THERE has been some comment recently in the press about the need for drafting an altogether new constitution for Pakistan or making heavy amendments in the 1973 Constitution. In the debate, the present constitutional scheme appears to be somehow blamed for keeping the nation divided and pitting the provinces against each other. It is also said that it has been unable to prevent military intervention.

Now, is the Constitution to be blamed for this or those who have been entrusted with the responsibility of working it? If it is asserted, as was done in an article in this newspaper last week, and aptly so, that “governance has been based more on whims and fancies rather than on the rule of law or reason”, then how would a new constitution promise anything different as long as the military and the political allies that it always manages to attract continue to dominate the system?

The Constitution clearly lays down that “any person who abrogates or attempts to abrogate, subverts or attempts or conspires to subvert the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason”. Anyone “aiding or abetting” in this “shall likewise be guilty of high treason”. But the provision has never served to prevent the army from taking over the administration of the country.

It is the misfortune of Pakistan that in the circumstances in which it came into being the military and the bureaucracy, rather than the political leadership, provided the cement that held the country together in the early years. The country has since developed its own cohesion, but the dominance of the military has continued unchanged, with political parties playing a subordinate role and our policies largely being decided by the military. Can a new constitution, whatever safeguards it provides against military intervention, significantly alter the existing balance of power if the military refuses to respect it?

It should be remembered that the first nationwide martial law was declared just 11 years after the country came into being when there was still some respect for the leaders of the time; it dealt a blow to the political and democratic process from which we have never recovered.

Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain says that it is the politicians who have always invited the army to take over. In 1958, there were significantly fewer lackeys and toadies available to the military, although, with full political connivance, Ayub Khan was earlier included in the cabinet as defence minister in 1954 in full military regalia and where he acquired his taste for power. It is the hostile relationship with India almost from day one that has ensured the political leadership’s dependence on the military, which, of course, has taken full advantage of the politicians’ weaknesses and actually begun to think that Pakistan has been created for its (the military’s) benefit and that it has the right to dictate how the country should be run.

A diminution of the military’s role in politics does not, unfortunately, appear to be immediately in sight; if anything, the Musharraf years have more strongly entrenched the army as a partner in governance. The military as an institution is the only institution that seems to have grown, prospered and become stronger in all these five decades. This has been at the cost of the Constitution and representative institutions. If the Constitution has failed, it is because of the military and those politicians who have always been found eager to support military dictatorship, to join military-led governments and to unashamedly condemn their own fellow politicians.

Attention should, therefore, be concentrated on how the military’s hold can be loosened and the political leadership strengthened. This can be possible only if pressure for free and fair elections and for the removal of all dictatorially imposed changes and modifications on the 1973 Constitution is maintained. Elections regularly held will, hopefully, produce politicians who are more interested in creating democratically structured parties responsive to public aspirations rather than simply in getting power through shabby compromises like the present miserable lot. The higher judiciary can provide invaluable support in rescinding amendments that appear to it to fly in the face of the original Constitution and its intent.

In 1974, the Indian supreme court had struck down the 39th amendment and parts of the 42nd amendment to the Indian constitution on the basis of what has been described as the Basic Structure Doctrine, saying that the clauses in question were violative of the basic structure of the constitution. The court’s decision was criticised in some circles as an exercise of the amending power of the judiciary beyond the parameters envisaged by the framers of the constitution.

But if political parties in Pakistan can come to an agreement amongst themselves that all constitutional amendments will be referred to the Supreme Court for review and if this decision is endorsed by the parliament that will come into being after the next elections, then any possible constitutional handicaps in getting rid of all anti-democratic amendments will perhaps be overcome.

More than the constitution as a document, its spirit as the fountainhead of the rule of law needs to be respected by everyone, including political parties that are elected to office. In many cases, political and elected governments have been as disrespectful to following the law as military governments. In the Steel Mills privatisation case, The Supreme Court has acted to prevent deviations from constitutional procedures, showing us the way to how a judiciary, conscious of its responsibility to uphold the Basic Law, can act in the interest of the people.

