No balance is the best balance
In our eighteenth amendment, the balance must be hugely tilted in favour of the prime minister
Even though an elected government is running the affairs of the country, post Feb-18 elections, the issue of balance of power between the prime minister, the chief executive of the country, and the president, the head of the state, continues to be debated.

No caretakers, please!
A caretaker government – as the name indicates – is responsible for taking care of state administration in the absence of a working/functional government. This government performs only the basic administrative jobs without interfering with matters related to policy. In the constitution of Pakistan, the provision for a caretaker government, at the dissolution of the National Assembly, upon completion of its term, was introduced by Zia ul Haq which later became a part of the constitution through the Eighth Amendment. He also formed the first caretaker setup under himself, without appointing a prime minister. Before this amendment, the elected governments were to continue even during the election period in case the assemblies completed their term or the Prime Minister advised the dissolution of the assembly.

More than two terms for the prime minister
Pakistan has had a history of overthrowing its prime ministers or removing them violently.
Interestingly, the office of the prime minister did not exist for three intermittent periods in Pakistan's history: from October 7, 1958, until July 3, 1972, and from July 5, 1977, until March 24, 1985 -- all of these being periods of martial law. In the third case, after Musharraf's coup, Pakistan did not have a prime minister till November 2002. 25 years in 62 years of Pakistan's existence! Repeated military interventions have not let our demotratic institutions work properly or even blossom and become better.

Provincial autonomy, now or never
Sixty years on and having lost half the country, have we learnt our lessons?Six decades after its creation, the distribution of powers between the centre and the federating units remains the most controversial issue in Pakistan. We lost one half of the country because we did not believe in provincial autonomy. Today the provincial autonomy proposed in the Eighteenth Amendment bill brought forth by the MQM is being criticized, especially by our Punjabi brethren, on grounds that it reminds of Mujib-ur-Rehman's six points. It appears we still haven't learnt our lesson. There was nothing wrong with Mujeeb's six points and it did not amount to treachery.

We do need government at the local level
In 1947 the areas that formed Pakistan had few developed systems of local government. Wherever local government existed, its programmes and budget was under the bureaucratic control of the Deputy Commissioner, the unelected local representative of the centre who enjoyed immense power.

ideally speaking...
For all one court, one law
The method of appointment of judges to change according to CoD; all parallel systems to be done away with
The present model of Judiciary, covered by the constitution, has courted controversy because of issues related to appointment and exercise of powers. The issue has gained special attention in the wake of the unceremonious removal of Iftikhar Chaudhry as the chief justice of Pakistan, followed by the removal of almost entire judiciary at the time of the Nov 2007 coup.

Article 248 to be revised
Immunity is the exemption from normal legal duties, penalties or liabilities granted to a person besides exemption from legal prosecution.

As the campaign for the Senate election kickstarts, ideas about what the eighteenth amendment would look like abound. Already drafts are being made and presented in the National Assembly. We at TNS want to share with our readers our own vision of what the eighteenth amendment should look like. We may have suggested these proposals are ideal proposals but the truth is that a major part of them have already been agreed on in the Charter of Democracy, signed by the two main political parties.

We have asked our regular contributors to make their own list of the changes in the constitution, which will form a part of the eighteenth amendment. Only time will tell how they fare when mixed with realpolitik.

-- Editor

Ideally speaking, Objectives Resolution -- initiated in 1949 as the first constitutional document to provide the foundation of the future constitution of Pakistan, adopted later as the preamble of all constitutions till it was made a substantive part of the 1973 constitution as per a presidential order issued by a military dictator -- must be taken out of the constitution.

History offers enough material to substantiate that the Objectives Resolution put paid to the secular vision of Jinnah conclusively stated in his Aug 11, 1947 speech... "you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state."

When Jinnah died thirteen months after the creation of Pakistan, it was time to move the Objectives Resolution in the parliament. Even though Liaquat Ali Khan, the then prime minister, categorically stated in the speech he made while moving the resolution that "the people are the real recipients of power. This naturally eliminates any danger of the establishment of a theocracy," the actual features were too lethal to be offset by these declarations. For instance according to "Whereas sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to Allah Almighty alone and the authority which He has delegated to the state… through its people…" power now did not rest with the people who were mere instruments of the state which was to exercise the authority within the limits prescribed by Him (God). The resolution was unanimously boycotted by the minorities and the opposition members.

