Musharaf's
Address to the nation will be remembered for the oxymoron which he
presented to the nation, "to stop the army from coming in to
power, it must be brought in..". To rub salt into the wounds
he followed it up by saying, "..and I mean every word of
it". His solution to the repeated intrusion of the army in
Pakistani politics is to give it a permanent role in a body which
seems to be superior to the parliament. Not only has he made
elected officials responsible to non elected ones, he has also
given a body which consists of unelected members, the authority to
keep an eye on the elected parliament and have a say on the
dissolution of the parliament elected by the people. The final say
in dissolving the parliament, for the next 5 years at least, will
remain with an unelected president.
The basic idea of the National Security Council (NSC) is
acceptable due to Pakistan's unique circumstances and history, but
its role is supposed to be a limited one which does not interfere
with the existing institutions. Within a democracy, parliament is
the supreme body in terms of legislation, and the executive in
terms of governance. In addition to issues of national security,
Musharaf in his address, has given the NSC the task of safe
guarding democracy and inter provincial harmony.
Limiting the role of the NSC to that of national security is
totally sufficient in giving the army a more effective opportunity
to deal with national security. This will give the army a better
and more effective say on issues which are very dear to its heart.
The lack of this facility in the past has lead to the army being
forced to over throw governments. An NSC with such a jurisdiction
makes sense. The added tasks assigned to it by Musharaf can be
very dangerous for a democracy.
In a democracy the army has no role in politics, as the army is
such an institution which must have the trust of the whole of the
Pakistani population. It must remain independent which is not
possible if it is involved in the political process. Politicising
the armed forces is very dangerous for the security and
sovereignty of a country. "Achieving sustainable democratic
order and good governance", is supposed to be the job of the
parliament, with intra-provincial harmony being better assured by
giving the senate its due powers which have now been granted. |
|
 |
|
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 |
Vesting these powers into the NSC
shows total disregard and lack of trust for the parliament and
basically creates confusion of whether the parliament or the NSC
has the right to address a certain issue.
Whilst we are on the subject of confusions, Musharaf has declared
the Prime Minister to be all powerful with the slight minus point
of him being able to be dismissed by the president. In reality it
will be the president who will be all power as the slightest
dissent on part of the PM, will add another name on the list of
PMs dismissed by unelected presidents.
The only aspect everyone is really interested in is that will
these steps by Musharaf put an end to the ills which plagued
Pakistani politics over the last decade. Firstly, in the 90's the
army had its say every other year or so, now it will not have to
wait at all. Secondly, the corrupt, plundering, feudal, capitalist
politicians which Musharaf has held responsible for the woes in
Pakistan, all of a sudden, are only 'bad' if they are not in the
'King's party', so that is another issue which Musharaf's
government and these amendments specifically have failed to
address. Most of the MNA's of the nineties are back to contest the
October polls, with the government not encouraging new capable
leadership to take over.
So are we any closer to 'true democracy' now than we were before
October 1999? The 'optimist' will say there have been many
positive steps taken towards true democracy. The 'skeptic' would
say expecting democracy from a dictator is similar to expecting
the USA to do justice in Palestine. The 'realist' would say a true
democracy does not have a self appointed all powerful president;
an unelected watchdog body over parliament; power to dissolve
parliament in the hands of one man; selective accountability. So,
can anyone be 'out' at the same time as being 'in'. The simple
answer to that is 'No'.
This
article published in;
Local Media
|
To stay out, one must come
in!