Pity the nation...:'(

"Pity the nation that is full of beliefs and empty of religion.

Pity the nation that wears a cloth it does not weave,

eats a bread it does not harvest,

and drinks a wine that flows not from its own wine-press.

Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero,

and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful.

Pity the nation that despises a passion in its dream,

Pity the nation that raises not its voice save when it walks in a funeral,

boasts not except among its ruins,

and will rebel not save when its neck is laid between the sword and the block.

Pity the nation whose statesman is a fox,

whose philosopher is a juggler,

and whose art is the art of patching and mimicking.

Pity the nation that welcomes its new ruler with trumpeting,

and farewells him with hooting,

only to welcome another with trumpeting again.

Pity the nation whose sages are dumb with ears,

and whose strong men are yet in the cradle.

Pity the nation divided into fragments,

each fragment deeming itself a nation."

I share this poem, by the Lebanese, Khaleel Jibran, because it simply sets on our current state of affairs so lucidly. This poem was also cited in the Supreme Court of Pakistan's recent detailed verdict, regarding the contempt-of-court case of the Prime Minister of Pakistan. Following is a poem, modelled on the above one, and the conception of Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa (a Supreme Court judge), also cited in the Court's recent detailed verdict.

"Pity the nation that achieves nationhood in the name of a religion

but pays little heed to truth, righteousness and accountability

which are the essence of every religion.

Pity the nation that proclaims democracy as its polity

but restricts it to queuing up for casting of ballots only

and discourages democratic values.

Pity the nation that measures honour with success

and respect with authority,

that despises sublime and cherishes mundane,

that treats a criminal as a hero and considers civility as weakness

and that deems a sage a fool and venerates the wicked. 

Pity the nation that adopts a Constitution

but allows political interests to outweigh constitutional diktat.       

Pity the nation that demands justice for all

but is agitated when justice hurts its political loyalty.

Pity the nation whose servants treat their solemn oaths

as nothing more than a formality before entering upon an office.

Pity the nation that elects a leader as a redeemer

but expects him to bend every law to favour his benefactors.

Pity the nation whose leaders seek martyrdom 

through disobeying the law

than giving sacrifices for the glory of law

and who see no shame in crime.

Pity the nation that is led by those

who laugh at the law 

little realizing that the law shall have the last laugh.

Pity the nation that launches a movement for rule of law

but cries foul when the law is applied against its bigwig,

that reads judicial verdicts through political glasses

and that permits skills of advocacy to be practised 

more vigorously outside the courtroom than inside.

Pity the nation that punishes its weak and poor

but is shy of bringing its high and mighty to book.

Pity the nation that clamours for equality before law

but has selective justice close to its heart.

Pity the nation that thinks from its heart

and not from its head.

Indeed, pity the nation 

that does not discern villainy from nobility."  

My story's in the Jubilee Time Capsule...

Visit this site (http://www.jubileetimecapsule.org/discover/timeline), and read my entry: "When a friend stabs: my response to an important incident...!" (Date: May the 2nd, 2011). Go, read.

Voting reforms in Pakistan

Voting undoubtedly is the bedrock, on which the whole political system of a democratic country is based.

  Voting allows the citizens of a state to choose who will represent them in the highest chambers of power; and those who will make sure that the revenues generated from the people’s taxes is being used judiciously and with sagacity, for their welfare and the country’s betterment. The representatives chosen would also be involved in legislation for the country, on the people’s behalf (giving them too, a voice in the governance of the country). It is therefore, necessary that the citizens choose people of integrity and ability, to rule on them. It is also necessary though, that their choice is accurately reflected in the parliament etc. too!

  In Pakistan, like many other former British colonies (Commonwealth countries), the system followed to determine winners is the “single member plurality”, or the “first-past-the-post” system (which is also practiced in Britain/United Kingdom), which is a form of the “plurality voting system”. Here, the “winner takes it all”, that is any one garnering the highest numbers of votes in his/her constituency wins.

  This system however, is rather flawed, in the sense, that a candidate receiving the highest number of votes wins, but that contender does not necessarily have to win more than 50% of the votes of his/her constituency, and thus can claim victory without having (the necessary) broad support, to the detriment of the smaller/runners-up parties.

  Here, a problem that arises can be explained hypothetically. For example, a person receiving 40% of votes against, let’s say, 30%, 20% and 10% votes (that other candidates have received in the constituency) will win the election. However, around 60% of the electorate has voted against the winning candidate, in the sense that 60% of the electorate voted for the winner’s rivals!

  Here, a government can thus be formed, without necessarily having the requisite support required, as a party’s candidates can win as explained in the above, hypothetical predicament, and get the most numbers of seats in the parliament, but the victorious party would not necessarily be having the support of the majority of the country!

  A nice way of coming round this is to have two or more rounds of voting as required, where the candidates receiving the lowest votes are eliminated, until one is left, who wins, and can claim to have the broadest support in the constituency (as happens in the “exhaustive ballot” system).

  Another way is to have a second round of voting, where the two candidates receiving the highest amount of votes in the first round, get into the second round, and whosoever wins there, wins the election (as happens in France (as evident from its recent presidential elections, still underway), amongst other countries).

  Another system of voting is the system of “proportional representation” (which is also practiced in Pakistan’s Senate). Here, basically, the parties receive seats in proportion to the votes they receive nationally, or as the case may be. This system is (broadly) followed in Turkey and Israel, amongst others. However, the system of proportional representation tends to create fragmentation, that is majority is hard to gain by a single party, and thus there are problems in forming the government etc. Therefore, countries following this system create a qualification (such as a certain percentage of votes), before the parties get representation in the parliament, or as the case may be.

  The system suited for Pakistan, in my opinion, is the plurality voting system (instead of the proportional representation system, given the polarity of views in Pakistan’s society, which may lead to a very fragmented parliament etc.). There is however, a dire need to reform the system, so that a candidate who can lay claim to the broadest support (not necessarily the highest votes) in the constituency wins. The political parties therefore, should make pertinent and appropriate electoral reforms part of their manifestos, and provide a just and viable alternative!