The president's dual office

There is no specific provision in the Constitution barring President Zardari from holding dual-office as the Head of State and the head of his party, though a number of constitutional provisions expect of him to stay neutral, impartial and maintain, at least, a fair distance from politics. That the framers of the 18th Constitutional Amendment, who otherwise worked hard and rewrote a vast number of Articles, particularly with a view to disrobing his office of the autocratic power, as was available before under the infamous 58 2(b), overlooked this possibility of having a dual office holder president is interesting if not intriguing. Perhaps, given the fact that President Zardari was (and is) the Head of State as well as the co-head of the majority party in the parliament the framers thought it expedient to remain silent on this issue. But now that the issue of dual-office presidency is under the limelight with the Lahore High Court order of May 2011 verdict against it holding the field, the need to look at the issue more closely is also in order. Quintessentially, there are two clashing perspectives: one tends to look at the issue in light of constitution while the other invites attention to look at this imbroglio in its historical frame of reference, as to how the present situation has come about, and what's its history. One cannot dispute the court's observation that the duties and functions (essentially ceremonial in nature) of the office of President of Pakistan are to be discharged with complete neutrality, impartiality and aloofness from any partisan political interest. But with President Zardari holding the office of co-chairman of the PPP he seems to have failed to observe that kind of aloofness; he calls all the shots as the prime ministers, Yousuf Raza Gilani and Raja Pervez Ashraf, look up to him for guidance and pulling their chestnuts out of the fire. He has carved out the ruling coalition and it is he who has kept it intact with his deft handling of partners. Apparently, the court too was conscious of the fact that there are no specific limitations against the President meeting the politicians or the officials of the government, but carrying out such activities in the presidency, the court observed, 'breached the sanctity, dignity, neutrality and lofty status of a highly revered state property. Such public property should only be used for the purpose of state and not for partisan activities'. President Zardari will, hopefully, act upon the court's verdict and separate the two offices much before the expiry of the stipulated September 5, 2012 deadline. The party appears to be thinking along those lines, as evident from Information Minister Kaira's remark that the 'slot of co-chairman (held by President Zardari) was transient in nature'. Historically, in Pakistan, the presidency has been the fulcrum of state power, and at time the centre of political wheeling and dealing. In not too distant a past, Ghulam Ishaq Khan, a quintessential bureaucrat, who as President had set up a political cell that used the intelligence services in what was billed as 'national interest' and compelled a nationalised bank to dole out a substantial sum of the depositors' money to fund political parties and groups of the president's liking. So, what we have today in the form of a dual-office presidency is a de jure depiction of a de-facto situation. Even if president Zardari does give up the party office, he would still remain the centre of gravity of the PPP and there is no article of the constitution that bars the PPP parliamentarians looking towards him in the discharge of their responsibilities. It's essentially a situation with a historical background and should be viewed in this perspective. After all constitutions keep evolving in order to remain relevant to the times and requirements of the people. That everything which appears to be conflicting with the spirit if not the letter of the constitution should be taken to court is to deny the fact that ultimate custodians of law and constitution are the people, who can obtain a perfect lawful polity even without a written constitution - as they have in Britain, although that country is now moving towards getting a full written constitution with a view to bringing its people in line with the most progressive democracies around the world.