The Road to Stability in Pakistan as Indicated by its Founding Father
By Dr I. Kamal
California
In the political and economic context, the world today consists of zones of stability and zones of instability. Zones of stability are distinguished by pure and unadulterated democracy from the grassroots to the top echelons, meritocracy, law and order and respect for the human rights of their own citizens. Zones of instability are characterized by pseudo-democracy, corruption and chaos. As the human spirit is invincible, peace cannot come to a country unless it acquires the characteristics of the zones of stability. Unfortunately, Pakistan has been a zone of instability for the greater period of time since its creation. The sources of instability can be traced back to two root causes:
(a) although there were demonstrations of unity for brief periods just after its creation and during the 1965 war with India, and glimpses of unity can still be seen during sport tournaments, the country has not been able to forge a national identity, and
(b) neither the parliamentary system of government nor the military dictatorships under which the country has been governed have been able to deliver the goods.
The solution to these problems can be found in two quotations from the early pronouncements and writings of Pakistan's founding father, Quaide-i-Azam Mohammead Ali Jinnah, as indicated in the following sections.
"We are now all Pakistanis – not Baluchis, Pathans, Sindhis, Bengalis, Punjabis and so on ... and should be proud to be known as Pakistanis and nothing else. "
-- From Quaid-i-Azam Speaks, June 15, 1948, p. 156, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of Pakistan)
One of the biggest impediments to progress and development in Pakistan has been its conversion into a multi-national state, with its major components at loggerheads. The poet, humorist and humanist, Ibn-e-Insha had lamented (Urdu ki AaKhri Kitaab, p. 17) that in Pakistan there is a Sindhi nation, a Punjabi nation, a Bengali nation (alas!), all kinds of nations except a Pakistani nation. At best, each of these so-called nations is only half a nation, because the other half is either in India or Afghanistan! The concept of multiple nationalities within one country is a negation of the two-nation theory on the basis of which Pakistan was founded. Its logical conclusion is civil war or disintegration, as we have seen in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union, and as we learnt to our own sorrow in the case of Bangladesh.
The best way to get rid of the evil of multiple nationalities in Pakistan is to remove the ethnic connotation from the administrative divisions of the country, and to restructure them into smaller, more balanced and more governable units. The Quaid-i-Azam had described the existing demarcation and the consequent provincialism as "a relic of the old administration", as a preface to the cited quotation.
In this writer's opinion, the re-demarcation of provincial boundaries should be based not on ethnic lines but on administrative divisions small enough so that democracy can be felt at the grassroots. Such a delineation already exists in the form of the twelve former Divisions of West Pakistan under One Unit. One Unit failed because of the fear of domination by the Punjab, where the seat of government was located. A setup where over sixty per cent of the population lives in one province (the Punjab) is unwieldy, and is bound to raise feelings of insecurity in the smaller provinces (in contrast, the population of California, the largest state of the USA is only about fifteen per cent of the country's total population).
Many of the political squabbles in recent years emerged because of meddling by the federal government to enforce and strengthen its party's rule in Punjab, the most populous state. Currently, a game of blame and counter-blame is being played by the Center and the provincial government of Punjab, at considerable cost to the nation in terms of wasted funds and time.
Restoring the former Divisions of West Pakistan as provinces or states would avoid controversy and hassle, and provide all the benefits of One Unit without the disadvantage of the true or imagined fear of domination by the Punjab. With this manner of division, seekers of conspiracy theories will not be able to describe it as an attempt to divide Punjab, or Sindh, or Pakhtoonkhwa or Baluchistan, because each province will be subjected to the same treatment, with the purpose of simplifying administration and getting rid of the evils of ethnicity.
Each of the twelve divisions has enough resources to develop and prosper. For example, the two divisions of Baluchistan, considered to be the most disadvantaged, have Sui gas, over which they should be given full control, a long coastline which can be developed with port cities and tourist resorts, and vast mineral resources. The new demarcation would not detract from the heritage of any ethno-linguistic group, which did not suffer any cultural shock when the Hindu component was withdrawn in 1947, nor when the groups lived under One Unit for fifteen years. The present provincial set-up legitimizes ethnic divisions, and results in problems of national significance such as the Kalabagh Dam issue being viewed from the parochial point of view.
Currently, there is a public demand for more provinces in Pakistan. Unfortunately, the demand is being made on linguistic bases, such as the demand for a Seraiki-speaking province. If one travels from the Khayber to Karachi, one would note that there is a gradual change in language and dialects: the country does not have air-tight linguistic compartments. With the set-up proposed in this article, Bahawalpur and Multan would be predominantly Seraiki-speaking. The demand would thus be met, but in a non-parochial manner. As in the USA, government and taxation should be at three levels: municipal or district, state and federal. This will avoid squabbles which invariably occur over the allocation and release of funds by the federal government under the NFC awards.
No democracy is a true democracy unless it is felt at the grassroots, and it can only be felt at the grassroots by the devolution of power to smaller, governable entities. The new provinces, with elected rather than nominated governors, would
have control over their own destinies and prosper in a spirit of healthy competition. Empowerment at the local level would help the people in developing a sense of local pride in their district and state, a sense that they themselves are responsible for their own neck of the woods instead of feeling powerless and subject to the whims of people sitting in ivory towers in some distant location. With the twelve provinces, no leader would have grounds to exploit sections of the population on ethnic or parochial grounds, and the people would unite to fight the common enemies of injustice, corruption and absence of meritocracy. In the twenty-first century, there is no room for ethnicity or other barriers that divide people from other people living in the same area.
