The 'Makalma' and after
May 14, 2001
The best thing about PTV's 'live' Makalma was that it not only happened, but continued to happen despite some scalding criticism of the military. A previous experiment early in the second Nawaz Sharif regime (called Meezan and also compered by columnist Ayaz Amir, then a Pakistan Muslim League MPA as well) was pulled off after one explosive episode in which the panelists had lambasted the government for patronising known crooks.
The irony of a military government giving a free run to the democracy-demanding politicians on the state-controlled medium and facing brickbats in the bargain was brought home by Ayaz Amir to some flighty participants. He had a tough time in trying, often unsuccessfully, to keep the political heavy-weights on track and within the time--constraint. But what ruffled some sensitive feathers most were his constant pin-pricks, particularly when some mounted the moral high horse, about their own betrayal of democracy.
This, naturally, did not endear him to those participants. For some, it was a rare chance to play to the gallery and proclaim their loyalty to party bosses. There was, thus, much irrelevance, some tense moments and many complaints. But this was to be expected. When a bottle is uncorked, the pent up liquid gushes out. Besides, the absence of TV debates found some politicians unprepared for making maximum use of this powerful medium in minimum time. Many, thus, wasted time in verbiage and sparing with the compere and ended up saying nothing. PPP's Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan was one. He looked arrogant, irritable and sounded unconvincing.
In contrast, Hafiz Hussain Ahmad (JUI-F) was cool and more convincing, albeit only academically so, in arguing that the supreme court could not grant to the military the power to amend the constitution when it itself lacked this power. He was also at his wittiest best in taking a wipe at General Naqvi and the military (Yeh To Humkhyal Banatey Hain, Bantey Nahin) and reciting a saucy couplet adapted to the hapless state of President Rafiq Tarrar that will rest in history alongside the classic "Sadr Fazal Ilahi Ko Reha Karo."
Was the exercise useful? Certainly, as a refreshing breach in the rigid exclusion of politics from the state-controlled medium and, hopefully, as a landmark in its unshackling--if it is followed by other such live and lively discussions. If that happens, a stifling barrier to political development will be broken and the immensely powerful visual medium inducted into educating the voters. Rather than being dumb recipients of one-sided sermons at public rallies or through press statements, people will be able to see the vote-seekers defending policies and performance against critical questions. That is the essence of democracy.
During some discussions, the panelists evaded pointed barbs by saying that these called for a full fledged discussion. Indeed, so. Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan must have a full session in which to defend the performance of his party and its life chairperson. So also should those who remain in PML (N). The Like-minded League must also explain the sudden rush of morality after the Sharif flight.
The MQM needs to answer charges of violence as a tool of its politics, and explain its agenda. MQM and the ANP also need to explain what service they had rendered to democracy by joining the ruling PML (N) and the PPP in bulldozing the Fourteenth Amendment to muzzle the parliament and turn party bosses into virtual Czars. Finally, new leaders like Imran Khan need the opportunity to question the old order and show how they will turn things around.
One important reason why the same amoral 'elite' keeps returning to power is the absence of media exposure and accountability. While accountability before the law is essential, more important in making or breaking politicians is accountability before the people. Only that will truly discredit the blackguards and convince the voters to look to the alternate leadership. And, given the limited reach of the press, this role has to be performed by the electronic media--objectively and fairly.
Most Makalma episodes also involved military versus politicians blame-throwing. This critical issue lies at the heart of our past instability, and holds the key to a more stable democratic order in the future. Rather than simmering underfoot, as it is doing now, it needs urgently to be brought out into the open and debated to sift fact from fiction.
Only then will the current syndrome of the politicians blaming the military's machinations for their failures and the military justifying its intrusions on political inaptitude be put into proper perspective. Thus, the most pressing challenge in the contemporary political realm is to put the bitter civil-military relations on a healthier keel. This issue, then, chooses itself as the obvious focus of the eagerly awaited next Makalama series.
As for the subject under discussion--devolution of powers to the provinces--Makalama did not throw up any revolutionary ideas. Among the range of views regurgitated were:
• The 1973 constitution has been killed by the many mutilations it has suffered at the hands of civil and military rulers and for not fulfilling the promise of giving more powers to the provinces after 10 years. Therefore, a constituent assembly be elected to draft a new constitution on the basis of the 1940 Pakistan Resolution--turning the present federal structure into a confederation with Islamabad retaining only three or four subjects (defence, foreign affairs, currency and communication).
• Only the parliament can legitimately amend the constitution and, the past precedents and permission by the Supreme Court notwithstanding, the military government must not tinker with it as this will open the Pandora's box. Also because, as the past is witness, no system crafted by a military regime has outlasted it. Constitutional reform should, thus, be left to the next elected government.
• The 1973 constitution is a consensus document and, despite the mutilations and suspensions it has suffered, still remains the focus of all political discussions. The quest for a new constitution will unleash uncontrollable forces. The changes should, therefore, be made within its parameters by transferring subjects (including taxation) from the federal and concurrent lists to the provinces, empowering the senate to sanction the budget and putting more teeth into the inter-provincial Council of Common Interests.
• The 1973 constitution already gives ample powers to the provinces which they have failed to exercise or have not exercised effectively and responsibly. The decrepit state of local governance, law and order, literacy, education, healthcare, forests and the environment being prime examples. No further devolution is, thus, needed until the provinces demonstrate responsibility and robust governance.
• Lastly, more powers can given to the provinces administratively, without getting involved in the controversy of constitutional amendments. For example, the provinces have the powers to tax professional services, agriculture, etc and can reduce their financial dependence on Islamabad by doing so. There is also no constitutional bar to the provinces soliciting foreign investment. Simultaneously, Islamabad can end the duplication of functions by winding up, or whittling down, the ministries which exist in the provinces also. Examples: ministries of education, agriculture, health, local government, environment, population welfare, sports, tourism. Finally, Islamabad can raise, or remove altogether, the financial ceiling of development projects for which federal approval is needed. Myriad other powers can similarly be transferred to the provinces simply by Islamabad restraining its hands and the provinces becoming proactive.
A glance at the above options immediately rules out both a new constitution or transferring all but four functions in the present one to the provinces. This is way outside the scope prescribed by the Supreme Court, besides being an undisguised recipe for disintegration.
The transfer of more powers from the federal and concurrent lists to the provinces seems a reasonable option on which most discussants had agreed. But this will leave un-addressed the question that the real problem is poor governance as the provinces have been unable to do justice even to the powers and functions they have.
Most importantly, it is a gross violation of democracy's bedrock concept of constitutional supremacy for the sacrosanct document to be rolled up and rewritten by military regimes. No institution or policy will remain safe or permanent until the constitution's inviolability becomes an article of faith. Thus, only the parliament can, and should, amend it. That being so, the option of empowering the provinces through administrative and financial measures becomes the most viable option.
The author is a freelance columnist