Every ten years or so, some “interested” quarters start hankering for a “strong” presidential system of government along with “true” grass roots local government. Until now this wish was granted by coup-making military dictators like Generals Ayub Khan, Zia ul Haq and Pervez Musharraf. But, as these generals found to their acute discomfort, sooner or later they were compelled by the force of political circumstance to dilute their grand centralizing designs and share power with a bicameral parliamentary system bound together by four provinces. This “hybrid” system was finally overtaken by the 18thconstitutional amendment in 2010 passed jointly by the PPP and PMLN parties – exactly 37 years after it was first introduced by the 1973 constitution – whereby the Presidency became purely ceremonial and political and legislative power at the federal level was transferred exclusively to the prime minister/cabinet and the national assembly and senate respectively. Most significantly, however, the 18th constitutional amendment devolved more economic and administrative power to the provinces on the expectation that they would in turn devolve such power to local government.
But that hasn’t happened. The provinces are uniformly averse to establishing vibrant local governments headed by local leaders with an adequate purse from the provincial government. Worse, the federal arrangement is now wilting under the weight of rising defense and debt expenditures and regretting having to fork over a greater share of the central resource pool to the provinces as required under a National Finance Commission Award tied into the 18th constitutional amendment. So we have a political and economic crisis at the very top and bottom simultaneously that is creating anxiety about the “effectiveness” and “desirability” of the current governance system and a yearning for a system that is supposedly effective at the very top and bottom.
The fact, however, is that while we may have made the Presidency ceremonial and devolved more autonomy to the provinces, nothing has been done to rein in the centralizing instincts, demands and powers of the Miltablishment. Having lost the umbrella of the Presidency, these are now expressed more directly and ruthlessly than ever before by the “deep” organs of the state. In recent times, this “deep” state has engineered the rise and fall of political leaders and governments, manipulated elections and conducted foreign policy independently. Now, as the crisis of economy and governance deepens and criticism of its mishandling increases, the Miltablishment is getting impatient with some checks and balances that remain in the system in the form of small pockets of resistance in the judiciary and media.
The media has been effectively throttled by direct and indirect pressure. Direct pressure is exerted via door knocks, calls from unknown phone numbers and, in extreme cases, “disappearances”. Indirect pressure is exerted through PEMRA, cable operators, the FIA, NAB and FBR. In a unique innovation, we have now a band of unknown “concerned” citizen-vigilantes posing as petitioners for constitutional rights to protect national security institutions from “smear” campaigns by “unpatriotic” persons.
This method of harassment is now being applied to a category of judges as well. These judges are deemed “errant” because they have dared to speak truth to power. The first judge to taste this Miltablishment medicine was Justice Shaukat Siddqui of the Islamabad High Court. A maverick who had traditionally stood with the deep state but challenged it recently in a fit of pique rather than principle, he now faces a Reference in the Supreme Judicial Council.
Now we learn that Justice Qazi Faez Isa of the Supreme Court is overwhelmed by nine petitions challenging his judgment and remarks in a suo motu case relating to misuse of authority or deliberate inaction on the part of certain politicians and state institutions during a demonstration by Labaik Ya Rasool Allah last year before the general elections. Justice Isa criticized PEMRA for not fulfilling its duty against TV channels which violated the terms of their licences by airing and propagating the hate speech of the LYRA and failing to protect the rights of broadcasters. He held that politicking, manipulation of media undermines the integrity of the armed forces; he was perturbed by a perception of an intel agency’s involvement in matters that are not its concern; he reprimanded the Election Commission of Pakistan that its responsibilities are not optional; and he took to task inflammatory statements and behavior of politicians like Sheikh Rashid and Ijaz ul Haq and parties like the PTI. They have all petitioned the bench to review its remarks and exonerate them, or at least expunge some of its indictments. There is also talk of filing a reference against him in the Supreme Judicial Council, a foolish move that is bound to turn the spotlight back on its movers and shakers.
As our political history shows, neither the presidential system nor overt and covert interventions by the Miltablishment can deliver a prosperous and stable Pakistan. This is too complex and burdened a country for such simplistic solutions. Only by painstakingly building a national, democratic consensus can we save our soul.
But that hasn’t happened. The provinces are uniformly averse to establishing vibrant local governments headed by local leaders with an adequate purse from the provincial government. Worse, the federal arrangement is now wilting under the weight of rising defense and debt expenditures and regretting having to fork over a greater share of the central resource pool to the provinces as required under a National Finance Commission Award tied into the 18th constitutional amendment. So we have a political and economic crisis at the very top and bottom simultaneously that is creating anxiety about the “effectiveness” and “desirability” of the current governance system and a yearning for a system that is supposedly effective at the very top and bottom.
The fact, however, is that while we may have made the Presidency ceremonial and devolved more autonomy to the provinces, nothing has been done to rein in the centralizing instincts, demands and powers of the Miltablishment. Having lost the umbrella of the Presidency, these are now expressed more directly and ruthlessly than ever before by the “deep” organs of the state. In recent times, this “deep” state has engineered the rise and fall of political leaders and governments, manipulated elections and conducted foreign policy independently. Now, as the crisis of economy and governance deepens and criticism of its mishandling increases, the Miltablishment is getting impatient with some checks and balances that remain in the system in the form of small pockets of resistance in the judiciary and media.
The media has been effectively throttled by direct and indirect pressure. Direct pressure is exerted via door knocks, calls from unknown phone numbers and, in extreme cases, “disappearances”. Indirect pressure is exerted through PEMRA, cable operators, the FIA, NAB and FBR. In a unique innovation, we have now a band of unknown “concerned” citizen-vigilantes posing as petitioners for constitutional rights to protect national security institutions from “smear” campaigns by “unpatriotic” persons.
This method of harassment is now being applied to a category of judges as well. These judges are deemed “errant” because they have dared to speak truth to power. The first judge to taste this Miltablishment medicine was Justice Shaukat Siddqui of the Islamabad High Court. A maverick who had traditionally stood with the deep state but challenged it recently in a fit of pique rather than principle, he now faces a Reference in the Supreme Judicial Council.
Now we learn that Justice Qazi Faez Isa of the Supreme Court is overwhelmed by nine petitions challenging his judgment and remarks in a suo motu case relating to misuse of authority or deliberate inaction on the part of certain politicians and state institutions during a demonstration by Labaik Ya Rasool Allah last year before the general elections. Justice Isa criticized PEMRA for not fulfilling its duty against TV channels which violated the terms of their licences by airing and propagating the hate speech of the LYRA and failing to protect the rights of broadcasters. He held that politicking, manipulation of media undermines the integrity of the armed forces; he was perturbed by a perception of an intel agency’s involvement in matters that are not its concern; he reprimanded the Election Commission of Pakistan that its responsibilities are not optional; and he took to task inflammatory statements and behavior of politicians like Sheikh Rashid and Ijaz ul Haq and parties like the PTI. They have all petitioned the bench to review its remarks and exonerate them, or at least expunge some of its indictments. There is also talk of filing a reference against him in the Supreme Judicial Council, a foolish move that is bound to turn the spotlight back on its movers and shakers.
As our political history shows, neither the presidential system nor overt and covert interventions by the Miltablishment can deliver a prosperous and stable Pakistan. This is too complex and burdened a country for such simplistic solutions. Only by painstakingly building a national, democratic consensus can we save our soul.