Just Peace International Inc
May Peace Prevail On Earth image

Indigenous Institutions for Decision-Making in Pakistan
Ali Gohar

Pakistan
The Islamic Republic of Pakistan emerged as a sovereign state on the world map in August 1947. Located in South Asia, Pakistan shares an eastern border with India and a north-eastern with China. Iran makes up the country’s southwest border, and Afghanistan runs along its western and northern edge. The Arabian Sea is Pakistan’s southern boundary with 1,064 km of coastline.  The country has a total area of 796,095 sq km. Official literacy rate is 32 per cent and the male to female ratio is 48:52.
With an approximate population of 158 million people, Pakistan is home to several diversified ethnicities across four provinces, the sub-state political, administrative and development units. Its landscape is equally diverse, nurturing one of the world’s highest mountain peaks, warmest deserts and strategic ports. Additionally, the country generously opened up itself, to provide refuge to people from war-torn homelands, such as Afghanistan, Somalia and Bosnia.
Under the present government, a decentralization and devolution of governance power project was introduced five years ago, which created a new tier of popular power of people’s representatives at the local district level. Under this devolution of power project, thousands of common, ordinary Pakistani women, for the first time, took up the political public roles as district and Union Councillors (Union Council is an administrative unit lower than district). The governance power is devolved from the central government, directly to the local district level, with the aim to bring the administrative and resources decision-making closer to the point of influence, that is, the communities. This project still needs nurturing and support to develop and entrench itself in the political system and culture.
Historically, Pakistan is one of the most ancient lands known to human kind, with Alexander the Great and Ashoka passing through and leaving imprints still visible today, Harappa and Moenjodaro — the ancient civilizations. Although, Pakistan showcases a turbulent political history and a sleeping civic movement, there are two indigenous conflict resolution institutions, operating from times immemorial in Pakistan.
Introduction
As Leo Tolstoy very rightly said, “the seeds of every crime are in each of us.” Crime is not an out-side phenomenon. It lives with each individual’s inner self, and depending on the opportunities available, it can come out. “Power corrupts” and “the needy are not respectable”. These are some of the notions used by, both the weaker and the stronger to legitimize their actions. It changes its form from place to place and individual to individual. Shame, honour, customary practices, ego, what others will think or say, are the basic elements that lead to crime in a society. Such elements generate crime, in each individual, with different excuses. In some cases, the victimization of the offender is dominated by his commitment of crime to others, while weak law provides ample opportunities, to the strong, to take the matter in his own hands and quench thirst. Strong law prevents the criminal from committing a crime on the one hand, while social bondage prevents the individual from committing the crime, even in countries where law is weak. Divine law is the most important and above all, if it is taken in its real sense, to prevent community members from committing the crimes. If divine law is not practiced, then the two laws come to challenge each other’s existence. The criminal justice system and the traditional system of different communities are practiced in different part of the world. Such traditional systems are organized in the WEST, under the umbrella of restorative justice systems. Called circle in the WEST, Sulah in the Middle East, gachacha in Africa, and Morie tribe traditional practice in New Zealand. Jirga and Punchayat of Pakistan is the same system, with marginal differences. Jirga and Punchayat systems are common to all the four provinces of the country. Jirga is commonly practiced in NWFP and Balochistan, while Punchayat relates to the Punjab and Sindh provinces. Jirga replaces the name of Punchayat now and sweeps across the entire country, even though there are quite some differences between the two. Punchayat is headed by a ‘sir punch’, that is, a notable of an area who imposes his decision on others, while Jirga’s decision is unanimous. There is a difference of opinion within the Jirga process, but the final verdict is acceptable to all, inspite of the reservation of some members. There are many, who are of the opinion, that the system of Jirga is better than the modern time democracy: in a Jirga, a decision taken is acceptable to all, while in the democratic setup, opposition can play its role within and outside of the house, and can take a position on the opinion held, right to the end.
What is Jirga 
Jirga is best summarized as a strategic exchange, between two or more people, to address an issue through verbal communication. The exchange may or may not result in an agreement on the issue, but the process itself leads the parties, including the interveners, to maintain a certain level of formal communication, thus ensuring peace .  
To a common person, Jirga is a body comprised of local, elderly, and influential men in Pukhtoon communities, who undertake dispute resolution, primarily through the process of arbitration. Compared to the judicial system of the present day governments, Jirga ensures a fast and cheap justice to the people. Indigenous to Pukhtoon tribal communities, Jirga is alive even in the areas now influenced by an Anglo-Saxon legal system, and is used for inter-personal dispute resolution. In the tribal areas, Jirga is the only vehicle through which the political administration dispenses justice.
What Is Punchayat   
Punchayat comprises a five-member jury, headed by a sir punch, who can use his vote, for either of the parties, based on his discretionary powers. The age, the social position and, more importantly, wisdom and sagacity are some of the characteristics considered for a Punchayat member. The following are other characteristics, which are static and essential for being a member: 

