Dual parliamentarians by Asif Ezdi

The Constitution is absolutely clear. Article 63 (1) (c) states unambiguously that anyone who has acquired the citizenship of a foreign country stands disqualified from being elected to parliament and the provincial assemblies. This provision of the Constitution is reiterated in Section 99 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. Yet, it is public knowledge that many of our lawmakers possess foreign nationality and happily continue sitting in our legislatures in open violation of the Constitution.

When the Supreme Court suspended the membership of Farahnaz Ispahani last month for being a United States citizen, she protested loudly on the grounds that there were also many other lawmakers holding dual nationality against whom no action had been taken. This, she complained, was against the principle of equality of law. It is difficult not to sympathise with her. But she should blame the Americans-or, should we say, her fellow- Americans-for the misfortune that has befallen her. If her husband had not been serving as ambassador, the State Department would not have revealed information about her US citizenship and she too would still have been enjoying her privileges as a member of the National Assembly.

It is to be hoped that Ispahani will now find some consolation in the fact that she is not alone and has company in the person of none other than Rahman Malik, our erstwhile interior minister and current Advisor to the Prime Minister on Interior, with the status of federal minister. But there is a minor detail: while Malik claims to have renounced his foreign citizenship, Ispahani is not prepared to give up hers, and yet would like to remain an MNA. We might have lost the chance of hearing Malik sing “God Save the Queen,” but there is still a possibility of seeing Ispahani belt out “The Star-Spangled Banner,” though probably not in parliament.

Ispahani is certainly right in complaining that there are many others like her who have dual nationality but retain their seats in our legislatures. This has never been a secret. They are rich and well-connected. Their first loyalty is to their new lands of adoption, while Pakistan serves as a convenient second home which they can milk to enrich themselves further. But they have never been unmasked. They have taken great care to conceal their foreign citizenship, apparently with the connivance of our authorities. They come not just from the PPP but also other political parties.

The most common foreign nationalities are US, Britain and Canada. According to one reliable estimate, there are about 35 of them. Only one of them, Azam Swati, has so far publicly admitted being or having been a dual national and he did so only on the termination of his six-year term in the Senate. He claims now to have surrendered his US citizenship, but we do not know if he has made a legally effective renunciation in conformity with US law.

Despite this open breach of the Constitution, neither the executive nor the legislative branch of the government has taken any meaningful steps to implement the constitutional ban on foreign nationals becoming lawmakers. If the government had been serious in ensuring compliance, it would have initiated legislation that would require all candidates for election to disclose if they hold foreign citizenship and provide for deterrent punishment of those who make false statements in this regard. But the government has not done that.

For its part, the legislature has similarly failed to take steps to enforce the ban on dual nationals. All attempts to raise the matter in parliament or its committees have been brushed aside. Questions from the public – and occasionally from members of the legislatures themselves – about lawmakers holding dual nationality have evoked the stock reply that no official record is maintained on this subject and that our lawmakers are under no legal obligation to disclose information on foreign citizenship.

The speaker of the National Assembly and the chairman of the Senate have also been complicit in keeping open the doors of our parliament to those who owe allegiance to foreign countries. Under Article 63 (2), they are under the obligation to refer to the Election Commission any question whether a member of parliament has become disqualified on having acquired foreign citizenship, but they have never done so, not even when it has become public knowledge, as in the case of Ispahani.

The same disregard for Article 63 (2) is evident in the speaker’s failure to refer disqualification cases of holders of fake degrees to the Election Commission. The last straw was the highly partisan ruling given by her in the case of Gilani’s disqualification on his conviction for contempt of court. What this means in effect is that those who belong to the ruling political party do not have to fear disqualification proceedings under Article 63 (2).

Like the executive and the legislature, the Election Commission has also in the past been shying away from enforcing the ban on foreign nationals becoming members of parliament. It was only in December last year that the Commission issued a directive ordering the returning officers to obtain a declaration on oath from all future candidates to parliament or a provincial assembly that they do not possess the nationality of another country.

