Pakistan’s summer of discontent
Pakistan is a constitutional federation by design and a parliamentary democracy by function. This structure is the defining characteristic in the prevalent constitution birthed by parliament in 1973 – the manifestation of a rare political living consensus in a traditionally fractious policy. This defining characteristic, however, has always been vulnerable to an extra-constitutional ‘doctrine of necessity.’ Twice after the constitution was popularly proclaimed, martial law was imposed – the General Zia ul-Haq 1977-88 and General Pervez Musharraf 1999-2008. During both terms the constitution was abrogated and its popular participatory parliamentary character changed to the unpopular unitary presidential system. And each time, political resistance led to the reversal of the amendments and restoration of the federal parliamentary form. In this way Pakistan has always see-sawed between an overtly centralized governance structure preferred by the military and the soft federation comprising empowered provinces preferred by the people and political parties.
Last month a major political controversy was birthed in Pakistan when powerful actors seemed to indirectly question the landmark Eighteenth Amendment of the constitution that aims to consolidate the federal parliamentary structure of the state by politically and financially empowering the federating units – the provinces of Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab and Sindh. Troubling questions on whether the summer elections will be held also emerged. Detailed news reports claimed that the army chief in a meeting with senior journalists had allegedly expressed reservations over the Eighteenth Amendment as part of what was billed as the “Bajwa Doctrine” after army chief Gen. Qamar Bajwa. This hit a raw nerve considering that the four times the country has been under military rule it was presidential in nature, and the rest of the time parliamentary in form under civilian rule. Was Pakistan returning to the unpopular presidential form again? The timing of the reported new “doctrine of necessity” fueled political jitters as the current five-year term of National Assembly ends in May – only the second time in seven decades it has not been interrupted – and new elections are due within 150 days. Not long afterwards it was reported that the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan had hinted that elections could be delayed.
Inevitably, rumors abounded of a postponement of elections for up to two years and extraordinary powers for a non-representative interim government to amend the constitution back to a unitary presidential state for a fourth time. After several days of unnerving delay that prompted fears of a doomsday scenario, the military and the judiciary stemmed the rumors. They reassured the public that the 18th Amendment, guaranteeing a participatory parliamentary system, was not on the chopping block and that a delay to elections would not be brooked, thereby soothing frazzled political nerves.
The overall political environment reeks of manipulation and systemic vulnerability that keep the predictability and transparency of the elections and subsequent transfer of power in doubt.
Adnan Rehmat
The rumors of an unraveling of a fiercely democratic period – the longest uninterrupted interregnum in Pakistan’s history – may have fizzled out, but suspicions about the sustainability of the wellbeing of federal parliamentary democracy linger. For instance, the government and opposition have to nominate consensus federal and provincial caretaker governments in the next 50 days, but they are not even on talking terms after a bruising battle last month for domination of the Senate that saw the ruling PML-N of Nawaz Sharif lose out to a combined opposition of Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari’s Pakistan Peoples Party and Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, despite having numerical superiority. If they do not agree on consensus candidates for caretaker prime minister and chief ministers, this task will fall to the judges of the Election Commission or Supreme Court. PML-N alleges that PPP and PTI are in cahoots and are indirectly supported by the judiciary and the military. PML-N is in direct confrontation with both the judiciary and the security establishment.
The independent National Accountability Bureau – mostly populated with retired military and judicial officers – has become more active and has initiated corruption investigations. These were primarily against leaders and supporters of PML-N, but now are being extended to other parties. The political parties in National Assembly are already in a deep confrontation with the Election Commission over redefining electoral boundaries, which may adversely affect electoral chances of the parties in the summer elections. The overall political environment reeks of manipulation and systemic vulnerability that keep the predictability and transparency of the elections and subsequent transfer of power in doubt. Even among political parties there is now talk of the possibility of a hung parliament that will prevent it from undertaking the deep political reforms to consolidate the federal parliamentary structure that all parties promise. The next few months will determine how Pakistan will be governed for the next decade. The summer of Pakistan’s discontent is here.
• Adnan Rehmat is a Pakistan-based journalist, researcher and analyst with interest in politics, media, development and science. Twitter: @adnanrehmat1