In a classic and prophetic speech, Mr. Sris Chandra Chattopadhya, an opposition leader from East Bengal, said: "What are those limits, who will interpret them?... In case of difference who will interpret? Surely they are not the people. One day a Louis XIV may come and say "I am the State, anointed by the Almighty" thus paving the way for the Divine Right of Kings afresh. Instead of state being made the voice of the people, it has been made an adjunct of religion. To me the voice of people is the voice of God…" Prophetic words and a worth-reading speech, indeed. In our case the Louis XIVs came more than once, as military dictators, and at least in one instance did utter words to similar effect.

Chattopadhya boldly pointed out that in the Islamic state that this resolution envisaged, a non-Muslim could not be the head of the state, therefore the words "equal rights as enunciated by Islam" were a hoax to the non-Mulsims.

In the constitution we are supposed to abide by, the paragraph of the Resolution that used to read: "Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities freely to profess and practice their religions and develop their cultures" the word freely is now omitted as pointed out by Ardeshir Cowasjee in one of his columns.

The Objectives Resolution did many things to our polity. It settled the tension between the liberal elements who created the country -- modern educated Muslim professionals and government job seekers or the salariat in the words of Hamza Alavi -- and the ulema in favour of the latter. Alavi points out that majority of these ulema or mullahs opposed the Pakistan movement and criticized the secular leadership but later claimed they had fought for Pakistan "to establish a theocratic state for Muslims." He declares "it was a movement of Muslims rather than a movement of Islam."

The Objectives Resolution, when it came, was hailed by the mullahs. It did sow the seeds of a theocracy, leading to some strange developments in our political history. The country was named Islamic Republic of Pakistan in the constitution of 1956 and in the subsequent constitutions. Islam was exploited to gain all sorts of political benefits. The fact that there was no clarity about the role of religion or the degree of autonomy for the provinces or the balance of power between the governor general and the prime minister, and the Mohajir leadership had no political constituency led to a political and constitutional vacuum, paving the way for the religious lobby to assert its voice. Whatever happened in terms of religious rioting -- anti-Ahmediya -- in 1953 was actually politically orchestrated. Declaring Ahmedis as non-Muslims in the 1970s by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto too was a political ploy to curb the rise of nationalists and leftists.

That all this happened, leading up to the Islamisation drive of Ziaul Haq, we owe it all to the Objectives Resolution. Shariah as the basic law of the land, Federal Shariat Court, blasphemy laws, Hudood Ordinance, Nawaz Sharif's fifteenth amendment, we owe it all to the Objectives Resolution. Even though people in this country have never voted for the religious parties in the manner they have done in places like Turkey, Algeria, Egypt and Indonesia, we still have the Objectives Resolution as a substantive part of our constitution.

Till we decide this basic matter, we will never be able to touch the farcical and discriminatory legislation already effected. Objectives Resolution must be done away with. At least a debate on the subject must be initiated in the parliament.

-- Farah Zia

No balance is the best balance

In our eighteenth amendment, the balance must be hugely tilted in favour of the prime minister

Even though an elected government is running the affairs of the country, post Feb-18 elections, the issue of balance of power between the prime minister, the chief executive of the country, and the president, the head of the state, continues to be debated.

The president used to be a ceremonial post, strictly subject to the advice of the Prime Minister, as per the 1973 constitution. However, today, this 'balance' has tilted largely in favour of the former.

The Seventeenth Amendment, introduced into the constitution by Gen (r) Musharraf in 2003, empowers the president to make the most crucial appointments in the country, such as those of the provincial governors, the three services chiefs, chief justices of the Supreme Court as well as the high courts - without seeking advice from the prime minister.

Indeed, the most threatening of the president's powers, under the Seventeenth Amendment, is the power to dissolve assemblies through article 58-2(b), whose presence in the constitution negates the very essence of a parliamentary form of government. It threatens to subvert the democratic process and the broad-based consensus. This clearly shows as to what dramatic extent does 58-2(b) give the president control over the elected assemblies. Never before has the president been given such an enormous discretionary authority with seemingly no accountability for wrongful or erroneous use of power.

This is one of the fundamental shortcomings of the constitution embodied in the infamous article 58-2(b). And, it is because of this provision that the administration has actually taken the shape of a 'semi-presidential' form.