Despite the clear language of the Constitution disqualifying those who have acquired foreign citizenship, Gilani claimed in a TV interview on May 28 that dual nationals can become members of parliament. He called for a decision by parliament on the issue and urged that dual nationals should be allowed to sit in our legislatures. His logic was peculiar, that “things have changed in the world,” and if Pakistan disqualified its dual nationals, people of Pakistani origin would also be disallowed to sit in the British parliament. Obviously, Gilani is incapable of thinking beyond the narrow interests of his party’s co-chairman to whom he owes his job and has no idea of how other countries make policy.

Gilani was right, though, when he said that there are no constitutional restrictions on dual nationals becoming civil servants. He could also have added that there is currently no constitutional prohibition on dual nationals joining and holding senior positions in the armed forces and being appointed to the post of Advisor to the Prime Minister. Most countries do not allow foreigners and dual nationals to be appointed to the civil service and the armed forces. We should also impose a similar restriction in Pakistan.

The first priority should be to cleanse our legislatures of dual nationals. The Election Commission made a good beginning last year when it made it mandatory for all those who seek election to parliament to make a declaration on oath that they do not possess the nationality of a foreign country. But that might not be enough. In addition, candidates should also be asked to disclose if they have held a foreign citizenship at any time in the past and, if so, to provide documentary proof of having renounced it in conformity with the laws of that country.

Since our own authorities have been unable or unwilling to help the Election Commission in identifying dual nationals, the commission should consider writing to foreign embassies to obtain this information. They could hardly refuse because the nationality of a person is not a personal or private matter.

In addition, the election laws should be amended to impose deterrent punishment, including imprisonment and heavy fine or forfeiture of property, on those who make a false declaration with regard to any foreign citizenship they might have held. Currently, they do not face any real penalty if they lie in this matter. It is to be hoped that the Election Commission will initiate steps for the necessary amendments to the election laws.

The gathering rage of the virtue brigades by Ayaz Amir

Brigades is just a metaphor. What we have now is a veritable army of the enraged middle classes inveighing day in and day out against the evil of the times in which they live and hoping somehow for a miracle to stop what in their minds is a rushing march to perdition.

If you tell the standard-bearers of this army, and they are to be found everywhere, that they should have patience and wait for the political process to bring about change and cleanse the Augean stables, the ready response is that if the nation waits any longer there will be nothing left to save. Ask them for alternatives and they will hedge around for answers. But in their heart of hearts what this army of the discontented yearns for is another army intervention.

In other climes people who retire after having had good careers, and who have houses and have made their pots of money, turn to gardening or golf. Or they try to make up for lost time by turning anew to books and other civilised pursuits. The more restless go into high finance. In Pakistan high-flying retirees either become born-again Muslims — which makes them a pain in the neck — or they become reborn patriots, forever worried about the state of the nation.

They may have contributed to the national mess when they were in a position to do something. But this scarcely deters them from perpetually reading out prescriptions for national survival. Modesty and a gift for self-introspection are not amongst their strongest qualities.

Gen Ashfaq Kayani on horseback: no image inspires the virtue-cum-patriotic brigades more than this. That Pakistan’s troubles are due in large part to the heroism of previous saviours on horsebacks — four in an erratic line of succession: Ayub, Yahya, Zia and Musharraf — does not dent their angry belief that unless urgent steps are undertaken the Zardari brand of democracy spells ruin for the country.

Keeping the zeal of these patriots alive is the jihadi media, the bunch of media gladiators who were not only predicting but espousing political change last year. Stoking the embers of discontent: you would have to hand it to this group for being surpassingly good at this task. But their ambitious agenda not having been fulfilled they have a woebegone look about them these days. They look slightly lost and frustrated. But it would be a foolish man who would underestimate their prowess. They continue to see themselves as national reformers. This is one category of beings we are more than self-sufficient in.

