Democracy summit
THE second US-sponsored Summit for Democracy, which is currently underway, offers a small glimpse of the tough choices countries will have to make as America and the West step up their geopolitical confrontation against China, Russia and their allies. Though Pakistan was invited to the event, the country politely declined to attend, with the Foreign Office saying it would engage with the US bilaterally to discuss democratic values. It is largely assumed that Islamabad made the decision not to anger China and Turkiye, as neither state was invited to the conclave by Washington. Pakistan also did not attend the first edition of the event in 2021, when the PTI administration said it would engage with the US on democratic issues at an “opportune time”. China had hailed Pakistan’s earlier decision.
It is quite apparent that the event was organised less out of love for democracy, and more to make America’s geopolitical rivals look bad. It is puzzling why Turkiye was left out. While the country may have internal political issues, it is not for the US to anoint foreign states as democratic or otherwise. China, meanwhile, lambasted the US for organising the summit “in violation of the spirit of democracy”, and was incensed that Taiwan had been invited to the event. Unfortunately, America and other members of the Western club talk democracy when it suits them, yet have no qualms about dealing with authoritarian regimes when required. The fact is that the West has often played an unsavoury role in thwarting the evolution of democracy in the Global South. All states should have been invited to the summit so that a healthier global debate about democracy could have ensued. Once can understand Pakistan’s reasons for not attending — if based on a point of principle. At the same time, it could have used the platform to call for the inclusion of Turkiye so that the discussion about global democracy could have been a fuller one.
Published in Dawn, March 30th, 2023
Water shortages
IT is that time of the year when Punjab and Sindh come face to face over the distribution of river water — or, more appropriately, over the sharing of water shortages in the Indus River system — for the Kharif crops between themselves. Theoretically, Irsa is supposed to allocate the available amount in accordance with the outdated 1991 Water Apportionment Accord. The second paragraph of the accord fixes the share of the provinces. However, owing to the unavailability of the envisaged amount of water in the rivers, Irsa has evolved a ‘three-tier formula’ and has been distributing the shortages according to it for over a decade, despite Sindh’s objections. The formula mostly relies on historical practice from 1978 to share water shortages and surpluses on a pro rata basis. It also exempts KP and Balochistan from sharing the shortages. That means only Punjab and Sindh will see a cut in their share. Sindh is opposed to it because of the impact of the regular shortages and the formula-based cut in its share of water that is meant for agriculture. For many years, the matter has been under the ‘active’ consideration of the Council of Common Interests, which allows Irsa to apply the controversial three-tier formula year after year, in violation of the accord.
It is also that time of the year when the capacity, or rather the lack of it, of Irsa — which is supposed to play the role of arbitrator in case of a dispute between the federating units under the accord — to correctly estimate the shortages is exposed. Punjab and Sindh don’t see eye to eye when it comes to estimating the conveyance or system losses. Punjab says the losses are around 7pc to 8pc whereas Sindh insists that system losses range between 35pc and 40pc, particularly on its territory between the Chashma and Kotri barrages. That these kind of interprovincial disagreements and disputes are now a regular feature of our water distribution mechanism underlines the need for revisiting the three-decade-old accord. Much has changed since 1991. Pakistan is now one of the top 10 nations impacted by global warming and may soon become one of the most water-stressed countries in the world as the shortages increase. The federation and its units need to renegotiate a new water distribution agreement, free from the shortcomings and controversies of the existing one.
Published in Dawn, March 30th, 2023
Clipped wings
THE incumbent government’s move to unilaterally relieve the chief justice’s office of two important discretionary powers cannot be condoned. To be clear, there is nothing repugnant in the changes being sought.
In fact, it has been a long-held opinion in the legal community that the chief justice’s suo motu powers ought to be regulated to prevent wanton invocation, and that benches formed to hear important cases should be more inclusive to reflect the diversity of thought within the Supreme Court.
However, the manner in which these changes are being introduced — rather, enforced on the superior judiciary — is problematic and likely to have long-lasting repercussions for the trichotomy of powers envisaged under the Constitution.
The most the government ought to have done at this point was forcefully request the superior judiciary to urgently convene a forum where they could settle the matter amongst themselves.
There is also the question of optics. It should be noted that the ‘amendments’ bill was slipped into an ongoing session of the National Assembly through a supplementary agenda after its unusually prompt approval by the federal cabinet. The government then seemed to be in a hurry to have it approved by all relevant quarters so that it could be enacted into law post-haste.
The urgency with which the legislation was moved would suggest the government was never really interested in any considered debate and deliberation on it.
There was also the question of timing: it was strange that the government sprang into action with a legislative proposal so quickly after the surfacing of the dissenting opinion of two honourable judges of the Supreme Court in which they objected to a suo motu notice taken by the chief justice.
Therefore, the question, ‘Does the government have a motive that goes beyond simply reforming the practices and procedures of the court’, is inescapable.
Whether or not the government’s legislative intervention is legally sound is a matter best left to the country’s legal minds. However, it appears this bill will more likely complicate the Supreme Court’s problems rather than solve them.
If the divisions within the top court remain unbridged, the functioning of the three-member ‘committee’ proposed under the bill will be anything but smooth. And if the Supreme Court is unable to prevent itself from repeatedly getting caught in an internal tug-of-war, other branches of the state will quickly find they are freer to commit excesses.
This is why the matter ought to have been left to senior judges to decide with their collective wisdom. However, the chief justice also needs to act. With pressures growing on his institution, he must restore its unity and credibility. One proposal is to have the full court hear the election delay case. He should reconsider it seriously.
Published in Dawn, March 30th, 2023