CONSTITUTION-making has been a never-ending process in Pakistan. Once again the country is in the grip of a grave constitutional crisis. Pakistan is under military rule for the fourth time. The 1973 Constitution is being held in abeyance. Parliament stands dissolved. We are back to square one like Sisyphus, the errant in Greek mythology whose punishment in Hades was to push a huge boulder up the hill — only to have it tumble down again.

We have to travel to the past in order to find out what Pakistan’s constitution looked like at dawn of independence and where we stand today. It is necessary to have a thorough grasp of the main principle that underlay the Act of 1935 in order to be able to appreciate the fundamental change that was effected by the Act of 1947. The concept of responsible government in India was first introduced by the Act of 1919, which was passed on the recommendations contained in the Montague-Chelmsford Report. The Act introduced in the sphere of provincial government the system of diarchy which was based on the principle that ministers, without being answerable for the reserved departments or for policy on reserved powers, were jointly responsible to the popularly elected legislature in respect of the transferred departments.

The system was extended by the Act of 1935, so as to cover, with some important exceptions, the whole field of government. It stated that the basic idea of the new Indian constitution would be diarchy at the centre and responsible government in the provinces. The special features of the Act were: (a) the polity of India was reconstituted on a federal basis; (b) the provinces were granted autonomy and responsible government; and (c) the governor-general of India and the governors of the provinces were granted extensive powers by way of safeguards, reservations, special responsibilities, overriding powers, and so on.

The executive powers of the federation were vested in the governor-general, as he was the representative of the Crown. As head of the federal executive, he had supreme command of the military, naval and air forces.

Administrative functions with respect to defence and foreign relations were to be exercised by the governor-general at his discretion. All other executive powers were to be exercised by the governor-general with the help and advice of the council of ministers, subject to the exercise by the G-G of special powers and responsibilities. The control of ministers over the administration of transferred departments was subject to following limitations:

1. ministers had no right to tender advice on matters in respect of which the governor-general was required to act at his discretion; 2. in cases where the G-G was empowered to exercise his individual judgment; and 3. when the G-G acted in exercise of powers entrusted to him in the discharge of special responsibilities.

In all matters which involved his special responsibilities, the G-G was required to exercise his individual judgment as to the action to be taken. He could, however, seek ministerial advice, but he was not bound to act upon it.

The Act placed a number of restrictions on the legislative powers of the federal legislature. These restrictions were set out in Section 108 which provided that unless the governor-general in his discretion thought fit to give his previous sanction, no bill or amendment shall be introduced into, or moved in, either chamber of the federal legislature which: (a) repeals, amends or is repugnant to any provisions of any act of parliament extending to British India; or (b) repeals, amends, or is repugnant to any Act or any ordinance promulgated by the governor-general or a governor at his discretion.

The governor-general was invested with extraordinary powers of legislation and could issue ordinances having the same force and effect as an Act of the federal legislature assented to by the governor-general. The G-G was empowered to promulgate ordinances during the recess of the legislature. The Act contains special provisions enabling the G-G to act promptly in the event of a breakdown of the constitutional machinery. If at any time the G-G felt that a situation had arisen in which the government of the federation could not be carried on in accordance with the provision of the Act, he could, using his discretionary powers, issue a proclamation declaring that his functions now be extended to all or any of the powers vested in or exercisable by any federal body or authority, other than the federal court.

Subject to the provisions of the Act of 1935, the executive authority of each province extended to matters with respect to which the legislature of the province had power to make laws. It was provided that even though the governor could act at his discretion, he should exercise his powers with the help and on the advice of a council of ministers.

To summarize, the position under the Act of 1935 was that, though in matters in which the governor-general was not empowered to act in his discretion or in exercise of his individual judgment, the ministers could take action, which, as a matter of convention, was not to be questioned by governor-general, there still remained a large sphere of action in which either the governor-general did not consult the ministers or he was not bound by their advice.

It cannot be denied that Government of India Act 1935, was not a perfect piece of legislation. It fell far short of the aspirations and demands of the people of India. Some of its shortcomings and defects were: Indians were not given control over the government of their country; they could not change or amend their constitution; the Indian Legislature was not a sovereign legislature. It was wholly incompetent to legislate on certain matters.

These restrictions on legislation and control on government had, therefore, to be removed if India was to become independent. Now for a country to be independent it is necessary that it should have a legislature with authority to legislate on all matters without any restrictions, including matters relating to the making of a constitution and its government should be responsible only to its own people or its elected representatives and not to any other authority.

