Further elaborating on the discussion held in class, I
believe that the Jirga system has its own set of pros and cons. However, the
important question to consider is whether or not we can rely on this system as
a long-term solution to problems that areas with this Jirga system, such as
FATA, face.
The main purpose for which this system was created was so that tribal battles and wars, as had previously taken place, could be avoided and so that feuds between different tribes could be solved. It is true that in this respect, the Jirga system has been quite successful in maintaining relative peace as compared to earlier times. It might also be argued that such a system is needed because the control the central government has in these areas is minimal and in the absence of Jirga, anarchy would prevail. Jirga therefore is seen as a quick and not so costly way of solving local issues.
However, we must also look at the problems the Jirga system brings along with it. Because there is no documented set of laws under which this system works, people living in such areas often become victims of biasness and discrimination. Furthermore, many religious extremists have infiltrated into the Jirga system elite positions and are imposing unfair and often harsh punishments to members of the society that many would consider as inhumane.
Further elaborating on the problems or Jirga, we find that the Jirga system is also in most places just as corrupt as the central government. Also, if Pakistan is to progress as a united country, having such Jirga systems does not help. Letting these systems prevail over an extended period of time might just lead to the formation of new Jirga systems around the country. Or worse, the demands of the Jirga system could radicalize and they might believe that they should separate themselves from Pakistan.
Therefore, considering that the government already faces numerous serious problems and it might not be able to address the Jirga problem immediately or even enforce its decision on the matter, Jirga can be an acceptable short-term solution. However, in the long term there needs to be conformity in all parts of the state and the Jirga system, in the long-term, is not a viable solution to the problems of the area as well as the progress of the country as a whole.
5 comments:
It is absolutely true that Jirgas are not a long term solution. In short term, however the state should take a few steps which seek to 'humanise" the Jirga system. As i believe complete abolishment is not a viable option as the Jirga system is deeply rooted into tribal culture and any attempt to ban Jirgas will be seen as an attempt by urban population to dominate the tribal society. Armed resistance will most likely follow. The best approach i believe is to ensure that Jirgas follow a uniform set of laws. Of course these laws will not meet international human rights standards initially, however after a steady reform programme , we can finally rid ourselves of practises such as karo kari , which are a source of shame for Pakistanis worldwide
I totally agree with you. However implementing even that will be a tough exercise because of the strong grip the system has on people of the area. These have started to identify the state as the enemy and the Jirga system as a system fundamentally there to protect their rights, because of the image the seniors inside the Jirga system have painted of the state. In such a situation, less than necessary intervention into the system such as just checks and balances might lead to people in the system separating themselves more from the state.
Interesting post. I challenge you to think about this point: If say the state's legal authority could be extended into areas that currently use the jirga system for justice, will the state provide a better form of "justice"? Given the myriad of problems that exist within the current Pakistani judicial system, how can we know if these problems wouldn't just continue to exist if the state's legal authority was extended to these areas? And why do we even want uniformity of laws within our polity?
Yes, I do agree that there is no guarantee that the laws will be implemented to the fullest if they are extended to these areas . However, we need to consider the current situation. As mentioned in several other blog posts including mine, there are numerous examples of the Jirga system's implementing laws that are unfair and sometimes even cruel. Since this takes place in such a small part of the country, it does not get adequate international media coverage and therefore there is little pressure to change the existing Jirga rule. If these areas were under the direct supervision of the central government, there would have been more coverage which would have translated into greater accountability. So the main distinguishing factor between the two systems of justice is the level of accountability.
Secondly, uniformity of law is not necessary but it is preferable over the current situation. As Pakistan already has various ethnic and religious divisions, and we as a nation are constantly in search of factors that will unite us, uniformity of the law is a good place to start.
But is the national legal system really accountable, especially when, at times, justice takes many years - even decades - to get? And why is uniformity of law preferable? Aren't we a diverse nation with different peoples, languages and cultures that all deserve respect, including in legal issues? Why do we have to have unity in the law? Can't we begin by starting with unity in some other place?
Post a Comment