A question of prohibition

This pix is currently circulating on the web, it reminds me of an article I read this morning :

After serving thirty years of the ban, during which consumption of alcohol beverages in the country has grown manifold, the debate on whitening of Pakistan's large black market in alcohol business has surfaced again. The issue was recently raised in parliament with one member of the ruling party making a case for its legalisation.

- By M Ismail Khan, The News,Pakistan.

However, the reason that he had given for this was very specific and conditional – he was saying that the country had a very high number of hard drug addicts and that alcohol could be used to wean these addicts away from these drugs. In addition to this, the issue has cropped up in civil society debate with some arguing for legalisation so that the government can through taxation enhance its revenue generation. Keeping all this in mind, there seems no harm in joining in the debate.

Now before I offer my own strong opinion on the subject, it would be prudent to look around and see what is actually going on in the big picture. Many of our zealots will be pleased to learn that George W. Bush is one the world's rarest head of state, commander-in-chief, and the chief executive, who doesn't drink alcohol. He reportedly quit drinking when he was in his twenties and has managed to stay that way. However, this is not to say that Mr Bush would have been more considerate about the loss of human lives in Iraq and Afghanistan caused by his policies had he not been a 'dry' person.

The United States banned alcohol in 1920 through the eighteenth amendment to its constitution, prohibiting the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors. But it took only a decade or so for the people there to realise the futility of this exercise, and the amendment had to be repealed – by another one, the twenty-first, in 1933. Though many historians credit the prohibition act to political pressure exerted by feminist groups fighting domestic problem, but since till 1920 women did not even have the right to vote in the US, most likely the prohibition experiment was the result of earlier movements by fundamentalist religious groups, especially the Methodists, and later on by the Protestants, against alcoholic beverages. Similar prohibition attempts, made from time to time in other countries like Canada, Russia, Iceland, Norway and Finland have failed due to one reason or the other.

Muslim countries, or rather countries with predominantly Muslim population, have faced a similar dilemma. In open and liberal ones like Turkey, Malaysia, Egypt and Indonesia people enjoy considerable freedom of choice and this includes the right to consume alcoholic and/or non-alcoholic beverages. Those living in more conservative countries like Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia also enjoy freedom of choice but this they must exercise in secret. Those who have the money and interest can do this no matter where they live. But the secretive approach often results in disastrous consequences due to corruption and use of sub-standard products.

Iran has found it difficult to rid itself of bootleg liquor. Even after enhancing the punishment for drinking to 74 lashes, a heavy fine and imprisonment of three months to a year, Iranian meykash are not willing to give up. Despite the stringent crackdowns, and confiscations of tens of thousands of bottles, they find bootleggers who will get them anything from French wine to Russian vodka.

In March 2006, the Saudi newspaper Okaz reported that as many as 20 people died after drinking poisoned cologne in the cities of Makkah, Taif, Medina and Riyadh, and 40 other people were also admitted to hospital, some in critical condition. Saudi Arabia applies a strict interpretation of Islamic law, bans alcohol but the people are so pent up that they drink the nearly poisonous cologne in the kingdom as a substitute for alcohol, or that's what the report would suggest. Recently, the Saudi ambassador in Ankara created waves in the media by serving alcoholic beverages to his guests at a mixed dinner held to celebrate the arrival of the new ambassadors from Yemen, Algeria and Palestine.

Pakistan is no exception. Here, every year newspapers report confiscation of thousands of liquor bottles, and dozens of people dying after drinking substandard and/or poisonous homemade liquor (in many cases what they end up drinking is no different from pure spirit). From 1947 to 1977, alcoholic beverages were tolerated publicly, and small scale and well-regulated liquor houses were open under the supervision of the government in bigger cities. However, in 1977, Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, an avid socialite himself, in his efforts to appease the religious establishment, enacted prohibition.

Thirty years down the line, it is perhaps a good time to reflect on the progress made so far. It would be interesting to find out how Pakistan of 2007 is faring with the Pakistan before 1977. Has prohibition succeeded in its basic objectives? Has it made people more pious than they already were? Have corruption, nepotism, street crimes, fraud, usury, rape, prostitution, drug addiction and all the other un-Islamic and immoral deeds gone down?

An honest assessment will tell us that it has not – prohibition has failed, as did the spirit behind the prohibition. All kinds of alcoholic beverages continue to be available to those who can afford them. According to a study, Pakistan has maintained a steady growth in the use of alcoholic drinks all these years. Per capita consumption of alcoholic drinks has crossed one litre in 2006, which is a pretty tipsy figure considering that 97 per cent of the nation is officially banned from drinking.

Smugglers, criminal gangs, and black marketeers are the biggest beneficiaries of the ban and are making billions of rupees in this tax-free illegal trade. The handful of licensed liquor producers such a Murree Brewery cannot meet the ever-growing demand in the country, and the covertly operated private distilleries pose bigger threats to human consumption due to their unhygienic and substandard quality.

This black market alcohol industry has also created new avenues for corruption and bribe opportunities among policing institutions. The biggest loser has been the state treasury -- which gets ripped off of major revenue in taxation and duty. There is no doubt that the use of alcohol is un-Islamic and cannot be encouraged but one cannot say the same for taxation on the use of alcohol -- a business that exists and is in fact flourishing outside the taxation net. Business, as they say, does not follow ideology. It can be regulated but cannot be prohibited as it makes its own way.



The writer is from the Northern Areas, and is presently based in Islamabad. He has a background in media, public policy, and governance.