This April a bill was submitted in the National Assembly which is yet
another attempt to make the citizens of Pakistan "loyal" to
it. The bill seeks to amend the Article 63 of the Constitution – an article
that sets the criteria for the members of parliament and provincial assemblies.
The bill requires that any person who holds dual nationality and owns bank
accounts and assets in countries other than Pakistan will not be able
to be a member of the parliament and provincial assemblies as well as public
service, both civil and military. It ensued from the womb of Muslim League (Q).
Leaving aside the doubts whether it is part of a political ploy or a trick of
political blackmailing, the bill needs to be examined on its merits.
This article does not aim to dwell on the issue of dual nationality. The
same restriction already existed in the Constitution, though the bill means to
extend it to the public office holders also. As far as politicians' (and public
officials') ownership of and keeping their wealth in foreign countries is
concerned, the media and patriot lobby has since long been there manufacturing
the public opinion against it. In fact, such matters came to fore mostly during
the military dictatorships when politicians were especially made a target of
political victimization. The argument put forward said the loyalty of the
leaders to their country who own assets in foreign lands is precarious.
Nonetheless, this class of doubtful loyalty with Pakistan has lately
come to include generals, judges, and other high-profile officials. The bill
does not make a target only of the politicians which had been the common
practice in cases of such legislation in the past.
It is as simple as that – if an ordinary citizen, or a public office
holder, or an elected representative owns assets in any other country where he
abides by the laws of that country and pays taxes duly, and back home also,
then keeping accounts and assets there is his legal and constitutional right.
In that case, he cannot be barred from being a member of any elected body and
joining public office. Innumerable Pakistanis are already present in foreign
countries' elected bodies and public institutions and own assets in both
countries of their nationality. For that matter, in Pakistan probably
very few citizens of other countries would be found in our elected bodies and
public institutions! Doesn't this bill invite other countries to go for a
legislation of the same ilk?
Furthermore, if an elected representative or a public office holder uses
his wealth in this or that country in an unbecoming manner and for illegal
purposes, such laws already exist which deal with this wrong-doing. As the bill
assumes that after its enactment politicians will be discouraged from indulging
in corruption, or will not be able to escape political vengeance or legal
action rightly or wrongly initiated against them, the same is just a figment.
The fact is that many countries have bilateral or multilateral agreements on
the extradition of alleged criminals. Also, in addition to the governments of
other countries and their powerful elite classes, the relatives, friends and
acquaintances of 'victimized' politicians and public office holders will be
more than welcoming to them in having them as their 'pricey' guests. The reason
for this investment is obvious: the prospects of going up of the value of such
"assets," both in political and financial terms, will be
hundredfold!
In its essence, the bill questions the loyalty of elected representatives
and public office holders to their country, and as proof of that loyalty
instead of demanding from them, it by imposing legal constitutional restriction
on them tries to force them from having and keeping their accounts and assets
in foreign countries. Is holding accounts, owning property, doing business, and
keeping assets abroad a crime? There is no such bar in the Constitution of the
country. Then, why should there be such a bar on the elected representatives
and public office holders? Does that specific status of theirs deprive them of
their natural and fundamental constitutional rights? Will, by putting such a
bar on them, they be more loyal to the country? Will, by putting this
restriction, their patriotism be increased manifold?
The factors which strengthen love and loyalty to one's country have
nothing to do with such legal and constitutional restrictions. Instead of
focusing on those factors, the bill diverts attention from them. In sum, in a
time of extreme insecurity, forgoing the need of securing the protection of
life, and security of rights and rightly earned wealth and property of its
citizens, wherever in this world they own it, the bill seeks to put a
narrow-minded and altogether unintelligible restriction on the citizens of
Pakistan – the present and would-be elected representatives and public office
holders.
Without any fear of exaggeration, it may be surmised that the bill seems
to be ringing the bells of/for another Martial Law!
Note: This article was completed in August 2011.
