The invitational visit by the COAS to the Senate and a formal briefing followed by interactive session has received due appreciation. Without undermining the importance of the Senate, the pivot of democracy lies in the national assembly and its worthy members. It is parliament which should have hosted the entire event, especially in the prevailing environment with the national assembly speaker being the key man. I strongly feel Parliament stands undermined and has not risen to the occasion.
The use of foul language leading to a physical fight, as well as allegations and insults aimed at opponents is part of the parliamentary history of democratic countries all over the world. However, peculiar to our country, history speaks of tacit compromises, discreet retreats and deals with the establishment and democratically elected civilian and political leaders.
It is a reality that the bulk of the top political leaders of Pakistan have used the ladder of ‘establishment’ to gain power in the political and executive domains. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was very close to the then president general Ayub Khan and Bhutto was the first civilian chief martial law administrator. Mian Nawaz Sharif was nurtured in the political nursery of General Ziaul Haq. Even today’s parliament has faces which were closely associated with General Pervez Musharraf.
Historically, the roots of corruption in the parliament through financial and material incentives is linked with the conduct of non-party basis elections by General Ziaul Haq. The tag of ‘for sale’ of parliamentarians was seen in 1990 when the then Chief Minister of Punjab Mian Nawaz Sharif gathered all his provincial assembly members and sent them to a rest house in the Changa Manga forest in an attempt to keep his majority intact. Has the institution of parliament been able to install a robust system of accountability and make that system work in the past ten years? Parliamentary committees both at the national and provincial levels with all powers have not been either active or effective. Can the parliament resort to defaming of state institutions? Can the parliament legislate for its leadership beyond ethical, moral, social and even legal realities?
Our parliamentarians can rightly blame the establishment for the deficit in institutional maturity. I believe it is one of the two major reasons leading to a situation where democracy is standing at present in Pakistan. The question in Pakistan’s political arena is not for how long the democracy will run till severed by the establishment either by default or by design. The real issue is how long parliament shall take to establish its credibility as an institution? It warrants character, commitment and competence at both individual and institutional levels.
It is a reality that the bulk of the top political leaders of Pakistan have used the ladder of ‘establishment’ to gain power in the political and executive domains. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was very close to the then president general Ayub Khan and Bhutto was the first civilian chief martial law administrator. Mian Nawaz Sharif was nurtured in the political nursery of General Zia ulHaq. Even today’s parliament has faces which were closely associated with General Pervez Musharraf
It is beyond discussion that parliament is the most powerful institution of the state in terms of role and responsibilities defined by the constitution. Ironically, despite being powerful, it is still not the strongest institution of Pakistan. I believe, to gain strength, parliament need to have credibility which has to be established and earned. Constitution can give powers only. These powers will quite often need validation and intervention by the apex court if the institution lacks credibility as is the case in present domestic environment. Establishing credibility is not a single step but is a process. The number of steps in the credibility process and time duration is dependent on the ability, acumen and individual conduct as demonstrated by the parliamentarians in foreseeable future. It may take another decade even two but next five years are very crucial in the democratic history of Pakistan.
It’s the parliament which should demonstrate institutional conduct. Speaker national assembly may invite Chief of Army Staff for a formal session. In my personal opinion, the most vital, demanding and relevant step for the real strengthening of democratic institutions in Pakistan is the need for transparent, free and fair conduct of elections in 2018. Even if it warrants few months justifiable delay but for only one cause. Holding of free and fair elections has been the sore point in the political history of Pakistan. Elections held in 1970 are regarded as the most fair in electoral history of Pakistan. Everything ignited with allegations of rigging in elections and Bhutto had to lose power and then life. I have been part of all seven elections conducted since 1988 in supervisory or monitoring role. None could be termed as fair.
In the electoral environment of today, rigging has taken a corporate shape with state institutions used as instruments of rigging in addition to a party or an individual candidate. Multiple and diverse forms of rigging are used with assorted methods of use to include individual or use of state instrument. Unfortunately, PTI has lost the time in post ‘Dharna’ scenario and no comprehensive step has been taken for electoral reforms. There shouldn’t be another ‘Dharna’ in post 2018 elections. All major institutions of the state especially apex court, parliament and establishment need to play their part for this joint but vital responsibility and obligation. I believe armed forces are the institution in Pakistan who have the capacity, technical ability and professionalism to conduct free and transparent elections. They need to be employed jointly but comprehensively with Judiciary and other state institutions.
A strong democratic sentiment exists in our country now. Parliament must feel that presence and rise to the occasion. Constitution of Pakistan has given you the requisite powers which dictate your nuisance but credibility has to be earned to achieve the desired strength as an institution. It is hard to earn and easy to lose. Institute a robust and effective mechanisms for institutional accountability so that apex court does not have to decide the fate of parliamentarians and establish an effective system of reviewing the institutional performance.
The writer is a PhD scholar with diverse experience and international exposure. He possesses conscious knowledge about phenomenon of terrorism and extremism coupled with realistic understanding of geo political, social and security environment
Published in Daily Times, December 27th 2017.