From recent and contemporary history we have two examples of administrative divisions within a federal set-up: the former Soviet Union, where the divisions were based on "nationalities", and the United States, where the states are based on common-sense administrative divisions, with boundaries generally made up of straight lines. The Soviet Union disintegrated, while the USA is one of the most stable democracies in the world. In the break-up of the Soviet Union lies a lesson for the people and leaders of Pakistan: If the country is to prosper, all talk of nations and nationalities apart from the Pakistani nation must stop, and all provisions which lead to the perpetuation of such ideas must be abolished. Once the citizens of Pakistan cease to identify themselves on the basis of their ethnic origin, a sense of national identity as Pakistanis will emerge.
2. A Presidential Form of Government
The views of the Quaide-i-Azam on the form of government suitable for Pakistan are apparent from the following hand-written note dated 10th July, 1947, which is preserved and can be seen in the National Archives of Pakistan, Cabinet Division, Govt. of Pakistan, Islamabad.
“Future constitution of Pakistan
1. Parliamentary form of Govt.
2. Presidential form of Govt. (underlined)
(More suited for Pakistan)”
In a sad but true commentary on the state of affairs in Pakistan, an external agency has stated that "most Pakistani political groups are motivated primarily by opportunism and political alliances can shift frequently."
In order to remove this stigma, there is a dire need to remove the "lucrativeness" out of political office in Pakistan. And the only way in which the lucrativeness can be removed is by taking away the "prize", by separating the executive branch of government from the legislature.
The parliamentary system of government is one of the worst legacies of British rule in the sub-continent. It works in Britain because it has been sharpened and perfected by centuries of trial and error, a luxury that Pakistan cannot afford. The system just doesn't seem to work in Pakistan. In the villages, where the bulk of the country's population resides, it has served only to legitimize feudalism, a system which belongs to the Middle Ages and is the root cause of all evil in Pakistan. It was because of the parliamentary system, which has become a system of 'daadas' (mini godfathers) ruling the country, that honest and capable leaders, such as Air Marshall Asghar Khan, have not been able to come into power.
The legislators of Pakistan (MNAs and MPs) have been rightly accused of doing "everything but legislate". Obviously, they have no time to legislate when there is more attraction in becoming ministers and advisers, and being pampered by the leader of the house in order to retain their loyalty. The late Sardar Ataullah Mengal, one of Pakistan's few honest and patriotic politicians, had described the state of affairs in Baluchistan in the following words: "The former Chief Minister of Baluchistan, Zulfiqar Ali Magsi had only one seat for his own party, but he remained Chief Ministers for three years by giving ministries to all his coalition partners. People have been spoilt. In the current assembly, every MPA says that 'the awaam have given me a mandate to be a minister. In the previous government all members of the coalition were ministers. What's the problem with you? Why do you say that everyone will not be made a minister?' They want to be ministers not to serve the people but to eat, drink and be merry".
Things are still pretty much the same, not only in Baluchistan, but in all the other provinces and at the center: there is an abundance of ministers, advisers and what-nots, milking the poor cow (the country) dry.
India and Bangladesh, two other countries which have parliamentary democracies on the British pattern, do not lag far behind Pakistan in corruption. India's relative success is due to honest and sincere leadership during its formative years, the abolition of the feudal system on day one of its independence, and the exclusion of the military and 'agencies' from power politics. Its progress has been achieved in spite of, and not because of, the parliamentary system of government. However, corruption is rampant in India: in most cases bribes are required to get a job, to get admission in schools and colleges or any other task - you name it.
It must be admitted that no system of government can be successful unless there is a desire to fulfill the spirit as well as the letter of the constitution. However, the constitution should provide safeguards such that the spirit of democracy cannot be broken, and power cannot be abused. In Pakistan, a constitution similar to the US constitution is required, with a system of checks and balances provided by separate and autonomous legislative, judicial and executive arms of the government and a working president elected with the whole country as his or her constituency. Incidentally, the Quaid-i-Azam himself, in a hand-written note on his vision for the future constitution of Pakistan dated 10th July 1947 (available in the National Archives of Pakistan, Cabinet Division, Govt. of Pakistan, Islamabad) had stated that the presidential form of government is more suited for Pakistan. Under a heading of “Dangers of Parliamentary form of Govt.” he wrote that “It has worked satisfactorily so far in England, nowhere else.”
A country with limited resources cannot afford the luxury of figurehead presidents and figurehead governors. The parliamentary system of government which was imposed in the sub-continent because it was the only system taught by the former British rulers, has made the country an on-going political battle-ground with a never-ending election campaign. The ruling party lives in constant dread of losing its majority, and resorts to all means, fair and foul, to hold on to power. Ministries are given out as bounties and the price for loyalty rather than as administrative necessities.
Under a tripartite system of government, the country's president and the elected governors of the provinces will be able to choose their cabinets from technocrats, social workers and people of learning who have no time for politicking. The country can hardly expect to succeed unless it puts its first eleven to bat, chosen not on the basis of kinship or affiliation but on sheer merit. With ministers chosen from competent experts in the related fields and not from the legislators, there will be no incentive for the party in power to increase the ministers and advisers to ridiculously high numbers which adds to the burden on the country's economy.
The role of the legislators is to serve as a permanent accountability commission (similar to the US Senate and Congress) and as watchdogs providing surveillance over all the actions of the executive branch: important appointments, budget, domestic and foreign policy, and so on. Such a system would provide stability, with elections on fixed dates, not determined by no-confidence motions and 'lotas'.
The achievement of these ends, which will make the task of governance easier, would require a system change, because a permanent solution to the country's ills can only be found through major surgery.
