InsafianPTI
Minister (2k+ posts)
Dual Nationality and Conflict of Interest
Rai Muhammad Saleh Azam
The issue of dual nationality, which has been brought to the forefront of national debate by the Pakistan Supreme Court’s recent disqualification of a few civil servants and elected representatives holding dual nationality and the PPP government’s countering move to pass a law allowing dual nationality holders to hold public office, has raised important and fundamental questions that need to be debated and understood.
Three principal arguments are being put forth by the advocates of dual nationality: (i) firstly, that overseas Pakistanis contribute to Pakistan’s economy through remittances and, therefore, should have the right to seek and hold public office in Pakistan; (ii) secondly, if it is desirable that overseas Pakistanis should be allowed to vote in Pakistan’s general elections, they should also be allowed to hold public office in Pakistan; and (iii) thirdly, holding of dual nationality does not affect the loyalty of a Pakistani citizen to the Pakistani State.
Let us consider all three arguments individually.
The argument that overseas Pakistanis contribute to Pakistan’s economy through remittances and, therefore, should be permitted to hold public office in Pakistan is self-defeating. Firstly, not all overseas Pakistanis are foreign nationals or even dual nationals. According to the Overseas Pakistanis Foundation, of the approximately 6.8 million overseas Pakistanis, more than 3 million are working in the Middle East on work visas with Pakistani passports in countries that do not permit dual nationality. According to the State Bank of Pakistan, of the approximately $12 billion remitted by overseas Pakistanis in 2011, the bulk, approximately $7.2 billion (or 60%), was remitted by overseas Pakistanis in the Middle East who do not hold dual nationality. First and second-generation overseas Pakistanis who are permanently settled Europe and the North America and hold either foreign nationality or dual nationality are unlikely to seek public office in Pakistan. In fact, to do so would entail them abandoning their foreign jobs and foreign lives, which they fought long and hard to secure, and coming to Pakistan for at least the medium term in order to seek public office. This would mean that they would no longer be in a position to contribute to the Pakistani economy through foreign remittances and, therefore, their foreign nationality would be of no use to them or Pakistan. Third generation overseas Pakistanis have only a distant interest in Pakistan and are unlikely to ever seek public office in Pakistan. In India, for example, non-resident Indians do not have the right to vote or hold public office. Israel, which depends on the support of the Jewish lobby in the Unites States for its survival, does not permit anyone who is not an Israeli citizen to vote or hold public office, even if they are pro-Israeli American Jews.
Secondly, those overseas Pakistanis who are passionate enough to sacrifice their lucrative careers, higher standards of living, comfortable lifestyles and greater security, and migrate to Pakistan in order to seek public office and serve Pakistan, would have enough passion to renounce their foreign nationality if it prevented them from holding public office in Pakistan. And if they are unwilling to renounce their foreign nationality, then would not a suspecting Pakistani public be justified in questioning their intentions of seeking public office in Pakistan in the first instance?
The second argument is that if it is desirable to give overseas Pakistanis the right to vote, why should they not then be allowed to hold public office in Pakistan? Again, as previously stated, not all overseas Pakistanis hold foreign nationality. So giving overseas Pakistani the right to vote means, first and foremost, those overseas Pakistanis who only hold Pakistani citizenship and who, for whatever reason, cannot return to Pakistan to cast their votes in general elections. Secondly, extending the right to vote to those overseas Pakistanis holding dual nationality may also be desirable but it cannot and should not be linked to the right to hold public office. The right to cast a vote and the right to hold public office are two separate things. Millions of young Pakistanis between the ages of 18 and 25 can vote but are barred by the Pakistani Constitution from being elected to the National or Provincial Assemblies until they reach the age of 25. Likewise, millions of Pakistanis under the age of 35 vote in general elections but are themselves constitutionally disqualified from becoming Prime Minister until they reach the age of 35. In the Unites States, millions of Americans vote in the Presidential elections but only those American citizens can become President who were born in the United States. In Pakistan, like elsewhere in the world, nationality and age are the only criteria for casting votes but the criteria for holding public office is much higher and anyone seeking it must conform to greater standards of propriety and conduct. In Pakistan, as is elsewhere in the world, a convicted person undergoing a jail term may cast his vote but is constitutionally barred from holding public office. So the right to vote has nothing to do whatsoever with the right to hold public office.
Now to the final argument given by the proponents of dual nationality: that holding of dual nationality is not a test of loyalty to Pakistan. Before dual nationality can even be put through the litmus test of loyalty to the State, it fails an even lesser test, which is widely practiced in the corporate sector: that of “conflict of interest.” A conflict of interest is said to exist when an individual has multiple, often competing, interests, one or more of which could potentially corrupt and compromise the individual’s ability to act in the best interests of one as opposed to the other. Conflicts of interest are not permitted in the business world. The vast majority of employers don’t permit employees to hold dual jobs. Indeed most non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements even forbid ex-employees from joining rival companies for a specified period after leaving employment. A major law firm in Karachi once dismissed a female associate on the ground of conflict of interest because she married the partner of a rival law firm. If such is the case with matters of business, it should be more so with matters of State.