So far, five elected governments have been dissolved under this clause by different presidents, both military dictators and civilians, at different point of time. General Zia is, perhaps, our constitution's most talked about 'abuser'. He brought drastic changes in the constitution of 1973 through the eighth Amendment, passed by the Senate on Nov 14, 1985. The Amendment affected as many as 19 clauses of the constitution, bringing the office of the president of Pakistan almost at par with that of the prime minister. The president now had the authority to nominate the prime minister, the governors of the provinces, and the judges of the High Court and Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice. In other words, it almost reduced the democratically elected prime minister to the size of a glorified extra - subservient, of course, to the president.

Ironically, it was Mian Nawaz Sharif, deemed as a Zia protégé by most PPP leaders, who repealed this dictatorial clause through the 13th Amendment, in 1997, returning the constitution to its original form with the balance of power shifted back to the office of the PM. The president could not exercise his powers without the concurrence of the PM, as envisaged in the original Constitution of 1973.

TNS believes it is high time the 'champions of democracy' decided whether they would be content to blaze the trail of a Zia or a Musharraf who played around with the constitution to suit their purposes. If they are sincere to the ideals of democracy, they will have to get rid of the monster called the Seventeenth Amendment and restore a fair balance of power as per the constitution of 1973. They will have to ensure that the actual centre, in a parliamentary form of government, is the office of the prime minister. Benazir Bhutto was very clear on this issue, as is obvious in the Charter of Democracy: "The 1973 Constitution as on 12th October 1999 before the military coup shall be restored with the provisions of joint electorates, minorities, and women's reserved seats on closed party list in the Parliament, the lowering of the voting age, and the increase in seats in the parliament and the Legal Framework Order 2000, and the Seventeenth Constitutional Amendment shall be repealed accordingly.

The appointment of the governors, three services chiefs and the CJCSC shall be made by the chief executive who is the prime minister, as per the 1973 Constitution."

-- Aoun Sahi

A caretaker government – as the name indicates – is responsible for taking care of state administration in the absence of a working/functional government. This government performs only the basic administrative jobs without interfering with matters related to policy. In the constitution of Pakistan, the provision for a caretaker government, at the dissolution of the National Assembly, upon completion of its term, was introduced by Zia ul Haq which later became a part of the constitution through the Eighth Amendment. He also formed the first caretaker setup under himself, without appointing a prime minister. Before this amendment, the elected governments were to continue even during the election period in case the assemblies completed their term or the Prime Minister advised the dissolution of the assembly.

A caretaker government by virtue of being neutral is supposed to pre-empt allegations of rigging by holding free and fair elections. In Pakistan, the coup of 1977 was made after the opposition refused to accept the election results and both the government and opposition were sitting on a dialogue table. Hence the need for a caretaker government but our experience has been exactly the opposite and none of the caretaker governments were considered above suspicion. Most of the elections conducted under caretaker governments were alleged to be rigged.

TNS proposes that the eighteenth amendment should do away with the provision of a caretaker setup. The ruling government should remain in power during the interim period of elections. The election commission should be made more independent, impartial and responsible.

Moreover, in India, the ruling party is allowed to continue their work until the next government is ready to take over. The same is the case in UK and US where the party in power conducts elections through a neutral, responsible and independent election commission.

-- Sarah Sikandar

Pakistan has had a history of overthrowing its prime ministers or removing them violently.

Interestingly, the office of the prime minister did not exist for three intermittent periods in Pakistan's history: from October 7, 1958, until July 3, 1972, and from July 5, 1977, until March 24, 1985 -- all of these being periods of martial law. In the third case, after Musharraf's coup, Pakistan did not have a prime minister till November 2002. 25 years in 62 years of Pakistan's existence! Repeated military interventions have not let our demotratic institutions work properly or even blossom and become better.

It was Musharraf who introduced this amendment whereby a person who had held the office of prime minister twice was barred from holding it a third time.

Given this history of the country as well as that of the political parties, TNS proposes that the eighteenth amendment should allow more than two terms to a prime minister who is the real chief executive in a parliamentary system of government. a new amendment should be introduced whereby a prime minister may continue in his/her office after two terms.

