Daily Times

What do you do with a system that has all the trappings of constitutional legalities but fails to help run a state as per the best governance principles and human security needs? Our country was saddled with the parliamentary system as a British bequest much like all the ex- British colonies like Australia, Canada, India, and New Zealand. The only colony that got rid of that system was United States of America that devised its own system as per its own peculiar needs. The Pakistani state was run on constitutional bedrock of Government of India Act 1935, till 1956 when a first constitution based on parliamentary system was introduced. The constitution was framed by the constituent assembly that comprised same politicians that had cut their teeth under a quasi democratic British colonial overhang.

Due to British exposure the mindset of the framers of Pakistani constitution was predisposed towards a parliamentary form of government with little imagination or inclination to conceive a homespun system tailored to the needs of Pakistani socio-political realities. A unicameral legislature in 1956 was introduced with parity between the two wings of the country. The power was to be vested in the cabinet headed by the prime minister with the ceremonial appointment of President replacing the Governor General. The constitutional was abrogated in 1958 by the Iskander-Ayub duo and the military ultimately took over the reins of power replacing even the facade of civilian leadership. A presidential form of government with indirectly elected legislature through BD members was introduced by Ayub Khan in 1962.The term of the President was five years to act as Head of State as well as Chief Executive, solely responsible for country’s administration. Governors and ministers were appointed and removed by him.

He was eligible to promulgate Ordinances and veto against legislated laws which could be challenged only by two-thirds of the National Assembly. However, the President was not empowered to dissolve the Assembly except at the cost of his office. The constitution was abrogated by Yahya Khan in 1969 when he took over the reins of the government by promulgating a Legal Framework order. The current constitution was originally framed under Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in 1973.after the traumatic events of 1971. Since the luxury of time was not there and the anguish of country’s dismemberment had to be assuaged, the consensus building exercise incorporating the views of smaller provinces trumped the functionality of the state. The federal parliamentary system was adopted that relied on numbers game in the legislatures for keeping Prime Ministers and Chief Ministers in power.

We should have a head of the government elected directly by the people who could not be voted out through parliament’s vote of no confidence. He should be able to appoint cabinet members from amongst the best outside the parliament

The trouble with parliamentary system in our country is its inability to provide strong leadership and governance in the best interests of the state. The interests and predilections of the niche players supersede the interests of the majority in such a system. The areas that constitute Pakistan were governed by an extractive British governance model relying on police and district magistracy to extract revenues from their subjects. Over a long period therefore the British reliance on local influentials and the landed gentry spawned a culture of “client-patronage” wherein the state created elites that collaborated with it to subjugate the masses in return for politico-economic favours.The famed “Thana-Katcheri” culture that in this modern age is a veritable anachronism was the mainstay of the political power of the local elite facilitating the extractive strategy of the British colonialism. That self- same culture of patronage in the rural areas continues today as in colonial days.

In order to retain their voters’ allegiance the political elite needs special favours from the executive which invariably run against the principles of good governance and social justice. These favours include control over police, harassment of political opponents, undeserved jobs and commercial favours for cronies, and development funds to win votes and oblige favourite contractors. The ability of the state to root out above ills as a good governance strategy comes a cropper when confronted with these requirements, In some cases the bad governance imperils the national security as well. When a political leader in parliament finds action against sectarian terrorists and hate peddlers politically inexpedient in his or her constituency the law enforcement agencies are discouraged to act against such elements. The rise of sectarian militants in Punjab in the past owed itself to the same pathology.

The shady elements with a propensity to seek rents out of state kitty forge a linkage with the organized crime and facilitate the organized loot through political patronage and policies tailored to protect graft and pelf. A very interesting symbiosis of interests develops between the crime mafias, especially in urban centers, wherein the criminals ask for keeping the state writ weak while the their political patrons facilitate them through political protection. The result is the governance meltdown and the misery of people. Karachi under MQM sway in the past and the present governance vacuum exemplify the malaise. Parliamentary system and state structure in its present form are configured not to provide good governance in Pakistan. It is a system with dysfunctionality embedded in its structure. Instead of a country what we have are four small countries each tugging on its opposite direction culturally, linguistically, and politically with economy as a common point of discord.

We have provinces that are not ready to devolve the meaningful power to the local government level, as is the norm in all advanced democracies. We have political mafias and dynasties in provinces that do not see a value in strengthening the sinews of the state through development or good governance lest it threatened their stranglehold on the political power. We have a Prime Minister who is constantly blackmailed by his part members and opposition for political favours that erode the foundations of good governance and rule of law. Unlike US Presidential system he is forced to dole out cabinet positions to incompetent legislators due to political compulsions. We have all the trappings and symbols of democracy sans the substance i.e pluralism, strong national institutions, accountability mechanism, and effective law making in legislatures. Without about what we have is a travesty of justice and a kakistocracy that caters to the needs of political elite rather than common folks. No laws in this parliament can be passed on taxation, property rights, or judicial reforms that run counter to the interests of these political mafias.

In such a system even if a well meaning leader wishes to make changes he would be unable to do so due to constitutional and bureaucratic hurdles in his way. What the country needs is a system where all institutions operate in a harmony without encroaching on each others’ domain. We should have a head of the government elected directly by the people who could not be voted out through parliament’s vote of no confidence. He should be able to appoint cabinet members from amongst the best outside the parliament. The parliament’s role should be restricted to legislation and vetting of important presidential ordinances. The Senate should be directly elected like the US Senate and accorded powers to confirm presidential and judicial appointments through confirmatory hearings. The country should be divided into small provinces for administrative convenience and the local governments empowered to govern locally.

The above reforms are the only way our dysfunctional system could be corrected and the time has come that we understood that our governance woes are systemic and structural and that any reforms that fails to tackle the issue comprehensively are bound to fail as in the past. While our reform efforts and strategy could be incremental but not piecemeal. Without addressing the issue of administrative restructuring of provinces, devolution of power to local level, and separation of the powers of executive and parliament any piecemeal tinkering with the system would yield no results.

The writer is a PhD scholar at NUST