Of the many mistakes made by the Pakistani government, its current initiative to permit ‘dual nationals’ to be eligible for election to our legislatures may turn out to be the most egregious.
Admittedly, the majority of overseas Pakistanis are patriotic and committed to the welfare of the homeland. They deserve our appreciation, not merely in words but through measures to encourage them to acquire property, invest in business and to involve themselves in humanitarian and charitable activities in a manner similar to the critical role played by overseas Chinese in the economic uplift of the mainland.
Some countries have extended the right to vote to those who have acquired another citizenship while still retaining citizenship of their country of origin, but there is a fundamental difference between the right to vote and the right to hold public office. The right to vote is a one-time exercise that involves neither residence in Pakistan nor long-term involvement in its affairs. Citizenship, however, is synonymous with deep attachment, a profound sense of pride and an unshakeable commitment to the state’s interests. These sentiments cannot be shared with another state. There is also the issue of loyalty, as evident from the requirement that approval of a foreign born applicant’s citizenship requires surrender of former nationality or, at the least, swearing of allegiance to the new state’s constitution. In the case of the United States, the applicant also has to promise to bear arms in its defence, which explains why the US, though recognising dual nationality, does ‘not encourage it’.
Supporters of this amendment have argued that overseas Pakistanis send large sums of money back home. This is true, except for the fascinating revelation that as a percentage of their earnings, it is the workers in the Middle East and Gulf, who are our biggest source of home remittance. The rich and affluent in the US and Europe, who are keen to offer their ‘enhanced expertise’ to Pakistan are sending much smaller percentages of their income.
It may also be noted that Western countries offer their nationalities primarily to skilled individuals or to those bringing in substantial sums of money. In other words, these individuals are buying this ‘privilege’ not because of their desperate economic straits or on the spur of the moment but after years of deep reflection. On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis based in the Middle East and Gulf have gone there not in expectation of acquiring foreign nationality (it is hardly ever given) but as a desperate economic move. In other words, Pakistanis who have acquired foreign nationalities have taken a deliberate decision to turn their backs on their homeland to take advantage of greener pastures elsewhere. We should not grudge them this, but since they have chosen loyalty to new qiblas, they should not seek to fish on both banks. Their ‘flirtation’ with Pakistan — rather than long-term commitment to it — is evident from their swift return to the security of their foreign passports and the comfort of their newly-adopted homelands as soon as their ‘employment’ in Pakistan ends. This has led to the observation that these people owe allegiance neither to their homeland nor to their adopted homes.
In any case, changes to law and especially amendments to the Constitution should not be treated in a cavalier fashion. And under no circumstances should transient considerations meant to favour only a few be taken at the cost of the nation’s interests.
It is most dismaying that an elected government should author an amendment in the law to benefit those who have taken foreign citizenship as an insurance policy because of their doubts and misgivings about the future of Pakistan. Should such individuals be sitting in our legislatures and determining our destiny? If an amendment is to be made, it should be to bar any foreign national from occupying any office of profit in Pakistan.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 11th, 2012.
COMMENTS (22)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Amir B: Dual nationality must not be taken as a break from the original nationality. The United States doe not allow a person who is not a born citizen of the US, to become President but ALL OTHER offices are open and available to people born of other nationalities and for people who may be dual nationals...dual nationality does NOT prevent a born US citizen, from becoming President.
One has to look at the so-called, "single-national" Pakistanis and wonder why it is that we, who live overseas, should be considered less trustworthy than people who are currently running the country?
spot on I would say. and reaction shown baby some expats is totally understandable too. I know many expatriates who talk in the same fashion when you talk about their loyalty to Pakistan . in real their loyalty only lies interest for which they left their motherland. they can't reconcile to this fact and hence big claim of loyalty tho a country where they dont live but will deliver big lectures about what's wrong with the country and how nice is their adopted land. Kudos to the writer.
Why is there so much fuss about barring dual nationals from holding public offices? We as a nation has the right to determine for ourselevs what is right and what is wrong for us? I do agree that Author's language was harsh at some points but the theme makes sense. Dual nationals have made this choice of having another nationality of their free will and there is always a trade-off when it comes to making your choices. As far dual nationals' contribution is concerned, no Pakistani would ever doubt that, but when it comes to holding important public office, Paksitanis have the right to make some distinctions.
@gp65: By the way there is no concept of dual nationality in India. You have to forfiet your Indian citizenship in order to get another one. And as far the analogy of wife is concerned, if there is problem between husband and the wife's father/family, wife would and should sidfe with husband. And thats true everywhere. And then a woman loses a lot of rights over her parents home once she gets married.
A dual nationality holder is tantamount to that proverbial person who runs with the hare and barks with the hounds.If authorities are bent upon passing the bill about dual nationality then at least they should be kind enough to call it 'the bill of devil nationals'.
@gp65: Spoken like a woman
Excellent article and brilliant logic applied. Even the late Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (in whose time this law was rightly made) said that you can hold dual nationality but you can not sit in parliament, the rationale is evident but not those with vested interests.
An excellent article by the author who understands and appreciates the role and contribution of pakistanis living abroad and yet expresses the worries and concerns of the overwhelming majority of our people. This is a dishonest initiative, which is being brought simply to meet the needs of a few individuals in the Government's own ranks as well as in the ranks of its allies. We do not want our destinies to be decided by leaders who have acquired foreign nationalities and have not been to their homeland for decades.
