The root
of Pakistan's constitutional and legislative troubles has been the
inability to adequately 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 are 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
authoritarianism 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 between 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 seriously 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. |
|
|
|
About
Writer:
Mr. Jawed Iqbal, is an independent writer and a
political analyst. His articles appear in printed and
electronic media of Pakistan
eMail : JAWEDS_WORLD@HOTMAIL.COM |
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 National 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 the 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.
Source: Pakistan
Observer
|
The Balancing Act