Political parties have to take quick decisions
By Ahmed Hassan
ISLAMABAD: With the announcement of the election schedule, including filing of nomination papers from Aug 19 to 24, the crucial stage of seat adjustments among the major political parties has reached; and, besides three major stakeholders — the People’s Party Parliamentarians (PPP), the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N)’s and the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal (MMA) — the Grand National Alliance (GNA) would have to take quick decisions, sources told Dawn on Friday.
After an understanding on Thursday between PPP’s Makhdoom Amin Fahim and PML(N)’s Raja Zafarul Haq and then of both with the MMA, the pro-government parties and their supporters were facing a lot of problems, they said.
Earlier on Wednesday, President Gen Musharraf tried to woo Jamaat-i-Islami chief Qazi Hussain Ahmed to the pro-government camp side by making some sort of understanding with the newly-formed GNA, but to no avail.
The opposition political parties had, thus, decided to take an immediate look at their own potential and to take quick decisions about the planned adjustments with like-minded parties, sources said.
The GNA is also holding its first meeting of central executive here on Saturday which will also serve as central parliamentary board to finalise the lists of joint candidates of its component parties.
First priority of the GNA, sources revealed, would be to putting strong candidates against major players of the opposition parties, including the PPP, the PML(N), the MMA, and the PAT (Pakistan Awami Tehrik) as the government would like to see the back of the frontline contenders for the premiership.
The central parliamentary board of the PML(N) is also being held here on Saturday, with party chairman Raja Zafarul Haq in the chair, to take decision on finalisation of party candidates’ list and pointing out where the party would likely be making seat adjustments.
After giving final shape to the party candidates’ list, both on the national and provincial assemblies seats, the party leaders will hold an important meeting with the leaders of the MMA on Aug 21 in a bid to make and finalise seat-to-seat adjustments where possible.
The party, sources said, expected that it would still be able to make adjustment of seats with the PPP, which, in its view, would be more crucial one.
The PML(N), it may be mentioned, has already reached an understanding with the PPP in the NWFP to counter the damage that its rival, the PML(QA), may try to make to it by siding with the Pakistan People’s Party (Sherpao).
A spokesman of the PML(N) told this scribe that the party had no dearth of candidates but it wanted to contest elections on the lines of those who were for or against the government and, hence, would like to make seat adjustments with the MMA and the PPP wherever possible, in all the provinces.
The spokesman claimed that the party would file the nomination papers of newly-elected party president Shahbaz Sharif and some other family members as well against whom there was no case pending with the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).
Similar meetings had been called by the People’s Party Parliamentarians in the federal capital as well as the provincial capitals to make seat adjustments on national as well as provincial assemblies seats, party sources said.
The MMA, which had held a marathon meeting of its central parliamentary board on Wednesday to finalise its lists of candidates in respect of Balochistan and Sindh provinces, would again be meeting to finalise the candidates’ lists in Punjab and the NWFP on Sunday, sources said.
A source in the MMA said the lists of candidates for both national and the provincial assemblies had already been finalised and decisions were expected only on those seats which the religio-political alliance would offer to other parties as an electoral bargain.
Though the challenge is big, the opposition parties had the realisation that their ultimate success lay in their cooperation through fielding joint candidates in the polls wherever possible, sources said.


Constitutional experimentalism
By A. R. Siddiqi
PAKISTAN could be aptly described as the hub of a sort of costly constitutional experimentalism, or the making and the unmaking of the fundamental law of the land. August 2002 sees another landmark in our volatile and fluctuating constitutional history when the president announces his constitutional package. This would be for the seventh time round since 1954 when a substantially amended, almost good as new, in spirit if not in letter, constitutional package will be delivered.
Underlying the process of constitutional death and rebirth, more than anything else, has been our collective sense of insecurity at the national level and the inordinate thrust to power, at the individual level, on the part of the wielder / wielders of authority at a given point of time. It had been a sort of a deathly struggle between strongmen and an essentially weak people.
