Daily Times

In the recent past since the time, NAB has initiated cases against the PPP leader Asif Ali Zardari, the Eighteenth Amendment to the constitution has come into the limelight. Mr. Zardari is reported to have said that the present regime is conspiring to do away with the 18thAmendment to bring in a Presidential form of government. It is a matter of concern that his remarks have been orchestrated by no less a man than Mr. Raza Rabbani, who is the founder of this amendment and who fully knows the horrible consequences of such an insane act. This kind of wild thinking perhaps emanates from the fact that since PTI cannot bring in its reform agenda because it has no majority in the upper House, therefore its opponents think the PTI might turn berserk one day and in a fit of frenzy gamble with the entire parliamentary system of government riding on the crest of some ultra-legal adventure. A very wild thinking indeed suited only to the politicians in sheer desperation!

Since its inception, Pakistan has experimented with all kinds of governments invented or practiced since days of Julius Caesar, and is now left with no new option to try its further luck. No maverick in the country can now dare to embark on any further adventure.

In the constitutional history of Pakistan, only two significant developments have so far taken place. One is the unanimous passing of the Constitution of 1973 based on the principles of parliamentary form of government, and the other is the passing of the 18th amendment to this Constitution in 2010 which not only purged it of the baleful tamperings by the military dictators, but also stamped out much of the rust gathered around it with the changing circumstances. The 18th amendment was an extra ordinary legislation because it was unanimously adopted by the parliament after two years of deliberations by a parliamentary committee that was represented by all the major parties. It comprises102 important articles which nearly overhauls the 1973 Constitution removing all flaws and making it more democratic.

A simple survey of its main features would speak for the commendable measures it has enforced: it took away the powers of the President to sack an elected prime minister by removing Article 58(2)(b); it repealed the 17th amendment introduced by Musharraf that had undermined the Parliament; it declared the holding in abeyance of the Constitution as an offence of high treason( a legal travesty which had enabled the past dictators to run away with constitutions ); it did away with the concurrent list and transferred nearly 15 subjects to the provinces conferring autonomy to the grass-root level; it introduced a series of fundamental rights to guarantee compulsory education, right to fair trial, and right to information etc; it ensured regular periodic meetings of Council of Common interests; it made the appointment of CEC through consensus; it streamlined the procedure of selection of superior judiciary by assigning a role to people’s parliamentary representatives; and it broadened the base of judiciary by establishing Islamabad High court etc. which were all measures to make Pakistan a truly democratic state. All these provisions were universally hailed and no democratic Pakistani in his right mind could think that the entire 18th amendment could be scrapped without imperilling the existence of Pakistan.

The diversity of languages is more likely to strengthen the federation, rather than weaken it. We must not lose sight of the fact that the denial of the demand to name Bangla as a national language in addition to Urdu played a major part in the separation of East Pakistan

From the above detail, it is clear that not all of the steps enforced through this Amendment are problematic or contentious. However there is only a small area relating to devolution of subjects like education and health from federation to the provinces which in the opinion of certain section of people could be revisited for a more effective delivery. Most people in Pakistan agree with the basic principle behind decentralization. In the subject of education a few things might require coordination; it may be thought that they might have worked better if those had been left to the Centre, instead of the province. There might be some issues where there may be a difference of opinion between centre and province about details of curriculum etc, but these can be easily handled through coordination and can in no way lend support to the arguments for their centralization. Some economists think that service delivery is an expensive exercise and cannot be adequately handled by the Provinces unless they have sufficient resources. If provinces have to deliver local services, especially health, education, water and sanitation, and social welfare, in line with the aspirations of the Constitution, they must have adequate resources. Given our revenue-generation system, this implies significant transfers of funds from the federation to the provinces. If there are snags in the delivery of these services, the problem is not that of the NFC or the 18th Amendment. The economists attribute it to a poorly designed and poorly functioning system of revenue generation. They say that all major taxes are with the federation, the tax net is narrow, and tax compliance is low. So provinces rely on the NFC transfer to meet their obligations under the 18th Amendment. And the federation feels it is left with too little funds. But even if we revoke the 18th Amendment, or the devolution and NFC clauses of the Amendment, how will this address the financial issues? We will still need to spend as much, if not more, on health, education and other services. It will be the federation which will have to spend the money; how will this help in reducing deficits or in giving the federation more fiscal space?

The argument that the centre needs more resources and fiscal space can be addressed in part by increasing revenue collection; after all, every government has claimed that increasing the tax-to-GDP ratio is a principal policy goal.

The provinces should have the autonomy to design the curricula according to contextual needs and learners’ requirement. If the federation is very concerned about the curriculum issue, it can keep Islamiat and Pakistan Studies under its control. The curricula for other subjects should be designed by the provinces concerned. Education standards can be monitored through provincial quality assurance departments and the inter-provincial coordination committee. Similarly, the provinces may introduce regional languages as a subject in their respective provinces as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is attempting to do.

The diversity of languages is more likely to strengthen the federation, rather than weaken it. We must not lose sight of the fact that the denial of the demand to name Bangla as a national language in addition to Urdu played a major part in the separation of East Pakistan.

It cannot be denied that there is a need for a unified education system in the country and for streamlining provincial laws. There is also a need for revisiting some of the clauses of the amendment to remove the incongruities. While protecting the devolution of power one must accept that the Constitution is a living document and can be changed to make it more workable. This can only be done through elected representatives.

In the end we must admit that some retrogressive and undemocratic clauses introduced by the previous rulers for their own ulterior ends and which discriminating against religious minorities were retained by the 18th Amendment which was unfortunate and for which this nation had also to pay through their nose. All such clauses may now be revisited under due process of law.

The writer is a former member of the Provincial Civil Service, and an author of Moments in Silence