It is in the light of these principles that the Indian Independence Act has to be examined when it came into force on the midnight of August 14, 1947. The salient features and provisions of the act are:

* A governor-general was provided for each of the new dominions and he was to be appointed by the Crown.

* The legislatures of the two dominions were made fully sovereign and were given powers to make laws having extraterritorial jurisdiction.

* The constituent assembly of each dominion was given the power to frame a constitution pending which each dominion was to be governed as nearly as could be in accordance with the Government of India Act 1935.

* The governor-general of each dominion was empowered till March 31, 1948, to make necessary omissions, additions, adaptations, and modifications in the provisions of the Government of India Act 1935.

* Pakistan was not subject, as Canada and Australia were, to any disability to change its constitution. It could have any constitution or form of government it liked having no connection with the Commonwealth or the Crown or the governor-general as the representative of the Crown.

Under the provisions of the Indian Independence Act 1947, the Government of India Act 1935 became, with certain adaptations, the working constitution of Pakistan. Under the original Act of 1935, the position of the governor-general was unique. As the representative of the British Crown in India, he was invested with the final political authority in the country and given the widest discretionary powers and special responsibilities. The supreme command of the land, naval, and air forces was vested in him.

On August 14, 1947, all discretionary powers were restricted through an amendment in the Indian Independence Act 1947. Under section 8(c) of the Act of 1947, the powers of the governors-general or any governor to act in his discretion or to exercise his individual judgment lapsed from August 15, 1947. From then onwards, the governor-general was presumed to act on the advice of his ministers. No discretionary powers were left with the governor-general under the Act as adapted in Pakistan. With effect from August 14, 1947, all governmental activity was brought under the control of the cabinet which was responsible to the legislature. All powers of the governor-general were to be exercised on the advice of the cabinet. Where do we stand today?

The Constitution, the fundamental law of the land, has been repeatedly violated, defaced, disfigured, decimated and changed beyond all recognition.

Under the new dispensation, an unelected president will rule Pakistan for another five years, if not more.

One does not have to be a great constitutional expert to realize that we are back to pre-independence Government of India Act 1935 with a powerful president, a non-sovereign parliament and a puppet prime minister. Pakistan opted for parliamentary democracy on the eve of independence. Parliament is one of the chief instruments of our democracy. Is it consistent with the principles of parliamentary democracy to empower the president at the expense of the prime minister? And is it consistent with the principles of parliamentary democracy to divest the parliament of its constitutional role as the sole check on the executive and pass on this function to an unelected body like the National Security Council dominated by the armed forces answerable to none?

One thing is clear: we have drifted away from the democratic path and have lost our bearings and all sense of direction. Pakistan has been on the wrong road for so long. It needs to get on the right track and go at any pace it can. Direction is more important than speed. Nobody travels along a road without knowing where it leads to. No captain of a ship sets out on a voyage without knowing where it will take him. No captain of a ship sets out on a voyage without his charts and, while sailing, without taking his position every day. But Pakistan travels through time without orienting itself to it.

The ship of state is decrepit and creaky. The sea is turbulent. The captain has no compass and the crew is inexperienced. One feels as if Pakistan as crossing an ocean in a canoe. People on an aircraft carrier can jump around, even play football and the boat will not rock. In a canoe, all the passengers have to paddle in unison facing the same direction or there will be disaster. Isn’t it tragic that the people on the canoe have resigned themselves to their fate in mid-ocean, have stopped paddling and have given up all hope?

There seems to be a crisis of confidence in the country’s future. There is widespread and growing cynicism among the people. The country appears to be adrift, lacking confidence about its future. Never before has public faith in the country’s future sunk so low. Nobody knows where the country is headed and very few care. Traditionally proud, Pakistanis have begun to despair. They have seen a number of false dawns of reforms and renaissance. Talk today is of vanished dignity, of a nation diminished in ways not previously imaginable. It is almost as if no one wants to acknowledge a sad end to what once seemed a beautiful dream.

My sadness in following the events since independence is deepened by bitter-sweet memories of the euphoria of the Pakistan dream in the heady days of 1947 when Pakistan was so very new and hopes were so very high. Will Pakistan ever have a durable political system based on national consensus or a parliament which reflects the will of the people? Will Pakistan ever have a strong and independent judiciary to protect the citizen’s inalienable rights? Will Pakistan ever have a strong and independent election commission as India has? Will Pakistan ever leave the valley of despair and recover its elan vital? Will I ever be able to say: “it is a fantastic feeling to be a Pakistani tonight”?

TELEVISION programmes and press comments in America clearly suggest that even as they pass through the first anniversary of the horrors of 9/11, most Americans seem to spare little time for introspection. Mired in the din and bustle of the present even President Bush and the hawks in his cabal of advisers have little time for such niceties as world opinion and a historical perspective.