The first nine years (1947-56) saw at least two Basic Principles Reports coming to nought and the abortion of the 1954 draft constitution. The ill-starred document, having already steered through the second (and very nearly) the third reading, was aborted by a physically- and mentally-stricken, governor- general Ghulam Mohammad. He would not only kill the foetus but also the institution mothering it, the first sovereign constituent assembly of Pakistan. Thus throwing the baby with the bath water.
An inter-wing consensus statute law came into existence in 1956 to place the eastern and western wings at the delicately- balanced plateau of parity. That was in spite of the 56-44 per cent demographic differential between the two halves after the eastern half surrendered a decisive 10 per cent to the western half to achieve a workable arrangement.
The inter-wing (national) consensus document had been barely in existence (rather in force) for less than two years when it was overturned by president Maj-Gen Iskandar Mirza with the active support — virtually under the command — of army chief Gen Mohammad Ayub Khan. As the first president under the 1956 Constitution, Iskandar committed an egregious folly in destroying the very instrument that elevated him to the exalted status of the head of the state and which was the prime source of his power.
In the time to come, Ayub would give his (“I Field Marshal Ayub Khan give to the people of Pakistan...) referendum-based Constitution in 1962, to be abrogated by Gen Agha Mohammad Yahya Khan barely seven years later in 1969.
Four traumatic years later, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, in 1973, would give a consensus constitution to the rump Pakistan after the loss of East Pakistan in the aftermath of an extended civil war, a short (almost phony) war and military defeat. The 1973 document was all but killed, just four years later in July 1977, by another army chief, Gen Mohammad Zia-ul-Haque. Zia placed the country under his Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) until 1985 and for yet another three years under a partyless democracy until his death in an air crash in August 1988.
The 12 troubled years of democratic rule (1988-1999) under Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif saw the democratic order suffer from the whims of the two rulers, eventually to fall prey to the coup d’grace of yet another army chief, Gen Musharraf. In the third year of his military rule, Gen Musharraf is now busy doctoring the 1973 Constitution, held in abeyance, ever since his takeover. Before him the two democratically-elected rulers had spared little effort and actual action in bleeding the 1973 Constitution in the gutter through as many as seven / eight sweeping amendments.
Gen Musharraf’s constitutional package has aroused much animated comment at the expert and grassroots levels. The constructive and honest intent of the package to replace ‘sham democracy’ with true democracy apart, the question begging for an answer remains: whether the imposition of democratic order by a group or an individual could be compatible at all with democracy as an embodiment of the popular (general) will. The official response remains firmly in the affirmative.
Information Minister Nisar Memon says: “All amendments will be made to strengthen the democratic framework and federalism. Necessary ‘checks and balances’ will be introduced to ensure a harmonious, friction-free equation between the president and the prime minister.”
However, while power and authority would rest with the prime minister ‘checks’ would stay with the president. (Just reverse the equation and see the result for yourself). Armed with the revival of Article 58-2(b) and the formation of the National Security Council, the president would, to all outward appearances, be anytime better placed than the prime minister in the actual exercise of power and authority. According to President Musharraf in his policy statement of July 12: “I believe in the unity of command as a soldier and authority and power should remain with one person...”
Like two swords unable to stay in one scabbard, thus the president and the prime minister would at best make an odd couple under the new dispensation. That is in spite of the assurance of minister Nisar Memon to stay very close to the 1973 Constitution — only minimum essential amendments will be made to the Constitution.
The fact remains, when it comes to tampering with the fundamental law of the land, outside parliament (the House of Representatives) the determination of the ‘maximum’ and the ‘minimum’ would depend on those in absolute command and authority, irrespective of the duly articulated general will.
The question now is: how much longer would we go on experimenting with the fundamental law of the land to resolve, once and for all, our own identity as a constitutional and lawfully formed national entity? Oh, how much longer?
The writer in a retired brigadier.

