The two ordinances

Two out of the over 35 Musharraf ordinances have been much in the news lately. Right at the top of public interest, legitimately and ceaselessly described as sanctioning selective corruption in the country by the media, is the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), a misnomer to say the least; and the second is the Competition Commission Ordinance that empowered the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) to identify and deal with cartels in public interest.
The two ordinances would lapse on November 28 or Eid day and there is much discussion on how that would impact on the fortunes of the rich and influential, including politicians; but, unfortunately, there is hardly any debate on the implications on the fortunes, or lack thereof, of the common man.
The government was forced to withdraw the NRO from the National Assembly in the face of a certain defeat with its own coalition members, notably the MQM, withdrawing the rug from under the PPP-led government at the last minute. The PPP defence team unleashed on local television channels has principally made four observations. First, that those who spent a considerable amount of time in jail and were not convicted at the end were, by definition, innocent and therefore political victims.
Not mentioned in this defence is the number of requests for deferral of a court appearance by the plaintiffs. For example, President Asif Ali Zardari requested a deferral from a court appearance more than 100 times on grounds of ill health, physical and/or mental, which easily accounts for at least half, if not three quarters, of the time he spent in jail. Second, the PPP has regurgitated Nawaz Sharif's past history, President Zardari's main rival, to indicate that corruption is not exclusively the domain of the PPP chairman and/or his close associates.
That does not absolve the NRO beneficiaries from defending themselves in courts. Third, and the least legitimate argument, is to claim credit for not presenting the ordinance for parliamentary approval. This contention will find few takers. And, fourth, claiming that the people are not concerned with the NRO for the simple reason that they have much more pressing personal problems related to load shedding, sugar crisis as well as the rising price of food items. This is indeed true, the public is struggling to meet food needs, however the NRO is not forgotten for one simple reason: it continues to allow its beneficiaries to keep millions of dollars abroad, or the bulk of their wealth that was accumulated in this country. This has led to increased dependence on foreign assistance for which we, the people, are paying a heavy cost in terms of higher utility charges and a rise in taxes.
At the same time one cannot unhesitatingly give credit to members of the Opposition who opposed the ordinance as having performed their due constitutional role. The parliament clearly failed to undertake due diligence in the matter of the NRO and has thrown the ball back to the courts. Irrespective of the fact that the judiciary is widely regarded as independent many had hoped that the parliament, as the appropriate forum to deal with an ordinance with such obvious political and economic ramifications, should have decided its fate. This failure, according to the rising number of disenchanters with the country's politicians, is reminiscent of the failure of the Opposition to follow through on its reservations on the Kerry-Lugar bill and smacks of some government-Opposition 'complicity'.
The failure of parliament to deal with the NRO will have serious repercussions on the common man for three reasons: (i) convictions may have led to the return of wealth as happened recently in the case of Shaikh Afzal and his son of the Bank of Punjab which would provide the much needed support to the country's beleaguered economy; (ii) further burden the country's judicial system that is struggling to meet the demand to clear the massive backlogs; and (iii) unleash the 'non-influential' incarcerated in the country's jails on heinous criminal charges who are rightly arguing that the NRO must apply to all Pakistani citizens or else it would be ultra vires of the constitution.
The second ordinance relates to the CCP. Its major objective, according to its website, is to provide for a legal framework to create a business environment based on healthy competition towards improving economic efficiency, developing competitiveness and protecting consumers from anti-competitive practices. It is unfortunate that no major political party has supported the idea of extending the ordinance for another three years.
The government's views on the matter can be easily gleaned from the decision taken by the Prime Minister, considered to be a principled member of the troika, to fire the CCP chairman two months ago, without taking account of his contract details. He only reversed his order under considerable media pressure. What is mind-boggling was that debate on the National Assembly floor showed support for not renewing the CCP ordinance by the treasury benches as well as by Khwaja Asif (PML-N) and Kashmala Tariq (PML-Q).
First a look at what the CCP has actually done to merit this opposition. The CCP has taken several actions against cartels that, by definition, do not have the objective of safeguarding consumer interest. Thus a quick look at the cases which were dealt with by the CCP in 2009 alone, and interim order and/or show cause notice issued, adequately reflect the powerful groups that this institution alienated: banking, Karachi Stock Exchange, Steel Mills, Mobilink, cement, sugar, and the most recent the order to PIA to reimburse the Hajjis for overcharging. While one can understand the private sector's desire to collude, which must be dealt with by an institution like the CCP, yet for PIA and PSM to require action on the part of CCP is perhaps the best reflection of nepotism in appointments in these autonomous institutions.
The Chairman of CCP appears to be running from pillar to post trying to salvage his job and his institution. However, no one important appears to be listening to him, defined as those representatives that the people elected to parliament. Neither the government nor indeed the opposition has allowed the parliament to play its due role in the dealing with these two ordinances. The only recourse for pressuring the parliament/government to take appropriate action that would be in the interest of the general public are the media and the judiciary. Thus the fate of these two ordinances shows, once again, that the only institution that the public can rely on is the newly independent judiciary and the fourth estate.