Characteristics of the Punchayat members

A candidate should be a resident of the village in the true sense.
His character must be blameless and a model for others.
He must be known to be fair and honest in his dealings.
He must be of mature age, certainly above 40 years

The Difference Between the Two
In Pakistan, the role of Punchayat has diminished with the passage of time, as the governments in the provinces of Sindh and Punjab withdrew their support for this traditional structure. Despite this, however, the influential of the area still continue to use this method for resolving community disputes, whereby they impose their decision on the disputant. The term punchayat is less known to the public now. Instead, it has, of recent, being replaced by Jirga. However, Jirga is a term that has lost its credibility in the provinces of Punjab and Sindh, primarily because this term is seen to be associated with the authoritarian and individual decision-making powers vested in a few influential – the members of the Jirga. But this institution is still in place and operative in the provinces of NWFP and Balouchistan. Although, the government does not lend its full legal support to the verdicts of Jirgas in these provinces, it does, in certain circumstances, resort to its decision-making, to resolve issues and bring about peace in the tribal areas, when other options fail. For example, very recently, the present governor of NWFP took the initiative to select members for a Jirga, from the tribal belt, to organize a uniform grand Jirga, in order to find a sustainable solution for the present unrest in the areas.
Another major criticism, associated with Jirgas and Punchayats, is that criminals end up replacing the notables in both these institutions. This is, however, not true for all the areas. For instance, in the provinces of Sindh, Balochistan and Punjab, Punchayat is still held and steered by the notables, mostly the tribal chiefs. Jirga in the tribal belt remains the same as before, while in the settled districts of NWFP, it is rather mixed. For example, in some areas, the criminals do get hold of it. However, if the nature of the dispute is serious, the community reverts back to the notables of that area and approach them for intervention. It needs to be emphasized here, that the previous role of Jirgas, that was unique, as a distinct institution, is not practiced nor does it exist any more. But there is a Pustho proverb that ‘if the meat burns, it is still better than lintels’, suggesting that the Jirga decision is still cheap, easy, accessible and at the doorsteps of the disputant. It also needs to be re-emphasized here, that the Punchayat decision is mostly a one-man show. Since, the term Jirga has now come to replace Punchayat, it has ended up defaming the entire institution of Jirga. The reports of such Jirgas (actually Punchayat) are then highlighted in the national press, further damaging the credibility of the Jirga system.
Exploring Jirga
The practice and notion of Jirga is actually operative, at all levels of the society, for different purposes and different objectives. For an outsider, the dynamics of Jirga may appear overwhelmingly complex. But a deeper examination of it makes it clear, that there exists a common understanding amongst the Jirga members, on issues that may seem as being complex. 
The composition of a Jirga may be split into the following two categories: one is the representative level of a Jirga, where the Jirga may represent a party, a village, or an area or region; at the second level, the Jirga may serve a particular role, which can vary, depending on the circumstance. Some examples of these roles are diplomatic missions, peace building interventions, or smaller juries.
The term Jirga has different meaning for the locals. Some of these are:

