Resolution For 2007
All individuals have a responsibility to the community and to the family, this is force-multiplied manifold for those in power in the country, that responsibility must be used for the good of the people and the nation they govern. For the rulers of Pakistan and Bangladesh the prime resolution for 2007 must be to hold free and fair elections. Musharraf has recently said that the “Elections 2007” will decide Pakistan’s destiny, one believes it is the way the elections are conducted that will decide the country’s destiny. I also believe Musharraf has both the vision and courage to fulfill this destiny. While the usual classic mistakes of governance in an enduring search for survivability scar his otherwise benign rule, Musharraf’s successes still far outmatch his failures.
Having been at the ground zero in 1971 of the division of the finest experiment of nationhood in its time, no loneliness and no divide was bigger at that particular time than being the child of a Punjabi father and Bengali mother. Thirty six years later the travails of the two countries, Pakistan and Bangladesh are remarkably similar, a failure for inculcating a democracy suited to “the genius of the people”. Even though the aforementioned phrase may have wrong connotations in public perception, the need for crafting of democracy according to the special needs and circumstances obtaining is true of any country in the world. The democratic structure in the US is different from UK, which is different from France, which is different from Germany, and so on, the balancing of power is finely tuned and varies according to the needs of that particular country. The elected representatives must have all the necessary powers except the ability to run riot with it.
Elections in Pakistan must be held under a genuinely neutral “Caretaker Regime”. Dr Ishrat Hussain, the previous Governor State Bank of Pakistan (SBP), is being held in “strategic reserve” by Pervez Musharraf for that role. Bangladesh’s “caretaker regime” was a successful system thrice over, the last BNP regime unfortunately corrupted that process. Pakistan can learn from the successes and failures of Bangladesh in putting a foolproof system in place. Instead of the last retired Chief Justice Supreme Court becoming the Head of the Caretaker Regime, all judges of the Supreme Court retired since the last elections must be considered, with seniority and willingness as priority by the major political parties in Parliament. If they do not agree, the Chief Justice, should himself appoint a Head of a Caretaker Regime in consultations with his colleagues. Bangladesh has only been avoiding military intervention uptil now because the present COAS Bangladesh Army, Lt Gen Moeen Ahmad and his immediate colleagues, are adverse to imposing martial law, even on the “Chief Executive” pattern a la Pakistan. How long will they be able to resist this possibility and will Bangladesh be consequently lucky in the choice of the next COAS? Similarly the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) must be chosen from a slate of candidates duly vetted by the Chief Justice. Where is the impartiality of an Election Commission if its Chief (and consequently the machinery put in place by him) is clearly pushing one particular political party’s mandate? What good is a democracy if the election machinery is politically tainted and the credibility of the elections are likely to be called into question?
All candidates for offices must be screened by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) as to whether they are persons of integrity and character, their assets (and those of their close relations) are correct as stated and acquired within the means of their livelihood, also that they have been paying due taxes on their earnings. While this was done to an extent in Pakistan, it still has lot of loopholes, in Bangladesh the political parties somehow avoided this “financial” screening. Consequently if a person gives a false statement about his (or her) assets, he (or she) must not only be disqualified, the person should be tried and convicted for perjury. All aspiring candidates must also sign an affidavit re-affirming his (or her) allegiance to the integrity and sovereignty of the Federation.
Elections to any post must be direct, this includes election to the Senate. Our indirect Senate elections are an enduring disgrace, an insult to the name of democracy. And shame on us for closing our eyes to the open auction for Senate seats! Majority vote ad proportional representation are basic requisites of a democracy. If there is no clear cut majority of 50% plus one vote in any constituency, then should be “run-off elections” between the first two candidates. For countries beset with religious, sectarian, ethnic, etc schisms, a run-off election is mandatory. Even India’s successful democracy may come thus under stress in the future. On the first-past-the-post system, a powerful minority will always come to power as is the case in more than 80% of the seats in our National and Provincial assemblies. Over the years as the majority of the people become frustrated about their choice ever coming to power, less and less people go out to vote. A powerful minority eventually is transformed by default into a majority. Also, the numbers involved and the clear choice between two candidates makes it difficult to rig and manipulate a “run-off vote”. To avoid the frustration and marginalising of smaller parties, it is necessary to give them some voice in Parliament through “proportional representation” ie 50% of the available seats should go to the losing candidates of the political parties on the basis of the percentage of the total votes cast.
The institution of the President and the Chief Justice must be strengthened to balance a democracy from becoming “winner-take-all, preventing it from becoming the “camouflaged dictatorship” it became during the rule of Benazir Bhutto and Mian Nawaz Sharif in Pakistan and Begums Khaleda Zia and Hasina Wajed in Bangladesh. The President should head the Armed Forces and the National Intelligence Board (with all intelligence agencies reporting to the Board), thus will prevent intelligence agencies being used for political purposes. The Office of the President should not be a political one, this is easier said than done given that he (or she) must be elected by exercise of adult franchise. The aspiring candidates must be vetted and short-listed as to whether viz (1) they are capable of performing duties aforementioned and (2) as to whether their political leanings are prone to influencing. The Chief Justice should administer a financially independent judiciary and the National Accountability Board (NAB on the Pakistani pattern but under the superior judiciary) under his authority with powers to target the functionaries of the judiciary and the Armed Forces.
That genuinely elected representatives of the people actually come to power is the most important ingredient for democracy, “vital ground” for the unity and integrity of the country. The tragedy is that if we do not persevere with the “2007 Resolution” of having free and fair elections, we could well get a “revolution” in 2008, or shortly thereafter. Pakistan as it was in 1947 became history in 1971, can we take chances of history repeating itself?
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