Rowdyism in the Sindh Assembly

THE Sindh Assembly is displaying a state of affairs, that offers no joy or hope to the people. What has been happening with an elected MPA in the Assembly is highly despicable. His presence in the assembly is greeted with loud boos from the audience, particularly from those known as political activists, and on every occasion he is booed off the building. The MPA, former chief minister, Dr Arbab Rahim, has been jeered, harassed and even intimidated by scores of “unidentified” people who have taken virtual control of the entire Sindh Assembly building, thereby overshadowing the presence of the legislators and the assembly staff. They appear to be a bunch of goons rather than responsible activists of a political party, for their overtly crass and insensitive conduct. They have effectively eroded the writ of the Speaker, seriously violating the sanctity of the august venue which enjoys the historic distinction of being the House that adopted a unanimous resolution demanding the creation of Pakistan. The hooligans did not allow Arbab take oath last Saturday and made him flee the assembly building. Their acts have badly affected the business of the House. It was on Saturday that the outgoing Speaker, Muzaffar Hussain Shah, ordered the cancellation of passes for all visitors galleries, except for press gallery, saying that the number of passes issued to visitors was many times higher than the actual capacity of these galleries. Necessary caution would be observed while passes were issued again, according to his ruling. Unfortunately, however, Monday was no different from Saturday, with the exception of oath-taking of Dr Rahim, thanks to a pro-active role of Speaker-elect Nisar Ahmad Khurho, soon after which the MPA from Thar had to “flee” the assembly again but not before he was hit with a shoe by an unidentified person.
Moreover, the Muttahida Quami Movement, the second largest party from Sindh, had to boycott the assembly session in protest against what its members said was a state of complete disorder in the house and the misbehaviour of the hooligans even with their women MPAs. The telephone call from Altaf Hussain to Arbab Rahim was timely and appropriately sympathetic. There was a time when the outgoing Speaker, Syed Muzaffar Husain Shah, who maintained a high standard of professional demeanour throughout his five-year tenure, looked extremely sorry for being so helpless to change anything in his final moments in the chair. The current wave of rowdiness cannot be condoned or swept under the carpet under any circumstances for a variety of reasons. The new Speaker of the Sindh Assembly, who happens be the nephew of the first Sindh chief minister after Partition M. Ayub Khurho, will be required to take every possible measure aimed at maintaining the decorum and sanctity of the House. In the meantime, the Sindh PPP leadership in particular is also required to look into these developments with a view to exposing those in the party’s rank and file who have inexplicably crossed all limits of decency to the chagrin of the party’s top leadership. The ‘Jiyalas’ of PPP appear to have ignored the advice of its Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari that “democracy is the best revenge,” and also forgotten the struggle for restoration of democracy by Benazir Bhutto herself. Sobriety, tolerance and shunning all forms of unruly behaviour are a sine quo non of a democratic dispensation.



The man who came to dinner

RUSSIA is not a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Mr. Vladimir Putin is a lame duck president, but he and his country threw a long shadow over the just-completed NATO summit that convened last week in Bucharest, Romania. Not only did Mr. Putin show up uninvited at the NATO heads dinner at the summit’s conclusion, but Russian views dominated discussions of key issues on the meeting agenda: NATO expansion and extension of the U.S. missile defense program to Europe. Mr. Putin did not prevail on both issues, but the meeting was a reminder of the striking resurgence of Russian influence and the geopolitical realities it creates. Last week’s meeting promised a clash of two outgoing presidents. U.S. President George W. Bush sought a valedictory final NATO summit, one that would endorse his “freedom agenda” by pushing again the borders of the Atlantic security institution further east. NATO admitted its first three new members in Eastern Europe nearly a decade ago and added seven more in 2002. Those states sought admission to solidify their transitions to democracy, to teach their militaries new habits and to shield themselves from Russian influence. Each new member worried Moscow, which, despite having a special relationship of its own with NATO, interpreted each step as an encroachment into its traditional sphere of influence and the advance of a potentially hostile alliance to its borders. Last week, NATO agreed to admit Albania and Croatia as its 27th and 28th members. It rejected Macedonia’s bid, however, as a result of Greek objections (given the organization’s consensus decision making, that was enough). Athens argues Macedonia’s name is a threat to its own borders because Greece has a province of the same name. The group also agreed to begin the first step in the membership process with Bosnia and Montenegro. That door was also opened for Serbia.
Serbian membership is sure to rile Moscow; in fact, it is hard to see how the current government in Belgrade would even take up the offer, given its close ties with Russia and the support it has won from Moscow. But the real problem for Russia was the proposed membership of Ukraine and Georgia. Both governments have strong pro-West leanings and have already engaged in the “intensified dialogue” on offer to Bosnia and Montenegro. Russia is still fighting for influence in both countries’ domestic politics and their admission into NATO would, said Mr. Putin, constitute a threat. He dismissed claims that NATO expansion is not directed against his country. “It’s the potential, not intentions, that matters. Why should we be flexible if it’s a question of a threat to our security?” Other NATO leaders agreed.

—Japan Times