In most countries, acquiring nationality entails taking an oath of allegiance and loyalty to that state. This is particularly true of the United States and the United Kingdom, which are among the few countries that allow dual nationality, and where the majority of Pakistani dual nationality holders are from. The US Oath of Allegiance, for example, requires the oath taker to, inter alia, “renounce... all allegiance to any…foreign state” and to “bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law.” There is an inherent conflict of interest in pledging allegiance to two countries at the same time. If the national interests of the two countries are at cross-purposes to each other: as Pakistan and the United States are vis--vis the Afghanistan conflict, drone attacks, cross-border raids, NATO supplies, then whose interests does a dual national serve? What if two countries of which a person is a dual national of go to war with each other and introduce the draft? Whose side would such dual national fight? It may have less of an affect if the dual national holds no public office, but if the dual national is a Parliamentarian, the Interior Minister or Ambassador of one country, the conflict of interest becomes amplified and may compromise national security and national interests.
We don’t need to look very far for examples of conflict of interest in state affairs that resulted in undermining national security and national interests. Pakistan’s founder, Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, refused to allow Lord Mountbatten to become Governor-General of both India and Pakistan, which Mountbatten desired, because Jinnah felt that Mountbatten could not and would not protect the interests of Pakistan if he was also protecting the interests of India. This was due to the fact that both countries were at cross-purposes to each other on a number of critical issues, including Kashmir and the division of resources. Indeed, Pakistan lost the opportunity to take Kashmir in 1948 due to an inherent conflict of interest situation at the hands of its then Commander-in-Chief, General Douglas Gracey. Despite being the Pakistan Army’s C-in-C, Gracey was first and foremost a British Army officer and owed his allegiance to the British Crown. In 1948, he did not send Pakistani troops to Kashmir and refused to obey a direct order given in this regard by his superior, Quaid-e-Azam, then Governor-General of Pakistan. Indeed, Gracey went further and reported Jinnah’s intentions to the British Crown, which passed on the information to Mountbatten who, in turn, informed Nehru, who ordered Indian troops into Kashmir and pre-empted the Pakistan Army by landing troops in Srinagar by air. Had this not happened, Pakistan would have taken Kashmir Valley. So this was the grave price Pakistan paid and is paying to this day, for having a foreigner, who owed his allegiance to a foreign state, in a position of power and trust, who abused that power and betrayed that trust due to a conflict of interest.
All public officeholders – be they elected representatives, civil servants, armed forces personnel or judges – must have all their stakes in the country in which they hold positions of power, privilege and trust. We want our leaders to have their livelihoods, children and properties in Pakistan. Only then will they have the will to make Pakistan a place worth living for themselves, for their children and us. So when Pakistan wins, they win; when Pakistan loses, they lose; when Pakistan prospers, they prosper; and when Pakistan suffers, they suffer. Only then can they serve Pakistan with sincerity. Sadly, the extent of loyalty to the Pakistani State of dual nationality holders in Pakistan’s Parliament may be gauged by their insistence on retaining their dual nationalities at all costs. Clearly, for these dual nationals, the citizenship of a foreign state is more valuable than the privilege of being a member of Pakistan’s Parliament. So much so that they are willing to enact a law, even attempt to amend the Constitution, to preserve their allegiance to foreign states. This indicates where their true loyalty and interests lie.
A study carried out by one air force revealed that fighter pilots who had parachutes and the option of ejecting were less likely to fight to the last to save their planes than bomber pilots who did not have parachutes or ejection seats. The study also revealed that many fighter pilots, who encountered technical malfunctions in the air, could have saved their aircraft if they had spent a few more seconds trying to resolve the problems but didn’t exercise that option because they had the safer option of ejecting. Indeed, a proposal to install escape hatches, ejection seats and parachutes in the cockpits of passenger airliners was rejected because it was felt that airline pilots would not fight to the last to save their aircraft and the lives of their passengers, who neither have ejections seats or parachutes. In the context of the State, dual nationality is like a bail-out option for those at the helm of the State. Giving dual nationality to leaders and public officeholders is akin to giving ejection seats to airline pilots. Would you feel safer in an airliner in which the pilots have ejection seats but the passengers do not? Or would you rather have the pilots in the same boat as yourself? In the latter case, at least they would fight to the last to save themselves, the plane, your fellow passengers, and you. (the best part):)
http://www.thepakistaninationalist.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/dual-nationality-and-conflict-of.html
Last edited: