HE Minister for Law, Justice and Human Rights, Azam Nazeer Tarar, sang a strange tune at the UN. As the country continues sliding in corruption perceptions, democratic standards, and political and civil liberties, as evidenced by the recent deterioration in its ranking in various global indices that track these social indicators, Mr Tarar on Wednesday told attendees at a high-level segment of the 58th Session of the UN Human Rights Council that Pakistan remains `strongly committed` to upholding `all human rights`. Surprisingly, he held up the 26th Amendment as an example of the `robust legislative and policy measures` taken towards protecting human rights in the country.

Ever since it was enacted, the 26th Amendment has come to be known for many things. Upholding the Pakistani people`s rights is not one of them. Indeed, the consensus among most fair-minded folk seems to be that it has done quite the opposite.

Ironically, on the same day that Mr Tarar was painting his rosy picture for the UN, Freedom House, a Washington-based think tank that tracks democracy and threats to freedom around the world, declared that Pakistan remained a `partly free` country but also lopped off three points from its already dismal ranking on the index. `[...] Key factors driving the degradation in rights and liberties included violence and the repression of political opponents during elections, ongoing armed conflicts, and the spread of authoritarian practices`, it noted in a general comment on its ranking of various countries. Shortly after, the Economist Intelligence Unit reported a steep decline in Pakistan`s Democracy Index score, which dropped from 3.25 in 2023 to 2.84 in 2024.

Resultantly, the country lost six ranks in the index and was ranked third among the `top 10 worst performers` globally. According to the EIU, Pakistan is classified as an `authoritarian regime`.

Meanwhile, events at home appear to correspond to such assessments. As opposition parties attempted to hold a two-day moot on the Constitution and the present political situation, their efforts kept hitting roadblocks. They were reportedly turned away from three different venues before the organisers finally settled for a less prominent location. Even then, the hotel`s administration was compelled to tell its `guests` after the conclusion of the first day`s proceedings that they must take their conference elsewhere.

The opposition accused the government of having pressured the hotel to cancel their booking. As these words were being written, the parties were holding their discussions in the hotel`s lobby.

These developments, spread over a single day, suggest that the incumbent regime seems to have little interest in its rights record beyond paying its commitments lip service at international events.

Disturbingly, the regime seems to grow bolder in its defiance of its obligations with each passing day.