| November 2, 2003 | Sunday | Ramazan 6, 1424 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
National archives
PRIME MINISTER Zafarullah Khan Jamali’s advice to politicians to work within “limits” seems to ignore some harsh realities of Pakistan’s political scenario. Even though he did not mention Mr Javed Hashmi by name, it was obvious that the Muslim League leader was very much on the prime minister’s mind when he spoke at the Iftar party given by the Punjab governor in Lahore. In giving his advice to the politicians, the prime minister referred to himself and said he was facing no problem because he was working within the confines of the Constitution. Clearly, the prime minister has wrong notions about the Constitution and its limits.
The Constitution he claims to be working within is far from what it was in 1973 when it was unanimously enacted by the people’s representatives. That Constitution provided for an undiluted parliamentary form of government, with the head of state being largely a ceremonial figure. As leader of the house, and representing the party or coalition of parties having a majority in the house, the prime minister was responsible only to the people of Pakistan through the National Assembly elected by them. All executive powers rested in him and he would remain prime minister and leader of the house so long as he enjoyed the confidence of the National Assembly. The president had no powers to dissolve the parliament: instead, he would do so on the prime minister’s advice and order fresh elections. Gen Ziaul Haq, who pledged to hold elections within 90 days after his coup d’etat in 1977, perpetuated himself in power for 11 years by monopolizing all powers for himself through a series of ordinances. This disfigured the 1973 Basic Law beyond recognition. His most obnoxious contribution to constitutional distortions was the insertion of clause 58-2(b) which made it possible for him to dissolve the National Assembly at his whim. The Constitution was tampered during Mr Z.A. Bhutto’s days too, and Mr Nawaz Sharif had his own notions about how to cow down the legislature and the judiciary. But several of the ugly features of Zia’s amendments were subsequently undone by the elected parliament, and to a large extent, the 1973 Constitution was restored to its parliamentary character. Prior to last year’s election, General Pervez Musharraf outdid Ziaul Haq in making sweeping changes in the Constitution and drastically altering it.
The purported aim behind the amendments was to balance the powers of the prime minister and the president and to ensure political stability. However, the changes — promulgated in the form of the Legal Framework Order — have done anything but strike a balance between the powers of the two office- holders. Instead, the LFO seems to have concentrated all powers in the hands of the president (who at the moment also happens to be the army chief). The LFO has some very undemocratic features that go against the basic postulates of democracy and constitutionalism — the supremacy of the people and their inalienable right to rule themselves through their elected representatives. These features include the restoration of the controversial 58 (2-b) clause and the establishment of the National Security Council. While the former gives the president the right to dissolve parliament whenever he wishes, the other subordinates the elected civilian set-up to the edicts of the military top brass. It is within the parameters of this Constitution that Mr Jamali is working. And that in no way gives him a higher moral position, for he has accepted the subordination of the people’s will to the military.
The politicians have been playing on the generals’ wicket. The October 2002 election was preceded by a questionable referendum, while the electoral exercise itself was manipulated to the disadvantage of the two mainstream national parties. Again, not all the five assemblies were given a free hand to elect the federal and provincial governments. In the case of the federal government, pressure was exerted on some politicians to defect from their parties and support the Muslim League-Q, while in Sindh the generals cobbled together a disparate coalition with the specific aim of keeping the largest party out of power.
More than a year has passed since the election, but there is no compromise on the LFO. The government insists that the LFO has already become a part of the Constitution. Which no sane mind can accept. The LFO was promulgated by a general whom the Supreme Court had authorized to stay on in office with the specific purpose of holding elections. Nowhere in its judgment of May 12, 2000, did the apex court authorize the general to make wholesale changes in the Constitution. Obviously, the Supreme Court cannot delegate to an individual or group of individuals powers which the court itself does not have. The military is now very much a political force. Politics being a double-edged sword, the generals cannot have it all their own way. If they are in politics and the government uses the state’s administrative and coercive apparatus against the politicians — as Mr Hashmi’s arrest shows — then they should not expect politicians to play the gentlemen. If the generals have assumed a political role for themselves and have intruded into space usually occupied by civilians — as in numerous government and autonomous bodies — then they should be prepared to face criticism. Asking the politicians to operate within “limits” lacks a moral basis because the Jamali-Musharraf government itself has set no limits for itself.
A RECENT news report reveals that federal ministries and provincial departments are not depositing their records older than five years with the National Archive of Pakistan as required under the National Archives Act of 1993. The interior ministry, for instance, has not submitted any files of its records beyond the year 1965, while several other ministries, departments and even the parliament secretariat have not complied at all. This is a shame, and negates the very purpose of having an archive where all official records, including declassified files and documents, are meant to be stored and made available for public scrutiny and for the benefit of research scholars. The report goes on to suggest that the ministries are taking advantage of a provision of the archives law that gives government departments the right to withhold certain records for a “period or periods as may be prescribed.” It appears that this provision is being widely abused by many departments that are either delaying or avoiding delivering their records to the archive or are delivering only a small portion of these. That the parliament secretariat itself is in default on this count is indeed regrettable.
In a country where few institutions exist and fewer still have been able to take root, such disregard for a national institution should be considered unacceptable. A national archive is the repository of a nation’s day-to-day history as it unfolds, as it is also a mine of information to be explored by present as well as future researchers and historians. Since its establishment as a separate department of the cabinet division through an act of parliament in 1993, the archive has continued to have teething problems. A shortage of funds and general neglect on the part of the government have restricted its activity, expansion and modernization. It is sad that a decade after its creation, the national archive should remain understaffed and lack basic archival facilities such as computers and other essential fixtures and equipment. It is time the government moved this important institution up on its list of priorities and facilitated its development into an important national institution playing the role of custodian of Pakistan’s historical records.