February 22, 2004

Dr Javid Iqbal laments the state of the political system in Pakistan

During Zia’s regime further steps were taken to enforce Islam. The 1973 constitution was amended so as to highlight discrimination between “Muslim” and “Non-Muslim” in all important personal documents like identification cards, passports, etc. Changes were made in the Pakistan Penal Code imposing restrictions on the “Ahmadis” in the use of Islamic modes of worship. The blasphemy law was enforced and its likely abuse could not be prevented through the improvement of procedure of its application owing to the pressure of the ulema. As a result this piece of legislation created insecurity among the already discriminated minorities.

Through further amendments in the 1973 constitution Islam was declared the state religion of Pakistan and the objectives resolution was made a substantive part of the constitution. Certain provisions of Islamic Criminal Law (Hudood) were added to the Pakistan Penal Code. Similarly changes were made in the evidence act. A Federal Shariat Court with a restricted jurisdiction was created to hold trials and impose penalties in Hudood cases. Methodology was evolved to collect “Zakat”, “Ushr”, etc., but due to corruption of the authorities, the deserving people could not benefit from these welfare measures.

Zia’s Islamization was based on a personal restrictive interpretation of the Shariah laws and it was never subjected to “Ijtihad” in Parliament. The bulk of Islamic criminal legislation was merely decorative or cosmetic because penalties under the Hudood laws could not be imposed owing to strict standards of proof.

As a result these laws did not in any manner improve the deplorable law and order situation in Pakistan, but rather it worsened the miserable condition of women who were victimized under these laws. In brief, the form of Islamization introduced by Zia was a complete departure from the interpretation of Islam favoured by the founding fathers of Pakistan. It disseminated intolerance and sectarianism which increased to such an extent, that rival groups of sectarian terrorists did not hesitate to slaughter their fellow Muslims even while they were praying in the mosques.

The founding fathers did not visualize that the new and fragile Muslim democracy would not only be subject to pressures of Islamization along the conventional patterns under the influence of religious zealots, but that its immature and inefficient political leadership would become an easy prey to frequent interventions of the army. Consequently Pakistan has remained under military rule for more than half of its 55 years of national existence.

Democracy in Pakistan has passed through numerous stresses and strains. No elected government was ever given an opportunity to complete its term. The military interfered again and again under the pretext that a balance could not be worked out between the powers of the president and the prime minister, despite the fact that in a federal parliamentary dispensation, the president only represents the unity of the federation whereas all the executive powers are concentrated with the prime minister. Jinnah himself set the precedent. He, as governor-general, never interfered in the administrative powers of Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan. However, the 1956 Constitution was abrogated because it did not give those powers to the president which Iskander Mirza wanted for himself.

Thereafter the experiment of a presidential form of government was tried in the 1962 constitution to suit the requirements of Field Marshal Ayub Khan. But under the 1973 constitution the president was again reduced to a mere figurehead and Prime Minister Bhutto became all powerful. On Bhutto’s fall, Zia mutilated the 1973 constitution through the addition of Article 58(2)(b) whereunder the indirectly elected president was given powers to dismiss the prime minister and his cabinet as well as to dissolve the National Assembly. Later by a unanimous decision of the House the constitution was again amended, Article 58(2)(b) was deleted and federal parliamentary form of democracy was restored.

Eventually under Pakistan’s fourth military regime of General Pervez Musharraf, a package containing many amendments to the 1973 Constitution was introduced. Article 58(2)(b) was restored, although the exercise of this power by the president (i.e. Pervez Musharraf) was made subject to the advice of a newly created forum called the National Security Council. About the National Security Council, which consisted of four armed forces chiefs, beside other members, it was explained in a press briefing by Musharraf that the device would stop further coups by the army in Pakistan, and that to keep the army out it was necessary to bring them in, and that in the presence of the National Security Council, the Army Chief could not take over. Thus a permanent role of the army in the political system of the country was institutionalized through making a provision for the National Security Council in the constitution.

Just as there was a complete departure from the implementation of Islam in Pakistan as visualized by the founding fathers, there had also been a complete departure from their aspiration of constructing permanent democratic political structures in the country.

These problems raise another set of questions: The two-nation theory, which created Pakistan, cannot be underestimated as it will always distinguish the Pakistani Muslim nation from the Indian nation. However, now Pakistan is the homeland of a single Muslim nation. What is the relevance of discrimination between Muslims and the non-Muslim minorities?

How should the regional and ethnic forces in Pakistan be absorbed within the framework of Muslim nationalism so that national solidarity is strengthened and these forces do not threaten the territorial integrity of Pakistan? What system of accountability should be introduced to eradicate corruption from the country and to restore the health of its economy? Finally how should Pakistan stop the spread of extremism, sectarianism and the persecution of certain minorities before it destroys the country?

Of all the problems confronting Pakistan, the rapid growth of religious terrorism is inarguably the worst. It is frightening to realize that the idealism which laid the foundations of Pakistan, is being overtaken by terrorism that can demolish the pluralistic civil society and the founders’ vision of a democratic state in Pakistan.

The phenomenon of terrorism is one of the most perplexing problems confronting the international community. Yet there is no agreement on the definition of “terrorism.” The western mind generally believes that terrorism in all forms must be condemned. Pakistan also condemns terrorism, but its attitude takes into consideration the liberation struggles of the peoples of Palestine and Kashmir; it lays emphasis on the removal of the causes of terrorist activity, and condemns retaliatory reprisals.

Pakistan has been a victim of all varieties of terrorism: domestic, international as well as transnational. The acts of sabotage and terrorist subversion inspired and abetted from across its southeastern border in Pakistan are increasing every day. At the domestic level, religious terrorism is also on the increase ever since Pakistan joined the US-led war on terror. Musharraf’s decision to change the Afghanistan policy and to abandon the Taliban has provoked hardline Islamic groups and militants to launch a series of bloody attacks on western and Christian targets in Pakistan. As prejudice against Muslims grows in the western world, there is every likelihood that the extremist elements would gain more strength in Pakistan and a clash between Islam and the west would become a reality.

Even before the catastrophic terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, with the presumed involvement of Afghanistan, there existed an impression in the west that Islam is an intolerant creed which encourages its adherents to kill innocent people with terrorist methods. This impression is based on the assumption that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Islam is the next ideology of hate and the world is likely to witness a clash of cultures between Islam and the west in the 21st century. The main concern in this debate is that, under the new world order, the global Islamic conglomerate serves as a threat to the basic values and interests of western civilization.