Don't have to feel bad about what Mr Fatemi has said in this article . Keeping aside the politics for a moment, as a Pakistani, I'd rather want a Pakistani citizen to hold a public office than a dual-national. On the other hand it is not necessary that a Pakistani citizen would never betray Pakistan, some might. But the point of the matter is that a dual-national can easily evade accountability or that person would be dictated by the other country i.e Shaukat Aziz ex PM. Lastly, how can a dual-national politician perform his duties for the people of his constituency in Pakistan while he/she is enjoying the life abroad? If they love Pakistan and want to do something for it through a public office then they better leave the other nationality or else they better enjoy the life there and let us decide things for ourselves.
There should also be a method to identify those, holding only Pakistani nationality, whose loyalty to the country is suspect so that such individuals can also be barred from holding public office.
The ideology of secondary citizenship is not easily understood or reflected upon those who have not done the deed, or those who's sole goal was to earn that different color passport which neither asked about fathers name, nor any questions about ones religion, nor be bound by friends who's shores when you land in claim in no uncertain terms Indian and Pakistani left rest of the world to the right, and this was at an Arab nation of clowns who have money but neither commonsense, nor education, despite earning degrees from Ivy League schools, for they never really have to use the degree for any real work. Yes indeed there must be a quid pro quo and those with foreign passports must gladly renounce their citizenship of their adopted nation to run for election to offices in the land they were born in, or the scum like those who hold interior office will be redundantly reset for office every four to eight years in the so called democracy that prevails in Pakistan and in books, sans, actuality even in America today, wherein there are none left to question when did the first Amendment die.
Unfortunately, this article has too much flawed information which needs to be corrected. Feel like writing my own article to dispel the misinformation. But just a couple of points here. First, here is a an article on the situation in China: http://www.economist.com/node/21555961 So it turns out that though officially Chinese parliamentarians cannot have dual nationality, in reality, many have it. Perhaps that is what such draconian laws in today's global world achieve--a bunch of lies and hypocrisy. Interestingly though the fact that so many Chinese parliamentarians have hidden their other nationalities has not prevented China from progressing economically etc.
But I would also like to ask the writer that when he goes to a good doctor in Islamabad (many are dual nationals) is he as concerned that they may bear arms against him? Or is this just for public consumption and when it comes to personal life it is a whole other ballgame?
I agree 100% with the author. When a person signs up for a nationality of a country, he vows to abide by its law in serve his country. Holding public office that country can easily blackmail the person into doing anything, because legally and ethically he is bound to obey his government also, and if he doesnt obey the foreign government he is Dishonest with himself and breaks the oath that he took for that country. I am a Pakistani residing in Europe and soon will take up a nationality here. And I agree with what the author has said.
Great article Fatemi sahb.
Well said!!! I wish other people would understand and think like this.
It seems the "poor" people of pakistan do not understand what is being done to them.
Totally agree with the author. Acquiring foreign citizenship is akin to hedging for a worst case loss. Which country allows dual nationals to be the architect of their destiny? In US one has to be born in US to be the president...naturalized citizens are not even allowed to run for the highest office. I don't think there is any anger or bitterness here, just patriotism that if you want to represent Pakistanis in their parliament, be a Pakistani without any hedge on your balance sheet.
Well said Usman, my feelings as well. I feel astounded at this begrudging of overseas Pakistanis, especially living in Western democracies, by a former ambassador. Pity!
This writer has challenged our patriotism and honesty. We the expatriate Pakistanis need participation, respect, dignity and security, which is not available to common folkst. Can the writer inform us about any company, union, association or any elected body where you have right of vote but you cannot contest for leadership. What kind of democratic institute that would be? I am really disappointed with the wisdom of our single nationality holders, such as writer of this article.
When majority of the population consider themselves Muslims First and Pakistanis Next, and that the Ummah spirit is so much adored and cherished by almost all, what is wrong in allowing Dual Nationals to hold high offices, provided their other nationality or even their sole nationality is that of another muslim country ? Should not the "Will of the People" be respected and implemented ?
Nawaz Sharif put up Pakistani citizenship for sale as well. What was it, Rs. 50 lacs deposited in a Pakistani bank and thats that! Everyone is going on and on about oaths, loyalties and loyalties, about patriotism and civic sense. Why then do the same super patriots proudly evade taxes and shun paying there bills? Isnt tax paying a civic responsibility and sign of patriotism? No! Because we just want cosmetic and tangible action.
"Of the many mistakes made by the Pakistani government, its current initiative to permit ‘dual nationals’ to be eligible for election to our legislatures may turn out to be the most egregious."
The law has not yet passed. IT is a constittional amendment and requires 2/3 mjority which the government does not have.
"Citizenship, however, is synonymous with deep attachment, a profound sense of pride and an unshakeable commitment to the state’s interests. These sentiments cannot be shared with another state"
Fo many economic migrants (whether from India or Pakistan), citizenship is simply a way of securing the rights that one's family has in the country we have migrated to. Also think at a more personal level. Does a married woman living with her in laws stop caring about her parents even if she has accepted her husband's surname?
This is the most ill-reasoned article I have ever read. Relying not on a single shred of fact, but only on the writers own assumptions and opinions. "Loyalty to a new qibla" and "owe allegiance to neither their homeland nor their adopted homes" - really? I sense a lot of buried anger and bitterness. I would have thought a person appointed the ambassador to the EU and the US would have more character than what your article reveals. My poor Pakistan has been represented by narrow-minded people like you - it breaks my heart.