Business by the rules?

THE Charter of Democracy signed by Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif last year has been overtaken by events. However, the document is still useful for refining the national reform agenda. For instance, the last item on the Charter (point 36) says: “Rules of Business of the federal and provincial governments shall be reviewed to bring them in conformity with parliamentary form of government.”

All those who wish that governments in Pakistan should function not only efficiently but also democratically will find this call worth pursuing, especially in the case of the federal government which sets the model for everything a provincial government does.

The subject is also important because the Rules of Business offer the possibility of regulating, to some extent at least, the powers of the president and the prime minister. This issue has caused problems throughout Pakistan’s history. During the past few years in particular, the head of state has, for all practical purposes, been functioning as the head of government as well.

Before 1973, the Rules of Business were framed by the head of state. The 1973 Constitution assigned this privilege to the federal government. General Ziaul Haq (Order 14 of 1985) transferred the authority back to the president. In a normal parliamentary democracy, rules made by the government or by the president mean the same thing as the president must act on the advice of the cabinet. But a normal parliamentary democracy is alien to the genius of Pakistani rulers.

Be that as it may, the Rules of Business in force now carry 1973 as the date of their origin and are still purported to have been drafted by the federal government.

A mere look at the chapter headings of the Rules can give an idea of their scope and importance. Obviously, the authors of the Rules picked up the Constitution and started laying down the method for the government’s disposal of responsibilities as defined in the Basic Law. This was as it should have been.

The practice began with the British rulers, whose proficiency in drawing up work manuals their indigenous successors have not been able to match. The Rules of Business should thus be seen as a manual for constitutional governance. Just how important the matter is can be gauged by recalling that former President Farooq Leghari had created a National Security Council, a supra-government body, by amending the Rules of Business.

According to the Rules, the prime minister controls the federal secretariat. He can create a new ministry, modify the constitution of a division and alter the distribution of business among the divisions. He may appoint as many special assistants to himself as he wishes. No important policy decision can be taken except with his approval and no decision of policy taken by him can be varied or impinged on without consulting him.

While reading the Rules concerning the prime minister, a Pakistani may sometimes feel that the subject is some other country. No such feelings are aroused while reading the Rules relating to a secretary who is in charge of a ministry.

A secretary submits papers to the minister who may accept the secretary’s views or may overrule them. “The secretary will normally defer to the decision of the minister and implement it,” the Rules say.

If the secretary feels the minister’s decision is manifestly wrong he may ask for reconsideration of his proposals and if the minister still does not agree, he shall request the minister to refer the matter to the prime minister for orders. If the minister does not refer the matter to the prime minister the secretary shall submit it directly to the prime minister while duly recording the minister’s observations.

The Rules lay down an elaborate procedure for discussions in and decisions by the cabinet and matters relating to legislation, non-official bills and ordinances. The lists of cases to be submitted to the prime minister for his orders and to the president for his orders on the prime minister’s advice are quite comprehensive.

Some of the Rules appear extremely strange. For instance, it is said that the cabinet division shall prepare an annual report on the observance and implementation of the Principles of Policy in relation to the affairs of the federation and that the law and justice division shall cause the report to be laid before the Assembly. Does any member of the public have any information about such reports?

The stress on secrecy is manifest. “All papers submitted to the cabinet are secret until the cabinet discussion has taken place. Thereafter each secretary shall decide whether the case should continue to be classified as secret and inform the cabinet division.” The ministers must return many of the papers received from the cabinet secretary “immediately after perusal”. There is no reference to a concession to ministers about keeping photocopies of these papers.

One can also find in the Rules beautiful phrases such as ‘collective wisdom’ (of senior officers) that can come into play whenever the secretaries’ committee meets, which should be at least once a month.

The Rules were amended by each post-1973 regime. The largest number of amendments were effected by the Nawaz Sharif governments, followed by the Zia regime, and a significant reason was curtailment or enhancement of the president’s powers.

Contrary to the general perception perhaps, the president, even if he stays within the Rules, should have little free time. Only a few cases need orders in his discretion, but the number of categories of cases that require his orders on the advice of the prime minister is quite large (54) and these include references to the Supreme Judicial Council and the declaration of war.

The large number of papers that are required to be sent to the president for information should keep him fairly busy. These include all cypher messages and telegrams, intelligence reports (daily, weekly and special reports of DIB and DG ISI), reports by ministries, commissions and missions abroad, daily press reports and International Media Digest, and papers pertaining to any other matter required by the president through a general or special order.

The Rules suggest that the president should be the best informed person in the country unless the papers submitted by the IB and I & B do not carry the whole truth or are designed to please him instead of informing him. There is no mention of regulating the president’s travels or the speeches and statements a hard-pressed head of state may have to make.

