify. Customary international law makes a regime responsible for the acts of its security forces, be it uniformed or non-uniformed. In a way, President Assad is responsible for all the acts of omission and commission of his armed forces, down to the last soldier. It is incumbent upon the regime to seize all violent activities at once, arrest the perpetrators and punish them, along with providing the victims with reparations, that they rightfully deserve. But should the Baathist regime be expected to mend its ways now and act responsibly? It is highly unlikely. Under the principles of State Responsibility, President Assad’s regime is responsible for committing horrific acts against its population. Since the Syrian regime has willingly and habitually participated in perpetration of crimes against humanity, it is legally incumbent upon the comity of nations to act and punish the guilty regime. Comparing Syria now and than and unfortunately not much has changed. The lust for power remains the same amongst the ruling elite, while the tools of repression have further gotten sharper!

'Americanization' of Baluchistan!

A resolution, demanding self-determination for the people of Baluchistan, Pakistan’s largest province, tabled by Congressman Dana Rohrabacher in the halls of the Capital Hill, has stirred frenzy in Pakistan. Alarm bells have started to ring, forcing many to think whether Uncle Sam is up to his usual antics! An insecure country which has had to endure the humiliation of dismemberment in 1971 cannot but think whether the United States has actual designs of further cutting down Pakistan into pieces. The Foreign Office has dubbed the move as violation of international laws. Amb. Abdullah Hussain Haroon has called it ‘…West’s ongoing movement against the Muslim world’. This is not so. The Americans may have violated Pakistani sensibilities; however they are perfectly under the ambit of international law by discussing the matter. Furthermore, a closer look at the principle of Self-Determination is required since the law as it stands today does not help either the Baluch separatists or their international ‘friends’. The law as it has developed ever since the landmark Lotus Case (1927) PCIJ Ser. A No. 10, stipulates that every nation-state has the right to legislate on any matter be it within its borders or outside. A country under prescriptive jurisdiction of law may pass legislation on any international event, territory, property, person, wherever they may be present. This however, does not mean that the country, in pursuance of its law(s) may invade, and occupy the other country as pretext to enforce its law(s). The same Lotus Case, which empowers a sovereign state to legislate on matters outside of its territorial boundaries, also restricts the enforcement of such law outside of its boundaries. ‘the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a state is that—failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary—it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another state’, reads a few lines from the judgment in the Lotus Case. Therefore, while the United States and its supreme legislative body, is empowered under the international law to discuss, debate, and even pass legislation in favor of demanding right of self-determination for the people of Baluchistan, it however is restrained from invading and occupying Baluchistan to enforce any such legislation. The passing of the UN General Assembly Resolution on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Territories and Peoples in 1960 developed the principle of self-determination as a legal right rather then a political philosophy. It is post-Colonialism, post-World War II development, which has essentially become one of the most fundamental principles of customary international law today. The International Court of Justice in Portugal v Australia 1995 ICJ Rep 90, declared the principle of self-determination as ‘one of the essential principles of contemporary international law’. Furthermore, in another case the Court in its advisory jurisdiction stated that ‘the right of the peoples to self-determination is today a right erga omnes’, (Palestinian Wall Advisory Opinion 2004 ICJ Rep para. 88). So even if Congressman Rohrabacher had not raised the issue, the principle stood regardless upholding one of the most fundamental legal rights. But this is not what makes us fidgety; it’s the fact that right of self-determination often leads to independence! However, this understanding, too, needs close scrutiny. In the Western Sahara Case 1975 ICJ Rep 12, the Court defined the principle by stating that self-determination ‘requires a free and genuine expression of the will of the peoples concerned’. The judgment naturally begs the question, which ‘peoples’ are entitled to exercise such right! The jurisprudence on the issue is however still unsettled and as a result two distinct schools of thought have emerged. The traditionalists, since the principle has developed out of the womb of Western Colonialism, are of the view that only those who were/are occupied by a foreign state may exercise this right. Palestinians and their right to self-determination, is one ripe example. This school of thought does not foresee a distinct ethnic group, existing within an independent state, exercising the right of self-determination. If the law develops along these lines in future, it certainly would not help the cause of Baluch separatists and their international advocates. However, there is another school of thought. The opposite view is that any ethnic group, living either under a Colonial power, or an independent state, may exercise this legal right. The EC Arbitration Commission on Yugoslavia has bolstered their case. The Commission is of the view that people living in an independent state may exercise this right given that they achieve the factual prerequisites (e.g. permanent population, defined territory, government, capacity to enter into legal relations, etc.) for statehood as listed in the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States 1933. This essentially implies secession. However, to assuage the fears of federal states, the Commission has made “factual independence” as a prerequisite to exercising the right of self-determination. The Commission, furthermore, does not disallow a federal state from preventing secession lawfully (some would suggest even forcefully). Case Concerning Certain Questions Relating to Secession of Quebec from Canada 161 DLR (4th) 385, is a relevant case in point. The Supreme Court of Canada was approached on Quebec’s independence from Canada and its validity under both the Canadian and international law(s). The Court was of the opinion that a political sub-unit of an independent state does not enjoy secession as right under international law. However, the Court emphasized that the government of the independent state must respect the ethnic group’s culture, language, etc. In short, for our purposes it is comforting to conclude that the existing international law does not support Baluch separatists’ right to independence. What the resolution has however done is that it has put the ball back in our court. If the Baluch have genuine grievances (they certainly do), they must be addressed. The powers that be simply cannot brush their genuine demands aside by labeling them as treasonous. Callousness is one luxury we cannot afford in Baluchistan, at least not anymore. The onus is on the political leadership to stand up and be counted. In a perverse way we should be thankful to those who tabled this resolution for waking us up from our slumber. Americans like Congressman Rohrabacher must not be able to ruffle our feathers but we must heed the advice of another American who in 1858 had said: ‘A house divided against itself cannot stand’.

