State of Democracy in South Asia

DIALOGUE ON DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN

Pakistan, Lahore
Dates: 7 ^th & 8 ^th Febuary, 2004
Venue: Best Western Hotel, Lahore

Professor Ismail (RISE, Peshawar, North West Frontier Province (NWFP)): “Political parties are basic institutions of democracy and civil society comes next. It is convenient to see what fate the political workers are met with in Pakistan. Freedom fighters were disregarded after independence while traitors were offered the throne of power. Democracy is impossible without strengthening the political parties while they are crucified in this country. If the executive, legislature and judiciary truly represent the will of the people, Pakistan can become a democratic state overnight but we no more have any constitution. We had passed one in 1973 that has been brutally damaged, amended and suspended frequently”.

“I would say that when a government servant (Gen. Musharraf in this case) amends the constitution, the country stops being democratic that very moment. The army is the custodian of the judiciary and the constitution. In other words, ‘The Wolf has been appointed with the duty of guarding the herd’. The Judiciary has manoeuvred the laws time and again, to whitewash the crimes against the Constitution. Bhutto, Zia, Musharraf, name any one, all used it to serve their own ends. The judges and magistrates have no idea of what seeds the flowers of fundamental rights sprout from. All the so-called basic institutions of democracy are reduced to the level of tools in the hands of tyrants. A view is promoted by their own cherry pickers that the Army is the only institution left uncorrupted and unscathed in this country but one cannot be fooled. It is a big bald lie”.

Ali Akbar (Jobs Creating Development Society, Charsadda, North West Frontier Province (NWFP)): “We cannot attribute the mistakes of governance to the system of democracy. Whatever we have been witnessing in the name of democracy in this country is to a large extent a problem of bad governance. We need not blame democracy for this sorry state of affairs. We need to strengthen democracy in whatever capacity we can”.

Mohammad Bux Baloch (Ketch Education and Development Society (KEDS), Turbat, Balochistan): “One of my friends here mentioned the underdevelopment of Balochistan as a result of the feudal lords’ outreaching powers and their bad intentions. That could be partially true, but when there is no water, no roads, no gas and electricity in the larger part of the region, how can you blame the people? The few pasturelands that we have are left out to dry as an outcome of the Mirani Dam Project. Nuclear secrets are being sold out in this country but Gawadar Master Plan is still a secret for the people of Gawadar who are being ejected from the peninsula”.

Zubeida Birwani (Shirkat Gah Karachi, Sindh): “When ACNEC held a meeting reviewing the viability of the Greater Thal Canal Project, WAPDA filed a response that work over the canal had already covered an area more than 5 km. The President, who is an icon of the federation, launched his campaign favoring the Kalabagh Dam, in the face of three unanimous resolutions passed by the elected assemblies of three federating units. Democracy should at least give a breathing space to the Sindhi people, if nothing else is there to offer”.

Muhammad Tahseen (South Asia Partnership-Pakistan (SAP-PK)): “We have covered through the promise and working of democracy at length. We have also explored some of the outcomes as well. But we need to streamline the whole debate from now on so as to have some concrete points to be called as outcomes. I would therefore re-emphasize to stick to the specific objective of this session”.
.
Salma (Bargad Gujranwala, Punjab): “I would count on one major outcome of civil society’s struggle. It is for the first time that the civil society organizations have provided an opportunity for dialogue on peace, human rights, democracy and development. Otherwise, people rarely find an opportunity to discuss such issues openly”.

Rashid Rahman (HRCP, Multan, South Punjab): “We are talking about the role of civil society organisations in providing an opportunity for discussion on important social and political issues. Prior to this, political parties had their study circles to explore various issues and lead opinion. That sort of commitment is no more there. It will be incorrect to suggest that there was complete silence before NGOs emerged. People used to discuss things on street corners and in hotels, Chopals and places like that. One thing is still the same. It is the right of expression and the right to demand that is not being tolerated by the state”.

Nusrat Wafa Baloch (Women Development Organisation (WDO), Jaffarabad, Balochistan): “We don’t have development, and planned development will remain a dream for us. It is for the first time in history that a prime minister comes from our province and that too from my own district that is Jaffarabad. Roads are being constructed but only in the farmlands of the prime minister. What about others?”

