Societies that are in transition often find their various institutions battling with each other for more space. In Pakistan, most of the institutions have not developed because their natural growth has been retarded by frequent interruptions of the democratic process by the extra-parliamentary forces.
At present, the elected government's space is being encroached upon by other institutions. In a civilised democracy there are three recognised pillars - parliament, executive and judiciary. The rise of media-power has made it the fourth pillar. But more powerful than all these are the armed forces in the power structure of Pakistan, thanks to the basic political formulation which was laid in the formative years of the country.
Now let's see how these institutions are working in our country. How their conflicting interests are damaging the political, economic and social environment of the country. A leading lawyer talked about a growing perception that judiciary is trying to run the government. Such a perception reinforces the argument that the judges of the apex court will have to draw a line and refrain from getting involved in issues like fixing sugar and petroleum products prices, although it is a popular thing to do. What has to be understood is that we are not running a socialist controlled economy. Market economy has its own ecology; nobody in the world has been able to dictate it through executive or judicial orders. The only way to keep the prices within the reach of the people is either through subsidy or by managing the supply side of commodities, which show a sharp price increase.
Across-the-board subsidy has two major defects. One, it subsidises the rich and poor equally at the expense of the exchequer. As the country is short of finances, the government then has to resort to borrowing from banks, which will create inflation. And inflation is the most cruel and blind form of taxation hurting everybody in the economy. So a diabetic, not using any sugar, has to finance sweet-toothed people like me. In the past we have seen that the benefit of subsidising basic commodities has always been reaped by the middleman. You can regulate a few mills, but cannot regulate the millions of grocery shops and middlemen.
Two, as we have seen in the case of sugar, court orders are not effective in the marketplace and they cannot be, no matter how hard the government tries to follow them in letter and spirit. The sugar prices are almost 50 to 100% higher in the neighbouring countries so the sugar is flowing out of our porous borders. Again, the counter argument could be that it's the failure of the government to check smuggling. Here again we have to be realistic and pass orders that take into account the overall situation. We know all governments in Pakistan and in most of the other countries have failed to check the smuggling of commodities and human trafficking.
At present, sugar is being smuggled out to Afghanistan and India, cheap pharmaceuticals are smuggled to Bangladesh and many African countries. On the other hand, a number of items are flowing in from Iran to Balochistan, from Afghanistan, most of the goods imported by them through the transit trade, are sold here and Indian goods are available in Anarkali, Lahore.
Similarly, the courts may not be dragged into issues like how much tax the government should levy on petroleum products. I have checked the petroleum prices of 12 countries of Asia including India, nowhere are petroleum prices less than in Pakistan. In both the developed and developing countries, governments do raise the revenue through the taxation of petroleum products. It is unpopular for me to say it. But as a political science and economics student, I cannot take any other position just for the sake of popularity. A journalist's job is to analyse issues on the basis of hard economic and political facts, so that people are educated by the constraints under which systems work. Our job is not to seek cheap popularity. So while making populist decisions, the Executive should handle what it should and should not trespass into the Judiciary's space and vice versa.
Zardari may have a million faults, but he was elected through a democratic process by our parliament and provincial government members. Any attempt to browbeat him out of office, just because many among us don't like him, would once again derail the democratic process in the country. It seems, from the influential quarters' drawing rooms gossip and media reports, that a script has been written to dislodge him without going through a difficult impeachment path.
The most popular script is that in the first place, agencies would lobby with the parliament members against the NRO Bill. If at all Zardari, who it seems has not blinked so far, gets the bill through, then preparations have been made to challenge the law in the Supreme Court on the ground that it is contradictory to the spirit of the Constitution.
Now looking at the mood in the country and of the powerful decision-makers, the market people say the odds are against the bill. So if it is struck down, the question comes what would be the position of the President. Most such cases are deemed as past and closed transactions. Will Zardari get this relief? Can the cases, which were not decided in 11 years, be revived? These issues have again to be decided by the Supreme Court. Under the present circumstances, chances of getting relief are slim. Can Zardari invoke Presidential immunity? Senior constitutional experts say he can, but again the question can be raised that this immunity is for constitutional actions and not for private actions. Legal experts who are well aware of the prevailing mood say that the latter view is likely to prevail.
So what are the options for a beleaguered President Zardari? The first option is that he should show traditional flexibility and accept the constitutional role as envisaged by his founding Chairman Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. For that he will have to take a page from Chaudhry Fazal Elahi's history. This may appease the real powers. He should not bank on the Americans for support. History shows that while Ms. Bhutto was assured, till the last moment by the American Ambassador, she was chucked out by Ghulam Ishaq Khan with the support of the Khakis.
The second option is that he joins hands with Nawaz Sharif to strengthen his position. But for that he will have to give the pound of flesh that PML (N) wants. The third option, which I doubt he would go for, is to leave the country and set up an effective party institution. He has to keep in mind that it's not the army which can be blamed for the present situation; bad governance has given his opponents a window, which they now intend to widen. His other mistake is that he has also been encroaching on the powers of the Prime Minister. So he has been losing friends in his party, rather than making them.
In this backdrop, when the country is in a state of a long-drawn war, when the chances of this war, whether the establishment likes it or not, is going to expand to other parts of the country, moves to destabilise the democratic government are indeed a bad omen for the country. But unfortunately, many democracy lovers are also being led astray by their personal dislike of Zardari. And President himself is not helping his case either.
([email protected])
Comments
Comments are closed.