-- Ali Sultan

Sixty years on and having lost half the country, have we learnt our lessons?Six decades after its creation, the distribution of powers between the centre and the federating units remains the most controversial issue in Pakistan. We lost one half of the country because we did not believe in provincial autonomy. Today the provincial autonomy proposed in the Eighteenth Amendment bill brought forth by the MQM is being criticized, especially by our Punjabi brethren, on grounds that it reminds of Mujib-ur-Rehman's six points. It appears we still haven't learnt our lesson. There was nothing wrong with Mujeeb's six points and it did not amount to treachery.

The financial dependence of provinces on the centre and its control on their natural resources strikes at the very root of the concept of provincial autonomy.

Similarly, the continuity of the concurrent list, even though the 1973 constitution stipulated to do away with it in ten years time, and centre's sway over purely provincial subjects is an anomaly yet to be removed.

In order to achieve this end, it is desired that the federation should look after a few essential binding subjects like defence, foreign and currency and a few others and leave other issues at the disposal of the federating units. Any amendment into the constitution must, first of all, call for abolition of the concurrent list and entrusting of control of other subjects to the provinces.

The centre's desire to control everything has roots in the political history of Pakistan which sees army in control most of the time. Field Marshal Ayub Khan even went to the extent of abolishing federating units and declared the whole West Pakistan as One Unit. So, when there is no democracy, the willingness to share powers and resources among each other is also extinct. This is exactly the case with Pakistan. But the constitutional right of democratic governance both at federal and provincial levels has been suppressed through regular amendments in favour of the centre.

Especially, the power of the president and governors to dissolve assemblies is tantamount to the negation of the provincial autonomy because the democratic right of governance is inherent in the autonomy regime. That is why, whenever the conflict between the prime minister and the president aggravates to the limit all the five assemblies, one national and four provincial, stand dissolved the same day.

Therefore, one can call for a constitutional amendment aimed at rationalising the powers of the president and making the provinces independent of any interventions from outside. Ideally, a provincial government must continue to work even if the national assembly is dissolved and throughout the process of electing a new one.

In terms of distribution of resources under National Finance Commission (NFC), the formula based purely on population needs to be reversed and replaced by one on the basis of multiple factors like area, poverty, per capita income, special needs and soon. The discretionary powers of the federation to release grants and blackmail provinces through direct transfers must also be curtailed. In the words of a former NWFP minister, Sirajul Haq, 62.5 percent of the total NFC remains with the central government, through which it uses the funds for blackmailing provinces. He alleges that all the mega projects had been completed from the NFC budget by the centre and all the schemes were being operated in Punjab.

One more pressing issue that needs to be addressed on priority is the control of provinces over resources owned by them. The centre's reluctance to give due share to the provinces out of the profits made through manipulation of these resources has estranged them (the provinces) further. The NWFP is constantly demanding power royalty and Balochistan asking for its share from gas proceeds. Therefore, nothing less than a constitutional amendment is required to ensure that the federation is no more able to deny them their share.

This is extremely essential as the damage has been done beyond control - something that can be assessed from the lines below delivered by HRCP Director I A Rehman at a seminar. He said: "The provincial autonomy (for Balochistan) is no more relevant, because the Balochs do not want autonomy, but to go beyond it. The centre betrayed the smaller provinces for the last 60 years, ultimately weakening the centre itself."

Last but not the least, the Council of Common Interests needs to be strengthened and made more effective. It consists of chief ministers of the provinces and an equal number of members from the federal government nominated by the Prime Minister from time to time.

The institution, had it been strengthened, could have been instrumental in ensuring provincial autonomy. A constitutional amendment is needed to make it binding on the CCI to hold regular and more frequent meetings and prescribe penalty for the government if it fails to form it in time and hampers its smooth working.

-- Shahzada Irfan Ahmed

In 1947 the areas that formed Pakistan had few developed systems of local government. Wherever local government existed, its programmes and budget was under the bureaucratic control of the Deputy Commissioner, the unelected local representative of the centre who enjoyed immense power.

As important decisions about politics at the federal and provincial level remained in doldrums, local government was not given a serious thought till 1958. The period from 1958 to 1969 saw Pakistan's first martial law as well as the development of an extensive elected system of local government. This gave rise to the Basic Democracies System, which was basically the political constituency of Ayub Khan, put in place to sustain him in power.

So if the first martial law was the pioneer in devising an extensive system of local governments, it was the second martial law of General Zia that once again implemented an elected local government. These were revived in 1979 under the provincial local government ordinances and Gen Ziaul Haq who shirked general elections made sure the local bodies' elections were held regularly during his eleven years.