Legal Violations; Political Ramifications

One of the most important principles of the international law on jurisdiction, emanating from the famous Lotus Case (1927) PCIJ Ser. A No. 10, is that while it empowers a sovereign country to legislate on internal matters, it also allows the country to legislate on the affairs of a foreign country, national, living or non-living person, etc. For example, the Indian Parliament can legislate against Hafiz Saeed and his Jamat-ud-Dawa. Similarly, Pakistani Parliament is completely sovereign in passing legislation against Bal Thackeray and his group of hoodlums, roaming the streets of Mumbai, threatening Muslims. What the law however does not allow is the enforcement of said legislation, outside its territorial boundaries, unless there is an agreement between the countries, to allow the contrary. Simply put, India cannot violate the territorial sovereignty of Pakistan in arresting Hafiz Saeed to enforce its legislation and the same goes for Pakistan in terms of Bal Thackeray. Lately, a joke has been making rounds inside the policy making circles of Washington and Tel Aviv that the rate at which Iran is “loosing” its nuclear scientists, there may not be a need for a military action after all! Joke aside, such behavior may have serious political ramifications for the international order as Iran has publicly at the highest level accused both the countries for killing its nuclear scientists. As you would recall, some Iranian nuclear scientists have died under mysterious circumstances lately! The fact that both the intelligence agencies of the US and Israel, CIA and Mossad, respectively, have in the past pursued killing of foreign nationals in foreign lands to advance their national security strategies, lend credence to Iran’s claims! Furthermore, Israel has not unequivocally denied charges leveled against it by Tehran, further bolsters the Iranian case! If Iranian rhetoric is to be believed than both the Americans and Israelis have abused the application of international law. Iran’s relations with the US have been frosty, to put it mildly, ever since 1979. The US, has since passed number of legislations against Iran, its people, companies, curtailing Iran’s economic clout in the world. The strategy has been to weaken the Islamic regime. The US Congress has passed these legislations under prescriptive jurisdiction, allowing it to apply its national law to any Iranian event, territory, property, person, wherever they may be present inside Iran. To that end, President Carter, in 1979, issued Executive Order 12170, freezing Iranian assets worth billions of dollars inside the United States. This was done in pursuance of the fundamental rule of international law that the state has absolute jurisdiction over its territory. More recently, exercising the abovementioned fundamental rule, President Obama has signed the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA), wherein the US has further restricted imports of caviar, pistachios, and rugs of Iranian-origin. This however does not mean that the US in pursuance of its laws can violate the sovereign territory of Iran and shut down Iranian carpet weavers, factories, or forcefully stop Iranian farmers from growing pistachio. The same Lotus Case, which empowers a sovereign state to legislate on matters outside of its territorial boundaries, also restricts the enforcement of such law outside of its boundaries. ‘the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a state is that—failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary—it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another state’, reads a few lines from the judgment in the Lotus Case. The United States and Israel, prima facie, have violated this fundamental principle of international law by either directly or indirectly killing the Iranian nuclear scientists. Under the law, both the US and Israel could have arrested and tried these scientists, if and when they had entered their physical territories. By using to its advantage the prescriptive jurisdiction to legislate against Iran and by ditching the responsibility that comes with it; not to violate the sovereign territory of Iran, it has set a bad precedence for others. Aspiring regional powers like India, by citing this behavior, may further destabilize the South Asian region. Indeed an argument was advanced by New Delhi, in the wake of American occupation of Afghanistan due to the September 11, 2001, tragedy, that if the US has the right to hunt its enemies outside of its borders, why should India not adopt the same path vis-à-vis Pakistan and its alleged harboring of persons wanted under Indian laws! Indeed, it is foremost the responsibility of bigger nations to behave in accordance with the law, so that others could follow, making this world a better place!

