
THE danger is greater when the goal is bigger, the aim wider. And the goal just became a whole lot bigger. It started with Nawaz, but now it’s out there — the boys want more.
A whole lot more.
Chicken or egg — did the get-Nawaz plan spawn greater dreams or was get-Nawaz just the first stage of an already greater dream? — doesn’t really matter when both chicken and egg are being hunted.
From Panama to the 18th Amendment — you can’t make this stuff up. Then again, maybe it does make a kind of sense. If you’re going to go all this way to oust the biggest player in politics, you may as well pick up a few other gains.
Constitutional stuff is hard to decipher and it becomes all the more complicated when both sides lie. Or at least hide why they want what they want.
But why the 18th?
Constitutional stuff is hard to decipher and it becomes all the more complicated when both sides lie. Or at least hide why they want what they want.
The 18th is vast: more than a third of the Constitution amended; 17 federal ministries and divisions abolished; the concurrent list abolished; more than 61,000 federal employees made redundant and transferred; trillions of rupees at stake; and on and on.
The 18th was massive and complex in every way, but its animating spirit was a simple one: decentralisation.
And it was there that it was botched.
Forget the boys for a minute. A general wants centralisation like a politician wants votes and there’s nothing anyone can do to change that. It is what it is.
But the story of decentralisation via the 18th is also the story of why it attracts righteous anger, and why it remains weak and vulnerable to anti-democratic assault.
The 18th was mostly good law done in a horrible way. And some important parts of the 18th, like abolishing the concurrent list, had little to do with better governance or the interests of the people.
The worst thing about the 18th was procedural. It was debated and created in total secrecy by a small parliamentary committee headed by Raza Rabbani.
If you can’t remember any public debate or parliamentary scrutiny, that’s because there was none. The 26-member committee went clause by clause through the Constitution to decide what had to be changed and the party bosses outside the committee had the final say.
It was profoundly undemocratic, but the patina of parliamentary consensus and the need for a democratic win at the time meant everyone looked the other way. But the demands of secrecy and urgency had an impact.
Urgency meant the implementation phase was never taken seriously. A toothless implementation committee was created and its work wrapped up in a year.
Chucking to the provinces a whole array of new responsibilities without preparing the provinces for those new responsibilities had a predictable effect:
The better-resourced, relatively better-governed province, like Punjab, performed better than the under-resourced, underprepared province — pick whichever province, according to your political preference.
Secrecy, meanwhile, meant the 18th was stuffed with things that did not have much to do with the acceptable aim of decentralisation.
The concurrent list, for example, was abolished. It basically was 47 subjects where if federal and provincial legislation clashed, the federal legislation would hold sway.
Seemingly technical, the issue came to life when it was realised that abolishing the concurrent list could mean five different criminal law codes, criminal procedures and evidence laws in the country — the four provinces and Islamabad.
Or five different medical licensing boards. Or five different higher education standards. Or five different environmental regimes.
Some of it was rescued by making special provisions or tossing the issue into the Council of Common Interests. But most of the distortions were retained.
The historical detour is necessary because it peels back other — and if you’re one of the boys, less salutary — motives behind the Amendment.
The 18th has many undeniably democracy-enhancing aspects, but it was also rooted in the fear of a big centre.
For all politicians, a big centre means fear of what the boys can do. And for the smaller provinces, a big centre means fear of what Punjab can do.
Maybe some of the politicians involved in the 18th were looking to which services are best delivered by which tier of the state, federal, provincial or local, but most of them saw the 18th as a hedge against a dominant centre — which attracts martial law or Punjab’s heavy hand.
And if that’s your goal, what’s the best way to do it?
Starve the federal beast, by diverting as much money as possible away from the centre, and chop of its limbs, by transferring to the provinces as many responsibilities and duties as possible.
The passage of time has tested in the real world the degree of the politicians’ actual democratic commitment under the guise of the 18th Amendment. It has not been pretty.
Devolution — local governments — has been forced by the Supreme Court. Once the politicians had consolidated power in the provinces, where political parties are best organised and most powerful, they lost interest in the democratising goal.
Local governments created only reluctantly because of Supreme Court pressure are dysfunctional in all the provinces.
And the massive devolution of power to the provinces under the 18th is mostly underutilised. Sindh has done reasonably on provincial tax collection, Punjab maybe in lower education and KP in a smattering of legislative areas.
