A specter of General Ziaul Haq is haunting Pakistan’s political and constitutional system again.
Zia wanted to establish a supra decision-making body which would preside over the parliamentary democracy. He established a national security council and inserted an article in the constitution for its establishment. Later, as a trade off with the parliament that came into existence as a result of the 1985 non-party based parliamentary elections, he dropped the idea, and in return gained the power to dissolve the National Assembly.
This spectre acquired many incarnations: General Jehangir Karamat’s proposal to give military leaders a seat in the supra decision-making body; and General Musharraf re-established such a body. Bhutto’s model on the decision-making body on national security issues was different. His defense committee of the cabinet (DCC) stayed within the framework of the parliamentary democracy, where the prime minister presided over the committee and military chiefs acted as his advisors.
On Sunday April 3, 2022, something happened in Islamabad that heralded a major distortion in the parliamentary democracy, and that could only be described as another incarnation of the spectre of Ziaul Haq that is still haunting our democracy.
Events happened in quick succession — Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly, Qasim Suri, rejected the no-confidence motion against PM Imran Khan on the pretext of foreign conspiracy, and within a few minutes Khan appeared on the national television to announce that he had dissolved the National Assembly. April 3 was the day of voting on the motion, and the opposition had mustered the support of 197 parliamentarians, whereas only 172 votes were required to dislodge the prime minister.
While addressing his party leaders in the afternoon, the PM said, “When the highest national security body has declared that there was a foreign conspiracy and then the numbers in the parliament becomes irrelevant”.
Khan’s message was clear: the National Security Committee is a supra body and the parliament doesn’t matter. He thinks the parliament is subservient to the National Security Committee — because its members include the military chiefs and military spymasters.
Zia didn’t succeed in establishing a supra decision-making body. He came under tremendous pressure from the parliament and withdrew the proposal to set up the National Security Council. But his incarnations have succeed: General Mushrarraf created such a supra body and presided over its proceedings in his nine-year rule as a constitutionally powerful president. Imran Khan is no anomaly —he served as the prime minister because the numbers game in the parliament was in his favour three years back. Yet he remained true to his political ancestry by declaring that the decision of a supra decision-making body can overrule the numbers in the parliament.
The blatant violation of the constitution by the deputy speaker and prime minister is surprising. This is the new normal. We have played a role in making a mockery of law and constitution. A former prime minister and a convict of the court of law was allowed to go abroad for treatment. Pakistan’s leading political figures and law-abiding citizens justify the escape of their leader. Pakistan’s intelligence services indulged in spy games to prevent a former military dictator from appearing before the court where he had to be indicted. And these spy games ensured that he is never indicted for high treasons under Article 6. Later many journalists wrote in their reports that the then Army Chief didn’t like the idea of a former COAS indicted for high treason. These are only two crude examples, where our leaders and power wielders have made a mockery of law.
Such instances are gaining normality. Violations of law and constitution have stopped stirring the society into action. I don’t dislike Pakistani Taliban and other insurgent groups because of their inclination to extreme forms of religion because that is a lifestyle of a large segment of our society. I dislike them because they don’t accept Pakistani laws and the constitution. The attitude of Pakistan’s political elite to the constitution is not any different than that of Taliban.
Zia wanted to establish a supra decision-making body which would preside over the parliamentary democracy. He established a national security council and inserted an article in the constitution for its establishment. Later, as a trade off with the parliament that came into existence as a result of the 1985 non-party based parliamentary elections, he dropped the idea, and in return gained the power to dissolve the National Assembly.
This spectre acquired many incarnations: General Jehangir Karamat’s proposal to give military leaders a seat in the supra decision-making body; and General Musharraf re-established such a body. Bhutto’s model on the decision-making body on national security issues was different. His defense committee of the cabinet (DCC) stayed within the framework of the parliamentary democracy, where the prime minister presided over the committee and military chiefs acted as his advisors.
On Sunday April 3, 2022, something happened in Islamabad that heralded a major distortion in the parliamentary democracy, and that could only be described as another incarnation of the spectre of Ziaul Haq that is still haunting our democracy.
Events happened in quick succession — Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly, Qasim Suri, rejected the no-confidence motion against PM Imran Khan on the pretext of foreign conspiracy, and within a few minutes Khan appeared on the national television to announce that he had dissolved the National Assembly. April 3 was the day of voting on the motion, and the opposition had mustered the support of 197 parliamentarians, whereas only 172 votes were required to dislodge the prime minister.
While addressing his party leaders in the afternoon, the PM said, “When the highest national security body has declared that there was a foreign conspiracy and then the numbers in the parliament becomes irrelevant”.
Khan’s message was clear: the National Security Committee is a supra body and the parliament doesn’t matter. He thinks the parliament is subservient to the National Security Committee — because its members include the military chiefs and military spymasters.
Khan’s message was clear: the National Security Committee is a supra body and the parliament doesn’t matter. He thinks the parliament is subservient to the National Security Committee — because its members include the military chiefs and military spymasters.
Zia didn’t succeed in establishing a supra decision-making body. He came under tremendous pressure from the parliament and withdrew the proposal to set up the National Security Council. But his incarnations have succeed: General Mushrarraf created such a supra body and presided over its proceedings in his nine-year rule as a constitutionally powerful president. Imran Khan is no anomaly —he served as the prime minister because the numbers game in the parliament was in his favour three years back. Yet he remained true to his political ancestry by declaring that the decision of a supra decision-making body can overrule the numbers in the parliament.
The blatant violation of the constitution by the deputy speaker and prime minister is surprising. This is the new normal. We have played a role in making a mockery of law and constitution. A former prime minister and a convict of the court of law was allowed to go abroad for treatment. Pakistan’s leading political figures and law-abiding citizens justify the escape of their leader. Pakistan’s intelligence services indulged in spy games to prevent a former military dictator from appearing before the court where he had to be indicted. And these spy games ensured that he is never indicted for high treasons under Article 6. Later many journalists wrote in their reports that the then Army Chief didn’t like the idea of a former COAS indicted for high treason. These are only two crude examples, where our leaders and power wielders have made a mockery of law.
Such instances are gaining normality. Violations of law and constitution have stopped stirring the society into action. I don’t dislike Pakistani Taliban and other insurgent groups because of their inclination to extreme forms of religion because that is a lifestyle of a large segment of our society. I dislike them because they don’t accept Pakistani laws and the constitution. The attitude of Pakistan’s political elite to the constitution is not any different than that of Taliban.