ORIENTATION WORKSHOP FOR THE
26-29 JANUARY 2003, ISLAMABAD
1.
INTRODUCTION
This is the first time in Pakistan’s political history that as many as seventy four women have entered the parliament. Some of them have already been members of the National Assembly before but most of them have not had the experience. Keeping this in view the Jinnah Institute, headed by Ms. Sherry Rahman, who is herself a newly elected Member of the National Assembly (MNA), proposed that a workshop should be held with the major objective of acquainting the women parliamentarians how the parliament actually functions. Besides transmission of knowledge, another aim was to familiarize the new MNAs with the informal functioning of the parliament which the experiences of seasoned politicians could provide them. Another objective was to help women create an understanding with each other about issues relating to women on which they could come to an understanding.
The workshop was coordinated by Dr. Mohammad Waseem, Professor and Chair of the Department of International Relations at Quaid-i-Azam University and an academic whose studies of the politics of Pakistan are deservedly well known. MS. Sherry Rahman also coordinated the workshop along with Dr Waseem and provided financial and logistic support. The workshop was held at the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad. It was held on three days (27, 28 and 29 January 2003) with two sessions in the morning and two in the afternoon. The last session was always for discussion of the day’s proceedings in two groups. The plenary session was held an evening before (26 Jan) and was followed by a dinner.
2. PLENARY SESSION:
26 Jan (evening)
This session started by a welcome address by Dr Mohammad Waseem. He introduced the three speakers: Lord Nazeer Ahmed; Mr. Hameed Haroon and Ms Sherry Rahman, MNA. Dr Waseem outlined the need for the workshop and its programme. After that the speakers delivered their speeches.
Lord Nazeer Ahmed told the audience about his experience of being the first Muslim peer and member of the House of Lords. He said that the role of the House of Lords is changing but one important feature is that the rule of law is maintained. He said that the presence of women in parliament will probably bring about positive changes in Pakistan’s political system.
Mr Hameed Haroon, owner of the Dawn group of publications, said that women should guard the interests of democracy which cannot function without there being a free press. He said that there were four laws which had been introduced and one of them, the one called the Freedom of Information Act, would actually obstruct freedom. Such impediments, he said, should be removed by the efforts of parliamentarians.
MS Sherry Rahman, the chairperson of the Jinnah Institute, pointed out in her speech that the political process had been disrupted in the past by non-political forces. The politicians, therefore, could not be held as being solely responsible for lack of democracy in the country. She hoped that the inclusion of women in the Parliament would empower both women and democratic institutions. However, she said that hope would have to be tempered with apprehension because of the past history of democratic development in the country.
After the speeches the participants were invited to a dinner after which the session ended.
Mr Yusuf Raza Gilani – Ex – Speaker of the National Asembly and Vice Chairman, PPP, Pakistan, spoke on ‘Parliamentary Functioning and Networking’.
Mr Gilani emphasized the
sovereignty of the parliament and the prerogative of its speaker. He recalled
that he himself upheld the dignity of the members by not allowing the government
to arrest them or dictate to them. He said that the Public Accounts Committee
was the forum to check corruption in the parliament. The speaker too could be
removed by a Vote of No Confidence. He suggested that MNAs should be given a
pension because politics entailed much expenditure.
He suggested that parliamentarians should get exposure to democratic practices by becoming members of the Inter Parliamentary Union (IPU), the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and an association of the parliaments of Muslim countries.
When the session was opened for discussion most of the questions pertained to the functioning of the parliament; pensions for parliamentarians and the powers of parliament. MNA Fauzia Habib complained that the speaker did not give them time. Mr Gilani suggested that he should be given some more time. MNA Razia Aziz asked him what was the way to join the parliamentary forum for Muslim countries. Mr. Gilani provided the necessary guidance. He also clarified that funds were earmarked for good, workable, developmental schemes and that women will make a real difference in politics especially of they concentrated on the uplift of rural areas and on women’s problems.
Mr Aitzaz Ahsan, MNA of PPPP and former Law Minister, spoke on the ‘Legislative Process in Parliament’. He pointed out that the Parliament did not only make laws, it also supervised and monitored the executive branch of the government. He said we need the implementation of laws more than the making of new laws. However, new laws related to technology, women and globalization would have to be made.
He pointed out that the sovereignty of the Parliament was encroached upon by (1) the armed forces which do not accept civilian supremacy (2) the issuance of ordinances which should only be issued in an emergency when the parliament is not in session, (3) lack of debate on laws under governmental pressure etc.
In the end, he explained the basic features of Pakistan’s parliamentary system: the introduction of bills and their three readings; the working of the 38 committees (32 relating to government departments) of the parliament; the different types of bills and motions and how they are initiated. In the end he advised the women parliamentarians to unite with each other to uphold the sovereignty of the parliament and create pro-women laws.
The interactive part of the session was very animated and interesting. To a question about our identity, he said that Pakistan is a Muslim, not an Islamic, state. To MNA Donyal Aziz’s question about lobbying he said that it need not always be seen as negative. Some NGOs, for instance, had raised awareness about human rights, environment, water, women and population issues.
MNA Shumaila asked his opinion about the Hudood Ordinance. He said that Zia ul Haq had promulgated it to divert attention from Bhutto’s trial and execution. He also dwelt on cases of misapplication of law, calling it a very ‘patriarchal application’ leading to injustice towards women. Other questions were about the nature of the Pakistani state---whether it was Islamic or Muslim---and about the possibility of bringing about political changes. He said that if parliamentarians stood together to strengthen the institution of the parliament, such as through the removal of parts of the LFO, then parliament could become sovereign and democracy could be secured.
Hamid Khan, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association and author of Constitutional and Political History of Pakistan (2001) traced out the history of Pakistan’s politics. He said that generals, bureaucrats, judiciary and feudal lords had prevented a strong democratic system from taking roots. Coming to the present he said that the referendum of 2002 and the LFO (2002) were both not acceptable. The first was not acceptable at all because the procedure for the election of the president was given in the constitution of 1973. As for the LFO, some clauses of it were in consonance with the spirit of the constitution, and parliament should ratify them. Others---like the position of the president who was still in the service of the state, the power of the president to dissolve the National Assembly through Article 58 (2) b; the presence of a National Security Council with the chiefs of the armed forces in it; and the new relationship of the military with the judiciary in which the latter is given privileges and facilities (such as the three-year extension for judges recently) in return for supporting the military---are not acceptable.
In the question and answer session MNA Shamim began by saying that, when the NSC had more civilians than military personnel, how could the military dominate the civilians. Mr. Hamid Khan pointed out with examples that the military was so powerful that its members would dominate their civilian counterparts. Other questions related to the partnership of the judiciary and the military; the need to change Pakistan’s foreign policy as it was that which strengthened the military and the resistance to parts of the LFO. There was much debate about the legality of the President and whether the parliamentarians had taken oath under the LFO or under the 1973 Constitution. Hamid Khan argued that the oath was not taken under the LFO. He refuted MNA Dr Firdous Zaman’s argument that, since the opposition parties had not boycotted the elections, they had implicitly accepted General Musharraf’s political dispensation. To MNA Shagufta’s question whether anything could be done to strengthen democracy, he pointed to South Korea and the Philippines where repressive dictatorships had been changed by the people’s pressure. In the end, he again emphasized that the parliament could strengthen itself by not ratifying those articles of the LFO which will make the army and the president supreme, thus infringing upon the sovereignty of parliament and the principle of civilian supremacy.
After the third session, the participants divided themselves into two groups which held discussions in separate halls. Group 1, with MNA Sherry Rahman as chairperson, discussed the proceedings of the day. All the participants praised the sessions, agreeing that they were very informative. They agreed that they should focus on building institutional strength. One very important decision was that women should discuss issues concerning women---such as honour killing etc---together, even taking positions which their political parties might be shying away from. MNA Bushra Rahman suggested that politicians must not vilify each other and tolerance for divergent views must he developed. MNA Jamila Ahmed, while praising the lectures, suggested that information about the Hudood Ordinances should also be provided.
Group 2, with MNA Mehnaz Rafi as chairperson, discussed each lecture one by one. Here, the consensus was that pensions for politicians, as suggested by Mr. Yusuf Raza Gilani, should be demanded. Everybody also agreed that women’s issues should be dealt with together even by transcending party lines.
On the whole, the Workshop was conducted in a very amicable atmosphere. There was much interaction and tolerance for each other’s views even when there was no agreement. Everybody felt that they had learned a lot and that such get-togethers should be held on a regular basis.
4.FIRST SESSION (morning) DAY – 2 (28 Jan 2003)
Mr Waseem Sajjad, Former Chairman of
the Senate spoke on the ‘Role of the
Senate in Pakistan’.
Mr Wasim Sajjad traced out the history of the Senate of Pakistan. He said that upto 1973, there was no Senate. At that time it was felt that provinces were represented in proportion to their population in the National Assembly but this gave less representation to the less populated provinces. To create some measure of equity, the Senate was created to represent all provinces equally. The Senate also plays a role in the election of the president. In 2002, the strength of the Senate has been raised to 100, out of which women, technocrats, members from FATA and the federal capital have representation.
Various bills can be initiated in the Senate. Here too, there are three readings as in the National Assembly but money bills could not be initiated before 2002. After the readings, if the bill is passed, it goes to the president who can return it for reconsideration.
After Mr. Sajjad’s talk, the interactive session began. The most crucial question, asked by MNA Fauzia Habib, was about the status of a president in uniform. Mr. Wasim Sajjad said that such questions were legal and had to be interpreted by the courts. Upon this, a number of related questions about the reliability of the judiciary came up. The speaker did not give any specific answer to them. However, when MNA Shakila asked what happens in the case of the president’s death, Mr. Wasim Sajjad replied that the Chairman of the Senate becomes the acting president and elections are held within thirty days.
4.1 SECOND SESSION (noon) DAY-2(28 Jan 2003)
Dr. Faqir Hussain, Secretary Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan, was the speaker. He gave a comprehensive and clear lecture on the working of the legal system and the state in Pakistan. First, he gave a succinct summary of the types of law in existence. For instance, there are statutory laws, Islamic laws and ordinances. Another difference is between civil and criminal law, and yet another one is between substantive and procedural law. Then there are federal, provincial and local laws.
The constitution lays down the separation and distribution of powers. The legislature, executive and judiciary are all regulated according to the constitution. The parliament cannot be dissolved except by the prime minister. The executive cannot be removed except through a vote of no confidence. The judiciary is appointed by the executive but cannot be removed by it.
The parliament legislates and oversees the execution of the law. Laws can be passed by a simple majority but the constitution can only be amended by a two-thirds majority. There are checks on the parliament too --- such as the provision that laws will not contradict fundamental rights, Islam and the spirit of the constitution. All organs of the state, including the bureaucracy and the military, can be controlled through the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) which oversees expenditure.
At this point, MNA Fauzia Habib asked the speaker if the armed forces too could be controlled through the PAC. Dr. Faqir, who was about to end his speech, gave his concluding remarks and replied that, in legal theory, the parliament was supreme. Many questions were raised after this with participants saying that, in reality, the armed forces were not questioned.
After this another interesting debate on discriminatory laws started. MNA Mehnaz Rafi began it by asking Dr Faqir why there were discriminatory laws when the constitution was egalitarian in spirit. As the specific law in dispute was the Hudood Ordinance, all the participants were actively involved. Many of them pointed out how even women who had been raped were given the punishment of death by stoning (rajm) by the lower courts. Dr. Faqir first gave the history of this ordinance. He said that Zia ul Haq had implemented it in order to legitimize and perpetuate his rule using the name of Islam. Then, he said that Islamic law punishes rape and prostitution but not fornication with mutual consent. He said that the maximum punishment (hadd) could only be given if four adult male Muslims actually bore witness that they had seen the act of coitus in progress. As this was not generally possible, adultery and fornication could not be given the death punishment. All the participants appreciated his interpretation and clarity of reasoning. In the end, it was suggested that committees should be made to visit prisoners, especially women prisoners, accused of sexual misdemeanors in jails. The speaker agreed and emphasized the necessity of holding regular meetings of the parliament so as to strengthen it.
