Aimal Kansi, alleged to be an international terrorist, was recently whisked away to the United States without being produced before a magistrate or given a chance to defend himself in a court of law in Pakistan. Yet Article 10(2) of the constitution on fundamental rights is crystal clear. “Every person who is arrested or detained in custody shall be produced before a magistrate within a period of twenty four hours of such arrest”. Why, then, did the government abrogate Mr Kansi’s rights?
It is said that if due process had been followed, Mr Kansi might have avoided extradition to the US. At the least, it is thought, he might have circumvented the purposes of justice by delaying matters in court. Does this argument wash?
No, it doesn’t. Ends do not justify means. There are also precedents when wanted men in Pakistan were successfully extradited to the US without breaking the law in this country. In 1989, interior minister Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan extradited 14 notorious drug barons to the US after according each person due process of legal defense. Why couldn’t this government have followed the same sovereign and self-respecting route? Is Mr Nawaz Sharif inclined to misuse his enormous powers?
Mr Sharif says that he intends to use his powers to reform government and deregulate the state in the interests of strengthening democracy, humanising civil society and reviving economic prosperity. No one can take issue with such noble objectives. But we must ask whether his ends and words match his means and deeds? Or are both based on purely mundane motives?
Mr Sharif has bulldozed an accountability act through parliament which bears no resemblance either to a proposed bill mooted by his party in 1996 or to the Ehtesab Ordinance promulgated by the caretaker regime in November 1996. The new act undermines the whole notion of bipartisan accountability by giving corruption and abuse of authority before 1990 a wide berth. It undermines the Chief Ehtesab Commissioner and erodes the spirit of neutrality and independence vital to any process of accountability. the Ehtesab Cell, in particular, has now put paid to any notion of fair play and even-handedness by only targeting associates and members of the Benazir Bhutto government — in fact, not a single member of the ruling Muslim League or any of its affiliated parties has been hauled up even for questioning. It must therefore be acknowledged that Mr Sharif’s motives are highly dubious, his deeds openly provocative.
Mr Sharif’s economic package and budget smack of the same sort of mindset. There is much in these policy initiatives to warm the cockles of any businessman’s heart — like the liberal income tax breaks and the defaulter’s bonanza unveiled by the State Bank of Pakistan. But there is nothing for the poor and low-income classes — not a farthing by way of any insurance against the ravages of inflation, ill-health, illiteracy and abject poverty. Mr Sharif has supported his class interests in no uncertain manner and left it at that. If his economic strategy works, he will exacerbate income inequalities, sharpen class contradictions, increase unemployment and provoke unrest. If it doesn’t, the whole country will go down the tube. The mandate of all the people of Pakistan has clearly been used to favour only a fraction of the people.
Mr Sharif’s recent legislation against floor crossing is also highly dubious even if its objectives are amply justified. If the aim of the amendment was to promote political stability, it should have been sufficient to disqualify members of parliament for voting against the government in a vote of no-confidence or undermining its interests when money matters were at stake in parliament. But attempts to stifle any form of conscionable dissent, which the new amendment purports to do quite effectively, can only be interpreted in one way — Mr Sharif wants to wield absolute power over all that he surveys. And he doesn’t want to be held accountable for his actions. This is no way to make democracy work.
Mr Sharif can use his power to serve many good causes. He can prosecute all the crooks in this country irrespective of their personal, party or class affiliations. He can use his mandate to ban sectarian parties and eliminate gangsters and terrorists from our midst. He can use his enormous clout to build the Kalabagh Dam and save future generations of Pakistanis from famine and starvation. He can get rid of feudalism from this country by initiating radical land reforms. He can force tax evaders and foreign account holders abroad to cough up their ill-gotten gains. He can clean up the police department and the bureaucracy. And so on. Yet we see no manifestation of any will or ability on the part of the prime minister to put this power to proper, legitimate and popular use.
If Mr Sharif is seeking to impose a civilian martial law on Pakistan, he should think again. Lee Kwan Yew succeeded because he was personally irreproachable. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto failed because he wasn’t. When leaders ignore the lessons of history, the past has a nasty habit of catching up with them.