But a bitter truth awaits this crowd. If Pakistan is really to turn the corner and leave the heaving instability of the past behind, change this time must come through only one source: the ballot box. Please remember that in all the 63 years of our turbulent history not once have we managed a transition from one democratic government to another. Not once has the torch of democracy passed from one pair of democratic hands to another. Every time either a military or a bureaucratic coup has intervened, pushing the country, each time, twenty years into the past. Our time machine has been tied irrevocably to the past.

Can anyone in his right mind have a kind word for the current Zardari-led dispensation? To call this the accidental presidency is to state the obvious. But if change has to occur it must occur through the workings of the democratic process or we will find ourselves in such a black hole from which there will be no easy escape. Two and a half years have already passed. Two remain before the election bugles sound. It should not be too difficult to make the best of this time and start preparing, right from now, for the contest through which alone the winner must emerge.

“Patience, stout heart,” says Odysseus in a dire moment, “thou hast endured much worse than this.” What have we not endured in our history? What outright rogues and charlatans, monuments to mediocrity, have we not put up with? Before we know it, this too shall pass. Unless something goes horribly wrong — and we have to admit we have a talent for making things go wrong — an election will arrive at our doorsteps.

That will be the time to turn angst into something constructive. If this democracy is corrupt — and who the hardy soul who can say it is not? — that will be the time to ensure that the next democracy is less corrupt. Perfection, alas, will still be beyond our reach. Perfection is a divine attribute, not part of the human condition. Vice and corruption can never be entirely eliminated. They can only be controlled and regulated. Injustice can never be entirely done away with. A society based upon the rule of law is meant to reduce the burden of injustice. But we will move forward only if there is continuity in our national life, if the thread of national politics is not broken. Once this snaps our time machine goes into reverse gear.

Civil society must engage politically if it is to make a difference. Politics, good or bad, is where things happen, the fire in which time is lost or an opportunity seized. If the armies of the retired who buttonhole you at wedding receptions– ours must be the most boring wedding receptions on earth — are really so worried about the state of nation, with their incessant talk of the nation going to the dogs, they should sign up with a political party, any party, and there try to change the dynamics of things from within. Carping from the sidelines may add to the sum of national anguish but serves little other purpose.

The army can deliver defence, as it is doing superbly in FATA. As we have learned time and again to our cost, it cannot deliver national redemption. The courts can or should deliver justice. They cannot deliver administrative competence, simply because that is not their function and lies beyond their competence.

The courts tried to fix the price of sugar. We know the consequences of that. They tried dabbling in petroleum policy, with what results we know. They have intervened in administrative matters, matters of promotion and the like, not always with happy results. Ever since the Supreme Court took up the matter of corruption in the Pakistan Steel Mills, the affairs of that white elephant have gone from bad to worse. Once upon a time it could be sold. Now it will be a brave soul who will touch it.

Arguing before the SC, senior advocate Khalid Anwar lamented the fact that the way the FIA was conducting its investigation into the affairs of Pakistan Steel it was destroying everything, sending a wave of fear through the entire steel industry. FIA is conducting its investigation as per orders of the SC. Each his own way to the devil. It were best if different institutions confined themselves to their own areas of responsibility and specialisation.

The SC has intervened in the fake degrees issue but the Election Commission, no doubt because of governmental interference, is finding it difficult to proceed. This has the makings of another stalemate, another source of annoyance and friction between the apex court and the government. We could do with a bit of stability in our affairs. What we are getting are regular doses of further uncertainty, each morning’s papers a confirmation to doubters that this is a failed enterprise.

The virtue brigades find it hard to realise that reform is not a jhatka (sudden seizure) process. Strengthening the foundations of the rule of law is not an overnight proposition. British Punjab was 98 years in the making (1849-1947). But if British institutions endured — although we have tried our best to bring them down — that is because the British were empire-builders. They knew the art and the wherewithal of raising institutions.

Punjab is more than the dominant half of Pakistan. Demography and wealth creation condemn Punjab to bear the major responsibility of keeping the federation of Pakistan going. But the kingdom of Maharaja Ranjit Singh apart, when, in the last 1,000 years, did Punjab ever have the experience of running a kingdom or a state? Which only means that to the tasks now confronting us we must come with a touch of humility.