People's Democracy(Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) |
Vol. XXXIV
No.
16 April 18, 2010 |
Naresh
�Nadeem�
PEOPLE
on the other side of our western borders have now given indications �
aplenty �
that they are against any recurrence of army raj in their country. On
April 8,
the Qaumi (National) Assembly, lower house of Majlis-e-Shoora in
Pakistan,
passed the 18th Amendment unanimously, which gives the
document a
real historic importance. It may or may not be �a parliamentary
revolution,�
which Raja Asghar claimed it to be (The Dawn, April 9), but
there is no
denying that the world witnessed on the occasion a �rare unanimity�
across the
political spectrum there.
CONCURRENCE
OF
OPINION
Now
the bill is to get a two thirds sanction from the Senate, the upper
house, but
it does not seem to be a difficult proposition given the unity among
political
parties on the issues involved.
This
concurrence of opinion, by no means complete, assumes additional
importance due
to the fact that the National Assembly did not have any secret vote on
the
bill. Experts have, sadly, missed the significance of this open voting.
The
fact is: by refusing to have any secret voting, the members chose, so
to say,
to defy the General Headquarters, with each member present on the
occasion
openly proclaiming where she or he stood vis-�-vis the army.
The
historic document contained as many as 102 clauses affecting no less
than 70
articles of the constitution, as it exists today, and each clause was
separately put to vote after reading. Thus the 292 members present and
voting
had to undergo a physical exercise all day, getting up and showing
themselves
every time the speaker put a clause to vote. The various clauses thus
received
255 to 289 votes, far in excess of 228 or two thirds of the 342 member
house.
Finally,
following the clause by clause voting, when the speaker Dr Fahmida
Mirza put to
vote the document as a whole, all members present there
recorded
their �aye� in a register. These included those who had abstained from
voting
or walked out on one or another specific clause.
One
recalls that the Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Reforms
(PCCR) had
presented the draft to the speaker only a week before, on April 1.
To
guard ourselves against any illusion, however, we may better remember
that as
many as 47 members chose to stay away from the April 8 session. Three
seats are
currently vacant.
UNIQUE
EXERCISE
This
concurrence of opinion was no fortuitous development. The PCCR was
constituted
in 2008, a few months after the NA polls on February 18, 2008 and
government
formation in March. No doubt the six-point Murree declaration, which
the PPP
co-chairman Asaf Ali Zardari and PML(N) chairman Nawaz Sharif signed on
March
9, 2008, did not put it in black and white. But, reports suggested, the
idea of
constitutional reforms did permeate the talks.
Importantly,
the PCCR comprised representatives of all political parties having
presence in
either house or both, and these included the Pakistan Muslim League
(Qaid-e-Azam) which acted as a fa�ade for Musharraf Raj. After the NA
speaker
formed the committee in consultation with the leaders of all political
parties,
the 27 member committee elected Senator Mian Raza Rabbani as convenor.
The
speaker went so far as to reserve for the committee Room No 5 in
parliament
building, renaming it as the Constitution Room. Here the committee held
numerous sittings in the last 20 months, and its sittings covered an
equivalent
of nine months time. This was thus a momentous constitutional exercise
in
Another
unique feature of the exercise was that the committee as a whole or
individual
members resisted the allurements of media glory. Now it transpires that
members
had moved at least 20 notes of dissent, but to their credit �they did
all this
while eschewing the limelight and largely keeping their disagreements
behind
closed doors� (The Dawn, editorial, April 2).
MATURITY
OF
STATESMANSHIP
However,
we must not forget that the PCCR already had before it a document which
helped
it hammer out a remarkable consensus. On April 2, People�s Daily
(
Before
that, representatives of the two parties had a meeting on April 24 at
Nawaz
Sharif�s residence. Though they could not achieve much, they still kept
in
touch and finally achieved a worthwhile document three weeks later.
There
is no denying that one saw prevarications and vacillations later on.
Though the
CoD did not talk of a PPP-PML(N) coalition, they did agree that none of
them
would take the army�s help to come to power or do any hobnobbing with
the
terrorists who they said were the biggest threat to
But
as they say, all is well that ends well; taking the CoD as starting
point, the
PCCR members �resolved some of the most intractable issues in the
constitution.� Differences did persist till the last moment on specific
issues
like provincial autonomy or renaming the NWFP, but politicians
displayed
maturity of statesmanship when it came to taking a side between army
raj and
democracy.