Presidential Immunity for Dummies!

The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s verdict on the NRO case in December 2009 and its rejection of the government’s review petition, thereby upholding its original decision has restarted a debate whether the president of Pakistan enjoys immunity in cases involving foreign and Pakistani courts jurisdictions? The debate has been often confusing as leading legal eagles are equally divided on this issue, with eminent jurist Aitzaz Ahsan holding the view that the president enjoys blanket immunity for criminal proceedings under Article 248 of Pakistan constitution as well as under the principle of Head-of-State Immunity under the international law. Leading lawyer Mr. Akram Sheikh and others disagree arguing that the president’s immunity under the constitution is conditional at best and may be waived off both at home and abroad. Furthermore, the fact that no settled legal interpretation or precedence on Article 248 exists in Pakistan and other common wealth countries especially India, from whom we borrow so much in the legal field, further confuses the issue in the minds of concerned Pakistanis. In short, there is dearth of jurisprudence on the issue of Head-of-State immunity.

The scope of this article is to explore what is the principle of Head-of-State Immunity both under the Pakistani constitution and international law regimes. Most importantly, why such a principle or privilege exists both in Pakistan and abroad, and whether such a principle can be waived off or revoked. This article also discusses in brief the prevailing legal thought in Switzerland. However, what this article does not purport to do is to predict the fallout on our political system in case this immunity is surrendered by Parliament or struck down by the Supreme Court. Prediction is often a risky business.

What is the principle of Head-of-State Immunity?

The principle of Head-of-State Immunity stems from the idea of state sovereign immunity. Historically, international law recognized a principle of absolute immunity for foreign states, under which no state could be put on trial without its consent. This was based on the premise that all states are independent and equal under international law, and the idea that subjecting a state to a foreign court’s jurisdiction would negate this idea of sovereign equality. Since the head of the state was one of the guises of the state, therefore, he too, was immune. Or in other words, the state and its ruler were one and the same. Historically a monarch was absolute in exercising his powers over his realm. He could do no wrong and was the source of all the laws in his kingdom. All laws were posited in his name. The principle of Head-of-State Immunity flows from this accepted political and social norm as well.

Why does it exist?

The principle of Head-of-State Immunity exists simply to preserve the prestige of the thrown in case of monarchies and presidency in case of a republic. Moreover, it is intended to provide a stable and smooth platform both for the king and the president, as the case may be, to exercise their executive powers, without any hindrance. Simply put, the immunity exists since it is important for the exercise of his executive powers, evident from the Arrest Warrants case at the International Court of Justice.

Why does it exist in Pakistan?

While the founding fathers of Pakistan intended the new born state to be a republic and not a monarchy, the intention in the minds of the framers of the 1973 Constitution while enacting Art. 248 was to preserve the prestige of the office of the president as well as smooth functioning of the executive powers of the president. It should be understood that the provisions contained in Art. 248 and its sub-clauses are not unique in the sense that every constitution to some degree protects its head of state from court proceedings at least while the head of state is still in power. For example, the president of India under Art. 361 of Indian constitution enjoys immunity in criminal proceedings. Even today, in constitutional monarchies like Britain, all the laws are posited in the name of Queen, the head of the state of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Although, she is legally obliged to work in tandem with her cabinet and does not enjoy unbridled powers over her kingdom, she nevertheless enjoys full immunity from both civil and criminal proceedings at home. The president is not the source of law in Pakistan but being the head of the state he stands up and above petty party politics and represents the federating units. He represents the state of Pakistan as one of the guises of the state, hence the immunity, albeit in criminal proceedings only.

Can this principle be waived off or revoked?

Such a question always arises because this principle stands directly opposite to the fundamental principle of “all citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law” as enshrined in Article 25 of our Constitution. In theory, the Parliament can amend Article 248, stripping the president of immunity in criminal proceedings. But given the present political composition of Parliament, it is hardly likely. However, the Supreme Court can strike down this immunity as enshrined in Article 248, inter alia being repugnant to the spirit of the 1973 Constitution and/or in direct contrast with principles of Islam, equality before law being one, enshrined in various examples from the Islamic history, for example when Caliph Omer (R.A.) was called before the judge as a respondent. While the principle of immunity may stand on thin ice at home, it is a different story abroad.

Immunity is a powerful concept in international law. In the US, a district court in the state of New York in the Tachiona case (Tachiona v Mugabe) dealt with torture and civil action against the Mugabe regime for having tortured Tachiona’s family in Zimbabwe. The court held that a sitting head of state has immunity from criminal and civil proceedings abroad. Here it is only prudent to take cognizance of the prevailing legal environment in Switzerland regarding the issue of Head-of-State Immunity. The Swiss recognize that the immunity of a head of state is a principle embodied in customary international law. In a decision given by Swiss Federal Supreme Court, the highest court in Switzerland, in a case involving the former dictator of Philippines, Ferdinand Marcos, the Court was of the opinion that such principle of customary international law may be weakened when either the state itself expressly waives the immunity of its head of state, or when the head of state leaves office. In Pakistan, both of these conditions do not apply to President Asif Ali Zardari. It can be safely assumed that he will be immune from any prosecution, especially regarding criminal cases at the least till 8th September, 2013 (he took oath of office on 9th September 2008). However, the case of former Chilean dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet is often cited as an exception to the universal principle of Head-of-State Immunity. But it must be remembered that facts of Pinochet case and of President Asif Ali Zardari are entirely different. The former was charged for crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture and genocide, etc. Such crimes are listed in Art. 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Further Art. 27 of the Rome Statute holds that neither the immunity of a head of state nor the official position of a suspected international criminal will bar the ICC from exercising its jurisdiction. The statutes of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunals for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda makes provisions for a head of state not to have immunity in the case of war crimes. The Rome Statute therefore stands opposite to customary international law. Meanwhile, the later is accused of money laundering, not a crime against humanity under the ICC Statute and other international law regimes. Comparing the two cases will be equivalent to comparing apples and oranges. Money laundering has lately been identified as an international offence, but it is not considered serious enough of an offence to prosecute a head of state in a foreign court, especially while he is still in power.

While the president of Pakistan may stand on thin ice vis-à-vis immunity in criminal proceedings at home since it has been challenged in the Supreme Court, nevertheless he enjoys protection due to customary international law under the principle of Head-of-State immunity abroad at least while he occupies the presidency.

London Blitz

Some media outlets both local and foreign have classified the recent riots in London, which later spread to other parts of England, as “race riots”. Their analysis is based on misplaced interpretation of information. It is true that the mayhem started as a result of shooting of a black man by London Police, but based on evidence available as of today, Mark Duggan was not shot due to some known institutionalized race-based policy of London Police. The Los Angeles riots of 1992 were race riots, as the African-Americans perceived the beating of Rodney King as a result of LAPDs racial bias against them. It is pertinent to mention here that black communities in other parts of Britain, including Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland have reacted calmly and peacefully. Furthermore, the rioters have come in all shapes, sizes, and colors, burning and looting properties belonging not just to the white, but non-white as well. The killings of three British-Pakistanis in Birmingham, presumably by a black person, however could be classified as racially motivated, but not the riots that “awoke” Britain on August 7. So if they were not race riots than what were they? Three disciplines, economics, sociology and law can help us interpret what really happened in London and beyond.

Most of what we saw on television was groups of teenagers looting, destroying, fighting, putting property on fire, etc. These teens looked uneducated and unemployed, from their behavior and body language. These trouble makers are popular known as “Scallies” in Britain. A scally is the one who is an urban-dweller, with next to no education, no job and worst, no chance of ever making it respectably in society. Scallies however aren’t blind. They see new and expensive electronic gadgets, branded trainers promising to make you fly, amongst other things that a “good” life promises to everyone in Britain except them. A scally does not have a good life, yet he wants iPod, iPhone and Nike. The absence of law and order provides him with that golden opportunity to make these hot commodities his prized possessions, which he otherwise could not have. It was also his way of getting back at the society which has nothing to offer him and whose economic values and practices are of simply no value to him. In short, what we saw in London was the rise of the “have nots” for a few days, sort of a triumph over the “haves” of the British society.

However this mayhem should not be seen purely through Marxist binoculars. Not every trouble maker was a Scally. A man, allegedly involved in rioting, was arrested who was actually a school teacher. Here one must remember that in the absence of law and order, not only “have nots” but also sub-cultures and counter-cultures in the society rise to take their place, albeit for a short period of time. One does not need to make a certain amount of money per annum to be an adherent of mainstream social values. The executives of now defunct Enron Corp., who were multi-millionaires, did not believe in mainstream American values of honesty and fairplay. The person who allegedly hit and killed three British of Pakistani origin in Birmingham may have had grudge against the Pakistani community for long, which came out on that fateful night. If he was also the owner of his car than presumably he did not belong to the bottom of the pit of Britain’s economic class. He was not a Scally. He did not believe in mainstream British social values like respect for the life and property of fellow man and obedience and respect of law.

Whether the law enforcement agencies particularly police should have more powers or less is an age old debate both in the British Parliament and society, in general. It is particularly of interest in the academic circles. The police in Britain under different times and circumstances have enjoyed varied powers to quell social disturbance. What however, matters in the end is not the law but that one trigger-happy police officer on the street who in the spur of moment decides to shoot rather than restrain himself. That one officer has the power to jeopardize all law reforms in Britain and in fact in the rest of the world. So police training is quintessential, rather than just legal reforms.

The riots might have taken place thousands of miles away, but there is a lesson in them for us too. Our state must transform into a welfare state, as envisaged by our religion and the founding fathers. Leaving a large chunk of the society to fend for itself is a sure recipe for disaster.

What is a leader worth!

History apart from being a fascinating subject also provides us with a priceless tool of assessing a leader’s worth. Retrospection is that tool, which helps us dissect the myth from reality engulfing a particular historical figure.
A very strong case could be made that had Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah not joined politics, I would not have been sitting in Lahore, Pakistan. Instead, I would have been writing in Lahore, India. Further, without him the two communities of the sub-continent, often at loggerheads with each other, would have not come together on a single political platform, albeit temporarily, against the common enemy, the Raj. Without getting into all the political achievements of historic magnitude of Mr. Jinnah, which requires a book(s) and not a newspaper Op-ed, it suffices to say that a lot would have not happened in our lives, had he not joined politics.
Mahatma Gandhi, another of great Indian leaders, too, if had not joined politics, a case could be made, a lot of what actually happened in India would have not happened. It is a foregone conclusion that had Congress Party under the banner of anti-imperialism, socialism, secularism, self-rule and independence from the British and, the Muslim League under the banner of separate country for the Muslims of India, not raised the slogan of independence, the Raj might still have been rolling the roast here.
A bit further from our world, if Abraham Lincoln had not been the President of the United States, the north may have not won the civil war against the south, supported by the British. Today, while there may still have been “States of America” but not “United”! Had Kamal Ataturk not joined the Turkish army and had he not seen the rotting Ottoman Empire from within, Turkey would have not turned out to be ‘healthy man of Europe.’ Similarly, no Lenin, perhaps no Bolshevik Revolution! Without Hitler, no rise and ultimate fall of Germany. Perhaps, had he not orchestrated the massacre, popularly known as the Holocaust, there might have not been the birth of state of Israel. Had Dr. Ernesto Guevara continued with his medical career and not turned Che Guevara, there would have been no Cuban revolution and no romancing with international militant socialism. In short, certain historical figures shaped history in a particular way and had they not done what they did, history might have taken a different course. However, the priceless tool of retrospection leaves us with a sour taste when applied on our contemporary leaders.
Had Nawaz Sharif not quit the family steel business, what would have happened to Pakistan? I hate to say it, but not much. Apart from no mushroom growth in Sharif Clans industrial empire and Musharraf, not much! The man had two stabs at governance, and what fundamental changes did he bring to the infamous thana culture? Were the Petwari Raj curtailed and made more accountable to a common villager, 70% of our population? Was a national health policy drafted and implemented making universal health coverage a possibility for every Pakistani? Was the health system revamped on war fittings at the district level? Was a comprehensive education policy formulated and implemented in letter and spirit? No, is the answer to all these questions. Hence, for an average Pakistani even if he had kept on with the family business, nothing much would have matter.
Asif Zardari! This is really a no brainer. The pertinent question here is: Would Mr. Zardari had become the man he has now turned out to be, had he not married the late Benazir Bhutto! The nation has actually paid a heavy price since that marriage and some would argue that even the PPP has been made to pay the price. Asif Zardari, the politician, has not been able to bring about any meaningful change in an average Pakistanis’ life, simply put.
Altaf Hussain! Muhajir Qaumi Movement or present day Muttahidda and the politics of extreme violence! Is it all a mere co-incidence? A very strong case could be made that had he and his ‘oppressed lot from India’ not entered politics, Karachi would have been a safer place today. A man with a tunnel vision formed strictly an ethnic based party which never shies away from using violence to meet its objectives. An average Karachi wala, it could be argued, would have voiced his concerns perfectly well in the corridors of powers either or both through PPP and Jamat-a-Islami, even if there had been no Muttahidda!
In short, even if these “leaders” had not done what they ended up doing, not much would have changed in an average Pakistanis’ everyday life, matter of fact, a reverse would have been true! Retrospection could indeed be a very priceless tool of historical and present day’s analysis!

