Human beings are a unique mix. At times, they cooperate socially, economically and politically and, quite often, these very humans fight battles and wage wars for reasons ranging from competing ideologies to material interests. In almost all cases of cooperation or confrontation, the actors involved did somehow feel the need to sit somewhere and ponder over policies pursued and outcome intended. From ancient city states to medieval empires to modern nation states, places such as senate, congress and parliament (parlement in French) assumed significance for two altogether different reasons: one, kings, emperors and the like either wasted such people’s places and left no stone unturned to annihilate them or invoked, for instance, the senate’s centrality to debate any emergent issue, especially related to the invasion of a neighbouring or distant land. Second, the masses, more in Europe, viewed monarchies as systems of structured suppression of human will. Hence, out of the masses, scholars, philosophers and critics started highlighting the inherent weaknesses in monarchical and clerical structures that had developed a taste for viewing and treating humans as subjects devoid of free will, logic, rationality and morality. Such critical and analytical thinking and approach, with time, unleashed a political discourse that helped the medieval masses of Europe mobilise themselves in terms of social movements that set European and world history onto a course of renaissance and reformation. Such cumulative socio-economic, cultural, political and intellectual processes were projected and were termed later on as individualism, humanism, rationalism, secularism and, among others, nationalism.
It is the concept and practice of nationalism that is generally thought to have laid the formal basis of the nation state in 18th century Europe where people, by and large, believed in the people’s rule over the people through the people. In other words, the historical notions of parliament and democratic struggle against the monarchical and oligarchical system morphed into parliamentary democracy. In parliamentary democracy, people were to exercise their free will to choose representatives from amongst them to sit and legislate in parliament in the public interest. Indubitably, the electoral system, party system and rules regarding enfranchisement were not uniform across Europe and the US. The critics of the Renaissance, if not reformation, have rightly identified male chauvinism in terms of ‘otherisation’ and consequent exclusion of, for instance, womanhood from mainstream politics, state and economy. Little wonder then that the women in the UK, by the early 20th century organised themselves into small guilds and launched agitations to have their fundamental right (of the vote) granted. It is quite recent that Angela Merkel of Germany and before her Margaret Thatcher of the UK had been in the driving seat of power politics in contemporary Europe and the west.
Comparatively, the early 20th century was also the high time of agitational politics in colonial India. Almost every community, be it ethnic, religious or economic, was influenced by the politics of the day. The two politically more vibrant were undoubtedly the Hindus and the Muslims. The latter were divided – as they are today — along political, ethnic, socio-economic and sectarian lines. In broader terms, the Muslims who lived between the two great wars can be divided into two broader categories: pro-parliament and anti-parliament. The Muslims subscribing to the worldview of the All India Muslim League fall into the first category whereas the Muslims belonging to, for instance, the Ahrars and Jamaat-e-Islami (of pre-partition) belong to the second category. The same applies to the Hindus and other smaller communities of colonial India. In the post-partition period, the politics of parliament took many turns and shapes on account of the inherently contradictory project of nation state building in Pakistan. The founding fathers of Pakistan probably faulted by putting the nation before the state for, historically and legally, it was quite the opposite. The Pakistani state was not supposed to be contingent on the concept of a nation since the Pakistan Movement was based in and launched from the Muslim minority provinces that, after partition in 1947, became part of India. The Pakistan state was constitutive of the Muslim majority provinces with no uniform nation but rather diverse nations or nationalities. It is because of such structural anomalies that the political elite started a project of nation state construction on the basis of religious nationalism. Consequently, constitutionalism and parliamentary democracy were not consciously favoured by, for instance, the civil bureaucracy in the 1950s. It is quite unfortunate that the mother of democracy — parliament — has been attacked a dozen times both conceptually and physically. It was governor general Ghulam Mohammad who, for the first time in Pakistan’s political and legal history, dissolved the then constituent assembly (parliament) in 1954. His predecessor, Iskandar Mirza, also dissolved parliament in October 1958. General Ayub Khan ensured the death of parliament during and at the end of his authoritarian rule.
Ironically, the Yahya regime had little choice but to give way to elections and, hence, parliament thereof. Tragically, however, the conceptualised parliament could not see the light of day and, resultantly, united Pakistan was doomed due to authoritarianism. In the post-breakup period, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was able to have ‘new Pakistan’ managed in terms of crafting a new constitution and parliament. Unfortunately, this parliament was dissolved again by the Zia-led martial law in July 1977. During much of the Zia era, parliament (then called the majlis-e-shura) only existed in form.
Even during the 1990s, till the passage of the 13th Amendment in 1997, Pakistan was literally transformed into a presidential system. The latter was only consolidated during the Musharraf years till the 18th Amendment, 2010, which constitutionally prioritised parliamentary democracy. Since then, Pakistan’s politics and state have been centred on the constitution, democracy and parliament one way or the other. Either the latter is questioned and attacked (as was done by the PTI-PAT cadre last year) or is held in esteem as was reflected by Prime Minister (PM) Sharif’s recourse on three occasions in less than one year. First, engulfed by sit-ins last summer, the PM found rescue in parliament that, indeed, provided his government with political life. Second, on the question of the establishment of military courts, the Sharif government sought parliamentary vision. Third, on the ongoing crisis in Yemen, the government has again brought the matter before parliament, which has interestingly witnessed Imran Khan and his party men back on the benches. Khan and company had earlier castigated the very being of the present parliament. He was recently taunted by the PML-N for unparliamenrty behaviour towards the former. Nevertheless, the PTI’s re-entry into parliament is, in my view, the victory of the latter. Khan is expected not to repeat what has passed.
As regards the Yemen crisis, parliament is the proper forum to debate such issues. However, formalisation of an already set agenda will not be in the interest of the Pakistani state and military in the long run. It is prudent to take the concerned (regional) players on board. Any one-sided approach will add to our isolation.
The writer is an independent political scientist and the author of Military Agency, Politics and the State in Pakistan. He tweets @ejazbhatty