During election season, our politicians cleverly tap into one of the best resources of our country – our youth. The youth participate vigorously in all the jalsas, knock on doors in the scorching heat, rally voters, and vote themselves.

However, when the election is over, rarely will the youth who got the representative elected in the first place be asked for their thoughts on a law that impacts them. Nor do the youth have a platform to petition for any new law, co-innovate with their representative, debate, voice, or be an active part of the law-making process. Unfortunately, deliberately or by default, youth participation in our democracy is limited to the sole act of voting or protesting at jalsas – swiftly marginalized once their zeal is no longer required.

Digital democracy is a novel solution to ending our youth’s marginalization; it is the answer to the software update our democracy desperately needs, especially in Pakistan, given that 64 percent of the nation is younger than 30. Civic tech, a conglomeration of technologies such as AI and blockchain, can help connect citizens with governments, allowing them to engage with their representatives and constituency to collaborate and play their part.

Our youth sadly do not have mechanisms to participate, deliberate and collaborate on policymaking that impacts them. They must mandate transparency and easy access of information from the government at all levels. This way, we no longer marginalize the citizen to vote only but involve them in the law-making decisions faced by the representative post-elections.

When Uber, a ride-sharing app, came to Taiwan, taxi drivers protested against it and citizens voiced their concerns about various aspects of the app. In a situation like this, elected officials, often aloof from public sentiment or lacking the proper expertise, are tempted to decide in isolation. This tragic disconnect is also true in Pakistan, where politicians are deemed magicians with all solutions and intelligence. However, Audrey Tang, the newly appointed Taiwanese digital minister, held online consultations using machine learning AI technology to “attract consensus” on the Uber issue. The deliberation process spearheaded by citizens eventually led to a set of new legal regulations adopted by the government. The citizens, alongside the representatives, debated, voted, and helped craft a law that allowed Uber to operate in Taiwan.

Rather than acting alone or forming sluggish committees to solve these complex challenges, the digital minister wanted citizens to be partners in a solution; she calls this “crowdsourced policy-making.” Almost all official meetings on Uber were streamed live or recorded, and meeting minutes were uploaded online to update concerned citizens. Digital information access to citizens complemented by civic tech proved to bring speedy and inclusive solutions through informed participation.

Another good initiative is an e-petition platform introduced by the Taiwanese minister, which allows citizens to get an actual response from the concerned ministry once a petition receives over five thousand signatures. This mechanism allows the elected officials and concerned citizens to connect face to face to raise awareness and solve policy issues together through technology.

Beyond the benefits of participation, future governments can use AI and Blockchain to provide citizens information transparency and deliver good governance. In the US and UK, federal agencies use AI to make procurement or social welfare transactions corruption-free. For example, in the UK, the department of work and pensions has a developed algorithm that gathers information from different agencies to warrant if the person receiving entitlement is genuinely deserving. Through blockchain, an immutable ledger, land titles can be dispersed, creating a corruption-free and robust implementation of property rights, a fundamental principle of any democracy.

Even though the rise of digital democracy will strengthen democracy and empower our youth, it still has a long way to go. First and foremost, it is integral that the digital infrastructure goes across societies and communities to avoid the digital divide. Significant work remains to provide access to broadband internet to citizens worldwide. In Pakistan, for example, only 35 per cent of the population has access to the internet. Internet penetration is critical and a barrier to the success of digital democracy.

Future governments in Pakistan need to change how they can utilize technology to strengthen democracy and empower the youth. We must go beyond complaint portals to create space for our youth to collaborate and shape their future. The youth must demand this shift of their new leaders and parties. The youth must strive to voice their concerns, mobilize conversations, petition for improvements, co-innovate, crowdsource new laws, or recommend changes to previous ones. Our youth’s talent and brain power must not go to waste; let’s demand 21st-century solutions to make our democracy stronger and shape our future.

The writer is a graduate of the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

Read more

SC notes juvenile justice system finds its ideological roots in Constitution

ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has observed that Article 35 of the Constitution provided that the State should protect the child.

It added that Article 25(3) empowered the State to make special provisions for the protection of children even if it discriminates against the adults.

“The juvenile justice system also finds its ideological roots in the Constitution,” read a six-page order authored by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah while granting post-arrest bail in a murder case under Section 6(5) of the Juvenile Justice System 2018.

A division bench of the apex court led by Justice Shah further noted that Pakistan was a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Child (UNCRC) and was thus under an international obligation to take special measures for the protection and rehabilitation of the juveniles who come in conflict with law.

“It was for the compliance of this constitutional mandate and for the fulfilment of this international obligation that the Act was enacted by the legislature of Pakistan. The main object of the enactment of the Act is to modify and amend the law relating to the criminal justice system for juveniles by providing special focus on disposal of their cases through diversion and social integration for their rehabilitation.”

The court noted that Article 37 (b) of the UNCRC provided that the process of arrest, detention or imprisonment of a juvenile is to be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time, while para 28 of the General Comments of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC)12, which interprets Article 37(b), says that the use of deprivation of liberty, and in particular pre-trial detention, is to be strictly limited. Section 6 of the Act that deals with the release of juveniles on bail pending his trial actualises Article 37 (b) of the UNCRC.”

The judgment further noted that the conceptual framework of the juvenile justice system, which has been carved out of the general criminal justice system.

