Pakistan Today (Lahore)

An epitaph on Pakistan’s demokratia?

A constituti­on is only as good as those implementi­ng it

- Amjed Jaaved The writer is a freelance journalist, has served in the Pakistan government for 39 years and holds degrees in economics, business administra­tion, and law. He can be reached at amjedjaave­d@gmail.com

WDemocracy is inherent flawed. Democracy in Pakistan is in peril as the politician­s have no worldview. To correct multifacet­ed social injustice, all stakeholde­rs, in khaki and mufti, should try to evolve the Aristoteli­an `Golden Meanê. Or else, continue on auto-pilot until divine retributio­n strikes

E curse Chief Justice Muneer as the pioneer who paved for praetorian rulers. We however forget just what Chief Justice Muneer said shortly before pronouncin­g his verdict on the notorious Dosso case: ‘when politics enters the portals of justice, democracy, its cherished inmate, walks out by the backdoor’ (Roedad Khan, Pakistan: A Dream Gone Sour).

Our Constituti­on is based on the “separation of powers”. Yet, our history teems with luminaries who harboured supra-constituti­onal hallucinat­ions. The ‘institutio­nal boundaries’ in golden words of our constituti­on are crystal clear but ‘blurred’ in minds of purblind players, ruling bureaucrat­s, judges and praetorian­s-to-be.

The kingpins in various institutio­ns, always at daggers drawn, should not forget Jean Bodin’s dictum majesta est summa in civas ac subditoes legibusque salute potestas, ‘the highest power over citizens and subjects [is] unrestrain­ed by law’.

Bodin explained power resides with whosoever has ‘power to coerce’. It does not reside with the electorate, parliament, judiciary or even constituti­on. In the past, our bureaucrat­s, judges, politician­s, and even praetorian rulers fought tooth and nail to prove that power belonged to them. We have the rare distinctio­n to live happily with a praetorian in uniform and grant another lifelong presidency.

History glistens with names of “heroes” who suffered from the “I’m the constituti­on” paranoia. Julius Caesar and Napoleon also harboured extra-constituti­onal thoughts. Napoleon told Moreau de Lyonne, “The constituti­on, what is it but a heap of ruins. Has it not been successive­ly the sport of every party?” “Has not every kind of tyranny been committed in its name since the day of its establishm­ent?”

During his self-crowning in 1804, Napoleon said, “What is the throne, a bit of wood gilded and covered with velvet? I am the state. I alone am here, the representa­tive of the people”. Take General Zia. He had nothing but contempt for the Constituti­on and democratic norms (Roedad Khan, A Dream gone Sour).

While addressing a press conference in Teheran, he said, “What is the Constituti­on?” “It is a booklet with ten or twelve pages. I can tear them up and say that from tomorrow we shall live under a different system. Is there anybody to stop me? Today the people will follow wherever I lead them. All the politician­s including the oncemighty Mr Bhutto will follow me with their tail wagging (ibid.). Dicey said, “No Constituti­on can be absolutely safe from a Revolution or a coup d’état”.

“Till the day contempt of the Constituti­on vanishes, Pakistan will remain a battlefiel­d of soldiers of fortune, in khaki or mufti” (ZA Bhutto). Alas! All the soldiers of fortune were mortal. Our ex-pms and Pms-to-be should take the cue. Remember Nehru said, “Pakistan, I would not have that carbuncle on India’s back” (DH Bhutani, The Future of Pakistan, p. 14) . Patel called Jinnah ‘poison’. Let’s stop uncannily fulfilling the dreams of Pakistan’s enemies. .

The rot starts in minds when executive, parliament or judiciary out-steps limits to its authority. In his book Governance Deficit: A Case Study of Pakistan , former finance secretary Saeed Ahmed Qureshi points out that our constituti­onal evolution had an uneasy start with prepondera­nce of personalit­ies over institutio­ns. Qureshi goes on to recount “eight blows to the constituti­onal system” including dissolutio­n of the Constituen­t Assembly, the dismissal of elected prime ministers, the induction of Gen Ayub Khan as defence minister on 24 October 1954, the imposition of martial or quasi-martial law “for 33 out of Pakistan’s 68 years of history”.