Laws like the Hudood Ordinances can simply be abrogated by parliament if the government has the courage to take such bold steps. It should also be seen whether the jirga system as practised in our rural areas can be challenged on the basis that it runs contrary to the Constitution. But who will do this in a dispensation where jirgas in the tribal areas are officially sanctioned and seen as the best way of settling disputes with the tribes and, as currently, with militants?

The institutions that the Constitution provides for were seen by the framers as essential to the harmonious functioning of the federation. But our rulers have always found devious ways to get around all relevant clauses. For instance, there has almost been an attitude of contempt towards the Council of Common Interests, a constitutional requirement, and even political parties have hardly ever bothered to demand that the council be set up and be made effective.

In a meeting with editors and columnists in Karachi when he was in the midst of his Kalabagh campaign, General Musharraf had dismissed the suggestion of referring the issue to the CCI, saying that if there was no agreement among the provinces, what good would taking the matter to the CCI achieve? But wasn’t it precisely to adjudicate on disputes between provinces that the CCI was established? Now that the Supreme Court has asked for the council to be constituted, the prime minister has assured that this will be done soon. But will it be permitted to function in the spirit foreseen by the framers of the Constitution?

It is also interesting to note that while references to the Constitution are made on so many other scores, little thought is given to some of its directive principles. These, inter alia, ask the state to secure the well-being of the people, irrespective of sex, caste, creed or race, by raising their standard of living, by preventing the concentration of wealth and means of production and distribution in the hands of a few to the detriment of the general interest and by ensuring equitable adjustment of rights between employers and employees, and landlords and tenants; to provide for all citizens, within the available resources of the country, facilities for work and adequate livelihood with reasonable rest and leisure; provide for all persons employed in the service of Pakistan or otherwise social security by compulsory social insurance or other means; provide basic necessities of life, such as food, clothing, housing, education and medical relief, for all such citizens as are permanently or temporarily unable to earn their livelihood on account of infirmity, sickness or unemployment.

Some citizens advocacy or human rights group should challenge the government and ask why it is not enabling much of this to happen. Unless each power group begins to look beyond individual interests to the collective good, no matter how well-crafted a constitution, it will not work. This sounds elementary, but, alas, some of the most elementary things seem to be beyond our grasp.

JAPAN has often been compared to Britain. Following a prolonged period, during which it remained inward-looking, Japan suddenly burst forth as a formidable industrial and military power in the wake of the Meiji revolution in the late 19th century, when it decided to adopt western learning and culture.

By the early 20th century, Japan had become a major power that defeated Czarist Russia in 1905. During the 20th century, it was a partner of the western allies in the First World War, and an axis power in the Second World War when it became the only country to be targeted by the atomic bomb. After its surrender in 1945, it was occupied by the US that abbreviated the powers of the emperor until then considered divine. The way Japan prospered after its defeat and became a trusted ally of the US is a unique story, especially when it is now the world’s second biggest economy under Washington’s security umbrella.

As a new Cold War looms, this time between the US and China, Japan appears to be poised to play a major role in confronting and containing China that has overtaken the Japanese economic miracle. Japan has provided the US with bases that have an important role in the strategy of surrounding China — beginning with Japan and Taiwan, and continuing through Australia, India, Afghanistan and Central Asia.

Japan is keen about this strategy, because its imperialist ventures in the first half of the 20th century were concentrated on China where it committed some of its worst crimes especially during the Nanking Massacre in which 300,000 Chinese civilians were killed.

Nevertheless, since the Second World War, Japan has made a special effort to make up for wartime excesses by extending generous economic assistance to countries that suffered, including China. It has also set up the largest programme of Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) that exceeded the US foreign aid programme in the last quarter of the 20th century. Under the peace treaty that ended the state of war after 1945, Japan was restricted to spending not more than one per cent of its GDP on defence, and was only allowed a self-defence force, with no offensive or foreign role. However, as its economy has grown, the US has liberalised the conditions so that Japan has not only taken part in UN peacekeeping operations, but also sent a large contingent of 3,000 soldiers to Iraq. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi is a strong advocate of reviving Japan’s international role. While most post-Second World War governments in Japan were mindful of the sensitivities of countries it occupied or attacked, Koizumi feels that half a century of self-restraint is enough by way of atonement. The US itself has been encouraging Japan to play a more assertive role in support of Washington’s strategic goals in the Asia-Pacific region.

