Who should balance which powers?
May 09, 2001
Having prevented ARD's May 1 Karachi rally, like the first one in Lahore, the military regime has become even more determined to achieve its political objectives: constitutional amendments to recreate "checks and balances" in the organic law. The overall aim is to cement the partnership between the Army and civilian (elected) politicians.
How times change. Earlier when people talked of checks and balances they meant the countervailing powers of different institutions to checkmate arbitrary action by the executive. The usages goes back to constitution making in America and an elaborate theory of the separation of powers was developed; no one organ was to be trusted with unlimited powers. Since the executive was meant to exercise political power, the whole idea of checks and balance was to prevent the possibility of its autocratic or arbitrary exercise of power. Other institutions, viz Congress and judiciary, were given key powers to balance the executive's weight and influence.
Such distribution of powers was crucial in a republic that was also very large with diverse people. Additionally, federal principle created a formidable set of intermediate institutions with defined powers that would, on the one hand, protect the independence and autonomy of small units comprising the people with some distinction or other and, on the other, maintain both freedoms and overall national unity. At the state and even local levels, in a federal set up, there is similar separation of powers, implying strict checks and balances to keep its executive both effective and accountable. These balancing institutions at lower levels too are independent judiciary, an elected Congress that jealously guards its privileges and powers of controlling the purse and other actions. There is also the implied fourth estate, but is not specified, it is a free press (media).
In Europe where the basic idea of democracy germinated, the aim was to offset the unlimited arbitrary powers of the King. The instrument was an all powerful Parliament. The Parliament was to create a government which will take away all the 'sovereign's' work from him while the government was dismissible as soon as it lost the Parliament's confidence. The idea is that the Parliament is what holds the government to account. This is the meaning of the 'king can do no wrong' - because he can do nothing. He is only a symbol of national unity.
The idea of democracy comprises several elements: Foremost is that the people are the ultimate sovereign even when there exists a king; in Britain, for instance, the Queen is called the sovereign but that sovereignty is now shorn of the power to act on her own volition. The Queen acts only on Prime Minister's advice, which requires the PM's political conduct is to be watched every moment by the Parliament representing the people. Elsewhere elaborate fundamental rights are written for citizens. In true democracies, fundamental rights now go beyond political liberties; they include the right to gainful employment by all, failing which the state has to look after his or her needs. Peoples' rights are sans limitations, other than a few restrictions in wartime. But these remain subject to judicial review.
Looked another way, the people's rights constitute rule of law in which law can still be defined as the will of the sovereign (the people) formulated by societal consensus. All Parliaments, whether the government is unitary or federal, jealously guard the right to make laws and control the government's purse and of course watching over its conduct: the government's survival is dependent on not straying from the people's will as articulated by MPs and in obeying laws or even commonly held popular opinions and preferences.
Despite a conceptual overlap with the rule of law, it is best to recognise two characteristics of a democracy: the society settles its affairs through rational arguments as everyone has equal right to have his say, no matter how odd the opinion may be. The whole society is steeped in tolerance of all dissent and minority opinions - as also all ethnic, religious or other minorities have to be afforded protection, equal status and rights. As for justice, it has to be wholly independent of the government's influence and should be informed with a liberal outlook and concerns for social and pure natural justice. Media's functions vis-a-vis the governance process are so basic that they are not even written down; they are assumed. Anyhow free flow of information and vigorous comment is the lifeblood of a democracy and the media also holds the government to account in detail.
Assorted dictators have traduced democracy in Pakistan as producing an inefficient government because politicians are supposedly self-regarding and corrupt. Dictatorships are uniformly justified in the name of efficiency, although few dictators have managed to 'run trains in time'. Dictators have made things worse (including by conniving in the looting of banks) than what the politicians could ever do. All wars - all un-won - were started by dictators, losing half the country in the process. They have, however, changed the political lexicon. Take the checks and balances. The assumption now is Prime Minister's powers need being checked and balanced. But by whom? There is also talk of partnership. There is no explanation of partnership between whom or of what kind. In ancient Athens, there were partnerships between free citizens and their slaves. People want to know whether the proposed partnership is one between equals. The intended partnership between the Army and the peoples' representatives, assembled in a National Assembly and provincial assemblies is sure to be crassly unequal.
When you analyse the much bruited idea of checks and balances, it turns out to be the revival of the President's infamous powers that were repealed (Article 58 (2)(B) plus the creation of a separate body, viz National Security Council, with powers to recommend the taking over of the government by the Army for hopefully limited periods. Obviously, the checks and balances are on Parliament's powers and of the government it creates. Moreover, the partnership between the armed forces and the peoples representatives is one between a master and his slave. For, the armed forces can in effect dismiss the government whenever senior generals think desirable. This is total negation of the very concept of democracy.