“Juvenile justice system is not retributive in character, it is primarily rehabilitative and restorative. Restorative justice is ‘a theory of justice that emphasises repairing the harm caused by criminal

Behavior’. It rests on the ‘best interest of the child’ and ensures fulfillment of [their] basic rights and needs, identity, social well-being, physical, emotional and pscyhological development. This therapeutic underpinning is the central theme of the juvenile justice system.”

The verdict noted that juvenile courts, by their very nature, were designed to be more therapeutic than the adult criminal justice system.

“Juveniles differ from adults in their development and their needs.”

The SC noted that in the present case, the [lower] courts had failed to appreciate the scheme of the Act

“[And in particular that of Section 6(5) of the Act, which has been enacted to counter the negative effects of long-term detention on the juveniles in jails.”

“The [lower] courts below have thus committed a patent error of law by not allowing the benefit of Section 6(5) of the Act to the petitioner, when the delay in completion of the trial was not attributable to any act or omission or of any other person acting on his behalf.”

The SC therefore converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it. “The impugned order is set aside and the application for post arrest bail of the petitioner is accepted under Section 6(5) of the Act on the ground of delay in completion of the trial exceeding a period of six months since the date of his arrest in the case. The petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs500,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.”

The court also noted that in the present case, the petitioner was arrested on March 18, 2021 and he had been detained for a continuous period exceeding six months since his detention and his trial had not been completed when he applied for the relief of bail before the trial court and the high court. “The trial court declined the relief of bail to the petitioner without discussing the fact who was at fault for the delay in completion of the trial.”

The SC observed that while the high court had noted that the delay occurred due to failure of the investigating officer in timely submission of the final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

In the latest report , it added, submitted by the trial court, dated May 25, 2022, on requisition of SC, it has been reported that the delay has occurred due to filing of a private complaint by the complainant.

“The delay in completion of the trial is thus not attributable to any act or omission of the petitioner or any other person acting on his behalf, and the petitioner is therefore entitled to be released on bail, as of right, under Section 6(5) of the Act.”

The SC told the trial court to conclude the trial of the petitioner expeditiously as undertaken by it in the report submitted to this court.

Read more

Increase in average global temperature by 0.04 °C per year would reduce world’s real GDP per capita by more than 7%

Now everyone, everywhere, agrees or at least experiences first hand the irregular weather pattern caused by insane human actions! And if not reversed, with some targeted interventions into the way we produce and consume things, this pattern will get worse and worse over time until the mother earth becomes unlivable for all species. It will metamorphose into Mars which, astrophysicists believe, might have had all life-supporting conditions in the past but it is now anything but livable.

The earth’s climate has changed throughout its history. According to some estimates, just in the last 700,000 years there have been 7 cycles of glacial advance and retreat with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilisation. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

But substantial evidence is available through direct observations made on and above earth’s surface that planet’s climate is significantly changing at a rate that is unprecedented over millennia, and human activities since the mid-20th century have been the primary driver of those changes. The carbon dioxide and other gases have the ability to trap heat. Evidence from ocean sediments, tree rings, coral reefs and layers of sedimentary rocks indicate that CO2 from human activity is increasing more than 250 times faster than it did from natural sources after the last Ice Age.

Let us look at some data and see what is happening in and around the earth making it hostile for living in the foreseeable future. The planet’s average surface temperature has risen about 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century. The years 2016 and 2020 are the warmest year on record. Global sea level rose about 8 inches (20 cm) in the last century. Spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and the snow is melting earlier. The survival of coral reefs, considered the ‘rain forests of the sea’, and host around 25% of marine species, is in danger. Atmospheric CO2 is absorbed in the sea and lowers the pH of seawater threatening the survival of coral reefs.

What does all this tell us about the existing economic order and its sustainability? A study by researchers from the IMF and University of Oxford show that a persistent increase in average global temperature by 0.04 °C per year would reduce world’s real GDP per capita by more than 7% by the end of 21st century. Climate-vulnerable countries pay a higher risk premium on their sovereign debt

Foreign Direct Investment tends to be lower to locations that are more vulnerable to climate effects such as increased rainfall and flooding, warm temperatures and droughts. Firms in vulnerable climates (major storms, flooding, heatwaves) have lower and more volatile profits and cash flows, hold higher amounts of cash and use long-term debt. Financing is also costly for firms exposed to climate change. Investors demand 92 basis points higher return to invest in firms affected by severe drought conditions.

These numbers, though large, are an underestimate according to a recent large survey of CEOs, academics and bankers. The picture is not all gloomy, though. Climate change can be turned around if there is global consensus on actionable policies. It is estimated that spending about 3% of global GDP on reversing climate change through reforestation, investment in renewable energy and cleaning the oceans can have a substantial impact.

There is already good work underway around the world. Some countries have started discouraging carbon emissions and promoting the use of green renewable energy sources. Evidence from recent studies suggests that financial markets have started pricing carbon related risks. Investors demand higher returns to invest in the stocks of firms with higher total CO2 emissions. Likewise, banks charge higher interest rates and use more covenant restrictions to lend to firms responsible for adverse climate incidents such as oil spills, excess carbon emissions and deforestation projects. All these actions, though admirable, are not enough to save the ecological disaster. Countries and MNCs need to do more and on sustained basis to thwart climate calamity.

Read more