FAR-REACHING
ALTERATIONS
Going
by its text (published by The Dawn, May 16, 2006), the CoD was
a really
comprehensive document, covering most of the aspects of
The
most crucial aspect of the latest document is that it has done away
with the
infamous article 58(2)(b) which gave the president wide-ranging powers
to
dissolve the elected assemblies and dismiss governments. It was General
Ziaul-Haq who had in 1985, through the 8th Amendment, inserted into the
constitution article 58(2) for the purpose. This changed the polity
from a
parliamentary system, envisaged in the 1973 constitution, to a
semi-presidential one.
The
insidious nature of article 58(2) is evident from its misuse thrice. As
president, Ghulam Ishaq Khan dismissed the Benazir government on August
6, 1990
and later the Nawaz Sharif government in 1993. In the third instance,
Farooq
Leghari dismissed the Benazir government in November 1996. In the
second
instance, though the Supreme Court reinstated Nawaz as the prime
minister, the
resulting stalemate compelled both Ghulam Ishaq and Nawaz Sharif to
resign.
In
1997, the 13th Amendment stripped the president of the power to
dissolve the
assemblies and order new elections.
But
then, self-declared president, General Pervez Musharraf, reintroduced
it as
article 58(2)(b) through the 17th Amendment in 2003. Like the 8th
Amendment,
the 17th too did not require a test of majority in the assembly. The
only
difference between the two amendments in this regard was that the
latter
required a Supreme Court endorsement for an assembly�s dissolution. As
the
Supreme Court of that time had had no compunction in endorsing the
Legal
Framework Order of General Musharraf, the latter might not have a cause
to fear
this stipulation.
Now
the 18th Amendment has done away with article 58(2)(b), and the
president can
dissolve the National Assembly only if a party loses its majority in a
verifiable way and no other party or combination comes forward to form
an
alternative government. The president can dissolve the National
Assembly (or a
provincial assembly) on the prime minister�s (or the chief minister�s)
advice,
but that would require a majority resolution of the concerned body.
A
curious thing is that the 18th Amendment �purges� from the constitution
the
name of General Ziaul-Haque as president. What it means in practice,
nobody is
sure.
Another
important feature of the latest legislation is that any attempt to
suspend the
constitution or put it in abeyance will be treated as treason,
punishable with
death. This clause is obviously directed against any future usurpers of
power.
This may indeed work as a powerful deterrent to ambitious generals till
the
time political parties maintain their unity on the issue.
PROVINCIAL
AUTONOMY
A
number of the 18th Amendment clauses enhance the scope of provincial
autonomy
in the country. For example, it has eliminated the concurrent list,
transferring the subjects to provinces. There will now be a National
Finance
Commission (NFC) after a gap of 13 years, and the provinces will share
with the
centre the revenue coming from the mines, crude and other underground
resources
in their respective areas. Also, the NFC award for a province can never
go down
in subsequent years. This means the money coming from the centre to a
province
will either increase next year or remain the same at least.
The
18th Amendment gives the Council of Common Interest additional powers
and the
provinces more say on national matters by enhancing their
representation in the
council.
Proclamation
of emergency in a province due to internal disturbances would require a
resolution from its own assembly. If the president acts on his own,
within ten
days the proclamation will be placed before both houses of parliament
for
approval.
The
Senate�s strength is to increase from 100 to 104; each of the four
provinces
can now send one minority community member to it.
A
High Court will be established for
The
But
the 18th Amendment did nothing about the merger of Federally
Administered
Tribal Areas (FATA), bordering
Nawaz
Sharif and other leaders have assured justice for the Baloch people,
adding
that Nawab Akbar Bugti�s killers won�t be �salvaged.�
LET�S
ALL
HAVE
HOPE
Judicial
reform is yet another notable aspect of the 18th Amendment, among a
large
number of other aspects here untouched. There will be a judicial
commission for
the appointment of Supreme Court and High Court judges, headed by the
chief
justice of
Far-reaching
changes have been made in regard to the Election Commission, attorney
general,
chiefs of the three services, auditor general and other high offices.
Of
particular importance is the case of service chiefs: the president will
go by
the prime minister�s advice in appointing them. But the position
regarding the
Inter Services Intelligence and Intelligence Bureau is still unclear.
This is
surprising. One may recall that the government had had to bite dust in
the last
week of July 2008, on the issue of bringing these two institutions
under
civilian control.
The
two-term restriction on someone becoming a prime minister or a chief
minister
is to go now. The main beneficiary will be Mian Nawaz Sharif.
It
is thus that
Such apprehensions are understandable. As
detailed in
these columns more than once, army bosses have very big stakes in