Dawn Editorial 15 April 2020

Domestic violence

WHEN governments around the world first began announcing lockdown measures to stop the spread of the novel coronavirus, a distinct unease was expressed by women activists, rights group and shelter homes, remembering all too clearly the fallout of previous environmental and financial disasters on families. With millions of people confined to the four walls of their homes during the current crisis, they feared there would be a sudden increase in the number of domestic violence cases, especially against children and women. And, indeed, this is precisely what is now being witnessed around the world. In the US, for instance, domestic abuse helplines and police stations have been receiving 10pc to 30pc more distress calls in recent weeks. With self-isolation being encouraged or enforced by states, victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault are largely being forgotten in the ‘big picture’ battle against Covid-19. However, such vulnerable individuals are facing multiple layers of isolation: trapped in close proximity with their abusers who mentally and physically torture them, and with nowhere to escape, they are cut off from any kind of support system they may have been able to access before the lockdowns were put in place. Added to this is the rise of unemployment and stress within families, which is known to lead to increased instances of violence.

According to WHO, approximately 38pc of all women’s murders are committed by an intimate partner, and Pakistan has one of the highest rates of domestic violence in the world. Keeping these chilling realities in mind, and acknowledging the current strain on law-enforcement agencies, the Women Action Forum has urged the Sindh government to ensure protection of vulnerable women and children during these difficult times by upholding laws such as the Sindh Domestic Violence Act, 2013, and making sure that domestic violence helplines and shelter homes remain in operation. This advice should extend to all of Pakistan. The current pandemic may be a new threat that we may know how to defeat, but violence against women is an age-old evil.

A risky choice

PRIME MINISTER Imran Khan has announced a continuation of the lockdown for another two weeks — but there will be exemptions that may see thousands of Pakistanis getting back to work. Speaking after the meeting of the National Coordination Committee, Mr Khan said that the majority of the decisions had the consensus of the federal and provincial governments while in some areas the provinces would decide the policies themselves. A list of industries and sectors that would open on the condition that they would strictly enforce standard operating procedures defined by the government was also announced. The construction sector is now also officially open for business along with its allied industries that constitute a lengthy list. For all practical purposes then, Pakistan will now be observing a partial lockdown.

This policy reflects the balance that the government is trying to achieve between social distancing and economic revival. It is a policy fraught with grave risks. The government appears to believe — as evidenced by the remarks of the prime minister’s special assistant on health, Dr Zafar Mirza — that the mortality rate is below what it was feared to be and therefore, perhaps, opening up of workplaces could be a risk worth taking. The Sindh government, on the other hand, has been very clear that lockdowns are the best way to ward off the spread of infections and contain the contagion before it spirals out of control. On this count, the policies pursued by the Sindh government may not be exactly those that the prime minister announced on Tuesday. This difference of opinion has persisted over the weeks since Covid-19 infected the first Pakistani and to date the federal and Sindh governments have not been able to come to an understanding.

We have now entered a critical stage. Governments are ramping up testing — if official figures are to be believed — and the next few weeks could see a burgeoning of infections across the country. Of course, what really defines the gravity of the situation is the death rate and if this does not increase exponentially then we may have cause for cautious optimism. We will not have to wait long to figure out which way the numbers are going. With a diluted lockdown and more tests being carried out, by next month we should have a fair idea if the decision to open up was the right one or not. The prime minister was correct when he said every choice today carried a risk. The question of course is whether the choice made is based on political considerations or solid scientific and data-based reasons. This matters because the cost of a wrong decision will be measured less in rupees lost and more in lives lost. That is a steep price to pay for any country regardless of its economic prowess.

Back to the future?

AMIDST a once-in-a-century pandemic, there is a sense of déjà vu in the lofty halls of the Supreme Court.

Not so distant memories of judicial activism have been rekindled.

On Monday’s hearing in the suo motu case relating to the federal and provincial governments’ handling of the coronavirus contagion, the apex court excoriated both for their lack of cohesion in a situation that “demands consensus and uniformity”.

The bench also set aside the Punjab government’s decision to ban inter-provincial movement on the grounds it violated the citizens’ right to move freely in the country.

ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER AD

In a sign of its extreme displeasure at how matters are developing, the bench even came close to ordering that Special Assistant to the Prime Minister on Health Dr Zafar Mirza be removed from his post.

The judges, however, stayed their hand when the attorney general pleaded that such a step at this critical juncture would be disastrous for the country’s efforts against the spread of the virus.

A crisis that upends people’s lives and jeopardises their very means of survival is by definition one that involves fundamental rights, whose violation is the legal basis for the Supreme Court’s suo motu powers.

However, the governments at the centre and in the provinces — indeed in the world at large — are grappling with an emergency for which there is no precedent.

In these circumstances they must have the space to make executive decisions while relying on their best judgement without having to second-guess every step.

The sense of paralysis and demoralisation that could set in otherwise would lead to complete disarray in the short term and to deleterious unforeseen consequences in the future.

Former chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s tenure is a sobering reminder of what can transpire when judicial activism impinges on the executive sphere.

The Chaudhry-led Supreme Court overturned the Pakistan Steel Mills’ privatisation, bringing a premature end to the divestment of state enterprises that have saddled the country with hundreds of billions of rupees in accumulated losses.

In 2013, an apex court bench headed by Mr Chaudhry declared as null and void the government’s agreement with an international consortium for mining rights in Balochistan’s Reko Diq.

A World Bank arbitration court last year ordered Pakistan to pay the consortium a staggering $5.9bn in reparations.

The damage to the country’s reputation as a sound investment destination for global players will linger for a long time to come.