Parliament and Musharraf
Pervez Musharraf’s military regime has been exceedingly ill-served by legal advice as to the mode of transition to democracy, half measures cannot paper over problems, either have full democracy or military rule, nothing in-between. Trying to run the country by liberal quasi-democratic means is a non-starter, Indus culture respects only absolute power. As the only military rule in history where media has been allowed to function freely, and even flourish, given grudging respect in some quarters, what else has the military got? Pakistanis want democracy and were comfortable with the fact that the process had started with elections to the Local Bodies but the Referendum was mismanaged, comparable to the Ayubian 60s PR disaster “Decade of Reforms”, a popular President (and Musharraf remains popular even today among the masses) was made “unpopular” in media-served perception.
Having contested the general elections under the Legal Framework Order (LFO), the Opposition has called into question the basis of these elections. Why not oblige them and scrap the results? As a major sticking point the LFO incorporates the proposal for a National Security Council (NSC) and Presidential powers to dismiss the Prime Minister (PM). While the transition from military to civilian rule needs to be eased through a staggered exit strategy, why should the President voluntarily become a lame-duck civilian incumbent in the present internal and external environment? With the Opposition behaving as it is, would not that put us from the frying pan into the fire? The Opposition cannot swallow the fact of Pervez Musharraf’s retaining the post as COAS in a democratic set-up. As one of those who strongly believe that the military must be subservient to civilian rule and that a serving uniformed person cannot be a Head of State of a democratic country, one cannot close one’s eyes to the fact that we are passing through extraordinary geo-political and domestic circumstances, can we gamble with the sovereign integrity of the country as we did in 1971? Creating a precedent may be unwise, do we have a choice? The use of abusive language in the Upper and Lower Houses desecrates the sanctity of Parliament and stokes the military’s recurring fear, the politician will take this country down the drain. The President’s stance that he would not address the Joint Session of Parliament in the face of the “uncivilized behaviour” of the Opposition-created ruckus is justified. Why should the President subject himself to abusive behaviour by a mob that forswears universally accepted “Parliamentary language”?
Total Commitment Needs Full Participation
Democracy can never be meaningful without full participation of all the peoples within a democratic unit, i.e. constituency. Ways and means have to be found to ensure that most of the population gets involved, at least in the lowest tiers, or what is now commonly called the grassroots level. Among the registered voters in Pakistan there is a 54% men-46% women ratio even though the present population count says the ratio is 48% men-52% women. The number of seats that are taken up by women in every tier of democratic participation is not only negligible, it is almost non-existent. That is a non-starter for democracy. The National Reconstruction Bureau (NRB) has proposed that there may be an equal number of seats upto the District Assembly, one feels it would be almost impossible to find credible women candidates to stand upto the electoral test for several years yet unless we use “force-feed” methods. For the purpose of giving women an equal voice in our democracy one proposes that we use the “running mate” formula not only at the grassroots level but up the tiers right upto the Senate. The formula is simple, if a male candidate stands for election, he will have with him as a running mate a woman, and vice versa if a woman is the candidate she will have a male as the “running mate”. Off course there has to be some pre-qualification for such candidates. Both men and women can compete on equal footing, the “coattail effect” will ensure that both the sexes will have equal number of seats on the Councils or the Assemblies. It has to be accepted that such a system will favour women deliberately so as to obtain equal participation by (and for) them, a must for meaningful democracy.
Democracy means effective governance from the grassroots level to the uppermost tier by representatives of the people elected by the people in a fair and transparent process that is all inclusive, i.e. it tries to accommodate every segment of the population and unify them though the electoral process. This verification will cut through ethnicity, sects, caste, etc. One of the best decisions taken so far is to have elections on a run-off basis i.e. the winning candidate must get 50% or more votes in the first round or there will be a second round between those two who got the maximum votes in the first round to establish the outright winner. Those voting thus have a clear choice, concurrently this breeds homogeneity since a coalition of interests must unite to either (1) elect a candidate in a positive display of their strength or (2) by a negative show of their preference they band together to keep a candidate they do not want out of the electoral process. Run-off elections encourage unity in an indirect method. Self-interest cuts against the ambitions of “special interest groups” who band together with different groups for a common purpose even though their views otherwise may be in divergence. In other words those with interests more common to each other will cause together out of a common cause.
