A deeply flawed decision

If an amendment is to be made, it should be to bar a foreign national from occupying any office of profit in Pakistan.


Tariq Fatemi July 10, 2012
A deeply flawed decision

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)

Jafar Siddiqui | 12 years ago | Reply

@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?

Waseem | 12 years ago | Reply

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.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