This Democracy Monitor by PILDAT records developments impacting the Quality of Democracy in Pakistan during August 7 � September 6, 2012.

The formation of a Commission by the Speaker National Assembly tasked with sorting out details relating to the creation of new provinces in Punjab^[1] smacks of politics played by the ruling coalition on an important issue.

From the onset, the Commission has become contentious. The principal opposition party, PML-N, with a government in Punjab has refused to be part of the Commission, citing its constitution as contrary to the �spirit and text� of the two original resolutions,^[2] which called for the creation of a national commission to create provinces of southern Punjab and Bahawalpur. The two resolutions passed by the Provincial Assembly of the Punjab demanded from the Federal Government to immediately constitute a national commission for giving practical shape to the creation of new provinces of South Punjab and Bahawalpur and to decide the key issues relating to the creation of the new provinces.^[3]

With 55.6% population of the country^[4] in one province, Punjab, and 45% of the entire area of the country in other province, Balochistan, there have been occasional calls for creation of new provinces and re-demarcation of provincial boundaries.

Today, there are demands in certain sections of the society for the creation of one or two new provinces in South Punjab, establishing a province in the Hazara area of KP and giving provincial status to FATA. Although ethnic Sindhis in general react very strongly against any such suggestion but one hears occasional demands of provincial status for Karachi in a section of population in Sindh. The devil, it appears, is in details and each political party is out to get political mileage at the expense of the other. The seriousness and maturity which a sensitive subject like a new provincial scheme for Pakistan demands seems to be absent in most of the political parties.

The neighbouring India has continued to re-draw its state boundaries since 1956 and has so far added 16 new states making it a total of twenty-eight (28) states and seven (7) union territories. The Indian example of setting up a States Reorganisation Commission (SRC), which was formed in 1953 to study the problems involved in redrawing state boundaries, is often quoted as a route Pakistan may take. The SRC submitted its report in October 1955, laying down that while due consideration should be given to administrative and economic factors, it recognized for the most part the linguistic principle and recommended redrawing of state boundaries on that basis. The outcome, though, has not been devoid of political turbulence and unrest in India. As late as 2000, new states such as Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand, have emerged in India, and there are calls for creating a new state of Telangana in the south. ^[5]

That the ruling coalition should resort to creating a Commission consisting not of independent experts, scholars and subject-specialists, but instead of parliamentarians tasked solely to re-draw Punjab does not do justice to the need to re-think the provincial scheme in general in Pakistan.

Any Commission tasked with the responsibility to re-draw provincial boundaries in Pakistan needs to be backed by independent research, not only of linguistic and ethnic demands, but more importantly economic viability, resource distribution, administrative requirements and how the creation of a new province will add to the mix of national representation both in the Senate and National Assembly of Pakistan.

Regardless of PML-N�s approach, the country requires a National Commission, which must be created by political consensus and which must include suitable, independent experts charged with a clear objective and a time frame to submit a report to the Parliament.

It also bears mentioning that the Constitutional process of altering the boundaries of a province, designed so as to safeguard and uphold provincial autonomy, unlike the case in the Indian Constitution, remains that �bill to amend the Constitution which would have the effect of altering the limits of a Province shall not be presented to the President for assent unless it has been passed by the Provincial Assembly of that Province by the votes of not less than two-thirds of its total membership.�^[6] This must be retained and respected.

On August 14, 2012, Pakistan�s Chief of Army Staff, General Kayani, articulated his views on Pakistan�s war against terrorism, terming the fight as �Pakistan�s war.� He built his case by arguing that if �any person who believes his opinion to be the final verdict is an extremist� and if �one tries to enforce his opinion through use of gun, it becomes terrorism,� then �the war against it is our own war, and a just war too.�^[7]

Rarely has a public figure in Pakistan tried to articulate views on such a divisive but crucial subject with so much clarity. One wishes, though, that such an important elaboration on policy could have come from the country�s elected political leadership. One may hope that the Government makes serious and consistent efforts to develop a national consensus on the questions relating to various aspects of terrorism and the effective ways to address terrorism not only at the government level but at the level of the society at large.

For over a decade, Pakistan has been battered by this growing phenomenon and yet balked at confronting it squarely as a national threat. Even though Gen. Kayani�s articulation has attempted to take the emphasis away from religious connotations of terrorism, Pakistani citizens continue to be divided on defining terrorism as a war waged by Islamists, as opposed to a war against Pakistan.

While the existing ruling coalition has continued to define the war against terrorism as Pakistan�s own war, opposition inside and outside the Parliament has been somewhat ambivalent and at times, hostile to this perspective. The division or polarization on a key national issue ends up benefitting terrorists. In the short and long run, however, nothing less than an across-the-board political consensus on this issue will help the country and its people tackle the challenge in unison.

Prime Minister of Pakistan Raja Pervez Ashraf appeared before the Supreme Court and seems to have gained, at least temporarily, some more time in office before he faces a similar fate as his predecessor on account of contempt of court.

Although his political party�s position may not have changed on writing a letter to Swiss authorities reversing an earlier position to withdraw Pakistan government as a party to the graft cases against Mr. Zardari, the Prime Minister appeared before the Court to demonstrate his respect for the �majesty of law�.^[8] The Court also gave respite, if not reprieve,^[9] by extending the date to September 18, 2012 by which time the Prime Minister must re-appear before the Court to address the issue which in simple terms means whether he is ready to write the letter or not.

Regardless of the politics of pressure and reprieve, the long-drawn NRO Implementation case needs to be viewed in terms of its impact on the country. The longer it takes to resolve the issue, the more it distracts the State and Society from focusing on other important issues of concern. While law and justice should take their own course, it is in the interest of the country that the case is resolved at the earliest.

Two opposite perceptions are gaining strength among two sections of the society; either the Supreme Court is focusing only on those cases which tend to harm the PPP or the Government of the day is continuing to defy the orders of the highest court of the country. Both these perceptions are undermining the spirit of democracy in the country.

August 30 marked the International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearance. The day holds special significance for Pakistan where the issue of �enforced appearances� or �missing persons� has continued to haunt the country over the last several years.

Linked to the issues of containing terrorism in Pakistan, it is often said that law enforcement agencies resort to �illegal abduction� of the citizens in the absence of both a tough anti-terrorism law as well as the weak implementation of the existing law. However, attempts to amend the existing terrorism laws have appeared to be only half-hearted. The Government introduced the Anti-terrorism (Amendment) Bill, 2010, proposing 25 amendments in the existing Anti-terrorism Act, 1997, in the Senate of Pakistan two years ago in July 2010, which, after remaining with the Senate Standing Committee on Interior, was reportedly withdrawn earlier this year. There are reports that a revised Anti-Terrorism law^[10] and Right to Fair Trial law^[11] have been approved by the Federal Cabinet proposing more stringent measures to tackle terrorism. Whether the two laws maintain the balance between human rights, individual liberty and anti-terrorism and in what shape and form the Parliament passes these laws remains to be seen.

The state and all its organs must ensure early recovery of the missing person, and in the word of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance do not find any justification of the detention: �No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for enforced disappearance.�^[12]

In this backdrop, the expected arrival of a UN mission to discuss the missing persons case with the Government of Pakistan and other stake holders is not a good news for Pakistan though Pakistan�s Foreign Office has tried to down play the significance of an international effort to explore a sensitive domestic issue of Pakistan. This indicates a degree of failure on the part of the country to address the issue on its own.

National and international media has been awash with speculations that Pakistan is planning to conduct a joint operation with the US against militants in the North Waziristan. Pakistan Army, on the other hand, has continued to deny that such a plan is in the offing.^[13]

Whether Pakistan decides to conduct a military operation in North Waziristan or not, is a decision that needs to be made by the elected Government in the enlightened self-interest of Pakistan. The timing of when to launch an operation in North Waziristan may be tactically decided by the Military but whether to launch an operation or not, has to be decided by the elected Government of Pakistan albeit in consultation with the military. The Federal Cabinet and its Committee on Defence are the forums where such decisions are to be taken logically. Once again, however, the elected Government has abdicated this field to the Army. Instead of the Federal Minister for Information, or even of Defence, making pronouncements on the issue, it is the Chief of Army Staff, the DG ISI or the DG ISPR who are to air the military�s decision.

