Politicians argue that there should be no institutional mechanism in the country except people’s vote after five years as it may account for political victimization as in the past. They argue that when politicians are questioned by media for their corruption it benefits the non democratic forces to take advantage of the situation to derail democracy. Although it is a valid argument keeping our history in view, it doesn’t mean their should be no accountability at all. In fact lack of these mechanism have led to non democratic forces taking advantage.
The recent NICL scandals where Gilani’s son is being directly accused as a beneficiary, and government is acting to prevent any sort of independent enquiry is typical behavior of our politicians. They change the investigation officers who try to dig these corruptions, and try to hinder any media or public outcry…
In spite of all these corrupt behaviors, it is likely that people will still choose they same people to lead the government after five years due to their own petty problems. Under the circumstances some people have started questioning if democracy can work in a country like Pakistan…
Musing on democracy
Babar Sattar
The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad.
There are certain truths about democracy that are obvious to most thinking minds. But the recent ramblings of our prime minister highlight the need to restate the obvious. There are at least four sorts of misunderstandings that seem to be misguiding the leader of our lower house and head of the federal government.
Let us start with the term of an elected government. Where does it say in the constitution of Pakistan that there can be no appeal to the electorate prior to the expiry of the five-year term of parliament? There are a few sub-issues that need to be clarified in this regard. One, within a parliamentary system whoever garners a majority in parliament gets the right to govern. This is what makes coalition governments relatively unstable as a change of heart of smaller coalition partners that provide requisite numerical support to a government can result in an in-house change.
Two, as opposed to prohibiting an appeal to the electorate prior to the expiry of the stipulated five-year National Assembly term, the constitution explicitly provides a mechanism to do so. Article 58 confers upon the prime minister the authority to dissolve the National Assembly and call for fresh elections. Clearly the constitution envisages situations when it might be imperative for parliament and the government to seek a fresh mandate from citizens. It is true that midterm polls are undesirable, especially in view of our history of the 1990’s when they were a consequence of palace intrigues backed by the establishment.
But this doesn’t mean that an elected government has a divine right to rule for five years and the masses must suffer an incompetent or malfunctioning government for such a minimum period as penance for the sin of having elected it. Is staying in power for five years an end in itself, or a means to deliver the electoral promises made by the party while seeking public mandate to govern?
The second major misconception afflicting the prime minister, the president and the ruling party is that an elected government is only meant to serve the interests of the people who have voted the party to power. There is a constitutional and a political problem with the belief that the ruling party only needs to pander to the base instincts of its hardcore support-base. Any party that has a simple majority in parliament gets the right to rule.
Now if the voter turnout in an election were around fifty per cent and some forty per cent of those voting supported one party that consequently got the mandate to form government, while endowing such a party (that has a twenty per cent support from the voting population of the country) with formal legitimacy, the constitution also imposes a fiduciary duty to uphold the rights and provide for the needs of the entire population of the country. And this includes all those who are bitterly opposed to such a party.
The political logic of reaching out to those who do not support the ruling party, instead of withdrawing back to a core constituency, is equally obvious. In a country where there are two mainstream parties, the core constituency is a captive group that for various reasons (ideological, economic, ethnic etc) generally has no ability to switch sides. It is the majority of undecided citizens with no permanently entrenched partisan loyalties that determine the outcome of elections.
This category of ordinary people cares about good governance, inflation, cost of living, citizen services provided by the state, lifestyles of ruling elites and allegations of corruption etc. It is the rage of such citizens that translates into anti-incumbency sentiment against a non-performing government. Chances are that even after a disastrous stint in power, the PPP would still get re-elected from Naudero and Garhi Khuda Baksh. What then is the logic behind the ruling party only speaking to its core constituency at the expense of alienating the majority of Pakistanis?
The third major misunderstanding is that within a democracy there is only one form of accountability, which is political. And thus it is only the electorate that can hold public representatives accountable, and that too only every five years. The ruling regime doesn’t seem to appreciate that under any developed conception of rule of law, legal accountability is distinguishable from political accountability.
Legal mechanisms for accountability are meant to hold public office holders responsible for their individual actions, especially when such actions amount to abuse of public authority or crimes against the state and society. Such accountability is not undertaken during the electoral process, wherein the electorate either endorses or rejects an individual, as opposed to making him/her liable for crimes and misdemeanors. Jamshed Dasti might be an excellent representative accessible to his constituency. But that doesn’t give him a free pass to engage in fraud and crime.
Can someone not explain to the premier that vertical and horizontal modes of accountability are both essential and complementary components to an upright and functional system of governance? Political accountability through the electorate is the vertical mode that provides a mechanism for political change. And then there is the need for (i) introduction of effective anti-graft laws and provision of parliamentary oversight by the legislature, (ii) administration of such laws by the executive, and (iii) their enforcement by the judiciary. These three components are in accord with the concept of separation of powers and institutional checks and balances, and together, comprise the horizontal mode of accountability.
Now just because we have in place a semi-functional system of vertical accountability (in the form of the electoral process), it doesn’t mean that the horizontal modes of accountability, mandated under our constitution, are either unnecessary or illegitimate.
The only improvised system of horizontal accountability in place in Pakistan at the moment is standing on two legs: the media and the judiciary. The media discloses the details of venal acts of public office holders and the judiciary takes cognisance of brazen abuse of authority and corruption. Given that the role of the PPP-led legislature and executive in introducing and administering an effective anti-corruption law is missing altogether, the media and the judiciary are left to bear the burden of these non-performing components of our horizontal accountability mechanism.
Now instead of realising that it is the the ruling regime which, in its nonfeasance, is exaggerating the role being played by the media and the judiciary, we find the premier and other jesters representing the PPP nowadays, accusing the media and the judiciary for trying to do their jobs.
And finally, despite all its experience of being out of power, the ruling PPP mistakenly believes that the longevity of an elected government lies in sucking up to the army and America, frustrating the judiciary into inaction and intimidating the media. For a dictatorship to think on these lines is understandable.
But how does an elected government ever come to the conclusion that it is not its popularity and approval amongst the masses, but the dirty deals that it can contrive due to being in power that will become the elixir for everlasting life? If this were true, would any government ever get changed? Will the army chief unquestioningly back the ruling regime because it handed him another term in office? Will the judiciary start looking the other way if PPP spokespersons hurl more abuses upon judges? And will the media change its tune because crucial journalists run the risk of being called Zionist agents?
Let’s get serious Mr prime minister. Crying wolf doesn’t work once there is a growing perception that non-representative institutions of the state are more popular that the representative government. We have serious problems and we need serious people to address them with a sense of urgency.