| March, 23 2005 | Wednesday | 12 Safar 1426 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Reforming the UN
Not unlike many times in the past, the nation is celebrating Pakistan Day in a mood far from buoyant and cheerful. The government insists that there is a lot to cheer about — the economic turn-around, for instance. Without attempting to belittle the government’s successes on the economic front, we would like to see the larger picture and unfortunately there are reasons to be gloomy. The biggest disappointment is our failure to have a sound political system even 58 years after independence. While this day is celebrated in memory of the historic Lahore Resolution passed on March 23, 1940, we tend to forget that it was also on March 23, 1956, that Pakistan’s first constitution was adopted. This day is, thus, as much a day for remembering the Pakistan resolution as for dedicating ourselves to constitutionalism. Here, regrettably, our record is dismal.
Promulgated 49 years ago, Pakistan’s first constitution lasted slightly more than two years, being abrogated by the president with the full backing of the army chief in October 1958. The next constitution, enacted in 1962, was torn up by Yahya Khan, who replaced Ayub Khan in 1969, following countrywide disturbances. The only redeeming feature in this otherwise bleak record of despotism is the survival of the 1973 Constitution. Unanimously adopted by the people’s elected representatives, the Constitution has survived in spite of countess unconstitutional and extra- constitutional aberrations. First Ziaul Haq carried out arbitrary changes in the basic law to consolidate his rule and foist a theocratic dispensation on the country with the help of some religious parties. The amendments made by him included the infamous 58-2b clause, which gave him the right to dissolve an elected National Assembly and sack the prime minister even if he enjoyed the assembly’s confidence. He used this clause to dismiss his own chosen prime minister. As divine justice would have it, most of those amendments were done away by Ziaul Haq’s protege, Nawaz Sharif, and it was left to Gen. Pervez Musharraf to revive Ziaul Haq’s crippling legacy. As it stands today, the 1973 Constitution, robbed of its parliamentary character and incorporating the infamous 58-2b, is hardly the document that was adopted in 1973. Also, like Ziaul Haq, Gen. Musharraf has chosen to remain army chief while insisting that he is an elected president.
The deviations from constitutionalism and the four military interventions have done enormous harm to Pakistan’s very soul. Their most pernicious effects are to be seen in the weakening of the federal structure and the rise of ethnic, sectarian and parochial forces. The crisis in Balochistan is symptomatic of this malaise. Given the peculiar nature of Pakistan’s demography, provincial autonomy assumes special significance in our kind of federation. Yet, the quantum of autonomy does not seem to satisfy the small provinces. To them, and perhaps to most neutral observers of the scene, Pakistan’s federal structure is based on centralism and in practice intrudes into the provincial share of economic and administrative powers.
In recognized democracies, constitutions form the bedrock and are honed as they evolve and work without interruptions. Pakistan unfortunately never had a long and uninterrupted period of constitutional rule. No wonder, we never got a chance to work a democratic system. This is manifestly clear from the failure of the democratic experience between 1988 and 1999. Every constitution needs amendments if it is to respond to changing political realities and stay as a basic law. These amendments are done through a built-in mechanism in every democracy. In our case, however, amendments are invariably made by Bonapartist rulers to suit their purpose.
At present the 1973 Constitution needs many changes, the most important being in the clauses relating to provincial autonomy. Regretfully, provincial autonomy has fallen victim to political rhetoric. How else can one explain the absence of a serious debate on the issue? In fact, even those shouting the loudest about provincial autonomy have failed to come up with a clause by clause analysis of the Basic Law and present a realistic scheme of division of power. Pakistan can move towards stability and consolidation if the constituent units are given a strong stake in its strength and vitality. This means not only economic development in backward provinces and regions but also a proper devolution of powers from the centre downwards. For the people at large, democracy essentially means a proper sense of participation at all levels of government, federal, provincial and local.
The reforms proposed by UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, are of great significance, though they are bound to be controversial. Since the end of the cold war in the early nineties, the need for reform of the UN has been generally recognized. No measures were taken then to revamp the world body because no pressure was felt to address such a sensitive issue. The American invasion of Iraq in blatant disregard of the UN created that sense of urgency in 2003. Hence this recommendation by Mr Annan. The secretary-general has appealed to the member states to consider it and adopt the recommendations by September when a world summit will be held in New York to observe the 60th anniversary of the United Nations. The dissent being voiced notwithstanding, one hopes the reforms will be accepted to make the UN a more effective body than it is at present.
The proposed reforms touch a number of vital issues. Some of them such as strengthening human rights, boosting development and a thorough overhaul of the UN bureaucracy are not contentious. The need has long been felt to streamline the UN bureaucracy, make governments fulfil their earlier commitment of providing 0.7 per cent of their GNP for development aid and change the composition of the human rights body. But the two issues that are already being hotly debated are the composition of the Security Council and the rules to determine when states can go to war to protect the people’s freedom to live in dignity.
The idea of expanding the Security Council is universally recognized. With the UN members having grown from 51 to 191 in the wake of the era of decolonization, it is logical that its executive arm should also expand. But the moot question is, how? Previously, the number of non-permanent rotating members was expanded from six to ten. This time one option calls for a an increase of nine rotating members with eight of them being assigned a semi-permanent status, while the other provides for six new permanent members — although without a veto — and three new rotating members. This, it is felt, will create new centres of privilege which, understandably, those denied a share in it would resent. Another issue that will be questioned is the rule that when a state is unable or unwilling to protect its citizens against genocide or crimes against humanity, collective action can be taken against it under the UN Charter. It is the mechanism to determine the need for UN action that is likely to prove contentious.
It now depends on the collective wisdom of the UN members that they work for a consensus on the proposed reforms. The fact is that the basis of the UN was the tacit recognition of the post-war power realities in 1945. Rationally this concept should keep pace with the changes in the international power equilibrium today. Though this may not be fully reflected in the reformed UN, it would at least be a move in the right direction.