One does not know what the authors of the Charter of Democracy had in mind because the main issue in Pakistan is not the status of the Rules of Business. The problem is the authorities’ contempt for any discipline. Those who can flout the law and the Constitution and use force to indemnify themselves are unlikely to be deterred by the Rules of Business.

Nevertheless, a serious attempt to make the Rules more democratic and more effective is overdue. One objective of the exercise should be the involvement of the people in defending the Rules. This could be done by demolishing the secrecy regime and allowing greater respect for the people’s right to know.

The process may start by publishing the Rules in national languages and educating children in the working of the administration. It is also necessary to have the Rules debated by parliament. The question of making them justiciable needs to be explored in spite of the likely bureaucratic objection that any opening for court intervention will make administration impossible.

There must be some guarantee that the government does not violate essential procedures. An attempt at improving internal auditing should be quite rewarding. The best course will be the appointment of a commission of experts and laypersons to prepare for parliament a blueprint for responsible, people-friendly governance.

Time for new ideas

ANY account of Pakistan’s history has to include two aspects of its 60-year existence. One, there is the political history of the country and, two, there is its social and cultural history which has changed and shaped the trends, values and thinking of the people. Of course, the two are closely linked. Here I will focus on how society has changed since 1947.

In the early years of Pakistan, people recognised the problems the country faced. They understood that many of these were a result of the partition of the subcontinent but they endured the ensuing hardships and sufferings in the hope that their future would be better. But as time passed, the gap between the rulers and the ruled increased imperceptibly for want of a participatory political process.

Those who acquired power through intrigues and conspiracy did not care much about public opinion. They distorted the institution of the state in order to protect their own interests. As a result, the state ended up being a symbol of exploitation and coercion. Its main function was confined to that of protecting the privileges of the ruling elite and their properties.

The elite had no interest whatsoever in the people or in their problems. In the end, the state came to be perceived as a burden and the people became a liability for the state. This antithesis persists to the present day.

The state and the people are not only poles apart, there is also mutual hatred. Whenever there is a strike or a demonstration, the people express their anger by destroying state property, though this destruction hurts them as they end up paying additional taxes.

The state’s reaction in the wake of demonstrations and protests is hostile, to say the least, and the protesters are brutally crushed with the help of the police, the Rangers and the army. The protesters are termed ‘miscreants’ and ‘anti-state elements’ who have to be dealt with through the use of force.

One example is the treatment meted out to the Okara peasants by law-enforcement agencies. Their right to the lands they have tilled for nearly 100 years was ignored and their struggle was treated as a rebellion against the authority of the state.

When institutions of the state assume the role of the exclusive protector of the interests of the ruling elite, such as the army, the police, the bureaucracy and the secret agencies, they adopt brutal and violent methods to curb the people’s movements. They harass and terrorise people in order to subdue them and keep them submissive.

To ensure their allegiance, feelings of patriotism are roused by national songs and national anthems. The textbooks narrate the ‘achievements’ of national heroes in order to inspire the youth and motivate them to emulate these heroes. The media helps propagate the state version of history to mobilise people to make sacrifices for the country. Besides, special days are celebrated with great pomp and glory.

In our case, March 23 is one example. Interestingly, in the early days of Pakistan, there was no special significance attached to this day. In 1956, when the first constitution was adopted on March 23, it was declared as ‘Republic Day’. When there were a series of martial laws in the country and constitutions were abrogated blatantly, Republic Day celebrations were called off.

After 1971, when East Pakistan became Bangladesh, the Pakistani state needed ways and means to promote patriotism in the demoralised rump that was left. The March 23 celebrations were revived but this time it was not Republic Day that was observed. It became known as Pakistan Day in memory of the 1940 Lahore Resolution that was adopted to demand a separate homeland for the Muslims of the subcontinent. Since then, the day is being celebrated with great élan.

August 14 has been observed since 1947 as the Independence Day of Pakistan. In the early years, it was commemorated by declaring it a public holiday. Some modest official functions were also held to mark the occasion.

Ziaul Haq capitalised on it to counter his unpopularity among the people. The public was exhorted to celebrate the day in a befitting manner. People were asked to hoist flags on every rooftop, and at eight in the morning sirens signalled all vehicles to come to a standstill, and people, wherever they were, observed a five-minute silence. The military parades and military and civil awards ceremonies were glamourised and very soon a number of vested interests were created.

For instance, the printers who print thousands and thousands of national flags and the shopkeepers who sell them have kept the tradition alive long after Ziaul Haq is no more. The youth compete to take active part in the celebrations and on the evening of August 14, all roads of major cities are crowded with young people who express their feelings vociferously and at times so violently that a number of them die every year.

