Of dual-nationality holders et al

Afflicted with moral decay, the system needs to be re-invented

The Supreme Court decision to initiate criminal proceedings against twelve legislators for filing false declarations with their nomination papers is a move in the right direction. Concurrently, it throws up innumerable other irregularities that are being committed in the absence of regulations to govern politics as well as people who want to practice the profession in the country.
What is alarming is that the interior minister of the country first hid the truth about his dual nationality by submitting a false statement with his nomination form and, when confronted by the apex court, continued telling lies for over two years saying that he had renounced his British citizenship. Stripped of his seat in the senate and consequently his place in the cabinet, he was immediately re-inducted as advisor for interior with the status of a federal minister. Thereafter, he conveniently changed his stance stating that he had ‘applied’ for renunciation of his British citizenship thus conceding that he had been lying all this while. The court was left with no option but to judge him under article 62 (f) which states that, for becoming a member of the parliament, one has to be ‘sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and ameen”. Obviously, the interior minister did not measure up to the requirements. The court has ordered for initiation of legal proceedings against him and eleven other legislators under section 78 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, read with section 82 of the Act and sections 193, 196, 198 and 199 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
The question that arises relates to the total absence of a moral (and legal?) base in the decision making of the federal government which, instead of punishing the interior minister for having subverted the truth so blatantly and for so long, immediately rewarded him with a ministerial slot. How can a government, shorn of even the most rudimentary respect for the rule of law, be allowed to continue in the saddle and what, if any, are the measures that the state can take to block such a recourse by an errant administration? As we have seen in the last three years, since the advent of an independent judiciary, the government has tried to block every move of the apex court to enforce the rule of law. The government’s measures have ranged from outright affront to ridicule heaped on the judiciary and the honourable judges through its nominated representatives for the purpose.
Now that the decision regarding the ineligibility of the dual-nationality holders to sit in the parliament has finally come, the next question that needs to be addressed is the nature and scope of their role in both controlling and participating in national politics as leaders or members of political parties while sitting abroad and holding the nationality of another country. The question has both moral and legal dimensions which the court should move to address. I am personally aware of many such people who occupy senior positions in political parties, thus managing to impact the decision-making processes of these outfits while their sworn loyalties belong with another country.
The most conspicuous case is that of the MQM Quaid, Altaf Hussain who, once he had acquired it, was photographed proudly displaying his British passport. In spite of having sworn allegiance to another country, he has continued to ‘rule’ the MQM as well as dictate its policies and, consequently, control the fate of Karachi and Hyderabad from his fortress in the UK. After the SC decision to address the inherent anomaly in the dual-nationality issue, the MQM case assumes enhanced relevance in the context whether political parties can continue to function under the tutelage of a foreign national? Or, put in a different perspective, can people who are ineligible to become members of the legislatures be allowed to control political parties with or without representation in the parliament? It is a moral question all right, but it also has serious legal undertones.
Another issue that is equally relevant is one of leaders whose families have assumed a foreign country’s nationality. Is it humanly possible for a person to remain committed to safeguarding the interests of a country in spite of being emotionally divided as his/her family has sworn allegiance to another country? If not completely impossible, it would generate its pressures that may be difficult to handle when confronted with a basic conflict of interest. And, should such people be allowed to continue performing major roles in defining a country’s policies?
There would be arguments that there are no constitutional bars to such functions as the document has no clause that would debar dual-nationals from being members or leaders of political parties in Pakistan. There is also nothing in the political parties’ constitutions that would take away the right to lead political parties from people with divided loyalties. My argument is that whether such a time has actually come to define the parameters whereby a person would be rendered eligible or ineligible to lead a political party in the country. I understand that such stipulations make a principal part of the constitutions of other countries, particularly in the developed world, that define the eligibility of people to lead political parties.
It is in the moral sustainability of a country or a nation that one looks for avenues of growth and progress. A system that is afflicted with moral decay is usually regressive in essence and quite unfit to guide its people to salvation. Our system has all the attenuations of being a decaying formulation which has to be re-invented by taking bold initiatives to free it from contradictions that are impacting its growth in becoming a viable and vibrant guide to the future. Now that the SC has come forth with a brave injunction, the opening should be utilised by the civil society leaders and opinion-moulders operating in various fields to lead the way to ridding the country of such decay that can cause an erosion and eventual annulment of its moral base.

The writer is a political analyst. He can be reached at [email protected]