Democracy Deferred
Dr. Tariq Rahman
The LFO will now become part of the constitution and the deadlock between the opposition and the government has come to an end. This is being portrayed as a triumph of democracy. Both the opposition and the government claim victory and are pretty happy about the developments. The fact, however, is that democracy has not been strengthened or restored; it has been deferred yet once again.
This does not mean that everything about this development is bad. What is good is that the principle that only the parliament can bring about changes in the constitution has been upheld. Had this not happened we would have accepted the undemocratic idea that anyone but the parliament can bring about such changes. Another good thing is that the National Security Council will be constituted by an act of parliament which will require a simple majority, not a two thirds majority, to be annulled. This means there is hope for the restoration of the principle of civilian governance alone in all major issues confronting a democratic state in this respect sometime in the future.
General Musharraf has accepted to leave his position of the army chief and will become a civilian president like Ayub Khan. In doing so General Musharraf has subordinated his personal interests to the institutional interests of the presidency and the army. He himself, future presidents and the army remain strongly positioned to dominate politics though Musharraf himself has sacrificed his self interest by cutting himself from his power base, the army. The opposition is portraying this as a victory of democracy. This it is not because one hopes their struggle was not against Musharraf as a person but for the principles of democracy. It could be argued that the opposition has retained the principle that a civilian can be the president while the opposition in Zia ul Haq’s days had to accept him as president in uniform. This is true but look at the fact that Zia ul Haq had to withdraw the idea of the National Security Council whereas this is being imposed on the Pakistani democratic process now. Once again, in substance, the opposition has achieved less for democracy then ever before. Surely, democratic principles, in the name of which the parliament remained suspended and non-functional for a year, do not consist of getting judges to retire early and getting General Musharaf out of uniform. They do not consist of opposing people as people. They consist of principled opposition to multiple, non-elected centres of power and anything which dilutes or negates the principle of civilian supremacy.
The major reason why I feel democracy has been deferred is that there are still two centers of power: the president, who will be elected indirectly, is one center of power. The prime minister, elected directly and the chief executive, will be another. The president will be able to dismiss the elected prime minister’s government. Moreover, the military will be legally included in the decision-making process of the state which, of course, negates the principle of civilian supremacy.
Now why do democrats feel these changes to be ushered in by the 17th amendment to the constitution are unacceptable ? First, because democracy is a form of government in which the elected representatives of the people have both power and responsibility. They are not allowed to become dictatorial which is the essence of democracy. This, however, is not achieved by placing multiple centers of power, especially unelected ones, in place. This is done by having an opposition; an independent judiciary and, above all, a free press. Powers are also divided among different institutions of the state but the most powerful ones are elected ones. The Pakistani establishment’s argument that a powerful presidency will hold the prime minister in control is fallacious. How does this arrangement ensure that the president, or his equivalent, do not become dictatorial. After all Governor General Ghulam Muhammad and President Iskander Mirza were dictatorial and unscrupulous and did not let democracy be established though they were not elected. On what grounds does the Pakistani establishment argue that unelected power-holders function better than elected ones?
Indeed, if one examines political instability in Pakistan since Liaquat Ali Khan’s death one finds that our main problem has been multiple centers of power and disrespect for elected leaders. The number of prime ministers dismissed by unelected or indirectly elected heads of states (including military rulers) have been nine. Four prime ministers have resigned due to lack of parliamentary support. Out of these Khwaja Nazimuddin was forced out of office by Ghulam Muhammad when he did have parliamentary support. Ghulam Muhammad also forced out other prime ministers since he had the support of the army chief. Iskander Mirza, another bureaucrat like his predecessor but this time with a military background, also had the support of these two institutions and the reason he did away with Feroze Khan Noon’s government as well as the constitution was because he knew that general elections would go against him.
Ayub Khan reveals in his biography that he had no respect for democracy or the politicians. He used to call all of them corrupt but Qudratullah Shahab reveals in his Shahab Nama that most politicians had irregularities to answer for and were not corrupt. When Shahab told Ayub this he was surprised but did not stop mistrusting them. That is why Ayub did not honour his own constitution when he handed power to the army chief General Yahya. The army had not been recognized as a source of power in the 1962 constitution but when it came to the crunch Ayub broke his own rules to hand over the country to unelected military rulers rather than holding elections under an interim civilian government. When Zia ul Haq died in August 1988 it was the military high command which held a meeting and decided to hand over the presidency to Ghulam Ishaq Khan. Roedad Khan, a federal secretary at that time, narrates in his book A Dream Gone Sour, how the military did not even keep up the pretence of accepting civilian supremacy or letting the law take its course by calling on Ghulam Ishaq Khan. Instead he was summoned to the GHQ indicating clearly who was in real command.
The two centers of power continued to operate and democracy did not take root either in Benazir Bhutto’s tenure or in that of Nawaz Sharif. Benazir was made such a puppet in her first tenure that she could hardly move without the blessings of GIK and the military high command. It was because she wanted to assert herself as the chief executive that she was removed. Indeed, no prime minister was allowed to complete his or her tenure and none was thrown out by the people. The people never got a chance to prove their power or judgment on election day. Each was removed by a president supported by the military as a number of memoirs of state functionaries, interviews of important people and other sources reveal. While it may be true that the elected prime ministers were corrupt what is there to prevent unelected people from being corrupt? Did Ayub and Zia ul Haq keep ruling so long because they were more virtuous than elected leaders? Or is it simply that elected leaders always have someone breathing down their necks in order to dismiss them if they assert their independence of non-elected centers of power.
In Pakistan’s short history more than 30 years and 10 months have been of military rule in some form or the other. Most of the other period was spent by prime ministers battling with unelected strongmen only to keep their office. That is why democratic culture, which matures by giving power and responsibility to elected people, never matures. And yet, it is the power to dismiss elected prime ministers which the 17th amendment vests in the president. Can this be called anything different from Pakistan’s several experiments at not allowing parliamentary democracy to function.
For some reason the Pakistani establishment has always preferred a powerful president. This is possible but the president then must be directly elected as the American president is. Moreover, some institution like the Congress must have control over important matters like money bills. Then there should be an active opposition and a free press. In that case there need not be any prime minister at all. But if we retain the Westminster type of parliamentary democracy the we cannot subordinate the prime minister to the president or the military chiefs in an ostensibly advisory body. To deviate from these principles of democracy is to ensure that prime ministers will remain weak and subordinate or be removed every now and then. This will mean that democratic culture will not be developed like it has not till now.
These are the reasons the agreement between the government and the opposition on the LFO cannot be seen as a victory for democracy. At best it can be seen as another postponement of genuine democracy in Pakistan.
Dr. Tariq Rahman