Each of these terms is used for a variety of meanings related to the organization of the local community life, indicating the relevance and importance of Jirga, as an integral institution.
The nature and scope of a specific Jirga can vary, and there is generally no clear distinction between the types of Jirga. Even the locals will talk about Jirga, as the type, they best understand. And when questioned, they smile and agree that their definition or understanding of a Jirga is a narrow one. Most writers have delineated Jirga into four general types:

In the tribal belt (where Jirga is still an active conflict transformation institution), the Jirga specifically executes three different kinds of roles, much like the present day modern approaches for bringing peace in the conflicting world.
Peacekeeping: the elders place Tega (stone) between the parties in conflict and ask for money, weapons etc. that are kept with the Jirga. They declare ceasefire for an interim period, before the final decision. If any one of the parties violate the ceasefire, its money or other items are confiscated by the Jirga. A special voluntary force, called ‘Lashkar’, in such cases, imposes the decision of the Jirga to punish the perpetrator.
Peace making: The Jirga members intervene on the request of the parties in conflict, through the use of shuttle diplomacy or their own power, and come into the middle through parachute diplomacy. Peace is brought about by first listening to the parties and convincing them to accept the solution to the problem. The role of the Jirga members changes from a diplomat, to a mediator and an arbitrator.
Peace-building: Apart from conflict resolution, Jirga plays an active role in the development of the areas. They change the Jirga role and regulations and bring in new laws, according to the needs of the community. They also work closely with the government agencies for the betterment of the people. As well as, provide an equitable share to each tribe, according to its population in the government jobs, land, and other resources.

The Way Ahead

During the colonial period, in an “us versus them” scenario, people recognized governance as a system of the other side, designed and implemented for the benefit of the colonizers only. The newly independent countries of the present day Third World, inherited these systems of governance, which were alien to their people. Despite the fact that the new governments were mostly democratic in nature, and people were duly represented in governments, there remained a gap between the traditional understanding of society and the one presented by the modern systems. People were faced with the following choices in the post-colonial era:
Forget about the past practices and embrace the new system, despite the fact that alien people designed it. It is now the most viable way of developing into a responsible nation-state. This was a difficult choice because of deep-seated resentment and hatred for the colonizers. In addition, the loss of past practices and traditions rub up against issues of identity, language, religion, and culture—aspects of a society that cannot be replaced or buried without pain and, often, resistance. The Punchayat system was alive after independence for a certain period of time but vanished soon due to lack of support by the community and government alike.
Forget about the new system given by the colonizers, and let us get back to our old traditional system. This choice again was a difficult one. During the colonial times, societies often preserved their traditional practices. These traditions, however, were not given much of a natural space to grow and change and, because of this, began to look remote and backward. The modern times also brought science and technology, a development that became difficult for the old systems to adopt and integrate. The tribal belt preserved its Jirga system, while the settled areas of NWFP and Balochistan, struggled to keep this system alive for some time but later began to use both.
Merge the good traditional practices with the modern times, and develop systems best suited for our needs, as a responsible nation-state. Some societies could do this easier, than the others, because of the cultural resonance they had with their colonial masters. However, in other cases, the gap between the masters and the people was so wide that it was difficult to merge the two systems. In addition, the people had little capacity to adopt the modern system or improve the traditional systems, to match the modern times. Thus, the deficiency of human capacity prevented the merger of the two systems.
Of course, the system of Jirga, both at the community, as well as, the government level, did not improve as much as needed, in order to compete with the requirements of the modern government systems. Rather than allowing itself to decay, the Jirga system preserved itself as a useful tool for sustaining a bare minimum standard of social contract. The formation of Loya Jirga at Bonn in 2002 proves the point, that indigenous local systems can be more sustainable than the fragile modern systems of the present day, particularly in the developing countries.
However, it is a fact that things change! Change can be seen the in society, particularly in the urban areas. There is a remarkable difference between the urban elite and the rural poor of the region. One area of change is the exclusion of women. The veil for women can be seen as a yardstick, to gauge if there has been any departure, from the old approach of gender exclusion. Some critics might argue that the pace of this change is too slow. The fact remains, however, that in societies today, there is enough space to highlight this human plight and argue for a social change in a non-violent manner.
What then is Jirga’s role in the process of social change? Jirga, the dominant social institution that guides and comprehensively defines all dimensions of life, such that individuals can live only within the framework defined by the traditional Pukhtoon culture, i.e. Pukhtoonwali through the Jirga. Even a religion like Islam is subjected to confirmation by the culture and traditions. Jirga then, will challenge any move towards a social change, unless necessitated by circumstances.
Fortunately, the process of Jirga relies completely on the establishment of communications, a medium that binds to continuous talking, even to their worst foes. It is the mastery of this art that Jirga upholds, offering a culture of peace and tolerance. Negotiation is the ‘Jirgamars’ hobby and pleasure, and they will always appreciate good negotiators. Jirga, therefore, can be engaged for any topic, attractive to the outside world. Beyond negotiation, Jirga would recognize only a war, as a natural compulsion, forced upon them, and obliging them to fight it out. Forcible occupation to them would remain a temporary phenomenon, an opportunity to get back to their traditional system.
As a traditional institution, Jirga has been tested over centuries, with its culture being exposed to alternative systems and pressures to change. What is the path for Jirga amidst these unavoidable dynamics? 