4.2 THIRD SESSION : Afternoon Session(28 Jan 2003)
As the speaker, Mr Liaqat Baloch, could not come for some reason the time was taken up by a series of interesting discussions. MNA Sherry Rahman said that men and women did not have equal rights of divorce. MNA Shamim Akhtar pointed out that clauses 11 and 18 of the NIKAH NAMA (marriage contract) did give women the power to divorce themselves (Khula) but they did not know it. Other speakers said that our social customs gave no such powers to women. Moreover, they lost their dower if they got khula.
At this point, Dr. Atta ur Rahman, who had studied in a religious seminary before taking a degree in medicine, came in to deliver a short talk on the Islamic point of view about governance. He said that an Islamic state ensures that rulers are elected and remain answerable to the people. He was asked questions about divorce and related issues. He said that, in family matters, men had more powers and responsibilities than women. This led to much questioning.
4.3 DISCUSSION SESSION: DAY-2 (28 Jan)
Like the previous day, the two groups held discussions in separate rooms. Group-1, whose coordinator was MNA Sherry Rahman, discussed how women could be more united and more effective on specifically female issues. They discussed all problems, including those faced by rural women, and resolved to create a pressure group of women both in the National Assembly and the Senate to see to it that discriminatory laws against women are changed.
Group-2, coordinated by MNA Mehnaz Rafi, discussed both the lectures of the day turn by turn. MNA Fauzia Wahab suggested that they should pass certain resolutions about the elections of the president. MNA Nafisa argued that the incumbent president need not be subjected to the usual procedure but it may be recommended for the future. MNA Nafisa Raja disagreed with this saying that there should be no deviation from the Constitution. The group then moved on to the other presentation and agreed that a new interpretation of Islamic law (Ijtihad) was necessary to improve the condition of the society.
5.FIRST SESSION (morning) DAY – 3: 29 JAN 2003
MS. Syeda Abida Hussain, Former Ambassador of Pakistan to the United States and a former Minister.
The speaker, who entered parliament in 1972 and has been elected three times as MNA, began by giving a brief account of her experiences as a politician. The gist of her remarks was that people expect changes in their life from all politicians, but from the women parliamentarians elected now they expect even more changes.
She said that the major problem and constraint on all governments is the economy. As defence, debt servicing and the cost of the administration took away most of the budget, there was very little money left for development.
She then remarked that the character of the lower house of the parliament is determined by the Speaker, the Leader of the House, the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the House and the Minister of Law and Parliamentary Affairs. Amendments are moved according to the mutual understanding which obtains between them. For example, Amendments 13 and 14 were moved so expeditiously because all the crucial figures had agreed that they should be passed without delay.
After this Ms. Syeda Abida Hussain turned to foreign policy. She referred back to her own time in the U.S.A as an ambassador and recalled how the Pressler Amendment had affected the procurement of arms for Pakistan. She then said that the emergence of the Central Asian States had provided a chance to Pakistan to establish linguistic, cultural and economic contacts with them. However, this chance was missed. This is because the point of view of the military – which relates to the procurement of weapons---takes first priority and other concerns are shelved.
In the end, she argued that our foreign policy should shift from being military-driven to being development-driven. She also suggested that, while remaining committed to our stance on Kashmir, we should rule out military adventurism to get Kashmir. She related how Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had invited the Indian PM, Mr. Vajpayee, to Lahore to initiate a peace process. However, the military embarked upon the Kargil Operation which sabotaged this process. After this Nawaz Sharif could have resigned but he blamed the COAS entirely and this was the cause of his downfall.
