Messrs Shaukat Aziz and Moeen Qureshi are often presented in this regard as imported prime ministers who harmed Pakistan. Ironically, both were American green card holders who possessed only Pakistani citizenship. Thus, such fly-by-the-night types remain eligible to contest Pakistani elections. Secondly, while their economic policies were flawed, the harm they inflicted is nowhere close to that inflicted by many Pakistani-only, permanently resident PMs. Finally, Jinnah was actually Pakistan’s first imported leader who settled in Britain, bought property there and joined British politics before returning to lead the freedom movement.
The sensible thing would be to have residency requirements, like other countries, making it mandatory for candidates to have had their primary residence within not only Pakistan but also a specific constituency for at least three to five years. This would bar both fly-by-the-night expatriates and resident politicians who contest from multiple constituencies without having roots there.
It is also feared that dual citizen MPs will be loyal to their adopted countries and face conflicts of interest. Dual citizens have been Pakistani parliamentarians for decades. If one looks at past performance, how many such MPs have faced conflicts and how many of them have favoured the adopted country over Pakistan during those decades? Dual citizens who met the above residency requirement despite having the option of living abroad would be more loyal to Pakistan than two-thirds of the resident Pakistanis who want to leave Pakistan, according to a recent survey. Moreover, such conflicts are rare. Even if they occur, people can usually adopt positions which do not harm either country.
Third, even if resident dual citizen MPs are occasionally forced to favour one country, they would most likely favour Pakistan, where they were born, over a country where they are naturalised citizens and have less to lose in opposing it. Even if the odd MP favours the latter, their Pakistani legislative membership could be immediately terminated for breaking their MP oaths. True, for certain critical positions, this post hoc termination could prove costly because of the enormous responsibilities and authority that they hold. Thus, for critical elected and even unelected positions, for example, prime ministers, ministers, and governors of the State Bank of Pakistan, it makes sense to have more stringent citizenship and financial propriety requirements than for ordinary MPs. Thus, there is neither clear logic nor evidence to take the extreme step of barring resident dual citizens from being elected ordinary MPs given their limited powers. Pakistani parliamentarians have inflicted much harm; however, none of it is due to them being dual citizens.
People also question whether overseas Pakistanis really benefit Pakistan. Some believe that expatriates can only benefit Pakistan by returning and making heroic sacrifices. A common reaction to foreign remittances is that expatriates send them not out of love for Pakistan but for their families. But this reduces the large trade deficit that resident Pakistanis produce annually. Indo-Chinese expatriates have benefited both countries through personal remittances and business investments.
It is time to abandon this outdated, sentimental vision of the sacrificing expatriate hero/ine and saviour eventually returning home out of love for the homeland. Such hero/ines may occasionally emerge. However, most expatriates will help Pakistan from abroad while pursuing their self-interests.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 14th, 2012.
COMMENTS (20)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Sir I respect where your opinion comes but i would also like to point out that there are very clear cut reasons why such constitutional articles are in place, not only in Pakistan but across the world. The most pertinent being a conflict of interest, lawyers are specifically not allowed to partake in a conflict of interest as doing so will always harm the interest of one of the parties. The fact of the matter remains that the MNA with dual nationality even if he is a 99% patriotic pakistani, will still retain a certain soft spot in their heart for the country of their birth and naturalization and as some say they have the choice of abandoning ship if the situation wosens enough. Even a small spec of doubt in the great affairs of state governance must be eliminated in the codification of our laws, as it has been done in Pak and much of the rest of the world. Moving away from abstraction, the sad state of affairs of Pakistani politics is simply that dual nationalities would only facilitate corrupt politicians to hide their wealth or to run away after committing criminal offense citing "threats to their lives". In addition the most promising pakistani politicians in england for example are more likely to renounce citizenship to partake in British politics....Lord Nazir, shahid malik, sayeeda warsi and Bashir Ahmed just to name a few (atleast partially disproving the statement that dual citizen pakistanis are more likely to choose pakistan over their country of origin) what we are left with then due dual nationality are Shaukat Aziz Rehman Malik and moeen qureshi
Someone much more intelligent than me rightly said, “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel”. After all the damage that NON-dual nationals of Pakistan have left behind the esteemed supreme court has decided that the problems of Pakistan can be solved by going after the few people (well only ones with PPP affiliation, to be exact) in the parliament with dual nationality. I am sure when this is done and dusted, they will go after people who they perceive to be bad Muslims and it will continue until there is no one left.
@niaz: Spot on Niaz, Before the creation of Pakistan, it was British India, Passports and nationalities are a later phenomenon. All those who came to pakistan before 1947 divide and many years afterwards became Pakistanis.
There was no Pakistan when Jinnah settled in England or returned back to British India, the comparison is flawed at all levels.
@niaz:
Nehru and Patel didn't force Jinnah to break up India. They only disagreed with the CMP.
CMP basically said that India would be divided into 3 parts with princely states having the option of going independent and those 3 parts having the right to secede after a period of 10 years.
If Nehru and Patel hadn't disagreed India would not be such a huge, successful country that we see today. They saved India. I've written about it here:
http://peddarowdy.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/how-pakistan-is-good-for-india/
@BruteForce: FYI, correct historical facts. Jinnah tried till 946 to keep India united. It was Nehru and Patel who refused to make any compromise. Read the book of jaswant Singh.
@Qasim: you have completely misunderstood the sentence from the article. please read again
you have clealry misunderstood the meaning-hee is referring to dual-ztiziens who live in Pakistan. please reread the qouted senetence
@BruteForce: oversimplistic and biased comment ,which actually proves jinnah's point.
Good attempt
BruteForce tells the truth. Large country got divided into two and later three.
@BruteForce: Really?
@niaz:
Jinnah lived outside his home Country for a while and came back to break his home Country.
How different is it from leaders of Pakistan today? The Apple has not fallen too far from the tree.
Dual nationals usually take oath at the time of citizenship award if naturalized) that they will be loyal to that country whereas they don't take any such oath for Pakistan if they are Pakistanis by birth.
QUOTE" Dual citizens who met the above residency requirement despite having the option of living abroad would be more loyal to Pakistan than two-thirds of the resident Pakistanis who want to leave Pakistan, according to a recent survey.' UNQUOTE
Do you realise that you are saying that 2/3rds wanting to leave Pakistan are not as loyal as who are already living abroad ? Absolutely nonsense logic, especially when it is coming from a political economist at UC Berkeley.
However. the suggestion regarding having had to reside for 3-5 years in Pakistan is a valid one. But unfortunately we live in Pakistan, where rules are made to be broken.
(1) The election Commissioner and members of senate and parliaments are required to uphold the Constitution Since the Constitution, as it stands, bars dual nationality holders, such members should be automatically barred and any financial benefits they acquired should be refunded. How can the members of senate and parliaments uphold the Constitution if they themselves have contravened the basic provision of the Constitution?
(2) Dr Murtaza has an excellent suggestion to make residency of a constituency mandatory. Therefore the Constitution needs to be revised.
(3) Otherwise question also arises: "Should Pakistanis having dual nationality be barred from holding a seat in the parliament or senate/House of Lords etc of the the adopted country?"
P.S. UK Citizens can hold multiple nationalities and still participate in elections.
You're right - locals desperate to fly abroad may have a bigger tendency to harm than those who already have residency/passport abroad, but living locally.
I think Army involvement in the politics should be banned and then accounts of our leaders should be monitered by suprem courts.
By not being a dual national, running away after looting the country becomes a tad bit harder. I get some piece of mind knowing that. Problem?