Critical Issues
Those who are disenchanted with Jirga, often regard it as an old tribal institution that has outlived its utility in modern times. Critics cite Jirga members as turning against the innocent and vulnerable, particularly where the Jirga system, applied in combination with the governmental legal system, becomes a tool for manipulation. Or, Jirga is entirely discredited with stories of Jirga members receiving bribes. However, concrete arguments against Jirga and the Jirga system, do emerge, from broadly stated negative stories. The word Jirga is misused in different part of Pakistan, in relation with the punchayat, in which a single individual or a few people give a verdict against innocent people of the community. This has badly marred the reputation of the term Jirga and its internal dynamics, which actually hinges high on taking each decision by consensus, and vulnerable groups, especially women, children and the aged are given due respect in all its decisions. These arguments can be broken down into many general themes listed below. Some of these are more visible in the media like: 

Reinvigorating the Jirga

Jirga cannot survive just on good intentions. Jirga will have to recreate its due space, if it wants to survive the challenges of the modern world. This will be a process of consolidation, of what it already has, and a rationalization of the aspects criticized by others, providing space for bridging the gap between traditional and more modern systems. Growth of this will automatically follow.
The proponents of Jirga will be required to bring a better-reasoned case before the outside world, in order to be taken seriously. At the same time, keeping aside the question of a viable substitute of Jirga, the opponents of Jirga will need to undertake a cost-benefit analysis, before simply discarding a centuries old social practice.
In our discussion, we have tried to see what a Jirga is and why it is so. We have also examined how it is practiced in contemporary times. We expanded on the many roles a Jirga plays in simple and still unique ways. We also saw how vulnerable a local system can be, when in confrontation with the present day complex issues of social justice. So where do we go from here? Do we want to scrap this centuries old practice, credited for guarding the social fabric, enabling us to survive and allowing us to move on? Or do we want to try to modify and improve it to suit the present day structures?
In between a ‘yes’ and a ‘no’ for Jirga, one can see many options, more viable than a surgical insertion of a new legal system. The British overlaid a foreign system on us, many decades ago, and we are still uncomfortable with that.  
Notes and References

Preferred Browsers : Internet Explorer 5+ 
Preferred Resolution : 800x600

Copyright © 2002-2008 justpeaceint.org. All rights reserved

Last updated on April 30, 2008

• Servants of GOD
• Peace by Games
• Picture Gallery
• Peace Prayers
• Home