|
|
|
| 14 April 2004 | Wednesday | 23 Safar 1425 |
Heated Senate debate over NSC
ISLAMABAD, April 13: Political rivals crossed swords in the Senate on Tuesday over the intent of the government's National Security Council (NSC) Bill at the start of a debate on the key law that is sure to get an easy passage from the upper house.
The Senate held two sittings in the morning and evening on the first day of the general debate on the bill that creates a 13-member NSC to give the military a permanent legal role in the country's governance.
The bill was passed by the 342-seat National Assembly last week and, to become a law, must also be adopted by the 100-seat Senate, where the ruling coalition led by the Pakistan Muslim League-Q has the required simple majority.
Representatives of three major political groupings - leader of house Wasim Sajjad, PPP and Democratic Alliance leader Raza Rabbani and MMA leader Prof Khurshid Ahmed made the main speeches in the morning sitting while more senators from both the treasury and opposition benches spoke in the evening.
Mr Raza Rabbani opened the debate on what he called "one of the blackest laws" in the annals of Pakistan's parliamentary history and cited nine grounds for opposing it, including a role given for armed forces that is not envisaged by the constitution, formalization of their role in the functioning and policy-making of the federal government and "infringement of parliament's sovereignty."
His other objections were that the NSC made the prime minister and the federal cabinet "subordinate to its policies", did not confine its ambit to only national security, introduced a unitary form of government, infringed provincial autonomy, had a large number of president's appointees as its members, and while the president presided over it, made the prime minister "an equal among equals" in a negation of the parliamentary system.
At the start of an incisive speech, which was later strongly contested by leader of house Wasim Sajjad, Mr Rabbani sought a clarification from Minister of State for Law and Parliamentary Affairs Mohammad Raza Hayat Hiraj about his reported statement that a proposal would be made to the cabinet to also induct defence, finance, interior and foreign ministers into the NSC.
Mr Hiraj said his remarks were reported out of context and that he had only referred to the possibility of making use of the expertise of certain ministers under a clause permitting attendance of a government functionary in NSC meetings by special invitation and had not meant an amendment in the law to increase the council's strength.
Mr Rabbani said the new NSC was different from its previous versions and could not be compared with bodies of the same name in the United States, India or Turkey. He quoted a September 25, 1948 notification of the Cabinet Secretariat to argue that even the founders of the country did not envisage anything more than a Defence Committee of Cabinet, which he said was "sufficient enough" to deal with security.
Mr Rabbani made a critical analysis of the bill's clauses to support his argument that the NSC negated the constitution and called an amendment proposed by the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) and inserted in the bill to provide for referring NSC recommendations requiring implementation to the National Assembly or Senate as "mother of all evils".
Mr Wasim Sajjad rejected Mr Rabbani's concerns and said the NSC neither conferred new powers on the president or prime minister not did it go against the constitution or affect the federal structure of the government. He said the consultative process envisioned by the NSC Bill would not demean but enhance the prestige of parliament and in fact reduce presidential powers rather than removing checks.
"The basic structure of the constitution remains intact," Mr Sajjad said, and argued that a subordinate law going against the constitution could be struck down by courts of law.
He said security had always been a vital issue for Pakistan in view of designs of its enemies and that the NSC would provide an institution of vital importance to give unity, surety and direction to the country's security.
He disagreed with Mr Rabbani's contention that the president would have a majority in the 13-member council because of four "direct appointees" and four "influenced appointees" and said in fact the NSC would have only four presidential appointees - chairman of the joint chiefs of staff committee and chiefs of staff of army, navy and air force - while the rest would be elected people.
Mr Sajjad said Pakistan had the right to have its own version of an NSC to meet its requirements and also disagreed with Mr Rabbani that the presence of "crisis management" as one of the subjects to be considered by the NSC would bring "anything under the sun" in the council's purview.
Prof Khurshid supported Mr Rabbani's grounds against the bill but agreed with Mr Sajjad's argument that no subordinate law could change the constitution. But he said the present bill sought to increase the president's discretionary powers by authorizing him to call NSC meeting at his discretion or on the prime minister's advice and gave the armed forces a legal role in matters not provided by the constitution.
The MMA leader said a purely civilian NSC could be acceptable but the NSC Bill in its present shape that gives council membership to armed forces' chiefs was not acceptable, and should be rejected. He said his alliance would move amendments to the bill, although he did not disclose their details.
Continuing the debate in the upper house in the evening, Sardar Latif Khan Khosa of PPP described the bill as repugnant to the constitution and detrimental to the parliamentary democracy. MMA's Dr Syed Murad Ali Shah called for reformation of the institution of the armed forces as was done in the case of police.
He was of the view that parliament should debate the question whether the nation needed such a large standing army or a small-sized unit, leaving the national defence to conscripts. He said in Turkey 80 governments had changed in 70 years due to their National Security Council's interventions. These powers of Turkey's NSC were now being clipped by its parliament.
Dr Khalid Ranjha (PML-Q) spoke in support of the NSC act and mentioned the formation of defence and security committees under civilian rule and said the NSC would be a better forum than those committees. The house was adjourned by chairman Senate till 10am on Wednesday.
|
|
|
|