A bill of hope

The proposed 18th amendment bill, finally presented before the parliament, has been rightly hailed as a 'bill of hope' as it embodies the nation's yearning for a genuine parliamentary democracy and federal system. The general public and media have deservedly commended the constitutional reforms committee and its chairman for the hard work that they have put in this landmark effort.
The 61-page document is now public property and would soon come under discussion at public forums and the media. The debate would help bring under focus any possible loopholes that might still exist in the document painstakingly finalised by the 26-member committee, comprising nominees of the 13 parties represented in parliament. There is a need, on the part of parliament, to take note of any weaknesses that might exist in the draft with a view to improving it. While it will take a few days for the full implications of the proposed bill to sink in and be properly examined and analysed, it may not be out of place to underline some of the crucial issues that need parliament's attention before it initiates a debate on the bill.
The draft bill, it seems, is aimed at taking most of the powers out of the hands of the president and transferring them to the Prime Minister. This has been done to remove distortions brought about by the Eighth and the Seventeenth Amendments, introduced by two military rulers - Zia and Musharraf - in the system that turned the polity into a quasi-presidential system. There was a widespread demand to restore the powers of the Prime Minister, who is required to act as the chief executive in parliamentary democracy. What needs to be ensured, however, is that the use of discretionary powers does not help create an imbalance of another sort.
While the dictum 'power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely' is applicable universally, it is all the more relevant in the case of societies with a cultural hangover, bearing a strong imprint of feudalism or the social system that existed in the Middle Ages in Europe. The misuse of power has characterised most rulers, be the men in boots or elected leaders, who misused power for their own ends. Military rulers have acted as demigods after the promulgation of martial law, and in the case of Musharraf, even without it.
They turned the judiciary into a handmaiden, promoted cronies, put an end to good governance and used the intelligence agencies to create monsters that still prey upon Pakistani society. Similarly, the use of power by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, soon after the promulgation of 1973 Constitution, was by no means judicious and fair in all cases. Opposition leaders were physically thrown out of the National Assembly, the National Awami Party government in Balochistan was dismissed on charges, which later turned out to be trumped-up, and this province was subjected to a military operation. In 1999, Nawaz Sharif tried to use his 'big mandate' with a view to turning himself into a medieval potentate.
It is heartening to note the realisation by Prime Minister Gilani that the restoration of the 1973 Constitution will not only increase his powers but also his responsibilities. In his monthly radio address to the nation on Friday, he said: "Our aim is not to increase our authority and command. We consider the government as a means to serve the people." Good intentions, however, are not enough; there is a need to institutionalise the use of newly acquired authority.
Most urgently needed are institutional checks and balances on the exercise of discretionary powers. With the 18th Amendment in force, the Prime Minister will have the authority to make all constitutional appointments, including those of services chiefs, attorney general, provincial governors, auditor general, and chairman and members of the Federal Public Service Commission. This would be in addition to the powers already enjoyed by him to appoint heads of public corporations such as Pakistan Steel Mills, PIA, and Pakistan Railways, besides making key bureaucratic appointments. In developed democracies, discretionary powers are exercised by the Prime Minister in cabinet, making it necessary, if not mandatory, to also take his colleagues on board while exercising these powers. This is in consonance with the principle of the cabinet's joint responsibility.
In the US, the President makes the most crucial appointments after congressional hearings. In the peculiar conditions of Pakistan, however, the Prime Minister is liable to be influenced by party members and allies, who could force him to lose sight of meritocracy. This would take a toll on good governance. Under the circumstances, there is a need for some sort of parliamentary oversight in matters related to the exercise of discretionary powers. There is a widely-held perception that after the removal of constitutional guarantees enjoyed by the bureaucracy under Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, public servants have become dangerously politicised, inefficient and corrupt.
Many think there is a need to again provide them the constitutional security of tenure to restore confidence, which alone can encourage them to take decisions independently and judiciously. Another issue that the parliament needs to take up is that of bringing FATA into the national mainstream. The tribal agencies have either to be made a part of NWFP (Khyber-Pakhtoonkhwa) or accorded the status of an independent province. This will be a well-deserved reward for the sacrifices rendered by the people of the tribal areas in the fight against militant extremism.