Refining the Devolution Plan
Yugoslavia is a classic example in modern times why we should be very careful when dealing with diverse races within one boundary. While Marshal Tito was alive he kept Yugoslavia going on the strength of his personality and the use of police-state methods. Do we have a Marshal Tito in Pervaiz Musharraf, in fact does Pervaiz Musharraf want to be a Marshal Tito? In democracies neither cult nor authoritarian measures work. The disintegration of Yugoslavia only confirms that devolution of power could probably end up in a fatal miscalculation. Equate Punjab to Serbia in the present feeling of the Provinces towards the Punjab and Yugoslavia becomes a mirror image of our problems except that in Yugoslavia there was also a religious divide and in Pakistan we have a very hostile neighbour. Given that the resemblance of Yugoslavia is uncanny, how can we bring the much needed devolution of power into the body politics of Pakistan?
In the absence of making more Provinces, the only course for us is to have Divisional Governments which will be both economic only and politically feasible entities, almost all the Divisions are capable of generating enough revenues for self-sustenance. Whether we are in an urban or rural area, we are very much a tribal society, divided on ethnic and sectarian lines, a concentrated and united minority could well exercise absolute rule over a fragmented majority. So we have to get a better mix the proposed Assembly i.e. go higher thereon the District. Any plan for devolution must provide autonomy within reasonable parameters and not make it a stepping stone for an unilateral declaration of independence (UDI), Federal and Provincial Governments retaining some controls that will act as a bar against separatist tendencies. How does one exercise the fiat of the Federation by essentially making nearly a 100 or so, the Districts will actually become in all but name if the District Government Plan is implemented in its present form? Would Balochistan be able to control 26 such Districts directly? Or for that matter Punjab 34?
Keeping it Simple
The history of Pakistan is replete with Commissions, Task Forces and Advisory Groups, very few have made any effective recommendations, only a fraction of these have ever been implemented. The intent of the military regime is sincere, they are being frustrated (as in the past) by the time-honoured bureaucratic method of filibustering. Such people never have the country’s best interest at heart, only their own and they know that if they can delay the process the honeymoon will soon be over. At best five miles to midnight as a country, we need pragmatic and simple solutions, not experiments that will exacerbate the situation.
The National Reconstruction Bureau’s (NRB) concept of devolution of power, giving total administrative control to District Governments is magnificent in theory, in practice it would be such an unmitigated disaster that in comparison the Yugoslavia experience of disintegration would be a kindergarten primer. Most of Pakistan’s problems of bad governance and mal-administration can be laid at the door of over-centralisation. The Provinces have autonomy in name only, the Provinces are all run by the Federal Government. The right ideas notwithstanding, NRB has not war-gamed the consequences. Certainly there is a case for devolution, people should not have to run from far pillar to far post in seeking good governance. On the other hand, ethnic and sectarian problems have polarised present society, this divisiveness needs to be overcome. We should not play into the hands of separatists. Why not broaden the base for better management and control while giving genuine autonomy? From four Provinces we can make fourteen on the lines recommended in THE NATION on Nov 27, 1999, “Making the Federation effective,” with Karachi Port and Airport, Cantonments and ancillary areas, Port Qasim, etc as Federally-Administered areas. District governments under management of smaller provinces is a far better proposition. Law and order must remain a Provincial subject, the maximum decentralisation downwards should be to a metropolitan city government. Giving law enforcement agencies under the control of a District Government is asking for trouble, a mob-type control negating the concept of democracy will exist in every district. It can and should be done but after a number of years, when the institutions have time to mature and become stable.