Reportedly, the speculations on an imminent operation have led to panic in the area and residents have started to migrate.^[14] This would open the gates of another crisis of displaced citizens that Pakistan had to deal with. Once again, the civil administration, to be led by the Provincial Government in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, must be prepared to deal with this scenario.

The Tribal Areas are Pakistan�s territory; tribal people the citizens of Pakistan. Yet, the area, among other things, lacks the jurisdiction of the Superior Courts.

On August 8, hearing a case about detention of missing prisoners in internment centers, the Supreme Court urged the Federal and Provincial Governments to extend the Superior Courts� jurisdiction to Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). ^[15]

No country can afford to have multiple bodies of law. The extension would disallow any arbitrary judgment which is often controversial in nature in the area. Although the Government has been working to �mainstream� FATA in Pakistan, such as by allowing political parties to operate in FATA or by deliberating upon forming local government in the area, implementation of these reforms remains slow with loopholes such as lack of Courts� jurisdiction in the area.

That the Supreme Court passed the comment during the hearing on the missing persons case strengthens the perception that absence of laws � ranging from anti-terrorism code to FATA�s unique status � is making people vulnerable to extra-constitutional or unconstitutional treatment.

In yet another incident of blasphemy involving a 14-year old girl of Christian faith, named Rimsha, the question of misuse of blasphemy laws, much like other laws of the land, has re-surfaced. That the law targets weaker segments of the society is a continued cause of concern.

In this unfortunate case, however, one sees glimpses of some sort of awakening in the society. From the onset, people of the area opted to side with the minor girl instead of the few people who intimidated her and have offered to be witnesses. The fact that two practicing and religious-minded Muslims recorded evidence against Imam of the mosque and in favour of the Christian girl provides a ray of hope that the society sides with the truth and does not divide merely on religious lines. Developments in the case suggest that the evidence was allegedly fabricated, providing an opportunity to the State to make an example out of it so that no body is able to misuse this law again.

The minor girl remains in police custody suggesting it is for her protection. Her safety and security, both physical and psychological, should be the utmost priority of the law enforcement agencies.

In yet another incident of sectarian killings in August, twenty five (25) passengers were taken off the bus enroute to Gilgit and were shot to death. ^[16]

Targeting of Shias in Pakistan has continued at the hands of sectarian terrorist groups like the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi. Regardless of the severity of these terrorist attacks, the Government�s response, ineffective to the core, has not moved beyond expressing sorrow.

Reportedly during the ambush, four passengers, apparently of Sunni Muslim faith, refused to identify the particular faith of passengers, resulting into their deaths.^[17] If this is correct, this speaks of the entire nation�s outcry against sectarian killings immortalised also through the killing of these 4 passengers. This is the sentiment based on which the society as a whole needs to develop public pressure on the State to counter and flush out sectarian terrorists from Pakistan.

When nearly 500 Hindu devotees ^[18] embarked on a religious visit to India, it was reported that being victims of �kidnapping and forced conversions,� the Hindu citizens of Pakistan may have begun emigrating to India. Interior Minister, Rehman Malik, even termed it an Indian conspiracy against Pakistan. ^[19]

The committee formed by President Asif Ali Zardari to look into reports of mass migration of Hindus to India, however, rejected claims that Hindu citizens were leaving Sindh because of security fears. The Committee has, instead, reportedly put together proposals to address sense of alienation of the Hindu community and their concerns against forced conversion of Hindu girls,^[20] which are delayed but welcome steps.

The State�s continued failure in stopping the persecution of minorities remains an area of concern. State is faltering on its duties to protect the citizens on the whole but weaker segments of the society deserve special care and protection.