BENAZIR JATOI
Beyond U-turns and knee-jerk reactions, the government of the day is doing something far more dangerous, which has gone largely unnoticed in the ‘tweet of the day’ culture we currently live in. Under its slogan of a ‘new Pakistan’, an overzealous government is slowly chipping away at our constitution’s core principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the democratic values that flow from this.
Winston Churchill once famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind.” Perhaps that is whom the prime minister should have referred to, when giving examples from history to justify the numerous U-turns he has become synonymous with. The problem for our prime minister, however, is that the underlying facts do not change, only the level of pressure from various quarters does.
The prime minister’s U-turn on seeking assistance from the IMF illustrates this point well. The premier, and the government, were fully aware of Pakistan’s economic situation when they announced, while in opposition, that, if elected, the PTI would not take any loans from international donors, and in particular, from the IMF. Yet, last month the government formally sought financial assistance from the IMF. There were no significant changes in the economics facts to warrant such a volte-face. We have seen a similar story play out with CPEC. The government initially halted CPEC projects, saying, in the first instance, that the projects will be assessed before taken forward. Without carrying out the assessments they said were necessary to assess the economic efficacy of the project, the government now says CPEC will go ahead more or less as planned under the previous government. Again, the underlying facts have remained the same. If some of the CPEC projects represented poor economic value three months ago, they still do so today. As with the IMF volte face, what has changed is the level of pressure the government has felt from various quarters.
As a result of the government’s consistency in being inconsistent, people are now arguably more wary of outright and immediate praise of the PTI — waiting instead to see, if and when, the government changes its mind and reverses its position. Unsurprisingly, and for good reason, people are calling the government out because decisions are being taken and then reversed. In the government’s defence it could be said that political parties always make promises in opposition, which then have to be reversed when faced by the cold reality of being in government, or a change of policy is a sign of a government that is prepared to listen. However, the problem is that there have been so many significant U-turns in such a short space of time that one cannot help but think this is a government, which after only three months in office, is controlled by events and is not in control of events.
However, beyond the many U-turns there is something worse, far more dangerous, that this government is doing, even if unwittingly. That is its disregard for, or perhaps the non-recognition of, the sanctity of parliament and the democratic traditions that are attached to it. Dicey, the well-known English constitutional theorist, said that “the sanction which constrains the boldest political adventurer to obey the fundamental principles of the constitution and the conventions in which these principles are expressed, is the fact that the breach of these principles and of these conventions will almost immediately bring the offender into conflict with the courts and the law of land.” Pakistan is still a young democracy, structurally looking for reinforcement through convention, tradition and norms based on democratic values. The government, however, is not playing by those rules, instead priding itself for being different from the rest of the political elite. And in that shows its lack of years and wisdom, because it fails to acknowledge and understand that no matter how far it pushes for change the framework in which it can succeed can only be and remain constitutional and democratic.
An important part of any properly functioning parliamentary democracy is the recognition by the government of the day of the need to continue those policies or projects of the previous government that work. The current government’s failure to take forward the previous government’s initiatives, which have proven to work, is another example of a government that needs to rethink the nature of the change they seek to bring about. The most significant example of this lack of continuity is Multan’s violence against women’s centre. Despite the centre’s shortcomings, it was an unprecedented and undeniable success, providing abused women with a ‘one stop shop’ access to the formal system. In circumstances where the government should clearly continue previous successful programmes, the government does everything in its power to put an end to them — seemingly to demonstrate that there will be change for change’s sake. On the other hand, when the government gets an across-the-board applaud for showing leadership and speaking to the religious right, it reverts to exactly what the previous government did — surrender to chaos and further uncertainty. All in the name of bigotry and rhetoric. A prime example of the bruises parliamentary democracy is taking is the fact that the chairpersonship of the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee, the most important committee in the House, is still vacant. Under recent parliamentary tradition, the Leader of the Opposition should be appointed as chairperson of the committee. The current government’s apparent anxiety over this issue shows that this government is not entirely ready for its parliamentary role. Perhaps what is most troubling is the government seeming disdain for parliament and its proper role in our democracy. The prime minister’s addresses to the nation should, in fact, be on the floor of House, and seldom on television or Twitter, particularly ones that give weight to the writ of the state. Important members of the cabinet leaving parliament in the middle of a session should be under extraordinary circumstances, not an everyday occurrence. Parliamentary language should now move on from “you are corrupt and we will prove it” to the introduction of legislation, policy, tough decisions and being held accountable as the government of the day. Knee-jerk reactions are the work of unseasoned politicians — and Pakistan on the brink of economic crisis and in the depths of the repercussions of ‘golden handshakes’ with ‘religious representatives’ — cannot afford those. It seems clear that due to its lack of experience, this government is ‘learning on the job.’ Unfortunately, in the process of its ‘learning’ period, democratic foundations are being harmed and the various institutions of government are being further damaged. Attempting to push boundaries for the sake of it and at the expense of further shaking the fragility of democratic values is dangerous waters to enter into. And breaking rules that do not reinforce the constitutional framework makes us all losers in this Naya Pakistan.
Dear Prime Minister, it’s looking worse than we thought, isn’t it?
https://tribune.com.pk/story/1854808/6-dear-prime-minister-not-looking-good/
No comments:
Post a Comment