Then came the third military coup in 1999. The existing Local Government Ordinance came into existence in 2001 as part of the 7 point agenda declared by General Pervez Musharraf. A National Reconstruction Bureau (NRB) was created for the purpose.

Ideally, local government is the level where we can address people's problems directly. For obvious reasons, the political forces do not trust this most important tier. It wasn't an ideal system; whatever was there on the paper was not implemented or amended. The institutional mechanisms that should have served the purpose of accountability were not put in place. The truth is that the devolution finally agreed upon was in line with the donor's agenda and the cash-strapped country did it out of compulsion and not out of free will. Those in favour of this change have argued that it would enable each province to evolve its own systems. Opponents fear that authoritarian provincial governments could disempower or even dismantle the system of local bodies.

We at TNS propose that in the eighteenth amendment must retain the good parts of the Ordinance. If needed, there could be an extensive debate in the parliament, so that the matter should be decided once and for all.

-- Naila Inayat

The present model of Judiciary, covered by the constitution, has courted controversy because of issues related to appointment and exercise of powers. The issue has gained special attention in the wake of the unceremonious removal of Iftikhar Chaudhry as the chief justice of Pakistan, followed by the removal of almost entire judiciary at the time of the Nov 2007 coup.

The Charter of Democracy (CoD), signed by the leaders of the two major political parties of the country - Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz and Pakistan People's Party - in May 2006, in London, during their exile, brought the PPP and the PML-N together on one platform where they agreed on constitutional amendments in order to make the judiciary more independent and powerful. They agreed that the recommendations for the appointment of judges to the superior judiciary should be formulated through a commission which shall comprise of the chairman (chief justice) who has never previously taken oath under the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) having chief justices and senior judges its members; and also representation from bar councils and federal government. They also agreed that an administrative mechanism should be developed in order to prevent any future misconduct and the removal of judges on charges brought to its notice by any citizen through the proposed commission for appointment of judges.

It was also agreed that all special courts, including anti-terrorism and accountability courts, should be abolished and such cases be tried in ordinary courts. Further, they decided on setting up a separate Federal Constitutional Court and leaving the rest of the cases on other courts.

However, the ruling PPP-led government seems reluctant to go ahead with the clauses of the CoD. This has resulted in a rift between the two parties.

Ideally speaking, there is a need for a transparently created independent and powerful judiciary that would function under a uniform system. There is a need to bring a uniform system of justice, abolishing all other courts and there should be one law and one forum for all citizens.

TNS suggests that there is no need for separate courts like the Anti-Terrorist Court, the Federal Shariat Court, Accountability Courts etc. Though these courts could be separated for administrative ease, they should remain under the ambit of the CJP and respective high courts.

There is also the need to make the whole system of appointment non-political. We agree with the procedure adopted in the CoD.

There is also the need for the appointment of apolitical persons and competent lawyers as judges of the higher and apex courts. The selection should be on merit alone.

There is also the need to make the office of the CJP non-lucrative. There should not be appointments of judges after their retirement.

They should not be offered any lucrative government or autonomous jobs after their retirement, to make the judicial system merely serving without considering age benefits etc.

There is also the need to hold all authorities and institutions of the state, including secret and intelligence agencies, accountable before the courts. There should be no immunity except that which is approved by two-third majority of the parliament.

--Waqar Gillani

Last year, a 70-page, final assessment report prepared by European Union's monitoring team, identified "enduring problems" in the Feb 18 general elections of Pakistan. Judging the pre-poll activities, the voting process, the consolidation of results, and post-election developments, against international standards, the report found several shortfalls and made strong recommendations for future polls. This wasn't the first time the Election Commission of Pakistan had come under fire. The need for electoral reforms was recognised during Musharraf's time, following which the voters' age was reduced from 21 to 18 and lists were computerised, women's seats were increased in the lower and upper houses, minorities were given the right of dual-voting, the seats of National Assembly and the four provincial assemblies were increased, and a ban was placed on the appointment of the prime minister for the third term. Interestingly, some of the very basic problem areas were not redressed. TNS compiles a priority list.

First and foremost, the common man's faith in the process of election needs to be restored. This will happen only when there is transparency, the rules are clear and there are no lacunae.

