The Balancing Act
by Jawed Iqbal
The
root of Pakistan's constitutional and legislative
troubles has been the inability to dequately and
proportionately share the balance of power in
between the executive, legislature and the armed
forces. The failure of democracy to take hold in
Pakistan is the result of this problem not being
seriously and properly addressed. The continual
intrusion of the army into the political system of
Pakistan warrants a permanent solution to be
carved out which throws away the key for such
possibilities in the future. The divide of power
and resources between the provinces has also been
a continual quagmire resulting in national crises
threatening the federation and has created
permanent feelings of mistrust amongst the smaller
provinces and alienation from the central
government. The inability of governments to
complete their term in office, has also been a
continual source of national turmoil. The above
mentioned problems ar! e all linked to the
imbalance of power between various institutions
and offices which have to be addressed once and
for all, the failure of which will be detrimental
to Pakistan's existence and stability.
In his recent TV address
president Musharaf totally rejected the concept of having a balance
of power but insisted on the unity of command. He proposed of having
an all powerful prime minister who on the other hand can be
dismissed by the National Security council. Thus his 'unity of
command' theory seems to be self contradictory, as the PM who is
dismissed by another body is not all powerful. The NSC having such
powers automatically divides the powers which Musharaf apparently
wants to vest in the PM. The term 'unity of command' may seem to be
the way how 'soldiers to things', but to the wider public this term
spells nothing less than dictatorship. May be it should not be
forgotten that the president will appoint the PM which makes it
clear where the PM's allegiance will lie. In a democracy
institutions are powerful not individuals. Power is shared amongst
the major institutions which stops the way of au! thoritarianism and
totalitarianism.
The reforms being made
to the senate at present are supposedly aimed at addressing the
issues relating to the power imbalance. The direct election of
members of the senate will reduce the possibilities of corruption
and favoritism, having a senate which is representative of the
electorate. As the senate equally and proportionately represents the
provinces, it is an ideal tool to rid the grievances of the smaller
provinces but this has not been the case in the past. The main
reason being that senate has been rendered powerless to influence
many legislative matters and has been deprived from interfering in
certain matters the most important of them being the budget. Thus,
in order to give the senate the importance due to the upper house in
a parliamentary democracy, its powers must be enhanced. The senate
of the past has been virtually insignificant in relation to all
major issues, resulting in the lack of harmony betwe! en the
provinces. The smaller provinces did not get their say in the
formulation of legislation, depriving them of their democratic right
to do so. Yet the senate equally represents each province thus any
unfairness which may exist in any legislation passed by the National
Assembly can be rectified by the senate. Presently it does not have
this ability which nullifies the purpose and ideology of a double
chamber legislature. The upper house in Britain, the House of Lords,
has regularly rejected legislation passed by the House of Commons,
the lower chamber, concerning many crucial national issues most
recently being the banning of hunting and the teaching of
homosexuality in schools. Thus the increase in the number of seats
and direct elections will bear no fruit unless the powers of the
senate are increased. The inability of the senate to have a positive
and constructive say on the budget is a major cause of the
provincial disharmony. Thus, this issue needs to be taken serio!
usly by Musharaf's government if it truly wishes to eliminate
provincial disharmony, once and for all. The senate also plays a
major role in keeping a check on the National Assembly.
The lack of progress,
development, strong and stable economy, discontinuity of policies in
Pakistan over the last decade has been by and large due to the
inability of governments to complete their terms in office. In the
nineties this was due to the president having the ability to
dissolve parliament. A crucial point worth mentioning here is that
the army did not prematurely terminate these governments namely of
Banazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, but it was one of the two. The
question to be considered is that should anyone or any institution
(National Security Council) have the power to dissolve the whole
parliament. Most decisions are made by the cabinet or the prime
minister, thus any misgovernance is limited to them not the whole
parliament. Thus, only the power to remove the prime minister and
the government should exist. The question of whom these powers
should be vested in is also imperative. The proposed Nationa! l
Security Council (NSC) seems to be the only institution suitable of
having such a critical power. The NSC proposed by the Musharaf
Government seems to be heavily dominated by the army which annuls
its purpose. To make the NSC more patriotic and effective in
avoiding future crises the NSC should also include the leader of the
opposition, the speaker of the NA, chairman senate and the senate
opposition leader, and the four Chief Ministers. The chief of army
staff represents the three forces thus only he should be in the NSC.
Such a composition will better serve the purpose of the NSC.
The process of having
national general elections is a national event which can only take
place by the involvement of the whole of the governmental machinery
and public sector workers which seriously interrupts the running of
the country and costs millions. The country cannot afford to have
national elections every 2 years or so, as was the case in the
nineties. The whole concept of dissolving a parliament is totally
undemocratic as no one should have the right to dissolve a
parliament which has been elected by the people of Pakistan. Such a
practice cannot exist in a democracy, where as the prime minister
and the government are chosen by the elected parliament. Rather than
the NSC having the power of dismissing the PM and his government, it
would be more democratic if this decision was left to a full bench
of the Supreme Council. If the NSC sees it fit to dismiss the PM and
his government then it will refer th! e matter to the Supreme Court.
The Nawaz Sharif
government was dissolved by a military coup, making it the fourth
time the army has come to power. The army is such an institution
which needs to be politically unbiased as its involvement in the
political process damages its credibility. It must be said that the
failure of the so-called democratic governments invited the army in
to power. The only way to stop such a fiasco in the future is to
rectify the power imbalance between the institutions, with regards
to the army it needs to be given a constitutional role. The proposed
NSC will fill this vacuum only if its composition is balanced and
proportionate. The above mentioned proposals will end the forced
entry of the army into government. This can only be achieved if the
elected government and parliament fulfill their duties and
responsibilities democratically and constitutionally. If the elected
government is successful then the army will be forced ! to keep out
of politics. The Proceeding elections will only be successful in
stabilising Pakistan if the issues regarding the balance of power
are addressed adequately before hand. The impression which president
Musharaf has given after his speech is not a positive one, only time
will tell whether he will take such recommendations seriously.
Mr. Jawed Iqbal, is an independent writer and a political
analyst. His articles appear in printed and electronic media of
Pakistan.
by the same author:
