n November 2023, the high offices of the European Union made public their much-awaited report on Pakistan’s progress during 2020-2022 on the human rights obligations under the 27 international treaties. This joint report by the EU Council and EU Parliament, obligated by the General Scheme of Preference Plus, was part of an ongoing monitoring process. As an economic outcome of GSP+, the tax-free arrangement has made Pakistan the largest exporter to EU countries in recent years.

The report covers a number of issues and presents a sympathetic appreciation of the situation of rights and democracy in the country. It sits well with the decision of the EU Parliament in early October 2023, which extended the GSP+ for Pakistan till 2027, before a performance review and without Pakistan having to apply for it.

The decision of the EU Parliament was a huge relief for the fragile economy and good news, particularly for poorer sections of Pakistanis facing exceptionally higher living costs in the midst of challenging social, political and economic circumstances. Nevertheless, the question remains whether the arrangement will also help improve governance practices, democratisation and the balance of power.

The assessment appears to have taken into account some of the most grave human rights abuses that remain a daunting challenge. Considering that Pakistan has had ten years to comply with well-identified goals those responsible need their own assessment of the quality and effectiveness of the measures introduced, the time taken for full implementation and effective delivery mechanisms and outcomes on the stated objectives.

Progress on the abolition of the death penalty, enforced disappearances and religion- and gender-based violence has clearly been limited. It is in Pakistan’s interest to allow informed discussions and a performance audit. While the EU report allows a margin of appreciation to several plans of action , presented but not materialised, including the National Action Plan for Human Rights (February 2016) that promised to complete the outlined tasks by December 2016.

The action plan had outlined a broad range of reforms and legislation in seven thematic areas, including improving the judicial system; jail reforms; establishing autonomous and empowered national human rights institutions; and introducing laws to protect the rights of minorities, women, children, transgender persons and people with disabilities. However, the implementation remains largely deficient. Even where the enactment was completed, it lacked rules of procedure so that the laws remained inoperative.

A critical appraisal of promises fulfilled in this action plan for religious minorities does not make one proud of the status of implementation. For instance, the enforcement of Hindu Marriage Act 2014, and The Punjab (Sikh) Anand Karaj Marriage Act 2018, has been deficient. Although these laws were passed years ago, they remain ineffective in the absence of rules of procedure. The administration has not progressed beyond the Zero Draft of Rules of Procedures in 2023. The Ministry of Human Rights has failed to amend the Christian Marriage Act, 1872, and Divorce Act, 1869, because a consensus among the concerned community has been lacking. The establishment of the National Commission for Minorities’ Rights has also suffered exceptional delay.

Had this action plan been implemented in letter and spirit, it could have helped greater democratisation during the first GSP+ tenure.

Looking at these indicators, it is difficult to ignore that democratic transition and good governance have declined considerably over the past ten years. Besides the civil society in the country, international watchdogs, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and the UN special rapporteurs have been pointing out human rights abuses since 2014, when the GSP+ became effective.

The assessment by free trade regimes of the EU has to take stock of compliance with human rights goals, particularly the state of civil liberties in the beneficiary countries. Were the results of the tax relaxation regimes, for instance under GSP in India and GSP+ in Bangladesh and Pakistan, were satisfactory? How can monitoring and reporting improve those results? Did the achievements in improved economic indicators match the situation of civil liberties? GSP+ in Pakistan is a work in progress. Monitoring and international reporting have to focus on long-term stability and improved governance and substantive progress measured by objective criteria.

It is widely believed that the countries facing the challenges of political stabilisation and governance systems also face challenges in establishing democratic order, especially without civil liberties and a vibrant civil society. Human rights defenders, who bear the brunt of confronting unjust and authoritarian practices, are not a mandatory part of the review under the GSP+.

Civil society stakeholders can submit their reports, but these reports are not always entertained. There is an ongoing international conversation, including the need to bridge this gap.

The government and non-governmental stakeholders in the domain of human rights can benefit hugely by identifying and tackling the impediments to the realisation of human rights by utilising the existing analysis.

The stakeholders in Pakistan widely appreciate GSP+. However, it must strengthen democracy and not merely the economic indicators.

The author is a researcher, freelance journalist and a human rights activist associated with the Centre for Social Justice. He can be reached at jacobpete@gmail.com