The only possible explanation for this unbridled enthusiasm is that there is no other outlet for youthful energy and the celebrations provide an opportunity to young people to express their sentiments by asserting their presence in public places. However, these celebrations are short-lived and people have to quickly return to the humdrum activities of their daily existence.

There is historical evidence that when a society goes downhill, its moral values also decline. This has happened in Pakistan’s case. Sixty years have brought the country to a state of near-total collapse of morality. There is widespread corruption in every walk of life and that, unfortunately, has become the norm.

Corrupt and dishonest people are no longer looked down upon. They are actually respected because they have resources to win over people to their side. To give a respectable gloss to their ill-gotten wealth, they perform Haj and Umrah, visit the holy shrines of Sufis, give donations to madressahs, mosques and charitable organisations, and end up being highly respectable citizens with an aura of outward religiosity to impress the people with their piety.

These religious rituals and ceremonies help the elite class to integrate with the people and influence them with its generosity. Paradoxically, along with the show of their religious enthusiasm, traders are busy adulterating food and raising the prices of their commodities, doctors charge exorbitant fees from patients while bureaucrats are busy in their own way. Hypocrisy is on the rise and there is not much of a conflict worth the name between good and evil.

This is what our heroes have bequeathed us in 60 years. Yet we continue to worship them, and nobody ever criticises them for their role. If history remains static, how can we create new ideas and thoughts? There is need to assess the very foundation of this country and make an attempt to develop a new basis on which to build our destiny. If we continue with the same old hackneyed ideas, it would be disastrous to say the least.

Shrinking options for the government

SHOULD we be dismayed by the shenanigans of our rulers past and present? In some ways, things are at such a low point that they can only get better. This, apart from being the usual logic, is also a wish. After all, what option is there for a people born on the patch of the globe called Pakistan but to stand up and fight for themselves and their children?

The cause for optimism is triggered by the fact that perhaps our strongmen are running out of new options to keep their hold on the government. Martial law, PCO and a pliant judiciary, political execution, exile — all have been tried. What next?

Our first strongman ruled without having to exile or eliminate anyone. At that time, the shock and awe of the military was enough to get him through a decade. Our second strongman was too busy enjoying himself and in any case had the honour of losing half the country, so he had no option but to leave.

Our third strongman had to eliminate his opponent to survive for a decade-plus, the target span of tenure for each strongman who comes to power in our beloved homeland.

Our fourth strongman has specialised in exiling opponents. He has thwarted two serious attempts by his opponent to stage a comeback from exile, very efficiently and effectively.

The exile of Nawaz Sharif in the year 2000 was taken calmly by the public. This time around, even though there is no street protest, the general disquiet is quite obvious.

The sop of ensuring a pliant judiciary by administering new oaths under a PCO is also not likely to be accepted if attempted again. The support which the judiciary received, one believes, had a significant effect on the unanimity of the decision in the case of the Chief Justice’s reinstatement. Pressure can be expected again in case some judges wish to take fresh oaths under a possible PCO.

The latest initiative of offering a power-sharing deal to a major political party to maintain the status quo seems to be in the works, but it is too early to say how effective it will be. After all, for how long can two strong personalities, used to exercising unbridled power, coexist at the top? But the politics of deals is obviously the latest fad.

It seems that we want to make sure that no ruler is held accountable, as per the law of the land, for his or her misdeeds, at the expense of the public, as long as we are allowed to stay in power. From all angles, it is clear that we make cases of corruption, not actually to get the errant leaders convicted and held accountable, but to use them as blackmailing tools to stay in power.The result is that no one of significance has been held accountable and convicted (or stayed convicted) in the 60 years of our existence. This is an open invitation for current and future rulers to rule with impunity and without fear. It is only the small fry who have to fear.

Focusing on the immediate situation, overdependence on the judiciary and approaching it after each blow is fair neither to it nor to the system. Even in the case of the Chief Justice’s reinstatement, while the arguments inside the court may have been cogent, the unanimity amongst the judges was, in all probability, achieved in the context of the overwhelming public response in favour of the Chief Justice, effectively projected by the media. But for the public outburst against the government, the judiciary may have at best decided in favour of the Chief Justice with many ifs and buts.

So if the opponents of the government want it to see reason, they will have to prove their street power. The judiciary alone will not be able to bail them out.

But does it have to get messy? Why can’t we behave like civilised people and, rather than getting into all kinds of complications, resort to the simple option of having a fair and free election, and let the best man/woman rule?

The writer is a former interior secretary

tasneem.noorani@tnassociates.net