It was the winter of 1968-69 and I was posted as one of three additional deputy commissioners in Dacca (now Dhaka) in East Pakistan. The deputy commissioner was Khurshid Anwar, a very seasoned district officer of the CSP, whose duty it was to remain in close touch with political developments in those volatile times. This was the time when the Agartala case against Mujib ur Rehman and others was reaching its culmination. Political tensions were running high with the radical student groups of Dacca University, under Tofail Ahmed, virtually incharge of law and order functions in the provincial capital. It was because of the political strength of these student groups that the cricket Test match against the visiting MCC team under Colin Cowdrey was first abandoned and later reinstated. When the MCC team management, along with the British Deputy High Commissioner, went to call on Tofail Ahmed at the University, a day before match, he reportedly asked them what they wanted. Cowdrey said he wanted Tofail's assurance that the Test match could go ahead without any fear of disruption. Toftail reportedly said, "You have my assurance." The meeting lasted less than five minutes. The match in fact went ahead peacefully on a hastily repaired wicket which had earlier been dug up by the students when the match was called off from Islamabad.
The early months of 1969 were momentous for the country as a whole. Ayub Khan had to step down as President of Pakistan. Instead of asking the Speaker of the National Assembly, an East Pakistani, to act as President pending an election under the Constitution, Ayub Khan handed over power to the army under General Yahya Khan. This was seen as a hostile act towards East Pakistan. However, the replacement of Governor Monem Khan by a highly respected academic (Dr Huda) from Dacca University was seen positively by the East Pakistanis. They now waited for Yahya Khan to deliver on the policy promise of "one man one vote" for the next general election under a modified Constitution. The actual adoption of this formula by Yahya Khan did restore the balance of seats in the National Assembly in East Pakistan's favour because that province had more than 50% of the population of country. The new formula finally did away with the "parity" principle, agreed between East and West Pakistani politicians, at the time of the passing of the 1956 Constitution.
General Yahya Khan delivered on his promise of 'one-man, one-vote' and in the general elections, held in the last few weeks of 1970, Mujib ur Rehman's Awami League won all except two of the National Assembly seats from East Pakistan. (Nur ul Amin of the Muslim League won his seat as did Raja Tridiv Roy from the Chittagong Hill Tracts). This gave Mujib ur Rehman the largest number of seats in the Assembly and thereby the right to be prime minister of Pakistan. The rest unfortunately is history. The army under a Yahya Khan demurred and was egged on by PPP's Z.A. Bhutto, the leader of the largest successful party in West Pakistan, to demand a coalition in the Centre. Such a coalition would not have been bound by the Awami League's promise to East Pakistan's electorate to implement the Six Points agenda. Mujib was therefore unable to compromise. The various student groups, as well as the trade unions, had by now made it clear that they would not accept any dilution of the Six Points agenda. The army, with the backing of West Pakistani parties, decided not to introduce the new Constitution and instead imprisoned Mujib, declaring him a traitor. The tragic train of events started from spring 1971 and ending with the surrender of the Pakistan army in Dacca in December 1971 are etched on the memories of all who lived through those traumatic times. A majority of us who had, in one capacity or other, served and lived in East Pakistan were of the firm belief that the East Pakistan tragedy could have been avoided. We were determined that these mistakes should not be repeated in what was left of Jinnah's Pakistan.
With the surrender of the Pakistan army in Dacca in December, 1971, what is now Pakistan came into being. East Pakistan became Bangladesh. In the aftermath of these cataclysmic events, the army jettisoned its leadership and decided instead to back Z.A Bhutto and his PPP to resurrect what was left of Pakistan. A new Constitution was drawn up and voted in by all parties in 1973. One of the cornerstones of the Constitution was the concept of "one man one vote" and another was the re course to a parliamentary form of government based on the Westminster mode. The concepts of a Presidential form of Government and of weighted representation in parliament were both discarded because these were associated with Ayub Khan and, by implication, with the secession of East Pakistan.
Today, forty four years later, we appear to have come a full circle. With each passing year there is disillusionment regarding the quality of governance. To a large extent citizens are dissatisfied with the governments' ability to efficiently provide civic and public services. From its standpoint the political governments argue that their hands are tied because, in order to retain a working majority in parliament, whether at the federal or provincial level, they have to allocate ministries to persons who help provide the govt with that majority. Such compromises do not necessarily bring in competence.
There is another worrying aspect. In a parliamentary form of government voting at the time of elections is usually on basis of political ideologies of parties and their manifestos.
