Lifting the emergency

THE Supreme Court dismissed as withdrawn five of the six petitions challenging the candidature of President Pervez Musharraf for reelection. In all probability, the sixth too would be dismissed, removing the last hurdle in the way of General Pervez Musharraf doffing his uniform. During the hearing of these petitions by the previous court, he had pledged to doff his uniform if he was reelected. Although he had been reelected, it could not be notified by the Election Commission for the court wanted to first decide on the petitions challenging his eligibility. Attorney General Malik Qayyum says it is very likely that President General Pervez Musharraf will hang up his uniform and take oath as a civilian President on Friday or Saturday. With one of the principal demands of the national political opposition and Pakistan’s Western allies thus met, there is the likelihood that the government may plan lifting the emergency. Of course, in building up the case for emergency, General Pervez Musharraf had enumerated quite a few grounds, but the one that eclipsed the rest was his dissatisfaction with the working of “some” members of the superior judiciary. These members were the judges who were hearing a raft of petitions challenging his electoral eligibility. But that ‘problem’ has ceased to exist. As for the rest of the grounds justifying the emergency, these were there since much before the emergency was imposed and may linger for some more time, but given that these relate to the law and order situation in the north-west of the country, the scope of the emergency can be limited to the affected region. Who wants the state of emergency to continue? Certainly not the political opposition as is evident from its vehement rejection of the emergency under which political activity is greatly restricted. For the elections to be truly representative, the exercise must take place following intense campaigning, while the emergency tends to freeze open display of contestants’ competitiveness. Neither does the civil society, as the emergency takes away all of the rights the people need to assert in fulfilment of their civil, social and political existence.
Nor do Pakistan’s allies, as no country or government would appear to be supporting a General who wants to prolong his rule with the help of a restrictive legal regime like the state of emergency. Nor even the Pakistan Muslim League (Q). Its leaders, including its President, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, Secretary General Mushahid Hussain Syed, have said they don’t want the “crutches” of emergency to win the coming elections. In fact, in the given situation what the government would need is not the emergency but a practical code of conduct agreed to by all the stakeholders in the coming elections to ensure that the law and order situation during electioneering does not get out of hand. Emergency and free elections are antithetical to each other. For the coming elections to be free, fair and transparent, is a question of life and death for Pakistan. With no intention to disparage President Musharraf, one cannot agree with his formulation that democracy and constitution are not as important as Pakistan. Who should know it better than him that Pakistan is not merely a piece of terra-firma but the realisation of a dream, success of an ideology and homeland of millions of people who want to live a purposeful life. And more so in the changed international environment, when currents and cross-currents of nationalism and sub-nationalism are so powerfully buffeting this country. By denying the people their constitutional rights, the state of emergency tends to vicariously help the forces of disunity and discord. The sooner the emergency is lifted the better for the cause of national integration and solidarity. In fact, not only the emergency should be immediately lifted and conditions obtained for a healthy and vigorous democratic tournament, the willingness should also be indicated for a complete restoration of the constitution. We wish and hope that shedding the military uniform and lifting the emergency will come in quick succession.

Protecting data

THERE is no longer any choice. Computers and the high bandwidth Internet link the world together and have indeed recreated the global economy, with the speedy and efficient transmissions of many terabytes of data every day. There is certainly no business with international pretensions, including any here in the Kingdom, that can afford not to link into the worldwide information system. This said, computers may be able to execute extraordinarily complex tasks at withering speed, but they are essentially dumb machines. They will only ever be as good as the people who program and operate them. And as the extraordinary data protection scandal that broke on Tuesday in the UK shows, if the people who use them are even dumber than the computers, the results can be potentially disastrous. That the names, addresses, tax codes, national insurance numbers, dates of birth and bank account details of no less than 25 million Britons can be lost while being transported by hand between the UK tax authorities and another government department is frankly astonishing. If the two computer disks onto which this information was placed, entirely unencrypted, have fallen into the hands of fraudsters, the results will be catastrophic. The fact that the data were being moved physically, rather than transmitted over a broadband link, does not detract from the serious issue that has been highlighted by this extraordinary blunder by a government department in a supposedly sophisticated and technically advanced country. Every computer, everywhere, whether a personal desktop or a business system holds data that must be protected from unauthorized access. They are prey to fraudsters, industrial or outside government espionage, hackers whose aim is to mangle and destroy data or to terrorist attack.
There are some very tempting terror targets. Much discussion has taken place about Al-Qaeda’s use of a “dirty bomb,” an explosive device surrounded by radioactive material which would be scattered widely when detonated. But nuclear power stations around the world are ready-made bombs just waiting to be exploded. A hacker who could break into such a station’s operating system, could in theory issue a series of instructions that would cause the reactor to go critical, melt down and explode. Governments will of course insist that security at these installations is foolproof. Nevertheless systems, including security systems, remain only as good as the people running them. Who would ever have imagined the British tax authorities would send off the personal details of almost half the UK population with a motorbike messenger? The two major threats to computers are loss of electric power and unauthorized access by people with malign intent. It is therefore of paramount importance that everyone, but particularly businesses, pay continual attention to the integrity of their IT systems. Computer security is an expense in time as well as money.

—Arab News