Irrespective of its final result, the Scotland referendum is no less than a political wonder of 21st century’s democracy. The referendum of 18 September certainly established that a mature democracy can answer the most intricate political questions amicably and peacefully. The Scottish exercised their right to decide whether to live in the union of the United Kingdom or prefer for an independent state of Scotland. The narrow margin of 10 percent saves the union. About 55 percent of the voters chose the ‘No’ option in the referendum. From Pakistani perspective, it is astonishing. No tanks rolled on the streets of Edinburgh, there was no military operation, and no Scottish politicians were declared traitors. No one was imprisoned for campaigning for ‘Yes’.
Instead of their security establishment implanting proxy groups or invoking the divine blessing of the Church of England to justify the union, or flex the muscle of the royal military, or contemplate rigging. The British establishment came up with the plan of more political and economic autonomy for Scotland, summarized in the slogan ‘better to gather’ that helped the union survive for 300 years.
Westminster’s democracy decided to confront the question. As the British prime minister said unequivocally in his post-referendum press conference, it was better to face the problem instead of evading it.
A 10 percent margin kept the United Kingdom intact, but the referendum triggered a new debate that poses another serious challenge for the structure of unitary form of government. The demand for Scotland’s independence and the post-referendum debate of unitary vs federation is indicating that mere economic and developmental parity cannot soften the quest for preservation of ethno-cultural identity and recognition, even in the developed parts of the world.
The debate might not necessarily be the outcome of some pathological allergy toward monarchy, but that a longing for preservation of identity by achieving more autonomy – their own local parliaments under the federation.
Pakistan, unlike the United Kingdom, is a federation that intrinsically bestows a flexible framework of relationship between the federating units and the center. But unfortunately, we are still suffering from the colonial mentality of domination, suspicion and ruling through divisions at the cost of integration and stability. One can be dubbed a traitor and condemned for even constitutional demands for more autonomy. Asking for separation is out of question.
After independence, the Pakistani establishment faithfully followed the governance style of their colonial predecessors, creating ethnic faultlines and governance issues. Pakistan retained the British-made tribal system in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, which were allowed to be ruled under the black law of Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR), which not only denied the residents their basic human rights but also kept the region one of the most backwards areas of the country. Turning the region into a backyard by failing to bring it into the mainstream governance system, the state is now paying for its mistakes in the shape of security challenges.
Those who demand the unification FATA, the Pakhtun belt in Baluchistan and the historical Pakhtun areas of North West Pakhtunkhwa as one viable federating unit have been seen with suspicion by the establishment. Mahmood Khan Achakzai is one example.
Ironically, instead of correcting the historical wrongs and removing the ethnic faultlines, our security establishment is fanning even more resentment. Under the constitution of 1973, the current Baluchistan province was created by incorporating the Pakhtun belt into almost equal Baluch and Brahui populations of the region. That satisfied neither the Baluch nor the Pakhtun. Instead, it further intensified political polarization.
[quote]It is the will of the people that provides a foundation to the edifice of a federation[/quote]
Pakistan should learn from the case of Scotland. It is the will of the people that provide a foundation to the edifice of a federation. Authoritarianism in the name of a strong center at the cost of people’s aspirations poses a serious threat to the spirit of genuine democracy.
If the Westminster democracy, under a unitary form of government, can offer an opportunity to its people to rethink their relationship with the union, why can our democracy not afford to offer the same democratic right to its people to realign and demarcate their units with the system?
The real strength of a federation is the satisfaction of the people living in its constituent units. Instead of manipulating opinions and creating false narratives, our federation should be confident that more democracy, autonomy and recognition of people’s identities will fortify the system, not weaken it. The renaming of the North West Frontier Province to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is a classic example.
Email: talimand.khan@gmail.com
Twitter: @talimandkhan1
Instead of their security establishment implanting proxy groups or invoking the divine blessing of the Church of England to justify the union, or flex the muscle of the royal military, or contemplate rigging. The British establishment came up with the plan of more political and economic autonomy for Scotland, summarized in the slogan ‘better to gather’ that helped the union survive for 300 years.
Westminster’s democracy decided to confront the question. As the British prime minister said unequivocally in his post-referendum press conference, it was better to face the problem instead of evading it.
A 10 percent margin kept the United Kingdom intact, but the referendum triggered a new debate that poses another serious challenge for the structure of unitary form of government. The demand for Scotland’s independence and the post-referendum debate of unitary vs federation is indicating that mere economic and developmental parity cannot soften the quest for preservation of ethno-cultural identity and recognition, even in the developed parts of the world.
The debate might not necessarily be the outcome of some pathological allergy toward monarchy, but that a longing for preservation of identity by achieving more autonomy – their own local parliaments under the federation.
Pakistan, unlike the United Kingdom, is a federation that intrinsically bestows a flexible framework of relationship between the federating units and the center. But unfortunately, we are still suffering from the colonial mentality of domination, suspicion and ruling through divisions at the cost of integration and stability. One can be dubbed a traitor and condemned for even constitutional demands for more autonomy. Asking for separation is out of question.
After independence, the Pakistani establishment faithfully followed the governance style of their colonial predecessors, creating ethnic faultlines and governance issues. Pakistan retained the British-made tribal system in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, which were allowed to be ruled under the black law of Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR), which not only denied the residents their basic human rights but also kept the region one of the most backwards areas of the country. Turning the region into a backyard by failing to bring it into the mainstream governance system, the state is now paying for its mistakes in the shape of security challenges.
Those who demand the unification FATA, the Pakhtun belt in Baluchistan and the historical Pakhtun areas of North West Pakhtunkhwa as one viable federating unit have been seen with suspicion by the establishment. Mahmood Khan Achakzai is one example.
Ironically, instead of correcting the historical wrongs and removing the ethnic faultlines, our security establishment is fanning even more resentment. Under the constitution of 1973, the current Baluchistan province was created by incorporating the Pakhtun belt into almost equal Baluch and Brahui populations of the region. That satisfied neither the Baluch nor the Pakhtun. Instead, it further intensified political polarization.
[quote]It is the will of the people that provides a foundation to the edifice of a federation[/quote]
Pakistan should learn from the case of Scotland. It is the will of the people that provide a foundation to the edifice of a federation. Authoritarianism in the name of a strong center at the cost of people’s aspirations poses a serious threat to the spirit of genuine democracy.
If the Westminster democracy, under a unitary form of government, can offer an opportunity to its people to rethink their relationship with the union, why can our democracy not afford to offer the same democratic right to its people to realign and demarcate their units with the system?
The real strength of a federation is the satisfaction of the people living in its constituent units. Instead of manipulating opinions and creating false narratives, our federation should be confident that more democracy, autonomy and recognition of people’s identities will fortify the system, not weaken it. The renaming of the North West Frontier Province to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is a classic example.
Email: talimand.khan@gmail.com
Twitter: @talimandkhan1