Typically, political parties in the mainstream represent a choice between the 'left' and the 'right'. Between a more liberal, socialistic agenda and a more conservative, market-based set of social and economic policies. In European parlance the choice for the voter is between a form of 'red' and a form of 'blue'. In Pakistan this has not historically been quite the case. Apart from the religious parties, which have usually not held more than 10% of seats, the large parties cannot today be distinguished from each other on the basis of the red or blue distinction. In fact a look at their general election manifestos leads to the disappointing conclusion that they all wish to do the same thing. There is not only little or no ideological distinction between the parties, but there is also very little realisation of the available revenue resources with which to implement party manifestos. The result is a failure to do what each party promises to the electorate: this leads to very widespread disillusionment among voters about politicians and political parties. One may recall Z.A. Bhutto govt's ill-conceived attempt to provide the 'roti' part of PPP's commitments ('roti, kapra, makaan') through state-run roti plants. These were a dismal failure. (The rotis from these plants turned out to be more expensive than the traditional rotis cooked in tandoors and private kitchens).
The way politics has evolved post-1971 in Pakistan has led to one other undesirable result. That is the resistance by political parties to allow local government institutions to take root. Political govts have been reluctant to hold local govt. elections. When these have in fact been held, provincial govts have blocked all moves to allow 'local' decisions (ie these relating to public health, primary education, local roads/schools, water and sewerage facilities, provision of electricity and so on) to be taken at a local level where, indeed, these ought to be taken. Here again the issue fundamentally boils down to the desire of chief ministers to retain majorities in provincial legislators. They feel that if the patronage relating to provision of local services is handed over to district councils, town committees or union councils then provincial legislators may transfer loyalties.
Developments of the last fifteen years are indicting that instead of strengthening themselves political parties, if anything, are becoming weaker in Pakistan. Instead of general elections being a contest between two main parties, presenting the voters with a choice between the 'left' and the 'right', there is now a tendency for parties to increasingly become regional or provincial. Great national parties are almost extinct. This has meant that the large parties in order to form a government have had to move towards 'coalitions' which intrinsically make for a weaker and less decisive government. Party leaders have reacted to this development by providing in the Constitution that a voter must vote for his party in important divisions in parliament or stand to lose his seat. This provision in the Constitution offends against a fundamental aspect of democracy ie that one votes only in accordance with the dictates of one's conscience. Party candidates have responded to the situation by increasingly standing as 'independents': they wait and watch which band-wagon to climb. The cumulative effect of all these post-1971 developments is that both at the federal and provincial levels, Pakistanis are getting weaker and more indecisive governments. For most of the time these govts engage in fire-fighting as they move from crisis to crisis. When a political govt sometimes come up with a set of economic or social policies which are far-sighted this is more often the result of the vision of an individual prime or chief minister. It is not based either on ideology or on the party manifesto.
I would therefore suggest that the time has come to review the consensus reached in 1973 relating to the Constitution. If the objective is to have stronger and better policies relating to the economy, defence, the social sectors or foreign affairs, there is a dire need to have stronger political governments which are better equipped to deliver good governance. This may imply moving from the consensus on parliamentary govt towards a presidential form of govt which offers a weightage to the smaller province: thus moving away from the principle of 'one man one vote' for parliamentarians. A new consensus could be based on the following features:
(a) A presidential election, based on 'one-man, one-vote', with a fixed team of, say three years. The president would be entitled to have a cabinet of experts or technocrats, some of whom would need the approval of designated, parliamentary committees to enter the cabinet.
(b) A parliamentary election, based on weightages for smaller provinces as well as reps of minorities, women and labour. Parliament could have the same tenure as the President. Since parliament would provide weightage for smaller provinces, this could be a unicameral legislature. It would be empowered to legislate and to approve the annual budget.
(c) At the provincial levels, the provisions at (a) and (b) above could be replicated, except that the size of the cabinets could be limited. The election would be for the office of a Governor and on party lines.
(d) There would be a system of local govt., based on biennial elections. Finances for local govt. entities would flow through provincial Finance Awards by each province, based on a five year review.
(e) The National Finance Commission award would continue as at present except that the membership of such a commission would be based on not more than three experts, to be nominated by the President and ratified by the federal legislature. The concept of provincial representation in the NFC would be abolished, in order to obtain objective decisions and to avoid deadlocks. (f) The judiciary to be provided with complete independence in terms of interpreting the Constitution and various laws. The retirement age of judges of the Supreme or High Courts could be increased to 75. There would be a Supreme Judicial Council to determine and decide complaints relating to integrity and discipline.
I am suggesting that it may be only through such structural changes in the Constitution that Pakistan could have effective and successful political govts - which can begin to meet the aspirations of its citizens and consolidate political parties. Also, at the time of elections, whether at federal, provincial or local level, the voter would be presented with a more worthwhile choice in terms of party manifestos.