Jirga system, an alternative to the law of court, is practiced in many tribal areas of Pakistan. In a jirga system, the elder members of the community, the pious ones and the so called 'Ameer' establish their own court and separate themselves from the constitution and the law their country has prescribed. Members of the jirga establish certain perimeters and boundaries which the community has to follow. The individuals giving their verdict on any issue do not take payments for their services. They claim to provide their services only for the sake of protecting their religion and establishing a stronger relationship with God.
Even though, the basic idea of a jirga system sounds reasonable with the elder ones of a society giving their verdict on an issue under the light of the 'Shariah Law', it is also true that the members of this jirga system under various situations have taken advantage of this self established court and the system is primarily controlled by the 'extreme factions' of the tribal areas where it is followed.
In addition, more than anyone else, women in these tribal areas suffer under the decisions forwarded by the jirga. There are various examples of women being given brutal punishment when they are not directly involved in a crime and are not fully accountable for a crime.
Many people in the rural areas resort to the jirga system because of the weaknesses in Pakistan's judicial system which is time consuming and expensive. On the other hand, a jirga system is not at all costly, no specific payments are required and decisions are taken instantly. Also, the conservative members of these tribal areas prefer decisions made under the light of the shariah law as it is with the jirga system over decisions made under the influence of wealth, greed and threat in the judicial system of Pakistan.
2 comments:
I agree with the point you make about the suffering caused. As we discussed in class, power has a tendency to be abused. The more people that gain access to power via the Jirga system through the ineffectiveness of the state, the more is the tendency towards the abuse of power. The state as a neutral arbiter or a referee is the best participant to hold such power. The state has no bias whereas people could unjustly give out punishments based on their biases through the Jirga system.
I agree with Samrah's comment that many people resort to the jirga system because of the failings of the Pakistani judicial system. I disagree with Sarim's assessment that the state is unbiased and can be viewed as a neutral arbiter. Is it really neutral if certain viewpoints are excluded and particular interest groups are over-represented?
Post a Comment