anwer.mooraj@tribune.com.pk
There is something rather solemn and formal about taking an oath — especially when it is accompanied by the equally sombre gesture of placing a hand on the holy book prescribed by one’s religion. The only time I took what could possibly be passed off as a firm commitment was when I was asked to represent my boarding school in a boxing match against a rival institution. After the grave undertaking had been given about upholding the rules and spirit of the Marquis of Queensbury, the sports master turned to me and said in a conspiratorial whisper, “Never mind all this twaddle about not hitting below the belt, Sonny, just make sure you enter the ring and give the beggar a bloody nose in the second round.”
Now it is common knowledge that people are taking oaths in our country all the time, whether or not an election has taken place. This includes presidents, prime ministers, judges and members of the armed forces who swear to uphold the Constitution and serve the country without fear or favour. During bouts of democracy, some politicians have taken the same oath a number of times, either in the same party or by switching loyalties. These people appear to be in possession of long-term season tickets, which allow them repeated entry into the members’ enclosure where they enjoy a sinecure.
The nagging question here is: what happens when an incumbent breaks his or her oath? Well, the stock answer in such cases is “Just don’t vote for the fellow or the party next time.” I am sure you will agree this is a gray area, because it isn’t just some of the elected representatives that have been screwing up but also civilian administrations. If everybody had fulfilled his or her obligations, the country wouldn’t be in such an unholy mess. Of course, when corrupt politicians or government officers overdo it and become overachievers in the malpractices department, there is always the danger that the courts might find out and clobber them. But more often than not, they get away with it.
Now, what is the resident cynic expected to do when an oath uttered in all solemnity is broken at the highest level of government? If you’ve been reading so far, you will know I am pointing an accusing finger at a former president, who usurped absolute power while in uniform. When General (retd) Pervez Musharraf joined the army, he must have taken the oath reserved for members of the armed forces, which can be found under Article 244 of the third schedule of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The crucial phrase being “will not engage myself in any political activities whatsoever”.
However, one doesn’t have to go so far up the pecking order to discover how oaths are not kept by governors, chief ministers and chief secretaries of various provinces. Newspapers are littered with accounts of station house officers in the rural hinterland refusing to file a First Information Report on complaints lodged by peasants, ostensibly because of alleged pressure from the local landlord or resident bully. These range from stealing a buffalo to kidnapping and rape. Now, wouldn’t it be more meaningful if steps are taken to amend all oaths to include some kind of inbuilt punitive clause in which an oath-taker agrees on oath to be punished for failing to perform his duty? Of course, this could never happen in Pakistan. But there’s no harm in suggesting it.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 16th, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (6)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
You must naivest human living on the planet. You believe including a punitive clause in oath is going to stop these embezzles from breaking their oath.
If they took there oath seriously, they wouldn’t break it in the first place, punitive clause or no punitive clause.
You are dealing with liars and thieves that is why they are called politicians and it is true all across the world. Some worse than others.
Today, public everywhere has only one choice that is; between the BAD and WORST and they have to pick one.
Something amiss out here...........the oath taker does not have to agree to be punished. The ones responsible to punish them must agree to fulfill the oath they have taken.
Please forgive me, but I mixed metaphors in my earlier comment. Bait & switch is not the same as carrot & stick, rather it is a form of fraudulent advertising.
Spot on sir, as is usual for you. Let me reiterate, Bravo! The old carrot and stick, aka switch and bait approach has time tested merit & efficacy. Politics & government aside, In most other fields of endeavour, mistakes are punished. Sacking, prison, ill health, broken marriages, financial ruin etc are the prices people pay for their mistakes. This process is no respecter of social status, gender, ethnicity etc. From the coolie to the billionaire tycoon, all are subject to this universal law. All except, oath breakers in Pakistani government.
It is high time that they are on the one hand punished for breaking their oath and causing the state financial and other loss, and on the other hand rewarded for jobs well done (for example, if one such individual saves the state USD 100 million, then he should be paid USD 2 million as a bonus). In similar vein, The manifestos of political parties should make clear, in monetary terms or in terms of improved quality of life, what they would do for the state if elected. And the party elected should be held to account & punished/rewarded accordingly.
A good progressive and out of the box suggestion by the veteran writer. Let us hope we think about it and do something ourselves. If we reform ourselves we would not need false slogans that one man would descent and change us all.