20th Amendment: some questions

EDITORIAL:Business Recorder

By unanimously adopting the 20th Amendment Bill on Wednesday night, members of the National Assembly on both sides of the aisle were equally jovial, not because their hopes and aspirations were factored into the adopted draft, but for their leaders wanted it so.

There was no debate on the Bill in the 342-member house - as if unanimity in parliament is more desirable than debate.

And once their leaders had hammered out a compromise draft in their hush-hush negotiations, it didn't take more than half an hour to pass the 11-clause piece of legislation.

This is a familiar pattern; the 18th Amendment was also passed like the present one.

How much more of deeper, participative and wider deliberations are required before a law of fundamental nature like the constitutional amendments is required, is evident if nothing else for the very fact that since the passage of that amendment it had to undergo modifications twice in the short time after its passage.

Definitely more debate on the floor of the National Assembly was required, depriving the people's representatives of their inherent right to speak on national issues.

The question is after all what is that helps the otherwise very bitter political rivals come to a common ground.

Why the National Assembly in session was almost focused exclusively on the 20th Amendment Bill for good two weeks, ignoring with great abandon far more serious issues confronting the people? Why such a bonhomie between the treasury and opposition benches when the same very opposition has moved the court seeking the truth in the suspected government involvement in the Memogate scam? And how critical is to the cause of the democratic process the issue of securing election of some 28 politicians, of which less than half are members of the parliament and constitute less than three percent of its bloated strength and would improve upon the quality of legislation? The answer: the ruling political elite which includes the parliamentary opposition has the common cause of securing a status quo which gives them, no matter which side of the aisle you sit, unlimited access to power to monopolise national resources.

If the pre-18th Amendment constitution was really anti-democratic in its character and had to be revised drastically changing almost a one-third of it, what was then the justification to retain the parliament which took birth from its womb? The amendment was much more geared to securing the future of the incumbents, and it did, as is expected of the latest constitutional amendment.

If its intention was to divest the holder of the presidential office of his dictatorial-vintage clout, it didn't.

Given our clout-ridden political culture the party leader has the final authority, which he retains thanks to its endorsement by the 18th Amendment.

And as for the much-desired devolution, its other significant 'achievement', it hasn't taken place so far in the real sense.

To have a neutral caretaker set-up following the expiration, irrespective of this being normal or forced, seems to be the PML (N)-led opposition's main reason for the co-operation in helping the government pass the latest amendment.

There is no objection to such thinking, given that the Bangladesh-model as an option, following the dissolution of the National Assembly is being aired by quite a few powerful quarters.

But there is a problem with the tight schedule and quite a few unpredictable scenarios that can emerge before a consensus is clinched to set up the caretaker government.

For one, it is certainly a tough challenge to secure consensus if our recent political history is any guide.

What would happen then? The amendment says the incumbents would continue; for how long there is no timeline.

One last question: what moral authority would the outgoing prime minister and the leader of opposition have in proposing the names of a caretaker set-up to supervise the next elections, when the political forces, particularly Imran Khan's Tehrik-e-Insaf, crying for change have not been consulted.

Is it a collusion between status quo forces and the emerging political thinking? Following a long spell of undemocratic rule the country needs a fair, free and impartial general election, which would be now the responsibility of the caretaker government.

It has to be above board, absolutely clear of any doubt about its neutrality and impartiality.

We hope not only these forces would be asked for their inputs into this election-oriented legislation there would be substantial debate in the Senate also.

In its present ambience the new legislation carries the unmistakable colour of a deal between two main political stakeholders, a bias that should be taken care of at this stage when it is still possible.