Forgotten is the fact that George Bush became president only after a split verdict of the Supreme Court and that too on a dubious vote count. Even after he assumed office, Bush had one of the lowest popularity ratings of any US president in recent history — as low as 40 per cent. What lay before him was at best an insipid and difficult term in office.

The spate of allegations of corporate sleaze and of dubious contacts with the big business that followed the elections, could have queered the pitch for any newly elected president. Commenting on that period Columbia University professor Alan Brinkly said in a recent interview that “George Bush seemed certain to be on the road towards being a minor president before September 11, both by temperament and by the circumstances he faced.”

Then along came a godsend — 9/11. Whether or not it was the brainchild of Osama bin Laden alone, the bombing of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, presented George Bush with a united America together with the whole world on a silver platter. A second-rate former state governor was transformed into the world’s strongman, riding roughshod and wild like a bull in a China shop.

What followed 9/11 is history, but what is not is the current US policies which go against the very grain of American history. Over the years US presidents had striven to create and maintain their nation’s image as a benefactor of mankind and a defender of freedom and democracy. That indeed was America’s Weltanschauung until Bush transformed it from a world saviour into a world bully.

Although it was an intelligence failure of gargantuan proportions, 9/11 was an opportunity which in maturer hands could have been used for better national purpose. But this was not to be as Bush has demonstrated by his insistence on unilateralism. From the shores of the bleeding Levant and eastwards throughout the Muslim world, America’s name today stands tarred with the word “crusades.” Bush tried to retract his error, but that image has come to stay. Although it had already become increasingly clear that the real casus belli which triggered 9/11 sprang from the failure of the US to rein in the bellicose Israeli prime minister PM Ariel Sharon, better known as the “Butcher of Sabra and Shatila.” Bush continues to acquiesce in Israel’s ‘crusade’ of murder in Palestine.

While the saner leadership in Europe was trying to build bridges of friendship with an estranged Iran, Bush put paid to these efforts by including Tehran among his so-called “axis of evil” targets. And now in a coup de grace Bush, supported by his British sidekick Tony Blair, is asking the world to join in an attack on Iraq, and that too after Saddam Hussein has agreed to let in the UN weapons inspectors. It is megalomania such as this that is endangering the world peace.

Europe is not generally supportive of the US methods and policies in its war on terror, more particularly in view of its growing alienation of the Muslim world. There is support for the view that terrorism as such cannot be rooted out by force alone — without tackling its underlying causes. It is the hotbeds of deprivation, poverty, injustice and brutal suppression in Palestine which have bred the ever active band of Arab and Palestinian suicide bombers. Mohammad Atta and his team sprang from the same causative background. It was the suppression of the Tamils that bred the woman bomber who blew up Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.

Fortunately, however, even in the US, experienced and mature minds are raising their voices of caution and restraint against Bush’s unilateralist policies and actions. Opinions recently aired at a round-table discussion attended by some of America’s leading opinion makers, hold out some hope of reining in the war horses like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld who dominate the White House.

Said David Levering Lewis, the Pulitzer Prize winner: “Without losing sight of the monstrous wrong done to us, wasn’t it incumbent upon (us) to ask why after the initial burst of sympathy, people in Europe as well as the developing world say that there were good reasons not to be astonished that such a terrible assault happened.”

Said Alan Brinkly: “Our long-term circumstances are gong to require a lot of subtlety, a lot of ability to deal with complexity. Neither this president nor this administration has that capacity.”

Arthur Schlesinger, former assistant to late President Kennedy, made no bones about it when he said “George Bush has no curiosity about history, no interest in the past and a limited interest in the future. He lives day to day... One of the things I am most disturbed about is the tame acceptance of the idea that the decision for war or peace is President Bush’s to make by himself. Members of Congress should reassert the constitutional requirement that Congress has exclusive power to authorize war. We are in a very dangerous relationship with the rest of the world. The go-it-alone policy shows a certain contempt for international institutions and opinion. After all, we may be omnipotent but we are not omniscient.”

On present reckoning such pearls of wisdom have little chance of getting through Bush’s thick Texan hat.

The writer is a former Pakistani diplomat.

THOUSANDS of protesters demonstrated in Washington against the inequitable policies of the World Bank and the IMF as they met for their annual joint meeting.

They were also protesting against the adverse effects of globalization on the poor countries. Such protests accompanied by violence in varying measures have become a regular feature to coincide with such meetings since 1999 when they blocked a WTO summit successfully in Seattle. Such protest demonstrations had also taken place in Washington earlier as well as in Canada and Italy. The protests were muted in Doha where the World Trade Organization had met last year.

