http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\02\02\story_2-2-2010_pg3_5
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
COMMENT: Amendments for a secular constitution -Babar Ayaz
Many analysts and rightist politicians scoff at the idea of a
secular state. They have failed to understand that mixing of religion with
politics has brought us today to the most violent juncture of our history. It
gives enough space to the fundamentalists to operate in the country with
impunity
The Iranian constitution provides for an institution of the
'Religious Guardianship' (Velayat Faqiye). This 'Guardianship of the Just Man
of Religious Law' (Fiqiyeh-e-Adl) is on "the basis of the continuous
Guardianship and leadership (Imamate)...under all conditions..." According to
my limited knowledge, there is no precedent for such an institution in the
Muslim state's history. The 'Religious Guardian' and his council have a right
to disqualify many potential candidates from contesting the elections of the
Iranian parliament, as they do not consider them pious and religious enough to
be elected by the people. Thus, the decision is not left to the people but is
made by a small coterie of the clergy.
What reminds me of this institution is the recent decision on the
National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO). It has referred to some clauses of the
constitution, which has raised alarm bells. General Ziaul Haq, who considered
himself a kind of religious guardian of the country, added some disputable
clauses to Article 62 of the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan. These clauses of
Article 62 state: "A person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a
member of Majlis-e-Shoora (parliament) unless:
62 (d) "he is of good character and is not commonly known as one
who violates Islamic injunctions;
62 (e) "he has adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and
practices obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as abstains from major
sins;
62 (f) "he is sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest
and ameen."
Until the judgement of the honourable Supreme Court, these clauses
of the constitution had remained dormant. Nobody has sought disqualification of
any member of parliament, the president or the prime minister by invoking these
clauses. Now if these clauses are invoked, will the superior judiciary acquire
the role of the 'religious guardian' a la Iran? Who else would make a decision
on such subjective issues whether a member of parliament (or for that matter
the president who is the bull's eye here) does not violate Islamic injunctions,
has adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings, abstains from major sins and is
honest and ameen?
Who would decide what are the Islamic injunctions? One sect
believes that going to a saint's shrine is sacrilegious; to the other it is
sacred. Now if one would go with the Saudi version of Islam, then both our
prime minister, foreign minister and many other parliamentarians should be
disqualified because they are heirs of the saints of South Punjab or Sindh. Who
would then decide what is adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings, what is a
major or a minor sin, and which parliamentarian is honest or dishonest?
By invoking such dormant clauses, a window has been opened for
'inspired litigants' like Maulvi Iqbal Haider to challenge the qualification of
more than half, if not more, of the members of parliament. Would our judges
then be qualified to make decisions on such wide-ranging religion-loaded
issues? Perhaps the honourable court would not like to be put in this tight
spot.
One view is that the superior judiciary should not be blamed for
referring to what is in the constitution. I asked a member of the
Constitutional Amendment Committee headed by Mian Raza Rabbani whether the
deletion of these clauses was on the agenda. He said we have bigger issues to
discuss and nobody is interested in including these clauses. The point is that
the court has heavily relied on the 'Islamic' clauses and the leading parties
are in no mood to reform the constitution. While the PML-N is centre-right, the
PPP has always tried to appease the mullahs unsuccessfully. Only the ANP and
MQM, which are in parliament, are clear on the issue of separation of religion
from politics.
The whole issue is ultimately attached to taking the Objectives
Resolution and other religious clauses out of the constitution. Many analysts
and rightist politicians scoff at the idea of a secular state. They have failed
to understand that mixing of religion with politics has brought us today to the
most violent juncture of our history. It gives enough space to the
fundamentalists to operate in the country with impunity. Because we mix
religion with politics we have not even deliberated seriously on the dangerous
implications of this approach for our national security policy, on our
relations with our neighbours, on our education system and on countering the
ideology of the pro-jihad forces.
A recent survey done by a local weekly magazine asked a question of
youngsters with a mean age of 21 years: "Do you think Pakistan should be an
Islamic state?" 64 percent of the respondents said yes; 22 percent supported a
secular state; and 12 percent were undecided. Interestingly, education-wise
break up of the samples shows that 27 percent of the uneducated supported the
secular state. But this rate dropped to 7.0 percent among the primary educated;
but starts rising with the level of education and is around 32 percent among
graduates and post-graduates. The supporters of a secular state were 56 percent
among the students who were doing 'A' levels. This should be an eye-opener for
the progressive secular forces, as it clearly shows that biased educational
indoctrination reduces the support for a secular state among the less educated
and that the students who have access to the expensive liberal curriculum of
'O' and 'A' levels are more inclined to support a secular state concept.
This survey also shows that in an environment where there is no
space for discussing secular politics and ideas, still a sizeable number of
youngsters are for a secular state. On the contrary, all the opinion-making
forums are predominantly preaching ideas and politics that support the idea of
an Islamic state. The progressive secular forces should be taking their cue
from this and should claim their rightful place in preparing public opinion in
favour of secularism.
In Bangladesh, the Supreme Court has recently upheld the ruling
given by the court in 2005, which threw out the 5th Amendment to their
constitution. This amendment had allowed formation of religion-based political
parties. According to Bangladeshi politician Shafique Ahmed, now the Supreme
Court decision would help in reinstating the original 1972 secular constitution.
Pakistan may not be able to ban religion-based political parties in
the near future, but it should move towards expunging the ridiculous
constitutional clauses mentioned above together with Article 247 and the
Objectives Resolution. It would be a long and hard struggle, but it is doable.
The leadership for such a courageous initiative will have to be provided by the
ANP, MQM and the left parties. Otherwise we may have our holier than everybody
'guardians' upsetting the democratic evolutionary process - all in the name of
Islamic morality.
The writer can be reached at [email protected]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
