Daily Times

While addressing a rally held in connection with the 2008 elections, Benazir Bhutto said that her party would not endorse polls results if the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) did not emerge the second largest party after the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP). She said so as per the spirit of the Charter of Democracy (CoD), famously known as the “London Plan” of 2006, whereby the two parties resolved to join hands to oust General Pervez Musharraf, and to “aid” each other in the corridors of power.

After Benazir’s assassination, her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, kept up the spirit of “political reconciliation” throughout PPP’s tenure in government, while the PML-N ruled in the largest province of Pakistan, Punjab. Zardari’s give-and-take policy helped him accommodate the Sharifs in Punjab to the extent that it cost the PPP the “Saraiki belt” in the 2013 general elections.

While religious militants after holding sway over tribal regions bordering Afghanistan seemed bent on taking over the settled districts of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa as well, only a few realised the disastrous fallout of Zardari’s politics of reconciliation: democracy and accountability are in peril.

The 18th constitutional amendment 2010 that had reestablished supremacy of parliament, and provinces were given unprecedented autonomy just enhanced the ability of parliament to maneuver the legislation process to its advantage. People so far have been marginalised regarding the implementation of the articles and clauses of the constitution concerning fundamental rights. It became evident in the case of indirect taxes that have been gradually pushed up, while the commitment to expand the tax net or enhancing the share of direct taxes in revenues has diminished since civilian regimes have held the reins of power.

Zardari, who had incidentally bagged the position of president after the PPP had secured majority in the National Assembly, convinced the ruling class to understand the worth of unity in its ranks while ensuring that every party had its due share in the pie. The “spirit of reconciliation” has wiped out the idea of real “opposition,” and the check and balance system is in jeopardy. The appointment of heads of autonomous bodies through consensus between parliamentary and opposition leaders has proved instrumental for political stability, but shaken the roots of democracy. Representation and accountability are in peril.

The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), two of the most important institutions, and which one tends to believe are pillars of democracy, have shown a tendency to be not fully committed to discharging of their constitutional responsibilities.

Why political parties that did not have the freedom to properly conduct their election campaigns readily accepted the results but not that “rebel incarnate,” Imran Khan? Confusion inside the ECP regarding its resolve to conduct elections “honestly, justly and fairly” sent red signals to newly emerged political forces like the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). There was no dearth of sympathisers for Khan when he led rallies, and staged sit-ins for justice as “procedural discrepancies” of the ECP, he believed, had made his key men lose to the PML-N, the PPP’s CoD partner.

Now the ECP does not merely have the job to conduct elections and announce results. It has been given the mandate of transferring power to the rightful winners as well. The Constitution lays down the procedure as to how to maintain a proper code of ethics, and genuinely expects the executioner of election laws to stand on a high ground of personal integrity. Why the ECP chief who conducted the 2013 elections left so much space, to the amazement of lawmakers, to the then serving Chief Justice of Pakistan, Iftikhar Chaudhry?

The person heading NAB has vast powers to bring the corrupt to a process of accountability; the consequences may range between confinement for a long time and freezing of assets. But the incumbent chairman, Qamar Zaman Chaudhry, seems too reluctant to go for a simple and straightforward, if not a ruthless, accountability process. Even a cursory glance at his long profile shows the high-profile positions he has previously held, and the good will of the leadership of all leading political parties.

Do the ECP and NAB have something in common? Does their performance affect the working of the other institutions? How does their inefficiency mar the prospects of having genuine democracy in Pakistan? The questions apparently seem unsettling for the fine “balance of power” that is believed to be responsible for the political stability we have had since 2008. But given the stalled process of accountability whereby NAB is just extending deadlines to resolve high profile cases of corruption, particularly the ones pertaining to the Sharif family and its business partners, the onus of failure has to be fixed for the best interest of democracy. Let the NAB officials not invade the privacy and curtail liberties of government officials while investigating into incidents of embezzlement in utilisation of public funds, but that does not mean at all to leave the impression of being paralysed due to political influences. How do the ones arbitrarily scrutinised by presiding officers and elected through unfair means can afford a vibrant accountability process? The problem is somewhere in the selection criteria of the constitutional bodies related with both the representation of political parties in parliament, and the one having powers to look into their accounts.

Democracy among equals, the one we have right now, owes a lot to the doctrinal faith in “politics of reconciliation” in practice since 2006. The bonhomie shared by the corrupt has paralysed institutions. We are right in the throes of anarchy, which is no less dangerous than a war. Democracy becomes a farce if its fruits remain restricted to the already privileged sections of society. A democracy sans government’s commitment for fundamental rights and accountability is a farce. The way out lies in the judiciary playing its due role as the guardian of fundamental rights, ensuring that its rulings are not only respected but also implemented in good faith. It can happen if the lords of justice realise that while army has the duty to defend the frontiers, courts are the only means to secure the nation from perils of anarchy.

The writer is an Islamabad-based veteran journalist and an independent researcher. He can be reached on Twitter @riazmissen