Among the steps taken by Japan in recent years has been an active pursuit of a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. Japan is the second highest contributor to the UN budget and is also a leading contributor to all UN aid programmes. As the only country attacked with nuclear weapons, it has played an especially active role in the fields of disarmament, and nuclear non-proliferation. Moreover, Japan has contributed generously to relief for victims of major natural disasters, such as the Asian tsunami of 2004 and last year’s earthquake in Pakistan.

Japan has joined the war against terror, and has been fully supportive of the strategy of the Bush administration, both in its operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and its other moves, playing a special role in the Asia-Pacific region. There is a convergence of perceptions between the US and Japan so far as China is concerned. Though China has not been an imperialist power historically, Japan is fearful that once China has achieved its developmental objectives, it will seek a sphere of influence in the Asia-Pacific region. This is a decisive factor in the firm alliance Japan has built up with the US.

As the US proceeds with its strategy of building up partnerships with strategically placed countries of the region such as South Korea, Taiwan, Australia and India, and establishes its presence in West and Central Asia, Japan is providing economic and technological backing.

China, too, has been launching initiatives, to balance US hegemony and control of energy resources. In 1996, China launched the Shanghai Five, consisting of itself, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, to advocate cooperation, control terrorism, and promote a multipolar global order. The organisation was converted into the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) in 2001, with the addition of Uzbekistan. The organisation has made excellent headway in promoting trade and other cooperative endeavours. Several other countries, including India, Pakistan, Iran and Mongolia have shown interest in becoming full members.

Japan, doubtless with US encouragement, has established an economic grouping with the same Central Asian states, namely Kazakhastan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, to channel its economic and technical assistance to the region, and to have access to its energy resources. Interestingly, Afghanistan has not shown interest in the SCO, but has applied to join the Japan-Central Asia grouping.

Coming back to Japan’s role in the Asia-Pacific region, it is fully behind the US goal of keeping the Korean peninsula free of nuclear weapons, a goal also shared by China and Russia. It is participating in the six-power talks, sponsored by China, to achieve this objective peacefully.

However, US tactics point to a desire for regime-change in North Korea, which is supported by Japan, but not by China and Russia. Sino-Japanese relations have been tense over the past 25 years on two issues that have assumed symbolic importance. If Japan is worried about China’s growing power, China is equally concerned over the rise of militaristic tendencies in Japan.

The rise of militaristic sentiment in Japan is reflected in the issues of revision of history textbooks, and of the homage paid to the war dead at the Yakusuni Shrine in Tokyo, where the Japanese war heroes buried include those who were executed as war criminals after the Second World War.

The problem of the history textbooks first came up when this writer was serving as ambassador in Beijing in the 1980s.The revised books sought to gloss over Japanese war crimes during the invasion of China before the Second World War. For instance, the revised textbooks sought to describe the Nanking Massacre as a minor incident provoked by local agitators.

The aim of doing so was seen as a way of removing a sense of guilt among the younger generation so as to prepare them to take the militarist path again. Following strong protests by China and the Koreas, those textbooks were dropped.

Under Prime Minister Koizumi, a revision of the history textbooks has been authorised. Mr Koizumi also feels strongly that his annual visits to the Yakusuni Shrine are a national prerogative over which he remains indifferent to foreign objections. His hard position on these two issues is seen to reflect the resurgence of a new pride in Japan’s military past.

The Chinese and the North and South Korean governments take a different view, and China has downgraded its relations with Japan, despite strong economic ties. President Hu Jintao said recently that he would visit Japan “when the time was ripe”.

As President Bush pursues his policy of pre-emption, and of establishing control over the world’s energy resources, he appears to have the support of a resurgent Japan that also shares his goal of containing China. However, other allies of the US, such as those in Europe, and the major powers of Asia, including China and Russia, are looking for a greater role for the UN, and for the downgrading of military power as the determinant of global affairs. If Japan is to establish its credentials as a great power, worthy of occupying a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, it must display greater respect for the principles and purposes of the UN charter.

The writer is a former ambassador.