A free lance journalist of Pakistan.

CONSOLIDATING DEMOCRACY by Hafizur Rahman

 

Much has been written, both within the country and oustside, about the restoration of democracy in Pakistan after three years of military rule. The process of commenting on the phenomenon is not yet over because the debate about the form of democracy adopted by (President) General Parvez Musharraf is still continuing. Quite apart from the case of Pakistan, you must have noticed that the process ;of arguing what really constitutes democracy is never-ending. Even countries with blatant repressive military regimes and those subscribing to a totalitarian form of government call themselves democracies.

It will be recalled that the Supreme Court of Pakistan accorded legitimacy to President Musharraf’s military take-over, authorized him to make suitable amendments to the constitution, and fixed October 2002 as the date for general elections and restoration of democratic institutions. The President adhered to this date, but before the general elections he took a number of steps which have been universally acknowledged as having far-reaching effects on the practice of democracy at the popular level in Pakistan.

For example, it is all very well to have free and fair elections on the basis of adult franchise for the country’s parliament and the provincial assemblies, but the broad base at the grass roots level where people want to participate in decision making, so that they may have the feeling of actually being part of democracy, is hardly ever given attention. So a National Reconstruction Bureau set about meeting this long-felt need, and evolved a system in which the bureaucrat was to be replaced by Nazims and Deputy Nazims (administrations) directly elected by the people.

While everyone, including the political parties(which had not been functioning during the military rule) welcomed the idea, some critics thought the experiment was bound to fail because it did away with a 150-year old system so far run by senior and junior bureaucrats who had not interaction (nor did they wish to have one) with the masses.

As someone wrote, "We Pakistanis are a strange people. We have been crying ourselves hoarse against the sub-district bureaucracy ever since Pakistan was created, but when a new alternative dispensation is offered to us we begin to criticize it at once without bothering to give it a trial". Apparently the politicians were against it because they did not want to be seen approving of anything done by a military regime.

The new system of devolution of authority, as it is called, has brought about an almost revolutionary change at the lower levels. It has not only given the people the opportunity to elect their representatives for local government but also invested these representatives with a new-found self-confidence in their own ability to manage their affairs without having to look up to the deputy commissioner and the assistant commissioner for every little bit of public work. They are not yet working perfectly, for there are teething troubles, but big and small hurdles are being smoothed away as they

-2-

arise. The performance of the local bodies aside, what is fit to be seen is the spirit of the people taking pride in those they had voted into power.

One remarkable new innovation was that apart from special seats for the religious minorities, the new law laid down that 30 per cent of the new elected members will be women. This idea was also duplicated to a considerable extent at the level of the federal and provincial elections when the time for them came in October 2002, and has transformed the complexion of parliament and the four provincial legislative assemblies.

The two Houses of Parliament, i.e. the Senate and the National Assembly, as well as the four provincial assemblies were duly elected in October last year. It has not all been smooth sailing, because the opposition parties take exception to certain clauses of the Legal Framework Order (LFO) promulgated by the President to govern the country under the new dispensation in which some amendments were made by him in the constitution for better effect.

Here I am tempted to quote from the article of a well-known writer on constitutional matters. He says, "The constitution of 1973 is held sacred because it was passed unanimously by the National Assembly, a truly memorable event. However, its author, the late Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, made certain amendments to it within months of its promulgation. After him, President Ziaul Haq did likewise, some of the amendments being so drastic in nature that they militated against human rights. This was followed by PM Nawaz Sharif’s amendments which aimed at giving himself extraordinary powers. So the truth is that the 1973 constitution is no longer the sacred document that it once was. If the most recent amendments are unacceptable to some parties they should be talked about in Parliament".

The initial violent opposition to the LFO, in which it became almost impossible for the National Assembly to function, has already given way to a spirit of give-and-take on the subject between the ruling party and the opposition. This has been made possible mainly by the genial and accommodating nature of Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali, who, from the very day he was elected chief executive, has expressed his determination to "take along all the parties in conducting the business of the House and in new legislative work." He praises the change in the attitude of the opposition and believes that everything will be all right in the end, since everyone without exception is anxious to make democracy work.

That is the most important objective---- to make democracy work. It has to be remembered that, even in the most advance countries, democracy continues to evolve itself as it is practiced. This process of evolution arises out of the aspirations of the people and their experience with the institutions that are imperative for it, and the constant honing and shaping that it receives at the hands of enlightened elected representatives who constitute its basic element.

-3-

In Pakistan there have been interruptions in the development of democratic traditions because of three martial law regimes, although it goes to the credit of the recently withdrawn military rule that it did more for infusing the restored democracy with a greater popular appeal than anyone in the past. Now it is a question of how politicians go about it. What must be remembered is that it is as much the duty of the opposition to strengthen democracy as that of the ruling party. Fortunately this concept and spirit seem to be all-pervading.

There is an international aspect too that is making itself evident as time passes. When the elected government was dismissed and the democratic institutions went into suspension in October 1999, there was a hostile reaction among the democracies of the world. All that is now coming to an end. Recognition, acceptance as a democratic country, economic cooperation, financial aid and numerous other unseen benefits have all been gradually revived by world bodies and leading democracies. Most of all, Pakistan is now playing its due role in the comity of nations, as was amply proved in the recent international fight against terrorism.

.

Hafizur Rahman is a free lance journalist of Pakistan.