But the overall record is poor.
The boys have their reasons to attack the 18th. But it’s the politicians that have left it weak and vulnerable.
The writer is a member of staff.
cyril.a@gmail.com
Twitter: @cyalm
Published in Dawn, March 25th, 2018
Comments (31) Closed
i salute thy brain and heart.
Another thought provoking masterpiece by Cyril Picasso.
It is rare to find the author writing something that makes sense. This article can be counted in the rare ones.
It was badly conceived. Badly worked on and very badly implemented. It has to be corrected. Who will do it? The goons who messed it in the first place!!
This is his subject and he is almost the best on this in the country. His stock goes up the moment he sails in fair waters
If the military has reservations - and they might be perfectly valid - they should communicate this to the legislature through official channels and not through hand-picked journalists or the media. There is nothing wrong with reviewing legislation to improve it or to make it more effective.
DAWN ....some of your Columnist are the BEST ... unmatched. Envy you DAWN !!
Spot on article. And you know what! Boy will be boys, especially, if our politicians make blunders, which they have already done.
Correction is on way.
Someone needs to remind this guy that Pakistan can endure without the most-corrupt person in its history, Nawaz. So better think beyond him.
Cyril is probably the best political analyst around. I always wait for his articles.
It is surprising to see this writer make any sense and write something other than hearsay and conspiracy theories....
Good thinking, really it is!
Simple question should be: in this age and times of desperation, is there no need of responsible CoC for people in responsible positions in this bountifully resourceful land brought to the brink of disaster on almost every front of human activity and behavior while intellectuals keep pitting one against the other in the name of heaven knows why and what?
"Boys" should inform their reservations to PM through the minister of defense. They should wait until the new government is formed and leave the final decision to the new parliament. And instead of worrying about these issues concentrate on their on duties.
Tampering with the Eighteenth Amendment will put the future of Pakistan at stake, arguments for and against of absolutely no relevance.
Cyril Almeida’s analysis is very apt. The Constitution of 1973 is markedly Federal. It incorporated fiscal devolution and decentralized ownership of resources. Ayub, Zia, Musharaf distorted the Federalism of the constitution for their vested interests changing the structures of governance , weakening institutions and concentrating powers leading to quasi presidential form in order to prolong their rule. The 18th amendment despite procedural flaws has strengthened Fedarlism and suits to our conditions. Any tickling with it will be disastrous.
Both Sindh and Punjab, by refusing to devolve powers further to the local government, have certainly validated the calls for repeal of the 18th Anendmrbt. So be it..
I agreed with Cyril on this article.
good one .
it should have decentralization to the grassroots... Local Bodies
Good analysis sir. Your this piece of writing has made these issues of institutional infighting containing delicate yet important reasons all the more comprehensible.
The enermous size of the 18th amendment is to hide it's evil heart. the clause that gives the top two parties the right to appoint the election commission and the caretaker government. These two top parties can keep switching places till Bilawal and Hamza's greatgrand children become our masters.
The best explanation and understanding of the 18th amendment I got so far. Thank You, Cyril.
By far the best explanation of the 18th Amendment and more importantly you have correctly explained why it failed and who's responsible ..... well done.
Cyril - brilliant - DAWN is so lucky to have a person like you in their fold. Keep it up.
lest we forget the power for provinces to negotiate massive foreign loans for loss making white elephant projects which are then chucked to the federal government to pay off with their scant resources when things inevitably go south
18th amendment was passed by PML-N and PPP dominated Parliament without open discussion and debate under the supervision of Raza Rabbani to protect the forever rule of Bhutto-Zardari and Sharif families. It offered NO benefit to the People of Pakistan
Constitutional stuff? The 18th Amendment wreaked the Constitution. A constitution is written to protect the people not to protect politicians and dictators. Pakistan's Constitution barely exists.
What 18th amendment has done for me? No development whatsoever in Karachi in the last 10 years.
When we ask the Federal Govt they tell me they have no say in this after the 18th amendment, go and ask your Provincial govt as it is now their responsibility.
The Provincial govt is not interested in spending a single penny in Karachi as it is not their constituency.
So being a hapless resident of Karachi, please tell me what is better, the times when Federal govt used to take care of Karachi's development or these times after 18th amendment?
Most important, to get rid of Party Head piers through 18th amendments.