No democracy without transparency

Prof Syed Jamaluddin Naqvi
Dawn, 5 November

HEARING a set of guidelines by amicus curiae Khalid Anwar for dealing with demonstrations and protests, the Chief Justice observed that the deployment of police in plain clothes was illegal. He and Khalid Anwar were emphasising transparency in governance, without which all pretensions of democracy would be null. If sovereignty lies with the people they have the right to full knowledge.

The reference here is not to the daily blasts, the ‘Hatora’ group’s killings, political murders and many other such acts that lead to deaths that have never been demystified. Here we are interested in government moves over the years and which have been at odds with their stated purpose. The fact is that the state and society have been on a collision course from day one in Pakistan, and the mismatch continues.

The 1954 general elections were held only in East Pakistan. It was not intended to hold polls in other provinces. The idea was to probe whether that wing could be controlled or not. With the ruling party bagging only three per cent of the seats, the incoming dictator, General Ayub Khan, shelved the country’s general elections scheduled for 1958, imposed martial law and abrogated the constitution.

Earlier, to pave the way for the 1956 constitution the formula of parity had been evolved to balance the eastern wing with all the provinces of the west that were herded into One Unit. Since that did not work, the said provinces were restored, the new province of Balochistan was created and the eastern wing was shot out of the country.

There was no transparency in the government’s moves all along. People were left guessing. When General Ayub Khan stepped down, he did not hand over the power to the speaker as envisaged in his own constitution. Rather, he entrusted it to the next military chief General Yahya Khan, who completed the circle by unleashing genocide in what was then East Pakistan.

One may feel sad at the tragedy of Bangladesh and the weakening of Pakistan, but the fact remains that the split did not weaken the military elite of Pakistan. It was further strengthened. A civilian was inducted as the chief martial law administrator and was allowed to remain in power while the army regrouped. Once that was done in half a dozen years, he was ousted and hanged and General Ziaul Haq ruled the roost. The people of Pakistan were merely spectators during these momentous events.The same political game is being played in Pakistan today. What was supposed to be a deal (its contents are not known) has been declared ‘dheel’ by the PML-Q. Benazir Bhutto got a rousing welcome in a rally marred by carnage. Ms Bhutto has always been a brilliant opposition leader. In spite of her rhetoric about the awam, she preferred to keep details of her engagements with the government private. She should have allowed the generals to monopolise such secrecy.

The government can afford a liberal stance. All the basic chips are in place. The plan for a troika comprising the president, the army (sub-institution of the executive) and the prime minister has been worked out. The judiciary is being cowed by the threat of martial law/emergency. The New York-based Human Rights Watch has advised the government of Pakistan to stop intimidating the Supreme Court.

Any government inducted by the elections will have to work in the ambit of the troika, overseen by the National Security Council as the supremacy of the military has always been assured. The US can go along with the arrangement if its concerns regarding the prime minister and the war against terror are honoured. The European Union demands more transparency but all it can do is deny Pakistan some trade benefits.

The present set-up, even after general elections will be: power equation=army chief+0+0. Ms Bhutto is in an ideal position to break this vicious cycle of scheming and lay open her cards before the people of Pakistan.

A new generation is coming of age in Pakistan that has not only seen the work atrophy of the Musharraf regime but also the virulence of the lawyers’ movement. The Chief Justice was not a man known to the people. What has inspired them are the principles that the movement spearheaded. These included the break-up of the military/judiciary nexus, the rule of law, the end of the doctrine of necessity, the restoration of the democratic process, the subordination of the military to elected civilian authority, restoration of fundamental rights and holding the government accountable to the people.

The transparency of a government and its accountability to the people lead to social security. What the people need are better health and education facilities, safe drinking water, a viable sewerage system, a check on skyrocketing prices and the recovery of missing persons. The lawyers’ movement has activated the plurality of the classes.

Transparency is what distinguishes democracy from its rivals. Leaders who wish to command the people’s confidence should let undisputed credibility be their distinctive character separating them from their non-civilian rivals.