Democracy: Pakistan Style
By Masood H Kizilbash
Islamabad, Pakistan
The Panama Leaks on 4 th April, 2016 rocked the whole globe from New Zealand to the USA involving some rich tycoons including twelve world leaders, their families and close associates for stashing their wealth in off-shore companies.
Mossack Fonseca - one of the biggest off-shore law firms - facilitated them in the business transaction including purchase of properties and business ventures abroad, thereby providing them a veil of secrecy to their wealth, acquired through bribes, graft, kick-backs on the contracts with the foreign companies, over-invoicing and under-invoicing on imports and exports. In a nutshell, the law firm is accused of facilitating the owners of the off-shore companies in the flight of capital, laundering of money and tax evasion/avoidance. What was most shocking was that the names of the family members of our noble Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif figured in the list of the world leaders.
In the aftermath of the Leak, the beleaguered world leaders in the democratic countries in the face of public protests boldly appeared to face their parliaments and answered most embarrassing questions with regard to ownership of the companies, income and expenditure details and tax payments with documentary evidence. They tried to clear their names on two counts. Firstly, they had no direct or indirect ownership interest in the off-shore companies. Secondly, they had not accumulated wealth out of corruption money.
The Prime Minister of UK could clear his name before the parliament on these two counts. On the other hand, the Prime Minister of Iceland could not, and he resigned. The other world leaders in the democratic states whose names are tainted are under investigation, including the Prime Minister of New Zealand.
Unlike world leaders in the democratic states, the party- men of our noble Prime Minister after the leak on 4 th April chose a novel method of defending their leader of his family’s involvement with off-shore companies in the swirl and dust of heated controversy and documentary evidence released by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists based in Washington.
First, they denied the genuineness of the Papers calling them with most frivolous nomenclature. As the controversy grew, they emphasized that the leaks did not involve the name of the Prime Minister but his two grown- up sons who were the citizens of the UK and doing business there and that they were the owners of these off-shore companies. When confronted with the documentary evidence of the purchase of the flats between 1993/94 and 1998/1999 in the most expensive area of Mayfair in London through the off- shore companies when his two sons were minors studying in London, his party-men could not offer any convincing explanation. Instead, they chose the path of leveling similar charges on the opposition leaders as if two wrongs make a right. The Leader of the House avoided appearance before the parliament and chose to address the nation twice on television in which he simply tried to establish his credentials as born-rich, instead of answering the allegations.
Under mounting pressure from the opposition, media and public opinion, he agreed to appear before the National Assembly on 16 th May, 2016 exactly after forty-one days of the raging controversy. The opposition in the parliament formulated seven questions for the Prime Minister to reply well in advance of his scheduled speech in the National Assembly. The whole nation glued itself before the television to listen to his live broadcast. Instead of replying to the seven questions, the Prime Minister simply tried to say that his family was rich before the creation of Pakistan and the business empire built up afterwards by the Sharifs owed itself to the business acumen and entrepreneurship of his father. On forcible nationalization of the business empire in 1972, his late father invested his funds in the establishment of a steel mill in Dubai. After its sale, the proceeds were utilized in setting up a steel mill in Jeddah. Thereafter, his sons sold the mill and utilized the proceeds for the purchase of flats in the expensive area of Mayfair in London. Since then his sons, who were British nationals, were engaged in their own business with which he had nothing to do.
Being a shrewd politician, he said that unlike his family, the members of the opposition were a bunch of ‘nouveau riche’ who accumulated their wealth through bank defaults, tax evasion, kick-backs and commissions from contracts with foreign companies. Some of them even owned off-shore companies. He proposed that everyone charged with corruption should be investigated by the proposed Judicial Commission on the basis of formulation of agreed TORs by a committee of twelve members drawn equally from the Treasury and Opposition benches. In one master stroke, on one hand he silenced the opposition under the threat of dispensation of justice to them for their alleged wrong-doings and, on the other, sent a warning to his own party men, falling in the category of ‘nouveau riche’ not to desert him in his hour of crisis. The considered opinion is that the trap laid by the Prime Minister may work in his favor in the backdrop of allegations of corruption on most parliamentarians on both sides of the aisle.
Pakistan was born under the Indian Independence Act 1947 passed by the British Parliament. Pakistan inherited an imperfect parliamentary system created by the colonial masters in India. Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the Father of the Nation and the first Governor General of Pakistan, educated and trained in London, gave the same framework as it existed in the UK as the basis for the constitution-making in Pakistan. The basic features of the British model embodied the principles of parliamentary supremacy, aparty system, periodic elections based on adult franchise without discrimination of religion, caste and creed, and rule of law. These principles ran athwart the centuries-old system of governance that held sway in Pakistan.
Lawrence Ziring in his book titled “PakistanAt the Crosscurrent of History” observes that “Pakistan evolved from a history long involved with authoritarian modes of governance. Medieval rule, patriarchy and monarchy permeated the region. The years before partition had offered little hint of democratic norms and processes.” The local leadership consisting of jagirdars, landlords and tribal chiefs could not relinquish their age-old authority and power. This ignited a clash between the torch-bearers of the democratic principles and the local leadership sitting in parliament. The latter emerged successful in sabotaging the very first principle of democracy of one man-one vote when they succeeded in equating 54% of the population in Bengal(East Pakistan) with 46% population in West Pakistan and incorporating it in the 1956 Constitution.
The members of East Pakistan frequently complained of step-motherly treatment in the National Assembly elected under the 1962 Constitution. As reported by Mohammad Munir, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court(Retd.) in his book titled “From Jinnah to Zia”, “one day while I was talking to Ramizuddin who had been a Minister in Bengal or East Pakistan I broached the matter to him. His reply was prompt and straight. He asked me whether I was suggesting secession. I said yes or something like it as confederation or more autonomy.” He had carried the message from Field Marshal Ayub Khan, the President of Pakistan at that time. It clearly reveals the mind-set of the leadership in West Pakistan.
After the secession of East Pakistan, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto became the Prime Minister of new Pakistan and introduced more stringent land reforms including introduction of income tax on the income derived from the agriculture sector. Both reforms were put to rest by General Zia-ul-Huq. The land reforms have since been declared as un-Islamic by the Shariat Branch of the Supreme Court. The landlords and the influential in their areas of control are in full command of the inhabitants. They are exploited and kept under leash through Chohtu gang types of dacoits in the rural areas to ensure success in the elections of the influential. As regards urban areas the model of the rural areas has been replicated by creating armed wings in the political parties to control their constituencies.
Democracy as a form of the government took its roots after the signing of the Magna Carta on 5 th June, 1215 by King John of England. Evolving through several centuries, it acquired various models. In Pakistan, it evolved over its 70 years of history. Its form is unique and all political parties run by the rich and ‘nouveau riche’ vow to protect and preserve it at any cost. The rich class in the democratic world must study and adopt it in their countries for their preservation rather than be accountable to the people at large!!!
Back to Pakistanlink Homepage
