Rewriting the Constitution

WITH the release of the second package of the proposed constitutional amendments, the picture is now almost complete of a new constitutional scheme being put together to replace the 1973 consensus framework which now holds field. Taken together, the two sets of proposals are much too sweeping in their range, scope and thrust to be seen in any other light. Initially, the general as well as expert reaction to the move for change was somewhat conditioned by common realization of the need for a better balance in the power relationship between the president and the prime minister. This need was brought home in the recent past by the sordid spectacles of a tussle developing between the two or a despolitically inclined prime minister plunging the whole nation into a needless crisis with his open defiance of both the president and higher judiciary. However, what has come in the form of the two constitutional packages extend for beyond the limited need for checks and balances, for they are loaded heavily in favour of the president. In the process, the parliamentary character of the 1973 Constitution will stand drastically altered, so that, for all practical purposes, the prime minister will be at the mercy of an all-powerful president acting in tandem with the National Security Council. While the first package seeks to revive the 58-2B clause, giving the president the power to dismiss the prime minister and also to dissolve the national assembly, the second package proposes to give more sweeping powers to the president.

In the proposed dispensation, the president will appoint the armed forces’ chiefs, the prime minister being denied even the courtesy of consultations. He will also appoint the chief of the National Accountability Bureau, the chief election commissioner and the auditor general of Pakistan in his discretion. The only “concession” is in the case of the CEC’s appointment where the president will ascertain the “views” of the prime minister and the leader of the opposition. There are, however, other proposals whose validity can be discussed and perhaps adopted with some modifications. Giving constitutional protection to the offices of the CEC, AGP and the NRB chief for a fixed tenure seems unexceptionable. Similarly, the proposals regarding the legislative lists and the council of common interest need careful study before their implications become manifest in relation to the rights of the federation’s constituent units.

Nawaz Sharif’s controversial fourteenth amendment is being retained with slight modification. In its present form, it is severe on a member in the sense that he loses his assembly seat merely for speaking against the party line on a given issue. Under the proposed amendment, he would not lose his seat on that account but risks being unseated if he ceases to be a member of his party, votes against the party line, abstains from voting while in the assembly, or quits the parliamentary party to which he belongs. All this is against the norms of parliamentary democracy. In most democracies, where the issue of conscience is involved, deputies are free to speak against their party’s policies and vote against it, without losing their membership of parliament. Whether an MNA sticks to his party line or dissents is basically an intra-party affair. If this shows a lack of discipline in a party, this is something for the party to sort out. A law barring an MNA from speaking his mind in parliament on an issue is clearly undemocratic.

All in all, instead of answering the specific need for “checks and balances” in the existing power-sharing scheme, the proposed amendments seek to radically alter the 1973 Constitution with all power concentrated in the hands of the president. The amendments propose no checks at all on the president, while the elected prime minister and his colleagues have been subordinated to the largely unelected NSC.

Attack in Mansehra

THE attack on a group of foreign tourists near Mansehra on Saturday was another stark reminder of the growing wave of extremism and anti-western sentiment sweeping the country in the aftermath of September 11. The group was attacked at an archaeological site facing an Afghan refugee camp near Mansehra, where they had alighted to look at the celebrated 2000-year-old Ashokan inscriptions. Fortunately, there were no fatalities caused by the crudely made bomb that exploded nearby, but at least nine tourists, all German, and three Pakistanis were injured. The attack can only further damage Pakistan’s reputation as an unsafe destination for foreigners. Last month, there was a devastating car bomb attack on the US consulate in Karachi. In May, a coach carrying a group of French naval engineers was targeted in a similar fashion, killing 11 French nationals as well as three Pakistanis. A few months earlier, a church patronized by diplomats in Islamabad was attacked.

These attacks are bound to damage the prospects for foreign investment in the country. They will also sound the death knell for what little remains of the tourism industry. However, it is not just investment and tourism that have been the victims of these attacks, but something far more fundamental. Pakistan once had a reputation of being a hospitable and friendly country where foreigners were greeted with warmth wherever they went. The rising tide of religious extremism, with its narrow and divisive view of religion and the rest of the world, seems to have spread its doctrine of intolerance to all corners of the country. While one can understand the mood of hostility towards the West generated by recent US actions in the Muslim world, there is no justification for this to translate into a blanket hatred of all foreigners.

Denial of funds to UNFPA

REPORTS emanating from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) headquarters say Washington is poised to cut off some $34 million in aid to the world body. This is in line with the ruling Republican Party’s long-standing position aimed at appeasing the religious right, namely the anti-abortion activists, who insist the US should not fund projects that support abortions as part of the population control programme. The funding for the world body was withheld during the Reagan and Bush Senior presidencies. The UNFPA, for its part, has denied that it provides any funding specifically for the purpose of carrying out abortions anywhere in the world.

This is not the first time the US will be cutting off funding to the world body organ. In fact, Washington has consistently used its monetary contribution to the UN budget as a lever to further American interests or to appease sections of domestic opinion. This time round, the Republican-majority House of Representatives has made it clear that the US funding to the UNFPA should be held back specifically because part of it goes into supporting China’s one-child policy, which is believed to practise forced abortions as a standard enforcement procedure. That may be so; but in cutting off funding to the international population control programme, the pro-life US lawmakers forget that the US funding, according to the UNFPA, would actually prevent some “4,700 maternal deaths, 60,000 serious cases of maternal illness and over 77,000 infant and child deaths.” Just goes to show what lengths politicians can go to extract some political advantage even if that means negating the very cause they publicly espouse.