EDITORIAL: It’s interesting that two separate civil society organisations have asked the government to hold “meaningful discussions” on proposed constitutional amendments and “expand their scope for more holistic reforms in the system”.
The Free and Fair Election Network (Fafen), for example, has said that judicial reforms should also change legislative, electoral and local governance.
Urging political parties to “put aside personal and parochial differences” to avoid a constitutional deadlock, it rightly said reforms should instead focus on “increasing parliament’s authority, ensuring its control over international agreements, making the legislature’s approval mandatory for any treaty with foreign powers or multilateral organisations”.
These are very important points. People vote their representatives to the House to safeguard their interests, after all, and it’s not right for a functioning democracy that the executive can independently enter and exit international and bilateral agreements, even IMF programmes that affect the whole population, without any sort of parliamentary oversight.
If people are to exercise any influence over decisions that impact the country the most, it will have to be done through parliament.
And while parliamentarians, at least those in government, are falling all over themselves to pass legislation that suits them, they should also give some thought to the interests of the people; to take something back to them at election time if for nothing else.
Fafen has also recommended that parliament should be empowered to impeach officials it appoints, which is another valid point. It’s also proposed prohibiting independent candidates from joining political parties after winning elections, since “it disregards voters’ mandate”.
And if one feels compelled to join one camp or another, he/she must “seek a fresh mandate from the voters”.
Yet Fafen’s most important recommendation is for a “robust local bodies system” and “a clearly defined timeline” for their elections to be made part of the constitution.
Local bodies are the essence of representative government; a fact our top politicians conveniently forget when they fight for the perks and privileges of government.
And it’s a shame that the only time the country really had an effective local body system was when a military dictator last held power.
Ever since then the people’s chosen democratic representatives have avoided it like the plague, and only reluctantly held local body elections when pushed by the courts, and even then given them very limited powers.
Incidentally, the Centre for Peace and Development Initiatives (CPDI) has also expressed serious concern about the “secrecy” surrounding the mysterious constitutional package the government has been obsessing about for weeks, and asked for “public disclosure and engagement with civil society, legal professionals and other stakeholders to develop consensus”.
Through an extensive letter, CPDI has reminded the president, prime minister, law minister and heads of all political parties that “constitutional changes must include provisions for transparency and the right of access to information about judicial affairs”.
It demanded that judges must disclose their incomes and assets, and that accountability of judges accused of corrupt practices should continue even if they resign.
Together these institutions have presented the government with considerable food for thought. But the big question is if the real stakeholders are ready for such advice.
Surely, the government understands that these and other such proposals hold weight – it would have understood the importance of these ideas even before they were floated – but it still ignores them and prefers to force its own agendas down everybody’s throats.
In fact, it would already have bulldozed its constitutional package through parliament if not for disagreements with one crucial shade of opposition.
It seems Pakistan has come to a crossroads where political, financial, security and judicial matters need to be re-framed with the people’s interests – not this or that party’s, or even the establishment’s – dictating the course.
Civil society has long understood the need for this change. But do more powerful and more empowered institutions and outfits also understand the need for such “holistic reforms”?
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments
Comments are closed.