The use of Jirga courts
in Pakistan has always been criticized by many and hence this debate has been
around for a long time. Both the Jirga System and Courts have their pros and
cons.
Jirga System firstly does
not have a standard set of rules on which to judge people. The decisions are
made by the senior elderly people who claim themselves to be wise. These
decisions seem hap hazard without any check and balance. Every decision about a
similar topic might be different which is inequality and in justice. Due to
this, cases of women abuse have been reported. Contrary to this, in Courts of
Pakistan specific rules specified in the 1973 constitution are followed.
Secondly Jirga system
does not allow re appealing. Once a decision is made, it can not be revised and
changed. But in Courts after a decision is made, the person can re appeal the
decision in the same court or even in a different course.
But considering the
current situation of justice in Pakistan, it barely makes any difference
whether to have a jirga or a court. Bribery is a part of both. In courts, a
case is extended for years. The hearings are very slow. Furthermore, the courts
are too expensive for a simple person to afford.
Even if some body
validates the importance of courts, it is not quite easy to implement courts in
various parts of Pakistan. Efforts should be made to decrease the differences
between the courts and jirgas so that equality could be implemented.
But no matter how strong
fairness is a component of justice, none of the two forms of justice system
could be acknowledged as fair or ranked on the scale of fairness.
9 comments:
The Jirga system has foundations of Shariah. I doubt it is haphazard. It is a democratic system of consensus by all those present and works on an unspoken laid down law in the region. The people living there deem it just and fair. With no other system prevailing there and the state being too weak to exercise legal power in tribal lands, the Jirga is as near as a fair system of judgement as it can get. Something is better than nothing. Though it is true that it needs great improvement.
Yes, our legal system has loop holes but you can not justify jirgas just because of it. Our priority should be to have a unified system of justice.
And opposed to your first point, some elements of these codes have been in
conflict with universal standards of human rights.
Risha I accept all your points. But what about the position of women in jirgas? Do you think they are fare any way at all?
Arsalan, from what I get from your post, you deem both the Jirgah system and the legal courts as corrupt. Then, would it still make sense to bridge the gap between these two seemingly flawed systems?
Moreover, improper implementation, in my opinion, does not necessarily make a specific system of justice bad.
I think, in the context of your argument, that rather than appropriating the blame on both of these legal systems, it would make more sense to address the larger issue of corruption as a national psyche.
you are almost talking about the disadvantages of the jirga system ..you know when people want that they have to create the jirga system when they are deprived of their rights.When government is not paying attention to any area i think that its the legal authority of the people that they can make the community where they can make the laws ccording to their wishes. We lost east Pakistan because the government was not giving the attention to them and they were going down day by day. If they made the jirga system then ok they will be free from constitution and the laws which are heard and obliged in Pakistan but they would be the part of Pakistan. you also talked about about that the people can reappeal in courts and they cant do that in a jirga system ... obviously its correct .. you know in jirga systems the laws are confirmed and everyone knows about them so then if they do such crimes ..obviously they have to be hanged. In reappeling in courts the people give the money to judges that can change the behaviours and decisions of cases.
Sir..! I would just like to comment that..! One cant compare a Court with a Jirga. Courts aren't working properly but still they are officially registered. They should be made better and hell lot of improvement is needed but on the other hand..a jirga is only a group of people who work unofficialy and like to give orders on their will..! Though their some decisions might have been correct but still you cant give them authority to become judges so the first thing is that..their existence is a question mark..should they be there..??? Comparing with courts is something different.
The point is to carry on with jirgas until our courts are good enough to rely on.
We can improve these jirgas until the establishment of proper legal system in the remote areas
But does the state court system have a "standard set of rules"? How often do rules get changed based on the whims of politicians (e.g. see the Ahmadi case)? However, I do like that you point out how there is an appeals process in state courts. But sometimes the appeals system actually works against justice. For example, a murderer who is being bankrolled by a mafia has the ability to keep appealing his judgement to the point that the victims family may not have the financial resources to continue to challenge him in court. Because of this, murderers can go free. Where is the justice in that?
Coming to the conclusion that neither system is fair - which is a reasonable assessment to make - then what can be done to achieve equality?
Arsalan: Why do we need a unified justice system?
Abdullah: I like your comment about corruption as part of the national psyche. In my opinion, this can only be change once we change ourselves. Little acts against corruption will trickle up into the body politic.
Post a Comment