Nusrat Ara (Women Development Organization, Mardan, North West Frontier Province (NWFP)): “We have seen that community organizations are initiating self-help projects and have provided services where there was no public infrastructure. I have seen newly elected women councillors talking in the district assemblies. This might look like a meagre achievement but it is there”.

At this stage, Muhammad Tahseen read out a list of outcomes handed over to him by one of the South Asia Partnership-Pakistan (SAP-PK) colleagues. It proposed some indicators of both negative and positive outcomes as regards the working and promises of democracy in Pakistan.

Positive outcomes

Negative outcomes

Mohammad Tahseen (Add Affiliation): “These are some of the general outcomes of the democratic process in Pakistan. I would request you to please come up with your own suggestions”.

Professor Sarfraz (Peshawar University): brought an array of indicators of the outcomes:

Akash Ansari (Poet, BRDS, Badin, Sindh): “Another outcome is that people have started asserting themselves. The sacred cows are no more the sacred cows. One of the negative things is that people stand disillusioned because political parties have not delivered. But this fact gives rise to another outcome that there is a space for the emergence of a vibrant political party. The religious fundamentalist approach of the state has been exposed after the ‘U’ turn of Pakistan on the Afghan policy. The State is trying to strike a balance”.

“Even the Zia-ul-Haq phenomenon is questioned, both in and out of the army. Spontaneous struggles have grown up to the surprise of inefficient political parties. Sadly enough, some of the socio-political changes being observed here are not the result of domestic efforts but are the by-products of the international conditionalities. For us Sindhis, the change of heart of Punjab regarding its conventional approach towards India is no less than a surprise”.

Saleem Raza Siyal (Ghareeb Kissan Tehreek, Khanewal, South Punjab): “I would like to put this a bit differently what Akash Ansari has just said. Actually, the trend of admiring dictators has gone down. Unlike the era of Zia and Ayub, no one is now romanticizing the Musharraf regime”.

Karamat Ali (Pakistan Institute of Labor Education & Research (PILER), Karachi): “We need to be objective while generalizing the state of affairs. Let us, first of all, admit that the openness we see around is not an outcome of our own struggle. Frankly, we did not have any long sustaining struggle for any cause in Pakistan, including one for democracy. It is right that the rights of individuals are now finding some room, but it is the result of geopolitical circumstance and pressures. What we may call an outcome is that this openness has given courage to the people. Nevertheless, it is not a satisfactory outcome for us, because our state is behaving in a colonial fashion. Colonial masters had at least reformed many areas of public life. For example, there were reserved seats for labour but after 1947, no labourer has ever been allowed to enter the provincial assemblies”.

“Sadly, the present state has been more loyal to foreign interests than the one in the colonial era. The State has been further centralized and it is offering nothing to the people. It is neither federal, nor Islamic. In this case both are misnomers. The 1935 Act gave more powers to the provinces than does the 1973 Constitution. Centralization is actually a pragmatic need of military rule and both reinforce each other. It is one of the dangerous outcomes around. People are more divided than ever before. Earlier nationalists used to establish national parties. Now that attitude has diminished. In other words, the very link between the Centre and its constituent units is gone. Nationalist parties are ghettoised into countless local groups”.

“Solidarity with the oppressed people has considerably decreased. For example, struggle of tenants, labourers and other classes does not find any ready support from other quarters of the society and politicians. There is no substitute to it but the fact is that the age of nations and nation-states is over now. Globalization has taken over rapidly and capital is chewing up all the obstacles in its way. We need to find solutions in South Asian open space without loosing identities. It is the order of the day that we need to transcend from local positions and biases as much as possible. Otherwise, the state will become even more oppressive and authoritarian”.

“Believe it or not, the next phase will be that of suppression. Is it possible to rephrase, rework and revisit the rights of the communities and that of the citizens? May be, we need to do that. Peace between India and Pakistan is definitely an opportunity but it is very much possible that right after resolving the outstanding issues between them, both the governments may go on a killing spree of the vulnerable”.

“Identities apart, it is important for us to evolve a dialogue based on humanism. Despite many reservations globalisation provides opportunities for this objective and credit goes to it”.

Rashid Rahman (HRCP, Multan): “Before we endeavour to find out the future of democracy, I would suggest identifying the institutions to enhance the space for people”.

