A Presidential System?
Graduates of the Pakistan Military Academy (PMA) have been Army Chiefs since 1988, they have all been impressive in their own individual right. The first PMA graduate to become COAS, Gen Aslam Beg, could have walked into Presidential office on Aug 17, 1988 but wisely chose to let democracy have its say in Pakistan. Asif Nawaz Janjua would have certainly left his imprint on the nation if his COAS term had not been cut short because of his unfortunate demise. Generally an unsung hero of democracy, Waheed Kakar was a genuine soldier through and through, he must be lauded for (1) putting democracy back on the rails and not succumbing to temptation (2) disengaging the Army from Karachi and (3) reining back the ISI from its deep involvement in Afghanistan to a lesser inter-action, thankfully. Jahangir Karamat could have easily taken over the reins of government a number of times, he was easily the most cerebral among the lot and we expected a lot more than he eventually gave to the Army, unfortunately he was not equipped to deal with court intrigues. His removal (by resignation) gave the then PM Mian Nawaz Sharif a wrong signal, a feeling of political omnipotence. This ultimately brought him to grief on Oct 12, 1999 at the hands of his own appointee Pervez Musharraf when Mian Sahib tried the same “power play” without the finesse of his first civilian “coup”. The present incumbent has been impressive in keeping with the quality of his predecessors. Particularly in the realm of external affairs Pervez Musharraf has been outstanding, deflecting the concentrated fire of the western guns that India had contrived overtime to make Pakistan the target of.
While Musharraf domestically has been an able administrator the present upswing in the economic situation is really a combination of luck and a modicum of good economic governance set in motion since 1993. A military regime has more freedom for implementation than a political one, then again 9/11 proved an economic windfall for Pakistan. Unlike his school and college salad days, Musharraf started being serious about his education during his military career, he is extremely well read and quick on the uptake. Above all, he is decisive. Unfortunately he has not had much help, the civilian technocrats he has worked with have not matched his competence and/or penchant for reform, they are generally “B grade” professionals whose loyalties have been on offer to all of his predecessors government, their ambition being to find fulfillment in whatever in public office was given to them by Ms Benazir, Mian Nawaz Sharif or Moeen Qureshi. Incidentally these people were close confidantes to all these former PMs. Content with dazzling a basically economically-naïve military regime, the present effort of the “technocrats” (a combination of multi-national company (MNC), world financial institution employees and retired as well as serving bureaucrats) is focused on returning to the previous status quo (of one – man rule) by de-stabilizing the present political government somehow and get one of their own in as PM (the Moeen Qureshi example). The aim is always the same, to acquire and then hang onto power in their “second” careers. Their other (and favourite) “technocrat” option is to convince the President to amend the Constitution suitably, done “legally” by the “master-defacer” himself to bring in a Presidential form of government. The technocrats may have all the powers, it is solely and wholly dependant upon the goodwill of one man and that also from the military, therefore the need to legalize the system so as to permit their continuity even without their present mentor, Gen Pervez Musharraf. Taking look at the close associates and advisors of all the military dictators since Ayub, you will find that Ayub’s (and Yahya’s and Zia’s) associates and those of Musharraf (40 years apart) may even be the same or have a remarkable similarity. The “decade of reforms” initiated in 1967 was meant to elevate President Ayub Khan to cult status, the public reaction to the overdose of publicity jeopardized Ayub’s place in history. Engaging in a variation of a similar exercise is no surprise, these “technocrats” are exhorting the President day in and day out that a Parliamentary form of democracy will not work and to guarantee his place in history and for Pakistan to progress a Presidential system is necessary. Subverting the Constitution by trying to supplement it with a more authoritarian one may be treason but the stakes are high and in comparison the risk only a calculated one since they have finessed the art of shifting of loyalties to a new master.
Both Ayub Khan and Ziaul Haq are primary examples that a Presidential form of government was built to suit one man, such a system cannot succeed anywhere in the third world. The same wrong advice about having a Referendum in April 2002 eroded the President’s genuine popularity. The Zia debacle should have once and for all undercut the credibility of any such exercise, the mere mention of Referendum in Pakistan creates bad vibes. Because some lower minions always try to be “more loyal than the king” and tried to stuff ballot boxes in some areas, an “inherited” doubt was force-multiplied by the media, already up in arms because of the Faisalabad incident when they were lathi-charged by the police. A Presidential system that would make Musharraf a “democratic” dictator benefits a select coterie that are the beneficiaries of “selection” and can never be elected themselves (except in safe seats provided for them by those who need to be held accountable much more than others). These characters need to have a system in place which not only does not question their misdemeanors over the years but provides legal cover and continuity for the future.
When the President stated publicly in Hyderabad recently that if the LFO goes so do the Assemblies, in purely technical terms he is right. What about the increased number of seats, what about the 60-seat enhanced women participation, what about the graduation requirement, etc? In the absence of the LFO what is the legal basis of the system that brought these Assemblies to power? Pervez Musharraf is sitting pretty; except for stray street protest that may or may not turn ugly he would probably ride out the storm. He could then simply opt to go back to the 1973 Constitution and having amended it suitably he would continue his rule while another election is held, this “filibuster” could go on and on. A large number of candidates (including these presently disqualified because of the graduation requirement) will compete for a lesser number of seats. More than 200 present Members of the National Assembly (MNAs), many of them opposition stalwarts, will forfeit their seats, most will not get elected again for varying reasons. There will be lesser effort required for electoral manipulation. While it may not be the ideal solution, but a Parliamentary democracy under the 1973 Constitution will still be better than the Presidential system. But does this route have any permanency? Or is expediency the only principle? In any case, any democracy that any military ruler oversees will invariably be subject to Presidential diktat in third world countries. However today what we have is a parliamentary democracy with a President enjoying “special powers” that can over-ride Parliament, in effect a Presidential system in all but name.
The Federation requires dissenting voices as much as it needs consensus, strangling dissent leads to frustration boiling over. That could easily snowball, leading to anarchy. The raison d’etre for a Presidential form is to avoid debate and protest thereof, that “technocrat” objective is anathema to the concept of democracy. Democracy “suited to the genius of the people” was the catch slogan of both Ayub Khan and Ziaul Haq. It requires no genius to ascertain that any democracy where the voice of the people is stifled is not conducive for countries like Pakistan.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment