THE recent multiparty conference (MPC) convened by the prime minister on Oct 3 settled, among other things, that the National Security Committee of Parliament be reconstituted to coordinate efforts.

Parliament already has at least four standing committees which directly relate to national security. We have a 12-member Senate Standing Committee on Defence headed by Senator Mushahid Hussain and a 21-member National Assembly Standing Committee on Defence under the chairmanship of MNA Shaikh Rohale Asghar. Two similar standing committees on the interior — one each in the Senate and National Assembly — also exist and, since internal security falls within the purview of the interior ministry, these two committees are responsible for overseeing matters of internal security.

Each committee is assisted by staff of the respective house, although there is a need to improve both the research and administrative staffing in these and other parliamentary committees. Currently, one official acts as the secretary to two to three committees – with the exception of Public Accounts Committee or Special Committee on Kashmir, which have dedicated secretaries. Ideally, each committee should have a dedicated secretary and researcher.

Do we need more committees on national security?

Despite deficient research and administrative support, each committee chair is provided with a chauffeur-driven, state-maintained car, as well as a personal assistant and secretary. Each committee needs its own office and meeting room but, at present, only committee chairs are provided with offices. Like other parliamentary committees, these are supported by taxpayers’ money, yet their performance needs improvement.

While the Senate committee on defence has met regularly and engaged in greater oversight than its counterparts, the parliamentary committees’ performance in general and the national security committees in particular need improvements —all four committees have failed to monitor progress on the National Action Plan’s implementation in a meaningful way.

The MPC now wants another committee on national security. Why do we need another when we already have four standing committees in both houses? If the reason is unsatisfactory performance, a better option would be to try and improve the current ones. If memberships, compositions or chairmanships need to change, the necessary steps should be taken. It is an unhealthy trend to constitute committees and institutions for political expediency.

While it is true that the 17-member special parliamentary committee on national security, formed during the previous National Assembly did, extremely well in its five-year tenure, this was largely due to the dynamic and untiring leadership of Senator Raza Rabbani. Formed after a joint session of parliament passed a resolution on national security on Oct 22, 2008, the committee was entrusted with overseeing the implementation of the resolution of the joint session. Rabbani, now chairman of the Senate, will not be available this time around.

This time, the MPC has resolved to constitute a parliamentary committee to ‘coordinate on national security efforts’.

Prima facie, this is a function of the executive and can best be served by the National Security Committee (chaired by the prime minister) with the National Security Division as its permanent secretariat which, as per official notification in April 2014, is the “principle decision-making body on all national security issues” and an “apex forum that provides opportunity to all state institutions to provide inputs so that key national security-re­lated decisions are taken th­rough collective th­inking to promote the short-, me­­dium- and long-term strategic interests of the country in a rapidly changing re­gional and global security en­v­i­ronment”.

As a matter of fact, the NSC’s terms of reference include coordination of national security efforts. Parliamentary committees can exercise oversight of such efforts but coordination is best to be left to the executive branch.

If a new committee is constituted, it is bound to have overlapping functions with other committees, which may lead to tensions. Chances are that the existing four committees may become redundant if the newly proposed one turns out to be as dynamic as the committee led by Rabbani. Unfortunately, there is an increasing tendency in our public institutions to create new bodies and institutions when existing ones don’t deliver. Instead of reforming existing institutions by selecting the right people, and providing adequate resources and funding, we constitute new ones.

In view of multiple considerations, a better way forward is to rejuvenate the existing standing committees on the interior and defence instead of creating yet another one with overlapping functions. If it is felt that there is a need for a joint committee of the two houses, there is nothing stopping the Senate’s and National Assembly’s standing committees from holding joint meetings on a specific agenda.

The writer is the president of PILDAT – a Pakistani public policy think tank.

Published in Dawn October 16th, 2016