Nazeer Memon (Sindh Agricultural Forum, Hyderabad): “I agree with my honourable friend. In my view, parliament is the basic institution to be reformed in the first place. Composed of two houses, the parliament’s upper chamber is in conformity with the prerequisites of the federation. It is proposed to be made the decision making forum, while the lower house should be the forum for discussion. It is the very institution that can serve to be the grid of democracy. The irony of the situation is that the composition of parliament is totally undemocratic. The upper house has an equal representation of all the federating units but its status has been relegated to no less than a municipal council. The lower house has been promoted to the decision-making forum only because it houses three out of the four members from the dominating province alone. The composition of the National Assembly, i.e. the lower house is repugnant to the very spirit of federation. Then, both the houses are dominated by feudals. There is no space for labour, peasants and the working class. Without ensuring the observance of prerequisites of a federal democracy, the future of democracy looks bleak in this country”.

Zia-U-Rahamn (Awaz CDS, Multan): “I think political parties have lost credibility. Whether we accept it or not, the perception of people regarding democracy is not so good. They even admire dictators. Why look elsewhere, civil society has also been admiring Musharraf”.

Arshad Nazeer (Advocate, Multan): “There is no consensus on what sort of representation is needed in the parliament. However, party manifestos often seem identical. It is necessary to give representation to workers and peasants, as they constitute a majority in this country. It is always cherished as an idea but who cares”.

Professor Ismail (RISE, Peshawar): “We have got too many assumptions but little vision. Civil society organizations have been openly supporting Musharraf during his referendum. Civil society has its fatal weaknesses in Pakistan. They are egoistical. They pretend to be all knowing. Our friend’s stance about the working class is also doubtful. Is there any working class in Pakistan? Interestingly, there isn’t any more industry in Peshawar but trade unionism is thriving”.

“In North West Frontier Province (NWFP), mafias have a lot of black money. A new class has emerged that is not the working class. The writ of the state does not extend to the tribal areas. A minister of Punjab government, Shahani (Naeem ullah Khan Shahani) was kidnapped from Bannu, the village of the Chief Minister of NWFP. What to talk of security in other parts of the province, when people of the Chief Minister’s village are not safe. We are talking a lot about the class and class struggle. I suggest that we should revisit the concept of class struggle and should analyse the ground realities afresh”.

Zubeda Birwani (Shirkat Gah, Karachi): “While discussing the promise of democracy, we have explored more dimensions today than we did yesterday but I am afraid, while making tall claims and heavy statements, we mistakenly believe we are representing others. We need to be objective in our approach. As far as demarcation of the provinces are concerned, I would support the idea but with one condition. Create new provinces only where they are needed”.

Zia-U-Rahaman (Awaz CDS, Multan): “People’s wisdom must be upheld but parties are going the other way. Parties could launch a struggle instead of purposeless desk thumping in the parliament. Parties need to revive themselves with strong and committed workers”.

Nusrat Ara (Women Development Organisation (WDO), Mardan): “The Working class needs to be strengthened, educated and encouraged. My own experience is that people from this class more often than not hate the existing political parties”.

Gul Rahaman (Muttahidda Labour Federation, Peshawar): “Professor Ismail had pointed out problems regarding trade unions and class struggle. I am of the firm belief that the class struggle has not finished and nor has trade unionism. They should grow further. Presently they are not organized, nor do they have the required size. Society has always been against trade unions and people do not respect trade unions. Such is the indignation of the society that trade union leaders do not comfortably introduce themselves to be what they are. This is a problem of attitude. Politics will remain contaminated until the influence of capital in politics is not checked. Political parties have no space for the common man and woman. Some of the labour leaders make room for themselves in political parties just by chance. At the end of the day, they are out-manoeuvred and expelled”.

Salma (Bargad, Gujranwala): “I think we are not against the military as an institution. We stand for democracy. That does not mean that we are in direct confrontation with military. We want the military to play its professional role as envisaged in the Constitution”.

Akash Ansari (BRDS, Badin): “There are powerful anti-democratic elements in Pakistan. Political parties want elections not democracy and the military wants neither of the two. This is the situation that does not leave us with much optimism about the future of democracy in Pakistan. Sadly, people are less concerned with the fate of democracy. The reason is obvious. Politics has been turned into something damned. No wonder if people have reached that conclusion because rulers always use methods which they learned from our former colonial masters”.