Several speakers---such as MNA Fauzia Wahab and MNA Razia Aziz—pointed out that the military is too powerful an institution. This being so, the former wondered what could be done about the LFO while the latter inquired how foreign policy could be controlled by civilian decision-makers. The speaker said that an attempt to gain power could be made by working as a body, by agreeing to general democratic principles and, of course, by being above board and establishing support systems.
MNA Mehnaz Rafi pointed out that the MNAs too were given funds and yet they had not shown much improvement. In response to this the speaker said that Dr. Mahbub ul Haq had started this practice in 1985 and that she disapproved of it. However, she pointed out that the price of a submarine was five times more that what the MNAs had been given in 15 years.
In conclusion, Ms. Syeda Abida Hussain again emphasized the fact that defence outlays are not subject to close scrutiny. She advised the female parliamentarians to develop a caucus, or at least a loose understanding, with each other on issues relating to women and development.
Dr. Waseem thanked the speaker and concluded the session.
5.1 SECOND SESSION (noon) 29 January
MR. RAZA RABBANI-ACTING SECRETARY GENERAL, PPPP, spoke on
‘The Role of
Parliament in Democratization’
Mr. Rabbani spoke on inter-party networking which is essential for the effectiveness of the parliament and leads to democratization. He pointed out that in Pakistan the conflict had always been between the civil and military bureaucracies and the parliament. As political parties too seek support of the establishment, they do not have inter-party dialogue. Even on matters which affect the sovereignty of the parliament itself, such as the LFO or the dominance of the unelected president over the elected prime minister, the parties do not enter into dialogue and understanding with each other.
He also pointed out that the National Assembly had not yet been summoned for a working session though it had been elected in October. Moreover, ordinances were being passed even though the parliament existed and could have been summoned.
MNA Fauzia Wahab asked the speaker why the party structures were weak, and MNA Mehnaz Rafi, expanding upon the same question, suggested that it was because of the weakness of the parties that the army intervened. The speaker acknowledged that political parties too had made mistakes in the past. However, one reason for not having established inter-party dialogue was that the opposition was too harassed to do anything positive. He kept arguing that acceptance of curbs over the power of the parliament could not lead to the restoration or strengthening of democracy.
There were questions on the Hudood Ordinance and the inclusion of women in the Parliament during the previous tenures of the PPP. Mr Rabbani explained that his party (PPP) did not get the cooperation of the opposition to bring about the desiderated changes. However, attempts were made but they were unfruitful.
5.2 THIRD SESSION (afternoon) 29 Jan 2003
MS Farida Shaheed, Director of SHIRKAT GAH WOMEN’S Resource Centre, Lahore. Ms. Farida Shaheed, a well known researcher on womens’ issues, gave a summary of the findings of a survey conducted on 1609 women out of which 777 were urban and 832 rural. Among other things, she said that the survey supported the common perception that women’s mobility was restricted. While 77.9 percent could move out for health reasons, only 31.9 could go out unaccompanied for shopping. They were also less powerful, most (65.1 percent) not being asked about their own marriage, though they were consulted on their children’s marriages.
When asked which factors affected them negatively, most of them (89%) said that it was lack of education and 64% blamed segregation and confinement to home. About 34% blamed traditional values.
As women faced the problem of increasing commodity prices, 88.9% per cent said that a good government should control inflation. Related to this was the response (by 82.3 %) that it was one which ensured employment. Only 4.7% women said that a good government was one which implemented Islamic laws.
Except in Sindh, women did not show much interest in politics and they mistrusted the state institutions feeling that mediation may be quicker if undertaken by a local influential. On the whole, their lives were rather hopeless and they did not expect much from the state. However, they did support women contesting elections. In Sindh this support was 81%; in Punjab it was 51%; in Baluchistan it was 48%; and in the NWFP it was very low being only 29%.