Eligibility issues should be dealt with prior to elections rather than at any time later. A huge fine should be slapped on individuals in case of a wrongful declaration of either statement of assets or other matters. Political parties should also be fined heavily to discourage lax candidatures.

There should be an advisory board of independent stakeholders such as political parties, media, legal fraternity, civil society, women and minority groups, and rights organisations which should meet at least twice a year to suggest procedural changes to improve transparency and to review progress on recommendations.

As for the Chief Election Commissioner, we have seen how, in the past, the president made appointments of persons of his liking. It is the parliament that should recommend a candidate before a bipartisan committee which should present ideas on how s/he would ensure impartiality and neutrality. The president should only endorse the candidate, not select him/her.

'Rewarding' experienced judges with the position of the CEC, after they have rendered 'services' at the Supreme Court, should stop. It should be made mandatory for the candidate not to accept any constitutional post for at least two years after s/he leaves the post, so that there is no 'incentive' for any services to be rendered.

This, again, is linked with the core issue of keeping the executive and the judiciary separate.

Voters' lists should not just be computerised but also posted online and updated. This means that the EC will have to evolve a system in relation with Nadra. Election time should only be a 'review time'.

There should be a complete financial autonomy for the EC. The CEC should be aided by election/electoral experts rather than government officials.

All candidates should be afforded a level-playing field. In other words, there should be no bar on any one person or group (of persons) on terms of prime ministership. If there has to be a bar, it should be what is instituted in the constitution, not laws.

Likewise, all citizens should be able to take part in elections except the rules (such as men can't be elected on women's reserved seats and Muslims can't contest seats for minorities).

There should be no independent candidates.

Announcement of results also need to be transparent, quick, uniform and linear so that chances of any bungling are minimised greatly.

Our eighteenth amendment envisages all these changes.

-- Usman Ghafoor

Immunity is the exemption from normal legal duties, penalties or liabilities granted to a person besides exemption from legal prosecution.

United States' constitution exempts the president from being tried in a court of law on account of "the diversion of his energies by concern with private lawsuits which would raise unique risks to the effective functioning of government." In England, the Queen cannot be prosecuted in her own courts because of the logic that she is 'present' in all courts of law. Hence, she can't prosecute herself or judge her own case. Indian constitution also exempts the president and the governors of the states from appearing before the court. They can't be tried in any court of law. However, the prime minister and the chief ministers of states can be tried under the same law as an ordinary Indian.

According to Article 248 of the constitution of Pakistan the president, prime minister, governors, federal ministers, ministers of state, chief ministers and provincial ministers "shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise of powers and performances of functions of their respective offices or for any act done or purported to be done in the exercise of those powers and performance of those functions." The president and the governors can be summoned by the court of law but they cannot be prosecuted if they are in office.

TNS believes that those holding the public office should be treated under the same law that governs the lives of all the individuals in the country. They should be tried under the same law as any other citizen. The eighteenth amendment should either do away with these immunities or minimize them as much as possible.

-- S Sikandar

The position of the president of Pakistan has traditionally been one of a figurehead with actual powers lying with the prime minister. However, because of military coups and changes in the constitution, the powers and privileges of the president have been altered a great deal.

Given the frequency of military coups and the fascination of the coup makers with the office of the president, we suggest that the president should only serve for one term. Besides, this office should rotate between the provinces to suit the needs of a federation.

-- A Sultan

Parliament for four years onlyArticle 52 of the 1973 constitution states, "The National Assembly shall, unless sooner dissolved, continue for a term of five years from the day of its first meeting and shall stand dissolved at the expiration of its term."

The present government, under the Eighteenth Amendment must revise the Parliament's tenure to four years. Four years is a lot of time for policy formulation by any government. A five-year term is a psychological barrier for a growing democracy like ours. The various opposition parties start conspiring after sometime. So it would be better that the term is that of four years.

-- N Inayat

Pakistan today is a country that has, under its political control, geographic units whose final status as equal parts of the state are yet to be decided or institutionalized, such as Azad Kashmir (AJK), Federally Administered Northern Areas (FANA), Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (PATA).

We all pretend or believe they are equal parts of Pakistan but they are really not, because instead of being governed by the same legal framework that is supposed to make Pakistan a distinct singular political entity, these regions have legal instruments of affiliation in place that in practice render them entities of lesser equality and leave their future political status open ended rather than certain.

The right to be considered an equal citizen of the state to which one has allegiance should be beyond compromise -- the same set of fundamental rights for all regardless of origin, race, gender, belief or caste. Varying degrees of restrictions on basic rights should be unacceptable. This includes the right to be able to elect your local representative to present your case on the basis of equal participation at the highest levels of decision-making such as the national parliament. But that is not the case for either AJK or FANA. And, where representation for FATA and FANA in parliament is in place it is not on the basis of the Political Parties Act that extends to the 'real' Pakistan – the four provinces.

Legal wrangles over geographic boundaries and land limitations should merely be administrative, not political, and not encroach on the sense of belonging and allegiance of units that are formal, legal members of the state. And yet in the specially administered regions (those other than the four provinces) of Pakistan, different laws for different regions exist that make them an anomaly and not part of the constitution of Pakistan. There are such black laws as the FCR (Frontier Crimes Regulations), which incredibly allow for collective punishments by the state for crimes of individuals in FATA. Then there is the selectively-interpreted Sharia-based legal and justice system already in practice in part and now being formally institutionalised in Malakand -- a large swathe of NWFP.

Can these parts really belong to Pakistan? These legal exceptions are appalling from a human rights perspective since they not only institutionalise discrimination but also provide a 'legal' cover to the faulty notion that citizens of different geographic regions within the same state can possibly have been born with (or deserve) different potentials and, therefore, can be treated differently. No wonder the tribal culture of panchayats and jirgas – impromptu narrow versions of primal justice – operate on ancient tribal customs that usually have no basis in equality of universal application of human values.

When the constitution itself cannot decree and implement a uniform code of rights and restrictions for all citizens, irrespective of their geographic origin, caste, creed or custom, vested interest groups create their own micro and nano states within the state, why should they be scared by sundry crackdowns when they know the state's will and intent is lacking on this score, and hence continue to prosper in stark mockery of what the constitution mandates.

If the state can't provide the same set of facilities and level playing field for human enterprise and empower people at the local level and allow representation of people on an equal and equitable basis at the national level, then why is it a surprise that people along the Durand Line don't recognise the political boundaries of the country as defined by the state and constitution?

By creating, implementing and enforcing different set of governance systems, administrative mechanisms and codes of rights and restrictions, the state itself has not just created but 'legitimised' semi-independent states within its larger political entity.

The state -- or the constitution in its current form -- doesn't provide the people of FATA, PATA, FANA and AJK equal rights in both codified laws and practice as it does Punjab and Sindh, for instance, so why is it a surprise that all these children of a lesser state are in a state of rebellion and restiveness? Their experience of daily grievance has built into a psychological rebellion, if not physical revolt. There is a strong argument that these areas have been deliberately allowed lesser rights in practice because they were used as strategic grounds for the establishment's geo-political designs -- the disastrous and failed quest for 'strategic depth' in both Afghanistan and Kashmir. The constitution must be changed to reverse this state of affairs.

It is understood that the Northern Areas have to settle a dispute over their affiliation or separation from the geographic state of Kashmir and that can't legally happen before Pakistan and India settle their overall Jammu & Kashmir political dispute.

It is also understandable that state is trying to adhere to a treaty of autonomy that Jinnah made with FATA and that administrative lethargy and a fear of upsetting the tribals prevents fully mainstreaming PATA areas into NWFP.

However, it is incomprehensible that when the state claims all these areas to be parts of Pakistan, it cannot extend the same set of fundamental rights as enshrined in the constitution to all these territories.

The legal wrangles can be settled when the time and conditions are right -- although neither seem to have materialised in over 60 years. Until then, what prevents the state from treating all these units as provinces in practice, giving them an equal stake in the federation through representation in the national parliament (both National Assembly and Senate) in proportion to their populations?

A constitutional amendment to this effect will ensure that these 'stepchildren' of Pakistan get their respective due shares in national resources on a more transparent basis. Representation in the national parliament for all the geographic units that make up either permanent or transitory membership of the political entity we call Pakistan will provide them an equal political, security, social, cultural and financial attention of the state.

The state should stop treating some of its children as adopted children – you can't have lesser membership of the same family. In a family, all have an equal stake in the current and future well-being of the whole. One member can't live in political penury while the others cavort in relative luxury of legitimacy. If the state can't perform this basic task, it should let the units go their way.

-- Adnan Rehmat