4
SOVEREIGNTY. It’s a word that evokes so much power and passion, such patriotic zeal. It is also one that despite its empowering and sage references is primarily bandied about in tense and tumultuous times. Interestingly, a debate about sovereignty under way in the UK sheds light on Pakistan’s own obsession with the concept, and demands that we approach it with greater circumspection.
A British High Court has ruled that the UK could not trigger Article 50 — which would eventually lead to the UK leaving the EU — without a parliamentary vote on the issue. The judges reasoned that the British government could not use its executive powers to leave the EU because that would overturn an act of parliament.
The ruling returned to the fundamental premise that parliament is the supreme lawmaking body in the UK — only it can make or undo laws, and neither the government nor the courts can overrule parliamentary authority. The ruling was perceived by many as an important check on the government, circumventing a precedent whereby it could wipe out any legislation with which it did not agree. In other words, the ruling defended parliamentary sovereignty.
A court ruling on Brexit reiterates parliament’s sovereignty.
But the ruling in the name of sovereignty faced a massive backlash from those who accused the courts of seeking to undermine democracy and the public will. Many politicians and activist groups that had campaigned for the UK to leave the EU termed the court ruling a “betrayal”, “power grab” or “dirty trick”. This despite the fact that pro-Brexit figures repeatedly and forcefully argued throughout the referendum campaign that the goal was to restore the sovereignty of the British parliament.
Politicians such as Nigel Farage, the leader of the pro-Brexit UKIP party, railed against the fact that while the UK remained in the EU, its laws were made by unelected officials in Brussels. The point of Brexit, according to Leave campaigners, was to restore the integrity and legitimacy of the British parliament by giving it complete control over lawmaking.
So why is the pro-Brexit crowd so upset about a ruling that reiterates the same message — that parliament is sovereign? Because parliamentary sovereignty in this case will result in delays and debates about the timing of the UK’s departure from the EU as well as the nature of the exit deal negotiated. It means that representatives from constituencies that voted to remain in the EU will push for a ‘soft’ Brexit that allows the UK to maintain most links with the EU, rather than the ‘hard’ Brexit that Prime Minister Theresa May’s administration has thus far been advocating. It means talks and trade-offs and, frankly, a chance that the most rabid, right-wing, anti-EU elements of the British political landscape don’t get their way.
And that’s the thing about sovereignty. Everyone bellows about it when they want to get their way, but no one wants to deal with the truth of what sovereignty entails in democratic societies.
Sovereignty as it is popularly understood evokes perceptions of control and centralised decision-making. It remains tainted by the spectre of the ‘sovereign’ — a monarch or potentate exercising supreme control over all he (usually a he) surveys.
But sovereignty implies something else in the case of democracies. It indicates states that are self-governing and free to design their own laws and policies, and by extension parliaments that are independent — not only from external control but also by undue influence from the courts, executive, government, military or other state institutions. This type of sovereignty does not directly translate into a version of authoritarian or establishment control (the fantasy of most ardent supporters of national sovereignty). It includes the mess of democracy — the contention, constituency building, consensus, and compromise that is necessarily a part of law- and policymaking.
Those who champion sovereignty do so in the name of democracy and morality, for the people, by the people. But what they usually mean is that the ‘establishment’ — whether that’s the anti-EU bloc in the UK, or the security establishment in Pakistan — should have the right to dictate law, policy and practice without facing unnecessary hindrance by dissenters. Defence of sovereignty quickly transitions into justifications to censor or crush the opposition (Gina Miller, the anti-Brexit campaigner who led the petition in the high court, has been receiving death threats since the verdict was announced).
Think of all the times when anti-democratic, extra-judicial, and even human rights violating actions have been taken in our country in the name of defending national sovereignty. We must remain wary of those who champion sovereignty without acknowledging that a sovereign state must still be a pluralistic and inclusive one, in which all have a voice that demands equal recognition.
The writer is a freelance journalist.
Published in Dawn, November 7th, 2016