The survey was appreciated very much as a piece of solid research. Ms. Fareeda Shaheed was asked whether her organization had done something to change the lot of disadvantaged women. She replied that their teams had gone to all the provinces to make women aware of their rights. Upon this there was a general discussion of laws and rights pertaining to marriage, inheritance and related issues. In the end, the speaker was asked if she could recommend what they could do in the parliament. She said that other countries had passed humane laws relating to women. They too could pass such laws if they formed a caucus in the parliament.
.
5.3 LAST SESSION (afternoon) 29 Jan
The last session was meant for holding a discussion and passing resolutions. It was coordinated by MNA Sherry Rahman who began by saying that suggestions from the two groups had been received. They would be read out and, as agreed so far, they would seek to form a caucus in the parliament. They would seek team leaders, coordinators and rapporteurs (resource persons) in all the parties. The caucus will be called POWER (Parliamentary Organization for Women’s Empowerment and Rights). It will have a secretariat based in Islamabad.
After this, the recommendations of the previous two days were read out and discussed. The most salient recommendations mutually agreed upon were as follows:
1. Parliament must be made sovereign and its role in supporting democracy must be kept in view in all future discussions and actions.
2. Women-related issues must be the special focus of female parliamentarians and the caucus they create. However, the economy, education, the functioning of the due process of law, the supremacy of parliament etc are related issues and will also be taken up.
3. All ordinances brought in during the last three years (since October 1999) will be ratified by the parliament.
4. Women will join parliamentary committees to ensure their active participation in politics.
6.ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
The workshop was successful on three counts:
(1) It provided some information about the working of the parliament to the participants (2) It provided a brief outline of historical and theoretical framework of political behaviour in Pakistan for future parliamentarians. (3) it helped the participants to agree to create a caucus (POWER) which will specifically focus on women’s problems.
Even more significantly, in my opinion, the participants developed informal working relationships and linkages which will probably help them create a caucus and influence their parties to legislate in favour of women. The fact that women from different political parties could discuss controversial issues for three days without the discussions breaking off is remarkable by itself.
However, controversy was avoided only by not facing divisive issues. This means that there was no genuine probing of each other’s real position. Had this been done, the apparent harmony might have dissolved into acrimony. This would have made it quite clear as to where everyone stood and what degree of accommodation is really possible. As it is, the degree of harmony is not determinable and it is possible that it will prove to be illusory in future. This does not allow an independent observer to place high hopes in the process.
The objective of training women parliamentarians about the powers, constitutional position and functioning of the parliament was only partially fulfilled. This is because only academic speakers went into details while others chose to speak about their personal experiences. I must add, however, that personal experiences added interest to the talks and were by such eminent political personalities that they were, in a very significant sense, symbolic of Pakistan’s political life. As such, it was appropriate that they should have been invited to speak. Indeed, it was rather unrealistic to assume that the new parliamentarians will learn essential facts about parliamentary working in only three days, especially when they are from such diverse academic and socio-cultural backgrounds.
It appears to me that the women members of the MMA (the alliance of Islamic parties) were somewhat subdued because they were not used to speaking in such gatherings. The workshop was mostly in Urdu, a wise decision by the coordinators, but still the MMA members did not participate as much as the others. In my opinion, the coordinators should have gone out of their way to draw them out and encourage them. This was not done, I suspect, because of the fear of controversial religious opinion which could have led to heated argument and a breakup of the illusion of harmony.
The avoidance of controversy, despite its costs which I have mentioned, did contribute to the continuation of the workshop with discussion on essential issues for three days. As mentioned before, there was at least a measure of harmony and people did talk to each other. Whether this will result into the creation of a caucus of women in the parliament is still to be seen. But what must be emphasized is that the very fact that interaction took place between people with fundamental religious, social and political differences is remarkable by itself.
These are no mean achievements and I end this evaluation report by felicitating Dr. Mohammad Waseem and MNA Sherry Rahman for arranging this workshop. I believe the Jinnah Institute in association with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy deserve to be commended for this initiative.
Dr. Tariq Rahman