“People have been robbed of every thing from rights to resources. The well-being of people is not the concern of the higher echelons. What is disappointing is that civil society is not working effectively. Given the circumstances, we cannot forecast a better future for democracy in Pakistan. People here talk of a new political force to come forward and fill the vacuum. Even a new political force cannot deliver without studying the present quagmire of things”.

Professor Sarfaraz Khan (University of Peshawar): “Yes, there are several disagreements on the prospective outcome of democracy but there is consensus on certain premises. For example, there is a consensus on adult franchise, parliamentary form of government and that the state should be a federation. It is important to discuss them all and I will take them up one by one:

1. Adult franchise
There is a consensus on this despite the fact that elections are not held on time, are often rigged, manipulated and engineered and are, what the political parties describe as, ‘doctored’. I am afraid that the agenda of democracy may suffer from these manipulations.

2. Parliamentary system of governance
There is a near consensus on the parliamentary form of government despite so many attempts by the military rulers to supplant it with the presidential one. Those who want to subvert this consensus through the backdoors could pose a challenge to democracy. We observe that all the amendments so far brought into the constitution are all ‘backdoor amendments’.

3. Federation
There is a consensus that Pakistan is and should remain a federation but the ‘concurrent list’ in the Constitution is still around, that is a tool for the Centre to encroach upon provincial subjects. (The ‘concurrent list’ includes subjects that fall under the suzerainty of both federal and provincial governments, while there is no provincial list.) The authors of the Constitution had promised to abolish it but it never happened. Now those who want more powers for the provinces should pursue it. The demand to abolish the Concurrent list has never been seriously entertained by the authorities. It could be the future agenda for striking a balance of powers between the Centre and provinces to make the federation viable.

4. Transition
The basic question is how to make the transition towards a fully democratic/civilian government. Undoing most of the subversions to the Constitution could prove to be the first step toward democracy. Besides, the 1973 Constitution needs to be examined in order to introduce the required changes. Electoral laws are problematic, even after the so- called restoration of the joint electorate. Still a lot needs to be done. An unfettered contest in elections should be our demand. Sorry to say, CSOs have been supporting the infamous graduation clause without any understanding of the issue. This clause is simply rubbish. They should also demand an unfettered right to vote and an unfettered right to be elected.

5. Political parties
The Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI) had conducted a study two and half years ago to scale up the political parties. It was mainly done by Zaffarullah Khan of Neuman Ebert Stiftung, Islamabad. To our surprise, the study found that there were only 13 paid workers in around two dozen political parties of Pakistan. Most of them were peons doing petty jobs. Political parties either do not have any offices or secretariats or, if there are any, these remain ill-equipped. Now in such a poor condition, these political parties are supposed to face a highly equipped, qualified bureaucracy to fight for democracy. It is a war between unequals. I will suggest that the critics should stop abusing political parties.

6. Democracy in parties
A strong demand should come from the people that every political party should be given state funding to hold elections. What to talk of our political parties, even Kohls, Clintons and Blairs are accused of getting illegal funds. There is nothing wrong if state gives funds to the political parties.

7. Trespassing mandate
The military budget is never discussed in the parliament or at any other national forum. It must be debated in the parliament. Furthermore, the military encroaches on civilian areas beyond its mandate. For instance, our foreign policy is being formulated and run by the military instead of the foreign office, which is the competent authority for the job. All state institutions should be made to work within their mandate, and must not be allowed to go beyond their constitutional jurisdiction.

8. Women seats
The electorate does not elect members on seats reserved for women. This leaves the process of their election susceptible to manipulation. It is proposed that they should contest elections directly. This will ensure the quality of the members elected against the reserved seats.

Tasleem Zounr (South Asia Partnership-Pakistan (SAP-PK), Lahore): “Is there any consensus on constitutional amendments? I doubt if there is any. Even the 1973 Constitution was not unanimously adopted. People from Balochistan had expressed their reservations about that Constitution. Preserving the concurrent list, followed by unilateral amendments, changed its status as a consensual Constitution. If the problem is structural, we need to revisit the Constitution. I would suggest that even if we don’t have a consensus on any set of amendments, it is time to think about the Constitution. The rulers have been coming up with ready-made amendments and I see no harm in advocating the amendments proposed by the people”.