The drafter of India’s constituti­on, Dr. B R Ambedkar, prophetica­lly remarked, ‘However good a Constituti­on may be, if those who are implementi­ng it are not good, it will prove to be bad. However bad a Constituti­on may be, if those implementi­ng it are good, it will prove to be good’. The Indian Constituti­on allows the President to dissolve the elected Parliament (doing so is treason in Pakistan). But he has never done so.

In Pakistan, it is the vested interests, not demos (people) of demo-kratia, who rule. There is no social democracy. To quote Ambedkar, ‘Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it social democracy. What does social democracy mean? It means a way of life which recognises liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life’. The fault lies with democrats, not democracy, whether presidenti­al or parliament­ary.

In his study of political systems (oligarchy, monarchy, etc.), Aristotle concluded demokratia was probably the best system. The problem that bothered him was that the majority of free people (then excluding women and slaves) would use their brute voting power to introduce pro-poor legislatio­n like taking away property from the rich. During the Aristoteli­an age there was only one house, a unicameral legislatur­e. Aristotle too was a man of means. His household had slaves.

Aristotle suggested that we reduce income inequaliti­es so that have-not representa­tives of the poor people were not tempted to encroach upon haves’ property. Like Aristotle, the American founding fathers were unnerved by the spectre of `rule of the proletaria­t’. James Madison harboured similar concerns. He feared `if freemen had democracy, then the poor farmers would insist on taking property from the rich’ via land reforms. The fear was addressed by creating a senate (USA) or a House of Lords (Britain) as antidotes against legislativ­e vulgaritie­s of the House of Representa­tive or a House of Commons.

Aristotle would rejoice in the grave to see both Pakistan’s National Assembly (commons) and the Senate (lords) populated by the rich. A “democrat”, now selfexiled defiantly wore Louis Moinet `Meteoris’ wristwatch, worth about Rs. 460 million. Another, a proponent of Medinite State, owns a 30-kanal house. Our august bi-cameral legislatur­e never took any legislativ­e steps to equalise citizens in access to education, healthcare, housing and jobs. They never looked into the origin of landed aristocrac­y, chiefs and chieftains in the subcontine­nt during the Mughal and British periods. As a result, about 560 scions of the British raj, along with nouveaux riches (industrial robber barons) have been perched in our lower and upper houses since 1947.

Participat­ion was the sine qua non of the Aristoteli­an democracy. Vote-eligible men used to flock to the parliament when in session. But, nowadays, only a handful of “elected representa­tives” (a mafia) attend the parliament.

A German sociologis­t Robert Michels in his 1911 book, Political Parties, postulated the Iron Law of Oligarchy. Michels stated that the raison d’être of representa­tive democracy is eliminatin­g elite rule. It is an impossible goal.

Shabbar Zaidi’s book Rich People, Poor Country portrays a sorry state of Pakistan. Author’s estimates, based on the amount of assets revealed under Foreign Assets (Declaratio­n and Repatriati­on) Act, 2018 (tax amnesty scheme) suggest that a substantia­l number of Pakistanis, around seven to eight percent of the country’s then total population of 210 million, were very rich. These Pakistanis have individual incomes possibly exceeding even the highest average per capita incomes in the world. In sharp contrast, our government remains poor— being able to collect taxes that constitute only 10 per cent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

He argues a government not able to tax the rich will never have the resources required to provide the poor with economic and social protection.

Democracy is inherent flawed. Democracy in Pakistan is in peril as the politician­s have no worldview. To correct multifacet­ed social injustice, all stakeholde­rs, in khaki and mufti, should try to evolve the Aristoteli­an `Golden Mean’. Or else, continue on auto-pilot until divine retributio­n strikes.

 ?? ??
 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Pakistan