Whatever emerges out of the new political engineering, it can not be called democracy. Armed forces are trying to fashion a political system in which they would act as the guardians and Praetorian guards, with the ultimate power in their hands, all the while manipulating the so-called civilian governments. It would be the government of the armed forces by the politicians (with a democratic facade) for the armed forces powers.
History of the last 53 years intrudes. The first successful coup took place in 1953. It was carried out by a coterie of bureaucrats, with army C-in-C supporting it. Which is why the coup could stick. The Constituent Assembly tried to prevent future coups but was sacked without lawful authority by a civilian dictator because Gen Ayub Khan supported. There was later the charade of government changes manipulated by Col Iskandar Mirza, aided by Gen Ayub Khan. Later, the two generals made mincemeat of civilian governance and promulgated Martial Law. The country has remained under various martial laws and martial law-like governments for nearly 26 years out of the 53 years. The last 13 years saw five prime ministers being dismissed by a President who could not get himself elected from anywhere. How could he do that? Why the generals stood behind him. It was as good as the army throwing them out.
Pakistan is again being run by a General. He wants checks and balances on the powers of future prime ministers and by extension on the Parliament's (including the Provincial Assemblies). The intended partnership of armed forces with the civilian government will establish army's hegemony. Governments will hold office during the pleasure of "President" Pervez Musharraf. Existing Assemblies will 'formalise' the new partnership if pro-Musharraf 'like-minded' can competently play the numbers game. They belong to various parties. Otherwise, Musharraf can implement the changes through the legal ingenuity of experts like Sharifuddin Pirzada and Aziz Munshi, possibly with the aid and sanction of the Supreme Court. Since there is no resistance to the generals, their will shall prevail. There is little doubt about that. There is also little doubt that at least the Americans and the west, together with the IMF WB-WTO combine, have more or less accepted the armed forces' assurances that they shall continue to call all the shots in Pakistan politics. That means all will pretend that the democratic facade on the powers of the generals is democracy enough. The western media will not be too inquisitive either. Is there nothing more to it?
It seems to be ordained. It is likely to come to pass, the details of procedure are not important. The question of questions is whether the generals have assessed their own abilities of running a difficult country with a rickety and unstable state and even ricketier and far more unstable economy. No point in asking them to learn from the past; nobody does. But a reminder might be necessary for the record. The task they have undertaken in the changing configurations of world politics and deep domestic divisions and weaknesses would seem to be too daunting. This country cannot afford any more setbacks. Could Gen Pervez Musharraf and his associates by any chance agree to rethink their mission because the challenges facing the country are beyond their capacity to meet.
The rethink is required against a backdrop of military government's inability to evolve effective policies that can meet the challenges posed by various intractable problems. Among these one counts the state of the economy with special reference to the challenges emanating from the globalisation policies of the WTO and major powers. They are being further reinforced by IMF conditionalities. The Musharraf government's only policy is to obey the IMF and call the conditionalities home grown. That is inadequate.
The challenge posed by extremists Islamic parties, ranging all the way from Jamat-e-Islami to JUI and TNSM of Sufi Muhammad and so many Jihadi organisations, is going abegging. They all want enforcement of the Shariah. The enforcement being demanded is not consistent with modern structures of state and even the military-controlled democracy. Musharraf government is at sea where such problems are concerned. It does not like extremism but Kashmir Jihad is OK. There is also confusion regarding what Pakistan ought to become and who owns it today. The mainstream parties, including the generals, are simply unequal to the demands of the developing political situation.
On top of this is international isolation, originating in two separate domestic problems: The Kashmir Jihad policy of 1990 vintage and the Afghanistan policy the seeds of which go back to middle 1970s. Right now the Americans and the west as such do not like Pakistan's pro-Taliban policy. Should the west continue to excoriate and isolate Taliban, Pakistan would automatically be isolated. More pressure and sanctions can thus be expected. Rawalpindi has no policy to tackle it. Insofar as Kashmir Jihad is concerned, ever since Kargil, the Indians seem to have decided not to talk to Pakistan so long as the military government lasts. But the real problem is not India; it is the disapproval of the rest of the world of what pro-Pakistan elements are doing in the Indian-controlled Kashmir. Pakistan has no fallback position.
In view of the foregoing, the interests of Pakistan demand that the generals rethink their decision to establish their hegemony over Pakistan politics indefinitely. That seems like a prescription of national self-stultification--because they cannot come up with requisite responses. They should, therefore, call it a day.
The author is a well-known journalist and freelance columnist