A case for Constitutional Monarchy

“If I am King, where is my power? Can I declare war? Form a government? Levy a tax? No! And yet I am the seat of all authority because they think that when I speak, I speak for them.” A dialogue, immaculately delivered by Oscar Award winner Colin Firth in The King’s Speech got me thinking, who spoke for the people of Pakistan and whether there was a case for constitutional monarchy in Pakistan!
Does Nawaz Sharif, Asif Zardari, Gen. Kayani or Iftikhar Chaudhary speak for us? For the former two are far more parochial and for the later two the present constitution does not envisage any political role.
You think Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif are our ‘national’ leaders! Think again, since the former runs to Karachi whenever feels cornered by the powers to be, and the later looks to his Lahori base and Riyadh for guidance. Both have miserably failed to establish themselves as national leaders. Sometimes it feels as if they intentionally try to be parochial. We the common people too are culprits. We have always treated the election day as a day of national holiday wherein we simply stay at home. Majority of us have never either voted for the PPP or the PML-N. Both of these parties have never represented the majority of us, thus leaving us unrepresented.
So who than speaks for us! Army! Even after four coup d’ etats and their devastating fallout on our society! No, the army does not. Can’t think of political leadership coming from the judiciary! The constitution does not envisage anything of sort for the wigs. So who represents us!
Lets face it, we Pakistanis’ are a fractured lot. We have failed to morphed into a homogenous group in all these years. Our chequered political history too does not give us any hope of a better and stable future. Ever wondered what is common between Shafeeq Baluch of Quetta and Shafeeq Butt of Gawalmandi Lahore! Apart from the fact that both face the East while praying, I can’t think of any other. History tells us that this binding factor is not reliable as both the East and West Pakistanis’ faced the East, and yet 1971 happened.
In Pakistan we have tried almost all sorts of governance. We are kind of a political laboratory. Why not have another experiment! Why not a constitutional monarchy here! Stammerer or not, King George VI spoke for the people of Britain, and not the elected Neville Chamberlain during WWII. The British people listened to him and felt hope in his words. Sure there will be many unknowns and apprehensions just like starting a new experiment. What could be these apprehensions?
The King (or Queen for that matter) will not be completely apolitical? Same concerns have been raised in Britain, whether Queen Elizabeth II had always been neutral and apolitical and had not secretly favored the Tories. After all she has all the makings of a Tory; old and presumably conservative of aristocratic background. But that didn’t stop Labour to form government in Britain under her reign on more than one occasion! How could one ever be sure that the Queen is a conservative? She is after all on Facebook now!
That the monarchy could be costly and a burden on our exchequer! The president house is nothing short of a palace and its annual budget! Well better left unsaid. In short, whatever the apprehensions, as long as we the people of Pakistan could have a well written and a balanced social contract between us and the monarch, we could usher in an era of political stability.
Just imagine a monarch whose powers are defined by the Parliament, with certain inalienable powers vested in him like the appointment of new prime minister, dissolution of Parliament and declaration of war, etc. Who himself and his family could not ever participate in politics either overtly or covertly. Who stands up and above petty personal politics. Who is one constant in our ever changing political scene. Person in whose personality we could find solace, especially during national crisis. Who would be the commander in chief of the armed forces and not some khaki. Off course, the sovereignty would still belong to Allah and the monarch would not be divine. Who could ever object to such an agreement! The key would be the social contract in which the monarch and his powers would be clearly outlined. It would be known to all as to what he can and cannot do.