Although holding dual citizenship was not permitted under the 1951 law, the Government of Pakistan now recognizes and allows its citizens to also hold the citizenship of at least 13 other countries as notified by it.
For ordinary Pakistanis, holding dual citizenship is neither a problem nor an issue. But when members of the Parliament, members of the cabinet and persons holding public office stash their wealth in foreign banks, invest in real estate, industry or business, there is a conflict of interest. An investigating reporter of national English daily has taken quite some pain to go through the annual declarations submitted to the Election Commission of Pakistan by members of the Parliament. In his report he stated that at least 19 members of the National Assembly belonging to the PPP, PML-N and MQM own apartments, businesses or have bank accounts abroad. Of them, 10 MPs hail from the PPP, five from the PML-N and three from the MQM while one is independent. The report however did not give details of head honchos or top leaders of two major political parties - the PPP and the PML-N as well as leaders of other political parties as to their assets abroad or their dual nationality.
There is a perception that those with dual nationality have the divided loyalty, as they have allegiance to two countries. It was in this backdrop that in April 2011, PML-Q MNA Raza Hayat Hiraj had introduced ‘The Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2011’ in the lower house aimed at disqualifying those who have dual nationality, foreign accounts and property abroad. Raza Hayat Hiraj had introduced the bill on private members day, which was later referred to the concerned standing committee for consideration. In the proposed amendment anyone who has foreign account, property abroad and holds dual nationality would not be eligible to hold any public office at any level. However, Hiraj said this bill would come into force after one year of enactment, and during this time the candidate may fulfill the criteria for holding any public office. Meanwhile, private members` bill seeking to bar Pakistanis holding dual nationalities and foreign properties from becoming members of parliament, provincial assemblies besides taking public office has lapsed since its mover joined the federal cabinet as state minister after his party the PML-Q joined the coalition government in the centre.
The Constitution (Amendment) Act 2011 had sought insertion of Article 63B, whereby a person stood disqualified for service of Pakistan or holding any office in any organisation, including armed forces and judiciary, whether wholly or partly owned or controlled by the federal or provincial government; or being elected or chosen as a member of parliament or provincial assembly or local government on five grounds: (a) he maintains an account in any bank or financial institution in a foreign country whether in his own name or in the name of his spouse, children or dependents of as the case may be; (b) holds a dual nationality or has a permanent resident status of any other country; (c) holds an office of profit or interest in any company or organisation established in a foreign country whether in his own name or in the name of his spouse, children or dependents; (d) owns any property whether freehold, leasehold or even in the form of licence, assets, shares or any interest in any company based in a foreign country, whether in his own name, or in the name of his spouse, children or dependents; and (e) carries out business or commercial activity in any organisation or establishment, based in a foreign country whether in his own name or in the name of his spouse, children or dependents.
One would appreciate the spirit behind the proposed bill, but there is a big question whether heads of political parties who are accused of having stashed their wealth in foreign banks, invested in real estate and other businesses would allow such a bill to pass through? However, a lot has to be done to introduce democracy in the political parties because the major parties are the fiefdoms of the founders of the parties. After 18th amendment, chairman of the party has become the virtual dictator and he can move disqualification of any member of the parliament on flimsy grounds. Efforts have also to be made to eliminate corruption from the society, which has eaten into the vitals of society. Anyhow, corruption can only be controlled and checked if the rulers have the moral high authority, which means that they are honest; they pay the due taxes, and do not take advantage of their position in the government to multiply their wealth. It is true that in a country where the government is committed to the welfare of the people; the poor are provided with free education and health facilities and the state guarantees jobs to all able-bodied persons, the incidence of corruption and crime would be less. On the other hand, if the status-quo forces and corrupt elements rule the state, the gap between the rich and the poor continues to grow, and such an extremist society becomes a breeding ground for extremists, criminals and even terrorists.
The problem is that members of the tiny elite in Pakistan had all along kept complete control over the state, its resources and all levers of power. They neither had the vision nor the will to build a modern society, though Pakistan had all the ingredients and the resources to make it a great country, and ensure a decent living standard to the people. Secondly, though feudalism does not exist in classical form yet the feudal mindset with streaks of corruption and exploitation has affected all strata of society. Unless the remnants of feudalism and its mindset are done away with, the feudals and new-rich industrial tycoons would always get elected and reach corridors of power. Evidence suggests that in rural Pakistan, people are forced to vote for Jagirdars, Waderas and Sardars. In urban areas, big business, new-rich class and baradaris dominate the scene and people have no choice because moneyed classes somehow reach the corridors of power and amass wealth using their position and clout. And then they use part of that wealth to get them re-elected so that they could secure the ill-gotten wealth and also multiply it; hence the vicious cycle continues.
The truth of the matter is that in most developing countries especially South Asian countries, people can only cast their votes; and a person even from upper middle class cannot imagine of fielding himself as a candidate. Therefore, only the rich and those who amassed wealth using their position when in power can afford the luxury of elections. The fact of the matter is that the landed gentry wield power over the Haris. Similarly, in a capitalist society, direct access to private property in the form of the means of production entails control over circumstances in which others are implicated and therefore have direct social power. The owners of property can borrow by hypothecating the assets and generate more means of production, thus enhancing their power over others in determining the nature and availability of jobs. In case of monopolies or cartels, they can fleece the consumers, especially if the owners are sitting in the cabinets and the assemblies. The sugar or cement scam is a case in point. As stated above, members in the existing assembly would not allow passage of the bill regarding dual nationality or wealth stashed abroad, it is therefore imperative that electoral system be reformed in a manner that people from middle class can field themselves as candidates. But this is a tall order.
For ordinary Pakistanis, holding dual citizenship is neither a problem nor an issue. But when members of the Parliament, members of the cabinet and persons holding public office stash their wealth in foreign banks, invest in real estate, industry or business, there is a conflict of interest. An investigating reporter of national English daily has taken quite some pain to go through the annual declarations submitted to the Election Commission of Pakistan by members of the Parliament. In his report he stated that at least 19 members of the National Assembly belonging to the PPP, PML-N and MQM own apartments, businesses or have bank accounts abroad. Of them, 10 MPs hail from the PPP, five from the PML-N and three from the MQM while one is independent. The report however did not give details of head honchos or top leaders of two major political parties - the PPP and the PML-N as well as leaders of other political parties as to their assets abroad or their dual nationality.
There is a perception that those with dual nationality have the divided loyalty, as they have allegiance to two countries. It was in this backdrop that in April 2011, PML-Q MNA Raza Hayat Hiraj had introduced ‘The Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2011’ in the lower house aimed at disqualifying those who have dual nationality, foreign accounts and property abroad. Raza Hayat Hiraj had introduced the bill on private members day, which was later referred to the concerned standing committee for consideration. In the proposed amendment anyone who has foreign account, property abroad and holds dual nationality would not be eligible to hold any public office at any level. However, Hiraj said this bill would come into force after one year of enactment, and during this time the candidate may fulfill the criteria for holding any public office. Meanwhile, private members` bill seeking to bar Pakistanis holding dual nationalities and foreign properties from becoming members of parliament, provincial assemblies besides taking public office has lapsed since its mover joined the federal cabinet as state minister after his party the PML-Q joined the coalition government in the centre.
The Constitution (Amendment) Act 2011 had sought insertion of Article 63B, whereby a person stood disqualified for service of Pakistan or holding any office in any organisation, including armed forces and judiciary, whether wholly or partly owned or controlled by the federal or provincial government; or being elected or chosen as a member of parliament or provincial assembly or local government on five grounds: (a) he maintains an account in any bank or financial institution in a foreign country whether in his own name or in the name of his spouse, children or dependents of as the case may be; (b) holds a dual nationality or has a permanent resident status of any other country; (c) holds an office of profit or interest in any company or organisation established in a foreign country whether in his own name or in the name of his spouse, children or dependents; (d) owns any property whether freehold, leasehold or even in the form of licence, assets, shares or any interest in any company based in a foreign country, whether in his own name, or in the name of his spouse, children or dependents; and (e) carries out business or commercial activity in any organisation or establishment, based in a foreign country whether in his own name or in the name of his spouse, children or dependents.
One would appreciate the spirit behind the proposed bill, but there is a big question whether heads of political parties who are accused of having stashed their wealth in foreign banks, invested in real estate and other businesses would allow such a bill to pass through? However, a lot has to be done to introduce democracy in the political parties because the major parties are the fiefdoms of the founders of the parties. After 18th amendment, chairman of the party has become the virtual dictator and he can move disqualification of any member of the parliament on flimsy grounds. Efforts have also to be made to eliminate corruption from the society, which has eaten into the vitals of society. Anyhow, corruption can only be controlled and checked if the rulers have the moral high authority, which means that they are honest; they pay the due taxes, and do not take advantage of their position in the government to multiply their wealth. It is true that in a country where the government is committed to the welfare of the people; the poor are provided with free education and health facilities and the state guarantees jobs to all able-bodied persons, the incidence of corruption and crime would be less. On the other hand, if the status-quo forces and corrupt elements rule the state, the gap between the rich and the poor continues to grow, and such an extremist society becomes a breeding ground for extremists, criminals and even terrorists.
The problem is that members of the tiny elite in Pakistan had all along kept complete control over the state, its resources and all levers of power. They neither had the vision nor the will to build a modern society, though Pakistan had all the ingredients and the resources to make it a great country, and ensure a decent living standard to the people. Secondly, though feudalism does not exist in classical form yet the feudal mindset with streaks of corruption and exploitation has affected all strata of society. Unless the remnants of feudalism and its mindset are done away with, the feudals and new-rich industrial tycoons would always get elected and reach corridors of power. Evidence suggests that in rural Pakistan, people are forced to vote for Jagirdars, Waderas and Sardars. In urban areas, big business, new-rich class and baradaris dominate the scene and people have no choice because moneyed classes somehow reach the corridors of power and amass wealth using their position and clout. And then they use part of that wealth to get them re-elected so that they could secure the ill-gotten wealth and also multiply it; hence the vicious cycle continues.
The truth of the matter is that in most developing countries especially South Asian countries, people can only cast their votes; and a person even from upper middle class cannot imagine of fielding himself as a candidate. Therefore, only the rich and those who amassed wealth using their position when in power can afford the luxury of elections. The fact of the matter is that the landed gentry wield power over the Haris. Similarly, in a capitalist society, direct access to private property in the form of the means of production entails control over circumstances in which others are implicated and therefore have direct social power. The owners of property can borrow by hypothecating the assets and generate more means of production, thus enhancing their power over others in determining the nature and availability of jobs. In case of monopolies or cartels, they can fleece the consumers, especially if the owners are sitting in the cabinets and the assemblies. The sugar or cement scam is a case in point. As stated above, members in the existing assembly would not allow passage of the bill regarding dual nationality or wealth stashed abroad, it is therefore imperative that electoral system be reformed in a manner that people from middle class can field themselves as candidates. But this is a tall order.
Comments
Post a Comment