Loren Finkelstein, the spokeswoman for Mobilization for Global Justice said in Washington that it was an opportunity to express the fact that the injustice America felt on September 11 was felt by people all over the world every day. The policies of the World Bank and the IMF create situations just as harmful to people’s lives.

At last week’s meeting of 184-member organizations, the president of the World Bank James Wolfensohn said a world in which fifteen per cent people control eighty per cent of the income is unsustainable and that means seventy five per cent of the people are sharing twenty per cent of the income of the world and that includes twenty per cent people who are living below the poverty line of a dollar a day. Wolfensohn said the quest for a more equal world is the quest for long term peace, something that military power can never achieve.

But the greater focus of the world’s economic policy makers in Washington was on sustaining and accelerating global economic recovery particularly in the Group of Seven states and the newly industrialized countries than the poor countries or the very poor people of the world.

“Our most immediate concern must be to strengthen the global economy” said Hurst Koehler, managing director of the IMF. He also said globalization must be made to work better for the world’s poor. But while their was sympathy for the poor countries and aspirations of their people the quantum of external assistance to developing countries is 0.1 per cent of the GDP of the rich countries, while the UN target has been 0.7 per cent. Small countries like Netherlands, Norway, Denmark are generous enough to provide around one per cent of their GDP as aid but not the United States, whose share is below 0.2 per cent of its GDP. The poor countries protest against the policies and prescriptions of the IMF. The Fund, however, deplores the waste of funds by India and Pakistan in their military confrontation. The World Bank and the World Trade Organization are now establishing a new fund called the Standards and Trade Development Facility as a part of their effort to link aid to trade opportunities in the fight against poverty.

The fund in cooperation with other organizations will provide a stimulus to important new projects for developing countries in this critical area, helping them shape and implement international standards on food safety and plant and animal health. The goal is to provide grants of financial support for technical projects in developing countries.

Such assistance can be helpful to developing countries in the long run in meeting some of the challenges of globalization. But the developing countries as a whole are facing numerous problems made worse by the global recession. They are under a heavy debt burden. Some of them particularly Latin America face serious currency crisis. And the global recession has made them lose around thirty per cent on their export earnings following the fall in global prices.

And now the oil prices are going up further following the Iraqi crisis and if there is a war, the oil prices can go up further and do serious damage to the economy of developing countries. The gainers are likely to be the rich countries with large storage of oil as well as their own output like the US and Canada.

The developing countries too have a stake in the economic recovery of the West as it increases the demand for the exports of developing countries as well as pushes up their prices. But such a recovery in the West would depend on the quality of leadership and their ability to implement what they think is right. Britain’s chancellor of exchequer Gordon Brown says the onus for boosting the global economy has now shifted from interest rate cuts by central banks to reforms by finance ministries. He says while monitory activism last year with seven interest rate cuts in the UK and ten cuts in the US made a difference to the prosperity, “We need an activism in economic reform to match that.”

The Group of Seven has, however, been able to effect a breakthrough on the issue of debt default of debtor countries. They are now agreeable to bring in bankruptcy-like procedures to ease the debt pains of the borrower countries and stay the hands of the lenders. But how will it work in reality remains to be seen.

Meanwhile, the progress of the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative under which the rich countries are to write off a large part of the debt of the poorest countries had not been making sufficient headway.

The Group of 24 countries meeting in Washington has expressed its disappointment over the fact that only six out of thirty eight eligible countries have reached their completion point and that some creditors have not fully joined the process. The group argues that additional funds will be required to address the HIPC’s needs.

If in such a context the oil prices go on rising, due to America’s eagerness to topple Saddam the developing countries will be in serious trouble. The US and its allies who want a war, should be able to compensate part of the losses the developing countries will suffer. More so when it is being argued that a war will not cost more than one per cent of America’s GDP and is hence affordable.

So the US should be able to take care of the victims of war who may not involve themselves in a shooting war. That is all the more so when it is argued that the prime interest of George Bush is in getting hold of the Iraqi oil and later the Iranian oil. America cannot expect world support for the war unless it is willing to share a part of the heavy damage the developing countries will suffer.

What is certain is that unless the World Bank and the IMF do more to reduce poverty in the world and ease the debt burden of the developing countries, there will always be protest demonstrations whenever they meet. Of course, the international agencies will not agree to hold open meetings during their plenary sessions as the protesters demand, but they have to do far more to solve the problems of the poor, triggered by rapid globalization.