National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO)

Rosabeth Moss Kanter in one of her blog says: Recent efforts to put a brand on Nigeria to attract tourists remind me of how easy it is slap a label on something and hope that its uglier characteristics will go away. Long before the phrase "lipstick on a pig" became an election issue, I had warned of the dangers of putting "lipstick on a bulldog" - that is, making superficial cosmetic change in organizations rather than looking at the real underlying problems. The problem with putting lipstick on a bulldog is that it is hard to wrestle the bulldog to the ground long enough to do it and then doesn't change the nature of the beast. Political labels often resemble lipstick on a bulldog - cheery phrases trying to put a face full of makeup on something that requires deeper scrutiny and deeper change. Politicians float laws called defense of marriage intended to keep people from marrying, or use income security slogans for anti-tax bills when people would have less security without certain government programs.


She quotes George Orwell, the renowned British author of anti-fascist works, warned of the evils of lipstick-clad bulldogs that co-opt words and distort their meaning. In his book 1984, the war department was called "The Ministry of Peace," the watchdogs called "Big Brother," to make them sound protective rather than oppressive. Orwell was particularly outraged by euphemisms promoting mindless acceptance of atrocities. In his essay, "Politics and the English Language," he warned that since the label democracy is felt to be positive, the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy and prefer not to have the term pinned down to any one meaning. He wrote: "Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different... The great enemy of clear language is insincerity."


The same is the case with NRO - distorted meanings. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed in its short decision: In depth examination of the NRO suggests that it has not been promulgated to provide reconciliation on national basis as this nation has seen reconciliation in 1973, when a Constituent Assembly gave the Constitution of 1973 to the nation, guaranteeing their fundamental rights, on the basis of equality and brotherhood, as a result whereof, the nation had proved its unity, whenever it faced a challenge to its sovereignty and existence. The representation of the people, in subsequent Legislative Assemblies, has upheld the provisions of 1973 Constitution, except for few occasions when they have made amendments under peculiar circumstances. However, salient features of the Constitution i.e. Independence of Judiciary, Federalism, Parliamentary form of Government blended with Islamic provisions, now have become integral part of the Constitution and no change in the basic features of the Constitution, is possible through amendment as it would be against the national reconciliation, evident in the promulgation of the Constitution of 1973, by a Legislative Assembly. Therefore, promulgation of the NRO seems to be against the national interest and its preamble is contrary to the substance embodied therein. Thus, it violates various provisions of the Constitution.