Jamshed Dasti, Parliament Lodges, Mujra and Alcohol

Source: Geo.tv/The News

Recently, Jamshed Dasti, an independent MP, has revealed to the nation that the tenants of the Parliament Lodges often hold Mujras and drinking sessions while speaking on the House floor. Dasti even vowed that he can produce video evidence if any MP attempts to refute his claims.

Later, the former PPP populist MP even produced empty liquor bottles on a TV talk show that he claimed he retrieved from the Parliament Lodges. He has even called for medical tests of the MPs to help determine the culprits.

Though it is hilarious that the Pakistani TV channel on which he appeared blurred the liquor bottles on screen. Why? Are those bottles that hard to watch?

I am not too sure if this is the greatest issue that our nation is facing. Personally, I find little problem with it, unless it is violating Parliament regulations and laws. But it surely does break one law, which is the main point behind it.

I can see only one reason to respect Jamshed Dasti’s complaint. And it’s a big one.

No act should be permitted for the Members of the Parliament should which is prohibited for any other citizen of Pakistan. Because, after all, they are citizens as well.

Therefore, they must not be allowed to consume alcoholic beverages.

This warrants an investigation, as the Speaker of the House has reluctantly called for. Whereas, the Interior Minister has completely ruled out the possibility of a Mujra or a dance party.

By law, holding a Mujra party, or inviting a female dancer over to your place, is not prohibited. For now. Unless the police changes their mind. Any citizen can do that for entertainment.

But what a citizen cannot do is buy and consume liquor, except through bootleggers. Which rules out the legal consumption of the commodity.

This is not a question of morality. It is a question of law.

Some could argue that the prohibition of Alcohol that materialized in the late 1970s is an infringement on the personal liberties and the fundamental rights of the people.

Even though the Pakistani Constitution does provide for the fundamental rights for the citizen, it also faces the dichotomy of accounting for the Shariah and Islamic tradition. The problem is you can hardly protect individual liberties if you are accounting for Shariah at the same time.

Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman complained about the moral policing on the MPs in a statement that I loved. But sadly, he is a proponent of Shariah himself and it is partly due to people like him that these acts are even considered crimes. While I hate to say this, his political position in this case arguably amounts to hypocrisy.

But then again, passing moral judgments about our MPs is not my prime interest here. I would leave that to our clerics and leftists.

But with Dasti’s complaints, our lawmakers are having a taste of their own medicine. This is how it feels when someone interferes in your private affairs. Even though they are holding public offices and should be up for greater scrutiny.

But will they ever learn?

If our MPs are so fond of drinking, a choice that I very much respect, they should call for a vote to legalize liquor and marijuana.

Let the people choose too.

Advertisements

Rejecting the Candidate Running from Multiple Constituencies

Source: Dawn

Source: Dawn

Alright this is no good reason to reject a candidate’s party in any way. But it seems good enough for the people of Peshawar.

It seems good enough to me at least. But only when it comes to the candidate.

While I totally respect the decision of the people of Peshawar to elect Ghulam Muhammad Bilour on the National Assembly seat vacated by Imran Khan because of his victory from two other constituencies, people have been getting offended for all sorts of moral reasons.

But the people of the NA-1 constituency of Peshawar have made their voices heard. They probably voted for Imran Khan, not the PTI. Surprisingly, similar results surfaced in Imran’s native Mianwali. I bet many of the original general elections voters never returned.

So what is the positive out of the August 22 by-elections? That people have rejected the party or substitutes of the candidates running for more than one constituencies.

This also happened in a seat vacated by the independent candidate Jamshed Dasti in Muzaffargarh and Shazia Marri has won the seat from Sanghar which she lost earlier in the general elections like Bilour.

I think if all the people start deciding to boycott voting for candidates who run from multiple constituencies, perhaps our politicians could be convinced to change this ridiculous rule from the electoral constitution. Of course, if the people choose to do so.

Take Javed Hasmi’s example. He ran from NA-55 in Rawalpindi and beat Sheikh Rasheed in the 2008 elections and won his seat from Multan as well. He later vacated the Rawalpindi seat which was taken by Malik Shakeel Awan of PML-N. In 2013, he ran from NA-48 Islamabad and again vacated the seat for his other win in Multan.

Politicians such as Javed Hashmi, Imran Khan, Shahbaz Sharif and Nawaz Sharif have made a habit running from multiple constituencies, it seems.

I know it is perfectly legal for these candidates to do so, but I have a problem with it. It unnecessarily results in by-elections that everyone can do without, which only ends up wasting public money. In NA-54, the PML-N candidate Malik Abrar ran for both national and provincial assemblies at the same time in 2008 and won both offices. At least that can be avoided.

Personally, given the political structure in Pakistan, I’d rather vote for someone local. Someone who actually lives in the constituency. But this does not mean that educated and reasonable people like Asad Umer should not be given a chance if they run from another constituency, and he won from the NA-48 seat vacated by Javed Hashmi.

However, I am familiar that all these political heavyweights are too insecure to take the chance of running from just one constituency, though people like Chaudhary Shujaat, Sheikh Rasheed and Amin Faheem can do that, and this is what justifies this rule. But I would really like to see this rule go, among so many others.

But then again, that’s just me.