Karachi: Whenever an abnormal change in Pakistan’s political superstructure has taken place the chargesheet against the deposed politician(s) has included some derogatory remarks about the system in vogue. The ouster of Nawaz Sharif through a judicial order also will give rise to some criticism of the parliamentary democracy that allows the kind of crimes the PM was accused of. The criticism of the system has, however, been quite sketchy. Ghulam Mohammad justified the sacking of the Constituent Assembly on the grounds of its failure to draft a constitution, which was incorrect. While replacing an elected government with martial law, Iskander Mirza not only abused politicians, he also denounced as unworkable the 1956 Constitution that he had sworn to uphold. Gen. Ayub Khan too rejected Western democracy while condemning politicians because, firstly, democracy could not be cultivated in Pakistan’s climate and, secondly, it did not suit the people. This was not challenged as many people were waiting to eat out of the dictator’s palm. The man who went after the parliamentary system with a vengeance was Gen. Zia ul Haq. In the beginning, he found little wrong with the 1973 Constitution except for the need to insert a few Islamic provisions, which he did. Then he noted an imbalance between the powers of the president and the PM and corrected it by increasing his own powers, including the acquisition of the power to sack elected governments under Article 58-2(b). Finally, he came out in favour of the presidential form of government. Unfortunately, even the Shura committee on reforms did not agree with him.
In the course of his campaign, Gen Zia relied for a short while on a diary of the Quaid-i-Azam in which the latter was reported to have favoured the presidential system. This did not help him because between 1938 and 1940 the Quaid was rejecting any form of representative government for India as it would turn Muslims into a minority. Besides, Zia did not come to the Quaid with clean hands. He rejected Jinnah’s ideal of excluding religion from politics, his pledge of equal citizenship for non-Muslims, and his affirmation of the sovereignty of Parliament; Zia feigned ignorance of the Quaid’s declaration that the Constitution would be made by public representatives. The case in favour of the parliamentary form is quite simple. It is the system ordinary citizens have become familiar with. It is based on diffusion of power which is preferable to the concentration of power in a single person’s hands. This is fundamentally important in a federation as concentration of power in the hands of the president can spell disaster. The most decisive argument against the presidential system is that it has already been tested and found unsuitable. What is ignored in the debate on the presidential vs the parliamentary form of government is the fact that both will have difficulty in surviving in Pakistan because they are not in tune with its culture.
Democracy cannot flourish in a country that permits faith-based discrimination, where pseudo-religious practices are treated as divinely ordained, where feudal norms dominate and land reform is forbidden by law (and the Supreme Court cannot decide the challenge to this gross injustice for years), and where civilian authority holds power at the pleasure of the military. Because of these factors, no attempt to improve the system — through controlled democracy, the induction of technocrats in parliament and restricting parliament’s membership to graduates — has been fruitful. The main charge against all the governments is that they failed to remove the boulders lying across the path to democracy. The problem is that democracy cannot be abandoned, for to be ruled by elected representatives is a basic human right. And the people of Pakistan have confirmed their allegiance to democracy by sweeping away dictatorships. Respect for that will of the people is the only issue in Pakistan.
By arrangement with Dawn
