|
Last
week I outlined the precarious divisions within the society in Pakistan
that are creating internal cracks, adding to the fragility of the
State. As Pakistan is perched on a global fault line between the paranoid
west and rabid fanatical elements in the Muslim world, external pressures
will threaten to implode the State. Two factors can pre-empt such
a possibility: a global re-alignment in foreign policy (which is already
one the way) and internal strength in terms of a solid system of governance
that has the vision and the ability to mend the cracks and create
a national fusion in the society. Otherwise, as pressures mount internal
cracks will widen into disintegrating fissures.
Over the past 56 years Pakistan has lived in state of emergency for
one reason or another. Either it was search for constitution or unstable
democracies or military interventions or polemic over constitutional
amendments. After dismemberment, the 1973 constitution continually
suffered mutations through suspensions, amendments, impositions, omissions
and drastic tailoring to the extent that its legal continuity has
become questionable. Perpetual constitutional uncertainty has played
havoc with development on all fronts - economic, social, political,
international relations and most of all country image.
Pakistan has vacillated perpetually between a conceptual wishful ness
to emulate the Westminster model of democracy and the practical expediency
of running contrived democracies through dictatorial, rather monarchical,
regimes. Even the alleged democratic governments during the seventies
and nineties revolved around autocratic central characters who manipulated
the parliamentary system with controversial authority, such that none
of the governments were able to complete their tenures. The parliamentary
system was reduced to a constitutional lever for imposition of personal
whims.
The military rulers were compelled to cobble up cosmetic representation
of the people through arbitrary arrangements. The transparency of
the democratic charades notwithstanding, the unquestionable allegiance
to parliamentary system is adhered to only as far as the letter is
concerned. The spirit is no where to be seen. Behind the wheels of
democracy, autocratic will of key people always rules supreme, whether
they are a part of a prime minister's inner quorum or a general's
team. The defence-driven foreign policy has always been a domain of
the military establishment. The economic policies are always dictated
by an 'economic Csar' who rules the roost while he is in good books
of the regime. The commerce and trade policy is manipulated by vested
interest groups covertly through the SRO culture. The rest of the
ministries are domains distributed amongst the faithful stalwarts
(party big-wigs or hand picked technocrats) as their personal fiefdoms
to use for political mileage.
I have witnessed functioning of the governance system first hand through
democratic and military regimes and have found little difference in
mechanics. It is always strong individuals, whether elected or otherwise,
who operate through the inert bureaucracy to exercise their aims.
The key elements of democracy are totally missing. The personal accountability
of the prime minister on the floor of the house, as in Westminster
model, or the candid public exposure of governance, as in congressional
committee coverage of the US system, are not known to our political
culture.
The point I am trying to make here is that the ethos of a parliamentary
system is at odds with the natural temperament of the society in Pakistan
as functioning of the state apparatus has shown over the past 56 years
through democratic and military rules.
There are some basic flaws in parliamentary form, as practiced in
Pakistan. First, the inextricable linkage between power and economic
bonanza has become a standard equation in Pakistan's democracy. The
entry cost of political activity shuts the doors on majority of people
in the country, who would otherwise be inclined to serve public good
with honesty. The major complaint against the current form of parliamentary
system is the poor quality of representatives who ascend to power.
Article 62 of the constitution stipulates stringent personal qualities
for a person to qualify for election to the parliament. Amongst other
he or she is supposed to have good character and is not commonly known
as one who violates Islamic Injunctions; they have adequate knowledge
of Islamic teachings and practices obligatory duties prescribed by
Islam as well as abstain from major sins; they are sagacious, righteous
and non-profligate and honest and ameen. Recent amendments in LFO
have instituted graduation as a qualifying clause for contesting elections.
In spite of the constitutional requirement of such laudable attributes,
persons of lesser moral fibre do manage to pass through the electoral
system. Not to speak of the phrase "is not commonly known as
one…" there are parliamentarians who have serious civil
and criminal proceedings pending against them in courts. In the current
government, four federal ministers are on the exit control list, including
the Minister of Interior. Mr. Zardari came on parole out of jail to
take oath in the last assembly. In civilised cultures, an unwritten
rule is a strong convention, whereby public office holders resign
voluntarily if their moral turpitude is under question from any source,
let alone court of law.
This parallax between preaching and practice indicates a serious weakness
in moral sensibility of the community to infuse the spirit in the
letter of the Law. In this case, it is obvious that good sense of
the people alone cannot espouse compliance. The electoral system must
contain some means of institutional filtration. Here, it is useful
to understand what motivates people to opt for active politics and
take up the arduous path to the assemblies.
Universally, lust for power is the common denominator behind politicians.
Nevertheless, power is only a vehicle to something tangible as the
ultimate goal. It can serve any purpose. In developed democracies,
power represents a particular economic interest group or advances
a cause that is of social, political or environmental significance
for the society. Occasionally power operates to advance some fanatical
creeds but even there, the ethos of the group is communal and only
those leading it are sometimes seeking personal glorification. In
Pakistan, like in other developing countries, political rhetoric thinly
veils pursuit of personal gains, be they economic or egotistical.
This is a heritage of the Agrarian Age when political power was convertible
into economic gains as a matter of birthright. More so, in the rural
social structures, dearth of political power makes individuals, families
and ethnic communities vulnerable to rival hostilities. The pursuit
for power begins as a pre-emptive instinct but soon turns into an
addiction. A strong rule of law and efficient dispensation of justice
would mitigate these tendencies largely.
Since insulation between the executive and the legislative positions
is thin, legislative powers provide opportunities of personal profit.
Instead of economic or social interest groups initiating candidacies,
individuals venture out to become self-appointed champions of their
electorates. Contesting an election on personal resources becomes
an expensive proposition. Hence, electoral contests are an economic
investment first, before a mandate to represent interests of the constituency.
The illiterate constituents accept this as a given reality of the
political process and begin to treat the candidates as power brokers
and dispensers of rights that are not accessible as a matter of routine
through the state bureaucracy. It goes even further; voters begin
to perceive the parliamentarians as vendors of state largesse, rightfully
and wrongly. The elected representatives mould their self-image to
the expectations of their voters and turn politics into a service
for which they assume they deserve a 'charge' or 'profit', specially
in lieu of their initial investment for the position.
The parliamentary system provides far greater opportunities to elected
representatives for converting political power into economic gains
because of its very nature whereby all sovereignty is reposed in the
parliament. The functional parameters of the legislature, the executive
and the judiciary are not clearly demarcated. It is up to the inner
moral discipline and conceptual understanding of the system which
ensures that elected representatives do not abuse the system.
In part II of this column we shall review other factors that subvert
the essence of a parliamentary system in Pakistan.
To be continued……..
Iqbal Mustafa
27 March 2004
|
